Sara Whitman

Sarah Palin - Watch Out

Filed By Sara Whitman | August 30, 2008 3:00 PM | comments

Filed in: Politics, The Movement
Tags: Dan Quayle, John McCain, Sarah Palin, women in politics

I've been inundated today with emails and commentary about Sarah Palin, McCain's pick to be his running mate. I did not know of her before today, so please stick with me while I wade through it all.

Palin scares me. She's a woman, she's pro-life, she's a self described feminist, she's gone from Mayor of a tiny town to Governor of Alaska. She is a lifelong member of NRA and a avid hunter. She's taken on big oil.

I wouldn't be so comfortable chuckling in our seats, saying, oh, she's just a former beauty queen. No more weight that Dan Quayle.

Dan Quayle won the election. And he was a fruitcake.

Is it an insulting attempt to get women's votes? No. If anyone thinks this is going for the dissatisfied Clinton supporters, they are missing the bigger picture. Sure, she's a political unknown and has no experience. She is also a new face, a woman, a mom, and passionate about her causes.

No one can look at her son and say, well, he should have been an abortion. Having gone through the similar test when pregnant- all pregnant women are given the test- I'm not sure I can answer what I would have done.

It doesn't make me pro-life. But it makes a strong pro-life argument that is about being a parent, not a zealot.

She knows hard work- she was a television sportscaster and worked at the same time as a commercial fisherwoman. (I have to say in Maine? No woman would want to be called a fisherwoman. They all just fish. Or lobster.) She married her high school sweetheart.

Her oldest son is serving in Iraq.

This is a very savvy pick. I don't see Dan Quayle. I see thousands of middle American women, who work outside the home, who have kids, who are going to feel pretty good now about choosing John McCain.

I think we all need to be very very careful about how we evaluate this pick.

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

Wilson46201 | August 30, 2008 4:07 PM

If you liked Phyllis Schaffley, you'll love Sarah Palin!

Don Sherfick Don Sherfick | August 30, 2008 4:25 PM

I think there's much merit to your caution, Sara. I find my own initial knee-jerk dismissal of McCain's selection as proof of his own unfitness fading into an uneasy feeling that he may have tapped into a vein that as a man I may not understand as well as perhaps I should. Despite significant differences with her ideology, it's indeed possible that enough women disappointed in Hillary's not being on the Democratic ticket (either place) might become defensive if Sarah Palin, a successful and bright (though for the most part horribly wrong) woman is treated as simply a young fresh pretty face noticed by a 72 year old male. (Just ask McCain's first wife who says his abandoning of her was due mostly to his wanting to act like a 25 year old again.) I think in the end McCain's move will be seen for what it is.....sheer and perhaps desparate pandering to the Rightous Right, but the target has to be on McCain's judgement, not Palin's deficiencies.

And then I muse about what would happen if Joe Biden suddenly decided he really would rather stay in the Senate after all and continue to communte daily on Amtrack. In 1972 under somewhat different circumstances a post-convention Democratic National Committee named Sargeant Shriver to replace Tom Eagleton.

A September surprise that would make Gustav look like a a summer breeze. It won't happen but let us old MSNBC-CNN junkies have some harmless recreation.

Don Sherfick Don Sherfick | August 30, 2008 4:28 PM

My musing above forgot to include the fact that the junior senator from New York just happened to be ready for the substitution. And so was her husband.

I don't see Palin getting Hillary voters excited, Don, rather... I see her getting a lot of people who were on the edge about Obama thinking, damn, McCain IS that moderate we thought him to be.

that's what scares me the most.

Michael Crawford Michael Crawford | August 31, 2008 12:11 PM

That's exactly what I think McCain is going for. Simply by having a woman on the ballot it makes him seem less like the Bush clone that he has morphed into.

McCain already has the traditional media into believing that he is some kind of "maverick."

This is also one of the reasons that I think an endorsement of McCain by LCR. It is not because their are millions of LGBT conservatives waiting to vote for him. It is because this again will provide some moderate seeming cover for his right-wing agenda.

I still think that this is proof of McCain's unfitness, even though that's definitely not the best strategy here for Obama or Democrats. Even if she's a great political pick, that's just more of GWB: politicize everything and forget about sound policy, experience, and qualifications.

There is merit to his decision though, politically. But something tells me that if Rove didn't make his phone calls, it would have been Leiberman.

Watching the different media today and how they handled her selection made me think they were going kinda easy on her.Sure there was some mention of her lack of national experience but then it was mentioned she has more executive experience as governor of Alaska than McCain,Biden or Obama.I'm wondering how the media will handle her and when and if they take the gloves off.

I am tired of the executive experience argument. If that were the prime consideration, then Senator McCain ought to have chosen Rudy(I am no fan of his either). Hizzoner was the mayor of a city with a larger population than Alaska has, and the NYPD is substantially larger than the Alaska National Guard.

Yup, she vetoed an anti partner benefits bill, but only because it was unconstitutional. Then she went about trying to make discrimination constitutional.

I am a feminist who does not give other women a instinctive endorsement; I had dealings with HM's Government and the Chancellor during the last years of Baroness Thatcher's regime, no desire to see another knee jerk right wing idealogue leading any nation, let alone one that I am a citizen of....

Sarah Palin, from what little I have seen or read, seems to have the down-home personality which has been winning presidential elections since 1976: Carter, Reagan, Clinton, GW Bush all had the persona of being an ordinary guy, someone who knew what it was like to be in your situation, someone who understood [i]you[/i]. George the First is an exception to the rule, but arguably he won his election due his proximity to Reagan.

I think the attempt to portray Obama as an elitist or as a celebrity is an attempt to deny him from following this winning strategy. McCain would have had a hard time fitting into this everyman/everywoman role, but Palin gives him that appeal.

I agree with Sara, we have good reason to be concerned with Palin's selection.

This woman scares me because she has pretty decent odds of becoming the next president of the United States within the next four years.

Think about it. McCain appears to be even in the polls with Obama. His odds of dying in the next four years are fairly high because of his age and condition.

My math skills aren't too good on this kind of thing but given the above, I think we should be very afraid.

I agree completely that this isn't going to be the cakewalk most Dems seem to think it will be. It was a very savvy pick. Unless McCain or Palin make a major screw up, we could be in trouble.

Everybody seems to think that the "scandals" in Alaska will do her in. Her troubles in Alaska are nothing compared to the muck McCain has been wallowing in. Unless something else turns up about her that is truly horrendous, America is going to like her.

America looks at the picture, listens to 10 seconds of the sound byte, and makes up its mind. I think it's just possible she'll win people over . . . I'm seriously worried--cross your fingers and work like the devil for the Dem ticket . . . .

If using her being gov. for executive experience, shouldn't we point out that dubya had more executive experience as gov. of TX before he stole his first election. Look where that experience got us.

Robert Ganshorn Robert Ganshorn | August 31, 2008 12:38 AM

Sara, the difference between Quale and Palin is who proceeded them as president. Reagan was popular and Bush I got in on his reputation dragging pretty boy Quale with him.

We should stick to our talking points, tell the truth and keep our confidence.

ED NOTE: This comment has been removed for Terms of Service violation.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


"Slut?" Both Sarah Palin and Cindy McCain are "sluts?" You say this on a blog devoted to issues concerning the LGBT community - a community long battling the notion that we're all about sex? Wow. If that's the best argument you have against the McCain campaign, you're not looking around.

I think you raise valid points elsewhere - like McCain's education and the fire on the USS Forestall, but by demeaning women as "sluts," you've probably shut down 95% of Projectors in your first sentence.

I'd suggest rethinking how offensive you find the campaign and how offensive your comment is. With language like that, you're not helping your cause in the least.

Bil, I think you're really being too kind, here. Her comments are *libelous*, intellectually dishonest, wholly unsupportable, and offers nothing to a serious discussion of the most important election in several generations.

It's really quite disgraceful.

Agreed. I can't stand McCain or Palin, I don't feel that either is qualified intellectually or policy-wise for the job. I've stated before that Palin is a crass pick, completely and totally unqualified either issue-wise or experience-wise to be President when McCain dies in office, which is likely. I also have serious issues with McCain's handling of the dissolution of his first marriage, and do not want to see his current wife as First Lady. But to call Ms. McCain and Ms. Palin sluts is not necessary, and will not win people to our side.

Uh, Bil? You (rightfully) called her out on "slut" but let this go?

"The theft of elections and cold-blooded murder is nothing new or unheard of when republicans and their Zionist cohorts are involved."

Accusing unnamed "zionists" [Jews] of cold blooded murder is one step step short of blood-libel, an accusation that has gotten many innocent Jews massacred over the years; but you let THAT go and jumped on "slut".

Those were also exactly the type of accusations made about Jews by Nazis. You just the other day mentioned losing Jewish readers over a post that someone made by comparing Joe Solmonese to Hitler, then said nothing to this women about calling Zionists cold-blooded murderers while calling her out for saying "slut"? That makes no sense to me.

If you think I am over-reacting, substitute the words "Muslim" or "African American" for "zionist" and see how it reads.

This is not the first anti-zionist (by definition, antisemitic) comment I have seen here, but this one goes too far--yet you obviously read the post and did not call the poster out on it.

I know you have a good heart, so I am sure that it was an innocent oversight, but you just might to address it before you lose any more Jewish readers.

Sorry for the typos. Hands are stiff in the morning. I need more coffee before proof-reading.

Holy crap, Susan! How did I miss that part?! You're right - while I was willing to just give an admonishment for the "slut" comments, that part got the comment TOSsed.

I didn’t really read much of the comments by Kim Smith. My eye caught the word slut I moved on. The criticisms of those remarks seem correct but the statement that “This is not the first anti-zionist (by definition, antisemitic) comment I have seen…” is totally incorrect. For one thing it smears a wide range of Jewish groups and some courageous young IDF soldiers who, calling themselves refusniks, refuse to take part in military operations against civilians.

I have serious objections to equating anti-zionism with anti-Semitism. It would mean that we’d have to condemn a big chunk of the worlds GLBT and anti-war groups as anti-Semites, and that’s simply not true.

Here's why. In the UK teachers unions like the University and College Union (UCU) passed a resolution in 2007 to boycott ties with zionist educators in occupied Palestine. (Earlier its predecessors the Association of University Teachers (AUT) and the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education (NATFHE) passed similar resolutions in 2005 and in 2006. The two organizations then merged into the UCU.) This very large union of scholars and teachers is unambiguously anti-zionist. Do you think they're anti-Semitic?

In the US there’s a growing Jewish anti-zionist movement. Are they anti-Semitic? Are they KAPOs?

In England the LGBT leader Peter Tatchell is involved in pro-Palestinian activities and that’s fairly common among our commnitues throughout the EU. Is Tatchell anti-Semitic? Because he certainly is anti-zionist. Is he wearing a swastika armband under that threadbare old coat he always wears when he demonstrates for Palestinian independence and against islamist homophobia? No he is not anti-Semetic.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu is a genuine friend of the GLBT communities around the world, who’s been regularly lauded for his work by international LGBT groups, He’s probably the only religious leader on the planet that I have a shred of respect for because he’s put his life on the line for decades in the fight against SA racist apartheid and homophobia. Did you realize that Desmond Tutu equates South African apartheid with the apartheid practiced against Palestinians?

The Nobel peace laureate said he was "very deeply distressed" by a visit to Palestine, saying that "it reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa". He angrily spoke of the ‘humiliation of the Palestinians at checkpoints and roadblocks, suffering like us when young white police officers prevented us from moving about".

Because Tutu understands that critics of zionist apartheid are routinely smeared as anti-Semites he went out of his way to prove he wasn’t. Then he added, "I am not even anti-white, despite the madness of that group," he said.

Tutu went on to criticize the political power of zionist groups in the United States, saying: "People are scared in this country; to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful - very powerful. Well, so what? The apartheid government was very powerful, but today it no longer exists. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, Milosevic, and Idi Amin were all powerful, but in the end they bit the dust" Is Tutu a Nazi? Is the hero of the freedom struggle in South African and the defender of GLBT rights throughout Africa anti-Semitic?

I've found that a lot of people confuse anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism too, Bill. This comment was clearly anti-Semitic once I read it thoroughly. (I also saw "slut" and skimmed the rest originally.)

Bil, thank you.

FYI, there is a big movement among both Jewish and secular Zionists who want a peaceful and fair resolution to the Palestinian conflict (many LGBT folks among them, as has been pointed out), but somehow that is not who gets the press here in the US.

I don't want to go totally off-topic, but they are pretty easy to find, if you Google them. Peace Now is one of the biggest and most effective.

Bill Perdue Bill Perdue | August 31, 2008 7:56 AM

“Politics by publicity stunt” epitomizes American politics, where gimmickry is used to trivialize and deflect thinking from the real needs of working people. TV’s 'chattering class' has created a whole industry using talk show babble to spin and spin and spin. On Election Day the voters largely ignore them. Voters are avidly watching for a chance at real change but that’s not what they’re offered.

In 2000 voters Americans were hungry for change after eight years of Slick Willies NAFTA, DOMA and DADT. They wanted to avoid widening Clinton’s war against Iraq. Gore, an inept, warmed over Clinton clone caused kept voters at home on election day by the millions. Bush stole the election. Nader, like Gore was too timid and his campaign never broke through the anti-democratic electoral roadblocks set up by Democrats.

2004 was a rehash of 2000, except that Bush won in his own right using same sex marriage as a wedge issue. No one trusted Kerry and the Democrats because they wouldn’t commit themselves to ending the war, ending bigotry, or taking real measures to improve our standard of living. They flipped and flopped and the voters stayed home again.

The Democrats lost both elections because they're rightwing Republicans in drag.

Below are examples of the kind of program that people would be happy to vote for but you won’t find anything remotely like it in the platforms of Obama or McCain.

1.Permanent, immediate and total withdrawal of all US military, espionage and mercenary forces in the Middle East and East Asia to US home bases. ‘End the War, Draft Politicians’

2. Cut the U.S. purse stings that pay for the apartheid system used against Palestinians.

3. Socialized medicine financed by taxes on the rich and the confiscation of the excess profits insurance companies, HMOs and Big Pharma. No more dividend checks for the rich until health care is free for all working people, including immigrants. ”We want a Congressional health care package for everyone”

4. End tax breaks, tax cuts and funding of ‘faith based’ charities for superstitious cults, i.e., churches.

5. We need a tough inclusive ENDA and housing law making it easy to win big judgments from discriminatory employers for ourselves and others.

6. We need a tough federal law imposing harsh federal sentences on political groups, cults and individuals convicted of hate crimes by criminalizing hate speech that leads to violence and that deliberately spreads misinformation about HIV.

7. We need a constitutional guarantee of a minimum wage of $25.00 an hour with full benefits, adjusted to account for inflation. “$25 an hour or fight!”

8. We need a federal law cutting the work week to 32 hours for forty hours of pay with time and a half after 32 hours, and double time after eight hours in any day or 40 hours in any week.

9. Repeal all the Free Trade Agreements. FTA’s are designed to impoverish working people and farmers and make the rich richer. They cause environmental disasters.

10. We need a law guaranteeing twenty days of paid vacation annually pluspaid federal holidays plus paid sick leave as prescribed by a doctor, including a year of paid maternity leave, from day one.

11. We need tough federal laws to protect workers who lose, or have lost their jobs because of outsourcing or efforts to control pollution. The law should guarantee their reeducation, relocation and provide full income and benefits until they take a new job. The costs should be paid entiresly from a 100% tax on the excess profits and dividends of pollutors and those who export jobs.

12. We need laws that protect immigrant/imported workers at the same level as native workers. “¡SI, SE PUEDE!

These modest, entirely reasonable goals are anathema to Obama and McCain and their parties.

It’s unprincipled and wrong headed to waste our time, money or votes on either. Katrina, poverty, the blight of bigotry and unending wars are the price we pay for political impotence, for being ensnared in the two party trap.

On November 4th vote for the US Labor Party (if it makes it past the Democrat's (sic) roadblocks). If not vote for socialist or communist candidates as a protest or join the scores of millions who sit it out because they’re smart enough to refuse to vote for the lesser bigot, the lesser warmonger or the lesser evil.

Robert Ganshorn Robert Ganshorn | August 31, 2008 9:27 AM

Dear Kim,

If we can harness your powers for good all these problems are solvable. Obviously you have crossed the line of both good taste and form. Addiction is nothing to condemn one for and I doubt that the known fact that senator McCain cannot raise his arms above the height of his shoulders came from eating too much cake.

I don't call the man a hero. I also do not belittle the agony he went through and I doubt he has the temperment to be president. I am voting for Obama, but if I were weak minded reading a diatribe like yours would lead me to reconsider.

1 check
2 check
3 wrong, motivation good but method flawed
4 I'd love it
5 wrong, the attorneys would love you though
6 see bill of rights
7 covered that, I would have been making it at 16. How do we encourage people to better themselves if they are going to be stupid and uneducated?
8 wrong again, it even failed in France
9 remove worldwide interdependence from our economy and eat grass. Starvation is an climate disaster.
10 Do you want any industry left in America?
11 This one I love. In number 9 you talk about climate disasters but you would penalize companies for controlling pollution even if it costs a job?
12 Do illegal immigrant workers get the same other privileges you dream about for all the other workers who will be unemployed. They will be back overseas where they can live better.

Senator McCain only went through "enhanced interrogation" by his own subsequent definition of the techmiques.

Consequently his staements for the NVA are violations of the UCMJ

His adulteries whilst a serving naval officer also are.

Bill Perdue Bill Perdue | August 31, 2008 6:21 PM

Ganshorn, I recognize that those kind of politics will not be sucessful in attracting lots of paytriots and people whose politics are limited by their connections to for-profit businesses. On the contrary it's meant to isolate and expose people like that as hostile to the interests of working people, minorities, women, immigrants and our own communities. Clearly, it works well enough on that level.

The DP, the RP, the cults and the Chamber of Commerce can all be counhted on to fight those kind of politics tooth and nail even if they're reasonable and much needed reforms. They all put greed before the urgent interests of the majority.

Parasite: noun: Walton, Gates, Buffett, Adelson, Helmsley, Kerkorian.

Under Reagan, Bush1, Clinton and Bush2 the wealth of the richest 0.1 percent of Americans tripled while the unbelievable wealth of the top 0.01 percent quadrupled. Their wealth was not created, as they claim, it was extracted, stolen and embezzled.

It came in the form of tax cuts, NAFTA, the importation of non-unionized labor, the export and elimination of union jobs, takebacks from union contracts, and swindles like the Savings and Loan bailout, Enron, and the ‘subprime’ mortgage scandal. Democrats as well as Republicans have been up to their necks in this theft and the result is that in 2005, the latest year for which data is available, the richest 400 million Americans extracted an average of $214 million in 2005 each. They didn't make it, create it or 'grow' it, they stole it.

In spite of their ‘charitable’ publicity stunts the extraction of wealth from working people explains why poverty and homelessness is inexorably increasing, why scores of millions have no medical care, and why levees and bridges are not maintained.

Most businesses, large and small, have only one goal, to make the rich much richer by giving away heaps of money to shareholders and corporate executives’ awash in stock options and bonuses and bribing politicians to get their way. The DP and the RP have a bipartisan policy of giving them what ever they want.

The AFL-CIO maintains a very inforamative website where you can compare your income to executive income company by company.

Robert Ganshorn Robert Ganshorn | September 1, 2008 4:15 AM

Goodness Bill, you are slipping, you did not address each point of your twelve step program. I agreed with you on three of them so surely I am persuadable by logical argument. I do agree with the need for uniform national health care,(that would make four) but after there are no "wealthy" persons left (Because they will have become citizens of Ireland or some other tax haven)who will pay for your socialized medicine? Have you any logical arguments for me?

Further, if the wealth of the uberrich has tripled since Reagan what are they doing that is smarter?

Did they perhaps go to school?

If one's motivation is to make as much money as possible why do you think Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are giving away so much of their money? You see it is not about the money it is about accomplishment. Oh, yes there is a lot of hereditary wealth and Obama has stated that those earning over 250K per year in income will pay a heftier tax. And yes, there are heartless pigs out there who don't give a damn about their fellow human and they are in *all* income brackets. There are also plenty of fixed income senior folks who depend upon their stock dividends in their pensions to live Bill. With a 25.00 minimum wage and the attendant inflation they are going to starve.

Oh, and a bit of advice, lay off the bold button, you are going to get a carpel tunnel attack and it makes you seem...agitated.

Let’s get the easy stuff out of the way. Carpal tunnel isn’t an attack, it’s a syndrome that usually presents symptoms of pain rather than agitation. At least the bf thinks so and he has an MD that makes him credible.

A twelve ‘step’ program will be a good idea when we reach the point of providing a course of robust reeducation for racists, homophobes, and the rich, but what you’re referring to is a twelve ‘point' program. See the distinction?

“I agreed with you on three of them so surely I am persuadable by logical argument… Have you any logical arguments for me?”

I don’t believe you’re open to persuasion. When I said that your hero, LBJ, was a mass murderer you claimed that De Gaulle was responsible for LBJ starting the war that killed a million plus Vietnamese and 55,000 plus GIs. That’s absurd. I said that another of your heroes, DOMA/DADT/NAFTA Bill was responsible for the embargo that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. I pointed out that his Secretary of State Madeline Albright admitted it on CBS’s Sixty Minutes and that UNICEF and international food aid groups said the same. You repeated some lame State Department press release blaming Sadaam. I said that our troops in Iraq are being sacrificed but you claim they’re sacrificing themselves. I call for a livable minimum wage for the poor, and pointed out that the most important layer of recipients are poor working mothers with children, many victims of spousal abuse. You oppose a livable minimum wage because it’ll also help teenaged grocery baggers. How do I persuade someone who thinks like that? I’m better off explaining why people think like that so others can steer a better political course. Which is what I commonly do when confronted with ‘logic’ like that.

Ganshorn, am I wrong in saying that your logic is at the service of preserving (stolen) wealth and (unearned) power? Am I right in rejecting the fallacy that scores of millions of personal failures by working people is what’s responsible for growing impoverishment while the rich get obscenely rich? My logic is the logic of criminalizing the stolen wealth.

Further, if the wealth of the uberrich has tripled since Reagan what are they doing that is smarter? Did they perhaps go to school?
What they did was to buy the loyalty of a lot of politicians like Clinton, Bush, Obama, Biden and McCain who gave them tax breaks and free rein to extract, steal and embezzle wealth.

Take Biden, he’s a textbook example of how that sleaze works. He was the prime mover behind the credit cards industry’s 2005 bill to eliminate bankruptcy rights for all but the rich and businesses. Arianna Huffington called his bill "so hostile to ordinary American families that it could only have come about in a place as corrupt as Washington, D.C… And so is any senator who votes for it."

Biden didn’t just vote for it, he spearheaded it and even rejected an amendment that would have made exceptions for the families of GI’s caught up the Clinton/Bush attack on Iraq. Biden's home state, Delaware, is also the home of many credit card monoliths.

And it paid off. Joe Biden, ‘friend of labor’ and ‘friend of GI’s’ collected a cool $214,000 in ‘donations’ from employees and executives of MBNA, now part of Bank of America. Biden’s son Hunter was hired right out of (you guessed it) law school by MBNA and, believe it or not, he quickly worked his way into a senior vice presidency of MBNA. Some people have all the luck?

Obviously De Gaulle and Sadaam have nothing to do with American bankruptcy law so I’m all atwitter waiting to see who’ll get the blame for Biden’s behavior. Maybe McCain, another strong supporter of the bill.

There are also plenty of fixed income senior folks who depend upon their stock dividends in their pensions to live...
Then we’ll tax the rich to see to that they get enough to live on. All retired people should get that guarantee which is far safer than depending on the stock market’s crash and burn economy. Thanks for the reminder, though, after discussion that may just end up as Step, no, make that Point Thirteen.
“You see it is not about the money it is about accomplishment.
Feel free to call stealing, embezzling and extracting wealth while impoverishing tens of millions an “accomplishment” but I thinks it's a crime.

We’re on opposite sides on every question, but that’s perfectly logical. My politics want to make profiteering illegal. Yours seem to be the politics of business owners who think extracting profits is normal behavior.

Robert Ganshorn Robert Ganshorn | September 1, 2008 9:46 AM

I am still waiting to be persuaded by logical argument on points five through twelve. Health care nationalization is a necessity I agree, but the funding method you would employ is shifting sand. You cannot confiscate capital and expect it to stay around to be confiscated!

Now you can write about old stuff, but I am asking, specifics on your logical argument as a proponent of policies five through twelve. How would they work? If you cannot defend these (failed) ideas just say so. You are the expert, tell me, point by point.

Robert Ganshorn Robert Ganshorn | September 1, 2008 10:17 AM

And your solution being "tax the rich" to death for everything. Capital can move. How can you tax what is not there? The .01% you keep worrying about have every ability to offshore.

Oh, and Gore Vidal is an Obama supporter.

Did he actually endorse him?

All I've seen is that Gore says that Obama's is "our best demagogue since Huey Long or Martin Luther King" and thats he's better than JFK. Faint praise indeed. Of JFK, Vidal says "I never believed in Jack's charisma" and that JFK was "one of our worst presidents". And that RFK was "a phoney, a little Torquemada" probably a reference to his work with Joe McCarthy. I was right when I told you that Camelot was a crock.

As for the rich running away, they can run but they can't hide. When we get a worker responsive government installed we'll just charge them and the cults back taxes.

Robert Ganshorn Robert Ganshorn | September 1, 2008 12:52 PM

Try googleing "Vidal endorses Obama" and take you pick from 37,000 possible choices. Still waiting for five through twelve specifics of how your plan for our socialist salvation would not ruin the country and the economy, drive away industry, cause rampant unemployment, stagflation, and make America vulnerable to all enemies foreign and domestic.

As a bonus, causing enormous hardship to the worst off one billion people in this world.

Or you can go to lunch with your bf the republican doctor. Take your time. It is nearly midnight and I won't check back for eight hours. What is the right wine to have with crow?

I would never insult Palin by comparing her to Dan Quayle. I have to admit that McCain's choice is an irresponsible gimmick. It's insulting to all the highly qualified women who have put it the time and put up with all the crap just to be passed over. It's a desperate move an hopefully obvious condescension to all American women.I'm trying real hard not to be dismissive but consider just the facts. Here are your choices a woman that openly has stated that she wants to repeal Roe vs. Wade. has a B.A. in Journalism from the University of Idaho. Keep in mind that the next President will have the opportunity to seat as many as three Supreme Court Justices in the next term. McCains record in the U.S. Naval Academy was dismal. Bad grades and bad conduct,only considered to become a pilot because his father was a top Admiral. Obama has a Juris Doctor,Magna cum laude from Harvard Law and President of the Harvard law Review. And Biden although a big mouth has extensive experience in both Domestic and Foreign affairs but to be fair I haven't check out his education. Help me out here the choice is easy. Please, I invite you to change my mind.

good lord, I don't even know where to start...

for one, I'm leaving Robert and Bill to fight that one out themselves.

second, I agree, the choice is easy. but I do think Palin is not something to be sneezed at or ignored.

and now with Palin's daughter's pregnancy revealed, and the conservatives rushing to her defense- she chose life after all instead of an abortion- she becomes a slightly different threat- one with normal problems like the rest of Americans.

this isn't easy.

oh, and robert, as a wine lover, I'd have to say something with enough body to hold up to the necessary fruit sauce you'd have to put on something as gamey as crow. I recently had an amazing pinot called "Blind Trail" (which also begs to be fitted to the circumstance) from New Zealand. heavier than most pinots, but still light enough to go with ... um... a bird.

Sara, it’s a good thing you know wines. Keep the bottle. You’ll need something to tipple on to ease the nausea when Obama, for the 10 zillionth time, repeats “Marriage is a sacred union solely intended for men and women. God abominates same sex marriage. Hallelujah”, etc. or words to that effect.

Better yet, be prepared and stock up with a couple of cases. You’ll need them. And maybe lay in a box of those nausea bags.

And something a little stronger for November 4th. Holding your nose man not help much when you pull the lever for the party that opposes same sex marriage, gave us DOMA and DADT and ripped ENDA to shreds, to say nothing of what they did to the Mathew Sheppard Hate crimes bill.

Ganshorn, I just did a couple of fairly long posts which you simply ignored. No matter, I get lots of e-mails so I know plenty of others read them. Tell us why you think the leading light behind the 2005 bankruptcy law (which most Republicans, right wing Democrats and Chamber of Commerce types support, and answer all my other questions and maybe, just maybe, I’ll think it worth continuing you education.

Lets stick to politics, Ganshorn. My bf is a healer, and would never vote for a Republican war criminal like McCain. You know the type, I'm sure, McCain or Lt. Wm. Calley and the many others US officers guilty of murder. Thankfully their massacres didn’t stop the Vietnamese from sending them scurrying, tails between their legs, back to San Diego.

As for Gore Vidal saying that Obama's "our best demagogue since Huey Long or Martin Luther King" and that’s he's at least better than JFK, who Vidal despises, that's still very faint praise indeed. Vidal says your Camelot knight on a white steed was "one of our worst presidents" and that RFK was "a phony, a little Torquemada" because of his close association with Joe McCarthy" that's all I found in my search. Did you find something different?

nah, I won't have to hold my nose. I'm going to be voting for the first African-American man to ever be on the ballot in this country for President.

I'm excited about that.

I'm thinking... a vintage port. because port takes at least 20 years to mature in the bottle, the process to have this historic event happen took many years, and a lot of blood sweat and tears, to come about.

I'll look for a 1961, the same year Obama was born...

I don't disagree we need more diversity in our government.

Sorry, Sara, you’re not going to be voting for the first African-American man to ever be on the ballot in this country for President.”

My first vote was in the 1960’s for Cliff DeBerry, an African American socialist candidate who spoke at a meeting we held to raise a defense fund; several of us got arrested at a raucous demonstration at the FBI office (we were calm, the FBI went berserk). We’d wanted Democrat (sic) RFK’s Justice (sic) Dept. to quit stalling the investigation of the murder of four very young girls when racists bombed the 16th Street Baptist in Birmingham.

Adding racist insult to racist injury those KKK thugs didn’t see the inside of a cell until 2001! Which means that if the Democrats maintain the same schedule an inclusive ENDA might pass in 2045. Justice delayed is justice denied.

DeBerry blew us all away with his horrific account of the bombing which was planned to kill children. During the 1970’s I got to vote for other socialists like Pete Camejo (who I think is the first Latino US presidential candidate) and Linda Jenness (not the first, the first woman who ran for president was Victoria Woodhull, in 1872 for the Equal Rights Party). I helped organize the 1980 presidential campaign of Andrew Pulley, who during LBJ’s illegal and genocidal invasion and occupation of Vietnam was an active duty leader of the GI antiwar movement. He was an African American union activist.

You Democrats are so behind the times.

Of course none of them got elected because none of them were bought and sold representatives of business and not one of them would dream of stooping to pander to bigots of any stripe. And because the Democrats throw up road blocks preventing left parties from anything even approaching full participation in elections.