Year: 2008

Cuba’s Hurting

Trish

Ike arrives in Cuba

Hurricane Ike devastated parts of Cuba and money is needed now to help people as they struggle to survive. Because of our country’s idiotic stance toward the aging and ailing Fidel Castro, it’s hard to get relief to those who need it.

The State Department allows only a very few organizations to assist, and one is the Friendship Association. What their web site lacks in professional glitz, its members make up in heart. In normal times, they provide dental care and hygiene, prenatal care and education, bicycles, wheelchairs, eye care, gardening assistance, sewing supplies, cultural projects, and more. They take no sides in the ongoing conflict between our two governments. And every dollar given actually goes to help.

St. Augustine resident Jo McIntire started the Friendship Association with his wife, Soledad, and now there are hundreds of members, including some in Colorado, Philadelphia and Chicago. It is one of the few groups in the United States to have such a long-standing license to travel to Cuba despite the embargo between the two countries…

McIntire said the group plans to fill a large container with items to send to Baracoa, a province of Guantanamo, to give aid in the wake of Ike…

“People can give checks to the Association, and we will buy items to put in the container,” he said. “We’ve sent more than 20 containers over the years. … We take trips every year to follow up on (the items we send).

“We monitor it to make sure it’s distributed to where it’s supposed to be.”

Here’s a link to a PayPal donation account and more pix. I hope you can help.

Fox News D-Team Sneers at New MSNBC Anchor, ‘Lesbian’ Rachel Maddow, Laughably Decries ‘Bias’ at NBC

Jon Ponder

This video of the buffoonish morning crew at Fox News is laughable at first. The idea that the newsreaders and spokesmodels employed by the propaganda organ of the Bush White House political shop would spend five minutes criticizing another media outlet for bias is a real hoot.
To be clear, Rachel Maddow in no way can be compared with sexual deviants like Dick Morris and Bill O’Reilly.
But then, at 01:20, the segment turns ugly when the media “expert” they’ve brought on, Tim Graham of Media Analysis MRC, the rightwing front group headed by Brent Bozell, feels it necessary to make the point that MSNBC’s new anchor, Rachel Maddow, is gay. He refers to her, sneeringly, as the “lesbian Air America host.”

Leaving aside the facts that no serious person evaluates Maddow’s performance, or her views, based on her sexuality, or that being gay is not always a marker for liberalism — there are millions of Republican lesbians — the Fox News staff should be careful about throwing stones inside their own glass house.

For example, there are old rumors that Fox News anchor Shephard Smith is gay — he refuses to talk about his personal life. And the son of Fox News anchor Brit Hume, Sandy Hume, a reporter for The Hill newspaper, committed suicide in 1998, at the same time rumors began circulating that he was having an affair with then-Rep. Bill Paxon (R-N.Y.), an up and coming member of the GOP House leadership and the husband of then-Rep. Susan Molinari (R-N.Y.) Paxon and Molinari both retired from the House soon after Sandy Hume’s suicide. (The fact that Paxon is a thoroughly unpleasant person would seem to make this story less than likely, but there is no accounting for taste.)

If Fox is going to use sexuality as a barometer about whom to take seriously, then the network should reconsider the air time they give professional Clinton-hater Dick Morris, who is a notorious adulterer, who consorts with prostitutes and who became a national laughingstock over revelations that he has a toe sucking fetish.

And then there is Fox’s biggest star, Bill O’Reilly, another flamboyant adulterer who famously cost the network millions when he was sued for making unwelcome sexual advances toward a female producer.

To be clear, Rachel Maddow in no way can be compared with sexual deviants like Morris and O’Reilly. The point is, the sexuality and/or sexual shenanigans of all these folks is irrelevant to the job they do — unless, of course, Fox chooses to make it an issue.

McCain Made ‘Lipstick on a Pig’ Reference to Hillary Clinton – And Palin Has Repeatedly Compared Herself to a Dog Wearing Lipstick

Jon Ponder

Republicans used to decry the victim mindset in American culture — now they are wallowing in it. At their convention last week, they ramped up their claims that they are victims of corporate media bias, and they have bristled at anything smacking of “ageism” directed at their nominee, John McCain, who is 72.
Palin has repeatedly compared herself and other “hockey moms” to vicious female dogs in lipstick.
One of the reasons they put Sarah Palin — a former beauty queen runner-up, whose only experience on the national level is 21 months as governor of the 47th largest state — on their ticket this year was so that they could play the female-candidate-as-victim card.

Now it appears they have played it too soon — pouncing too quickly on a statement made by Barack Obama in Virginia yesterday in which he used the phrase “lipstick on a pig“:

“That’s not change,” Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said of what Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., is offering.

“You know, you can put lipstick on a pig,” Obama said, “but it’s still a pig.”

The crowd rose and applauded, some of them no doubt thinking he may have been alluding to Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s ad lib during her vice presidential nomination acceptance speech last week, “What’s the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick.”

“You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called ‘change,'” Obama continued, “it’s still gonna stink after eight years.

“We’ve had enough of the same old thing! It’s time to bring about real change to Washington. And that’s the choice you’ve got in this election.”

Obama added that “it is not going to be easy … John McCain has a compelling biography, you know Sarah Palin is an interesting story.”

The crowd booed.

“No, she’s new!” Obama said. “She hasn’t been on the scene, you know, she’s got five kids and my hat goes off to anybody who’s looking after five. I’ve got two and they tire Michelle and me out!”

Of course, Obama was referring the ridiculous claim by McCain-Palin that they would bring “change” to Washington — McCain has been a Washington insider for three decades, and Palin’s meager record indicates that she would be McCain’s helpmate in continuing the same Cheney-Bush policies that have driven the country into the ditch.

Palin has repeatedly compared herself and other “hockey moms” to dogs in lipstick, and, as long as we’re making inferences, we can assume she means female dogs, which are described in kennels by a word that, as Barbara Bush once said of the first female vice presidential candidate, Geraldine Ferraro, “rhymes with witch.”

But if that’s how Republicans want to spin it, here is McCain using the phrase “lipstick on a pig” in a similar context about Hillary Clinton, in Iowa, in October:

McCain criticized Democratic contenders for offering what he called costly universal health care proposals that require too much government regulation. While he said he had not studied Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton’s health-care plan, he said it was “eerily reminiscent” of the failed plan she offered as first lady in the early 1990s.

“I think they put some lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig,” he said…

This is yet more proof that there is no bottom to the depth of Republican hypocrisy — or, apparently, to the McCain campaign’s incompetence.

Quote du Jour

Buck Banks

I am not denying that Sarah Palin may have great skills. She may well. I am insisting that neither you, nor I, nor John McCain has any valid reason to believe that she does. This is not an argument about the attributes she lacks. It’s an argument about the information we lack. I am pleading with my fellow conservatives: Please demand more and better knowledge before you commit yourselves to a political leader. That’s all.

— Former Bush speechwriter David Frum

Photo, Past Statement Prove Palin Lied about Opposing Bridge to Nowhere

Pensito Editors

The McCain campaign is brazenly promoting the lie that Sarah Palin consistently opposed the infamous Bridge to Nowhere pork project in 2006 that they even included this false claim in a new ad.
We’re not going to “allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative.”
— Palin
It ought to be problematic for them that the record shows that Palin wholeheartedly supported the Bridge to Nowhere when it was first proposed. Evidence of this includes the photo above showing Palin holding a T-shirt promoting the giant pork project, as well as this statement to a local paper:

“I’m hearing from a lot of Southeast residents who believe that maybe they haven’t been given their due respect,” she said. “Part of my agenda is making sure that Southeast is heard. That your projects are important. That we go to bat for Southeast when we’re up against federal influences that aren’t in the best interest of Southeast.”

She cited the widespread negative attention focused on the Gravina Island crossing project.

“We need to come to the defense of Southeast Alaska when proposals are on the table like the bridge and not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative,” Palin said…

“There needs to be a link between Ketchikan and its future and its future opportunities and progress, opening up land in this area,” she said.

It ought to be problematic for them to promote Palin as Maverick when the record shows she has egregiously flipflopped on one fo the most controversial issues of the day — but it probably won’t hurt them at all.

This is another instance of Republicans setting ground rules for Democrats and then flagrantly breaking their own rules when it suits them.

For example, it is permissible for Republicans to impeach a Democratic president over something as minor as lying about an extramarital affair in a civil deposition, but it is outrageous to suggest that a Republican president might be impeached for falsifying his reasons for taking the country to war, or for treasonously exposing a CIA program tracking WMB in order to enact political revenge.

In 2004, Republicans used John Kerry’s two opposing positions on the war — he was for it before he was against it — to disqualify him from the presidency. But now that they have a vice presidential candidate who has taken two diametrically opposed, but both politically expedient, positions on the most controversial pork project of all time, they’re simply ignoring her strong support in the beginning while they promote her as a maverick for opposing it after the political winds changed.

Obama Calls Out McCain Campaign on Palin’s Lies about Opposing ‘Bridge to Nowhere’

Jon Ponder

On Monday, the McCain campaign released an ad that repeats the false claim that Gov. Sarah Palin opposed the infamous Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska. In fact, she supported it 100 percent, when it was first introduced as a “pork” earmark on a bill by her mentor, Sen. Ted Stevens, Alaska’s senior senator who is currently facing bribery charges.
“You can’t just recreate yourself. You can’t just reinvent yourself. The American people aren’t stupid.”
— Obama
At a campaign stop, Barack Obama took aim at the claim:

“Well, now, let’s get the facts clear here,” Obama said. “When she was mayor, she hired a Washington lobbyist to get earmarks — pork barrel spending –- all the things that John McCain says is bad, she lobbied to get! And got a whole lot of it. When it came to the Bridge to Nowhere, she was for it until everybody started raising a fuss about it, and she started running for governor, and then, suddenly, she was against it!

“You remember that?” Obama asked the Flinters. “‘For it before you were against it’? I mean you can’t just make stuff up. You can’t just recreate yourself. You can’t just reinvent yourself. The American people aren’t stupid.”

Appearing on MSNBC’s “Countdown” last night, Barack Obama repeated the attack, as you can see in the video at the top, and the second cut below:

[…]

Sarah Palin’s Secret E-Mails

Buck Banks

e-mails_dont.jpgThere’s yet another potential scandal dogging Gov. Sarah Palin as she continues to avoid speaking to the media. Seems she is refusing to release about 1,100 e-mails between herself and her aides that a Republican activist claims violate ethics and hiring rules. Of course, Palin and her cronies are crying “executive privilege,” but what is undermining that argument is that the governor’s husband Todd Palin was copied on many of the e-mails. Since he has no position in state government, but is just another upstanding Alaskan, the argument for privilege is moot.

But the real reason the e-mails are being withheld is likely because they contain a whole lotta wrongdoing that might further tarnish Palin’s halo:

The list of confidential emails includes a number of communications related to the Public Safety Employees Association, a union for the state’s police officers and state troopers, and the headings refer to PSEA ads and a “PR campaign.” Many of these PSEA-related emails were CC’ed to Todd Palin—and were also withheld under the deliberative process and executive privileges. (Recently, John Cyr, the PSEA executive director, told The Washington Post that Sarah Palin held a grudge against the state troopers and held down their salaries and other funding because her ex-brother-in-law-the-trooper had not been fired.) A separate email sent from Frye to Bailey and Todd Palin and headed “I may be in trouble here guys” was withheld because it involves a personnel matter. In April, a series of emails with the subject line “from Sheila Toomey” zipped between Sarah Palin, Bailey, Frye, other Palin aides, and Todd Palin. Toomey writes the “Alaska Ear” political gossip column for the Anchorage Daily News. These emails were also withheld under the deliberative process and executive privileges. And a string of emails titled “Racism on the Radio” that went back and forth between Governor Palin and her aides was blocked from release on the same grounds.

Andreé McLeod, the person who originally requested the e-mails and who used to work for Palin in Alaska government, is continuing her efforts to shake loose the secret e-mails:

“I’ve known Sarah for years, ” says McLeod, who moved to Alaska from New York in 1978. “When the finger is pointed at somebody else, she’s all for accountability. When it’s pointing at her, it’s different. Sarah Palin was elected on the basis of providing open and honest government. She has failed miserably.”

“Executive privilege?” Withholding e-mails? Sounds like Palin subscribes to the Cheney School of Vice President (emphasis on the “vice”).

Dick Cheney with Lipstick

Jon Ponder

Double McSame Dick Cheney took a moment off from his European tour to offer his opinion about his prospective replacement, Sarah Palin:

“I thought her appearance at (the) convention was superb. I watched that with great interest. I loved some of her lines: ‘What was the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? It’s lipstick,'” he told reporters…

“I think she is a good candidate and I don’t see any reason why she can’t be an effective vice president,” he said.

Cheney should be thrilled with the choice of Palin for the ticket. Ironically, he and Palin appear to be more similar in character and ideology than the men who were on John McCain’s short list, including Joe Lieberman, Tom Ridge, Tim Pawlenty or even Mitt Romney.

This is not just about the fact that Cheney and Palin both wear glasses, confuse sarcasm with humor and like to hunt, they have some fundamentally frightening traits in common:

[…]

McCain’s Economic Non-Plan (Just Do What Bush Did) Is a Disaster

Trish

If you think the economy is bad now, just wait, according to the Daytona News-Journal. And if you want to make it unimaginably bad, vote for McCain.

On Tuesday, the Congressional Budget Office will release its summer update to the budget and economic outlook. The report will include grim numbers that aren’t being talked about much on the campaign trail, including a budget deficit near or beyond the record $412.7 billion deficit recorded in 2004…

How does McCain intend change that helps 15 million unemployed and underemployed Americans when his economic plan not only adopts Bush’s policies, but digs the hole deeper?

Unemployment gets the headlines. But deficits matter just as much in the long run. When they’re small, the government has more room to borrow and smaller payments to finance the debt. Interest rates can go down…allowing businesses to invest more and consumers to buy more on credit.

..When deficits balloon, everything eventually goes in reverse. Interest rates rise to finance the deficit, and auto loans, mortgages, credit cards, college loans and business investments all become more expensive to finance.

The problem with the job losses of the past eight months is that they happened before the effects of much larger deficits take their toll. That doesn’t speak hopefully of the future when, by the White House’s estimate, the next president will inherit a $500 billion deficit.

…John McCain’s plan is sheer folly: Make the Bush tax cuts permanent, and cut taxes and reduce federal revenue even more by abolishing the Alternative Minimum Tax, reducing the corporate tax and doubling the child tax credit. That’s a recipe for trillion-dollar deficits on top of a national debt approaching $10 trillion.

One thing is clear. President Bush’s economic policies failed. The tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 did not produce the promised economic growth. Growth in Bush’s eight years did not produce the promised jobs. It did not lift wages. After inflation, household income has fallen below 2000 levels despite the few years of economic growth between the 2001 and 2008 recessions. Artificially lowering interest rates boosted the housing market artificially, leading to a very real crash. Changing Washington would be nice. But how does McCain intend change that helps 15 million unemployed and underemployed Americans when his economic plan not only adopts Bush’s policies, but digs the hole deeper?