Grey Politics

Speaking Diplomatically

2011-12-13T03:08:00.001-05:00

I have a strong distaste for what we might call "Cowboy Politics." It's one thing to believe that a foreign nation is acting in a way that is adverse to our nation's interest and another to publically call them part of an "axis of evil", for one thing. Tough talk sounds great in movies and, to some extent, presidential debates, but in the end, we live in a world with shades of deep grey in our international relationships. We have to live with the world community when all is said and done - we can't simply ignore or bomb them into agreeing with us.

So, when a top candidate for the Republican Party's nomination calls the Palestinian people an "invented" people[1], he is treading on thin ice. Many countries strongly disagree with the sentiment, including many of the fledling democracies rising from the Arab Spring. Now is the time to be focussing on constructive conversations with the nations risinig from decades of oppressive rule, not to give them more reasons to hate us and shun our counsel.

Some people may decry this as appeasement and too soft a stance - after all, we're the world's only superpower, right? As a student of history, I would respond that nations rise and fall, and our time as the sole mega force may be waning. China and India are certainly on the rise. The Eurozone, though in dire financial straits and unable at present to form a tighter union, is still not to be discounted. Russia still weilds great influence, if dimished from their USSR heights. If we act brashly now, who will stand by us when next we experience disaster, natural or manmade? Make friends before you need them, before it's too late.

If only the politics of moderation were more in vogue - it seems that each of the two major parties becomes more and more polarized as time goes on. Centrist candidates for congress have been thinned by those more on the extremes, thus leading to stalemaes multiple times this year as representatives refuse to compromise. Shooting from the hip and appearing strong do not make us so. Our leaders need to be careful what enemies they make, both for themselves and the rest of us. Gingrich - I ask you to recant and temper your language. If you seriously want the nomination, you must act presidential. That means you must always put the nation's best interest before your own personal whim and desire.

[1] Palestinians Bristle At Gingrich Comments

Disingenuity

2011-08-17T12:40:00.000-04:00

I believe most politicians get where they're going by obfuscating the truth. This could include selective truths, omitting facts that run counter to the desired argument. It might be through use of deceptive statistics (e.g. choosing to use percentage versus numerical volume or vice versa - if you say only 1% of Americans it doesn't have the same impact as saying "3 million people", for example). Perhaps they intentionally misquote or take out of context the words of their opponents.[1][2] They might even simply lie.[3]

Yet, politicians continue to bend the truth to try to make their case stronger. The media often buys into it, repeating their assertions and using them as counterweight to opposing viewpoints. Some of this is in the interest of appearing to be non-partisan, but it simply detracts from the level of debate.

It's wonderful that in this day and age we can use sites like Snopes, PolitiFact, and FactCheck, among others, to help sort fact from fiction. However, that requires time and effort. Why go to the trouble of validate all the numbers we hear from politicians, reporters, and the various spin doctors when we can just take their word for it? That's not to mention all the data we receive from coworkers, friends, family, and everyone else we happen to know who got their information from who knows where. We could spend all our time checking facts and never get anything useful done.

The intensity of the arguments I've read about whether or not there actually existed a surplus in the late nineties is remarkable, for example, particularly because the main ones both got their data from the Congressional Budget Office. When two people look at the same data and arrive at different conclusions, who do you believe? Do you trust the person with the right degree? The person who says what you want to hear? How do you choose?

If only there were a way to know whether the person actually believed what they're saying instead of simply listening to them. Certainly, two people might believe completely incongruent facts, or even one person might have a set of beliefs that are not consistent, but at least that way we would know that they're not trying to deceive us.

Then again, is it just as bad to be unintentionally led astray as if it were planned?

Who do you trust?

[1] Lipstick on a Pig had nothing to do with Palin
[2] Governor Perry's calling President Obama a "dark cloud" hanging over the economy is racist?
[3] Jon Kyl claims Planned Parenthood services are well over 90%

In Debt We Trust

2011-07-26T04:52:00.001-04:00

How do we avoid default at this stage as a nation? Can the two parties arrive at a reasonable solution that not only gets us past this crisis but also leaves us with a better balance sheet than before?

I just read an interview over at Global Post[1] that makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately, it does sound like a two phase solution would be most fruitful at this stage since tempers are so high after weeks of negotiating. The current proposals by Senator Reid and Speaker Boehner are farther from the compromise solutions than is resolvable in the time we have before default. The markets are already reacting and are likely to continue suffering so long as no clear path emerges.

One proposal I've read about is a clean bill including nothing but a debt limit increase. At this point, there would still likely be bipartisan support for such a bill and it would buy time to continue negotiating the finer points of deficit reduction without the stress of a looming deadline. Is this workable? Perhaps, though as the ratings agencies stated it might still result in a rate reduction and thus higher cost for future borrowing.

[1]Debt Crisis interview

Ready to debtonate

2011-07-24T05:41:00.001-04:00

Have you heard of the debt ceiling debates? Yes? Okay - skip to paragraph two. So there's this limit called the "debt ceiling" that defines how much money the treasury can borrow via bond and similar instruments to pay for the programs and spending authorized by congress and signed into law by the president. We keep having to raise this limit because we're spending money faster than we're taking it in. On or around August 2nd we will reach the current limit and then be able to pay for about half of the stuff that we're currently doing without any new borrowing.

The debate has faltered numerous times over the last few months. There are several sticking points, or lines in the sand. Most revolve around a strong desire to reform our country's financial situation as a stipulation for raising this debt ceiling. Here are the two main issues I see at the moment:

Tea Party Republicans insist the limit be raised only with spending cuts attached, not with any increased tax revenue from current levels
President Obama, Senator Reid, and now Representative Pelosi, among others, want the limit raised enough that we won't have to debate this again before the 2012 election

The first has been a major problem for negotiations. Both the President's commission on the deficit and the recent "Gang of Six" proposal formed by three senators from each of the major parties includes additional tax revenue. When you have a cash flow problem, there are two options - reduce outflows and increase inflows. You can do one, the other, or both.

The second issue means that the volume of the money being discussed is very large, potentially up to $4 trillion over the next ten years. The driving force behind this requirement could be political - not wanting to have this issue come up again closer to the election. It could also be an efficiency argument - why have the same debate multiple times? Perhaps it's also tending on the perfectionist side - let's get the right answer rather than the quick one. In any case, I do believe that it is in the country's best interests to have a broader solution than a hack job, but the partial step is better than nothing at this stage.

In the case of a balance sheet as large as our nations, it's very difficult to choose only one of revenue or spending cuts without significantly changing the playing field. Rather, making smaller changes to both outflows and inflows helps keep the system more predictable and allows us time to see the impact of the changes. Several polls have shown that the majority of U.S. citizens favor a compromise that includes some of both. It really depends on the wording of the question, of course.[1] Still, the polls I've checked have shown that Democrats and independents are largely agree that tax increases should be part of the package. Republiicans are generally more in favor of cut only, but not by a large margin.[2]

How will this play out? In one scenario we could get a debt limit increase with only minimal cuts and some ongoing debate on the overall debt. In another, the negotiations that have been underway somehow reach a compromise in time for a vote before the deadline. It's also possible that the limit isn't raised in time and some payments stop going out. The investment world is getting more and more worried about this third option if quotes from economists and fund managers are any indication. Legislators are scrambling over the weekend to come up with something solid to avoid a massive negative market on Monday.

Can they do it? We've seen eleventh hour deals already this year and might be able to get one again. Still, you won't find me playing Russian roullette any time soon.[3]

[1]Poll divide

[2]CNN/ORC July 18-21 poll

[3] "The Tea Party is effectively playing Russian roulette with the bond market and they will, with certainty, lose," said Christian Cooper, head of U.S. dollar derivatives trading in New York at Jefferies & Co. Jefferies is one of 20 primary dealers that trade with the U.S. Federal Reserve.

A perspective on death

2011-05-02T14:14:00.003-04:00

I'm guessing you've heard that Osama bin Laden is dead. What does this mean? What comes next? How do we react?

As we just celebrated the Jewish holiday of Passover, a quotation comes to mind. After Pharoah's army was drowned in the Red Sea, the angels began to rejoice. The Almighty chided them, saying, "My creatures are dying and you're singing songs!"

Note, though, that this reprimand is not directed at the Jews who are also celebrating on the far side of the banks. I see this as a distinction in what is being celebrated. On the one hand, the angels have the perspective to see the event from an uninvolved position. It is their responsibility to take the good of all into account. The Jews, on the other hand, are celebrating their freedom and the inability of their former masters to take it away from them.

So - are we the angels or the Jews in this story? Or are we some of both?

As for how the world will respond, I predict this will make the odds of a Republican presidential candidate beating President Obama nearly insurmountable, barring an event of the magnitude of Katrina or a double-dip Great Recession. I also predict a small contingent of conspiracy theorists who will be reported on, of course, since they make the event seem controversial in a way that makes modern media salivate.

Pakistan will face many questions, some insightful and some downright silly, over how bin Laden could have be hiding so close to a training base. My coworker rightly points out that, perhaps, there are a great many fortified mansions in Pakistan given the tribal war lords common in politics of the region. Perhaps the Pakistani intelligence even provided critical assistance in the gathering of knowledge and planning that led to the raid. We as civilians will likely never know the truth.

In the meantime, let us not rejoice in death but rather in a respite from the slavery of hatred. Perhaps it will be short lived though I hope it will lead to an end to hostilities on all sides.

In peace,
Adam

Marriage equality

2009-04-22T10:28:00.004-04:00

As you're likely well aware, there have been several recent developments in the marriage equality arena. Iowa's supreme court unanimously legalized same sex marriage, Vermont's legislature overturned the governor's veto to legalize same sex marriage, and New York's governor revived a same sex marriage bill in his state.

Still, with the spectre of Proposition 8 in California and the state's supreme court unlikely to overturn it, not to mention the federal Defense of Marriage Act, same sex marriage in the U.S. seems to be years from widespread acceptance.

Where does that leave currently married or civily united same sex couples? Apparently in dire straights with no rights. For example, Janice Langbehn was denied access to her partner of 17 years despite having a legal advance directive that was provided to the hospital. I find this unconsciounable and, frankly, heartless. Yes, it's important to ensure only those the patient would want to have access and make medical decisions should be allowed to do so, but clearly the intent of the directive was that Janice should have access and not just make the medical decisions.

A proposal on Marriage

2008-11-08T16:49:00.003-05:00

As you may have read on DailyKos, there's a movement to separate marriage from civil unions. Marriage would be a strictly religious observance while civil unions would be granted by the state.

When my wife and I were married last year, we filled out two separate contracts. One was the North Carolina issued forms and entailed the legal benefits and responsibilities of our union. The other was a contract known as a "ketubbah" that is signed by husband and wife in the Jewish tradition and indicated our spiritual bond. Our wedding was performed by a rabbi, but she had to be licensed by the state to do so as well.

From our experience, it already seems to be that there are two separate institutions. Why not make it official? Churches and other houses of worship would not be forced to issue their religious marriages to anyone (e.g. a Catholic church would likely have refused to marry me and my wife), and civil unions will be available to any pair of consenting adults not already civilly united with someone else. Problem solved, marriage is saved, and everyone is treated equally under the letter of the law and our nation's constitution.

I'm considering crafting a petition to this effect, but don't know who to send it to, how to get signatures, and what other organizations to involve. I'm already a member of HRC and recently joined straight FOR equality, but don't know if there's a better place to start than with them. If you have ideas or would like to help out, please contact me. Let's make the world a better place together.

Obama's first 100 days

2008-11-05T11:05:00.002-05:00

Here is what I would like to see Obama and the new congress focus on during the first 100 days after they're sworn in next year:

Get his tax policy onto the floor of congress and passed so we can start working our way back toward a surplus a.s.a.p.
Work with Congress, the governors, and state legislatures to redefine marriage as a strictly religious institution. The government will instead issue Civil Unions to each pair of consenting adults with all the current benefits.
Begin troop draw down in Iraq, increase presence in Afghanistan. Ideally, capture bin Laden.
Meet with G[7/8], NAFTA, and appropriate U.N. councils to:
1. Define worldwide emissions standards and get them onto the floor of congress to be passed a.s.a.p.
2. Get Russia out of Georgia, replace their troops with U.N. peacekeepers.
3. Expedite and improve aid to African Union troops in Darfur.
Revive the SCHIP coverage debate and get that back on the floor of congress so he can sign it into law.
Implement strict restrictions on line item vetoes to avoid their abuse by any future president.

The future of the GOP

2008-11-05T11:00:00.004-05:00

With President-elect Obama's major victory and the Democratic gains in House and Senate, we will likely see a shake-up in the Republican party as they work to appeal to a larger portion of the electorate.

Here's my prediction- the Republican party will swing back towards the causes championed by the fiscal conservatives rather than the social conservatives, thus drawing back in a portion of the Libertarian vote (Ron Paul will have a hand in this, or at least be a target for assimilation by the Republican leadership even if he doesn't take part). A portion of the religious right will be so put out by being sidelined that they'll either form their own party or join another one as appropriate. Some of the evangelical leaders will even as independents, though this will be about as effective as the Green Party has been on a national level.

Two years from now: Democrats will retain a majority in house and senate, losses will be minimal if they exist at all. Republicans may make gains on the state level in several places across the country. Evangelical split will be beginning- at least two high profile races tracked by the networks will include one of the religious right candidates in addition to a Democrat and a Republican.

Four years from now: The Social/Fiscal conservative split will be well under way - Palin will be with the socials, of course. She will have a "party position", though likely not the candidate for president even though she'll run for it. Some other figure from the religious right will win their support and get approximately 5% of the popular vote in the general election. This will be enough to give Obama a second term as it eats into the base for the Republican candidate. Democrats will lose a few seats in the senate and house but retain a majority.

Eight years from now: The social and fiscal conservatives have tried to reconcile and made some limited success. Still the bruises and scabs from the hateful rhetoric of the past six to eight years will be difficult to fully heal from and the Democratic candidate will have an advantage going into the presidential election. Still, the pendulum will have started swinging back and it will be a tough fight. Some segment of the social conservatives will have splintered off and will be (pardon my French) absolutely bat-guana crazy. We'll all have a good laugh, though be scared at the same time.

I wouldn't bank money on this, and I haven't been around as long as other folks on this list probably have, certainly, but I think it's at least a reasonable starting prediction. Feel free to adapt and update based on the output from your crystal ball and tea leaf readings.

Tax plans

2008-10-17T16:37:00.003-04:00

If you're interested in the differences between the tax plans Senator Obama and Senator McCain have proposed, you'll probably find the Washington Post's Obama and McCain Tax Proposals as informative as I did.

I'm particularly interested in the fact that McCain's tax break percentage increase as income increases while for Obama tax breaks increase and income decreases. Given the increasing disparity in wealth between the extremes, I believe Senator Obama's plan is the most equitable given this data.

One other fact I haven't been able to find yet is how Senator McCain plans to finance his tax cut. Folks used to complain about the "tax and spend liberals". I think it's time they started worrying about the "borrow and spend conservatives" who have driven up the debt and deficit over the past eight years.

Statistics and trends

2008-10-13T05:46:00.013-04:00

I've taken to following as many of the daily polls and statistics tracking the upcoming election as I can. My cousin recommended the site FiveThirtyEight.com to my parents, who passed it along to me. It's hard to argue with cold mathematical prediction models or to skew them to your liking. The only thing you can affect is the questions asked, and with the slew of polls they track that noise is hopefully canceled out. I recommend taking a look if you don't feel you're getting your daily dose of campaign updates already. From their FAQ, here's a bit on their goal as a site:

What is the mission of this website? Most broadly, to accumulate and analyze polling and political data in way that is informed, accurate and attractive. Most narrowly, to give you the best possible objective assessment of the likely outcome of upcoming elections.

For the other end of the objectivity spectrum, there's the Washington Post, as discussed by Chris Bowers in his post "A 2.2% McCain lead is greater than a 13.8% Obama Lead."

I also took a look at the latest ABC/Post polling data and was intrigued by one of the results they called out:

                              Vote preference 
                            among likely voters 
 More important                Obama  McCain 
   Positions on issues (49%)    68%     29 
   Personal qualities  (39%)    34      61

As one of the 49% of folks who is more interested in the candidates' positions on the issues they'll face as leader of the free world, I may admittedly be a little bit biased here. However, it does strike me as telling that those who are more interested in the candidates' positions are overwhelmingly Obama supporters. We've already had one president that folks would like to have a beer with, and his approval rating is now lower than Richard Nixon's worst (also from the ABC/Post poll).

True, a president must be an able diplomat with foreign leaders, but only 2% of those polled said that foreign policy was the most important issue in choosing a president. True, a president needs to be able to broker deals with both house of congress, but Obama holds an edge as a "stronger leader", 54% to 40%. What personal qualities are those polled considering? I don't see the raw data for the question in the report broken down by candidate, so it's difficult to glean any more data here. If you have any insight, please do let me know!

On debating: Palin's tactics

2008-10-03T07:07:00.002-04:00

In last night's debate, Governor Palin decided that she could take a lifeline out at any time by simply deciding not to address the questions posed to her. Toward the beginning of the debate, she said, "And I may not answer the questions that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I'm going to talk straight to the American people."[1]

That is no way to have a debate. I'm one of those American people you mentioned, Governor Palin, and I would have been very interested to hear you address the deregulation question Senator Biden was discussing before the above quote, as well as a dozen other questions you decided to simply ignore.

Let's be very clear - as leaders of the free world, the president and vice president do not get to decide what issues to address. They are responsible for all of them. Playing ostrich and dodging issues you don't like is exactly what got us into the economic mess we're in. Pundits were saying you merely had to hold your own last night, but I believe you had to show you were capable of governing a nation after having governed a state with a population lower than that over a dozen cities in the lower 48 states. In that respect, you have failed to convince me you are ready to serve as vice president of the United States.

Moreover, your broad interpretation of the powers and duties of the office of the vice president are frightening and dangerous. As previously mentioned in "Ongoing Investigations", you consider yourself to be above the law. No citizen of the country is ever above the law, and no citizen in their right mind wants a vice president who puts themselves above the law. To directly quote:

IFILL: Governor, you mentioned a moment ago the constitution might give the vice president more power than it has in the past. Do you believe as Vice President Cheney does, that the Executive Branch does not hold complete sway over the office of the vice presidency, that it it is also a member of the Legislative Branch?

PALIN: Well, our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president. And we will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president's agenda in that position. Yeah, so I do agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we'll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation.[1]

I think not, Governor Palin. Please reread our Constitution.

[1] Transcript of Palin, Biden debate

First Debate wrap-up

2008-09-28T06:24:00.000-04:00

The debate on Friday night was very interesting, and showed both that Senator Obama and Senator McCain agree on several issues, and have very different strategies on others. However, only Senator Obama seemed willing to admit that he agrees with Senator McCain on several points.

A few of the best debate wrap-up articles I've found are the following:

New York Times fact checking: Refuting some of the more outlandish claims and misquotes by each candidate.

New York Times live debate blogging: Summarizing the highlights.

Politico's roundup: Another good summary of the highlights.

The most powerful lines that stuck in my memory were both by Senator Obama:

“You said we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were. You were wrong,” Obama said about the Iraq war. “You said that we were going to be greeted as liberators. You were wrong. You said that there was no history of violence between Shia and Sunni. And you were wrong. If the question is who is best-equipped as the next president to make good decisions about how we use our military, how we make sure that we are prepared and ready for the next conflict, then I think we can take a look at our judgment.”[1]

and:

"I've got a bracelet, too."[1]

In addition, as quoted in Senator McCain campaign's YouTube video that came out just after the debate last night, Senator Obama several times indicated that he agreed with Senator McCain. Why would Senator McCain see this as a negative trait? It shows bipartisanship, a spirit of cooperation, and rational thought.

The quote from Senator McCain that stayed with me was his repetition of "Obama doesn't understand." Unfortunately for Senator McCain, Senator Obama's performance in the debate proved otherwise. They both understand the situation, they just disagree on the best resolution.

I agree with the snap polls- this debate was a win for Senator Obama.

[1] McCain on offense; Obama plays it cool

Legislative accomplishments

2008-09-24T08:00:00.002-04:00

In my earlier post "Candidates Respond on Bailout", I included a quote from Senator Obama on his intention to reduce government spending on private contractors by 10%. I found an analysis of the bills and amendments sponsored by both Senator McCain and Senator Obama over the past four years that help depict how Senator Obama may do just that.

Several times over his tenure as a US Senator, Obama has sponsored amendments to bills that would proscribe large contracts from being issued using "procedures other than competitive procedures."[1] These types of contract awarding procedures will make sure that the federal government hires contractors at a competitive rate, instead of the no-bid contracts that, frankly, do not make sense.

If you were going to have the roof of your home replaced or perform a major remodel totaling several thousand dollars, you would of course get multiple estimates from different contractors, likely after asking folks you trust for references. Why would the government spend 1000 times that amount or more on a contract that they hadn't done similar comparisons on? If the answer is just "expedience," that's not good enough. Our government needs to do the most with the money it collects from us, and that entails getting the best deal for the buck.

The Washington Monthly link below lists off numerous other legislative accomplishments of both senators and is well worth reading.

[1] Political Animal: Compare and Contrast

Candidates respond to the bailout

2008-09-24T07:10:00.004-04:00

Though certainly not the only problem facing our nation today, the federal bailout plan for the financial crisis is certainly making headlines. Both major party candidates have issued statements on the proposal, and there are some striking similarities. As MSNBC reports:

Both called for greater oversight; for ensuring that taxpayers benefit if repackaged loans are sold at a profit or the bailed-out companies recover; and for limiting the pay of executives at firms covered by the bailout.[1]

Beyond that, though, there are some differences. In particular, the two have different tax cut plans.

"Obama said his proposed middle-class tax cuts remain 'absolutely necessary.'...McCain says he still plans to extend Bush's tax cuts for high-income Americans..."[1]

Other parts to their proposals follow similar lines. Senator Obama called for "boosts to subsidies for health care, education, retirement savings, renewable energy and other priorities," [1] the first three of which would directly benefit individuals, while the fourth would help bring the cost of energy down in the long term. Senator McCain "favors increased federal spending for nuclear power and control of greenhouse gases" [1]. While more investment in nuclear power might help bring down the cost of energy in the long term, measures to control greenhouse gases will likely raise it in the short term. In addition, such federal spending would only indirectly benefit consumers while directly benefiting power companies.

As such, it seems from the MSNBC article that Senator Obama's plan is more focussed on assisting the individual citizens while Senator McCain is calling for assistance to the wealthy and to corporations. Senator McCain's top financial advisor Doug Holtz-Eakins said McCain is working on "policies to create jobs in America and get the economy going,"[1] a strategy that, combined with the above, smacks of trickle-down economics.

From an article on Fox News, we learn that Senator McCain seems to have given more ammunition to his detractors, since "McCain, who only a week ago said the economy was fundamentally sound, now says the U.S. financial system is facing a major crisis."[2] However, he also "called for a bipartisan oversight board for the proposed bailout, to be headed by Warren Buffet or another broadly respected business leader."[2]

Senator Obama "vowed to slash federal spending on private contractors by 10 percent in an effort to cut costs to help the failing economy, singling out Haliburtion."[2] As such, it seems that he intends to fund his initiatives outlined above by ensuring "Washington starts taking responsibility for every dime that it spends."[2] Senator Obama also calls for bipartisan oversight of the bailout.[3]

In summary, Senator McCain and Senator Obama agree that the current bailout plan needs more oversight. Senator Obama has endorsed middle class tax cuts, more spending on programs that directly aid citizens, and reducing government costs by increasing accountability. Senator McCain favors extending the President Bush tax cuts to the wealthy, more government spending on nuclear power and greenhouse gas control, and a committee including business leaders to oversee the distribution of federal funds to other business leaders.

It's just not reasonable to portray these two plans in an equal light - one of them is likely to actually assist individuals while the other is likely to assist corporations and businesses.

[1] Obama, McCain wary about financial bailout
[2] Obama, McCain Question Wall Street Bailout
[3] Show Your Support for a Responsible Economic Recovery Plan

Ongoing investigations

2008-09-23T23:52:00.005-04:00

According to CNN, Governor Sarah Palin "has halted her previously promised cooperation with the Legislature's investigation of the July dismissal of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan". [1] Palin's husband Todd and several of her top aides have refused to comply with subpoenas, CNN reports.

On Fox News, they cover the story as well. Of particular note is a quote by Anchorage attorney Kevin G. Clarkson, who said, “There is no nonpartisan reason to complete this investigation until after the election." [2] One could just as easily argue that there is no nonpartisan reason to delay or interfere with the bipartisan investigation.

At this point, Governor Palin's reasons for firing the public safety commissioner has sadly become a secondary issue to the interference with the investigation. No citizen of the United States of America is above the law. When issued a subpeona, citizens are expected to appear in court, not complain of "an inconvenient travel schedule". [3]

Granted, there is much more to leading this nation than managing an enormous staff. However, it is crucial that in performing all of the other responsibilities of the office of the president or vice president that a citizen so honored with that position remember that he or she is still just a public servant, subject to all of the laws of the land.

[1] Republican lawmaker says Palin inquiry should go on
[2] Republican Lawmakers Sue to Stop Palin Inquiry
[3] Investigator: Palin probe to end before election

New ad from the Obama campaign

2008-09-12T08:44:00.004-04:00

According to the Associated Press, there's a new ad from the Obama campaign.

One of the sentences quoted states that Senator McCain "admits he still doesn't know how to use a computer, can't send an e-mail, still doesn't understand the economy, and favors two hundred billion in new tax cuts for corporations, but almost nothing for the middle class."

Of those statements, only the last two on tax cuts reflect on policy. Not understanding the economy could also be a relevant issue, though is not as direct as the policy notes. As for not knowing how to use a computer or send e-mail, that doesn't necessarily imply a lack of ability to lead or serve as president.

I would prefer to see the ad lead the sentence with the policy critique as that's more relevant to the differences we'll see between an Obama and McCain presidency.

That being said, I'm glad to see in the last paragraph of the article that mainstream media in Virginia is focussing more on Senator Obama's planned policies than the lipstick hoopla. Also, it's refreshing to see that he plans continue to highlighting issues in his message and that the ad contains no outright lies or distortions unlike Senator McCain's have.[1][2][3]

[1] Fact Check on Senator McCain's speech
[2] Fact Check on Sex Ed
[3] Fact Check on Senator McCain's misuse of Fact Check

Lincoln Chafee sees grey regarding Sarah Palin

2008-09-12T06:41:00.000-04:00

Over at The Washington Note there's an interview with former Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee from Rhode Island. Please take the six minutes to watch it here.

The key quote that makes us at Grey Politics repost is: "That's not in our long term best interests. It's a dangerous planet -- nuclear weapons -- a tremendous capacity of destruction exists. It's going to take some wisdom and ability to see gray sometimes, and lessons of the Cold War are that sometimes containment can work."

On Lipstick: An Open Letter to Senator John McCain

2008-09-11T14:16:00.002-04:00

Senator McCain,

Shame on you. When Senator Obama said

"John McCain says he's about change, too - except for economic policy, health care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy and Karl Rove-style politics. That's not change. That's just calling the same thing something different. You can put lipstick on a pig - it's still a pig."[1]

your first response should not have been to air a web ad claiming:

CHYRON: Barack Obama On: Sarah Palin
BARACK OBAMA: Well, you know, you can, you know you can...put...uh...lipstick on a pig...it's still a pig.[2]

From Barack Obama's remarks, it's clear he's referring to John McCain's policies.

Instead, your response should have been something along the lines of: "Senator Obama claims that our policies are no different from those of President Bush. He's wrong- here's what's different, here's what's the same, and why."

Misquoting, slandering, and phony outrage over a comment that John McCain himself has used[3] are horrible and shameful politics. Your attacks show me that your estimation of the average American's intelligence is approximately that of a pig wearing lipstick, or possibly a pit bull.

Please get back to the issues.

Sincerely,
Grey Politics

[1]The Caucus Blog
[2]John McCain's official campaign site
[3]YouTube video of McCain