Filed under: Uncategorized
Not too long ago, conservatives viewed President Obama’s first Supreme Court nomination as a potential rallying point, a chance to deal a rare defeat to the popular Democratic President.
When Judge Sonia Sotomayor was nominated, conservatives saw their opening. But from the start, opposing Sotomayor was going to be a challenge. Being the first Latina and the first Hispanic to be nominated to the Supreme Court was a big deal; if conservatives went about opposing her the wrong way they could damage themselves, particularly among Hispanic voters.
All conservatives had to do was not focus on her race. All they had to do was focus on her record as a judge and find enough questionable rulings, statements, or speeches to use against her.
But conservatives just couldn’t help themselves. The first thing they brought up was Sotomayor’s ruling in the New Haven case, which they portrayed as her siding with minorities against whites. The second thing they brought up were Sotomayor’s “wise Latina” comments, which they took completely out of context in order to misrepresent her views on race.
From there, it all fell apart; the entirety of conservative opposition to Judge Sotomayor has come down to her race (which is not a good development for a party widely perceived to have problems with race).
Now the story has gotten away from the GOP. It’s not about Judge Sotomayor being unfit to serve. It’s not even about Judge Sotomayor, anymore. It’s about the GOP and race–more specifically, the GOP’s problems with race, a decidedly losing issue.
Ironically enough, the conservatives’ reaction to Sotomayor will probably prevent the GOP from being able to mount any serious opposition to Sotomayor. Since she’s likely to be confirmed anyway, they can’t vote against her lest history remember that the GOP sided with the Limbaughs and Gingriches of the world against the nation’s first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice.
And this might also be the final nail in the coffin when it comes to Hispanic support for the GOP. Republicans have been hemorrhaging Hispanic support for years; their ugly opposition to Judge Sotomayor might lose Republicans the Hispanic vote for a generation or more.
I hope it was worth it, Republicans. Whatever you’re getting out of this, I hope it was worth it.
Filed under: Uncategorized
It’s been less than 48 hours since President Barack Obama nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.
Sotomayor graduated summa cum laude from Princeton and got her J.D. from Yale Law School, where she was editor of the Yale Law Journal.
Judge Sotomayor has been a federal judge for nearly 17 years–she has more federal judicial service under her belt than any other sitting Supreme Court Justice had when they were nominated.
But here we are, less than 2 days from her nomination, and conservatives have smeared Sotomayor as “incompetent”, “unqualified”, “racist”, “sexist”, “bigoted”, a “judicial activist”, etc.
Republicans are ignoring Judge Sotomayor’s long, accomplished academic career and longer, more accomplished judicial career in order to launch superfluous political smears based on nothing substantive.
The GOP isn’t even saying they’re going to reserve their judgment until Judge Sotomayor testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee. They have had nearly no time to review her record as a federal judge, yet they have already declared her unfit to serve on the Supreme Court.
Where is all this unwarranted, unprecedented hostility coming from? This exchange between MSNBC’s David Shuster and Judicial Watch’s Tom Fitton explains it all:
David Shuster: “What evidence do you have that she would put her feelings and politics above the rule of law?”
Tom Fitton: “Because President Obama chose her.”
Judge Sotomayor is absolutely, undeniably qualified to serve on the Supreme Court, period. I doubt conservatives will find anything substantive in her judicial record–if they even get around to looking at it–that will undermine that.
(I mean, it’s not like Judge Sotomayor voted to uphold police strip-searches of children, unlike Judges Roberts and Alito did in Hedgepeth v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority and Doe v. Groody, respectively)
Republicans are acting in bad faith, period. They would have tried equally hard to torpedo anyone President Obama appointed to the Supreme Court, no matter what their record, accomplishments, or judicial philosophy were.
And, in all likelihood, if the GOP goes to the bat to oppose Sonia Sotomayor, they will fail. In the past 30 years, only 3 Supreme Court nominees have failed to make it to the high court, and only one of those was rejected; the other two withdrew their names from consideration.
Plus, the GOP is extraordinarily weakened–they have only 40 Senators, meaning that they would have to maintain total party unity to successfully filibuster Judge Sotomayor, an extraordinarily unlikely prospect. And with only 7 seats on the Judiciary Committee–as opposed to the Democrats’ 12–it’s extremely unlikely they’ll be able to block her in committee, either.
So, with all probability, despite the GOP’s sound and fury, Judge Sonia Sotomayor will be seated on the Supreme Court. And if the GOP mounts an all-out defense, history will remember that the Republican Party attempted to filibuster the first Hispanic woman to be appointed to the United States Supreme Court–a woman who, in the end, won’t be much more liberal than the man she is to replace.
Filed under: Uncategorized
It’s about time:
Obama will end ‘don’t ask’ policy, aide says
President Obama will end the 15-year-old “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that has prevented homosexual and bisexual men and women from serving openly within the U.S. military, a spokesman for the president-elect said.
Obama said during the campaign that he opposed the policy, but since his election in November he has made statements that have been interpreted as backpedaling. On Friday, however, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs, responding on the transition team’s Web site to a Michigan resident who asked if the new administration planned to get rid of the policy, said:
“You don’t hear politicians give a one-word answer much. But it’s ‘Yes.’ “
DADT should be repealed if for no other reason than incidents like this:
Nine Army linguists, including six trained to speak Arabic, have been dismissed from the military because they are gay.
The soldiers’ dismissals come at a time when the military is facing a critical shortage of translators and interpreters for the war on terrorism.
[...]
“We face a drastic shortage of linguists, and the direct impact of Arabic speakers is a particular problem,” said Donald R. Hamilton, who documented the need for more linguists in a report to Congress as part of the National Commission on Terrorism.
One of the discharged linguists said the military’s policy on gays is hurting its cause.
“It’s not a gay-rights issue. I’m arguing military proficiency issues – they’re throwing out good, quality people,” said Alastair Gamble, a former Army specialist.
The main argument against letting openly gay men and women serve in the military is that it would disrupt unit cohesion. And it probably would, for a while.
But that was the same argument used against desegregating the military over sixty years ago. And while there were some initial problems with integration, the unit adapted and today the military is stronger for it.
I’m not doubting that there will be logistical issues with repealing DADT; the military will have to adapt to a new culture. But I have faith that the military can adapt, and I think America’s armed forces will be stronger for allowing talented people to serve regardless of their sexuality.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Barack Obama, California, Discrimination, Equality, Inauguration, Jerry Falwell, LGBT, Pat Robertson, Prop 8, Rick Warren, Transition
Rick Warren, the pastor at California’s Saddleback Church, has been selected to deliver an invocation at Barack Obama’s inauguration.
The problem: Warren is vehemently against equal rights for LGBT Americans. In fact, Warren was one of the most famous, high-profile supporters of California’s proposition 8. Basically, Warren supports legalized discrimination against LGBT Americans.
Discrimination against gays is, unfortunately, one of the most acceptable forms of discrimination in America. And, just as unfortunately, a lot of people use their faith to justify that discrimination, attributing their opposition to equal rights to their religious beliefs.
Yes, we do have freedom of religion in America; you are allowed to believe in any faith system or ideology you wish. The Constitution , thankfully, guarantees that. But that doesn’t mean no religious belief can ever be challenged, nor does it mean that every religious belief needs to be accommodated.
To be hyperbolic, there is a religion in America called the World Church of the Creator (also known as the Creativity Movement). Essentially, it is a religion founded on the proposition that the white race is nature’s highest creation, the source of all of the world’s culture and civilization, and that all nonwhites are enemies of the white race.
In other words, the World Church of the Creator dresses up bigotry in the cloth of faith. Yes, it’s an extreme example. But it’s similar in the sense that it’s people using faith to justify discrimination.
In regards to Warren, we’re being told that we should tolerate his intolerance in the interest of being inclusive. But we wouldn’t accept an emissary from the World Church of the Creator giving in inaugural invocation, even though there might be a lot of people in America who share that church’s odious views.
Now, some people are arguing that Warren’s views on homosexuality are negated by his church’s charitable work. Now, nobody can deny that Rick Warren and his church have done good works–particularly on the environment and helping those suffering from HIV/AIDS–and those works should not be overlooked. But doing good work in one area of your life doesn’t negate being discriminatory in other areas of your life.
Again, to use an extreme example, even if the aforementioned World Church of the Creator did tons of charity work, such charity wouldn’t mollify their poisonious ideology in the minds of most Americans. Warren’s good deeds doesn’t change the fact that he supports discrimination against millions of Americans.
Discrimination is anathema to everything our country stands for, and we should not be forced to accommodate discrimination against any people, even if it’s dressed up as a faith.
Giving Warren such a large pulpit is a mistake, if for no other reason than it sends the message that you can discriminate against certain people and still be an accepted–even esteemed–member of society. I’m disappointed that, out of the millions of faith leaders in America, Obama chose Warren to speak at his inauguration.
But none of us should lose sight of the fact that Obama will be the most progressive President on LGBT issues that America has ever had. At the end of his administration, LGBT Americans will have more equality and rights than they do now, I guarantee.
So, as of now I’m unhappy with our President-elect’s decision. But he has plenty of time–and will have plenty of opportunities–to make up for his decision by combating the discriminatory views Warren holds.
And that gives me hope.
Filed under: 2008 Election, Breaking, Conservatives, Government, Governors, Live Blog, Media, Polls, Progressives, Right-Wing Noise Machine, Senate, Uncategorized | Tags: 2008, Mark Warner, McCain-Palin, Numbers, Obama-Biden, Voting
The first polls close in IN and KY in a little less than a half hour. I don’t expect much to be called that early, but that will give us a first taste of how things will turn out.
I’ll bring them to you as they come.
UPDATE: No serious reporting yet– 1% in IN and 0% in KY. Plus, no network will call it until the rest of the state finished voting in about a half hour.
UPDATE II: With 3% reporting, McCain is leading in IN 50% to 49%. In KY, 9% is reporting and McCain is leading 51% to 48%.
UPDATE III: The networks are calls KY for McCain and Vermont for Obama. They have also called VA-SEN for Mark Warner. The Democrats now have 52 seats in the Senate.
UPDATE IV: The KY-SEN race is exactly tied, 50%-50%. And with 1% reporting, McCain leads in VA 55% to 44%.
UPDATE V: FOX is calling WV for Obama; count one long-shot out. In VA, 3% is reporting and McCain leads 54% to 46%. In IN, with 14% reporting, McCain leads 52% to 47%. In FL, with 2% reporting, Obama leads 55% to 37%.
UPDATE VI: The nets are calling SC for McCain; that’s 3 EV for Obama and 16 EV for McCain so far. IN, VA, Fl and OH are all too close to call.
UPDATE VII: ME, NH, MA, CT, NJ, DE, MD, DC and IL have been called for Obama; TN, OK have been called for McCain. Right now it’s 77 EV for Obama and 34 EV for McCain.
UPDATE VIII: They are calling Jeanne Shaheen in NH and Kay Hagan in NC; that gives the Democrats 54 Senate seats.
UPDATE IX: McCain wins GA and AL; it’s now 103 Obama to 58 McCain
UPDATE X: Obama wins MI, WI, NY, RI and MN; McCain wins WY and ND. It’s now 174 EV for Obama to 49 EV for McCain
UPDATE XI: They are calling NM-SEN for Tom Udall; that is 55 Democrats in the Senate.
UPDATE XII: They are calling WY, NE and AR for McCain; it’s now 175 Obama to 76 McCain
UPDATE XIII: FOX and MSNBC are calling Ohio for Obama; now it’s 195 to 76, Obama leads.
UPDATE XIV: They are calling NM for Obama and Louisiana for McCain; it is now 200 Obama, 85 McCain
UPDATE XV: They are calling IA for Obama, TX, UT, for McCain. It’s now 199 Obama, 112 McCain.
UPDATE XVI: Chris Shays concedes; there are no more Republican Congressmen left in New England.
UPDATE XVII: SD has rejected an abortion ban and CO has rejected defining fertilization as the start of life. Waiting for more states to be called.
UPDATE XVIII: Contrary to the desires of right-wing bloggers, PA’s John Murtha has been re-elected.
UPDATE XIX: SD goes for McCain. It’s now 207 Obama to 138 McCain. Marijuana decriminalization has passed in MA, as has the decriminalization of medial marijuana in MI.
UPDATE XX: FOX and NPR called VA for Obama. It’s now 220 EV Obama vs. 135 EV McCain
Filed under: 2008 Election, Conservatives, Economics, Government, Governors, Polls, Senate, Uncategorized | Tags: 2008, Bobby Jindal, Epic Fail, George W. Bush, Joe Lieberman, McCain-Palin, Mitt Romney, Numbers, Republicans, Tim Pawlenty
"Why did I pick her..."
Why yes, I do still believe Sarah Palin is an epic fail.
Here’s why:
NBC just released the results of its latest poll. Obama is opening up a big lead. More importantly, Palin is the biggest concern voters have about McCain
[...]
Fifty-five percent of respondents say she’s not qualified to serve as president if the need arises, up five points from the previous poll.
In addition, for the first time, more voters have a negative opinion of her than a positive one. In the survey, 47 percent view her negatively, versus 38 percent who see her in a positive light.
[...]
Now, Palin’s qualifications to be president rank as voters’ top concern about McCain’s candidacy – ahead of continuing President Bush’s policies, enacting economic policies that only benefit the rich and keeping too high of a troop presence in Iraq.
[Emphasis mine]
That’s right–Sarah Palin is a bigger anchor to McCain’s candidacy than George W. Bush himself. She hurts John McCain more than the economy ever has.
It’s hard for me to believe that–had McCain picked Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Bobby Jindal or even Joe Lieberman–his VP choice would be damaging his ticket as much as Sarah Palin is right now.
But don’t worry, I don’t expect Palin to go anywhere after the election–after she and McCain lose, I’m sure she’ll try to get everyone to forget that she kept John McCain out of the White House.
UPDATE: Then there’s this:
Sarah Palin has a new and unexpected problem — the Republican National Committee has spent more than $150,000 on clothes and accessories for Palin and her family in just seven weeks. The figure includes more than $75,000 at Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis, and nearly $5,000 on hair and makeup. The funds were not just directed at the governor — about $5,000 was also spent at Atelier, a high-class shopping destination for men.
[...]
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, American households spend an average of $1,874 a year on clothing. The RNC spent $150,000 on family in seven weeks. Frankly, I’m not even sure how one family can spend that much so quickly. We’re talking about an average of more than $2,000 a day, every day, since late August. (Yglesias noted, “The total bill is well over double the median household income in the United States.”)
[...]
Ezra added, “Sarah Palin wasn’t a beet farmer last week. She was a governor. Presumably, she had clothing already. The sort of clothing that was appropriate for giving political speeches and attending campaign meetings. You can imagine the need for a couple new things (lots of different climates, etc), but not $150,000 for a whole new wardrobe. And not $150,000 of other people’s money for a whole new wardrobe.”
First, if I was a Republican donor I’d be angry that my money was used to help buy Sarah Palin new clothes instead of helping John McCain win the election (something they really should be investing in, considering this.)
Second, I just can’t get over how incredibly stupid this move is. Palin’s whole schtick is anti-elitism elitism, railing against a slew of various “elites” while portraying herself as the epitome of “real” American values.
To do something so incredibly elitist like spending $150,000 on clothes betrays her entire message, turning Sarah Palin into one of those rich, coddled, pampered elites she loves to attack.
After this hypocrisy, how is Sarah Palin different than any other politician, railing against perfidity and waste unless it helps them get some nice, expensive gifts for themselves and their families?
Filed under: 2008 Election, Conservatives, Government, Governors, House, International, Progressives, Senate, Uncategorized | Tags: 2008, Campaigns, Candidates, Experience, McCain-Palin, Obama-Biden, Vice President
Below, I’ve put together a rough list of the political experience that each of America’s 46 Vice Presidents had before they took America’s second-highest office (Note: if an individual had two political roles at one time, that time is only counted once):
John Adams: Continental Congress (1774-1778), Committee that drafted the Declaration of Independence (1776), Massachusetts General Court (1770-1777), Two-time Ambassador to Europe (1777 and 1779), Total years in political office before becoming VP: 9
Thomas Jefferson: House of Burgesses (1769-1770), Continental Congress (1775-1781), Committee that drafted the Declaration of Independence (1776), Virginia House of Delegates (1776-1779), Governor of Virginia (1779-1781), Minister to France (1785-1789), Secretary of State (1789-1793). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 24
Aaron Burr: New York State Assembly (1784-1785 and 1798-1801), New York State Attorney General (1789-1792), United States Senate (1792-1798). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 13
George Clinton: County Clerk–Ulster County, New York (1759 through Vice Presidency), Governor of New York (1777-1795 and 1801-1804), New York State Assembly (1800-1801). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 45
Elbridge Gerry: Continental Congress (1776-1780 and 1783-1785), United States House of Representatives (1789-1793), Governor of Massachusetts (1810-1812). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 11
Daniel Tompkins: Delegate, New York State Constitutional Convention (1801), New York State Assembly (1803), Supreme Court of New York (1804-1807), Governor of New York (1807-1817). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 15
John Calhoun: U.S. House of Representatives (1810-1817), Secretary of War (1817-1825). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 15
Martin Van Buren: New York State Attorney General (1815-1819), United States Senate (1821-1828), Governor of New York (1829), Secretary of State (1829-1831). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 14
Richard Johnson: Kentucky House of Representatives (1804-1806), U.S. House of Representatives (1807-1819 and 1829-1833), U.S. Senate (1819-1829). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 29
John Tyler: U.S. House (1816-1821), Virginia House of Delegates (1823-1825), Governor of Virginia (1825-1827), Delegate, Virginia Constitutional Convention (1829-1830), U.S. Senate (1827-1836). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 19
George Dallas: Mayor of Philadelphia (1828-1829), U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (1829-1831), U.S. Senate (1831-1833), Attorney General of Pennsylvania (1833-1835), Envoy to Russia (1837-1839). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 9
Millard Fillmore: New York State Assembly (1829-1831), United States House of Representatives (1833-1835 and 1837-1843), New York State Comptroller (1848-1849). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 11
William King: U.S. Senate (1819-1844 and 1848-1852), Minister to France (1844-1846). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 31
John Breckinridge: Kentucky House of Representatives (1848-1851), U.S. House of Representatives (1851-1855). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 7
Hannibal Hamlin: Maine House of Representatives (1836-1841), U.S. House of Representatives (1843-1847), U.S. Senate (1848-1861). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 22
Andrew Johnson: Tennessee Alderman (1829-1833), Mayor of Greenville, Tennessee (1833-1835), Tennessee House of Representatives (1835-1837), Tennessee Senate (1839-1843), U.S. House of Representatives (1843-1853), Governor of Tennessee (1853-1857), U.S. Senate (1857-1862), Military Governor of Tennessee (1862-1865). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 34
Schuyler Colfax: Indiana Constitutional Convention (1849-1850), U.S. House of Representatives (1855-1869; served as Speaker of the House 1863-1869). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 15
Henry WIlson: Massachusetts State Legislature (1841-1852), Delegate, Massachusetts Constitutional Convention (1853), U.S. Senate (1855-1873). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 30
William Wheeler: District Attorney–Franklin County, New York (1846-1849), New York State Assembly (1850-1851), New York State Senate (1858-1860), U.S. House of Representatives (1861-1863 and 1869-1877), Delegate, New York Constitutional Convention (1867 and 1868). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 17
Chester A. Arthur: New York State Quartermaster General (1861-1862), Collector of the Port of New York (1871-1878). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 8
Thomas Hendricks: Indiana House of Representatives (1848-1850), Delegate, Indiana Constitutional Convention (1851), U.S. House of Representatives (1851-1855), Commissioner, General Land Office (1855-1859), U.S. Senate (1863-1869), Governor of Indiana (1873-1877). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 21
Levi Morton: U.S. House of Representatives (1879-1881), Minister to France (1881-1885). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 6
Adlai Stevenson I: District Attorney (1864-1868), U.S. House of Representatives (1875-1877 and 1879-1881). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 8
Garret Hobart: City Council –Paterson, New Jersey (1871), New Jersey General Assembly (1872-1876), New Jersey Senate (1876-1882), Chairman of the New Jersey Republican Senate Committee (1880-1891), Member of the Republican National Committee from New Jersey (1884-1896). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 25
Theodore Roosevelt: United States Civil Service Commission (1888-1895), New York City Police Commissioner (1895-1897), Assistant Secretary of the Navy (1897-1898), Governor of New York (1898-1901). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 13
Charles Fairbanks: United States Senate (1897-1905). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 8
James Sherman: U.S. House of Representatives (1887-1891 and 1893-1909). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 20
Thomas Riley Marshall: Governor of Indiana (1909-1913). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 4
Calvin Coolidge: City Council–Northhampton, Massachusetts (1898-1899), City Solicitor– Northhampton, Massachusetts (1900-1901), Clerk of Courts–Northhampton, Massachusetts (1903), Massachusetts State House of Representatives (1907-1909), Mayor of Northhampton, Massachusetts (1910-1911), Massachusetts State Senate (1912-1916), Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts (1916-1919), Governor of Massachusetts (1919-1921). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 15
Charles Dawes: Comptroller of the Currency (1898-1901), Director, Bureau of the Budget (1921-1925). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 6
Charles Curtis: U.S. House of Representatives (1893-1907), U.S. Senate (1907-1913 and 1915-1929). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 34
John Nance Garner: Texas House of Representatives (1898-1902), U.S. House of Representatives (1903-1933; served as Speaker of the House 1931-1933). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 35
Henry Wallace: Secretary of Agriculture (1933-1941). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 8
Harry Truman: Court of the Eastern District of Jackson County–Missouri (1923-1925 and 1927-1933), U.S. Senate (1935 -1945). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 18
Alben Barkley: Prosecuting Attorney–McCracken County, Kentucky (1905-1909), County Court–McCracken County, Kentucky (1909-1913), U.S. House of Representatives (1913-1927), U.S. Senate (1927-1949). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 44
Richard Nixon: U.S. House of Representatives (1947-1950), U.S Senate (1950-1953). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 6
Lyndon Johnson: U.S. House of Representatives (1937-1949), U.S. Senate (1949-1961). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 24
Hubert Humphrey: Mayor of Minneapolis, Minnesota (1945-1949), U.S. Senate (1949-1964). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 19
Spiro Agnew: Board of Zoning Appeals–Baltimore County, Maryland (1957-1962), Executive–Baltimore County, Maryland (1962-1966), Governor of Maryland (1966-1969). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 12
Gerald Ford: U.S. House of Representatives (1949-1973). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 24
Nelson Rockefeller: Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs (1940-1944), Inter-American Development Commission and Corporation (1940-1947), Assistant Secretary of State for Latin American Affairs (1944-1945), Special Assistant to President Eisenhower for Foreign Affairs (1954-1955), Governor of New York (1959-1973). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 21
Walter Mondale: Minnesota Attorney General (1960-1964), President’s Consumer Advisory Council (1960-1964), U.S. Senate (1964-1976). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 16
George H. W. Bush: Chairman, Harris County Republican Party–Harris County, Texas (1964), U.S. House of Representatives (1967-1971), Ambassador to the United Nations (1971-1973), Chairman of the RNC (1973-1974), Chief of the U.S. Liaison’s Office in the People’s Republic of China (1974-1975), Director of the CIA (1976-1977). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 11
Dan Quayle: U.S. House of Representatives (1977-1981), U.S. Senate (1981-1989). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 12
Al Gore: United States House of Representatives (1976-1984), U.S. Senate (1984-1993). Total years in political office before becoming VP: 17
Dick Cheney: Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity (1969-1970), White House Staff Assistant (1971), Assistant Director of the Cost of Living Council (1971–73), Deputy Assistant to the President (1974–1975), White House Chief of Staff (1975-1977), U.S. House of Representatives (1979-1989), Secretary of Defense (1989-1993), Total years in political office before becoming VP: 22
There have been 46 Vice Presidents in America’s history. The average Vice President has had 17.9 years of political experience before taking office. Since 1900, that average has dipped a bit to 17.6 years.
Now, let’s look at this year’s VP candidates:
Sarah Palin: City Council–Wasilla, Alaska (1992-1996), Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska (1996-2002), Governor of Alaska (2006-2009). Total years in political office before (potentially) becoming VP: 13
Historically, Palin’s experience is toward the low end–out of 46 Vice Presidents, there have been 30 as or more experienced than Sarah Palin; only 16 have been less experienced than her.
Joe Biden: County Council–New Castle County, Delaware (1970-1972), U.S. Senate (1973-2009). Total years in political office before (potentially) becoming VP: 39
Historically, Joe Biden’s experience is very high–out of 46 Vice Presidents, there have been only 2 as or more experienced than Joe Biden; 44 have been less experienced than him.
Filed under: 2008 Election, Conservatives, Economics, IOKIYAR, Media, Progressives, Senate, Uncategorized | Tags: 2008, Barack Obama, Campaigns, Candidates, Cindy McCain, Democrats, Economics, John McCain, Media, Republicans
A McCain presidency would be like a game of Monopoly, except he'll own all the properties and you'll just keep landing on the income tax
So the linchpin of John McCain’s attacks on Barack Obama has been that Obama is an elitist celebrity out of touch with ordinary Americans.
But all of that changed when McCain, during an interview, couldn’t remember how many houses he and his wife owned.
Now the McCain campaign is seeing their key attack turned back against them, coupled with well-deserved charges of hypocrisy. Using the ‘elitist’ smear was incredibly risky for McCain considering his wealth and affluence, and now he’s watching it blow up in his face.
The McCain campaign’s response was desperate, dragging out nearly every smear and attack employed against Obama yet in this campaign.
It’s clear that this issue has struck a nerve, and it will continue to cause damage. Remember history: George H.W. Bush–extremely experienced, brandishing war hero credentials, won a successful and popular war in Iraq–was unseated by the unknown Governor of Arkansas, who successfully portrayed Bush as out of touch. McCain knows this could damage him–perhaps fatally–particularly if his running mate is also a wealthy elitist (Mitt Romney, anyone?)
And McCain just keeps digging his hole deeper:
McCain, who huddled with advisors at his desert compound in Sedona, Ariz., said nothing in public. A nine-car motorcade took him to a nearby Starbucks early in the morning, where he ordered a large cappuccino. McCain otherwise avoided reporters.
And USA Today nails it:
McCain, who has portrayed Obama as an elitist, is the son and grandson of admirals. The Associated Press estimates his wife, a beer heiress, is worth $100 million. Obama was raised by a single mother who relied at times on food stamps, and went to top schools on scholarships and loans. His income has increased from book sales since he spoke at the 2004 Democratic convention.
Don’t expect this to go away soon–with the economy becoming such a huge issue, the American people want to know their next President understands their suffering, something John McCain clearly doesn’t do.
Filed under: 2008 Election, Conservatives, Corruption, Media, Scandal, Senate, Uncategorized | Tags: 2008, Campaign Finance, Campaigns, Candidates, Corruption, Harry Sargeant, John McCain, Media, Republicans, Scandal
TPM reports on some of the shady donations funding John McCain’s Presidential bid:
It turns out that Hess executives aren’t the only ones who gave such huge sums to elect McCain — generosity towards McCain apparently extends down into lower levels of Hess staff. A lower level employee gave the same, too, and so did her husband, even though he works for Amtrak.
The FEC filings show that Alice Rocchio, who’s identified as a Hess office manager, and her husband, Pasquale Rocchio, who’s described as an Amtrak “track foreman,” each separately donated $28,500 to the RNC-McCain fund, which is called McCain Victory 2008. They gave the money on June 24th, the same day that eight other Hess execs and family members each shelled out the same amount.
So the Rocchios, who live in Flushing, Queens, donated a total of $57,000 to McCain’s efforts.
[...]
It should also be noted that FEC reports have no record of any Federal political contributions for the Rocchios before 2008. They both gave the maximum of $2,300 to McCain’s campaign this year.
[...]
Turns out the two rent their home.
[Emphasis added]
So a Hess office manager and her husband–who doesn’t even work for Hess–donated $57,000 to John McCain on the exact same day that eight Hess executives and family members also wrote fat checks to the McCain-RNC campaign fund.
Neither of these two people ever gave any money to any candidate ever before, yet they donated $57,000 in addition to maxing out to the McCain campaign.
But wait, there’s more:
The bundle of $2,300 and $4,600 checks that poured into Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign on March 12 came from an unlikely group of California donors: a mechanic from D&D Auto Repair in Whittier, the manager of Rite Aid Pharmacy No. 5727, the 30-something owners of the Twilight Hookah Lounge in Fullerton.
But the man who gathered checks from them is no stranger to McCain — he shuttled the Republican on his private plane and held a fundraising event for the candidate at his house in Delray Beach, Fla.
[...]
Some of the most prolific givers in Sargeant’s network live in modest homes in Southern California’s Inland Empire. Most had never given a political contribution before being contacted by Sargeant or his associates. Most said they have never voiced much interest in politics. And in several instances, they had never registered to vote. And yet, records show, some families have ponied up as much as $18,400 for various candidates between December and March.
Both Sargeant and the donors were vague when asked to explain how Sargeant persuaded them to give away so much money.
“I have a lot of Arab business partners. I do a lot of business in the Middle East. I’ve got a lot of friends,” Sargeant said in a telephone interview yesterday. “I ask my friends to support candidates that I think are worthy of supporting. They usually come through for me.“
[Emphasis added]
Here are more instances of working-class people who aren’t politically active, never donated money to a candidate before and sometimes aren’t even registered to vote, yet are donating huge sums of money–more than it seems like they can afford–to the McCain-RNC campaign fund.
When asked about it, neither the donors nor the man collecting their checks can explain exactly where the money is coming from. The only explanation we get from bundler Harry Sargent is that he knows Arab businessmen who can help out, even though foreign nationals are prohibited by law from donating to American political campaigns.
Someone needs to start taking a long, hard look at where John McCain’s money is coming from. Because some of the money going into the McCain-RNC campaign fund seems to be coming from some highly, highly questionable sources, and we have a right to know how our Presidential candidates are being funded.
Filed under: Uncategorized
This is Barack Obama:
This is Barack Obama, hand-over-heart, during the Pledge of Allegiance:
This is Barack Obama–once again, hand-over-heart–reciting the Pledge of Allegiance:
The right wing loves to play patriotism police to hide the fact that they hate this country and everything we stand for. You can’t destroy America’s economy, shred our constitution, trample our civil rights, ignore the rule of law, degrade our military–and do everything else the modern Republican Party has done–and still call yourself a patriot.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: 2004, 2008, Business, Cindy McCain, IOKIYAR, John Kerry, John McBush, John McCain, Media, Wealth
Surprise surprise, one of the wealthiest men in the Senate has a lot of money:
For 2006, Senator McCain paid $72,771 in federal income, alternative minimum, and self-employment taxes (LINES 57 and 58) on taxable income of $215,304 (LINE 43), which is a 33.8% tax rate. View
For 2007, Senator McCain paid $84,460 in federal income, alternative minimum, and self-employment taxes (LINES 57 and 58) on taxable income of $258,800 (LINE 43), which is a 32.6% tax rate. View
McCain earns upwards of $200,000 a year, putting him far above what most Americans make. In fact, John McCain’s taxes are higher than most American’s yearly salaries.
And that’s just his own income–McCain’s wife Cindy is an heir to the Anheuser-Busch brewing fortune, worth well over $100 million. The McCains have eight homes together, and John often flies around on private jets. In other words, this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to John McCain’s wealth.
In 2004, the media savaged John Kerry for his wife’s wealth, portraying him as an upper-crust, out-of-touch aristocrat. Will they apply the same standards to John McCain, or will this be another sad, shameful case of IOKIYAR?*
* “It’s OK If You’re A Republican”
UPDATE: Also keep in mind that Cindy McCain hasn’t released any of her tax returns, so we don’t know exactly how much wealth she has (or where she invests it). But there’s no question that John McCain might not have even had a political career–let alone a Presidential run–without his wife’s inheritance:
Nearly 30 years before John McCain became the Republican presidential nominee, he worked in public relations at his wife’s family company.
Within a few years of marrying Cindy Hensley, the daughter of a multimillionaire Anheuser-Busch distributor, John McCain won his first election. He was new to Arizona politics and fundraising in the 1982 House race, and his campaign quickly fell into debt. Personal money — tens of thousands of dollars in loans to his campaign from McCain bank accounts — helped him survive.
Anheuser-Busch’s political action committee was among McCain’s earliest donors. Cindy McCain’s father, James Hensley, and other Hensley & Co. executives gave so much the Federal Election Commission ordered McCain to give some of it back. McCain’s campaign used Hensley office equipment such as computers and copiers, and Cindy McCain personally paid some of the campaign’s bills.
The campaign gradually reimbursed Hensley for use of its equipment and Cindy McCain for her expenses. The loans — described initially by John McCain as coming from him and his wife — caught the eye of the FEC, which repeatedly questioned him about them; spouses are held to the same donation limits as everyone else.
John McCain owes his Presidential campaign and–most likely–his entire political career to his wife’s money. Without it, who knows whether or not he would have even gotten elected, let alone become a Presidential candidate.
Kerry got attacked for benefiting politically from his wife’s money, even though he became a Senator long before he married Theresa Heinz. So why isn’t McCain being attacked for benefiting politically from his wife’s money, especially since it’s an intrinsic part of his entire political career?
Just wondering.
