Palin on Almadinejad

WhatGov Palin would have said had she not been disinvited

I am honored to be with you and with leaders from across this great country — leaders from different faiths and political parties united in a single voice of outrage.

Tomorrow, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will come to New York — to the heart of what he calls the Great Satan — and speak freely in this, a country whose demise he has called for.

Ahmadinejad may choose his words carefully, but underneath all of the rhetoric is an agenda that threatens all who seek a safer and freer world. We gather here today to highlight the Iranian dictator's intentions and to call for action to thwart him.

He must be stopped.

The world must awake to the threat this man poses to all of us. Ahmadinejad denies that the Holocaust ever took place. He dreams of being an agent in a "Final Solution" — the elimination of the Jewish people. He has called Israel a "stinking corpse" that is "on its way to annihilation." Such talk cannot be dismissed as the ravings of a madman — not when Iran just this summer tested long-range Shahab-3 missiles capable of striking Tel Aviv, not when the Iranian nuclear program is nearing completion, and not when Iran sponsors terrorists that threaten and kill innocent people around the world.

The Iranian government wants nuclear weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency reports that Iran is running at least 3,800 centrifuges and that its uranium enrichment capacity is rapidly improving. According to news reports, U.S. intelligence agencies believe the Iranians may have enough nuclear material to produce a bomb within a year.

The world has condemned these activities. The United Nations Security Council has demanded that Iran suspend its illegal nuclear enrichment activities. It has levied three rounds of sanctions. How has Ahmadinejad responded? With the declaration that the "Iranian nation would not retreat one iota" from its nuclear program.

So, what should we do about this growing threat? First, we must succeed in Iraq. If we fail there, it will jeopardize the democracy the Iraqis have worked so hard to build, and empower the extremists in neighboring Iran. Iran has armed and trained terrorists who have killed our soldiers in Iraq, and it is Iran that would benefit from an American defeat in Iraq.

If we retreat without leaving a stable Iraq, Iran's nuclear ambitions will be bolstered. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons — they could share them tomorrow with the terrorists they finance, arm, and train today. Iranian nuclear weapons would set off a dangerous regional nuclear arms race that would make all of us less safe.

But Iran is not only a regional threat; it threatens the entire world. It is the no. 1 state sponsor of terrorism. It sponsors the world's most vicious terrorist groups, Hamas and Hezbollah. Together, Iran and its terrorists are responsible for the deaths of Americans in Lebanon in the 1980s, in Saudi Arabia in the 1990s, and in Iraq today. They have murdered Iraqis, Lebanese, Palestinians, and other Muslims who have resisted Iran's desire to dominate the region. They have persecuted countless people simply because they are Jewish.

Iran is responsible for attacks not only on Israelis, but on Jews living as far away as Argentina. Anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial are part of Iran's official ideology and murder is part of its official policy. Not even Iranian citizens are safe from their government's threat to those who want to live, work, and worship in peace. Politically-motivated abductions, torture, death by stoning, flogging, and amputations are just some of its state-sanctioned punishments.

It is said that the measure of a country is the treatment of its most vulnerable citizens. By that standard, the Iranian government is both oppressive and barbaric. Under Ahmadinejad's rule, Iranian women are some of the most vulnerable citizens.

If an Iranian woman shows too much hair in public, she risks being beaten or killed.

If she walks down a public street in clothing that violates the state dress code, she could be arrested.

But in the face of this harsh regime, the Iranian women have shown courage. Despite threats to their lives and their families, Iranian women have sought better treatment through the "One Million Signatures Campaign Demanding Changes to Discriminatory Laws." The authorities have reacted with predictable barbarism. Last year, women's rights activist Delaram Ali was sentenced to 20 lashes and 10 months in prison for committing the crime of "propaganda against the system." After international protests, the judiciary reduced her sentence to "only" 10 lashes and 36 months in prison and then temporarily suspended her sentence. She still faces the threat of imprisonment.

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!

Only by working together, across national, religious, and political differences, can we alter this regime's dangerous behavior. Iran has many vulnerabilities, including a regime weakened by sanctions and a population eager to embrace opportunities with the West. We must increase economic pressure to change Iran's behavior.

Tomorrow, Ahmadinejad will come to New York. On our soil, he will exercise the right of freedom of speech — a right he denies his own people. He will share his hateful agenda with the world. Our task is to focus the world on what can be done to stop him.

We must rally the world to press for truly tough sanctions at the U.N. or with our allies if Iran's allies continue to block action in the U.N. We must start with restrictions on Iran's refined petroleum imports.

We must reduce our dependency on foreign oil to weaken Iran's economic influence.

We must target the regime's assets abroad; bank accounts, investments, and trading partners.

President Ahmadinejad should be held accountable for inciting genocide, a crime under international law.

We must sanction Iran's Central Bank and the Revolutionary Guard Corps — which no one should doubt is a terrorist organization.

Together, we can stop Iran's nuclear program.

Senator McCain has made a solemn commitment that I strongly endorse: Never again will we risk another Holocaust. And this is not a wish, a request, or a plea to Israel's enemies. This is a promise that the United States and Israel will honor, against any enemy who cares to test us. It is John McCain's promise and it is my promise.

Thank you.

See also Jennifer Rubin's report at PJM.

Sources say the axes were out for Palin as soon as Sen. Clinton pulled out because she did not want to attend the same event as the Republican vice presidential candidate. “I have never seen such raw emotion — on both sides,” said someone close to the situation. The groups sponsoring the rally against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaking at the UN were reportedly told, “it could jeopardize their tax exempt status” if they had Palin and not Clinton or Democratic VP candidate Joe Biden on hand. . . .”It’s an absolute shame that this has happened,” Hikind said. “To threaten organizations … to threaten the Conference of Presidents that if you don’t withdraw the invitation to Gov. Palin we’re going to look into your tax exempt status … that’s McCarthyism.”

and from the AP

Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin told supporters Friday that "Democrat partisans" had pressured organizers of an anti-Iran rally in New York next week to withdraw an invitation for her to appear. "This should be an issue that unites all Americans. Iran should not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, period," Palin said at a rally here. "Unfortunately, some Democrat partisans put politics first and now no elected official can appear. This should not be a matter of partisan politics."

NObama

Why he cannot be allowed to become PotUS.

Obama v Petraeus

Palin on Fox 2: Energy, Reform, and Experience.

Another good show by Palin. Some will complain that Hannity was too soft on her. Well let’s think about what is the purpose on a political interview? Most important is to learn more about the interviewee. Did we learn more about Palin? Definitely. We learned what she intends her role to be as vice President: advance energy independence and reform Washington. Energy independence is clearly within her realm of expertise as Governor of Alaska. And this will serve her well even in foreign policy. After all, isn't the thrust of international relation is firstly to enhance trade and secondly alliance for security? The essence of trade is the exchange of resources we need for products we do not. And the most important resource we need currently is energy/oil. And in the process of acquiring the necessary energy resources from the Middle East, Venezuela, or Central Asia, we have put our national security at risk. Maintaining the energy resource perspective in international relation for trade and security is an imperative.
Regarding reform, I am skeptical anyone can reform Washington Beltway culture, at least with Congress as is. The time for reform will likely manifests in 2010, and perhaps take hold in 2012. This is regardless of who wins the 08 election. But the position best able to affect change in DC is the Vice President. The VP can bridge both the executive branch and Congress. Among the four persons running, Obama, Biden, McCain, and Palin, only Palin have demonstrated the ability to do so.

Finally I want to share some thoughts regarding the experience argument against Palin. Lets rephrase the question and look at what makes a good leader a good leader. Well certainly his/her stance on issues matter, but if this is all that is expected then he/she will only function as a manager rather than a leader. A good leader is someone who can face unexpected challenge and overcome them. And the important factor to consider is that there will be unexpected challenge waiting in our future. (Such as was 911, and how W came through have endeared him to my heart. Not only did he react in Afghanistan, he then acted in Iraq! And when things did not go as planned or expected in Iraq, he stood firm against the defeatists in Congress as well as the Pentagon!) Thus it is essential that our leader has good judgment. While it is true that experience can lead to good judgment, good judgment is not a derivative of experience! Good judgment requires smarts, insight, resolve, and moral vision. All these things Palin has. Her record as mayor and governor has clearly demonstrated her good judgment.


see also "One of our own made it" at Powerline regarding Palin.

Palin on Fox 1: Personable, Knowledgeable and the Financial Crisis

I think she did very well. She came across as personable, knowledgeable, and enthused and economics, energy, and reform. Her role as VP to push for energy independence and reform will be formidable challenge for anyone to tackle.

For me, she did much better than her Convention Speech because she was so much more substantive!

I want to in particular respond to one of her comment regarding the current financial/Wall Street crisis.
I believe capitalism is the best system to deliver wealth to the people. I recognize though that some will not gain, but all should have the opportunity to prosper. I am for less government regulation and intervention in the economy. If given freedom to act, individuals of ability and vision will produce more than central planning by the central government. Regulation stifles innovation.

A large part of this current financial crisis is due to unreasonably low interest rate by the Feds in order to stimulate the economy of the past several years. (Again, no "good deed" goes unpunished.) But this in itself would have been insufficient to generate the current crisis without active exploitation by certain capitalists. The root of the current financial crisis arise from too much easy money being loaned out to those who could not be reasonably be expected to repay the loan at a standard rate. Were these loans given to help these "underserved" people? I seriously doubt it. Thus these loans were made inorder to make money for the lender. Thus while it may seem trite to blame Wall Street's greed, unchecked greed is an intrinsic part of the problem.

For capitalism to work the capitalists must act with responsibility and respect for their client and customers. But no system is fool proof and I would still much rather suffer the failures of unrestricted greed than the burdensome dictates of faceless bureaucracy.


see also Right Wingsparkle on Biden v. Palin regarding the bail out.

Democratic Party War Room

Rivetting
but not enough "duh"s

Palin & Troopergate

Since Palin was announced, three issues have dogged her. First was her experience. Second was Troopergate. Third was earmarks and the bridge to nowhere. Thus far the earmark as well as the bridge to nowhere issue is fading as an issue as the facts reveal themselves. Next up is Troopergate, and now from Hot Air:

Sarah Palin issued a response to the Troopergate investigation yesterday by releasing internal memoranda that show Walt Monegan got fired for insubordination on budget matters and not because of his refusal to fire Palin’s former brother-in-law. Monegan went behind Palin’s back to attempt to revive a project Palin had vetoed, which “stunned” the Office of Management and Budget Director. On another occasion, Monegan held a press conference with Hollis French to dissent from Palin’s budget priorities — the same Hollis French pushing the ethics complaint against Palin:

Walt Monegan lost his job as public safety director because he resisted Gov. Sarah Palin’s budget policies and showed “outright insubordination,” say papers the governor’s lawyer filed Monday with the state Personnel Board.

It was Palin’s strongest effort yet to snuff allegations she sacked Monegan because he refused to fire a state trooper involved in an ugly divorce with the governor’s sister.

Along with the papers filed Monday were a slew of e-mails from the governor’s office purporting to show Monegan’s “rogue mentality” as a member of Palin’s Cabinet.

In one message, the governor’s budget director, Karen Rehfeld, wrote that she was “stunned and amazed” that Monegan appeared to be working with a powerful state legislator, Anchorage Republican Rep. Kevin Meyer, to seek funding for a project Palin previously had vetoed.

According to the papers filed by Palin’s legal team, that was not the only instance of insubordination from Monegan:

* 12/9/07: Monegan holds a press conference with Hollis French to push his own budget plan.
* 1/29/08: Palin’s staffers have to rework their procedures to keep Monegan from bypassing normal channels for budget requests.
* February 2008: Monegan publicly releases a letter he wrote to Palin supporting a project she vetoed.
* June 26, 2008: Monegan bypassed the governor’s office entirely and contacted Alaska’s Congressional delegation to gain funding for a project.

Seems Palin did the absolutely the right thing to fire him! This "scandal" too will pass. Next up is her experience and thus far, with the earmarks and Troopergate, then her good judgment will guide her well regardless of her experience. Not to mention her success as a Governor.

HT Althouse

Update Laura Ingraham vs David Brooks on Palin, Experience & Elitism

Palin & Earmarks

From the WSJ Palin's Project List Totals $453 Million

It does state that prior to Palin's first year as governor, $350 millions was requested. Her first year it was cut to $257, and for her second year, cut again to $197.
But the rest of the article was rather superficial (surprisingly so for the WSJ).

These projects include more than $130 million in federal funds that would benefit Alaska's fishing industry and an additional $9 million to help Alaska oil companies. She also has sought $4.5 million to upgrade an airport on a Bering Sea island that has a year-round population of less than 100.

Perfunction reveals that "an airport on a Bering Sea island that has a year-round population of less than 100" is

According to this document (PDF; thanks, Ed), the Aleutian backwater that needs an airport upgrade is Adak Island. (Example of more WSJ sloppiness: the amount is $3.2 million, not $4.5 million).

OUTRAGE! How dare Palin attempt to pork up some ghost town speck of rock in the Pacific? Airport to Nowhere indeed! There's no good reason for this federal spending.

Or is there?

Adak Island is the new home port of the newest sensor in the US ballistic missile defense (BMD) system, the one-of-a-kind Sea-Based X-Band Radar (SBX):

The SBX has been on station off the coast of Adak since early 2007, and played a key role in tracking/targeting the toxic spy satellite shoot-down this past February. Positioned in the North Pacific, the SBX is ready to detect ICBMs launched from Asia towards the US:

[Missile Defense Agency Director] Obering said this radar is so powerful that if it were located in Chesapeake Bay, it could track an object the size of a baseball over San Francisco.

While stationed off Adak, the SBX's crew of 85 will be frequently transiting through the island's airport. With Adak's harsh weather and usually socked-in conditions, it seems that $3.2 million is a small price to pay for the safe transport of this important crew.

Patterico tells us what the other earmarks are for:

“Meets the increased needs under the Magnuson-Stevens Act for developing regional fishery coordinated databases.”

“This is an ongoing effort to collect data on the recreational hailbut fishery that is conducted by federal agencies though relying on the state for data.”

“Provides state funding for management of federal fisheries, including Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands king crab and tanner crab, weathervane scallops and groundfish.”

“To meet federal obligation to enhance Sockeye salmon production, the state operates an enhancement unit at an existing hatercy and conducts fish monitoring. The work is completed cooperatively with the Canadian government.”

“Provides ongoing funding for programs that mitigate that impacts of harvest reductions imposed by the Pacific Salmon Treaty on Alaskan fisheries and coastal communities.”

“Funds Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and Northwest Treaty Indian Tribes in meeting federal obligations under Pacific Salmon Treaty.”

“Funds monitoring of ice seal populations in Native Villages, research on species delineation and genetics of harbor seals to understand the declines in population and provide for population restoration, and continues research into Stellar Sea Lion population decline.”

“Allows State of Alaska to monitor Yukon River salmon and provide information necessary to support negotiations between US and Canada under Yukon River Salmon Agreement.”

“To continue necessary airport upgrading after transfer of the Naval Air Station (Adak) to the State.”

“Continued funding to address the challenges of NCLB (No Child Left Behind) as it relates to teacher quality and student achievement. It provides trained, full-release mentors for beginning teachers and principals.”

“Funds State of Alaska for implementation of federal obligations under Yukon River Treaty.”

“To complete a communication facility to support the 168th Air Refueling Wing’s 8 PAA KC 135 aircraft.”

The more I look into her beyond what the MSM are reporting, the more I like her candidacy.
btw, Governors cannot request earmarks, only Congress can.

See also Earmarks, Palin & the Bridge to Nowhere

W: CiC

From Blackfive. Please read it all!

On Dec. 10, 2006, our son, Shawn, was a paratrooper deployed on the outskirts of Baghdad . He was supposed to spend the night in camp, but when a fellow soldier became ill Shawn volunteered to take his place on a nighttime patrol--in the convoy's most exposed position as turret gunner in the lead Humvee. He was killed instantly with two other soldiers when an IED ripped through their vehicle.

I was thinking about that as my family and I sat in the audience listening to the President's speech, looking at the turret on the up-armored Humvee the explosive ordnance disposal flight had put at the edge of the stage as a static display.

When the speech was over and the President was working the crowd line, I felt a tap on my shoulder and turned to see a White House staff member. She asked me and my wife to come with her, because the President wanted to meet us.

Stunned, we grabbed our two sons that were with us and followed her back into a conference room. It was a shock to go from a crowded, noisy hangar, past all of those security people, to find ourselves suddenly alone in a quiet room.

The only thing we could hear was a cell phone vibrating, and noticed that it was coming from the jacket Senator Stevens left on a chair. We didn't answer.

A short time later, the Secret Service opened the door and President Bush walked in. I thought we might get to shake his hand as he went through. But instead, he walked up to my wife with his arms wide, pulled her in for a hug and a kiss, and said, "I wish I could heal the hole in your heart." He then grabbed me for a hug, as well as each of our sons. Then he turned and said, "Everybody out."

A few seconds later, the four of us were completely alone behind closed doors with the President of the United States and not a Secret Service agent in sight.

He said, "Come on, let's sit down and talk." He pulled up a chair at the side of the room, and we sat down next to him. He looked a little tired from his trip, and he noticed that his shoes were scuffed up from leaning over concrete barriers to shake hands and pose for photos. He slumped down the chair, completely relaxed, smiled, and suddenly was no longer the President - he was just a guy with a job, sitting around talking with us like a family member at a barbeque.

For the next 15 or 20 minutes, he talked with us about our son, Iraq , his family, faith, convictions, and shared his feelings about nearing the end of his presidency. He asked each of our teenaged sons what they wanted to do in life and counseled them to set goals, stick to their convictions, and not worry about being the "cool" guy.

He said that he'd taken a lot of heat during his tenure and was under a lot of pressure to do what's politically expedient, but was proud to say that he never sold his soul. Sometimes he laughed, and at others he teared up. He said that what he'll miss most after leaving office will be his role as Commander in Chief.

One of the somber moments was when he thanked us for the opportunity to meet, because he feels a heavy responsibility knowing that our son died because of a decision he made. He was incredibly humble, full of warmth, and completely without pretense. We were seeing the man his family sees.

We couldn't believe how long he was talking to us, but he seemed to be in no hurry whatsoever. In the end, he thanked us again for the visit and for the opportunity to get off his feet for a few minutes. He then said, "Let's get some pictures." The doors flew open, Secret Service and the White House photographer came in, and suddenly he was the President again. We posed for individual pictures as he gave each of us one of his coins, and then he posed for family pictures. A few more thank yous, a few more hugs, and he was gone.

The remarkable thing about the whole event was that he didn't have to see us at all. If he wanted to do more, he could've just given a quick handshake and said, "Thanks for your sacrifice." But he didn't - he put everything and everyone in his life on hold to meet privately with the family of a Private First Class who gave his life in the service of his country.

I recently bought a T shirt with a political message on it for the first time in my life. It was to thank W. I am glad i did.

Palin v Gibson/MSM 2

Some additional thoughts on Palin interview with Gibson this past week as well as with Hannity this comming week.

Bush Doctrine. All head-of-states believe in pre-emption when you have good info that you are about to be attacked (unless you believe the conspiracy that FDR let Pearl Harbor get bombed in order to enter WW2). The difference with W is two fold. Firstly, "if you harbor those who attack us, we have a right to attack you." This is a much more aggressive stance than pre-emption alone. This was his doctrine in his first term but this was a reactive doctrine. Secondly, W's doctrine now also includes support of Democracy as the counter for islamofascist radicalism. He amended it in his second term to include a proactive arm. Whether Palin knew this I cannot say with certainty, but it was clear that Gibson did not.

Gibson. He was likely chosen from the big 4 (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN) because he might have been viewed as the most fair. There has been suggestion that Gibson was chosen by the McCain camp because he was a Republican. Whether he is a Republican or not is irrelevant, or at least too simplistic. Two things should be considered. Firstly is that he is a Washington insider and well entrenched in MSM. Even if he was conscious of elistism from being both I doubt he could counter it. I thought he was more elitist than biased. The fact that Palin is an outsider has rattled the establishment on the right and the left. The Left is just more shrill about it. Secondly, there was significant editing of the interview and what complete transcript is available so far, the broadcast edit clearly suggest bias of the producer, which may not have been clearly anticipated by the McCain camp.

Hannity. I don't think he interviews. He either confronts or re-inforce his own bias. But this interview is not meant to inform the independent voters like the Gibson interview (which was more an introduction to the voters). The Hannity interview is more about rallying the base again as well as reassure the hold out on the right that she is still better than Obama. Both really are just warm up for her real interview which will be against Biden in the VP Debate.

Palin v Gibson/MSM

For those who wondered why the interview was so choppy, it was obviously from editing. And if you wondered what was edited out, here is some of what was edited out.

GIBSON: Let’s start, because we are near Russia, let’s start with Russia and Georgia.

The administration has said we’ve got to maintain the territorial integrity of Georgia. Do you believe the United States should try to restore Georgian sovereignty over South Ossetia and Abkhazia?

PALIN: First off, we’re going to continue good relations with Saakashvili there. I was able to speak with him the other day and giving him my commitment, as John McCain’s running mate, that we will be committed to Georgia. And we’ve got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable and we have to keep…

GIBSON: You believe unprovoked.

PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there. I think it was unfortunate. That manifestation that we saw with that invasion of Georgia shows us some steps backwards that Russia has recently taken away from the race toward a more democratic nation with democratic ideals. That’s why we have to keep an eye on Russia.

And, Charlie, you’re in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They’re very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor.

GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?

PALIN: They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.

GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they’re doing in Georgia?

PALIN: Well, I’m giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.

Sarah Palin on Russia:

We cannot repeat the Cold War. We are thankful that, under Reagan, we won the Cold War, without a shot fired, also. We’ve learned lessons from that in our relationship with Russia, previously the Soviet Union.

We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.

There is much more from the link, as there are much more we haven't even seen. Palin's answers are even better then I had thought!
Stupid MSM and their bias.

HT: Newsbuster

Feminism: Actions vs Words

Who is more for women in the workplace, Obama or McCain?

Using the public information compiled on the Web site of the non-partisan group Legistorm, Murdock concludes that, on average, women in McCain's office are paid more than the men in McCain's office -- $1.04 for every dollar a man makes. Men in Obama's office make more than women do; female employees make 83 cents for every dollar made by male employees.

Murdock frames this as an issue of pay equity, but it's not really -- if anything, it's more a matter of a "glass ceiling."

(Or, at least, that's what feminist groups would likely be saying if the situations were reversed.)

Only one of Obama's five best-paid Senate staffers is a woman. Of McCain's five best-paid Senate staffers, three are women.

Of Obama's top 20 salaried Senate staffers, seven are women. Of McCain's top 20 salaried Senate staffers, 13 are women.

True that McCain is more senior and may have a larger budget just because he has a larger budget does not mean his women staff will be paid more than his men staff. Nor does it mean that he will have more women on his staff either does it.

Also true that Obama has many high powered women on his staff but that he has women on campaign staff does not mean they outnumber the men, or are paid equivalent.

What this exemplifies is that it would be a mistake for feminists to latch themselves onto political parties rather than endorsing candidates based on their records of feminism. Even if your most valued issue is abortion there are plenty of pro-choice republicans and pro-life democrats. When you are too allied to one party or another, you will eventually be taken for granted. It seems to me this has been the case with the Dems and feminists.

Feminists should broaden your influence by adhering to feminist issues and candidates rather than political parties.

And in this election, it seems to me that McCain is more of the feminist than Obama is.

Commonsense Advice for McCain/Palin

Here are my thoughts on how McCain/Palin could (should?) run their campaign until November 4, 2008.

Firstly, stay above the fray. I love that on the night of Obama's historic speech, McCain aired a congratulatory message to Obama. This was then followed by Palin's acknowledgment of Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Clinton tremendous precedence for women in the campaign for the PotUS office. Even in his acceptance speech, McCain acknowledged Obama's patriotism. People respect and admire politicians who can stay above the bickering and especially those who can be gracious in doing so. All these counter charges regarding lipstick, pig, and fish should be abandoned immediately. They are petty.

Secondly, stay on message. The goal here is to draw into your camp independents. The four messages should be reform, security, energy and opportunity. The reform message should focus on reforming Washington politics. Here both McCain and Palin can really hammer their credentials as proven reformers. And what needs reformation is Washington, not the USA. People are tired of politics as usual in Washington and they want a positive message of reform. This is the change they want, not just change in general, and definitely not change for change sake. Reform also should mean reform of the Republican Party. Here they can talk about "Country over Party" but they have to work to make the Republican Party more attractive. As things stand, even if elected, they will have to work with a democratic congress thus no real Republican initiatives can be taken. The Republican Party must be reformed, rebranded, and resold to the public in order to regain the trust of the American public deliver a better America, and regain control of Congress.

On the security message highlights how you understand the risks abroad with islamofascism, the cost of actions, and the consequences of weakness. Also promise to build our international standing with India, Europe, and Africa. India because India is the world's most populous democracy and will serve as counterweight to China as well as instability in Pakistan. Talk about how you will help the Eastern Europeans by working with the EU and NATO against an increasingly aggressive Russia. And Africa because this region offers opportunity to help those most in need of help. Do not cast this as "rebuilding alliances" because this suggests things are broken. Stay positive because this is a strength McCain can offer that Obama/Biden cannot match! They can only play the defensive. That neither Obama nor Biden supported the Surge suggests they will be weak internationally.

The energy message has two components. The first component is that by drilling here offshore and in Alaska, the US becomes less dependent on Middle East oil. This is also a security issue. Drilling here may not reduce the price of oil now but it will decrease the price of oil in the future and voters will understand this. The second component is that by increasing our alternative energy utilization such as solar, wind, and even nuclear, this will have positive impact on the environment. The improved access to energy will spur the economy and economic opportunities for all Americans. Energy is a top issue among voters.

The opportunity message should focus on three areas: economic opportunities, education opportunities, and personal opportunities. Economic opportunities are about tax cuts, tax break and support for small business. An education opportunity is really about school choice. And personal opportunities are for all Americans to succeed. A component of this, but not emphasized too overtly, is about feminism. Too much will make it appear that Palin was chosen primarily because she is a woman. No more illegal immigrant bashing, more about legal immigrant opportunities. The Hispanic population needs to be courted based on stressing family and dignity of work. No more gay bashing with the marriage definition either. The religious conservative are already on board, no need to pander to them. Instead when the topic is raised, talk about and stress civil union as a mean for all to get legal protection, while also preserving traditional marriage. Again, stay positive.

Thirdly stay on the attack. Do not get petty, continue to ridicule. Maintain a sense of optimism, confidence, and humor. I believe the public will respond equally positive. If the Obama/Biden respond too seriously, they have no sense of humor, or take themselves too seriously. It will be very difficult to maintain a sense of humor or grace when you are on the defensive. Ridicule Obama/Biden hollow message of change, inexperience (the 3 am topic is good), poor judgment (on the Surge, on Biden, on Ayer), pretensions, and the "One" (that he is the MSM darling, and that the darling of foreigners). It will be difficult to ridicule well, but when done well, it is a winner. And the ridicule must be humorous.


In my opinion this will allow McCain/Palin to run a positive campaign with content and humor.

Governor of Alaska

From today's WSJ Editorial page:

One rap on Sarah Palin's qualifications to be Vice President is that she governs one of our least populated states, with a budget of "only" $12 billion and 16,000 full-time state employees. On the other hand, it turns out that the Governor's office in Alaska is one of the country's most powerful.

For more than two decades Thad Beyle, a political scientist at the University of North Carolina, has maintained an index of "institutional powers" in state offices. He rates governorships on potential length of service, budgetary and appointment authority, veto power and other factors. Mr. Beyle's findings for 2008 rate Alaska at 4.1 on a scale of 5. The national average is 3.5.

Only four other states -- Maryland, New Jersey, New York and West Virginia -- concentrate as much power in the Governor's office as Alaska does, and only one state (Massachusetts) concentrates more. California may be the nation's most populous state, but its Governor rates as below-average (3.2) in executive authority. This may account in part for Arnold Schwarzenegger's poor legislative track record. The lowest rating goes to Vermont (2.5), where the Governor (remember Howard Dean) is a figurehead compared to Mrs. Palin.

In Alaska, the Governor has line-item veto power over the budget and can only be overridden by a three-quarters majority of the Legislature. In 1992, the year Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton was elected President, his state budget was $2 billion and among the smallest in the country. Compared to that, Sarah Palin is an executive giant.

Update:
Camille Paglia on frontier women and Sarah Palin is well worth the read.

Former Democrat Senator from Alaska Mike Gravel Defends Palin

Kudos to Senator Mike Gravel for speaking with integrity, honesty, and rising above party politics.



HT Wolf Howling

Drifting

Earmarks, Palin and the Bridge to Nowhere

Firstly, what are congressional earmarks? per Wikipedia:

Provisions associated with legislation (appropriations or general legislation) that specify certain congressional spending priorities or in revenue bills that apply to a very limited number of individuals or entities. Earmarks may appear in either the legislative text or report language (committee reports accompanying reported bills and joint explanatory statement accompanying a conference report).

And so what is wrong with earmarks? What is wrong is that these federal funds are not critically reviewed for merit or needs, thus potentially wasteful. However, I am skeptical that it is even practical for Congress to review, discuss, and judge each and every earmark for merit or needs. Congress barely has any meaningful debates even on more important issues! If not Congress itself, should some lesser government officials decide on the earmarks? Hell no, because we all know bureaucrats have even less accountability and responsibility to decide this. That just is not and should not be for bureaucrats to decide.

So how do we limit the potential abuse and waste with earmarks? Firstly, they should be listed with the legislator requesting them. Secondly, that all federal earmarks be matched dollar for dollar with State/Local funds. Thirdly, that State/Local funds be spent before federal funds can be spent. Given that State/Local funds have to be spent, I would expect only earmark projects with local needs and support would be funded. No, not a perfect system, but it does place accountability at both the Congressional and the State/Local level. In the end, it will be up to elected leaders to act with good judgment and responsibility when it comes to spending money.

What is Gov. Palin's take on earmarks?

I am not among those who have said "earmarks are nothing more than pork projects being shoveled home by an overeager congressional delegation." I recognize that Congress, which exercises the power of the purse, has the constitutional responsibility to put its mark on the federal budget, including adding funds that the president has not proposed.

Accordingly, my administration has recommended funding for specific projects and programs when there is an important federal purpose and strong citizen support.

This year, we have requested 31 earmarks, down from 54 in 2007. Of these, 27 involve continuing or previous appropriations and four are new requests. The total dollar amount of these requests has been reduced from approximately $550 million in the previous year to just less than $200 million.

I believe this represents a responsible approach to the changing situation in Congress. Some misinterpret this as criticism of our congressional delegation.

In fact, it responds to messages from the Congressional delegation and the Bush administration. They have told us that the number of earmarks in the federal budget will be reduced and that there must be a strong federal purpose underlying each request.

We have also heard that, wherever possible, earmark requests must be accompanied by a state or local match. So, there are state budget consequences that must be considered as well when we ask for federal help.

There is no inconsistency or hypocrisy between my previous statements concerning earmarks and the recommendations my administration made to the delegation on Feb. 15. Specifically, I said earlier that the state would submit no more than 12 new requests, excluding earmarks for ongoing projects and the Alaska National Guard. Our recommendations are consistent with my previous comments and recognize the new budgetary realities in D.C.

Further, I applaud the delegation's decision to post all earmark requests. Posting, along with other reforms, will help insure the open and transparent public process that good government demands.

Regarding your comments concerning earmarks requested by local governments and other Alaska entities, I have never sought to impose my views on their activities. In fact, my D.C. office meets with dozens of local governments and others requesting earmarks and this interaction has always been cooperative and cordial.

Each entity must interpret the new realities in D.C. for itself. The final decisions about which earmark requests to pursue are made by the congressional delegation as our representatives in Congress.

My role at the federal level is simply to submit the most well-conceived earmark requests we can. Of course, since the congressional delegation has told us that they expect state or local matches, requests submitted by others may have implications for the Alaska Legislature as well.

As I have said previously, we can either respond to the changing circumstances in Congress or stick our heads in the sand. For better or worse, earmarks, which represent only about 1 percent of the federal budget, have become a symbol for budgetary discussions in general.

Unfortunately, Alaska has been featured prominently in the debate about reform. By recognizing the necessity for change, we can enhance the state's credibility in the appropriations process and in other areas of federal policy.

One of my goals as governor is making Alaska as self-sufficient as possible. Among other things, that means the ability to develop our natural resources in a responsible manner.

However, I am also mindful of the role that the federal government plays in our state. The federal budget, in its various manifestations, is incredibly important to us, and congressional earmarks are one aspect of this relationship.

I think her take is quite practical and quite reasonable. Here is a statement regarding one earmark in particular that has caused semi-uproar in the news.

Palin: “I told Congress `Thanks but no thanks on that bridge to nowhere'"

This has been challenged in the MSM that she "lied," that she was for the bridge before she was against it.

However, lets hear it from Senator Stevens who signed onto the bridge earmark (Rep Don Young plugged the earmark itself.)

Stevens, who once threatened to resign his Senate seat in 2005 if $223 million for the bridge project was defeated, told reporters today that Palin was never a supporter of the project, which has quickly become a bone of contention in defining the GOP vice-presidential nominee's self proclaimed image as a maverick reformer who took on "the good ol' boys network" of Alaska Republicans.

"I don't remember her ever campaigning for it. As a matter of fact, she was very critical of it at the time. And she took the money and did not use it for the bridge, so you're wrong, as far as I'm concerned," Stevens said today.

And here is from Democrat's page attacking Sen. Stevens earmarking:

Alaska’s delegation caused a national uproar for earmarking $452 million for two expensive bridges near Ketchikan and Anchorage; the amount appropriated would cover only part of the costs. Gov. Palin recently cancelled the Gravina Island Bridge ['Bridge to Nowhere'] near Ketchikan that would have connected the Alaska mainland with Gravina Island (population: 50). The other bridge, named Don Young’s Way and also known as the Knik Arm Bridge, is a proposed two-mile span that would cross Cook Inlet’s Knik Arm and connect Anchorage with undeveloped land in the Mat-Su Borough. Ted’s current chief of staff and former top aides are among those who own land that would benefit from construction of the bridge.

And here is a republication of the Anchorage Daily News from February 8, 2008

Let's count how many things Gov. Sarah Palin's predecessor did that she's undone.

It's quite a list.

The state-owned jet: Sold.

The proposed Gravina Island "bridge to nowhere" and a pioneer road to Juneau: Won't be funded.

And here is the Anchorage Daily News again in March 12, 2008

Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens is aggravated about what he sees as Gov. Sarah Palin's antagonism toward the earmarks he uses to steer federal money to the state."The fact the state has seen fit to raise the issue of earmarks and the way they handled the bridge money has led to a lot of controversy back here and comment back here about the Alaska delegation and why they seek things the state doesn't want," Stevens said in a recent telephone interview from Washington, D.C.

...

Palin ruffled feathers when she announced - without giving the delegation advance notice - that the state was killing the Ketchikan bridge to Gravina Island, site of the airport and a few dozen residents.

Palin's office said a state transportation official had earlier told Stevens the project was too expensive. Palin has said the federal funding was short and Congress clearly wasn't going to pay for the rest of such a controversial bridge.

Palin also declared last year that her administration was going to cut back its own earmark requests submitted to the delegation. Her budget director, Karen Rehfeld, wrote, "to enhance the state's credibility," state requests should only be for the most compelling needs.

The state requested earmarks for 31 projects worth just under $200 million this year. Rehfeld said five of them are new and four have been funded intermittently in the past. She said it's down from last year's request of 54 projects for around $550 million.

Thus it seems to me Gov. Palin was completely honest when she declared

“I told Congress `Thanks but no thanks on that bridge to nowhere'"

See also Powerline Blog

Global Warming & Polar ICe

Note: in increase in ice over the past year (left map) is larger than the size of Germany (right map).

HT: No Parasan


Palin tie in:

A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made. .

Another reason to vote for her. Scientific skepicism is healthy. Too bad so many "scientists" put popular fads ahead of critical analysis.

Feminism

The recent campaign of Hillary Clinton and the current campaign for Sarah Palin has brought the topic of feminism to the forefront for me. I have been amazed at the responses, predominantly from the left, and from a surprising percentage of women, on what they believe feminism is about.

I have always thought that feminism was about supporting a woman's right to become what ever she wants to be. Women should be doctors (over 51% of medical students are now women), lawyers, soldiers, athletes, politicians, and whatever else she desires. And to be a feminist is to support these opportunities for yourself as a woman and for other women.

Apparently I am wrong. According to the left, including leftist women, all it takes to be a feminist is to be a woman who is pro-choice.

Despite becoming the first woman governor of Alaska by running against a corrupt old-boys network, she should not be considered a feminist.
Despite trippling state funds for troubled teens, including pregnant teenagers.
Despite increasing state funds for special needs children to make it easier for their care givers (we all know which sex the care givers tend to be).
Despite advocating abstinence and contraception education.
Nope, she is not a feminist at all. Haven't made anything of herself. Haven't supported other women either.

The left is trapped by their own hypocisy.

Palin Links

From Palin herself:
on Congressional earmarks

Defending Palin:
Palin rumors clearing house
Palin sexism watch
countering Palin smears

Will Hillary Help Obama Now?

There was already a rumor that even before the Biden selection Hillary turned down Obama. At that time, there was already a buzz on why Obama was not leading more in the polls. I am sure that Hillary calculated that Obama could lose 08 thus allowing her to run in 12.
Had she joined him, and Obama/Clinton wins, she could not run till 16. Undoubtedly she recognizes how difficult it would be for a VP of 8 years to run for PotUS.
If the first term is a disaster, then she would have almost no chance in 12 and would have to try again in 16. It would be prohibitively difficult to win in 16 after losing in 12 as VP.
Now if Obama/Biden wins she would actually have a better chance of winning in 16 from outside the administration. And an outside chance even in 12.

This calculus is even more obvious now with Palin.
I would say no chance in hell would Hillary join Obama now.

McCain

There should be no question that this man was transformed by the events in Viet Nam. I fully believe he has seen the best and the worse of wars, as well as the depravity of totalitarianism. He can be trusted to lead our country. He will put the best interest of his country ahead of his own.
And Cyndi McCain has lived an extraordinary life as well, one of service and giving back. She will make a fine first lady.

But i do not believe he will likely transform the US. But i do believe that his VP Governor Palin does.

We absolutely need to win this presidential election.
I will be voting for this ticket, not just voting against the other.

Palin & Polls

Two polls of note:
Firstly, from Rasmussen:

Over half of U.S. voters (51%) think reporters are trying to hurt Sarah Palin with their news coverage, and 24% say those stories make them more likely to vote for Republican presidential candidate John McCain in November.

Thirty-nine percent (39%) also believe the GOP vice presidential nominee has better experience to be president of the United States than Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama.

But 49% give Obama the edge on experience, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey – taken before Palin’s historic speech Wednesday night to the Republican National Convention.

While Republicans and Democrats predictably favor their party’s candidate by overwhelming margins, the experience gap among voters unaffiliated with either party is even narrower than the national totals. Forty-two percent (42%) say Obama has better experience to be president, but 37% say Palin does.

Secondly, from SurveyUSA:

Palin Speech Moves Independents: Results of two nationwide polls conducted by SurveyUSA show Sarah Palin's speech at the Republican National Convention on the evening of 09/03/08 has helped the McCain campaign.

24 hours ago, independent voters nationwide were split on whether Palin was an asset or a liability to McCain's campaign. Today, by a 2:1 margin, independents say Palin is an asset. Overnight, the percentage calling the Alaska governor an asset to the campaign climbed 13 points; the percentage calling her a liability fell 17 points.

The numbers are similar among moderates, who 24 hours ago viewed Palin as a liability by an 11 point margin; today, Palin is seen as an asset by an 18 point margin.

Betting Line Changes: 24 hours ago, when asked if they would bet on Obama or McCain becoming president, Obama was a 16:15 favorite; today, it's flipped, and McCain is favored by the same ratio.

Palin

Tonight for the first time in my life i made a political donation.
While it went technically to McCain/Palin, it only happened because of Palin.

Palin vs Big Oil

What experience you ask?
Consider this:

Palin came into the governor's office and found a mess on her desk. The oil deal struck by defeated Republican governor Frank Murkowski wasn't working. Through creative accounting by big oil and ambiguous reporting standards, the Murkowski plan just wasn't giving the State of Alaska the pay-off that was expected. So the former mayor of Wasilla (population 9,000, as the MSM always points out) demanded that the agreement be renegotiated and the terms be nailed down. They laughed when she sat down to negotiate, but in the end she had a new deal that delivered 50 percent of the oil revenues to the Alaska Permanent Fund, and enabled Palin to send a check for $1,200 to every qualified Alaskan citizen.

Now one of the major companies involved was BP, a.k.a. British Petroleum, before that, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. It was Anglo-Iranian, at that time a British parastatal (70 percent owned by the British government and the Bank of England) that started the Middle East conflict in 1953. Anglo-Iranian was using creative accounting and payments to dummy corporations to pretend to the Iranian government that there was virtually no profit. They demanded that the Iranian government uphold the original contract made decades before. Prime Minister Mohammed Mossedegh threatened to nationalize Anglo-Iranian. The British responded with a naval blockade of Iranian ports.

The Americans stepped in to help. U.S. Ambassador George McGehee, an experienced former petroleum engineer, and Gen. Richard Walters, the linguistic wizard, huddled with Mossedegh in sessions in Washington and New York. They got him to agree to accept a 50-50 split, a reasonable proposal by the then international standard, similar to the contract that U.S.-owned Aramco had renegotiated with Saudi Arabia. But the British refused. Instead they plotted a coup against the Iranian government, and then prevailed upon on the incoming Eisenhower administration to implement it with the assistance of British agents on the ground. Iranian production was taken over by an international coalition that agreed to the 50-50 split. There was plenty enough blame to go around on all sides, but one of the first acts of Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979 was to toss out all foreign oil companies and confiscate their assets.

Today BP, the former Anglo-Iranian, is the third largest global energy corporation. It now claims to be privatized, and it is estimated that 70 percent of the shares are owned by British investors. At one time the Kuwait Investment Office held over 21 percent of the shares. It tried, and failed, to merge the two companies, but was blocked by a British government inquiry. Under Prime Minister Thatcher, the company went private and on a spending spree. BP bought up Standard Oil of Ohio (Sohio), Standard Oil of Indiana (Amoco) and Atlantic Richfield (Arco). BP became a major player in the U.S. petroleum industry, including Prudhoe Bay and the Alaska Pipeline. And despite its advertising campaign trying to suggest that BP means "Beyond Petroleum," the company has one of the worst environmental records in the United States with its refineries blowing up and its pipelines bursting, the result -- as testimony showed -- of parsimonious budgets for maintenance. It is a formidable corporation.

So enter the PTA community organizer from Wasilla. Without preconditions she took on a company that has a market cap of $205 billion and annual revenues of $291 billion in worldwide operations. Its budget is larger than that those of most sovereign countries, yet she won on her terms. If she can outsmart BP, the company that started the Middle East conflict, she can easily outsmart Ahmadinejad, if need be.

Then to follow up that act, she got the Alaskan Legislature to approve development of the TransCanada gas pipeline, a $40 billion deal that will go 1,715 miles from the treatment plant at Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, to the Alberta hub in Canada, from which it will be transferred to the United States. This project had been sitting around for 30 years on hold because the big energy companies didn't think it would be profitable, and their corrupt cronies in the legislature obediently kept it on the shelf. Crusading against corruption and negotiating across the aisle, Palin not only got it passed in record time, but opened up the bidding when the U.S. companies were reluctant to jump in. So she went ahead and awarded the contract to low-bidder TransCanada Alaska, a firm that has already built 36,000 miles of pipelines in North America. As a final fillip, the Governor signed the bill at the Alaska AFL-CIO biennial convention. While Barack Obama's solution to the energy problem is to urge us to check the air in our tires, Palin's solution is to start building a $40 billion gas pipeline, without Federal government assistance.

Read the whole thing!


HT:Neo-neocon

And here is a very interesting read on Obama

the Bush Economy

Do not let the press or the left disuade you otherwise, the economic outlook is sound.

Economic growth. U.S. output has expanded faster than in most advanced economies since 2000. The IMF reports that real U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) grew at an average annual rate of 2.2% over the period 2001-2008 (including its forecast for the current year). President Bush will leave to his successor an economy 19% larger than the one he inherited from President Clinton. This U.S. expansion compares with 14% by France, 13% by Japan and just 8% by Italy and Germany over the same period.

The latest ICP findings, published by the World Bank in its World Development Indicators 2008, also show that GDP per capita in the U.S. reached $41,813 (in purchasing power parity dollars) in 2005. This was a third higher than the United Kingdom's, 37% above Germany's and 38% more than Japan's.

Household consumption. The ICP study found that the average per-capita consumption of the U.S. population (citizens and illegal immigrants combined) was second only to Luxembourg's, out of 146 countries covered in 2005. The U.S. average was $32,045. This was well above the levels in the UK ($25,155), Canada ($23,526), France ($23,027) and Germany ($21,742). China stood at $1,751.

Health services. The U.S. spends easily the highest amount per capita ($6,657 in 2005) on health, more than double that in Britain. But because of private funding (55% of the total) the burden on the U.S. taxpayer (9.1% of GDP) is kept to similar levels as France and Germany. The U.S. Census Bureau reports that 84.7% of the U.S. population was covered by health insurance in 2007, an increase of 3.6 million people over 2006. The uninsured can receive treatment in hospitals at the expense of private insurance holders.

While life expectancy is influenced by lifestyles and not just access to health services, the World Bank nevertheless reports that average life expectancy in the U.S. rose to 78 years in 2006 (the same as Germany's), from 77 in 2000.

...

Investment has been buoyant under President Bush. According to the ICP, outlays on additions to the fixed assets (machinery and buildings, etc.) of the U.S. economy amounted to $8,018 per capita in 2005 compared to $4,963 in Germany and $4,937 in the U.K. Higher taxes on the upper-income Americans, as proposed by Mr. Obama, are likely to result in lower saving and investment, less entrepreneurial activity and reduced availability of bank credit. Lower-income Americans would be among the losers.

...

Employment. The U.S. employment rate, measured by the percentage of people of working age (16-65 years) in jobs, has remained high by international standards. The latest OECD figures show a rate of 71.7% in 2006. This was more than five percentage points above the average for the euro area.

The U.S. unemployment rate averaged 4.7% from 2001-2007. This compares with a 5.2% average rate during President Clinton's term of office, and is well below the euro zone average of 8.3% since 2000.

Debt interest payments. The IMF reports that the interest cost of servicing general government debt in the U.S. has averaged 2.0% of GDP annually from 2001-2008, compared with 2.7% in the euro zone. It averaged 3.2% annually when President Clinton was in office.

The cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has been largely absorbed in a relatively small increase in the defense budget (to 4.1% of GDP in 2006 from 3.8% in 1995). A much higher proportion of U.S. income was devoted to the military during World War II and the Korean War.

Bristol Palin

News today is that Palin's daughter Bristol is pregnant.
This will not affect the religious right's enthusiasm for Sarah Palin. McCain apparently knew about it before picking her, which for me raises my opinion of him.
Obama himself was conceived out of wedlock and has told his side to back off.
I seriously doubt his minions would do so. Thus it will be a test for him to see how low he will let his supporters go in pursuing criticism of Sarah Palin herself. What remains at play here are the independent women, men and families with teenage girls. My first impression is that they will sympathize with the Palins and despise those who will attack them.

Sarah Palin

I gave this several days to settle my thoughts before i posted.
Two days after the announcement, i continue to believe that this is a brilliant pick on McCain's part.

1. The republican base are totally excited. She has all the right marks (reformer, gun toting hunter, pro-life, family oriented, and conservative) to appeal to the conservative base more so than McCain does. Reading the internet boards, many who would not have voted for McCain are now actually excited and even donating money to his campaign (supposedly 6 million dollars within 24 hours of her announcement). For many Reps, she (along with Glenn Steel and Bobby Jindal) represent the future for the Reps. She energizes his base to donate and vote for him.

2. She has lots of appeal to independent. She is a working mom from a middle class family, and have made a success out of herself in the frontiers of Alaska. She is also not a lawyer, ivy league educated, or a professional politician. Other than being a working "hockey mom" her sex has nothing to do with her selection and no, i do not believe she will likely convert many hardcore Hillaristas to the Reps. She doesn't need to. If she can motivate independent working moms to vote for McCain/Palin and reminds the Hillaristas of how Hillary was cast aside, this will be enough. Every time the Obama team criticizes her ability to juggle work and motherhood, they will alienate another Hillarista. She has lots of appeal for independent.

3. Her experience and readiness on first glance appears to be a weakness, but politically a strength for McCain. Firstly, she is joining McCain's team, thus his strength will become her strength; she doesn't have to recruit or build an advising team. She will likely be brought up to speed by McCain's team on her weak areas regarding foreign policy and diplomacy. And her fresh eyes in these areas would be a plus as well. Secondly she does have executive experience that not Obama, Biden, or even McCain have. This means she has made decisions to make things happen as Governor and her judgment appears to have been excellent thus. She has good character. Thirdly while some Reps might bemoan her lack of experience, they will likely vote for McCain anyway. Compared to Obama she is certainly no worse. Finally, every time the Dems brings up the issue of her lack of experience, Obama's lack of experience will be considered as well. She is running for VPotUS, he is running for PotUS. It is a bait and a trap for Obama's team that they will fall into again and again. She reminds everyone of Obama's weakness.

4. She has a track record of fighting for reform against the establishment. This demonstrate ability, willingness, and integrity to enact change; Obama has only talked about change. Politically, this is a huge strength to counter one of Obama's platform of promised changed (she has already enacted change!). Secondly, her ability to have enacted reforms will make her a formidable opponent against Biden without the baggage Pawlenty, Huckabee or Romney bring. Yet she will likely be underestimated by Biden, regardless of how much warning Biden receives not to do so. She undermines Obama's message of change, his perceived strength.

5. With her on the ticket, it makes it a bit harder for Obama to level the charge of "4 more years of the same as Bush" against McCain. She is from the hinterland after all, both geographically and political establishment/DC beltway wise. In addition, he is no longer just another "old rich white republican guy running for office." His historical precedence is being countered. She provides a shield for McCain against Obama.

In summary, a brilliant political pick by McCain, which in itself improves his standing.

Links:
McCain choosing Palin.
Palin commands Alaska Missile defense units.
Palin quotes regarding foreign affairs.
Hillaristas comment on Palin.

Georgia vs Russia

It should be accepted that Russia will not withdraw from South Ossetia or Abkhazia. This matter little. Georgia did not have substantive control of these regions before the war anyway. Regarding defensive position against Russia, the Georgians can still cut off the Russians by taking out the Roki tunnel, as well as applying the choke at the pass across the Caucasian mountains when needed. These actions can be accomplished in my opinion without requiring air control if they are appropriately armed with missiles and or unmanned drones. Meanwhile, the Georgians and still infiltrate and destabilize both regions (as will the Russian attempt the same against Georgia)

What to do if Russians do not withdraw from Georgia proper? I believe this will be a significant tactical and strategic error on their part. If they wanted Georgia, they should have taken it before international support came to Georgia. Now with the US airlift, the Georgian could be re-armed as well as upgraded for an irregular war against Russians. Unlike Chechnya, who were not supported by the West, Georgia has a direct support line and defensive mountainous terrain, making them more like Afghanistan in their struggle against Russia.

Russia has nothing to gain by staying in Georgia. Whether they are smart enough to acknowledge this remains to be seen.

Georgia 2

While things remain on simmer in Georgia, i am skeptical much more will happen.
As it stand, both South Ossetia and Abkhazia have been lost by Georgia to Russia. I do not believe any peace agreement will change this. While a ceasefire is being negotiated, this is not the same as a peace agreement. This might seem a win for Russia, but i think if this is all Russia gets, this will likely mean Russia lost over all. They already had defacto control of these regions before the shooting started. Since the invasion, Russia has been viewed as much more threatening by the West than previously. This will likely mean a gradual shift of Europe from economic activities with Russia. Eastern Europe, long wary of Russia, will militarily strengthen themselves against possible strike by Russia. The other Caucasian states and the Central Asian states will similarly act. Likely same with Turkey.

Had Russia blitzed Georgia completely, they might have won more than they lost with the current arragement. They could have then directly affected the Caucasian oil pipeline. They could have directly threatened the Middle East.

So why did they stop?
1. Russia underestimated global, Western Europe, and US response for Georgia.
2. They could not pin the Georgian military down for a quick destruction in South Ossetia or Gori, thus putting themselves at risk for a protracted war in the Caucasus they could not easily win.
3. They never planned for more than what they did. They might have lacked the resource for more, and or this was a punative strike against Georgia rather than a true invasion/war.
These three are not exclusive of each other. I believe likely #1 and #2, but also possibly #3.
Time will tell.

Georgia

Russia has invaded Georgia. This is a premeditated action as i have suggested before.
A summary review of the time line from La Russophobe should be reviewed.

At 7:00 P.M. local time on August 7, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili spoke live on national television, announcing a unilateral ceasefire and asking the other side also to cease hostilities. In highly conciliatory words, Saakashvili called for talks “in any format”; reaffirmed the long-standing offer of full autonomy for South Ossetia; proposed that Russia should guarantee that solution; offered a general amnesty; and pleaded for international intercession to stop the hostilities (Rustavi-2 TV, August 7).

Following Saakashvili’s address, attacks on Georgian villages intensified. The village of Avnevi was almost completely destroyed, Tamarasheni and Prisi shelled, and the police station in Kurta, seat of the Sanakoyev administration, smashed by artillery fire. Civilians began fleeing the villages.

These attacks forced Tbilisi to take defensive action. By 10:30 P.M. local time on August 7 the Georgians returned fire. During the night, Georgian forces including armored columns began advancing toward Tskhinvali, the secessionist authorities’ administrative center.

I am not advocating that we enter the war directly with guns blazing. I am advocating that we assist the Georgians in their resistance against the Russian with intelligence information, military and humanitarian supplies, and perhaps a few unmanned planes to take out the Roki tunnel.

South Ossetia

Whether it was smart for Georgia to militarily reclaim this break away region or not is no longer significant. As an ally who have supported our efforts elsewhere (Afghanistan and Iraq) the US should now reciprocate. We should provide them with all the necessary intelligence to defend their territorial integrity and autonomy, as well as hardware and supplies. Our conduct here will have repercussion elsewhere now, as well as in the future. The world, our friends and would be friends, our enemies and would be enemies must never doubt that they have no better friends than the US, and no worse enemy.


Update: the more i think of it, the more i think this is conflict was not an accidental escalation. Russia was clear poised to act militarily in South Ossetia. Their readiness and rapid response is much faster than it should be for the state of readiness the Russian arm forces have been in.

Crimson Tide

It is now nearly uniformly accepted we have turned the tide in Iraq. From the changing emphasis of the New Iraqi Army as noted by DJ Elliot to the reconsidering the great achievement made possible by the steadfastness of GW Bush as noted at the Belmont Club.
But every time i see this video i feel even more for the unheralded sentiment expressed for our men and women in uniform who made this victory possible.

Withdraw

My question in light of what the Obama man is shifting toward of late, is how serious was he when he put forth his plans for withdrawing troops from Iraq. Was it all for political expediency to appease the left?

Your Children 2: SCOTUS

Regarding the SCOTUS decision banning the death penalty for child rapist, i think this is just another rather misguided judgement from our Supreme Court. I shudder to think what their decision will be today regarding the DC ban against gun ownership.

Your Children 1: Political Ads

in response to the MoveOn add.

Silly Seals

Seems like something for high school wannabees.

Jihadists and AL Qaeda

Within a few minutes of Noman Benotman's arrival at the Kandahar guest house, Osama bin Laden came to welcome him. The journey from Kabul had been hard, 17 hours in a Toyota pickup truck bumping along what passed as the main highway to southern Afghanistan. It was the summer of 2000, and Benotman, then a leader of a group trying to overthrow the Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi, had been invited by bin Laden to a conference of jihadists from around the Arab world, the first of its kind since Al Qaeda had moved to Afghanistan in 1996. Benotman, the scion of an aristocratic family marginalized by Qaddafi, had known bin Laden from their days fighting the Afghan communist government in the early '90s, a period when Benotman established himself as a leader of the militant Libyan Islamic Fighting Group.

The night of Benotman's arrival, bin Laden threw a lavish banquet in the main hall of his compound, an unusual extravagance for the frugal Al Qaeda leader. As bin Laden circulated, making small talk, large dishes of rice and platters of whole roasted lamb were served to some 200 jihadists, many of whom had come from around the Middle East. "It was one big reunification," Benotman recalls. "The leaders of most of the jihadist groups in the Arab world were there and almost everybody within Al Qaeda."

Bin Laden was trying to win over other militant groups to the global jihad he had announced against the United States in 1998. Over the next five days, bin Laden and his top aides, including Ayman Al Zawahiri, met with a dozen or so jihadist leaders. They sat on the floor in a circle with large cushions arrayed around them to discuss the future of their movement. "This was a big strategy meeting," Benotman told one of us late last year, in his first account of the meeting to a reporter. "We talked about everything, where are we going, what are the lessons of the past twenty years."

Despite the warm welcome, Benotman surprised his hosts with a bleak assessment of their prospects. "I told them that the jihadist movement had failed. That we had gone from one disaster to another, like in Algeria, because we had not mobilized the people," recalls Benotman, referring to the Algerian civil war launched by jihadists in the '90s that left more than 100,000 dead and destroyed whatever local support the militants had once enjoyed. Benotman also told bin Laden that the Al Qaeda leader's decision to target the United States would only sabotage attempts by groups like Benotman's to overthrow the secular dictatorships in the Arab world. "We made a clear-cut request for him to stop his campaign against the United States because it was going to lead to nowhere," Benotman recalls, "but they laughed when I told them that America would attack the whole region if they launched another attack against it."

* * * * *

Unsurprisingly, Al Qaeda's leaders have been thrown on the defensive. In December, bin Laden released a tape that stressed that "the Muslim victims who fall during the operations against the infidel Crusaders ... are not the intended targets." Bin Laden warned the former mujahedin now turning on Al Qaeda that, whatever their track records as jihadists, they had now committed one of the "nullifiers of Islam," which is helping the "infidels against the Muslims."

Kamal El Helbawy, the Muslim Brotherhood leader who helped bring in moderates at the Finsbury Park mosque in London, believes that Al Qaeda's days may be numbered: "No government, no police force, is achieving what these [religious] scholars are achieving. To defeat terrorism, to convince the radicals ... you have to persuade them that theirs is not the path to paradise."

Read it all!

The more things change ...

the more things stay the same:

Want more George W. Bush foreign policy? Elect John McCain – or Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Regardless of who wins in November, the current foreign policy will live on in the next White House.

None of the main candidates has disavowed the war on terror. Each has called Mr. Bush tactically deficient. But the debate over the war on terror is over how, where and when. The candidates have all argued that they would do a better job of fighting it.

Administrations bequeath foreign policies to their successors that are then tweaked, but rarely transformed. The seeds of Ronald Reagan's Cold War strategy were sown in the defense buildup of the later Jimmy Carter years. President Bush's purported "obsession" with Baghdad began in the hawkish statecraft of Vice President Al Gore. In 1998, Bill Clinton made regime change official U.S. policy, and in 2003 Mr. Bush made it a reality.

The last great liberal hope to win the White House – Bill Clinton – committed more troops to more parts of the globe than any president since World War II. Since the end of the Cold War, America has undertaken at least nine military interventions overseas, under three presidents of both parties in two distinct historical eras (pre- and post-9/11). This history suggests that the next great liberal hope – Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton – would probably continue the trend.

Furthermore, the departure of Mr. Bush will hardly leave the nation's foreign relationships in tatters. Despite much American introspection, Euro-liberal sniping and Latin American leftist fantasizing, the quantity and quality of America's formal friendships have endured, if not actually increased, since 2001. Eighty-four governments, out of a world total of some 192, are formally allied with the U.S.

Foreign leaders such as France's Nicolas Sarkozy and Germany's Angela Merkel clearly see that their true interest resides in maintaining and renewing their relationships with the U.S. Few governments have prospered by severing such bonds. In Asia as well, nations are looking to strengthen their ties to America. China needs the U.S. market. India is moving toward America, not away.

The state and your children

The latest news item regarding the state and your children comes from Texas remains unsettled. Despite the best of intention, the state and its representatives, whether social workers or doctors, should think of their own fallibility before they act. Withness this story from the WSJ.

Mrs. West found a new physician who examined Richard and concluded he was severely mentally retarded. The physician explained that Richard might learn to walk but would never talk. He would always have the mentality of a three-year-old and need 24-hour care. "It was a relief knowing it wasn't my imagination" or fault, says Mrs. West.

Soon pregnant again, Mrs. West became overwhelmed at the thought of caring for a newborn and a mentally disabled toddler, along with four older kids. The community offered no programs to help Richard. Having come from North Dakota, the Wests had no family nearby. "I didn't know what to do," says Mrs. West.

She asked her doctor. Gently, he told Mrs. West it would be better for Richard and everyone else if he was institutionalized. "You have to think of the other kids," she remembers the physician telling her.

* * * * *

None of the children pressed their parents to find out how Richard was doing, although privately they wondered. "Anytime the family was together at Christmas or Thanksgiving, I would think how we used to play around him on the floor," says his older brother Bob.

In the 1980s, the state informed the Wests that Richard was being moved a couple hundred miles east to another state facility. A few years later, the Wests received a letter saying Richard was being placed in a smaller residence. The letter didn't say where. The Wests felt they lacked standing to ask because their son was a ward of the state.

He had, in fact, been transferred to a group home in Baker City, about 300 miles away. There, workers wondered about Richard's family. "Do they know he exists? Do they care?" says caregiver Tracy Hylton. "Many families don't want to have contact, and when there isn't any contact, we have to assume that is the case."

The turning point came the evening that Jeff West saw the television interview with Mr. Daly, the Oregon man who had found his long-lost mentally disabled sister. Suddenly, Jeff West was struck with the desire to find Richard.

Other siblings, however, were apprehensive. "Do you really want to do that?" brother Larry remembers saying. "Are you going to bring up things that are hurtful?"

Debby Peery, the second-youngest, wondered what their responsibility might be and how others would react.

"I was a little nervous about what the caretakers would think of us suddenly showing up after 40 years," she says. "But I was also excited."

All worried about their parents. "I didn't know how much guilt they carried," says Jeff West. At that point, Jeff didn't know his parents had recently and unsuccessfully tried to find Richard so that he could receive Mr. West's pension.

When asked about tracking down his disabled son, the elderly Mr. West responded, "Go for it."

* * * * *

Weeks later, the family met with Richard for the first time in 40 years. His caregivers, Ms. Hylton and Carrie Baird, drove Richard to the home of a sibling. They worried whether the West family would take Richard away from his group home, where he was comfortable and loved. "It would have been hard for us if he left," says Ms. Hylton.

* * * * *

Over lunch and through the afternoon, the Wests listened to Ms. Hylton and Ms. Baird describe how Richard loves music, does his own laundry, washes dishes, mows the lawn and sets the table. He has a job refilling ink cartridges. And a girlfriend: On dates to McDonalds they eat apple pie. Always known to his family as Ricky, he now preferred to be called Richard.


* * * * *

At Fairview, Richard learned things his parents never thought possible. By 12, he could dress, feed himself, catch a ball, fold pajamas and fish. He had friends and foster grandparents who took him out for ice cream. At 16, Richard taught himself to whistle. He loved Volkswagens and was sometimes found sitting in one in the Fairview parking lot.

* * * * *

Mrs. West sends Richard towels and sweatshirts embroidered with his name. When getting dressed in the morning, Richard selects the same shirts repeatedly -- the ones his mother sent. "He knows it came from his family, and it means something," says Ms. Hylton.

.

Parents, never give up your children to the state without a fight!

Memorial Day

Yesterday was memorial day. It was a warm and beautiful day. We bought a grand old vintage faded US flag, as well as a pole and a pole mount. I promptly installed and mounted the pole on a fence post and flew the flag. Since it wasn't next to the house itself, the wind caught it as often as possible.

We worked in the yard and had a cook out.

As night fell I lowered the flag and folded it up, and in a nice safe clean place I laid it down.

Oil and Gas, the money

from Powerline:

Stephen Simon amplified:

Exxon Mobil is the largest U.S. oil and gas company, but we account for only 2 percent of global energy production, only 3 percent of global oil production, only 6 percent of global refining capacity, and only 1 percent of global petroleum reserves. With respect to petroleum reserves, we rank 14th. Government-owned national oil companies dominate the top spots. For an American company to succeed in this competitive landscape and go head to head with huge government-backed national oil companies, it needs financial strength and scale to execute massive complex energy projects requiring enormous long-term investments.
To simply maintain our current operations and make needed capital investments, Exxon Mobil spends nearly $1 billion each day.

Because foreign companies and governments control the overwhelming majority of the world's oil, most of the price you pay at the pump is the cost paid by the American oil company to acquire crude oil from someone else:

Last year, the average price in the United States of a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline was around $2.80. On average in 2007, approximately 58 percent of the price reflected the amount paid for crude oil. Consumers pay for that crude oil, and so do we.
Of the 2 million barrels per day Exxon Mobil refined in 2007 here in the United States, 90 percent were purchased from others.

Another theme of the day's testimony was that, if anyone is "gouging" consumers through the high price of gasoline, it is federal and state governments, not American oil companies. On the average, 15% percent of the cost of gasoline at the pump goes for taxes, while only 4% represents oil company profits. These figures were repeated several times, but, strangely, not a single Democratic Senator proposed relieving consumers' anxieties about gas prices by reducing taxes.

U.S.S. Independence

The US navy first Littoral class ship is launched.

Kyoto Hypocrisy

From Willisms:

911: more conspiracies

from the WSJ:

CAIRO, Egypt -- Osama bin Laden's chief deputy in an audiotape Tuesday accused Shiite Iran of trying to discredit the Sunni al Qaeda terror network by spreading the conspiracy theory that Israel was behind the Sept. 11 attacks.

As seen below, the ONN has it dead on regarding AlQaeda's response to it being discredited for 911.

911 Debate on ONN

9/11 Conspiracy Theories 'Ridiculous,' Al Qaeda Says

Trigger Happy

From the WSJ

According to the 2006 General Social Survey, which has tracked gun ownership since 1973, 34% of American homes have guns in them. This statistic is sure to surprise many people in cities like San Francisco – as it did me when I first encountered it. (Growing up in Seattle, I knew nobody who owned a gun.)

Who are all these gun owners? Are they the uneducated poor, left behind? It turns out they have the same level of formal education as nongun owners, on average. Furthermore, they earn 32% more per year than nonowners. Americans with guns are neither a small nor downtrodden group.

Nor are they "bitter." In 2006, 36% of gun owners said they were "very happy," while 9% were "not too happy." Meanwhile, only 30% of people without guns were very happy, and 16% were not too happy.

In 1996, gun owners spent about 15% less of their time than nonowners feeling "outraged at something somebody had done." It's easy enough in certain precincts to caricature armed Americans as an angry and miserable fringe group. But it just isn't true. The data say that the people in the approximately 40 million American households with guns are generally happier than those people in households that don't have guns.

The gun-owning happiness gap exists on both sides of the political aisle. Gun-owning Republicans are more likely than nonowning Republicans to be very happy (46% to 37%). Democrats with guns are slightly likelier than Democrats without guns to be very happy as well (32% to 29%). Similarly, holding income constant, one still finds that gun owners are happiest.

Not quite clinging or bitter.

War: Quotation Therapy

““Pacifism and Prussianism [militarism] are always in alliance, by a fatal logic far beyond any conscious conspiracy.”
and
“That all war is physically frightful is obvious; but if that were a moral verdict there would be no difference between a torturer and a surgeon.”

“
-G. K. Chesterton
(HT Michael W. Perry)

The first quote is particularly fascinating, in that does the rejection of aggression increases the risk of aggression against you? Probably not, but the correlary certainly is false. Just do because you reject aggression does not mean aggression will not visit you. Rejection is a conceptual/abstract/state of mind. Aggression is an actual physical act. There is a huge chasm between a thought and an act. None of us can wish things into being.

“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.”

“
–John Stuart Mill

Free Trade: Colombia

While this article primarily focus on the free trade pact with the US, it also reveals the significant socio-political progress of Colombia from a near-fail state besieged by leftist guerrilas and the Medellin drug cartel.

Given the progress made, I think a Free Trade agreement has tremendous potential to support continued economic progress in Colombia. Thus it is shameful not to even vote on the agreement just because this is an election year. The elected leaders, Democrats in particular, who refused to put this to a vote act like cowards without integrity.

NeoModernism: question & answer

Question posed by Shoegirls

Btw, this contradicts itself and doesn't make sense:

"Neomodernism is a philosophical position based on modernism but addressing the critique of modernism by postmodernism, namely that universalism and critical thinking are the two essential elements of human rights and that human rights create a superiority of some cultures over others. Hence equality and relativism are "mutually contradictory". Thus NeoModernism has a moral code."

Are you stating that universalism creates equality, or denies it? I can only assume you subscrbe to the universal ethic, as you subscribe to postmodernism. However, your statement above seems to confuse the issue with the added nature of equality. So, which is it, and, how does universalism or relativism subjugate equality?

Modernism is re-analysis and rejection of all that is to build anew and better.
Postmodernism believes that the result of modernism, what is new and better, is erroneous because new and better can only exist in reference to what was, and a total rejection of what was means it cannot be used a reference. Once you reject the reference point, all becomes universal and relative. Without reference point, or if each is its own reference point, all are then equal.
But if all is relative, then where is morality?

I believe that culture is like the clothes we wear. It suggests who and what we are but cannot define us. What defines us is our biology as human being, living, emotive, and contemplative. That universality of morality has to be based in our biology. Thus culture cannot be a reference point for our morality (which seeks to define how we should interact with each other).