Ballin’ Palin Can’t Make a Wrong Move

By JASON WALKER, Columnist

If a bridge goes to nowhere does it really exist?

Despite barely watching any coverage of the RNC I saw this bridge to nowhere issue discussed on multiple networks.

From what I understand, Congress earmarked some money to build a bridge in Alaska. Palin was all for building it until Congress told her they would be going Dutch. Since Congress only gave Alaska around half the money they initially said they would, Palin voted against building the bridge, but kept the money.

And…

I don’t see a problem. Was this “bridge only” money? According to the reports I’ve seen Congress didn’t say ‘if you decide not to build the bridge send it back.’ So isn’t it a good move if she decided the cost for state was too great and it would be better to use the money on other projects that wouldn’t require any additional funding from the residents? What elected official in the country would have given back that money? Who is going to say, “We don’t have anything we could use this for,” or, “This is way too much?” Nobody. And if someone did, why would you ever vote for that dummy again?

As governor her primary responsibility is to the people of Alaska. It sounds like what she did was in the state’s best interest, which makes it a pretty good decision in my opinion. I want my governor to have a state-first mentality. She was elected by the people of Alaska, not the entire United States, so serving those who elected you comes first.

So why bring it up? I guess there isn’t much out there about her to discuss and mentioning it in her speech opens the door for scrutiny. So what, she changed her mind after she found out it was going to cost more than she originally thought? We’ve all done that. I don’t know if there’s enough there for her to be touting it as evidence of her bold leadership, but there definitely isn’t enough there to question either. So why does it keep coming up? I actually thought it was a dead issue until I saw a clip online of an interview on 20/20 where she had been asked about it again.

Am I the only one who thought Charles Gibson was kind of a dick? Why has “hard-hitting journalism” become to mean the reporter acts like a douche bag? You can address serious issues or ask difficult questions without being accusatory or ultra-confrontational. But it seems like few know how to do that anymore. Reporters turn each interview into an audition for their own show or a shot at an anchor’s desk. Everybody wants to be Geraldo. Eighties’ Geraldo, not the one giving away tactical positions or making a fool out of himself in the water.

Anyway, the online clips actually got me interested enough to watch the interview. Even though parts of the interview looked more chopped up than a Clue tape, it still seemed that Palin was not comfortable talking about some issues.

She painfully danced around the issue of homosexuality saying, “I’m not going to judge them.” Yes she does. But don’t worry Sarah, we all do, gay or straight. What else is she supposed to say anyway?

She lost me when talking about her national security creed. It didn’t seem like she answered the question at all. It sort of boiled down to being more secure by reducing dependency on foreign oil.

Then there was “Troopergate.” I actually wish there was something there. It would be interesting if it turned out the trooper was a really good guy and she was an evil governor unfairly wielding her power. Sort of like every political movie you’ve ever seen except with a woman in power and, you know, for real. But it probably isn’t going to amount to anything. If it were that big of a scandal we would have seen that trooper’s face all over like that parade of busted women Clinton felt up. Besides the Republican party would really be slippin’ if they let that one get by them. That dude is still a trooper. If she wanted him gone he would have been gone. If she couldn’t take out some random officer with a shaky record, how can you expect her to help mastermind the next national disaster needed to instigate war? When the Sears Tower or Golden Gate Bridge goes down we’re going to know McCain and Palin were behind it in like a week.

I also thought it was interesting that she was a baller in high school. I bet she’s got way more handle than Barack. Despite his height advantage I bet she would house him in a game of one-on-one. He’s a black(ish) presidential candidate and he may not even be the best basketball player on the ballot. His little weekend games look like doo-doo next to a state championship.

All in all she looked too prepped in this interview. She stumbled through issues like abortion because she had been told to avoid saying certain things. I’m sure as she gets coached up more and learns the playbook she’ll learn to respond to those questions naturally. Then we’ll never be able to trust her again.

This whole Palin nomination is genius. She is Obama/Biden campaign cancer; the perfect decoy selected by the Republicans to distract everyone from the real issues and reflect the weakness of the Democratic Party. They can’t attack her for being inexperienced, they can’t attack her the way they did Hillary and, oh, that’s right, they’re not supposed to. She’s the VICE presidential nominee. By positioning Palin against Obama and evoking comparisons to Clinton the Republicans have set up the perfect stage to pull the upset. How bad does it look if your candidate for president is getting all he can handle from the JV squad? It looks like the Democrats finally woke up, but the media seems a bit behind and the more attention Palin receives the worse it will get for the Democrats. If we’re still talking about her children, bridges that weren’t built and employees who still have their jobs in November, then we’ll also be seeing McCain sworn into office in January.

Click here to see the whole 20/20 interview.

Jason Walker may be reached at Jason_R_Walker@comcast.net.

The Bailout Blame Game

By AMANDA KOCH, Assistant Managing Editor

This is why I get tired of politics. This is why I DVRed the debate and watched it at leisure over three days. This is why I sometimes prefer to actually work at work instead of reading the myriad of Web sites I feel obligated to keep up with on any given day. This is why, for the sake of my sanity, my benevolent brain processes the whining of politicians in such a way that all I can hear is Charlie Brown’s teacher speaking. The blame game.

I have news for everyone. The failed bailout bill is not the sole responsibility of the Democrats. Or the Republicans. Or Obama. Or McCain.

Minutes after the failure to pass the bailout bill, House Leader John Boehner said it was Nancy Pelosi’s fault the bill failed. He said her partisan speech before the vote made some Republicans change their minds.

So, let me get this right. These Republican representatives thought this bill was a good idea. They thought this bill would help the economy. They thought it would help Wall Street and Main Street. They were convinced this bill was needed, and they were ready to vote ‘yes.’ Then Pelosi said this crisis was caused by the failed policies of this administration. So the representatives in question then crossed their arms, pouted their lips and threw themselves on the floor like a bunch of toddlers, and they refused to vote ‘yes.’ They voted against what they thought was right to really stick it to Pelosi and her partisanship. Well, if that’s true, I think that says more about them than Pelosi and her partisan speech, which, let’s face it, we all knew she was thinking, even if it never made it past her lips.

Democrats said it was the fault of Republican leaders because they failed to get their people behind it. Perhaps the Democrats have short-term memories, because they are the majority and had enough people in their own party to pass the bill without the Republicans. So, let me get this one right. The Democrats believe in this bill. They believe this is the answer to the financial crisis. They believe that if we don’t vote ‘yes’ for this bill now the economy will tank, even more than it tanked already, if you can believe it. Well, apparently the Democrats didn’t believe enough to really stick out their necks on this one.

According to Pelosi, Democrats lived up to their part of the bargain, lending 60% of their members to the ‘yes’ vote; not as many votes as they had, but 60% of their votes, and the Republicans didn’t live up to their part of the bargain. They didn’t provide their required percentage of votes. Let’s face it, Democrats didn’t want to throw all their votes in one hat, even if they really did believe this bill was needed, for fear that this whole concept would fail and it would be easier to blame them for it. They needed the Republicans votes to share the potential blame.

I don’t even want to get into the Obama and McCain blame game because I already have a headache, but I will anyway. Let me begin with this statement – how two Senators are responsible for the failure of a House vote is beyond me.

According to McCain, Obama obviously didn’t try hard enough to get the votes needed for this thing. Apparently, McCain didn’t realize more than twice as many Democrats than Republicans voted ‘yes.’ Doesn’t this mean McCain failed at getting the votes needed? Well, we’ve all heard about his school record, so I guess we can chalk this misperception up to the fact that percentages and math are just not his thing. And this is the guy who thinks he’s the linchpin to the whole bailout negotiation. Does he even understand math?

After the failed vote and McCain’s comments, Obama told McCain to step off, then said all Americans should be pissed that this happened at all, that this crisis was brought about by the awful policies of the Republican administration over the last eight years. Oh right, thanks, I totally forgot that a bunch of idiots got us into this mess and now we’re all going to suffer. Thanks for the advice, Senator. Care to share any other advice? Maybe I should be mad that a robber came into my house and stole all my stuff. You think so? Come back when you have something to say.

The fact is, some people thought the bailout bill was a bad idea. Some people on both sides of the aisle thought something was missing from the bill, whether it was Republicans who thought it called for too much oversight or Democrats who thought more help should be offered to people in foreclosure. Or some members from both parties who heard from their constituents that they hated the bill, got scared with elections so close to go against the voters. And I’m sure some thought it was simply a bad bill, and to them no bill was better than a bad one.

There is no one group or person responsible for this. It failed, and now it’s Congress’ job to go back and try to fix it so that a majority are happy with the final bill. That’s their job – getting a majority to reach a consensus on pieces of legislation. You’d think no one ever explained this to them; like it’s a new part of their jobs; something they’ve never had to do before. Stop pointing fingers, and stop whining. I’m over it. I’m tired of this blame game crap.

Amanda Koch can be reached at amandarosekoch@gmail.com.

Nightmare on Wall Street

By EUGENE MULERO, Correspondent

Last week, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said her office was getting tons of calls from her constituents, begging her not to bailout Wall Street’s titans.

“… in general, we got to make sure we don’t walk away from this thing, and we don’t handout a blank check to (the) CEOs and CFOs who got us into this mess. People are telling me, ‘Barbara, use your authority to make sure this isn’t a disastrous boondoggle’,” Boxer told me outside the Senate chamber.

This also was the concern from the conservatives. Sen. Jeff Session, R-Ala., said to me, before he met with the Treasury Secretary: “Let’s read the documents they are proposing. Congress can’t rubber-stamp a proposal. Our inherent duty is of protecting the Treasury. I think Congress needs a reasonable time to review this before we rubber-stamp a matter of this huge nature. And by the tens of thousands, constituents actually contacted their members of Congress, objecting to Secretary Paulson’s proposal.”

In House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s now-famous speech on Monday, she reminded her colleagues that the White House had fooled them before—and rash actions, especially when a potential Great Depression 2.0 hung in the balance—was not the best way to proceed this time around.

So-called conservative mainstream media pundits who support Paulson’s proposal, criticized Pelosi. However, they forget Americans are still wondering why the Bush administration still hasn’t captured Osama bin Laden, allowed the NSA to eavesdrop on citizens and are pissed off about $3-plus for a gallon of gas (if there’s even gas available in some places around the country). And, most of them don’t cry because a CEO went from earning $1.1 billion annually, to a measly $500 million.

Oh, not to mention, three out of every four Americans do not support President Bush.
After all that, is it any mystery why voters called their lawmakers to oppose approving the largest golden parachute ever – $700 billion – for some of the richest men in the world, who caused this financial meltdown in the first place?

Economist Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University said it best. Last Sunday on 60 Minutes he told Scott Pelley that Paulson’s “proposal is to take on to American taxpayers the millions of bad mortgages – toxic mortgages – that no one on Wall Street wants to take. When they announced that plan the champagne bottle corks were popping on Wall Street. You know, they finally found the sucker to take on these assets; no one in the private sector would touch these private mortgages.”

Pelley asked, “Who’s the sucker?”

“The American taxpayer,” Stiglitz responded.

Eugene Mulero may be reached at Eugene.Mulero@gmail.com.

A Soldier’s Right to Fight

By CASEY HYNES, Correspondent

This summer the Supreme Court decided that detainees at Guantanamo Bay had the right to petition their release in a federal court. The decision was met with strong sentiments of approval and derision. Supporters said it would help restore America’s reputation in the eyes of the world, while critics said it would lead to more terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.

For Norbert Basil MacLean III, a former cryptologist for the United States Navy, that decision was not nearly as egregious as that of Congress’ in 2006, when it passed the Military Commissions Act. The bill granted enemy combatants the right to direct review of their military commission cases in the Supreme Court.

“The worst of the worst – an enemy combatant – has access to our high court while a serviceman or woman who puts their life on the line for our protection and defense is shut out,” MacLean said. “How does Congress reconcile giving enemies access to our high court and at the same time closing the door on those who fight for our democratic way of life? I don’t think this can be reconciled.”

Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, members of the armed services can bring their cases to the Supreme Court only under very limited circumstances. These include cases in which the defendant could face the death penalty, cases certified to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces by the judge advocate general for review, and cases where the appeals court granted the accused member’s petition for review or the appeals court otherwise granted relief to the accused, according to a Legal Times article written by MacLean.

Cases in which a soldier faces the death penalty are rare. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, there have been 135 military executions since 1913, the last of which took place in 1961. In July, however, President Bush approved the death penalty for Army Private Ronald A. Gray, who was convicted of committing four murders and eight rapes while stationed at Fort Bragg during the 1980s, according to the Associated Press.

As noted by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., during a recent floor statement, members of the armed services whose cases are rejected by the military appeals court cannot request that the Supreme Court hear their case. Conyers also pointed out that, “adding insult to injury,” the government can appeal to the Supreme Court if the appeals court finds against the government.

Conyers was speaking in favor of the Equal Justice for Our Military Act, which would theoretically correct the imbalance. Bills in support of the act recently passed in both the House and Senate, a great victory for someone like MacLean. A dual citizen in the United States and Australia, MacLean has been on a passionate and personal crusade over the past several months to bring this issue to light.

“The Supreme Court doesn’t exist [for military service members],” he said.

MacLean’s dedication to the cause began with his own experience. As he tells it, he was court-martialed and eventually discharged from the Navy for writing bad checks due to problems with his military pay, he says. MacLean believes that the charges were brought against him because he filed a complaint against a commanding officer for harassment. The court eventually found in MacLean’s favor, but the officer was able to bring court-martial charges against him several months later.

It was during his ordeal that MacLean discovered he had no real way of appealing his case outside of the military justice system, and has since sought to rectify the situation for other military members.

And with the passage of the Equal Justice for Our Military Act, it looks as if he may see some progress.

The Equal Justice for Our Military Act would amend the federal judicial code to allow members of the armed services to directly appeal their cases to the Supreme Court, under certain circumstances in which they have been denied relief by the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The issue has received bipartisan support, and a bill was passed by the House of Representatives on Sept. 27. An identical bill was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Sept. 11, but still needs to be voted on by the full Senate.

“I am very pleased that the House of Representatives passed this bill that will afford our uniformed citizens access to the highest court in the land which they serve to protect and defend,” MacLean said in an e-mail. “This legislation, which is long overdue, stops the second-class legal treatment of our troops.”

MacLean’s push to attract attention and support for the issue are driven in part by his belief that if the American public knew about this imbalance, they would be outraged and want a change to the law.

Walter Cox, a former chief judge of the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, said that for most Americans, the issue is “out of sight, out of mind.”

“As a nation, we have both an ethical and moral obligation to make sure they have access to the highest court in the land,” he said. When American soldiers are paying with their lives to defend their country, at minimum they are owed due process, he said, adding that there is a potential for landmark cases to come out of a reform in military justice legislation.

Former Marine Corps officer and Marine judge advocate John O’Connor would likely disagree with this. O’Connor said that while a change in the law would be a “symbolic” victory, it is unlikely to have any real affect on most cases.

“It’s a misnomer in a sense that this would create equal access,” he said.

O’Connor clarified that service members who do gain access to the Supreme Court under the bill would have equal access. However, he said, those who receive a courts-martial not subject to review by the military, including cases in which punitive discharge or confinement for a year or more is part of the sentence, would not have access.

“Service members receiving such ‘sub-jurisdictional’ sentences at a court-martial would not have the same access to Supreme Court review as their civilian counterparts because this bill would not give the Supreme Court jurisdiction over a direct appeal of such a court-martial,” he wrote in a follow-up comment to this article.

The Supreme Court is unlikely to take a case unless it considers the case important enough, he explained, adding that the chances of a case that was denied by a military appeals court being heard by the Supreme Court are slim.

O’Connor expressed concern that such an option takes away from the finality of a court-martial, which would be “part of the cost-benefit analysis that would go into the bill.” He also said the passage of such legislation could end up taxing the resources of the appellate division, although he did not think the consequences would be dire if the bill was passed.

“Symbolic legislation is most defensible when there are hardly any costs to enacting the legislation,” he said.

O’Connor went on to say that he is not really for or against the bill, and wrote, “I just don’t think it’s likely to have much of an impact either way.”

Nonetheless, the bill does open that pathway for service members. Rep. Susan Davis, D – Calif., who introduced the legislation in the House, acknowledged that given the sacrifices members of the armed forces willingly make, equal justice should not be one of them.

“We all know when American men and women decide to serve their nation in the armed forces they make many sacrifices, from lost time with their families to irreplaceable loss of lives,” Davis said, according to a record of her floor statement. “Service members also sacrifice one of the fundamental legal rights that all civilian members enjoy.”

Casey Hynes may be reached at casey.hynes@gmail.com.

In the Newsroom with Casey and Eugene (Sept. 29, 2008)

Obama not tough enough? McCain strong on foreign policy? Casey Hynes and Eugene Mulero examine the first presidential debate. (Produced by TakingBackPoliticsTV)

Debate, PARTY!

By TOMÁS DINGES, Correspondent

A line of impeccably dressed partiers waited on the red carpet to get in to Bobby Van’s restaurant on the corner of 11th and New York Avenue in Washington, D.C. The bars were open on both floors and near the fountain in the courtyard. Vested waiters in tan uniforms wiped their harried faces of sweat and hustled, pressing their way through the tightly-packed, hot crowd. There were maybe 100 people on the dance floor and 500 elsewhere. It was around one a.m. Apparently the R.I.A.A. party was even better.

Many people were young, some had southern accents, some were from south Jersey. The women were elegant and striking. Most wore black. Some wore pearls. One wore a deep- red blouse and her name was Ashley. I saw Marilyn Monroe. She was leaving. Men towered routinely over six-foot-one. They wore fitted suits, pressed shirts. Some ties remained tight. There wore argyle sweaters. There seemed to be more fraternity lapel pins than Obama Hope ones.

A high-school friend, a 30-year-old commercial real estate lawyer specializing in loss mitigation, introduced me to her friends and acquaintances that she seemed to encounter every other five minutes. She pulled business cards out of a gold container and talked to other lawyers. It was a networking event. Sometimes, she would cut off conversation and eye passing men, who stopped quickly to talk. It was a meat-marketing event. At other times, she tugged at a pin on her shirt strap and showed them the JFK likeness silhouetted behind the face of Obama.

It was a political party put on by The California Project, one of a few parties for the thousands of attendees of the 38th Annual Legislative Conference of the Congressional Black Caucus this weekend. The CBC is a group of 43 U.S. legislators who work as a group to promote policy and leadership in Capitol Hill on issues pertinent to African Americans, and D.C. is a site for the black establishment.

Hours earlier, in Mississippi, the first campaign debate of this presidential election had finished in a draw, according to people I spoke with, at this party and others.

At the Republic Garden on U Street, a Washington institution, cuff links were flashed amidst the 400 or so people who had accumulated to watch the debate. One particularly well-informed viewer cried out every time there was a purported misstatement of Obama’s record. The crowd’s volume rose as Obama delivered a series of one-liners questioning the wisdom of assertions by McCain that ended in, “You were wrong.” A woman excitedly pummeled the air from her position on the couch.

At dinner afterwards, an author and a fellow at The Nation Institute, Amy Alexander, called it a draw. She wondered where Obama’s bite was. He always gets framed by McCain and is unable to fight back sharply, she said. But, then, she thought, if he did, he would be characterized as an angry black man “with grievances.”

Then we talked about Florida (where she lived for years), the www.thegreatschlep.com and all of the elderly Jewish Floridians who should, but won’t vote for Obama. “I want fresh, not fresh frozen,” intoned the author imitating the Jewish grandmother subculture, which she became familiar with while reporting in Broward County. The presumption that the Jewish vote would not vote for a black man for President is a “fucking hangover from Farrakhan,” and his view that Jews have been part of the oppressor class in America, despite their contributions to arts and science, according to him and even Farrakhan’s declared genealogical tree.

But other states were of greater concern to Alexander. Michigan, Idaho, Indiana. Militias, cults and the Klan. There are many white people out there, she said, that would be threatened by a black president.

“I don’t think it’s imprudent to worry, or wonder if someone out there is plotting to take him out. Just based on our history, it is not unrealistic,” she said. Assassinations of political figures in her lifetime are numerous. “Wallace, King, two Kennedy’s, Harvey Milk, George Moscony and an attempt on Ronald Reagan.”

“I don’t think you have to be a conspiracy theorist, either,” Alexander added.

Tomás Dinges can be reached at tdinges@gmail.com.

The Battle of St. Paul: “Where’s George Bush, Karl?”

By EUGENE MULERO, Correspondent

As I sat in front of the Mitsubishi television in the small living room of my mother’s condo in Central Jersey watching a promising IFC flick, the recent memories of Matt Kennard’s adventures at the Republican National Convention electrified my mind.

He came to St. Paul, MN looking for a collision between cops and cool cats; instead he collided with Karl Rove, John Bolton and Republican Yuppies. Matt is in his mid-’20s, hails from London and was among the best students at Columbia’s Journalism School last year. In Minnesota, he stood out like an American Paris. And, when he was reporting, he never held back – except for the time he froze before Rudy Giuliani.

“I just can’t believe that was him,” Kennard told me. “He’s a clown, man.”

Matt was blogging about the convention for the New Statesmen, a magazine in the UK. The essays he produced were brilliant; they captured the insanity of political junkies, star-fuckers and wannabe Republican operatives. What was left out of those essays was how Matt assimilated with the hippies, turned me into his Mexican intern and fought for the rights of the common man.

He did it all with a notepad, a pen and writing “cunt” on his notebook.

He called anybody he thought was part of the so-called “New World Order” a “cunt” or a “clown.” Matt showed up at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport with a large black suitcase, oversized Rivers Cuomo-esque eyeglasses (by Tommy Hilfiger) and tight shirts. He looked very Euro.

He called my cellphone the Sunday before the start of the convention to figure out how to order a SuperShuttle. Once I explained to him the process, he showed up at the house where I was staying, just two blocks north of John Ireland Boulevard. There he met the man who rented us his attic, walked up two flights and relaxed on an uncomfortable air mattress. I had taken the bed, since I got there first. We talked about our girlfriends, college and our pathetic careers as struggling journalists. We both decided he was worse off than me.

***

Back in Manhattan, Matt lives in a horrible apartment in Harlem, in a building with 666 (seriously) as its address. At Columbia, he became known as the asshole who confronted Dr. Henry Kissinger. When the former Secretary of State came to the Joseph Pulitzer World Room last spring to be worshiped by weak-minded students, and feared by chicken-shits, I stood next to Matt when he asked Kissinger, “How do you sleep at night?” That sparked a back-and-forth between Strangelove and Matt. The biggest regret I have is not recording the moment. Kissinger called on another student after five minutes of engaging with Matt, who had blamed him for genocides in Cambodia, East Timor and Chile.

After we settled our bags in the attic, we walked 10 minutes to downtown St. Paul. I struggled to get a colleague to walk to the back entrance of the Xcel Energy Center to bring me my credentials for the convention. Finally, almost an hour later, my National Journal colleague, walked down with my press passes. Matt tried to get in – I felt bad he didn’t have credentials. Days later, I ended up giving him mine. Bu at the convention center that day, I walked by the media workspaces and found my way to National Journal’s headquarters.

(As I typed this, the IFC flick I was watching got really good—the two main characters were just talking about dating and sleeping with each other. The movie is, “In Search of a Midnight Kiss.”)

After I left the National Journal workspace, I called Matt and we met near the corner of Kellogg Boulevard and 7th Street. We walked into the Downtowner, where Kathy the bartender pampered us. By the look in her eyes I could tell she was taken by Matt’s not-so-thick British accent. Matt’s accent is less Gordon Brown, more Joe Strummer.

We had beers, talked about the police and National Guard in St. Paul, and made fun of ourselves making fun of Kathy the bartender. Matt had introduced me as his Mexican intern. He thought that was funny, so he told everybody who would listen that I was his Mexican intern. I didn’t care.

Matt was worried that if he got arrested, he would probably be shipped back to London. He was having problems with his Visa. Earlier that day, Matt had a run-in with Karl Rove. He captured the episode on video—Matt walking behind Karl, who was protected by Secret Service, asking him, “Are you a war criminal, Karl?” and “Where’s George Bush, Karl?”

The video was poorly produced, anti-climatic and all we had so far for our insignificant blog, TakingBackPolitics.com.

That night, we hopped on a taxi to First Avenue in Minneapolis to get some religion from Sammy Hagar. The concert was open bar – I drank lots of extra dirty martinis. Matt had plenty of whiskey on the rocks. Matt and I both became Waboists, named after Hagar’s Cabo Wabo tequila.

Here, Matt explains:
“I would just like to say that, yes, I was possessed by the Wabo; I’m not ashamed to admit it; the Wabo is a deep, mystical philosophy with roots in early Sino-Confucianism and Hindu metaphysics. It explores the complex and fraught relationship being existential ennui and tequila consumption in a way not seen since Sartre and Camus had their heads buried deep in a book sorting out the precursor to Waboism. Please let the man speak, and then join us, join us and the millions of others whom abide by the central tenets of Waboism, our best hope against the New World Order.”

***

The next day, the demonstrations kicked off around noon. The lawn in front of the Minnesota state capitol was taken over by all types of security officers, hippies, wannabe anarchists, legitimate protesters and Coca-Cola advertisements. A stack of plastic soda bottles was guarded by two officers wearing riot gear and carrying automatic weapons.

Matt and I spent the rest of our time in St. Paul looking for an epic battle – a clash between freedom fighters and the establishment. Matt urged the masses to take on the “clowns.” However, such a confrontation would never take place. The men in black had dominated the independent thinkers and troublemakers through intimidation. To cope with our disappointment, we spent our nights drunk and our days hungover, much like a modern-day Hemingway. The absurdity in St. Paul – the sad political ritual of Americana rooted in classism – was too much for us to bear. Alcohol was our cheapest painkiller.

***

At the Northern Lights Grill at Concourse D at MSP airport, waiting for a bacon cheddar melt, I drank an awful coffee. The bartender, who looked like his name was Butch, had a bad attitude; odd, considering it wasn’t even noon yet and I had an even worse attitude. I had just seen what the apocalypse would be like at a party the night before, where the Charlie Daniels Band had performed. Ironically, Charlie sang his terrible single, “The Devil Went Down to Georgia” at this painful party.

The Battle of St. Paul would not be. Score one for the Good Ol‘ Boys. This is Maverick time, now. Obama better put his mouthpiece on – and cover his groin – I suspect the hits from the GOP and the 527s will be aimed way below the waist.

As soon as the bartender handed me my breakfast, I thought to myself that if I were ballsy, I would order a dirty martini. Looking back, I wish I had.

When the plane took off I knew I’d never return to Minnesota. It’s bitterly cold in the winter and boring in the summer. And, besides, I don’t follow hockey.

Flight 1022 NW was now just barely above the clouds. The state looked like a Lego set – the Republicans, I’m sure, escaped just as I did. I thought about Matt and wondered whether he had whiskey on the plane. After the convention, I understood quite well why gonzo journos took so many drugs to report about these conventions. If you’re straight and alert, the circus of heightened political illusion takes over your mind. Look at me; if it hadn’t been for the dirty martinis, I wouldn’t have lasted one night in St. Paul.

The IFC movie was almost over and all I could think about was, “Where’s George Bush, Karl?” I haven’t had a dirty martini since I last saw Matt.

Eugene Mulero may be reached at Eugene.Mulero@gmail.com.

Polling Palin NOW and Forever

By TOMÁS DINGES, Correspondent

Here on the fringes of electoral engagement, a flurry of emails urges me to fight an organized right-wing effort. The battleground, a plainly designed poll with a dark blue background that was posted on a news Web site after the explosion of energy post-Republican National Convention. The question was straightforward: “Do you think Sarah Palin is qualified to serve as Vice President of the United States?”

Turns out just fewer than 50 million people have also visited this unscientific poll since it has begun its extraordinary life as a September 5th complement to a PBS NOW broadcast, and then as an orphaned link on emails.

It all started with a regular weekly poll that many PBS programs broadcast as a trick to draw people deep into their site. Some shows count their daily poll page views in the hundreds. NOW polls ordinarily draw thousands, according the Director of New Media for NOW, Joel Schwartzberg. NOW is a weekly newsmagazine broadcast on the Public Broadcasting System, and has recently been counting daily page views for the poll in the millions.

“PBS is doing a poll which asks if Palin is qualified to be VP,” goes the email. “The
right wing has organized a yes campaign–and the ‘yes’ is, at the moment,
winning. Take literally two minutes, go to:
http://www.pbs.org/now/polls/poll-435.html and vote!”

Oh the fear, THE FEAR! I received three messages in a two-hour span on Tuesday and one on Monday, all urging me to help to push the vote to the other side in frantic tones. Many right-wing comments cite the existence of the question on PBS as an evidence of bias.

I voted all four times, and each time after that just to check on the race. But on Wednesday an announcement stifled my participation. “PBS acted because the entire pbs.org site had been experiencing system overload due to massive accessing of the poll,” according to the Web site, and they would insert internet cookies on my browser to restrict me from voting repeatedly. They reasoned it would increase the mobilization of participants and reduce the manipulation of the results.

NOW’s September site traffic, if you compare one day to another, is up 7,000% percent when compared with August, according to Schwartzberg.

From the 5th to the 11th, the normal lifespan of NOW’s polls, the Palin poll received under 10,000 daily page views. But its popularity would only surge as the URL was archived on the site, replaced by another poll. It then took on a life of its own as a viral email.

Jumping from 10,000 page views on the 15th, to 90,000 on the 16th, the poll’s popularity exploded to 907,000 page views three days later. On Monday the 22nd, the poll received more than two million page views.

Links underneath the poll have “exploded exponentially” in popularity when added to the poll. The current poll on Obama has boomed in traffic, partially driven by the Palin poll popularity. The phenomenon has driven visitors to the other parts of NOW’s site, which includes a recent segment titled “Women, Power and Politics,” that included an interview with Sarah Palin from 2007.

As of Wednesday, the Palin poll is now the most visited page on the entire PBS Web site, searches related to Palin or polls represent nine out of the ten top searches, and NOW sites occupy eight places in the top ten PBS sites. PBS was so giddy they even released a statement declaring it hit an all-time record of site visits. Much of that, said Schwartzberg, is from the Palin poll.

So, it only makes sense that the recent Washington Post/ABC News poll shows that almost 55% of people are “following the presidential election very closely,” more than 48% in 2004 and 27% in 2000.

When will this fascination with Palin end? Any thoughts on what spurred the viral email? Oh, and you may wonder when the poll ends? NEVER. Despite having the cookies installed, it is still active and there are no plans to de-activate it.

Vote on!

So, who’s winning? On Monday she was winning 50 – 49, on Wednesday, 50 – 49, and alas, a change. Late Thursday, a tie!

For an index of now polls in time, go here.

Tomás Dinges can be reached at tdinges@gmail.com.

The Turbanless Taliban

By MATT KENNARD, Columnist

I don’t want to get too much into the whole debate around Sarah Palin because it gives her credit she doesn’t deserve. She is the American Taliban: evolution is a myth, abortion is wrong even in cases of rape and incest, climate change is not man-made. She’s Alaska’s answer to Osama bin Laden, except maybe her kids are more fecund.

She is depressingly doltish, and speaks with a squawk that riles my innards, its inflections acting like a knife to my cerebral cortex.

She is a nonentity and is aware of the fact, as are the puppet masters in the Republican Party. She was chosen to get Hillary voters on their side, so the Republicans could con America into another eight years of corporate rule. It is a cynical ploy and certainly is not “country first,” but why is anyone surprised? It’s not like the Democrats aren’t playing the same game, although they are mini-me to the Republican Satan, it is true.

But the anatomy of the whole propaganda effort after her appointment is interesting. The Republicans must have decided to get a ‘Hockey Mom’ – a euphemism for narrow-minded provincialism – but realized that because she is completely unqualified and startling stupid, they would have to shield her from criticism by inventing a storm of outrage about liberal elitism and misogyny if anyone questioned her slim record.

It was all over the news channels straight away: everywhere there was this outrage at these liberal sexist elites who were dumping so much shit on this poor defenseless woman. But I searched in vain for it. I listened to all this stuff on Fox News and CNN and then turned to the newspapers like The New York Times and tried to find this mocking misogyny, and it wasn’t there. There was literally nothing aside from a few – literally one or two – remarks about having five kids and being VP might be difficult.

The whole thing was made up, and it worked; it put the Democrats on the back foot and they ceded a lot of ground to the Republicans. If you look at all the hours of invective wasted on this topic, no one who is accusing brings up any examples; that’s because it was a completely made-up episode that had been planned before she was even appointed.

Appoint the dumbo, then make everyone feel sorry for her, was the modus vivendi. And even though this is see-through, you never hear it from the Democrats because the Republicans control the debate so much that even drawing attention to this is not permissible.

And how disgusting it is that the Republicans will assume the vernacular of feminism and equality when they have dedicated so many decades to destroying both. But in the mixed-up, shook-up world of American politics, where truth gets buried beneath the semiotics devised by the powerful to keep the rest of us shielded from the truth, when will liberals just stand up and say, “You’re dirty scum!” when the Republicans turn the political arena into a sewer and get by through acting like rats?

Sarah Palin is within ‘a heartbeat’ of the American presidency. There is a good chance McCain will win in November, and owing to the fact he is 73 and not of great health, there is a considerable chance Palin will be the most powerful person in the world within the next eight years. After eight years of George W. Bush maybe that isn’t as scary as it should be, but it is still scary.

The fact that the Republicans have sacrificed the security of America by making this buffoon the VP-elect, is a naked display that they will do anything to get elected. McCain, I suspect, laughs about this idiot in private and Cindy is thought not to like her, which is no surprise.

While Obama’s advance is also a great leap forward for black people in this country, Palin does nothing of the same for women. In fact, by electing a medieval barbarian, who happens to be a woman, to the VP position, this is really a stab in the heart for the feminist movement. If after two waves of the feminist movement and a hell of a lot of struggling, the first woman to get her hands on executive power is Palin, then what does it say about us?

Palin fulfills all the stereotypes of the misogynists; she is a supplicant to an older man, she is as thick as pig shit, she is a backward Taliban and she married another dumb bastard too. The only thing that isn’t a misogynist’s dream is that she’s ambitious. I’m being unfair though.

It’s not her fault she is a misogynist’s dream—she’s just a puppet. But it is the fault of the Republican Party that they chose a woman like this as the first VP candidate – it shows what they really think of women. Far from the Democrats being the sexists, the Republicans are sexist for giving this creature up to the rest of the world as an example of womanhood in the U.S.

Because this has been a cynical public relations ploy, it is likely to die out any second. Palin’s star will wane and she will go back to Kabul – sorry, I mean Juneau – and read her picture books with her grandchild – sorry, I mean child – and fizzle out in the vortex of nothingness from which she emerged so unceremoniously.

Americans should be up in arms that she has been carried by the media for so long, however. She should be laughed out of the shop. How does anyone ask her a serious question without cracking up laughing? I am not exaggerating when I say I would rather trouble the brain of my 12-year-old next-door neighbor about foreign policy than Palin. At least he hadn’t been taught by rote what to say, and might understand a bit of what he was saying.

When the Republic of Rome fell and gave way to the dictatorship of Caesar, there were signals; the Republic of America could fall too if the Republicans are allowed to claim another victory and install the turbanless Taliban. Fascism won’t wear jackboots when it comes to the U.S., it never looks the same, but it could hunt moose and have stupid glasses.

Matt Kennard can be reached at MattKennard@gmail.com.

Ballin’ Palin Can’t Make a Wrong Move

By JASON WALKER, Columnist

If a bridge goes to nowhere does it really exist?

Despite barely watching any coverage of the RNC I saw this bridge to nowhere issue discussed on multiple networks.

From what I understand, Congress earmarked some money to build a bridge in Alaska. Palin was all for building it until Congress told her they would be going Dutch. Since Congress only gave Alaska around half the money they initially said they would, Palin voted against building the bridge, but kept the money.

And…

I don’t see a problem. Was this “bridge only” money? According to the reports I’ve seen Congress didn’t say ‘if you decide not to build the bridge send it back.’ So isn’t it a good move if she decided the cost for state was too great and it would be better to use the money on other projects that wouldn’t require any additional funding from the residents? What elected official in the country would have given back that money? Who is going to say, “We don’t have anything we could use this for,” or, “This is way too much?” Nobody. And if someone did, why would you ever vote for that dummy again?

As governor her primary responsibility is to the people of Alaska. It sounds like what she did was in the state’s best interest, which makes it a pretty good decision in my opinion. I want my governor to have a state-first mentality. She was elected by the people of Alaska, not the entire United States, so serving those who elected you comes first.

So why bring it up? I guess there isn’t much out there about her to discuss and mentioning it in her speech opens the door for scrutiny. So what, she changed her mind after she found out it was going to cost more than she originally thought? We’ve all done that. I don’t know if there’s enough there for her to be touting it as evidence of her bold leadership, but there definitely isn’t enough there to question either. So why does it keep coming up? I actually thought it was a dead issue until I saw a clip online of an interview on 20/20 where she had been asked about it again.

Am I the only one who thought Charles Gibson was kind of a dick? Why has “hard-hitting journalism” become to mean the reporter acts like a douche bag? You can address serious issues or ask difficult questions without being accusatory or ultra-confrontational. But it seems like few know how to do that anymore. Reporters turn each interview into an audition for their own show or a shot at an anchor’s desk. Everybody wants to be Geraldo. Eighties’ Geraldo, not the one giving away tactical positions or making a fool out of himself in the water.

Anyway, the online clips actually got me interested enough to watch the interview. Even though parts of the interview looked more chopped up than a Clue tape, it still seemed that Palin was not comfortable talking about some issues.

She painfully danced around the issue of homosexuality saying, “I’m not going to judge them.” Yes she does. But don’t worry Sarah, we all do, gay or straight. What else is she supposed to say anyway?

She lost me when talking about her national security creed. It didn’t seem like she answered the question at all. It sort of boiled down to being more secure by reducing dependency on foreign oil.

Then there was “Troopergate.” I actually wish there was something there. It would be interesting if it turned out the trooper was a really good guy and she was an evil governor unfairly wielding her power. Sort of like every political movie you’ve ever seen except with a woman in power and, you know, for real. But it probably isn’t going to amount to anything. If it were that big of a scandal we would have seen that trooper’s face all over like that parade of busted women Clinton felt up. Besides the Republican party would really be slippin’ if they let that one get by them. That dude is still a trooper. If she wanted him gone he would have been gone. If she couldn’t take out some random officer with a shaky record, how can you expect her to help mastermind the next national disaster needed to instigate war? When the Sears Tower or Golden Gate Bridge goes down we’re going to know McCain and Palin were behind it in like a week.

I also thought it was interesting that she was a baller in high school. I bet she’s got way more handle than Barack. Despite his height advantage I bet she would house him in a game of one-on-one. He’s a black(ish) presidential candidate and he may not even be the best basketball player on the ballot. His little weekend games look like doo-doo next to a state championship.

All in all she looked too prepped in this interview. She stumbled through issues like abortion because she had been told to avoid saying certain things. I’m sure as she gets coached up more and learns the playbook she’ll learn to respond to those questions naturally. Then we’ll never be able to trust her again.

This whole Palin nomination is genius. She is Obama/Biden campaign cancer; the perfect decoy selected by the Republicans to distract everyone from the real issues and reflect the weakness of the Democratic Party. They can’t attack her for being inexperienced, they can’t attack her the way they did Hillary and, oh, that’s right, they’re not supposed to. She’s the VICE presidential nominee. By positioning Palin against Obama and evoking comparisons to Clinton the Republicans have set up the perfect stage to pull the upset. How bad does it look if your candidate for president is getting all he can handle from the JV squad? It looks like the Democrats finally woke up, but the media seems a bit behind and the more attention Palin receives the worse it will get for the Democrats. If we’re still talking about her children, bridges that weren’t built and employees who still have their jobs in November, then we’ll also be seeing McCain sworn into office in January.

Click here to see the whole 20/20 interview.

Jason Walker may be reached at Jason_R_Walker@comcast.net.

Next Page »