Anatomy of a stolen election (well, 2 actually) and how it could happen again

Until very recently, McCain and Palin didn’t appear terribly worried that their poll numbers were going down. Of course, politicians want to look confident to inspire confidence in others. But it took on a different meaning after I saw a couple of interviews and read articles about election fraud.

Now, many people have heard or read something about the 2000 and 2004 elections being stolen but don’t know all of the details (and there are many who don’t believe it’s true). I’ve found out all sorts of things lately -- some of them are just coming to light now. Most of these are focused on the 2004 elections.

After seeing/reading these things, I began to think that perhaps McCain/Palin didn’t look worried because their people were planning on stealing another election. I didn’t have time to put this information together in an email until now.

By the way, it appears that they finally do look worried now -- I’m wondering if there are just too many states to control -- or if enough Republicans are jumping ship that they themselves would ask questions if the election were to go to McCain/Palin… or, perhaps because finally real data about the 2004 election has come to light and they are under closer scrutiny. We’ll see.

2004 - Ohio

So let’s talk about the 2004 campaign. There are two main people who have brought evidence to light about the 2004 elections, focusing on Ohio:

• Stephen Spoonamore, a Cyber-security expert -- he focuses on electronic voting machines
• Richard Hayes Philips -- a former musician/mountaineer and really smart guy -- he focuses on paper ballots

Before I get too far down into the videos, etc., I want to say that there is legal activity now happening regarding this. You can read it here:

http://www.velvetrevolution.us/prosecute%5Frove/

UPDATE 9/18/08: Ohio Attorneys File Papers To Take Deposition Of Bush IT Expert Michael Connell And Others-Includes Spoonamore Affidavit

Yesterday, Ohio attorney Cliff Arnebeck asked the federal court in Columbus to allow him to place Bush IT guru Michael Connell under oath to ask him about his 20 year work for the Bush family, including his work for Jeb Bush in Florida 2000 and for Ken Blackwell in Ohio 2004. “The public has a need and right to know, before the next presidential election, that the top Republican IT expert shares a concern about the vulnerability of electronic voting systems to fraudulent manipulation, and that this is not just “conspiracy theory,” Arnebeck wrote. Arnebeck also advised the court that he would seeking depositions from others, including Karl Rove.

Here is a video interview of Stephen Spoonamore. As a Cyber-security expert, he knows what he’s talking about. I imagine most people involved in programming or website setup can understand the problems in the system. By the way, he is a Republican, but he’s very concerned about our democratic system. He’s been talking about the problem for years -- and didn’t explicitly come out to say in his interviews that it was some Republicans behind it all, but he was concerned about it being a national security threat if people from other countries could alter the election results (As an interesting development since the video I watched -- which I’ll post below -- came out, he now states that Bush IT guru Michael Connell told him he "may have helped others who have compromised elections.” That affidavit is available here:

http://www.velvetrevolution.us/images/Spoon%20Aff%20to%20Reply%20filed%2091708.pdf

It explains how secure the voting machines aren’t.

Here is the link to his interview (it is really good -- if you don’t look at anything else in this email, at least watch this video):

http://www.velvetrevolution.us/prosecute_rove/images/SpoonIntvw3.wmv

In it, he predicts that the 2008 election will be stolen. This interview was taken well before papers were filed for Michael Connell’s statement. Maybe the act of starting that process will stop the fraud from occurring this time.

Some quotes from the video:

By a shockingly bizarre percentage, whenever the exit polls seem to be wildly at odds with the outcome, it seems to always favor the GOP.

[Speaking about the Connelly anomaly in 2004] Anomalies at one-tenth of that process in the credit co. space instantaneously launch an investigation because we know somebody’s playing with the numbers.

[The Connelly Anomaly refers to a woman running for African-American woman who was running for the Ohio Supreme Court. She was endorsed by pro-choice and civil rights groups, and was relatively unknown to Ohio voters, in addition to being vastly outspent by her opponent in the campaign. Yet she got scores of thousands more votes than did John Kerry at the very top of the ticket. This doesn’t just happen.]

When you can see those kinds of absurd results where you can tell mathematically things are out of whack, either something failed or something was defrauded.

The Connelly anomaly is just impossible. And if you look it was brilliantly done. It appears what’s known as a forced balancing equation as incoming heavily democratic precincts reported how much Kerry was ahead in those precincts, a number of counties would then flip the number … the total number of voters ended up being probably nearly correct or approximately correct but basically they would just flip Bush and Kerry votes

…Triad had people drive to Ohio pulling hard drives out of some tabulators saying they had to put in clean hard drives to make sure the recount had clean programming. That is a lie. There is only one reason that would occur. There is something on the code in that hard drive, if forensically investigated, would have shown that there is different numbers on a local tabulator than was reported at the state, or alternately was additional code on that tabulator that was talking to another computer to get results sent to it. Those are the only two explanations that make any sense. And in any kind of real investigation world, any kind of fair justice process, the moment hard drives are being yanked out of machines that have been done with a tabulator or been done with banking or been done with mathematical work? Someone’s covering something up.

Do you have any predictions for the upcoming election?
Sure: McCain/Palin by 51.2% in a shocking recovery and winning by 3 electoral votes.

And do you believe that’s going to be because of forced balancing?
Of course.

It’s valuable to be president. There’s people out there spending billions trying to become the president. It’s valuable. If you can steal it for a couple million bucks, why not? I don’t believe the last two presidential elections were accurately counted or decided. I don’t.

Paper ballots -- hand counted -- the only thing that works.

Unfortunately, paper ballots can also be manipulated. Richard Hayes Philips spent

Here is his video:
http://www.youtube.com/user/talkingsticktv

It’s really interesting. Here’s what he did:

Assisted by teams of volunteers equipped with digital cameras, Phillips amassed some 30,000 images of forensic evidence. Then he analyzed it all himself, examining 126,000 ballots, 127 poll books, and 141 voter signature books from 18 counties in Ohio.

In the video he explains in much detail the variety of methods that were used to alter the voting results. It’s explained in a manner that is very understandable.

He also wrote a book about it with a CD of ballot photos:
http://witnesstoacrime.com/

For additional reading:

• Class voting hacks prompt call for better audits

University exercise illustrates the potential for electronic vote tampering
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27205654/

This just happened -- and it was a group of university students. It was easy for them to hack into the system.

• Was the 2004 Election Stolen?

Republicans prevented more than 350,000 voters in Ohio from casting ballots or having their votes counted - enough to have put John Kerry in the White House.

ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen

2000 - Florida

We all remember what a fiasco the 2000 Florida vote was.

A journalist named Greg Palast seems to have done much of the investigating into the 2000 election (also the 2004 election, but since that is covered above, I’m not including it here).

How George W. Bush Stole The 2000 Election - Part 1 of 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qy48bRHpGwo&feature=related

How George W. Bush Stole The 2000 Election - Part 2 of 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0Cu6ab_jSE&feature=related

Greg Palast on Vote Rigging and Suppression Ahead of the 2008 Election
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/9/greg_palast_on_vote_rigging_and

http://www.gregpalast.com/

How they’re doing it in 2008

Who knows what new things they are working on this year. What we do know is that they are further stepping up their methods of blocking the votes of Democrats across the country. A new article, “Block the Vote,” details how this is being done.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/23638322/block_the_vote

They’ve basically been creating new “rules” to keep Democrats from voting. This is a way to alter the vote “legally” even though these methods are unconstitutional. That would be something to discuss for the next four years, apparently.

Take action

Some people may not care that the elections were rigged if their candidate won. However, if it can happen with one party, it can happen with the other. Would you be happy about that? For better or worse, we need to have the candidate we elected.

I’d like to know if there were death threats after the 2000 and 2004 votes. There certainly were for the ACORN workers recently and the possibility of actual votes occurring from the registration fraud is minimal in that case:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/ACORN-Offices-Ransacked--by-Velvet-Revolution-081018-264.html

Investigate Karl Rove's Election Manipulations

You can send an email to government representatives and your local paper calling for investigation into Rove’s involvement in this fraud:

http://www.velvetrevolution.us/prosecute%5Frove/#mailform

Do what you can to make your vote count

http://www.stealbackyourvote.org/

Know your rights at the polls. Help others if you see them walk away without voting because they were purged from voter rolls or some other method. The stealbackyourvote.org website has information on vote blocking and how to avoid it -- it’s in the form of a comic book that you can download either with a donation or free, whichever you choose.

Other:
http://www.novoterleftbehind.net/

John the Politician

Yes, I'm going to talk about Joe the Plumber. I know... I'm sorry. He can't possibly buy the business he said he was planning on buying, the business is actually not for sale, he has a tax lien against him by the government, he's admitted that he'd be better off under Obama's plan but still seems to be voting for McCain (contractually obligated? hmmm...), he likened Obama to Sammy Davis Jr. (classy), and some people believe he may be related to Charles Keating (huge stretch, but it certainly would be something if he were... I wonder how many Wurzelbacher's there are). And now he appears to be shopping for a book deal. It seems to always come down to a book deal... sad.

On Monday I received an email from the McCain campaign (of course, I want to know what each party is sending out via email). It was titled "I'm Joe the Plumber." After getting a good 45-second laugh out of just the title, I opened up the email to see "We want you to tell us how you are "Joe the Plumber" and why you're supporting John McCain and Sarah Palin in thirty seconds. You could even see your video as an official McCain TV ad."

And today -- Thursday, October 23 -- McCain kicked off a “'Joe the Plumber’ Keep Your Wealth Bus Tour,” tour in Florida. This is apparently what he's going to go with for a while to see if it works.

I'd like to go through the sequence of events that brought us to this strange state of affairs.

1. Obama canvased neighborhoods in Holland, Ohio. A plumber named Joe came up to him and asked him if he'd be taxed more under Obama's plan.

1. McCain brought Joe up first just 6 minutes into the third debate and then kept going back to him. If he hadn't brought him up, it's possible nobody would have heard of him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pssvmgEWVqM

2. Then McCain goes on to say how bad Obama's plan would be for Joe. But if you watch the video of Obama talking to Joe, you'll see that he explains the plan very well to him and Joe really doesn't have any objections at the end.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRPbCSSXyp0

I think it's important to see the whole video. Obama spends over 5 minutes talking to Joe. Of course, what do the people watching conservative Fox News see? Just three clips taken out of context that "prove" to them what a socialist he is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QD0GRxzlwmg

He does make the unfortunate "spread the wealth around" comment and that would end up being the money shot for the McCain campaign. But, if he's basically reversing the tax cuts for the wealthy that Bush implemented (or, really, just not renewing them when they expire), is he really a huge socialist for that? I don't get it.

Here's a video commentary where the host makes a very good point: Would anybody really not buy a business if, after the business pulled in $250,000 a year they had to pay 3% more taxes above the $250,000? That's just goofy. Oh, I couldn't pay that... I'll just go work as an unlicensed plumber instead...or maybe at McDonalds...

Well, now we know that Joe probably isn't going to be purchasing the company. As one writer say it "It turns out Wurzelbacher is getting ready to do that pretty much the way I'm getting ready to play the romantic lead in the next Anne Hathaway movie." [http://www.courant.com/news/local/columnists/hc-colin1019.artoct19-col,0,6280248.column]

3. Here's where the silliness comes in. McCain accuses Barack Obama's campaign of "digging through his personal life" because he asked Obama a tough question. He goes on to say:

"Last weekend, Senator Obama showed up in Joe's driveway to ask for his vote, and Joe asked Senator Obama a tough question. I'm glad he did; I think Senator Obama could use a few more tough questions," McCain told supporters. "The response from Senator Obama and his campaign yesterday was to attack Joe. People are digging through his personal life and he has TV crews camped out in front of his house. He didn't ask for Senator Obama to come to his house. He wasn't recruited or prompted by our campaign. He just asked a question. And Americans ought to be able to ask Senator Obama tough questions without being smeared and targeted with political attacks."

Read the full story here:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/10/18/mccain_defends_joe_the_plumber/

First of all, it was the media who descended upon Joe, which is what they do.

Second, Obama didn't "show up in his driveway." Joe walked through the crowd to ask Obama the question. In addition, I saw an extended video which has more time at the beginning and shows him walking very purposefully up to Obama. I can't find the exact one right now, but will post it if I do.

Third, McCain states "He wasn't recruited or prompted by our campaign." So I'd like to know if McCain said this in a response to somebody else asking if he was recruited or if he came up with this on his own. If the latter, it would turn out to be a "me thinks he doth protest too much" moment -- as why else would he state such a thing out of the blue. (Think: "I didn't eat the cookie... what cookie? didn't you mention a cookie?)

Some people believe he may actually have been recruited after all. To me, he seemed too deliberate and rehearsed, such as in "I'm getting ready to buy a company that makes two hundred... about $250 uh... $270, $280 thousand dollars a year. Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it." I almost see the gears in his head going "oops, I need to get higher than $250,000 or he'll just say I won't be affected at all." And does anybody actually use the phrase "The American Dream" in real conversation? But then again, I'm becoming a conspiracy theorist.

I've heard two rebuttals on the case of Joe being a plant.

First: How can he be a plant when it was Obama that came to his neighborhood. True, this would make it unlikely. If he'd moved into his place right after it was announced that Obama would be in the neighborhood, then that would be one thing (if indeed there were an announcement, of which I have no idea). So that is certainly farfetched. However, what if McCain's camp found out he'd be there and somebody went out beforehand to find this guy and get it set up? What if he were a friend of a friend? I'm not saying this happened, but that it is not outside the realm of possibility. What if he has to support McCain even though Obama's plan benefits him more or else the Secret Service will visit him some evening. But I digress again...

Second: The second isn't really a rebuttal, but is the statement that it doesn't matter if Joe was lying or if he were a plant -- he stands for all of the regular workers out there. Aside from the fact that I don't want to make this goof ball an archetypal character, I do think it matters that he was lying -- doesn't it always matter if a person is lying to you? If we don't like that from our politicians or from others around us, then why should we give this guy a pass. And if you don't mind that it was a setup from the McCain camp, then would you mind if they set up other things ... say, fake terrorist threats?

Anyway, back to the silly sequence of events:

• Several days before the debate: Obama canvases an Ohio neighborhood; Joe walks up to him and asks him some questions.
  
• October 15: McCain brings up Joe just 6 minutes into the debate -- he mentions his name 21 times to Obama's 5.
  
• October 17: McCain calls Joe a victim of attacks by Obama's campaign.
• October 17: At a rally in Florida, McCain encouraged the crowd to "send Joe an e-mail and tell him you're with him." [http://www.wbir.com/news/national/story.aspx?storyid=66892&catid=16]
  
• October 20: McCain sends out "I'm Joe the Plumber" email. Advertisements follow.
  
• October 23: McCain begins "Joe the Plumber" tour.
  

If McCain is that worried about Joe getting overwhelmed, perhaps he should let it go. If he were to stop talking about him, the media would get bored and go on to something else as they do, and Joe could get back to plumbing... or his book deal. And if you've seen any of the McCain/Palin rallies lately, they do spend a lot of time picking people out of the crowd and mentioning their occupations... I mean, a lot of time...

Here's a funny video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3nmVKghL-c
It's pretty much what political ads are like, except you get the best laugh at the final shot when it you are told that the ad was put on by "Plumbers Cracking the Case for Truth."

One last thing: Book deal. Really. Maybe Joe found his American Dream after all...

Are we in oppositeland?

It's a surreal thing to see Sarah Palin state that she was cleared of any wrongdoing when the report states very clearly that she violated ethics.

In an interview posted October 11, she stated:

Well, I’m very very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing … any hint of any kind of unethical activity there. Very pleased to be cleared of any of that.

The surreal interview is available here:
http://community.adn.com/adn/node/132625

In the report, the investigator states:

...I find that Governor Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.

A complete article is available here:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/10/palin.investigation/index.html

Even more fun, that article links to a PDF of the 263-page report:
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/10/11/download.pdf

So, it's one thing when a child states that she didn't eat a cookie as crumbs fall out of her mouth, but this is an adult who is running for Vice President? Does she think that if she says it enough people will believe it. (Sadly, this may be true with an all-too-large percentage of the population.)

Follow-up on the VP debate

I watched an interesting thing on CSPAN the other day. It was yet another review of the Biden-Palin debate. The people on the panel had been involved in campaigns -- some Republican, some Democrat. They were asked which VP candidate won the debate. First, three people with a Republican background stated that they felt Palin won, citing her enthusiasm and that since expectations were so low, she won just by not failing miserably (which is a wonderfully illogical). Then it was the Democrat's turn, and although I can't remember his exact words, he basically stated that they were crazy and of course Biden won. Only then did the Republican supporters say, yes, you're right, Biden won. Gee, you mean people will state opinions even they don't believe to promote their candidate of choice? Shocking.

FactCheck.org has done a fact check on the VP debate. It is available here:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_biden-palin_debate.html

Palin didn't completely implode during the VP debate as many people expected. I think most people agree that she often didn't actually answer the questions that were asked. So, one could extrapolate that if she had answered more questions her mistakes would have increased significantly -- after all, the main reason to not answer is if you don't know the answer or can't speak coherently on the answer.

The debate transcript and video can be found in a variety of places including:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/02/debate.transcript/
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/02/debate.transcript/#cnnSTCVideo

The second presidential debate
This one could get ugly. The McCain camp has shifted their focus to personal attacks, and the Obama camp has stated it will respond in kind.

Fact-checking the debate

If you haven't seen the first presidential debate yet, you can watch it online on many websites, including this one:
http://www.youdecide2008.com/2008/09/27/video-obama-mccain-debate-from-mississippi-9-26-08/

Also, here is a transcript of the debate:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/26/debate.mississippi.transcript/

It was a little frightening to watch the after-debate commentary and reviews of the debate by the TV folks. I was wanting to see them point out which items were falsehoods and exaggerations (because we all know there are some), but there wasn't much of that. I'm thinking, "Do you really care that McCain isn't wearing a flag lapel pin and Obama is?" And many of them were just choosing their preferred candidate as the winner. So, they were less than helpful.

I was especially disillusioned when one of the broadcasters said how powerful McCain's story about wearing a fallen soldier's bracelet was and that Obama's statement about his bracelet would have been more powerful if he'd said it first. Hello critical thinkers. The reason he stated it was to make the point that you don't continue a war for the sole reason that one soldier's mother says she wants you to keep fighting.

I found a number of websites that perform fact checks on political statements, commercials, and now the debate. It's www.FactCheck.org and it is a non-partisan, non-profit organization.

Here are their results for debate number 1:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_debate_no_1.html
I'd skip the Summary and go straight to the Analysis, which has a lot more information and supporting data.

Obama had a few misstatements; McCain had a lot and many of his were big.

Here is one that is not listed on the site at the time of this posting: McCain stated that corporations in the US are taxed at 35%. Obama replied that with deductions and loopholes US corporations are effectively taxed at 11%, which is the second lowest in the world. I’ve been reading that 11%, the second lowest, is accurate.

My favorite statement of the night was by Obama:

"The only point I want to make is this, that in order to make the tough decisions we have to know what our values are and who we're fighting for and our priorities and if we are spending $300 billion on tax cuts for people who don't need them and weren't even asking for them ..."

Again, please read the fact check article. I find these the best way for non-politicians like you and me to find out what is real and what isn't:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_debate_no_1.html


The Oregon Senate race ... fact and opinion

The senate race in my wonderful state of Oregon is neck and neck, although Democrat Merkley appears to be pulling ahead in the polls now. Republican Gordon Smith has a very blatant smear campaign going on. He likes to highlight how moderate he is (seemingly trying to distance himself from his party -- like "maverick" John McCain...?). His boldness for skewing reality went a bit too far in a recent ad that strongly implies support for him by Barack Obama. Here's the statement in the ad:

"Who says Gorden Smith helped lead the fight for better gas mileage and a clean environment? Barack Obama."

The problem is that Obama never "said" or even implied that. Go here to see the ad and information about this falsehood:
http://www.jeffmerkley.com/2008/06/new_video_find.php

It would be a very smart or very stupid move on his part: smart if he was betting on people behaving like Stepford Voters -- stupid and arrogant if he thought nobody would dig deeper.

You can contribute to Merkley's race and/or extremely close races in two other states here:
https://pol.moveon.org/give/sept08.html?id=14073-6017953-X1l_fVx&t=3

$700,000,000,000 without oversight ... nice

I think $700 billion should always be written $700,000,000,000 -- some people really need to see all of those zeros.

The bailout put forth by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson includes the following legislation:

"Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."

Talk about taxation without representation. Following is a really good article about just how wrong this deal is -- including the fact that no oversight could mean that the wonderful executives of these financial institutions could still get their hefty executive compensation:

Dirty Secret Of The Bailout: Thirty-Two Words That None Dare Utter
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/22/dirty-secret-of-the-bailo_n_128294.html

Former President Clinton was on Comedy Central tonight and discussed this issue, as well. He stated that when there was aid to financial institutions during the great depression, they didn't just hand over the money. They reworked mortgages when they could so that people could afford them and keep their homes. He stated that 1) we should demand a moratorium on foreclosures and try to rework the loans so that people can keep their homes, and 2) the money should be loaned at interest or there should be a percentage of ownership so that money can eventually get back to the taxpayers.

You can watch the full episode here:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml?episodeId=185193

And on the same show, about 4:15 minutes into the video, we get to see what President Bush has learned today, and I quote: "It turns out there's a lot of inner links throughout the financial system." Oy.

And the "house of cards" metaphor is classic W.

Boy, it was a good day for news. If you haven't seen this one yet, you should:

Freddie Mac Paid McCain Campaign Manager's Firm Through last Month
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/23/freddie-mac-paid-mccain-c_n_128770.html

Regime change: Bigger and better?

I received an email the other day that had a number of arguments against voting for Obama. One of them was "If he gets into office with a Democratic congress, government will get bigger and bigger." I am assuming this refers to any Democratic president in office at the same time as a Democratic congress, not just Obama.

I've heard this same argument stated that same way many times. I'll admit, I don't understand all of the inner workings of government. (My high school government teacher made the subject excessively boring.) So I'm not sure how much more government would bloom from this particular scenario.

What I do know is that we want government there when we need it. If somebody is breaking into your house, you want the police to come. No, you don't just want it - you expect it. If you are putting your money into the bank, you want it to be federally insured. Right about now, you're probably relieved that the SEC has imposed a ban on short selling, and you're probably rethinking the benefits of regulating the mortgage industry.

To me, this should be an issue of quality. I don't want a bloated government, but the people in power need to do the job for which they were elected. When they are making decisions that benefit their friends instead of the American people, then we aren't getting the quality we deserve. (Of course, I'm talking about oil.)

This is surely an over-simplistic view of things. My point is that it seems precarious to make decisions now based on blanket statements learned 30 years ago.

As we all know, one party never stays in power for too long. Perhaps we need to have this change to get us squarely on track to cleaner energy and transportation, and then in eight years a "Drill, Drill, Drill" campaign slogan might be met with stunned silence even by the adoring supporters in the crowd.

We can dream.

New meaning to Drill, Drill, Drill

More evidence of the collusion between the oil industry and government.

Oil officials given sex, gifts, investigators say
13 Interior Department employees handled billions in energy royalties

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26644351/

"This all shows the oil industry holds shocking sway over the administration and even key federal employees," said Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla. "This is why we must not allow big oil's agenda to be jammed through Congress."

-------------
Another Drill, Drill, Drill related article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eve-ensler/drill-drill-drill_b_124829.html

Calling SNL skit "sexist" is illogical

On September 13, Saturday Night Live opened with a hilarious parody of Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton. You can watch it here:

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20225679,00.html

Now the McCain camp is calling Fey's portrayal of Palin "sexist." That article is available here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26743182/

Here is a quote:
“The portrait was very dismissive of the substance of Sarah Palin, and so in that sense, they were defining Hillary Clinton as very substantive, and Sarah Palin as totally superficial,” McCain advisor Carly Fiorina told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell on Monday. “I think that continues the line of argument that is disrespectful in the extreme, and yes I would say sexist.”

Let's break this down and look at it logically.

Sexism is defined to be:

1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.

First of all, SNL has thrived on political parody since it began. Most of the people being parodied were men, of course, since most of the politicians were men. Now it happens that these two women are out there in the political arena (Palin being more of a hot commodity than Clinton at this time -- no pun intended). So they are simply joining the ranks of others before them: Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford. They will take on anybody regardless of gender, race, and political party -- all are up for skewering. So the McCain advisor's argument fails the definition of sexism.

Second, please hone in on this statement by the advisor: "...they were defining Hillary Clinton as very substantive, and Sarah Palin as totally superficial." Well, unless Hillary Clinton is a man, it is not logical to call this comparison sexist.

What is the goal of such misdirection? Well, I imagine that the McCain camp wants people to read the headline, not delve further, feel bad that Palin is being treated unfairly, and vote for McCain/Palin in a knee jerk reaction. It's important to see political spin for what it is.

Palin lies about scientists finding ill effects of global warming on polar bears

There is a very good article titled "Once Elected, Palin Hired Friends and Lashed Foes" -- the article is available here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26691018/

More interesting to me than the treatment of friends and foes is the reporting of how Palin 1) tried to circumvent subpoenas by using personal email accounts for official work, 2) lied about the results of state scientists, and 3) compounded that lie by suing the federal government to block the listing of bears as endangered.

Here is an excerpt from the article:

Interviews show that Ms. Palin runs an administration that puts a premium on loyalty and secrecy. The governor and her top officials sometimes use personal e-mail accounts for state business; dozens of e-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that her staff members studied whether that could allow them to circumvent subpoenas seeking public records.

Rick Steiner, a University of Alaska professor, sought the e-mail messages of state scientists who had examined the effect of global warming on polar bears. (Ms. Palin said the scientists had found no ill effects, and she has sued the federal government to block the listing of the bears as endangered.) An administration official told Mr. Steiner that it would cost $468,784 to process his request.

When Mr. Steiner finally obtained the e-mail messages — through a federal records request — he discovered that state scientists had in fact agreed that the bears were in danger, records show.

“Their secrecy is off the charts,” Mr. Steiner said.

Imagine this person as vice president and how much more she can lie about and hide with the skillful help of others around her. Presumably she has now learned that email can be traced, so she probably won't show her true colors in that particular way again.

Supporting information:

• Alaska's Palin misrepresented state's polar bear findings:
  http://www.mcclatchydc.com/100/story/38509.html
  
  
• Sarah Palin Denies Global Warming, Says Polar Bears Not Endangered:
  http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2008/09/12/sarah_palin_denies_global_warming_says_p
  
  
• Alaska sues to block polar bear protections:
  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26036148/
  

Why I started this blog

hy·poc·ri·sy -- noun. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess


Most of my life I've stayed away from discussing politics. I had friends on both sides and they generally had compelling reasons for supporting their chosen party. So it was difficult to say that one particular ideology was the only correct one. I have never voted solely on party lines. There seemed to be so many gray areas regarding politics because political decisions and changes in one area of our lives always impact other areas of our lives -- legal, economical, etc. Like most people, I tried to do the best I could while taking care of daily life. And the fact that elections go on for so long was and is still generally exhausting.

This election, things are different for me. I'm finding myself quite driven to speak out for these reasons:

• I believe the current administration is full of lies and hypocrisy.
• I believe the current administration is making policy in order to benefit a small group of people, in particular the oil industry, and is willing to irrevocably harm the environment in order to do so.
  
• I believe that if the republicans remain in power into the next administration we will continue down this same path.
  
• I believe there is clear evidence of all of this.

So, I will be posting my thoughts, excerpts, links to additional information, and items that others send me. Please check back often, spread the word, and vote. The polls appear to have changed in recent weeks, indicating that many people may not be altogether decided. It's important to reach these people. I also invite my staunch republican friends, family, and community members to consider taking a look at the current administration's acts and the likely paths of the candidates with a fresh eye.

Thank you.