“Number two, create jobs.”

When asked how to deal with the economic troubles recently, Biden answered that he would create jobs.

Thankfully, the interviewer didn’t let him get away with it.  This reminds me earlier when an Obama ad said that he would “fast-track” new technology for alternative fuels.  You can’t fast-track science.  You increase spending in a particular field, but there’s no guarantee that usable technology will come from that science.

They criticize McCain for supporting drilling, but drilling is the only proven source of energy here.  It may be 5-10 years away, but we have no clue at all how far away usable alternative fuels are.  I’d rather pursue the “all of the above” strategy that will at least give us a back-up plan with having more of our own oil.

That’s all I’ve heard so far out of Obama-Biden is vague goals of what they want to accomplish, but not how they are going to accomplish them.

This is especially true with their economic policies.  They are shooting for policies that sound good now—taxing oil companies and big corporations and giving money back to people.  However, that idea is extremely shortsighted.  What I want is a candidate not just with ideas, but with plans.  There’s a huge difference.

When looking at examples of these tax and spend policies, we look no further to the "laboratories of democracies” the states themselves.  California and New York have adopted the approach that Obama has advocated with dire consequences.  The Wall Street Journal recently noted:

Anyone who thinks the path to "fiscal discipline" is through higher taxes ought to look at the current budget spectacles in New York and California. The two liberal states have among the highest tax burdens in the country, yet both now find themselves with huge budget deficits and are debating still higher taxes to close the gap.

Ideas make for great rhetoric, but plans make for great results.

Palin did not attempt to tie 9/11 to Sadam

The Washington Post has a piece in today's edition, September 12, 2008 that is blatantly misleading. The piece by Anne E. Kornblut begins:

Gov. Sarah Palin linked the war in Iraq with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, telling an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers that included her son that they would "defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans."

The way Kornblut frame's Palins remarks isn't bad in and of itself. However, Kornblut continues:

The idea that the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein helped al-Qaeda plan the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, a view once promoted by Bush administration officials, has since been rejected even by the president himself. But it is widely agreed that militants allied with al-Qaeda have taken root in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion.

The Bush administration attempted to make the link between al-Qaeda and Sadam early on making the case for war. It was only one part of an entire case war. Of course Palin isn't trying to resurrect this discounted theory.

Kornblut provides herself some wriggle room by stating that indeed, "But it is widely agreed that militants allied with al-Qaeda have taken root in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion." Of course this is what Palin meant.

Kornblut bringing up what Palin most likely couldn't have meant when it was obvious what she did mean is bad journalism. It would be akin to the following senario:

Headline: Sen. Obama alludes to Middle Eastern scripture

Sen. Obama alluded to words from a sacred text in his acceptance speech saying, "At this moment, in this election, we must pledge once more to march into the future. Let us keep that promise — that American promise — and in the words of Scripture hold firmly, without wavering, to the hope that we confess."

Rumors that Obama attended an extremist Muslim school as a child and was at one time, or still is, a practicing Muslim, have been denied by his campagin. It is widely agreed that the allusion was most likelyin reference to the Bible--used by Christians as a sacred text.

The above example is how one could take words that Obama did say, and frame them in such away with such a headline to be misleading. Everything above is factual, as was in the Washington Post piece.

Of course Obama wouldn't be referring to he Koran in his acceptance speech, neither would Palin be espousing a long discredited story in recent speeches.

Biden: Life begins at conception

Barak Obama's running mate, Joe Biden dropped what ammounts to a bombshell in an interview on Meet the Press this past Sunday:

"They believe in their faith and they believe in human life, and they have differing views as to when life — I'm prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception."

Wow.  Usually, proponents of abortion rights hide behind the "uncertainty" of when life begins.  We saw Obama use a simlar dodge when asked about human rights for the unborn with his "above my pay-grade" comment.  He was criticized by many, including me, for not having a clear answer on such an important question.

Speaker of the House, and #3 person in the federal government, attempted to defend her position on abortion by muddling Roman Catholic teaching on the matter.  Christianity has been clearly against abortion since its founding.  Pelosi was later rebuked by leaders in the Catholic Church, of which she is a member, for her misleading statements about Catholic doctrine.

However, Biden's statment goes beyond the pale.  Biden cuts through the uncertainty and says that he believes life begins "at the moment of conception."  Yet, he still supports the rights of those who want to take that life, and furthers the industry which profits off the practice.

The question that was asked of Obama at the Saddleback Forum would be especially poigniant if redirected at Biden.  Since Biden believes that life begins at conception, when does this life get human rights?

Then there's a new set of questions that spring forth:  Are there other human lives that can be denied human rights?  Which human rights do we withhold?  Are human rights additive or subtractive?  Meaning, do humans automatically have human rights unless they are restricted, or are they considered withheld unless specifically given to people by the US Congress or Supreme Court?  I know what the Constitution says, but does Biden?

Even for supporters of abortion rights, the Obama-Biden ticket has a lot of questions to answer.

The Gender Card

Jon Stewart has a funny clip about the double-standard some of the conservative talking heads have used in regards to Palin.



Couple things to respond: I'm not going to defend Rove, O'Reilly, or Morris's remarks. They are blatantly hypocritical.

However I think that what Nancy Pfotenhauer, who works for the McCain campaign said is complete different. Clinton was being accused of coming out after one of the debates and complaining that all the male candidates were picking on her. This is the same line of campaigning that was said to have helped her with her iner her debate against Rick Lazio when she was running for senate in 2000.

In regards to Palin, the argument is that the media is the one with the double standard. They have been asking questions they wouldn't ask of a male candidate. When has a male candidate ever had his parenting ability questioned when he was running for office with a new kid, or even where the status of his kids came into play?

Palin is not playing this card. The McCain-Palin campaign is merely asking they they treat her like a candidate, and not a female candidate.

Also, Stewart failed to mention the many double-standards the Obama campaign has been using. These aren't from talking heads, these are coming directly from the campaign.

Ignoring Palin's experience as governor to focus instead on her being a small-town mayor. When Palin made a remark about Obama's experience as a "community organizer," he complained that she was ignoring his subsequent experience.

Playing the race card, while accusing Palin and the GOP of playing the gender card. I have not heard, or seen one attack from the McCain campaign or the GOP regarding Obama's race. Yet, Obama said statements like the one below a few times:

“They know that you’re not real happy with them and so the only way they figure they’re going to win this election is if they make you scared of me,” Obama continued, repeating an attack from earlier in the day. “What they’re saying is ‘Well, we know we’re not very good but you can’t risk electing Obama. You know, he’s new, he doesn’t look like the other presidents on the currency, he’s a got a funny name.’”

After Obama himself said this, I think its hard for his surrogates to accuse Palin of using her gender to advantage--even if she actually has been (and she hasn't been).

Sarah Palin Doesn't Know What the VP does?

This video is getting some play on YouTube. The comments--save for one or two--show how ignorant people can be on the internet. Watch the clip and my commentary is below.



First, Palin responds very clearly to the whole Public Safety Officer controversy. She fired a political appointee. Political appointees serve at the pleasure of the executive. If the executive isn't happy with you, they can can you.

This issue was seen on the national stage with President Andrew Johnson's impeachment back in 1868. Congress has passed a law requiring its approval on any cabinet officials that the president fires. Johnson broke the law and was impeached, but not removed from office. Later, the Supreme Court found it to be an invalid law because it placed an unconstitutional check on the presidency.

I realize that Palin's controversy is happening on a state level, but the principles are the same.

Second, in regards to the duties of the vice president. She wasn't saying that she didn't know what the VP does. She was comparing the relative lack of official responsibilities of the VP (there are only 3 official duties) with her great responsibilities in running a state.

Notice what she said:

"I'm used to being very productive and working really hard every day...We want to make sure that the VP spot would be a fruitful type of position."

The first person to hold the Vice President office, John Adams, famously said of the job that it was, "the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived."

The extra-Constitutional duties of the VP have been expanded greatly since Truman became president knowing nothing about Rooselvelt's war strategy or even the atomic bomb. That being said, the duties vary from administration to administration.

Palin is just expessing the fact that as a governor she is very busy and has a lot of responsibilties compared to the vice president job which has been known through most of its history as an "insignificant office."