A political critique of all sides from an average Joe who is tired of politics-as-usual. It has become the status quo in Washington to say and do whatever it takes to get elected and stay in office. The media covers the he-said-she-said instead of reporting on the real issues. We, the people, are the only ones left to hold them accountable. Join me in holding our elected representatives, and those who aspire to become such, to a higher standard.
This one has been on the blogs for a while now, and now that the McCain campaign has this ad out, it's past time I officially called out Palin for her "Bridge-to-nowhere" claim:
Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer. Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island. Much of the public's attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened.
Hardly sounds like "Thanks, but no thanks" to me.
Polifact rates her claim as "barely true." I think they are being kind.
The surge is the issue that hurts the Obama campaign the most, in my opinion. He is asked about it in almost every interview, and he is forced to try to explain how the surge worked, but somehow he was still right.
I almost felt sorry for Obama, struggling to make this point on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos":
George: "But given all you just said, how do you escape the logic... you said that we succeeded in Iraq beyond our wildest dreams... how do you escape the logic that that means John McCain was right about the surge?"
Obama: "You, it's interesting to me why people are so focused on what's happened in the last year and half, and not in the last five."
George: "No, granted, you think you made the right decision going in... but about the surge."
Obama: "But they're connected George, and here's why. My whole premise has always been that it was a distraction for us to go into Iraq. Once we were there we had to make the best of a bad situation."
George: "And didn't the surge do that?"
Obama: "And what I have said is, at the time that we made the decision to go into the surge, that it did not address the underlying problem of the unwillingness of the Iraqis, to overcome their political differences and reconcile."
George: "15 out of the 18 benchmarks were met."
Obama: "And to provide the kind of strategy that would allow us to move forward. That wasn't part of the package on the surge. So, if the question is, has the surge done much better than we expected, in combination with these other factors, then the answer is yes, and I've said this repeatedly. But if the question is what was the judgement to be made at the time it was put forward by the Bush administration. My choice, and John McCain's choice was, are we going to continue to give George Bush a blank check without any strategy for political reconciliation, or are we going to try to pressure this administration to come up with a more coherent, cohesive plan for how we were going to wind this war down."
I'm not sure I understand his point (maybe it's too nuanced for a feeble mind like mine to understand), but what I think I heard was basically this:
"Yes, the surge worked. But it was still the right decision not to trust that it was going to work, given the fact that it was promoted by Bush, who is always wrong about everything. So McCain was wrong to think that the surge was going to work, even though it did. It was bad judgment to think that it would work. The only correct judgment to be made at the time was that we should begin to wind the war down (ie. decreasing troop numbers), instead of surging in more troops, even though it seems now that surging in more troops actually helped us wind the war down more rapidly. That result was not predictable, and therefore it was wrong the predict it, even if it turned out to be true."
Sure... OK. I guess that's a good enough answer to at least get the questioner to move on to the next topic, which clearly is the only way for him to save any face talking about the surge.
As for the other points he made.
The question of whether the war should have been started largely favors Obama, although there are still a minority who believe it was the right thing to do. Still, that is just changing the subject. And, it should be noted that McCain opposed Rumsfeld's strategy from the beginning. Who knows how the war would have turned out if McCain had his way from the beginning.
As for the perceived failure of the surge to address political reconciliation, why, then is the Iraq government now talking about us leaving, if the surge didn't significantly improve the political situation there? If you haven't noticed, there are political tensions in the US also. It was the violence that was the problem. As long as there is reduced violence, I'm content with letting the Iraqi's sort out their own political issues just as we do.
Obama alluded to, and others have explicitly stated, the argument that even McCain and Bush couldn't have hoped for the success that we've seen in the surge. I don't see any evidence of that, but even if it were true, good for them for being cautiously optimistic when they should have just been optimistic.
My advice to Obama: just admit you were wrong and get it over with. The longer you don't, the more you will be asked this question and be forced to give these sorts of awkward answers. I respect the fact that Obama stood up against the war when it was unpopular to do so. I also respect that McCain supported the surge when it was unpopular. So let's call it a draw and move on.
One might ask why I'm not calling on McCain to admit he was wrong about the war in general. The answer is that it is that McCain presumably still thinks that the war was the right thing to do, and will take the political heat for that. But Obama admits that the surge worked, but still defends his vote against it. It's the fact that Obama wants to have it both ways that bothers me. I'd respect his opinion more (although I would disagree with it) if he contended that the surge didn't work. At least then he would be consistent.
"If you watched the Republican National Convention over the last three days, you wouldn't know that we have the highest unemployment in five years because they didn't say a thing about what is going on with the middle class.
"They spent a lot of time talking about John McCain's biography, which we all honor," the Illinois senator said. "They talked about me a lot, in less than respectful terms. What they didn't talk about is you and what you're seeing in your lives and what you're going through, or what your friends or your neighbors are going through."
Did anyone doubt that Obama was going to say this, even before McCain gave his speech?
Since Obama apparently wasn't paying attention (and is counting on the fact that most other voters weren't either), here are some excerpts (full text is here). I apologize for the lengthy quotes, but that just makes my point that he did talk about the struggles of the middle class quite extensively:
These are tough times for many of you. You’re worried about keeping your job or finding a new one, and are struggling to put food on the table and stay in your home. All you ever asked of government is to stand on your side, not in your way. And that’s just what I intend to do: stand on your side and fight for your future.
...
I fight for Americans. I fight for you. I fight for Bill and Sue Nebe from Farmington Hills, Michigan, who lost their real estate investments in the bad housing market. Bill got a temporary job after he was out of work for seven months. Sue works three jobs to help pay the bills.
I fight for Jake and Toni Wimmer of Franklin County, Pennsylvania. Jake works on a loading dock; coaches Little League, and raises money for the mentally and physically disabled. Toni is a schoolteacher, working toward her Master’s Degree. They have two sons, the youngest, Luke, has been diagnosed with autism. Their lives should matter to the people they elect to office. They matter to me.
...
My tax cuts will create jobs. His tax increases will eliminate them. My health care plan will make it easier for more Americans to find and keep good health care insurance. His plan will force small businesses to cut jobs, reduce wages, and force families into a government run health care system where a bureaucrat stands between you and your doctor.
Keeping taxes low helps small businesses grow and create new jobs. Cutting the second highest business tax rate in the world will help American companies compete and keep jobs from moving overseas. Doubling the child tax exemption from $3500 to $7000 will improve the lives of millions of American families. Reducing government spending and getting rid of failed programs will let you keep more of your own money to save, spend and invest as you see fit. Opening new markets and preparing workers to compete in the world economy is essential to our future prosperity.
I know some of you have been left behind in the changing economy and it often seems your government hasn’t even noticed. Government assistance for unemployed workers was designed for the economy of the 1950s. That’s going to change on my watch. My opponent promises to bring back old jobs by wishing away the global economy. We’re going to help workers who’ve lost a job that won’t come back, find a new one that won’t go away.
We will prepare them for the jobs of today. We will use our community colleges to help train people for new opportunities in their communities. For workers in industries that have been hard hit, we'll help make up part of the difference in wages between their old job and a temporary, lower paid one while they receive retraining that will help them find secure new employment at a decent wage.
Some may disagree with his economic policy, but to say "he didn't say a thing" about the struggling economy is an outright lie.
Today reinforced my belief that the pundits on TV aren't paying attention to the speeches they comment on, and are not worth our time. How many times have I heard someone talk about how he said drilling would solve our problem (which is not true, he talked about wind, nuclear, and other sources of energy, and specifically said drilling would not solve the problem by itself). Another thing I'm hearing is that he didn't offer any specifics on how he would help struggling families. Apparently they weren't paying attention. Apparently conservatives weren't either. I was surprised to hear them cheer for this line:
For workers in industries -- for workers in industries that have been hard hit, we'll help make up part of the difference in wages between their old job and a temporary, lower-paid one while they receive retraining that will help them find secure new employment at a decent wage.
So there's a specific for you, but is it just me, or does this sound like a new government welfare program? I must have missed something though because conservatives don't seem to be upset by it, despite the repeated call for less government dependency throughout the convention.
I wonder how this plan will be implemented. So the government will give a check to someone working at McDonalds because they used to work at an auto plant. But the person working next to that person will not receive a check, because they never worked at the auto plant? Does that make sense?
Governor Palin, from her acceptance speech last night:
"I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a 'community organizer,' except that you have actual responsibilities."
Palin threw a lot of jabs at Obama last night, but this was the lowest. Whether he's qualified for president or not, I admire Obama's choice to help his community when he had the opportunity. There are a lot of people out there trying to make a difference in their communities, and rally the people to a common good cause, who have now been dismissed by Palin.
I'm guessing the Obama campaign will run with this, and paint McCain and Palin as anti-community. And perhaps they deserve it for that comment.
ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) — From the moment he stepped off his campaign plane, John McCain's arrival in the Twin Cities for the Republican National Convention was a family affair.
Greeting McCain on the tarmac at the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport were his wife, Cindy, and other family members. Also on hand were family members of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who McCain chose last Friday to be his running mate.
Hugs and handshakes abounded, with two hugs between McCain and Palin's 17-year-old daughter, Bristol, and a handshake with her boyfriend, 18-year-old Levi Johnston. Palin and her husband, Todd, announced this week that Bristol is five months pregnant and that she will marry Johnston.
McCain also kissed Sarah Palin's 4-month-old son, Trig.
The politically paired families then boarded a campaign bus and headed into town.
One thing that was perhaps overlooked in the dynamics of picking a woman as VP (especially one much younger) was the inevitable media scrutiny of every celebratory hug. Or am I reading too much into this? Would this story have been different if McCain had picked a man? Should it be?
I know life isn't fair. But our societal ideal is to make it as fair as possible for our children. That is the whole idea behind public education (although it is far from fair, but that's another story), and tax funded health care programs to cover poor children.
But apparently that societal ideal has been thrown out the window by our media.
Unfortunately, teenage pregnancy is a huge problem in our society. It seems to be happening all the time. It happens to families of all political persuasions. It happens to good families as well as broken ones. And when it happens, it is an extremely difficult situation with many difficult decisions to make which have life-long consequences. Of all things that we should say are a "personal matter," certainly this should be one of them.
So when I heard the news that Governor Palin's 17-year old daughter is pregnant, my heart went out to her and her family. I expected the news to be covered, of course. But watching CNN tonight I was appalled that they splashed her face on the screen several times in the midst of talking about the political implications of the situation. The story was second only to the hurricane.
She is 17 years old! Give her some privacy! Don't you think this is hard enough for her already. This is irresponsible journalism, in my opinion.
As far as the political implications, it makes no difference to me, and I don't think it will to most Americans. If a president can have an affair in the oval office itself, and still maintain his legacy and be considered by many to be an effective president, then certainly Palin's daughter's situation (which pales in comparison), shouldn't disqualify her from the VP position. To some it might however. And to those people I say, Jesus isn't running this year.
So with that, let's move on and give the girl a break.
Update: To Obama's credit, he said related to this matter: "Let me be as clear as possible... I think people's families are off-limits and people's children are especially off-limits." Of course that's what he had to say, and I believe he means it. I hope though that others (including the media) follow his lead.
Posts
