That first round was a bit out there. Let’s see how they do this round.

Issue #2 - Economy and Housing Crisis.

Jeffrey Hall

Claim: Obama supports modernizing the financial regulatory system via oversight over lenders.

TRUE - According to barackobama.com, they plan to create a 5-star credit card rating system so the consumer understands the risk involved. Additionally, they intend to create new criminal penalties for lenders who are found guilty of fraud, requiring the industry to report suspicious activity and create a loan disclosure scoring system designed to inform the borrower of all aspects of the loan.

Claim: Obama plans to help homeowners by setting up programs which can monitor lenders for what they can and cannot lend to buyers.

UNVERIFIED - Most of Obama’s policies seem geared towards borrower protection, so maybe this is just an issue of wording (I couldn’t find any information on this, though I found loosely-related statements through press releases and news articles. If anyone has information, let me know and I’ll post it).

Claim: McCain flipped on bailout issue by first saying he wouldn’t help borrowers who took risky loans, saying it was their fault. Now supports bailout.

TRUE - On March 26th, McCain indeed said it wasn’t the government’s job to help borrowers. According the the International Herald Review:

Drawing a sharp distinction between himself and the two Democratic presidential candidates, Senator John McCain of Arizona warned Tuesday against vigorous government action to solve the deepening mortgage crisis and the market turmoil it has caused, saying that “it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers.”

McCain has since expressed support for such a bailout (via abcnews.com):

Its response was to send an e-mail from domestic policy adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin:

“John McCain supports the steps needed to keep the financial troubles at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from further squeezing American families, and endorses the idea that management and shareholders should not benefit from government backing,” Holz-Eakin said. “While details are not yet available, the actions taken today are consistent with those objectives. Fannie and Freddie have been the poster children for a lack of transparency and accountability, and remind us of the needed reforms to financial markets in general. We need to create jobs and get the economy going — and get way from the practice of sticking Main Street Americans with these bills. If elected, John McCain will continue his crusade for the right reform of the institutions. Sen. McCain will get real regulation that limits their ability to borrow, shrinks their size until they are no longer a threat to our economy, and privatizes and eliminates their links to the government.”

Lee Newcom

Claim: The problem with Fannie Mae began with the community reinvestment act and began in the Clinton Administration when Janet Reno was threatening banks with legal action if they did not make more loans to poor people.

PARTIALLY TRUE - While it’s true that Janet Reno sought initiatives to reduce discriminatory loans in urban areas, there is a dispute over whether the Community Reinvestment Act contributes to the problem by encouraging lenders to make irresponsible loans.

Specifically, the claim is referring to a speech by Janet Reno in 1998 in which she talks about government cases against banks and requiring lenders to invest in their communities.

I give this a “partial” because of the assertion this was the origin of the crisis. There are many factors which contribute to the problem, including high amounts of real estate speculation, the housing market bubble and mortgage fraud, among a other reasons, a number of which pre-date the Clinton administration. There has not been consensus on the cause of this issue yet as it is too early to determine.

Claim: McCain’s most recent position is that the government must help buy up those loans and renegotiate the amounts owed.

TRUE - McCain recently announced at the second presidential debate a plan to spend 300 billion dollars to purchase loans and grant courts the authority to renegotiate mortgages based on the home’s current value.

Claim: Though we are in a crisis, less than 5% of loans are affected.

UNVERIFIED - (I found no direct data to corroborate or contradict this claim. If anyone wants to provide information from a neutral source, I will add it to this entry)

Claim: Bush administration tried 13 times to push regulation for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which each time was blocked by Democratic leaders in the last two years.

FALSE - From factcheck.org:

It’s true that key Democrats opposed the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, which would have established a single, independent regulatory body with jurisdiction over Fannie and Freddie – a move that the Government Accountability Office had recommended in a 2004 report. Current House Banking Committee chairman Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts opposed legislation to reorganize oversight in 2000 (when Clinton was still president), 2003 and 2004, saying of the 2000 legislation that concern about Fannie and Freddie was “overblown.” Just last summer, Senate Banking Committee chairman Chris Dodd called a Bush proposal for an independent agency to regulate the two entities “ill-advised.”

But saying that Democrats killed the 2005 bill “while Mr. Obama was notably silent” oversimplifies things considerably. The bill made it out of committee in the Senate but was never brought up for consideration. At that time, Republicans had a majority in the Senate and controlled the agenda. Democrats never got the chance to vote against it or to mount a filibuster to block it.

By the time McCain signed on to the legislation, it was too late to prevent the crisis anyway. McCain added his name on May 25, 2006, when the housing bubble had already nearly peaked. Standard & Poor’s Case-Schiller Home Price Index, which measures residential housing prices in 20 metropolitan regions and then constructs a composite index for the entire United States, shows that housing prices began falling in July 2006, barely two months later.

Additionally, this distorts the truth by omitting facts, primarily that Democrats proposed a number of reform bills while the Republicans held the majority:

• H.R. 2117
• H.R. 3507
• S. 1656

After the Democrats gained the majority in 2007, Barney Frank proposed the following legislation: H.R. 1427

As for the “13 times” claim, even judging by what the White House website has to say about it, one would be hard-pressed to find 13 times the Bush administration pushed for reform that was blocked by Democrats since the beginning of 2007.

Claim: John McCain was one of the most adamant seekers of regulation over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; Barack Obama did not want that regulation.

PARTIALLY TRUE - John McCain was a co-sponsor of a bill called the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005. This bill never made it out of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, which Senator Obama was never a member of. Neither candidate voted on the bill.

Analysis below…

——-

(more…)

This blog is not known for virtually any kind of citizen journalism. This week I’ll be going over the Journal Star YouTube debates and fact-checking each side.

I’ll do my best to keep it clean, but will provide my own typical style of analysis below the fold. Since my own performance was an epic failure, I figured I ought to contribute to the project in some meaningful way. Just pretend you’re reading the Peoria Pundit, but with fewer typos.

Issue #1: Abortion Part 1.

Lee Newcom

Claim: Senator McCain has taken a reasonable position by saying he personally opposes abortion but supports the law in the way it’s working today.

FALSE - From John McCain’s website:

” Overturning Roe v. Wade

John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench.

Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states. The difficult issue of abortion should not be decided by judicial fiat.

However, the reversal of Roe v. Wade represents only one step in the long path toward ending abortion. Once the question is returned to the states, the fight for life will be one of courage and compassion - the courage of a pregnant mother to bring her child into the world and the compassion of civil society to meet her needs and those of her newborn baby. The pro-life movement has done tremendous work in building and reinforcing the infrastructure of civil society by strengthening faith-based, community, and neighborhood organizations that provide critical services to pregnant mothers in need. This work must continue and government must find new ways to empower and strengthen these armies of compassion. These important groups can help build the consensus necessary to end abortion at the state level. As John McCain has publicly noted, “At its core, abortion is a human tragedy. To effect meaningful change, we must engage the debate at a human level.”"

Claim: Senator Obama used his political influence to block a bill that would seek to give medical care to unwanted babies who were born alive.

QUESTIONABLE - The committee he’s referring to in the clip is the Health and Human Services Committee, of which he became chairman in 2003. The tone is pejorative and seems to suggest that power was improperly used to block a bill. There is no evidence suggesting Obama used his position to deny people the chance to give testimony, though the bill did not make it to the floor under the committee.

Jeffrey Hall

Claim: Obama’s goal with abortion is to keep it the way it is.

TRUE - From barackobama.com:

“Barack Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in that case.”

There is no language to suggest otherwise. His voting record in the U.S. Senate seems to corroborate this, as well as his claim that he seeks to reduce the number of abortions through legislation.

Claim: McCain flipped on the issue of abortion, first supporting, now supporting an overturn of Roe v. Wade.

TRUE - McCain has been consistently opposed to partial birth abortions, as indicated by his voting record. While he has chosen not to vote on a bill expressing Congressional support of Roe v. Wade, there’s no indication he supported overturning it prior to his 2008 campaign. This does not technically constitute a flip.

However, McCain said in 2000 that he thinks abortion should be allowed in special cases, then reaffirmed his position in 2007. Now, however, he is siding with his party’s policy and seeking a complete reversal of Roe v. Wade. My friends, that is a flipflop.

Issue #1: Abortion Part 2.

Lee Newcom

Claim: People maintain the right to have an abortion at any time during the pregnancy.

TRUE - In most cases, an abortion can be performed at any time during the pregnancy. What is not mentioned is that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 prohibits partial-birth abortions.

Claim: Mr. Hall disagrees with Barack Obama by saying if an abortion fails and there’s a chance for survival, the baby deserves medical care.

FALSE - According to Jill Stanek, which Newcom cites for support, Barack Obama has supported the federal version of BAIPA since at least 2005. The problem according to Senator Obama was not with providing care to those who survive an attempted abortion, but with the protection of abortion rights in Illinois, as outlined on his website (scroll to the bottom to see the chart). Mr. Hall and Senator Obama are in perfect agreement.

Claim: The language in both state born alive acts and federal born alive acts is identical, so there’s no reasonable explanation for opposing it.

FALSE - According to factcheck.org:

As originally proposed, the 2003 state bill, SB 1082, sought to define the term “born-alive infant” as any infant, even one born as the result of an unsuccessful abortion, that shows vital signs separate from its mother. The bill would have established that infants thus defined were humans with legal rights. It never made it to the floor; it was voted down by the Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired.

The bill which passed in 2005 includes the following language:

(d) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affect
existing federal or State law regarding abortion.

(e) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to alter
generally accepted medical standards.

Claim: Barack Obama supports killing babies who a born alive as a result of a failed abortion procedure.

FALSE - This is part of a smear commonly known as the infanticide claim. The facts: there were already laws on the books granting the protections described by the bill in question which, if violated (if what Mr. Newcom describes is true), would be punishable as a Class 3 felony. (source: factcheck.org) The bill was eventually passed (after Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate) which contained the language claims he was looking for.

In Obama’s own words:

“Whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or other elements of the Constitution, we’re saying they are persons entitled to the kinds of protections provided to a child, a 9-month-old child delivered to term…That determination then essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place.”

Claim: Jill Stanek held babies in laundry room until they died.

FALSE - This claim is often repeated in response to Senator Obama’s record on abortion in the Illinois legislature. However, this is an unsupported claim that has only one source, that being Jill Stanek. In response to her claims, the Office of the Attorney General sent a letter in response which stated:

No other allegations or medical evidence to support any statutory violation (including the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act about which you inquired) were referred to our office by the Department for prosecution.

[…]

While we are deeply respectful of your serious concerns about the practices and methods of abortions at this hospital, we have concluded that there is no basis for legal action by this office against the Hospital or its employees, agents or staff at this time.

Jeffrey Hall

Jeff didn’t really make any claims in this section. Most of it was defending against or expressing incredulity at what Mr. Newcom was saying.

Analysis below the fold.

(more…)

Alright conservatives.  Let’s hear your defense for this one.

By Kathleen Parker at Townhall.com:

WASHINGTON — Allow me to introduce myself. I am a traitor and an idiot. Also, my mother should have aborted me and left me in a dumpster, but since she didn’t, I should “off” myself.

Those are just a few nuggets randomly selected from thousands of e-mails written in response to my column suggesting that Sarah Palin is out of her league and should step down.

Who says public discourse hasn’t deteriorated?

The fierce reaction to my column has been both bracing and enlightening. After 20 years of column writing, I’m familiar with angry mail. But the past few days have produced responses of a different order. Not just angry, but vicious and threatening.

Some of my usual readers feel betrayed because I previously have written favorably of Palin. By changing my mind and saying so, I am viewed as a traitor to the Republican Party — not a “true” conservative.

Obviously, I’m not employed by the GOP. If I were, they’re seriously in arrears. But what is a true conservative? One who doesn’t think or question and who marches in lockstep with The Party?

The emotional pitch of many comments suggests an overinvestment in Palin as “one of us.”

Palin’s fans say they like her specifically because she’s an outsider, not part of the Washington club. When she flubs during interviews, they identify with that, too. “You see the lack of polish, we applaud it,” one reader wrote.

Of course, there’s a difference between a lack of polish and a lack of coherence. Some of Palin’s interview responses can’t even be critiqued on their merits because they’re so nonsensical. But even that is someone else’s fault, say Palin supporters. The media make her uncomfortable.

Or, it’s the fault of those slick politicos who are overmanaging her. “Let Sarah be Sarah” has become the latest rallying cry among my colleagues on the right. She’ll be fine if we just leave her alone, they say. Between prayers, I might add.

Not all my mail has been mean-spirited. A fair number expressed polite disappointment; others relief and gratitude. Still others offered reasonable arguments aimed at changing my mind. I may yet.

In the meantime, this assault and my decision to write about it aren’t really about me — or even Sarah Palin. The mailbag is about us, our country, and what we really believe.

That we have become a partisan nation is no secret. This week has provided a vivid example of where rabid partisanship leads with the failure of Congress to pass a bailout bill vitally needed to keep our economy from unraveling.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave a partisan speech, blaming the credit crisis on the Bush administration (omitting the Clinton administration’s role in launching the subprime lending debacle). Republicans responded by voting against the bill.

Everyone’s to blame, by the way.

Such extreme partisanship has a crippling effect on government, which may be desirable at times, but not now. More important in the long term is the less tangible effect of stifling free speech. My mail paints an ugly picture and a bleak future if we do not soon correct ourselves.

The picture is this: Anyone who dares express an opinion that runs counter to the party line will be silenced. That doesn’t sound American to me, but Stalin would approve.

Readers have every right to reject my opinion. But when we decide that a person is a traitor and should die for having an opinion different than one’s own, then we cross into territory that puts all freedoms at risk. (I hear you, Dixie Chicks.)

I’m sure it is coincidence that, upon the Palin column’s publication, a conservative organization suddenly canceled a speech I was scheduled to deliver in a few days. If I were as paranoid as the conspiracy theorists are, I might wonder whether I was being punished for speaking incorrectly.

Unfortunately, that’s the way one begins to think when party loyalty is given a higher value than loyalty to bedrock principles.

Our day of reckoning, indeed, may be upon us. Between war and economic collapse, we have enormous challenges. It will take the best of everyone to solve them. That process begins minimally with a commitment to engage in civil discourse and a cease-fire in the war against unwelcome ideas.

In that spirit, may Sarah Palin be fearless in Thursday’s debate and speak her true mind.

Kathleen, now you know how the people who comprise your party’s base really are.  Welcome to what we get to experience.

Gee whiz, how could we ever even think of comparing them to fascists, guys?  Guys?

…hello?

I don’t know how many of you have been paying attention to foreign affairs in the wake of all this news on the economy, but Mamoud Ahmadinejad is in New York today addressing the United Nations.  Naturally, it’s become a point of contention between the McCain and Obama campaigns.  Bullshit detectors: ON.  Full Power in 3… 2… 1…

It seems fascist Republican sideshow freak Sarah Palin has managed to be portrayed as the victim yet again.

The facts surrounding this event are scattered, but here’s what I’ve been able to deduce:

In response to this visit, a number of organizations planned a joint protest and invited Hillary Clinton to speak.  Unbeknownst to the Clinton and her staff, Sarah Palin was also invited.  Clinton, who was not informed about the joint appearance, withdrew from the event.  The primary reason cited was to avoid the “woman-on-woman showdown” between the two that many in the media have been rooting for.

I first read about the incident at AOL News.  The article is critical of the Obama campaign, claiming they hijacked the event.

“Sen. Hillary Clinton was originally scheduled to appear at the rally as well, but canceled at the behest of the Obama campaign upon learning that Palin was going to appear.”

 ”At the behest of the Obama campaign.”  That’s funny, when you click on the article linked to the word “canceled,” there’s not a single mention of a request by the Obama campaign to cancel the event.  In fact, it seems to suggest Clinton withdrew of her own volition.  An AFP article seems to suggest the same thing.  No innacuracies here, that was a blatant lie.  What the hell is going on?

Next, they say the Obama campaign threatened the organizing groups tax-exempt status if they didn’t disinvite Palin:

“Several leading Democratic politicians, including Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) then prevailed upon the sponsoring organizations to dis-invite Palin, on the grounds that the event would be viewed as political in nature if she appeared. Reportedly, Democrats threatened the tax-exempt status of the sponsoring groups if Palin were allowed to speak at the rally.”

Cornell University Law professor Menachem Rosensaft sets the record straight:

It seemed fairly clever at first — perhaps a bit too clever. Every even semi-competent head of a tax exempt 501(c)(3) organization knows that featuring the Republican vice presidential candidate six weeks before Election Day without at least offering equal time to the Democratic ticket could seriously jeopardize the group’s tax-exempt status. But Senator Hillary Clinton had already agreed to speak at the rally back in August, and the organizers must have felt that this gave them the necessary cover to include Governor Palin without having to ask anyone from the Obama-Biden campaign. (Incidentally, one of Governor Palin’s advisers, Mark Wallace, just happens to be both the executive director of United Against Nuclear Iran and the husband of McCain campaign Communications Director Nicole Wallace; and if you believe this is a mere coincidence, I know of lots of subprime mortgages you might want to add to your portfolio.)

When Senator Clinton found out that the Republican Vice Presidential nominee had been invited, she understood that she was being set up. There was every likelihood that Governor Palin would have attacked Senator Obama, and contrasted Senator Clinton’s presence at the rally with the fact that Senators Barack Obama and Joe Biden were not there. It was equally foreseeable that no one would have bothered to point out that neither Obama nor Biden had been invited. The Obama campaign’s explanation and legitimately outraged reaction would then have been lost in the next news cycle. Senator Clinton was having none of this, and promptly withdrew from the demonstration.

 Scandalous!

Finally, the article goes on to state the Republican reaction:

The McCain campaign has criticized Obama’s decision to effectively censor Palin by puling out of the anti-Iran rally as choosing politics over the national interest. The campaign claims that it tried to get the Obama campaign to send a representative to the rally and make the event a bi-partisan stand against Iranian aggression. But the Obama campaign would only commit to sending Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL) to appear alongside Palin. Wexler is a fiercely liberal partisan who has called Palin, “a far right, pro-life zealot,” and has denigrated her experience as a small town mayor. The McCain camp took that as a signal that the Obama campaign had no intention of engaging in a serious effort at bi-partisanship.

Besides already being a horribly imbalanced article (What was the Obama campaign’s reaction, huh?), the little descriptor of Robert Wexler as “a fiercely liberal partisan” is an obvious attempt at painting the Obama campaign as unreasonable.  “Well, they’d only send in this guy!  See how partisan they are?”

Let’s get something straight:  Sarah Palin is a far-right fringe conservative.  She may represent the mainstream of Republican politics, but she is inarguably on the outskirts of the ideology.  Robert Wexler is an activist liberal. If an extremist like Palin is going to be invited,  Wexler is a pretty tame offering by comparison.  The Republicans are crying about it by saying the Democrats are going overboard, which means they’re obviously looking for the advantage.  The Obama campaign is trying to fit a square peg into a square hole, that’s all:

It was only after Senator Clinton had pulled out that the rally’s organizers first contacted the Obama campaign and asked them to participate in the event. This was on Wednesday, September 17th, five days before the rally. The Obama campaign accepted the invitation and said that it would send Representative Robert Wexler, a prominent Jewish Member of Congress from Florida who sits on the House Committee on Foreign Affairs (he is chairman of its Sub-Committee on Europe) as its surrogate. The following day, the organizers decided that the rally had suddenly become too political and disinvited Governor Palin and all other “American political personalities.”

Let’s be perfectly clear. The organizers had initially invited Governor Palin without ever contacting, let alone inviting, anyone from the Obama campaign. When they finally issued a belated invitation to the Obama side, it was accepted, and a prominent Democratic Member of Congress was going to speak at the rally. The organizers then disinvited both Governor Palin and Representative Wexler. And whom does the GOP hold responsible for this fiasco? Barack Obama, of course.

Scum.  Bags.  Honestly, wingnuts, how do you keep falling for this shit?

After reading the article and spotting so much bullshit I felt it necessary to scour the web in search of the facts behind it, I decided to click on the author’s name to read his profile:

Mark Impomeni is neither a journalist, nor a pundit. He is a citizen with a keen interest in politics and national issues. He brings an everyman’s perspective to political happenings and strives to find the subtleties of political strategy behind even the most conventional political plays. Mark is an ideological conservative, although not a member of any political party.

Skeptical, argumentative, and in need of an outlet, Mark began writing political blogs as a diarist at RedState.com in the fall of 2005. After a year as a frequently recommended and promoted diarist there, Mark was invited to become a contributing editor in December 2006. He continues to post and edit at RedState. Mark also writes a column on the state of the 2008 presidential race for Political-Buzz.com.

Suddenly, the world makes sense again.  This guy isn’t a journalist, he’s a conservative dipshit.  I do like the vain attempt at neutrality in that first paragraph,”an ideological conservative, although not a member of any political party.”  Kiss my ass.  Nobody is fooled into thinking this guy votes anything but Republican on a regular basis.

——-

So what was Palin going to say at the rally anyway?

What am I saying?!

I can tell you what she’ll say about Iran and Ahmadinejad without even reading it.  This dolt is only capable of parroting Republican talking points.  So let’s see…

1)  She mentions state-sponsored terrorism, and the sending of Iranian troops into Iraq to fight Americans, something which the Bush administration has been claiming for awhile now, yet hasn’t substantiated it despite their supposed mountains of evidence.  Iran also denies the allegations.

2) She mentions Iranian nuclear ambitions.  She’ll say they have, had, or can make nukes, despite the NIE report which says the program was stopped back in 2003 due to international pressure–*GASP* that’s diplomacy–for them to suspend it.

3) She mentions threatening Israel and the Holocaust denying.  In the same breath, she will threaten Iran and/or Ahmedinejad with extermination, forget that we’ve systematically denied atrocities such as the Armenian genocide.  In essense, she’s going to make it look like we’re the aggressors to the Iranians, because she’s a tactless twit.

4) She’s going to put on her Dubya hat and claim that Iran is the gravest danger we’ve ever faced and that we must take action now or else the whole of Western civilization and our Democracy™ will be threatened.  I’ll bet a thousand bucks she doesn’t mention the American-backed CIA-incited coups that led to the overthrow of their democratically-elected leaders.  Any takers?

*reads the speech*

UGH!!!  Here’s the tally:

1. Dubya hat: “They must be stopped.”  (what have they done, exactly?)   Check.
2. Holocaust denial:  “Ahmadinejad denies that the Holocaust ever took place.” Check.
3. Destroying Israel:  “He has called Israel a “stinking corpse” that is “on its way to annihilation.”"  Check.
4. Nukes: “The Iranian government wants nuclear weapons.” (then lists all the NIE-debunked bullshit)  Check.
5. Iranians killing Americans in Iraq:  “Iran has armed and trained terrorists who have killed our soldiers in Iraq…”  Check.
6. State-Sponsored Terrorism:  “It is the no. 1 state sponsor of terrorism.” Check.
7. Threatening for War:  Surprisingly, no.  She instead danced around the issue and vaguely said we need to stop it, impose sanctions or otherwise discourage it.  Fail.

Six out of seven.  Not too shabby.  There were a few of other things I should have predicted but didn’t, such as making yet another hollow sales pitch for staying in Iraq.  I was reading along, checking things off my list when I found something that did surprise me:  an uncharacteristically long (for a Republican) mention of women’s rights in Iran.  Since when have wingnuts given a shit about womens’ rights in this country, let alone in the world?

Then I recognized it for what it was:  a setup.

Earlier this year, Senator Clinton said that “Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is in the forefront of that” effort. Senator Clinton argued that part of our response must include stronger sanctions, including the designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organization. John McCain and I could not agree more.

Senator Clinton understands the nature of this threat and what we must do to confront it. This is an issue that should unite all Americans. Iran should not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. Period. And in a single voice, we must be loud enough for the whole world to hear: Stop Iran!

So what the release of this speech does:  completely and unequivocally justifies Senator Clinton’s withdrawal from the event, while showing Republicans to be the shady, sleazy scumbags we thought they were.  Way to accuse the other side of partisan politics while planning to pull cheap shit like this.

Of course, this isn’t the only time in the past week they’ve done it.  In the proud tradition of misusing 9/11 for political gain, McCain throws in a presidential sales pitch at the end of his phony consolation concerning the terrorist attacks in Pakistan.  Hell, he didn’t even release a statement concerning the attacks in Yemen.  Compare that with Obama’s press releases available on his site.  Yet again, Obama shows class while McCain does not.

Headline: Fed bails out AIG in $85B deal

This officially sinks the long-held Conservative belief that the god-like “invisible hand” of the market is perfect.  What happened to keeping everything privatized?  Where did all your arguments for smaller government go?  Lying fuckin’ bastards.

Seriously, guys.  $85,000,000,000.00 on this, but we can only spare $59B on education?  Keep the population stupid, is that our plan now?

From the Associated Press:

White House defends takeover of AIG

By BEN FELLER – 33 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House on Wednesday defended the extraordinary federal takeover of sinking insurance giant American International Group Inc., framing it as another move to protect the economy and save people from further harm.

A White House spokeswoman did not rule out further bailouts.

In the most far-reaching intervention into the private sector ever for the Federal Reserve, the government stepped in Tuesday to rescue American International Group Inc. with an $85 billion injection of taxpayer money. The government will get almost an 80 percent stake in the company.

White House press secretary Dana Perino said that given AIG’s scope, the possible failure of the company posed a greater risk than the $85 billion loan. She said that taxpayers would be paid back first, but when asked whether taxpayers may not get their money back at all, she said, “That is true.”

“You have a government that is willing to lead, act where appropriate, and govern to make sure that we limit broader financial harm to the economy,” she said.

President Bush approved the loan for AIG at the White House on Tuesday after being presented with a recommendation from Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson during a meeting of economic advisers.

Perino said she understands why Americans would be confused that the government would be willing to put taxpayer money at risk for some companies and not others. “We are dealing with very challenging times,” she said, indicating that additional help to unstable companies will be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Perino said that according to the nation’s top economic officials, the U.S. economy has the strength to “deal with these shocks.”

Guess it’s okay to help the rich when the market is in trouble, but fuck you if you think about raising taxes to help the poor.  Lost your house?  That’s your fault.  You shouldn’t have taken that high-risk loan we hid by calling it “sub-prime.”  We’re not bailing you out of this, even though it was the market’s irresponsible loaning which caused it all.  Lost your pension?  Fuck you, the CEOs of that company deserve a 30-million-dollar golden parachute while you starve.

You’re on your own.  Instead, let’s spend everyone else’s money bailing out our fellow billionaires.  Jesus Christ, those guys are just barely scraping by!

How the hell do you people sleep at night?

(Thanks to Mahkno for pointing this out)

Mere hours ago, the U.S. Embassy in Yemen was attacked with gunfire and explosions, leaving 16 dead, including six attackers.  Yemen has been the scene of a string of terrorist incidents starting with the attack on the U.S.S. Cole in 2000.  According to the AFP, there are 3 weapons to every citizen and the country has been a hotbed of terrorist activity, especially Al Qaeda.  Let’s just say it’s not the kind of place you’d want to vacation.

The AFP refers to it as,”a major focus of the US “war against terror”,”  but with zero American military involvement.  Seriously, guys, when was the last time you remember seeing “The War in Yemen” plastered all over the media?  It has never happened.

Because the Republican Party has positioned itself as the one and only authority on all things “Terror,” (how ironically true!) they’re sure to blame this attack on Democrats.  Just you wait.  I’ll be tuning into Rush Limbaugh later today, and I’ll be damned if I don’t hear that retarded piece of shit blame Democrats for it.

That’s right.  They will be blamed for a terrorist attack against a U.S. Embassy… which are unpredictable by their very nature… in a severely hostile country… even though Republicans have been calling the shots both domestically and especially in foreign affairs for the past 8 years.  Oh, just wait.  The Dems will be pounded on foreign policy and homeland security–even though this happened in Yemen–and will be painted as weak and unpatriotic.

The Republicans, delusional cretins they are, will fancy themselves as the champions of the Global War On Terror™, even though their brutal and simplistic foreign policies failed to prevent it.  Even though Yemen has been cited as a major target in such a war, they attacked a country that by now all can agree posed no threat to us.

Don’t be surprised when I say I told you so.

——-

Let me take a moment to slap our collective consciousness here back into reality by addressing the Global War On Terror™  and the Bush Doctrine which right-wing foreign affairs guru Sarah Palin couldn’t begin to identify.

A “pre-emptive war” is a misnomer.  There is nothing “pre-emptive” about attacking another country which hasn’t attacked you.  When a child knocks down another child on the playground just in case the other child was going to push them first, we would call that child aggressive.  If the child did it based on what some older kids said because they thought they’d get some entertainment out of it, we’d say the child was manipulated.  Naivety is not an excuse for aggression when the child very well knows the difference between self-defense and outright socking another.

It’s disheartening that I feel it necessary to use a schoolyard playground as an example so certain people will understand.

I reiterate, there is nothing pre-emptive about attacking someone who hasn’t attacked you.  It is called aggression.  Afghanistan, despite our unwillingness to work with the ruling party prior to the war, was at least justifiable.  Iraq did nothing to us, period, let alone something that would warrant an unprovoked attack for the purposes of regime change, something which the International Criminal Court identifies as a war crime.

I think it’s pretty obvious by now there were myriad ulterior motives behind those who led us into this war.  While correlation does not imply causation and just because someone benefits from a situation doesn’t mean they caused it, this certainly paved the way for a very small amount of associated people to gain a whole lot of money.   One does not simply stand in the shadow of reasonable doubt and evidence to the contrary, then knowingly choose to ignore it unless they’ve something to gain by doing so. Think tobacco industry “medical experts.”

Conspiracy theory?  Maybe.  As long as you wingnuts admit the only reason you’re unwilling to consider it is because of your political affiliation.

If you were watching Larry King tonight, I’m sorry and I feel your pain.   Just about every one of the McCain campaign’s lies came up and instead of simply admitting “yeah, these aren’t true,” the Republican bottom-feeders on the program defended it and changed the subject every single time.

Ollie, you’re right–the gloves are coming off.  Jesus F. Christ, where do I begin?

Claim:  Barack Obama called Sarah Palin a pig - FALSE

What did Obama say?

“Let’s just list this for a second. John McCain says he’s about change, too. Except — and so I guess his whole angle is, “Watch out, George Bush, except for economic policy, health-care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy, and Karl Rove-style politics. We’re really gonna shake things up in Washington.” That’s not change. That’s just calling some — the same thing, something different. But you know, you can — you know, you can put lipstick on a pig; it’s still a pig.”

“Lipstick on a pig.”

A 2004 entry on urbandictionary.com describes the phrase as:

A term used by many, generally in reference to someone who may be trying to make something or someone look appealing or attractive when it quite clearly will not work, or will only deceive the dumbest of people. Car salesmen are generally good at “putting lipstick on a pig” because they are always selling unroadworthy buckets of shit and try and hide their shitfulness by tarting them up.   The dude in that car yard just put a body kit on that piece of shit. Talk about putting lipstick on a pig

Gee whiz, this phrase was around in 2004?  Somebody tell Sean Hannity’s fans!

Actually, the phrase is much, much older.  Older than anyone running, that’s for sure.  The only reason Republicans are pretending to be offended is because Sarah Palin described herself as a “pit bull with lipstick,” and, being Republicans and therefor ignorant of the world outside of their narrow, delusional vision of reality, were immediately certain the remark meant Obama is a sexist and was calling her a pig.  Mind you, that’s from the “how do we beat the bitch” party.

Claim:  Sarah Palin is a reformer who is tough on wasteful spending - FALSE

Palin isn’t a pig, she’s a lying idiot.  There’s an interesting article in USA Today about pork barrel spending.  To Senator McCain’s credit, Arizona ranks last on the list.  According to the same article, Alaska ranks first:

Arizona, the second fastest growing state in the nation, will receive just $18.70 per capita in federal earmarks this fiscal year. By comparison, Alaska — with roughly a tenth of Arizona’s population — is set to receive $506.34 per capita, the highest in the nation, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog group which tracks earmarks.

Holy shit!  For being the 47th most populous state, they sure are receiving the big bucks, aren’t they?  This completely debunks the claims that A) as governor, Sarah Palin was responsible about this type of spending and actively fought against it (if at all); and B) Senator Obama is corrupt and irresponsible when it comes to earmarks.  Speaking of that, why don’t we check to see what Illinois’ per-capita spending is?

Per the Associated Press:

Obama hasn’t asked for any earmarks this year. Last year, he asked for $311 million worth, about $25 for every Illinois resident.

In my neck of the woods, we’d call her a lying sack of shit.  Republicans, before you say it, the USA Today article wasn’t a Palin hit-piece.  Look at the date:  March, 2008.  This has been known for awhile, and in today’s world, with all our means of getting information, you have absolutely no excuse to remain this ignorant.

Claim:  Obama’s only accomplishment is making schools teach comprehensive sex-ed to kindergarteners - FALSE.

This is what pissed me off on Larry King tonight.  Like the others, this isn’t even open to interpretation:  it’s a flat-out lie.  CBS News has the truth:

The bill, introduced in the Illinois legislature, never became law. It called for non-mandatory sex education for grades K-12 that was “age and developmentally appropriate.” For kindergarteners, that included, among other things, “how to say no to unwanted sexual advances.”

Obama voted for the bill in committee and says he supports similar laws in other states. He said the point was to help parents teach their children how to deal with sexual predators.

Apparently, the pederast lobby is very influential in the Republican party.

The ad itself pisses me off, sure, but the Republicans on the show wouldn’t even concede on principle.  They just kept repeating “it’s not factually incorrect.”  Yes, you fucking lowlife, it is.

As I mentioned on a previous post, the Republicans would be so much more respectable if they’d just admit when they’re being shady bastards.

——-

The new McCain line of reasoning seems to be,”John McCain is the best candidate because he was bold and chose this bumpkin from Alaska who happens to be popular with our lowest common denominator (the Republican voting base), whereas Barack Obama is a typical politician who chose a seasoned statesman as his running mate.”  That was what one amazingly dull apologist said on Anderson Cooper tonight.  I turned off the TV afterwards because I was about to karate chop it into two half-televisions.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:  being a viable political maneuver does not make one qualified to be the Vice President of the United States.   How tacky.

——-

EDIT–I just checked Ollie’s blog, and he apparently hit two of these points already.  Even used the same CBS link, it looks like.  Whoops.

To C.J. Summers and Diane Vespa:  This is what we’re upset about.  Please stop trying to spin the issue.

Hat tip: blueollie.

Not all of them, just most of ‘em.  Case in point:

Tonight I was minding my own business picking up dinner.  I happened to be wearing my Obama/Biden ‘08 shirt.  When I entered the place, the first thing I hear is some pretentious shitbrick CEO-wannabe-looking private college business major dropout saying,”Oh God, an Obama supporter.”

Shitbrick then went on talking shit–at points repeating Rush Limbaugh verbatim–the entire time I was picking up my order.  I’ll bet the boyfriend his wife doesn’t know about was proud.

Really, I guess this post is more dedicated to my new favorite tool, Shitbrick:

Dear Shitbrick,

Damn those liberals and their high taxes!  You’re absolutely right:  those of us making six or more figures a year ought to be bitching about taxes.  As anyone can tell, we make more money than 80-90 percent of the population, which means we need it more than those who support our excessive, irresponsible lifestyles.

I mean, jeez, can you believe there are people out there who don’t play golf with the CEO for a living?  Why should our taxes go to support them?  It’s their own damn faults they’re poor anyway, because as logic dictates (and a fact everyone instinctively knows anyway) everybody on the planet can be millionaires like us.  All they have to do is vote Republican and be free market, trickle-down capitalists.   So when they get it through their stupid, poor heads that all they have to do is give more money to us rightfully rich people, they’ll become rich too.  If they can’t, it’s their own fault.  That’s just simple economics.

By the way, how many houses do you own?  Ever come home drunk after screwing your secretary and forget which one you’re in?  It’s not a big deal, I’m sure every trust fund baby has that problem.  Oh well, keep on ruling the world, you’re doing a great job at it.

Sieg Heil, brother!

Crook:  Pastor plagiarizes in Op-Ed article.

Crazy:  Christians complain that atheists are given same discount as churchgoers at government-sponsored event.

Crook:  The entire GOP.  Go figure.

Crazy:  Scroll down a bit.

Crazy Crooks:  Scientology is exclusively for gullible crazy people and thugs who will do anything for money.

Crazy:  Hell with it, here’s a big god damn list.

Crazy:  Crazy Muslim extremists are conservatives too!  (scroll down to picture at bottom).