Filed under: Uncategorized
I’ve been saying, since McCain announced Palin as his V.P. pick, that it was an irresponsible decision on McCain’s part that showed that he cares more about winning this election than he does about the country. Read here for an editorial that explains why. If you care about your country, you do not pick someone who is utterly unqualified to be your Vice President, particularly when you have a lengthy and recent history of serious health problems that could result in you having to undergo surgery and leave you V.P. pick temporarily in charge of the country’s nuclear arsenal. Or, worse yet, get sick or die, leaving your V.P. pick in charge of the country for the remainder of your term.
If you care about the country, you pick someone to be your running mate that is smart, qualified, and ready to help you tackle the significant challenges facing the country like war, economic crisis, rising health care costs, social security, immigration, and a ballooning national budget. Sarah Palin is not ready to assist McCain with anything other than cheerleading on his campaign and delivering peppy speeches read from a teleprompter.
Palin is not ready, and as the McCain campaign is forced to let her out more and more, it’s starting to show. Without a teleprompter or a former Bush aid supplying her lines, Palin is an utter disaster. In the interview with Katie Couric – that if you haven’t seen yet, you have to– Palin was a disaster. She reminded me of the fembots in Austin Powers who, when overridden with power started to malfunction, repeating the same nonsensical phrase over and over.
Couric, while somehow keeping a straight face, asked Palin what relevance Alaska’s proximity to Russia had to Palin’s alleged “foreign policy credentials.” Palin responded:
“It’s very important when you consider even national-security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the airspace of the United States of America. Where—where do they go? It’s Alaska. It’s just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to—to our state.”
WTF? Her argument, that she has foreign policy experience because she lives in a state that’s next to a foreign country is absurd. By her argument, all Alaskans have sufficient foreign policy experience to be the next leader of the free world. Her answer is also completely nonsensical – when Putin “rears his head”? What in god’s name is she talking about?
In her answer on the bailout, it was so clear that she was simply stringing together every soundbite ont the economy that the former Bush aides had stuffed her with during her crash course. Couric asked her why it wasn’t better to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families directly instead of bailing out Wall Street. Palin gave this completely nonsensical response:
“That’s why I say I, like every American I’m speaking with, were ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health-care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy, helping the—it’s got to be all about job creation, too, shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health-care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans. And trade, we’ve got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive, scary thing. But one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today, we’ve got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that.”
If this doesn’t show the dangers of last-minute cramming, I don’t know what does. There’s a reason people take college seriously – unlike Palin who haphazardly bounced around 5 colleges in 5 years, ending up with a journalism degree (a degree many journalists view as a joke) – and then go to graduate school for several more years to learn about foreign relations, public policy, law, health care, and economics. These are complicated subjects and it takes time and commitment to become educated on them. A crash course of soundbites might get your through a few cocktail parties, but it’s not going to keep the cracks in one’s knowledge from showing when asked serious questions by the media or when invited to debate these issues.
Until this point, Palin has demonstrated she’s a talented parrot, who can nail the lines fed her by Bush’s former aides and the McCain campaign. Event the most talented parrot or the best programmed fembot is going to crack, eventually, under the pressure of trying to act like something that she is not. In this case, despite Palin’s best efforts to read her lines the way the McCain camp wants her to, she can only fool herself and those watching for so long. Sooner or later – say, this Thursday at the Vice Presidential debates – the facade’s going to crack, the fembot’s going to malfunction spectacularly, and we will all see exactly how unqualified Palin is.
For the sake of the country, I’d much rather that the Palinbot self-combust this Thursday than after she gets farther along in this farce on the nation.
Check out this take on the influence of whit privilege in the current election, written by Tim Wise of ZSpace, “This is Your Nation on White Privilege.” I think he’s dead-on. See what you think:
For those who still can’t grasp the concept of white privilege, or who are constantly looking for some easy-to-understand examples of it, perhaps this list will help.
- White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like Bristol Palin and everyone is quick to insist that your life and that of your family is a personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you or your parents, because “every family has challenges,” even as black and Latino families with similar “challenges” are regularly typified as irresponsible, pathological and arbiters of social decay.
- White privilege is when you can call yourself a “fuckin’ redneck,” like Bristol Palin’s boyfriend does, and talk about how if anyone messes with you, you’ll “kick their fuckin’ ass,” and talk about how you like to “shoot shit” for fun, and still be viewed as a responsible, all-American boy (and a great son-in-law to be) rather than a thug.
- White privilege is when you can attend four different colleges in six years like Sarah Palin did (one of which you basically failed out of, then returned to after making up some coursework at a community college), and no one questions your intelligence or commitment to achievement, whereas a person of color who did this would be viewed as unfit for college, and probably someone who only got in in the first place because of affirmative action.
- White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town smaller than most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state with about the same number of people as the lower fifth of the island of Manhattan, makes you ready to potentially be president, and people don’t all piss on themselves with laughter, while being a black U.S. Senator, two-term state Senator, and constitutional law scholar, means you’re “untested.”
- White privilege is being able to say that you support the words “under God” in the pledge of allegiance because “if it was good enough for the founding fathers, it’s good enough for me,” and not be immediately disqualified from holding office–since, after all, the pledge was written in the late 1800s and the “under God” part wasn’t added until the 1950s–while believing that reading accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because, ya know, the Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school requires it), is a dangerous and silly idea only supported by mushy liberals.
- White privilege is being able to be a gun enthusiast and not make people immediately scared of you. White privilege is being able to have a husband who was a member of an extremist political party that wants your state to secede from the Union, and whose motto was “Alaska first,” and no one questions your patriotism or that of your family, while if you’re black and your spouse merely fails to come to a 9/11 memorial so she can be home with her kids on the first day of school, people immediately think she’s being disrespectful.
- White privilege is being able to make fun of community organizers and the work they do–like, among other things, fight for the right of women to vote, or for civil rights, or the 8-hour workday, or an end to child labor–and people think you’re being pithy and tough, but if you merely question the experience of a small town mayor and 18-month governor with no foreign policy expertise beyond a class she took in college–you’re somehow being mean, or even sexist.
- White privilege is being able to convince white women who don’t even agree with you on any substantive issue to vote for you and your running mate anyway, because all of a sudden your presence on the ticket has inspired confidence in these same white women, and made them give your party a “second look.”
- White privilege is being able to fire people who didn’t support your political campaigns and not be accused of abusing your power or being a typical politician who engages in favoritism, while being black and merely knowing some folks from the old-line political machines in Chicago means you must be corrupt.
- White privilege is being able to attend churches over the years whose pastors say that people who voted for John Kerry or merely criticize George W. Bush are going to hell, and that the U.S. is an explicitly Christian nation and the job of Christians is to bring Christian theological principles into government, and who bring in speakers who say the conflict in the Middle East is God’s punishment on Jews for rejecting Jesus, and everyone can still think you’re just a good church-going Christian, but if you’re black and friends with a black pastor who has noted (as have Colin Powell and the U.S. Department of Defense) that terrorist attacks are often the result of U.S. foreign policy and who talks about the history of racism and its effect on black people, you’re an extremist who probably hates America.
- White privilege is not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is when asked by a reporter, and then people get angry at the reporter for asking you such a “trick question,” while being black and merely refusing to give one-word answers to the queries of Bill O’Reilly means you’re dodging the question, or trying to seem overly intellectual and nuanced.
- White privilege is being able to claim your experience as a POW has anything at all to do with your fitness for president, while being black and experiencing racism is, as Sarah Palin has referred to it a “light” burden.
- And finally, white privilege is the only thing that could possibly allow someone to become president when he has voted with George W. Bush 90 percent of the time, even as unemployment is skyrocketing, people are losing their homes, inflation is rising, and the U.S. is increasingly isolated from world opinion, just because white voters aren’t sure about that whole “change” thing. Ya know, it’s just too vague and ill-defined, unlike, say, four more years of the same, which is very concrete and certain.
White privilege is, in short, the problem.
The above was written by Tim Wise and you can find the original source here.
Reproduced below is a letter from Anne Kilkenny (originally posted here), a woman from Wasilla, Alaska who fought against Palin’s efforts to fire the town librarian because the librarian wouldn’t remove certain books from the library. It’s an illuminating take on Palin from someone who saw first hand what Palin did as Mayor of Wasilla – including looking into how she could have books removed from the library that she didn’t like. (It was apparently news to Palins that some Alaskans did not take kindly to efforts to censor their library books).
Here is the letter, reproduced:
I think that one of the great things America and western democracies have contributed to the world is the ability to distinguish between disliking someone and disagreeing. We all need to work toward being able to agree to disagree. I like Sarah Palin. I disagree with her.
I wrote this letter to friends and family on August 31. It has since circulated throughout the Web.
About Sarah Palin:
I am a resident of Wasilla, Alaska. I have known Sarah since 1992. Everyone here knows Sarah, so it is nothing special to say we are on a first-name basis. Our children have attended the same schools. Her father was my child’s favorite substitute teacher. I also am on a first name basis with her parents and mother-in-law. I attended more city council meetings during her administration than about 99% of the residents of the city.
She is enormously popular; in every way she’s like the most popular girl in middle school. Even men who think she is a poor choice and won’t vote for her can’t quit smiling when talking about her because she is a “babe.”
It is astonishing and almost scary how well she can keep a secret. She kept her most recent pregnancy a secret from her children and parents for seven months.
She is pro-life. She recently gave birth to a Down’s syndrome baby. There is no cover-up involved, here; Trig is her baby.She is energetic and hardworking. She regularly worked out at the gym.
She is savvy. She doesn’t take positions; she just puts things out there and if they prove to be popular, then she takes credit.
Her husband works a union job on the North Slope for BP and is a champion snowmobile racer. Todd Palin’s kind of job is highly sought-after because of the schedule and high pay. He arranges his work schedule so he can fish for salmon in Bristol Bay for a month or so in summer, but by no stretch of the imagination is fishing their major source of income. Nor has her lifestyle ever been anything like that of native Alaskans.
Sarah and her whole family are avid hunters.
Her experience is as mayor of a city with a population of about 5,000 (at the time), and less than two years as governor of a state with about 670,000 residents.
During her mayoral administration most of the actual work of running this small city was turned over to an administrator. She had been pushed to hire this administrator by party power brokers after she had gotten herself into some trouble over precipitous firings, which had given rise to a recall campaign.
Sarah campaigned in Wasilla as a “fiscal conservative.” During her six years as mayor, she increased general government expenditures by over 33%. During those same six years, the amount of taxes collected by the city increased by 38%. This was during a period of low inflation (1996-2002). She reduced progressive property taxes and increased a regressive sales tax, which even taxed food. The tax cuts that she promoted benefited large corporate property owners way more than they benefited residents.
The huge increases in tax revenues during her mayoral administration weren’t enough to fund everything on her wish list though. Borrowed money was needed, too. She inherited a city with zero debt, but left it with indebtedness of over $22 million. What did Mayor Palin encourage the voters to borrow money for? Was it the infrastructure that she said she supported? The sewage treatment plant that the city lacked? Or a new library? No. $1 million for a park. $15 million-plus for construction of a multi-use sports complex, which she rushed through to build on a piece of property that the city didn’t even have clear title to. That was still in litigation seven years later — to the delight of the lawyers involved! The sports complex itself is a nice addition to the community but a huge money pit, not the profit generator she claimed it would be. She also supported bonds for $5.5 million for road projects that could have been done in 5-7 years without any borrowing.
While mayor, city hall was extensively remodeled and her office redecorated more than once.
These are small numbers, but Wasilla is a very small city.
As an oil producer, the high price of oil has created a budget surplus in Alaska. Rather than invest this surplus in technology that will make us energy independent and increase efficiency, as governor she proposed distribution of this surplus to every individual in the state.
In this time of record state revenues and budget surpluses, she recommended that the state borrow and bond for road projects, even while she proposed distribution of surplus state revenues: spend today’s surplus, borrow for needs.
She’s not very tolerant of divergent opinions or open to outside ideas or compromise. As mayor, she fought ideas that weren’t generated by her or her staff. Ideas weren’t evaluated on their merits, but on the basis of who proposed them.
While Sarah was mayor of Wasilla, she tried to fire our highly respected city librarian because the librarian refused to consider removing from the library some books that Sarah wanted removed. City residents rallied to the defense of the city librarian and against Palin’s attempt at out-and-out censorship, so Palin backed down and withdrew her termination letter. People who fought her attempt to oust the librarian are on her enemies list to this day.
Sarah complained about the “old boy’s club” when she first ran for mayor, so what did she bring Wasilla? A new set of “old boys.” Palin fired most of the experienced staff she inherited. At the city and as governor she hired or elevated new, inexperienced, obscure people, creating a staff totally dependent on her for their jobs and eternally grateful and fiercely loyal — loyal to the point of abusing their power to further her personal agenda, as she has acknowledged happened in the case of pressuring the state’s top cop (see below).
As mayor, Sarah fired Wasilla’s police chief because he “intimidated” her, she told the press. As governor, her recent firing of Alaska’s top cop has the ring of familiarity about it. He served at her pleasure and she had every legal right to fire him, but it’s pretty clear that an important factor in her decision to fire him was that he wouldn’t fire her sister’s ex-husband, a state trooper. Under investigation for abuse of power, she has had to admit that more than two dozen contacts were made between her staff and family to the person that she later fired, pressuring him to fire her ex-brother-in-law. She tried to replace the man she fired with a man who she knew had been reprimanded for sexual harassment; when this caused a public furor, she withdrew her support.
She has bitten the hand of every person who extended theirs to her in help. The city council person who personally escorted her around town, introducing her to voters when she first ran for Wasilla City Council, became one of her first targets when she was later elected Mayor. She abruptly fired her loyal city administrator; even people who didn’t like the guy were stunned by this ruthlessness.
Fear of retribution has kept all of these people from saying anything publicly about her.
When then-Governor Murkowski was handing out political plums, Sarah got the best, chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission: one of the few jobs not in Juneau and one of the best paid. She had no background in oil and gas issues. Within months of scoring this great job, which paid $122,400 per year, she was complaining in the press about the high salary. I was told that she hated that job: the commute, the structured hours, the work. Sarah became aware that a member of this commission (who was also the state chair of the Republican Party) engaged in unethical behavior on the job. In a gutsy move, which some undoubtedly cautioned her could be political suicide, Sarah solved all her problems in one fell swoop: got out of the job she hated and garnered gobs of media attention as the patron saint of ethics and as a gutsy fighter against the “old boys’ club” when she dramatically quit, exposing this man’s ethics violations (for which he was fined).
As mayor, she had her hand stuck out as far as anyone for pork from Senator Ted Stevens. Lately, she has castigated his pork-barrel politics and publicly humiliated him. She only opposed the “bridge to nowhere” after it became clear that it would be unwise not to.
As governor, she gave the legislature no direction and budget guidelines, then made a big grandstand display of line-item vetoing projects, calling them pork. Public outcry and further legislative action restored most of these projects — which had been vetoed simply because she was not aware of their importance — but with the unobservant she had gained a reputation as “anti-pork.”
She is solidly Republican: no political maverick. The state party leaders hate her because she has bit them in the back and humiliated them. Other members of the party object to her self-description as a fiscal conservative.
Around Wasilla there are people who went to high school with Sarah. They call her “Sarah Barracuda” because of her unbridled ambition and predatory ruthlessness. Before she became so powerful, very ugly stories circulated around town about shenanigans she pulled to be made point guard on the high school basketball team. When Sarah’s mother-in-law, a highly respected member of the community and experienced manager, ran for mayor, Sarah refused to endorse her.
As governor, she stepped outside of the box and put together a package of legislation known as AGIA, which forced the oil companies to march to the beat of her drum.
Like most Alaskans, she favors drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. She has questioned if the loss of sea ice is linked to global warming. She campaigned “as a private citizen” against a state initiative that would have either a) protected salmon streams from pollution from mines, or b) tied up in the courts all mining in the state (depending on who you listen to). She has pushed the state’s lawsuit against the Department of the Interior’s decision to list polar bears as threatened species.
McCain is the oldest person to ever run for president; Sarah will be a heartbeat away from being president.
There have to be literally millions of Americans who are more knowledgeable and experienced than her.
However, there’s a lot of people who have underestimated her and are regretting it.
Claim vs. Fact
- “Hockey mom:” true for a few years.
- “PTA mom:” true years ago when her first-born was in elementary school, not since.
- “NRA supporter:” absolutely true.
- Social conservative: mixed. Opposes gay marriage, but vetoed a bill that would have denied benefits to employees in same-sex relationships. (Said she did this because it was unconstitutional.)
- Pro-creationism: mixed. Supports it, but did nothing as governor to promote it.
- “Pro-life:” mixed. Knowingly gave birth to a Down’s syndrome baby, but declined to call a special legislative session on some pro-life legislation.
- “Experienced:” Some high schools have more students than Wasilla has residents. Many cities have more residents than the state of Alaska. No legislative experience other than city council. Little hands-on supervisory or managerial experience; needed help of a city administrator to run town of about 5,000.
- Political maverick: not at all.
- Gutsy: absolutely!
- Open and transparent: ??? Good at keeping secrets. Not good at explaining actions.
- Has a developed philosophy of public policy: no.
- “A greenie:” no. Turned Wasilla into a wasteland of big box stores and disconnected parking lots. Is pro-drilling off-shore and in ANWR.
- Fiscal conservative: not by my definition!
- Pro-infrastructure: no. Promoted a sports complex and park in a city without a sewage treatment plant or storm drainage system. Built streets to early 20th century standards.
- Pro-tax relief: lowered taxes for businesses, but increased tax burden on residents
- Pro-small government: no. Oversaw greatest expansion of city government in Wasilla’s history.
- Pro-labor/pro-union: no. Just because her husband works union doesn’t make her pro-labor. I have seen nothing to support any claim that she is pro-labor/pro-union.
Why Am I Writing This?
First, I have long believed in the importance of being an informed voter. I am a voter registrar. For 10 years I put on student voting programs in the schools. If you Google my name, you will find references to my participation in local government, education, and PTA/parent organizations.
Secondly, I’ve always operated in the belief that bad things happen when good people stay silent. Few people know as much about Palin as I do because few have gone to as many city council meetings.
Third, I am just a housewife. I don’t have a job she can bump me out of. I don’t belong to any organization that she can hurt. But, I am no fool; she is immensely popular here, and it is likely that this will cost me somehow in the future. That’s life.
Fourth, she has hated me since back in 1996, when I was one of the 100 or so people who rallied to support the city librarian against Sarah’s attempt at censorship.
Fifth, I looked around and realized that everybody else was afraid to say anything because they were somehow vulnerable.
I am not a statistician. I developed the numbers for the increase in spending and taxation two years ago (when Palin was running for governor) from information supplied to me by the finance director of the city of Wasilla, and I can’t recall exactly what I adjusted for: did I adjust for inflation? For population increases? Right now, it is impossible for a private person to get any info out of city hall — they are swamped. So I can’t verify my numbers.
You may have noticed that there are various numbers circulating for the population of Wasilla, ranging from my “about 5,000” up to 9,000. The day Palin’s selection was announced a city official told me that the current population is about 7,000. The official 2000 census count was 5,460. I have used about 5,000 because Palin was mayor from 1996 to 2002, and the city was growing rapidly in the mid-90s.
Filed under: Uncategorized
Check out this great blog by Momocrats against McCani and Palin. You can find it here. There is a ton of information about the candidates, video clips, and great posts.
Filed under: Flip-Flop, GOP Hypocrisy, McCain, Palin, Religious Right, Women's Rights
The Republicans – so-called “strict constructionalists” – are constantly, self-righteously crying out ad nauseum that the Constitution should be interpreted strictly in accordance with how the Founding Fathers allegedly intended it to be. Because apparently since only the Founding Fathers mattered in 1776, only they should matter now.
What they fail to comprehend is that what made the Founding Fathers great, in certain ways, was that they saw the limitations of their time, sex, class and race, and founded the United States upon principles greater than themselves. In the Constitution, they created a living, flexible body of legal principles that envisioned the possibility of the United States growing into a Nation where slavery was abolished, where women of all races had the right to vote, and where all people had equality and liberty under the law.
Despite taking the position that the Constitution should be “strictly interpreted,” even Republicans have to back down from this extreme position when faced with the absurd end point of their position. When questioned directly about exactly how “strict” the interpretation is supposed to be in their view, the Republicans (including McCain – Palin probably doesn’t even know what “strict constructionalism” is) flip-flop. They have to, because strict constructionalism would mean a return to how things were in 1776, including no rights for people of color or women.
This was pointed out to McCain recently on “The View” when he appeared on September 12 and explained his belief that the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with what the Founding Fathers wanted back in 1776. Blah blah blah. He stated: “I want people who interpret the Constitution the way our Founding Fathers envisioned for them to do.” In response, Whoopie Goldberg asked him the obvious question: “Should I be worried about being a slave, that we’d be returned to slavery, because certain things happened in the Constitution that you had to change.”
Confronted with such a piercing example of the problems inherent with taking strict constructionalism endpoint, McCain had to back down from the view he had just expressed a minute before and flip-flop on his stated position. Shaking his head, he thanked Whoopie for making the implicit point that strict constructionalism is absurd and unreasonable when taken to extremes, saying “That’s an excellent point and I thank you for it.”
So, if McCain doesn’t want to bring back slavery, and is not in fact a strict“strict constructionalist,” than why does he keep saying that the Constitution should be interpreted strictly? The answer is one word: Abortion. This is just one more example of McCain pandering to the religious right, and their one-issue-obsession with abortion politics. Apparently, the anti-choice brigade is so obsessed with controlling women’s bodies that it’s willing to put the entire country in even more jeopardy than it already is in (given the crashing markets and economic disasters littering Wall Street) by risking putting a completely unqualified and incompetent individual one 70-year old man’s heartbeat away from the Presidency.
In actuality, McCain doesn’t really believe in strict constructionalism – he just believes in interpreting the Constitution the way his anti-choice supporters want him to: against Roe v. Wade. Like choosing Palin as his running mate, McCain’s position on strict constitutionalism is just one more example of how he’ll do anything, compromise any position, flip-flop on any issue, in order to win the election.
A more accurate way of describing McCain’s approach to Constitutional interpretation, rather than “strict constructionalism” (which he’s clearly not), would be to call it “religious constructionalism. Or perhaps just “anti-choice constructionalism.” Because that’s really what it comes down to for McCain’s conservative base of supporters – doing anything they can to limit women’s rights to control their own bodies and destinies. Oh, and guns. I almost forgot guns.
McCain’s conservative supporters are against the Government regulating guns but for the Government regulating women’s bodies – and because McCain’s religious conservative supporters are for it, so is McCain. If the guns could talk, they’d probably thank the Conservatives for their unfettered support, but they can’t, so instead they’ll just keep on killing deer, school children, and cops.
When you think about it, I mean really think about it, in a way that Palin hasn’t done about most of the national and global issues currently facing the country, it’s quite ludicrous that guns have more rights than women.
And, let’s talk about the deer for just a minute. The poor deer in the picture that Palin keeps holding aloft like an NRA badge of honor. The poor deer with it’s throat ripped out and blood pouring down it’s body, pooling on the ground, with Palin kneeling above it’s life-less eyes, with a beaming smile on her face. We’re supposed to buy that she’s pro-life?
How exactualy does such a blatant glorification of death square with her alleged “pro-life” position? Again, Palin’s not really for life. She’s against choice. There’s a difference and it’s an important one.
In 1776, the people living on what would become United States soil needed guns – we were living under the tyranny of the British Crown and we had just finished a revolution. We had more skirmishes to fight with other countries about borders and of course the Native Americans with whom we were also fighting about land (however wrongly). Back in 1776, women didn’t have rights, among other things, to education, to vote, to work, to marry who they wanted, or to decide when to bear a child or when not to. People of color also didn’t have rights across the board, and many were enslaved.
I don’t know about you, but despite how far we have to go, we’ve come a long way, and I for one am glad we’re not living in 1776 any more. I’m grateful that the Founding Fathers, despite the limitations of their time, thought beyond their moment in history and beyond their male bodies, and memorialized in the Constitution principles, such as liberty and equality, that were greater than themselves. What would the Founding Fathers say to learn that people like McCain and Justices like Scalia and Thomas, more than 200 years later, after all the gains we’ve made in building a more equal and free society, want to turn back to the clock to the days just after we won our freedom from Britain? They’d probably congratulate themselves on their forethought in establishing the checks and balances of our three branches of Government.
They’re always going to be individual crazies that want to impose their short-sighted view on the majority, but we’re a democracy, and we can make this country what we want it to be. We can can make it more free and more equal, or we can make it less so.
It’s our choice. It’s your choice. Vote.
“What’s the difference between Palin and Bush? Lipstick.”
If it wasn’t so true it would be funny.