McConnell and Lunsford TV ads

Aren't we blessed to get to see and hear all the McConnell and Lunsford TV ads for the U.S. senate seat. I think both have had some really crappy ads, and some good ones. I'm still pissed off that the mainstream media won't cover McConnell's totally illegal abuse of not for profits that he has gotten funding for and then turned around and strong armed them into doing campaign favors for McConnell. I mean, it's just happened too much to be a coincidence. And it isn't fair to the many not for profits that lean toward the left that are petrified of getting involved in electoral politics, but could have a lot to say about McConnell if they could speak out.

McConnell must be pretty desperate when it runs an ad saying that says that Lunsford is from Chicago. Lunsford response ad is pretty effective, saying he was raised on a Kentucky farm, served as Commerce Secretary, blah blah blah. But when he says he has grown a business from 3 employees to tens of thousands, I have to question what that is? He never says what business he is involved in, and how he grew so amazingly. That leaves a big gap for me, anyway. Did he make his money in hazardous waste, or wind energy? I guess probably neither, but what was it? The fact that you don't tell us makes me suspicious. And why shouldn't I be? Lunsford is almost a republican himself. But all we want him to do is put his desk on the democratic side of the senate aisle. And while I think Lunsford is a long shot, if McCain doesn't show up to the debate, and the republicans remain split on the "bailout" and the economy continues to tank, the bigger the chance for a Democratic landslide that would carry darkhorses and increase, perhaps to veto proof, majorities in both houses. Wow, that could mean real change, well, within limits I know, because we are talking Democrats here, but change nonetheless!

Political Theater of the Absurd Like Never Before

Well, if up to this point, you haven't "seen it all" in politics, you are seeing it now. Can you believe that McCain has the gall to suggest, after his infamous, "economy is fundamentally strong" comment AFTER Lehman Bros just collapsed, that he is now so superiorly concerned about the economy that he has to be D.C. even though it means missing the first presidential debate on Friday? OMG, that stretches the imagination! 

And if Bush's speech tonight doesn't cause a run on the banks tomorrow morning, I'd be surprised. I mean, I'm ready to go take all our money, which isn't much, out of the bank tomorrow. I mean, I haven't been alive that long - some almost 56 years, but I don't ever remember hearing a president of the U.S. talk in such dire terms. But come on - he's responsible for it! He's been president for 8 years! He has like zero credibility. And even if he is telling the truth and things are as dire as he suggests, why should we believe him to lead us out of it, when he is the one that lead us into it?

And did anyone notice that the Warren Buffet $5 billion, yes BILLION, at least according to press reports although no one produced a deposit slip, is going to Goldman-Sachs, which was Sec. of Treasury Paulson's firm? Is this just coincidence? Yeah, and I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you too!

McCain is sinking faster than the Titanic in it's last 15 minutes. That's because he has no core - he has no self - he has no honor. He is saying anything, and doing anything, like picking Palin to be VP, in order to try and find some gimmick that will catapult him into power, or at least get him so close that the republican machine can manufacture an election theft without people taking to the streets. But, if the landslide is too much, the republicans can't stop it, and that is what they are seeing, and they are getting desperate.

But if McCain simply doesn't show up Friday for the debate, he is sealing his own fate - his own demise. People are desperate for this debate. They so much want to see, and are ready to see, Obama and McCain go one on one. And there is no way that a Democratically controlled congress is going to schedule a critical vote during the debates. So there is no reason, with today's travels arrangements, that McCain can't take a few hours to Lear-Jet into Oxford, do the debate, and get out in 3 to 4 hours, or even less if it's an emergency. Especially considering that McCain has criticized Obama for not debating enough. I mean, how lame can you be to expect people to believe that you are so critical to something that you can't take 3 or 4 hours to do something really important? Especially when, just a few days ago, you weren't even acknowledging the problem. 

Can you imagine? Obama is standing at the podium by himself talking? I mean, it's a politician's dream come true. But McCain has boxed himself in. If he comes to the debate, he's going against himself. But if he doesn't come, he's letting Obama go against himself. Who wins? Geez, that's easy. 

There are those that will say this is a cynical move by McCain to try and stop Obama's surge. And, from all the polls, it appears that Obama's surge is working. But it's too little too late I think. As Stephanopolous said this morning on Good Morning America, no candidate has ever been down 9 percentage points in their poll late in September and come back to win the election. I think the republicans are seeing a landslide, which may mean the collapse of their viable minority, and they are getting desperate. But the country has seen what Bush has done to us, and they want to try something different. While the Dems probably won't give us the change we really need, they will have a better chance of instituting some change than the republicans, that's for sure. 

Finally, I just have to say again, that if, for many months leading up to now, McCain was criticizing Obama on experience, but then changed his campaign to use Obama's strategy, which is "change," which is now also McCain's mantra, doesn't that mean that McCain is following Obama's strategy? That means that Obama is the leader and not follower, doesn't it? How can McCain follow Obama's strategy and then criticize him as not being ready to lead? Isn't that absurd? Today was political theater of the absurd perhaps more than any day I have ever experienced.

Sunday News Shows

Well, I watched Wall Street Journal Reports, which up to now I haven't been mentioning although I watch it most weeks, not because I like "Maria" but because I don't, and it's good to keep up with your "enemies." To me "Maria" represents greed, corruption, ignorance of reality, and a false feeling of entitlement. Her and her ilk are totally out of touch with reality for most people. And they aren't that smart. Yet, for some weird reason, they think they deserve to both run the country (into the ground) and have a lot more than most people. Why? They don't impress me as being very smart. Actually, look at the results. They are pretty stupid!OK, enough ranting, I've plenty of that to come. I also watched most of ABC Sunday Morning, and some of "Meet the Press." I am adding "I'm Outraged" to the title this week, because I am. "Emperor" (as labeled by George Will on ABC Sunday Morning) Paulson dominated the airwaves, and he has a plan, which he wants shoved through in a couple of days totally unaltered, which would forgive the fat cats for their bad investments in mortgage, derivative and speculative based "bundled" mortgage securities, which were backed by bogusly appraised real estate, while allowing the mortgage holders to go unaided. 

Give me a break. It's all I can do to avoid using expletives about Paulson, Bush, Congress and the whole lot. They all deserve to be jail. They are nothing more than common thieves, who steal themselves into power, pass laws protecting their lawslessness, and leaving us all liable for the ruins of what is left after they plunder us. 

Even Obama met with some so-called "economic experts" and then issued a statement saying that the Treasure Secretary and a couple other insiders should be given "broad authority." SAY WHAT? SAY WHAT? Isn't this the same administration that folks like Sen. Clinton said mislead them about their use of broad authority? And now you are going to put a trillion or more dollars of ours at risk by giving him more "broad authority?" Are you crazy? Especially at the end of the most failed, illegitimate administration in our country's history? 

Then you have to listen to what Paulson said. He wants a "clean" bill that bails out his buddies, but holds none of them accountable, and shifts no money to the middle class. Are you suprised? He's BUSH's Sec. of Treasury. He's THE problem! Not the answer. 

Even Barney Frank was buying into this " things are so bad that if we don't do what Paulson wants, life as we know it will no longer exist." Well, Mr. Frank, what are you talking about? Interestingly, both Stephanopolous and Schieffer, who I give credit to, questioned their guests about what this so called untold calamity would be if this plan didn't go through. And, fact is, Stephanopolous questioned the hardest. He even got Sen. Dodd, one of the banking dudes in the Senate, to give a little bit of a hint about what would happen if the U.S. government doesn't step in now and prop up these large financial institutions.

Schieffer also asked Barney Frank the same kind of questions. He gave up sooner. Neither Dodd nor Frank gave a good answer, although it was repeated more than once throughout the morning that when Paulson brief "congressional leaders" about the consequences of doing nothing, that there were silence for at least 15 seconds. Oh, what a spiritual moment! 

But let me tell you what I think I heard from Dodd and Franks. And by the way, they both sort of let it slip that they were being vague cause they didn't want to cause a "panic." (which I would interpret as taking all of your money out of the bank.) But here is what the bottom lines are on what would happen that is so "bad" that the Dems have to give into Bush and let him do what he wants to avoid these results. And...the results are....that people who are carrying large credit card balances that they don't have the liquid assets to cover could get a "margin" call that they can't meet which could force them into either immediate liquidation of assets that can't be immediately liquidated with any kind of profit, or file for bankruptcy. And, probably even worse, they wouldn't be able to purchase anything else on their credit cards. Ouch. 

The other thing "mainstreet" that was mentioned was that us "little" people wouldn't be able to get car loans. Oh my! And here I thought that maybe an asteroid was going to hit the earth and destroy it completely next week.

No doubt that if something like that would happen, that it would mean a lot of changes for most people. And a reduction of "standard of living" in terms of material comforts and expectations. And, that could lead to political upheaval, but hey, maybe that's what we need. Isn't that "free market politics?" And I'm not even saying I'm for completely "free" markets. But for some of these folks to be advocating that on one hand while facilitating one of the biggest giveaways of taxpayers money to a bunch of crooks on the other is outrageous. These folks, for the most part, have been the so-called "free marketers." That means as long as their friends get the goverment bailout it's a "free market."

But Paulson wants a "clean" bill, which means no aide to the middle class. If the Dems give that to him without flexing some of their legislative power as being in the majority, then pox on their house. And if the Dems vote to give Bush "broad authority" to rip us off, then I think there should be a revolution by voting for the Green party or even some other third party. 

The other part of the shows that was repeated was the importance of the first debate this week. The consensus is that it is Obama's to lose. I'm not sure I understand the rationale on that, but that's what they said. 

Oh yeah, "socialism" was mentioned on about every show. George Will actually read an historic definition of socialism which proved that what was going on now was socialism. The real story here is that so many of the ultra right wing "free marketers" like Sen. Shelby from Alabama, on Face the Nation, are suddenly for more regulation. Give me a break. What a lack of accountability and honor. These people are guilty as sin and yet stand there and deny it. Judas, that's what they are!

Matthews meter gave Obama the week 11 - 1. Obama did win the week, obviously. I give the best show of the weekend award to Matthews, and a close second to Face the Nation. None of them set the world on fire. They are so milktoast and seemingly impotent to ask these crooks the really hard questions that they should be ashamed to call themselves journalists.

McLaughlin Group last night

Being a regular viewer of the McLaughlin Group on PBS, Friday evening, I have to comment on last night's show. 

I thought the quote of the evening came from Pat Buchanan, who said that "we need Russia, and Russia needs us," referring to the Bush administration's recently belligerence against Russia as being "stupid." He noted that Georgia had provoked the incident. In that vein, during the hot tip part of the show, McLaughlin himself said that it's going to come out soon that Bush approved the invasion of Ossetia. Duh. I agree with Buchanan, if you can believe that, that our posture during this whole matter has been stupid. 

One thing I learned from the show, if it's true, and I'm going to assume that it is, is that the SEC under the infamous Cox, who McCain says he'd fire, increased what I took from the lingo as being the debt to collateral ratio from a more "traditional" 12 - 1 to an unjustifiable 40 - 1. This whole economic mess was blamed on that, at least according to Buchanan. I'd like to know more.

McLaughlin tagged Obama as the # 1 "liberal" in the Senate, and Biden the # 3 "liberal." I guess McLaughlin has to do something to keep his credentials as a republican. All in all, it was a good show.

Immediately following was Gwen Ifill's "Washington Week." Ifill is "too big for her britches," as we used to say about someone who thought they were better and more important than they really are. She proved she was totally out of touch by asking when all of this economic trouble was expected to "trickle down" to mainstreet. She was quickly reminded that it already had. The fact is, Ms. Ifill, that it started on mainstreet and not on Wall Street. We've been hurting for years. Ifill's show is starchy and pretty boring. She's very conservative, and I don't trust her viewpoint, to tell you the truth.

 

Kentucky Steelworker Says Even Some Republicans are Panning Palin

by Berry Craig

CALVERT CITY, Ky. – Steelworker Brandon Duncan is wary of polls that say Sarah Palin has fired up the Republican faithful.

He recently flew from Paducah, near Calvert City, to Phoenix, and back. He had to change planes five times.

“Almost every person I sat close to happened to be a Republican,” Duncan remembered. “Every one of them said they were so disenchanted with John McCain for picking Palin they weren’t going to vote for him.”

Palin, the governor of Alaska, is a social and religious conservative. She is getting high marks from the Republican-friendly Religious Right, which had doubted McCain. “But the Republicans I met on the planes don’t like her,” said Duncan, vice president of Steelworkers Local 727 in Calvert City.

The Arizona senator’s choice of Palin as his running mate “has excited Republican voters about his candidacy, which is no small thing in a contest that continues to be so tight,” said the New York Times, citing a recent Times/CBS News poll.

Even so, the survey “suggested that Ms. Palin’s selection has, to date, helped Mr. McCain only among Republican base voters; there was no evidence of significantly increased support for him among women in general.”

Duncan, who also represents his local at the Paducah-based Western Kentucky Area Council, AFL-CIO, isn’t sure Palin is all that popular with the GOP’s base. “All of the people I talked to said they were lifelong Republicans,” he added. “All of them said McCain and Palin don’t stand for what the party used to be.”

He said an Alabama Republican who looked like she was in her sixties complained to him that “the Republican Party is supposed to be about running the country, not focusing on abortion and religion all that. She said that there are a lot of evangelicals in Alabama who like McCain and Palin.

“But she said she won’t be voting Republican this time. She said she couldn’t tell her family. She also said she had to tell somebody, so she told me.”

Duncan, who lives in Paducah and commutes to work, recalled that on another flight, his seatmate, a North Carolina woman “who also seemed like she was in her sixties, said she always voted Republican but wasn’t going to this time because of McCain’s vice presidential pick. She said she and her friends were hoping he would pick somebody like Sen. Biden, Obama’s running mate, who has a lot of experience. 

“But the woman said, ‘All McCain did was pick a pretty face and put a woman on the ticket trying to get Hillary’s voters.’”

On another flight, Duncan said he had a conversation with a retired couple from Minneapolis, site of the Republican National Convention. “They were Republicans, too,” Duncan said. “They told me when McCain picked Gov. Palin, he lost a lot of people in Minnesota. They said they weren’t going to vote for him and neither were their friends.”

Duncan said that even in Phoenix, McCain’s hometown, he met local people “totally miffed at the ticket McCain put together.” 

Duncan conceded his “poll” wasn’t scientific. “But the people I met were from all over the country,” he said. “They all said they were sick and tired of the religious extremists running the Republican Party.”

Not Everybody Fell for McCain’s Crossover Move at New Hampshire Motor Speedway

by Berry Craig

MAYFIELD, Ky. – “John McCain defied all sense of geography Sunday by going north and south at the same time,” wrote Glen Johnson of the Associated Press. “The Republican presidential contender visited the battleground state of New Hampshire to attend a NASCAR race especially popular in GOP strongholds down South.”

Most of the race fans who came to watch the Sylvania 300 at New Hampshire Motor Speedway near Loudon probably were “NASCAR Dads,” white, socially-conservative working-class men. A lot of them were big for Bush four years ago. A lot of them evidently favor Sen. McCain this time.

McCain didn’t mention jobs, the economy, NAFTA or CAFTA at the race track. He played the patriotism card. He usually does that around working class voters. I guess McCain figures it’s the best way to hide his long and well-documented anti-labor record. 

Don’t get me wrong. I deeply admire McCain’s Vietnam War service. A navy pilot, he was shot down, captured and forced to endure almost six years of brutal treatment as a POW in North Vietnam.

I also deeply admire veterans like Jim Wasser of IBEW Local 176 in Joliet, Ill. He was second in command aboard Sen. John Kerry’s navy Swift Boat in South Vietnam. 

In 2004, some Bush backers flat lied about Kerry’s distinguished combat record. The hatchet job helped Bush win.

“On the veterans’ issues, everybody respects McCain’s war service,” Wasser is quoted on the AFL-CIO’s Internet website. “We veterans never forget other veterans and we should never say anything bad about another veteran’s military service – that’s hallowed ground.” 

Amen. 

“….But I’m concerned about his Senate voting record and I’m worried about four more years of a continuation of a bad economy,” Wasser added. “….I want people to know about McCain’s agenda and to call on all vets and working people to let McCain know that his agenda is wrong on pocketbook issues.”

Amen again.

I don’t understand why any NASCAR Dad, especially one who belongs to a union, wouldn’t focus on pocketbook issues when he judges candidates. So what if McCain shows up at a stock car race? He has voted the union position on legislation only 16 percent of the time, according to the AFL-CIO’s Committee on Political Education. His 2007 COPE score is zero. On the other hand, Obama’s lifetime COPE score is 98 percent – and 100 percent in 2007. 

McCain supports a national right-to-work law, and he opposes the Employee Free Choice Act. Obama is against right-to-work and is for the Employee Free Choice Act. In short, McCain has spent a career in politics making it hard on unions. Obama could hardly be more pro-union. 

Okay, most NASCAR Dads don’t belong to unions. But few of them think NAFTA and CAFTA were good ideas. McCain does. He voted for both trade deals that have cost America tens of thousands of jobs, some of them probably lost by NASCAR Dads. 

Obama wasn’t in the senate when NAFTA passed, but he wants to renegotiate the pact. He opposed CAFTA. 

McCain wants working people to think he’s a “maverick” and a “change” candidate. But McCain has voted for Bush’s bills in the Senate about 90 percent of the time – 95 percent in 2007, according to the nonpartisan publication Congressional Quarterly.

McCain is so rich he didn’t remember how many houses he and his millionaire wife own. Since that gaffe, he’s had to cook up new ways to convince working stiffs that he’s regular guy. So “The Straight Talk Express” rolled up at a stock car race. 

McCain told the drivers that U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are big NASCAR fans. “You are their role models,” The Boston Globe’s Fluto Shinzawa quoted the candidate. “You are their role models. You are their heroes, and they are ours.”

A lot of GIs in the Middle East do catch NASCAR races on satellite TV. If they can, they watch from the first lap until the checkered flag waves. That’s what real race fans do.

McCain didn’t even stay for the first lap. He spoke briefly to the crowd, then “left just after the drivers started their engines but before they started racing,” Johnson wrote.

The symbolism was hard to miss, at least to this union-card carrying father who’s been hooked on NASCAR since Dale Jarrett’s daddy rubbed fenders with drivers like “Fireball” Roberts, “Fearless Freddie” Lorenzen, “Banjo” Matthews, Junior Johnson and Rex White.

McCain was just trolling for votes at the track. Style trumped substance as it so often does with the “straight talker.” 

McCain chose not to repeat what he told the Des Moines Register newspaper last year: “NAFTA was a good idea….All you have to do is go to Detroit and see the thousands of trucks lined up every day or [go] to our Southern border….Have people lost jobs? Yes, they have, and they’re gonna lose jobs.”

That quote is the real McCain. There are many more like it on the AFL-CIO website. The next time NASCAR Dads go online to www.nascar.com they might also click on www.aflcio.org .

Anyway, McCain played NASCAR fan, like Bush, Daddy Bush and Ronald Reagan did when they dropped in at other stock car races. Not one of those union-busters stayed for a whole race either. 

Meanwhile, at the New Hampshire Motor Speedway, the Republican-friendly NASCAR brass fawned all over McCain. The drivers gave him a standing ovation.

But I can imagine the snickering that went on behind the darkly-tinted windows of “The Straight Talk Express” as the big shiny bus exited the speedway. I can almost hear the McCains and their buttoned-down, khaki-trousered, Gucci-shod campaign staffers laughing and congratulating themselves for putting another one over on the folks in the Dale Jr. hats as deftly as Dale Sr. snookered enemy drivers with his famous crossover move.

Not everybody in the stands fell for McCain’s crossover con. “I was at the race and the reception McCain got was tepid at best,” a blogger commented on Shinzawa’s story, which was posted online. “You cannot 'peg' everybody, even NASCAR fans. I overheard one group say about McCain's first appearance (he appeared before the driver introductions and then just before the start of the race): ‘You just missed McCain. You didn't miss much.’ When somebody objected to that the response was ‘We[‘]re Obama up here.’”

So are several of us union motorheads down here in Kentucky.

McCain has no Shame

The Republicans are showing just how shameless they are. Even after Monday morning announcement of the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the stock market plunged hundreds of points in the opening minutes, McCain, in a campaign speech, said that the fundamentals of the U.S. economy were "strong." After Obama and the media jumped on that, because it was obvious that they weren't, McCain changed his stump speech. 

In a talk that afternoon, he repeated, like a robot, any number of times, that the fundamentals of the economy were "at risk." He had dropped the "fundamentally strong" language. But the next morning, on the talk shows, such as the Today Show and Good Morning America, he had changed again. Now he was saying that the American worker was the fundamental of the economy, and that the American worker as strong. Oh yeah? And he then he went on to say that he was for the worker, which he's been repeating in his robot ways since then. Oh yeah? since when are the republicans for the workers? 

Just check out Berry Craig's columns on Rural Thoughts if you want some proof of that. But obviously McCain has no shame and will say anything to get elected. In fact, yesterday morning, when the Bush administration stepped in and propped up AIG with $65 billion of taxpayers' dollars, McCain at first said he was against a government bailout. Later though, he changed his tune and said it was the right thing to do. The guy is so all over the map it is impossible to know what he is for and what he is going to do if he gets in. Is this honor? Is this character? No, it's doing and saying anything and everything to get elected. 

Look at the last century of our country's history. It's been the republicans allowing the big money interests to go wild which has brought us the worst economic times, and the democrats stepping in to help the regular people weather the republican economic storms. That's just what is going on now, and workers should not be fooled again by false promises by a republican desperate to keep the party in the white house. If McCain gets in, we'll see the ol' "trickle down" continue. The problem is that almost nothing trickles down.

Sunday News Shows

I watched Chris Matthews, parts of Meet the Press and ABC Sunday Morning, and Face the Nation. Face the Nation takes the prize of the best show of the day - Schieffer had 4 female elected officials - two Republicans and two Democrats. It was a very interesting discussion. 

I think that the Dems, which included the Arizona governor and a Congresswoman from Florida, smoked the two Republicans, a U.S. Senator from Texas and a former governor of Massachusetts. The nail in the coffin for the debate was the discussion about McCain's vote on a bill to overturn the decision in the recent Lilly-Ledbetter supreme court decision, which ruled that a woman was too late in filing discrimination claims. McCain had voted against this legislation, which the Democrat debaters skillfully had characterized as a vote against equal pay for women. 

I thought that the Arizona governor had made a nice argument that Palin wasn't qualified to be VP because she was just following McCain policies which was following Bush policies. That was quite effective and Obama would be wise to follow that line of argument and stay away from the "experience" or "intelligence" argument. 

One of the most interesting discussions in the Chris Matthews show was about the meeting last week between Obama and Bill Clinton. Clinton apparently told Obama that he needs to focus even more and with more passion about the economy. This "lack of passion" by Obama in the last few weeks was brought up on several shows. McCain and the Republicans are going to do everything they can to keep the campaign talking about lipstick, cultural issues, and other distractions to keep the media off the campaign, health care, and the Bush record. Obama has to drive home these issues, but, he was cautioned not to get too angry in his passion. Of course, the idea that Obama can't be the angry black man is itself sort of racist, but it is probably good advice.

But the fact is, Obama does need to drive home the economic realities and how the Republicans are not the party to bring change for the working class. Greenspan was on ABC Sunday Morning and also on Wall Street Journal Report, saying on both shows that he believes that there is a 50% plus chance that we will have a recession, and that the worst of this turndown is not behind us because housing prices have not found their low. This should be music to Obama's ears, in a weird kind of way. But he's got to get the media tuned back into that. There's still enough time.

Bill Clinton also apparently told Obama not to give up on some the swing states such as Montana and North Carolina. This was bolstered by Chuck Todd's report on the state by state polling. Todd said that Palin is having little effect on the polls in the west. However, Todd did say that current polling indicates that some swing states, like Missouri, are moving into likely Republican, and Wisconsin, which was likely Obama, has moved into being a swing state. But, he still has Obama at 233 electorale college delegates either strong or leaning Dem, and McCain at 227.

The Palin publicity surge was characterized on more than one show as a "bubble," and as George Will said, "
Bubbles will do as bubbles with do." We know what that is - break. Chuck Todd from NBC news, on Meet the Press, characterized it as bubble "deflation." Everyone knows it's coming. Just how it deflates is going to have some sway on the electorate, no doubt.

It also was mentioned on more than one show that the Obama campaign had thought early on that this election would be easy, but now are adjusting to a new mentality of dealing with a close race. I thought that was interesting. It doesn't seem to me to be consistent with how Obama and his people have approached this for them to be what amounted to an accusation of overconfidence, but it is possible. Afterall, if the Dems can't win this year, then I guess we have permanent Republican presidents.

It also was discussed on more than show whether or not Palin would take Hillary voters from Obama. I think the general consensus was that maybe a few, particularly more blue collar in states like West Virginia, but that all in all, it was a different enough demographic that they probably would stick with the Democrat.

The Matthews meter, which is going to start voting on whether McCain or Obama won the week in campaigning, and by 11 - 1, they voted that last week was McCain's. I guess I agree, but only because the mainstream media is so distracted by dumb stories. 

I did watch McLaughlin Group on Friday. I didn't take any notes, but they talked a lot about Palin. I thought Eleanor Clift had a good show. Bye Bye.

Palin's interview with Charlie Gibson thus far

Clearly ABC News is milking the first Palin interview. I watched it on the evening news, and have seen it replayed more than once. I didn't find it particularly impressive, but I'm not surprised about that. But truthfully, the "Bush Doctrine" screw up wasn't one of the parts of the interview that really got me. The aggressive military talk against Russia and Iran, and her babbling about climate change and global warming came off to me as ranging from truly frightening to typical political sidestepping. 

Her talk about climate change being "potentially" "partly" "caused by man, but also part of some normal "cycle" just seemed to me to be total neo-con political doubletalk. It has no connection to the truth, and it is obvious to me that she knows little about the details of climate change. 

That someone like Palin might actually be the person making the final decision about attacking Russia or Iran is frightening. She is self-absorbed, totally non-humble, and full of herself. Franklin Roosevelt's theory of "speak softly and carry a big stick" is much more in our national interest than having this ultra-conservative novice puff up, pretend to be tough, and needlessly get us into more and more military conflicts that we can't win and will eventually drag us down even more. Confidence is good, but ego and disproportionate self confidence to one's abilities are not good traits, and this is the feeling that I get from Palin. 

We'll see what happens in the rest of the interview.

Has McCain Been Studying Napoleon on Scamming Working People?

by Berry Craig

MAYFIELD, Ky. – John McCain reminds me of Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte of France . 

It’s not because they were both military guys. It’s their use of religion to further their ambitions. 

Napoleon was a deist, maybe even an atheist. Most of his subjects were Catholics, so he wanted the church on his side. 

"When a man is dying of hunger alongside another who stuffs himself, it is impossible to make him accede to the differences unless there is an authority which says to him God wishes it thus," the emperor said. 

In 2000, McCain challenged George W. Bush for the GOP presidential nomination. The mostly white, Protestant fundamentalist and Republican-friendly Religious Right backed Bush. 

McCain called two of its leaders, the Revs. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, “agents of intolerance.” McCain lost. 

This time, he actively courted the GOP’s powerful Jesus-loves-me-but-he-can’t stand-you crowd. To seal the deal, he chose one of them as a running mate. 

McCain hopes that conservative Christians will equate a vote for McCain-Palin with a vote for the Almighty. “You can’t be a Christian and a Democrat,” some Religious Rightists claim in Kentucky. Other GOP Christian soldiers probably say the same thing elsewhere in the Bible Belt, where Religious Right preachers act like GOP also means “God’s Own Party.” 

Part of the Religious Right’s message is anti-union. Right-wing Republican politicians, even those who seldom darken church doorways, love it. 

Okay, Sarah Palin’s husband is a Steelworker. But his union endorsed Barack Obama. 

The Steelworkers are for the Obama-Biden ticket. “McCain-Palin is not a team that works for working families,” warned Steelworkers President Leo W. Gerard. 

Gerard added that Palin’s record as governor of Alaska “is thin and divisive. And John McCain has a life-long record of being for the rich and powerful. No union card can hide that - not any more than Ronald Reagan's union card did." 

So far, Palin has not criticized McCain’s deeply anti-union politics. He supports right to work and opposes to the Employee Free Choice Act, for instance. My guess is Palin the “barracuda” will stay toothless on union issues. 

Meanwhile, the Christian Coalition is sticking to the God-put-you-where-He-wants-you line: "Christians have a responsibility to submit to the authority of their employers since they are designated as part of God's plan for the exercise of authority on the earth by man.” 

God Himself is against unions, according to the Rev. Tim LaHaye, another GOP holy warrior and author of the apocalyptic Left Behind novels. "Unions are one of the organizations leading the world to wickedness," he said. 

LaHaye lives in California. But some of his strongest supporters warm the pews of white fundamentalist churches in the South, where anti-unionism is an old tradition. 

“…Under the essential Calvinism of outlook which had been fixed by slavery before the Civil War even in the non-Calvinist sects and riveted home by the conditions of Reconstruction, it was widely felt in all classes that strikes constituted a sort of defiance of the will of Heaven,” North Carolina journalist W.J. Cash wrote in The Mind of The South, published in 1941. 

In the 1930s, Cash covered strikes by Tar Heel State textile workers. He said he often heard opponents of the strikers – including “very common whites” – warn “that God had called one man to be rich and master, another to be poor and servant, and that men did well to accept what had been given them, instead of trusting their own instinct and stirring up strife.” 

That sermon topic is still popular in Bible Belt Dixie and even in border states like my native Kentucky. Kentucky isn’t a right to work state. But every ex-Confederate state is. (So is McCain’s Arizona.) 

While the Religious Right is strongest in the South, it is a national movement whose methods remind journalist and author Chris Hedges of tactics Italian Fascists and German Nazis used to grab power before World War II. 

Hedges, who wrote Christian Fascists: The Religious Right and the War on America, told a radio interviewer that the Religious Right has acculturated “the Christian religion with the worst aspects of American imperialism and American capitalism.” 

No doubt, Hedges is a heathen to Religious Rightists. But he’s the son of a Presbyterian pastor. Hedges is a Pulitzer Prize-winning former New York Times reporter with a master’s degree in theology from Harvard to boot. 

Hedges also said on the “Democracy Now!” program that Christian conservatives – who used to eschew politics as “worldly” – have allied themselves with the interests of large corporations and their Republican friends to the mutual benefit of both groups. 

It doesn’t matter that profit, not piety, is the bottom line of big business. The Religious Right needs help in high government places if it is to turn American into a conservative, fundamentalist Protestant nation. The old corporate Republican right is grateful to the Religious Right for putting the Good Lord’s seal of approval on greed, polluting God’s green earth and union-busting. 

“I mean, when you’re creating the corporate state, it’s very convenient to have an ideology that says, ‘Don’t worry. You don’t need health insurance, because if you have enough faith, Jesus will cure you,’” Hedges said. “‘It doesn’t matter if all of your jobs are outsourced and there are no labor unions, because, you know, God takes care of his own. And not only that, but God will make you materially wealthy.’” 

LaHaye and more than a few other Religious Right preachers are well-heeled. They live in big houses in nice neighborhoods and drive expensive cars. 

At the same time, many in their flocks are not rich, or even close to it. But these preachers – almost all of them conservative Republicans -- have that based covered: What's a short, miserable life on earth compared to eternal bliss in Heaven? To please their patron Napoleon, wealthy Catholic clergy posed the same sort of question to gull the Gallic poor. 

Fundamentalist preachers sermonize that the hereafter – not the here-and-now – is what really counts. So what if you stock shelves at Wal Mart, flip burgers at McDonald’s or run a cash register at a 7-Eleven. 

It doesn’t matter if you live a long way from Easy Street. All you need to think about is getting right with God (not the Jewish, Catholic or liberal Protestant version, of course). That accomplished, the humblest of souls can contentedly wait for the Kingdom Come and vote McCain-Palin on Nov. 4. 

The con job is enough to make Napoleon proud, and even a little jealous. But the old scam doesn’t always fool working stiffs. In 1911, the famous labor balladeer and martyr Joe Hill wrote “The Preacher and the Slave.” 

Sung to the music of “The Sweet Bye and Bye,” the song is timely as ever. The first part of it goes: 

Long-haired preachers come out every night,
Try to tell you what's wrong and what's right;
But when asked how 'bout something to eat
They will answer with voices so sweet: 

You will eat, bye and bye,
In that glorious land above the sky;
Work and pray, live on hay,
You'll get pie in the sky when you die…. 

Apple, cherry, whatever’s your favorite – just ask any preacher with one of those silver-colored Jesus fish and a McCain-Palin sticker on his new Lexus.

Opps, Mitch Did it Again!

Well, U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell has done it again. He appears to be a scofflaw when it comes to observing the restrictions on campaigning by a not for profit organization. First, it was the Maiden Alley Cinema in Paducah, Ky., where he had the “encounter” with then director Heather Ryan, who ultimately was fired because of it, and now is running as the Democratic candidate for U.S. House of Representatives. I wrote about this back when it happened, and you can find it at http://www.ruralthoughts.net/?q=node/57 , and a few times since.

Questions about McConnell’s using the Maiden Alley, which, under federal non profit organization tax laws cannot be involved in political campaigning, have never been answered, and Maiden Alley’s 501(c)(3) status could be challenged. But even though these questions have been raised loud and clear by a number of writers in the past months, McConnell has now even more brazenly enlisted the help, perhaps innocently enough, but nevertheless blatantly in violation of the law, of the Neblett Community Center in Owensboro, http://www.hlneblettcenter.org , a not for profit organization, according to their own website. 

According to one of Mitch’s own blogs, http://blog.teammitch.com/blog/_archives/2008/9/8/3875531.html, “The 30-second spot features Mike Walker, who chairs the Neblett Center board.” The ad is all about how McConnell obtained the funding for the center to get a new building. Having the chairman of the board speak on the ad and be prominently identified as such on a campaign ad for a U.S. Senate race is involving the organization in electoral politics. While the director does not say specifically that the center is endorsing McConnell, the ad identifies at the end that it has been paid for by “McConnell Senate Committee 08,” and gives the www.teammitch.com webpage url at the end, and of course, has McConnell saying, as required, that he approves the message. Absolutely no doubt that this is a campaign ad for Mitch McConnell. 

As I watched this ad several times, it began to dawn on me that this community center is probably a not for profit organization, and I wondered how they could make the ad. So, I called the center and spoke with the Director, Robin Tutt. 

I told Ms. Tutt who I was, and that I had written about McConnell using a not for profit in Paducah to do a campaign ad, and that I wrote a political blog, www.ruralthoughts.net, and that I wondered how the center could be participating in a campaign ad for McConnell and not be putting its non profit status at risk. Interestingly, Tutt said that the center “was not endorsing any party” and that they were “very neutral.” She did say that their board had approved making the ad, and she said that “they were approached” to participate in the ad, although later in the conversation, she refused to confirm that she meant the McConnell people when she said “they.” 

So if what Director Tutt says is true, then McConnell is using the center to imply an endorsement when there is no endorsement. Tutt says that all they did was tell the truth about McConnell getting the money for them. Maybe that is true, but that doesn’t change the campaign laws or the non profit organization laws. McConnell and his people know better, and this abuse of the law needs to stop. If I, on behalf of Heartwood, identifying myself as a staff person for the non profit organization, was to make public statements supporting a Democratic candidate, I’m sure McConnell would be the first one to cry foul. 

When a person has represented a state for so long as Senator, and becomes as powerful as McConnell, he can and does and will get money for certain projects that catches his interest. That’s his job. I’m not saying at all that the Neblett Center isn’t a good thing, and that getting this funding hasn't helped their community. I know little about it. But I do know there is a need for help in low income neighborhoods. 

But there are a couple ironies here. First, it is very unRepublican-like to fund these kind of programs. I mean, McConnell’s record is not full of these kind of examples, I’m sure. Why do African-Americans heavily support the Democrats? It isn’t because the Republicans are pouring a lot of government money into their communities to address their needs, that’s for sure. 

Second, notwithstanding that, it is doubly ironic that McConnell’s presidential candidate is storming across the country saying that he is going to end these “earmarks,” (and that’s just what this was) often referring to them as “wasteful.” So, Senator, which is it? Are “earmarks” good or not? If they are, as it appears they are in this case, then why is your candidate, Sen. McCain going around saying they are bad?

Again, this column is not a judgment on the mission or activities of this community center. But it is about whether McConnell is playing fair and according to the rules in his campaign. A pattern is emerging in which McConnell obtains funding for a not for profit, then approaches them later to help in his campaign. This is wrong, this isn’t in accordance with the law, and the mainstream media needs to look into this.

Palin's "instant" American-made celebrity

OK, I admit that I didn't know Sarah Palin by name. Honestly though, and I'm sure this isn't the average American, but just read the blog for the last year or so and you will see that I'm not the average American when it comes to politics, I did know that some unknown female had kind of come out of nowhere to win the Alaska governorship back when it happened. So when McCain picked Palin, I didn't remember t he name, but I remembered the story. 

Ohhhh, that's her! That's what I thought. For better or worse, and I'm betting on the worse half, she has become the instant American celebrity. That should be in all caps really - Instant American Celebrity. And it needs an acronym too - IAC. Nice acronym. I like it!

Ok, so the Republicans have been trashing Obama for months for being an IAC. But now they are pushing Palin as much as they can into the IAC status. But that's classic Republican. If it's good for you, it's bad, but if it's good for me, it's good. Come on now, I know that's a little harsh, but hey, we are in an electoral season and it isn't untrue is it?

It's just amazing to me how the American people can fall for someone they know nothing about just because they handle themselves well in front of a TV camera. But that particular trait has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not that person is actually going to help the American people. And let's face it - Palin is a Republican, and one that the hard core Republicans like! Whoa! More of what we have pretty much all come to agree has been disastrous for our country. The economy sucks, our standing overseas is horrible, we're worse than broke, our military is strapped, and on and on. If the American people think that McCain is going to change things, then the American people get what they deserve, because McCain, and with Palin as VP, will block Democratic congressional initiatives time after time and little will get done. This isn't the time for little to get done. It's the time for a lot to get done, and quickly. 

So what is it Republicans? Is celebrity good or bad? Is McCain saying that now Palin is more of a celebrity than Obama, although Obama's celebrity is bad and a sign of lack of substance? Change now means keeping the same party in power? I hope Obama is right and that the American people aren't stupid. If they are, then we haven't even seen the hard times yet.

Free Flow Power responds to ruralthoughts

This email passage was received from Jon Guidroz, public relations officer (or some title approximating that) for Free Flow Power, which I wrote about several days ago. It clarifies some misunderstandings that I had after the reported conversation with Mr. Irvin, the company official listed in the legal notice. This email provides some very important information.

"I read your blog via ruralthoughts.net; thanks for asking others to hear our story. I wanted to clarify that Dan estimated we come onshore with wire to deliver our power roughly once per 100 pilings. We're expecting to mount 6 turbines per piling so for 2500 turbines we would only come onshore 4 times at most. Also, I want to clarify that we're not in the transmission business. Bringing our generation to a substation is a much less impressive cable than those tall high-tension transmission lines towering over the interstate etc. One of the benefits of generating power on the river is that we're close to where power is consumed so we don't need to transmit electrons over long distances -like a coal or nuclear plant- to reach end-users."

Here is my response:

Jon, I think your concept is very interesting. But let's be real - there's no such thing as no impact. And, I'm not crazy about the idea that out of the current preliminary process, your company could obtain exclusive rights to this form of power generation. That's kind of Republican, don't you think? I mean, you need to have some protections if you are going to invest private funds into the process, which undoubtedly can be cumbersome and expensive. But forever is a long time, and the people deserve, as a whole, to benefit from these kind of natural resources, don't you think? How do you propose balancing those interests? 

I have lived for 28 years about a mile from the Ohio River. I see it if I go north or south. It;'s our grand canyon, our mammoth cave, our yellowstone. Sure, it isn't "designated" as such by the nation, but that's only out of ignorance. We don't want people to screw up the river any more - it's screwed up enough. But, there is a lot of power in that river, and maybe it can spare some to us without screwing it up too bad. I don't know, but I'm open to it. 

The fact that Mr. Irvin couldn't even identify the Gaseous Diffusion plant as being the major industry where you are requesting a permit to put your turbines and transmission lines did not make a good impression on me. This is the only operating uranium enrichment facility in the country, and it is only by a lack of diligence that something this significant wouldn't be known. But, then again, we bought land downwind of the facility in 1980 thinking that there weren't any nuclear facilities nearby. It is our "secret city" but still, someone in energy should have known that truthfully.

I'm sure there are ways still available for an outside party to increase your bureacratic costs through various challenges and counter proposals. That could slow down things. But, it also might tie up a good idea that shouldn't be tied up. I congratulate you for learning the process and giving it a whirl at obtaining these rights. It's a heck of an undertaking. And, if you have the technical expertise to generate the kind of power you are talking about without damaging the environment, then wow! 

But, even though I'm not going to brag on the direction of public participation, something I have quite a bit of knowledge in, in this administration, because we are going backwards and not forwards, this presents a perfect example of why public participation in these kinds of major private undertakings relying on a public resource is so critical. So we will be waiting to see how your company deals with these basic equity issues.

Mark Donham

This is important stuff. Where are our "leaders" when they are talking about coal to diesel and this is going on under their noses and they could be about to lose all our rights to this source?

 

Sunday News Shows

I watched Chris Matthews, most of ABC Sunday Morning, a little of Meet the Press, and Face the Nation. I have to give Matthews the nod today as having the most interesting show, although ABC Sunday Morning came in a very close second.

Matthews had Michelle Norris, well known NPR reporter, Joe Klein from Time Magazine, Andrea Mitchell, long time NBC commentator (and wife of Greenspan) and John Heilemann, from New York Magazine. All in all, I would call it a solidly middle of the road/conservative leaning panel.

Of course they were talking about the presidential campaign as it bounced out of the conventions. What I would call the statement of the day, Joe Klein, who I have always considered to be a very mainstream, sort of middle of the road, national reporter, said, in regard to a discussion about McCain's acceptance speech last week at the Republican convention, and it's lack of specific policies, that McCain, "doesn't care about policies," and "doesn't know about the economy." Klein went on to describe McCain's speech as "truly offensive." Wow! 

Norris made a good point which i agree with that Obama has not yet defined himself with the public in general. While Obama is the candidate of two major parties who grew up poor, in a mixed race, one parent household, and McCain grew up in some privledge, being the son of a prominent top brass military leader, the Republicans have cast Obama as an elitist and lightweight celebrity, out of touch with the poorer people. And while all agreed that Obama had gone a long in making that point through the Democratic convention, I agree with Norris that Obama has some work to do on that front. 

I will interject an editorial point here - that, as the discussion went on during the morning, it became clearer and clearer to me that the Republicans, including McCain himself on Face the Nation, were pushing Palin's immediate celebrity status. The audacity of the Republicans knows no end really - trying to paint themselves as the party of change when they've been in power for the last 8 years, and now, pushing Palin into instant celebrity status while at the same time criticizing Obama for being a celebrity. Wow number 2!

Andrea Mitchell went Republican big time. I was actually a little taken aback by how Republican she went. During the course of the show she raved about Palin, and even went so far as to say that Palin would cut significantly into Obama's support from former supporters of Sen. Clinton. She specifically mentioned Michigan as a state where she thinks that Palin can help, and that Michigan could very well be the next Ohio in terms of being the state which decides the election. And, when Heilemann, during the "tell me something I don't know" segment, said, "Michigan is going to be the key state," I thought, "Oh oh, better make sure and double check the voting machines there.

But that wasn't even the most outrageous thing that Mitchell said. After fawning over Palin for the whole show, she said, in response to comments about the lack of specific solutions to the nation's problems presented at the Republican convention, that the Republicans "don't need solutions" during the campaign, only to "identify the problems," which she said Palin was doing by callng herself a hockey mom.

One thing that was discussed on all of the shows, (well maybe not Meet the Press, but I didn't see a lot of that) was Palin's avoidance of doing any kind of interview with any of the big time mainstream press folks. Apparently she now has gone the longest of any Veep candidate in recent history without doing a major interview. 

In fact, Bob Schieffer, on Face the Nation, brought this up to McCain. Schieffer had started out the show by saying that McCain was on Face the Nation for the 65th time, the new record. They obviously were really chummy. But, after asking McCain about when Palin was going to do one of these major interviews, and McCain saying, oh, she would do one soon, Schieffer said, ok, "we'll have her on here next week." McCain looked taken aback, and quickly said something like "that soon?" as the show faded out. 

Another interesting moment in the Schieffer interview was when Schieffer asked McCain if he approved of the way that the Republican convention had mocked Obama's service as a "community organizer." McCain said he didn't, but that it was all the Democrats fault because of how they had been attacking Palin. 

Obama was interviewed by Stephanopolous on ABC Sunday Morning. He did pretty well, although I wouldn't call it his sharpest interview. He made one slip that I expect will reverberate around the conservative blogs. Stephanopolous was questioning Obama on whether or not the McCain campaign was assisting the rumormill that Obama was really a Muslim. Stephanopolous asked whether or not Obama thought McCain himself was involved. The questioning had been kind of rapid and there was some confusion I thought as to where the questioning was, but Obama, trying to clarify things before he answered, said, "you mean about my faith as a Muslim?" Stephanopolous quickly said, "you mean as a Christian." Obama said something like, without breaking a beat, "well, whether or not I am a Muslim." But, it provides a short film clip of Obama, if edited correctly saying, "my faith as a muslim." It will be interesting to see if the Republicans use that in the future. 

I also think Obama is going to have to improve his answer on whether or not the surge has worked. Sure it isn't a simple answer, but he needs to figure out a short, direct way to say that. He still appears to be avoiding answering the question directly, and that is hurting him.

I watched several minutes of Brokaw interviewing Biden, and it was an interesting part of the interview. Brokaw was questioning Biden about whether or not he had a conflict of interest on the bankruptcy bill, in which his son worked for a bank, and Biden split with Obama on voting for the bill when Obama voted against it. Biden tried to minimize the concern by saying that he had no contact with his son about the bill, and that his record is one of being a poliician that got in the banks and big corporations faces, and just go ask them. It was somewhat effective, but we all know how Washington works.

McCain the "Change Agent?" Are you kidding?

For months the Republicans have been campaigning against Obama on the grounds that he is too inexperienced to be president. On the other hand, Obama has been campaigning since the beginning as being a true agent of change. 

Now, all of a sudden, during the Republican convention, just 8 weeks from the election, the Republicans apparently decide that their current strategy isn't going to win, and they decide to adopt Obama's strategy. 

Hmmm...doesn't that mean that Obama had good judgment and McCain had bad judgment? I mean, if Obama picked the winning strategy over a year and half ago, and McCain picked one that they now think is a loser, and they are switching to Obama's, what does that say about McCain's judgment and ability to devise good strategies?

But even moreso, how can McCain be an "agent of change" when he's been in the Senate for decades and is part and parcel with the party that has been in charge of the white house for the last 8 years? If the American public falls for this ruse, then P.T. Barnum (or McDonald or whoever actually said it) was right - there is a sucker born every minute - at least in the U.S.

I don't think that McCain can win as the candidate of change. And, his shooting star, Sarah Palin, who is his banner for "change" will be brought down to size in the next two months I would predict. The change that is needed is for Congress and the president united to take on the big corporations and wrestle some of their outrageous wealth away from them and use it to benefit the public at large. Both the Republicans and Democrats are way too much in the pocket of these corporations, including the mainstream media, and the liklihood that this is going to occur is slim. Nevertheless, it's greater with the Democrats, because they are the party out of executive power at the moment and by definition, putting them into the white house means change. Also, it is almost certain that the 3rd party candidates will not be in a position to make a difference. I guess we'll see about that.

But, let's look at reality here. McCain, if he gets in, is going to be dealing with something between a strong majority and a veto proof majority in both houses, according to almost every prognostication about the election. He's not going to be able to get diddly done if it isn't to the liking of the Democrats. So when he says, "look out Washington, change is coming," what is he talking about? If he gets in, he's going to either do things the Democratic way or he will get nothing done. 

Let's give some examples. For example, McCain gets in and is faced with increased majorities in both houses of Congress. He tries to put through some big time Republican promises, like privatizing social security, or even an outspoken "pro-life" supreme court nominee. How far is that going to get? It's going to be Dead On Arrival. I mean, the best he can hope for is to be a Nixon like character where he signs a bunch of Democratic reform bills in order to have anything to show as president. And while historically, there have been worse things, the change is going to come from Congress, not from McCain. McCain is going to be too beholden to the Republican right which will pay a big portion of his campaign costs as long as he at least tries to toe the Republican line. McCain will not stray far. 

I think McCain's switch at the last minute in campaign strategy is about as much a sign of desperation as his pick of Palin. McCain has no issues to run on, as evidenced by his and Palin's speeches this week, where they didn't come close to matching Obama's laundry list of what he going to do if he gets in. That's because if McCain, on national TV, actually said to everyone what the Republican platform was, he'd get blown out of the water. Regular people would be outraged. But that's typical of the Republicans - they always try to hide what they really are going to do.

The debates are going to be important. It's too bad the small 3rd party candidates can't get into the debates. What can be more important? If it takes 3 or 4 hours to hear everyone, then so be it. But oh no...not in our "democracy." Our "democracy" is only for those that agree to shake hands with the big corporations. And that's a crying shame and not fair to the people at all! We need to be hearing all the points of view, and not just the corporate ones. So we have a lot of work to do. But long time Republican McCain, agent of change? Hah! That's a doozy!

 

The hypocrisy of Palin using her pregnant daughter as a stage prop.

In the past Repubs have had no problem with attacking the children of their opponents for any reason or no reason. However, they complain loudly when Palin's opponents point to her hypocrisy when she parades her pregnant unwed daughter onstage during rallies and speeches while at the same time decrying any mention of her by opponents. If she wants her family and children off limits then she shouldn't be using them as props. And no one has even asked the question as to why a mother would subject her pregnant child to the scrutiny that results from a hardball presidential campaign. 

Her daughter is relevant because Repubs have made her so by their double standard policies. When a political party denigrates anyone who has an unwed pregnancy while at the same time promoting policies that deny birth control, sex ed, prenatal care, child care etc., and then find themselves in the same boat as those they criticize/penalize then their hypocrisy should be pointed out. This is not the same as attacking the child as Repubs do and like McCain did when he said that Chelsea Clinton was ugly because Janet Reno was her father.

Below is an excerpt of an article written by a National Review editor about Chelsea Clinton, who had done nothing to deserve the hate. I can find articles like it all over the net about other children of Democrats as well but it serves the purpose of exposing the hatred and hypocrisy of Republicans who now cry croc tears about the legitimate argument that Bristol Palin is a living example of Repub hypocrisy and how Repub policies fail. The Palin's solution, which is little more than a shotgun wedding for 2 teens, is statistically doomed to failure as well.

From the National Review (link follows). It's still up on their site.
"Chelsea is a Clinton. She bears the taint; and though not prosecutable in law, in custom and nature the taint cannot be ignored. All the great despotisms of the past — I'm not arguing for despotism as a principle, but they sure knew how to deal with potential trouble — recognized that the families of objectionable citizens were a continuing threat. In Stalin's penal code it was a crime to be the wife or child of an "enemy of the people". The Nazis used the same principle, which they called Sippenhaft, "clan liability". In Imperial China, enemies of the state were punished "to the ninth degree": that is, everyone in the offender's own generation would be killed, and everyone related via four generations up, to the great-great-grandparents, and four generations down, to the great-great-grandchildren, would also be killed. (This sounds complicated, but in practice what usually happened was that a battalion of soldiers was sent to the offender's home town, where they killed everyone they could find, on the principle neca eos omnes, deus suos agnoscet — "let God sort 'em out".)"
http://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire021501.shtml

Craig Rhodes

Free Flow Power in Ohio River near Paducah?

In the last month there have been several legal notices in the Paducah Sun Republican for an application for preliminary approval of a proposal to put hydro kinetic power generators in the Ohio River in our area. The company applying is called Free Flow Power http://www.free-flow-power.com/index.php?id=36 . I spoke with the dude listed in the legal notice as the contact for the company, Dan Irvin. The company is listed as being from Massachusettes.

Mr. Irvin said the preliminary proposal, if approved by FERC, gives them the exclusive right to this kind of power development if any is to be made in the parts of the rivers in which the application applies. Irvin said that the kind of power his company is interested in developing is termed "hydro-kinetics" or hydropower that doesn't involve damming a river or any other kind of obstruction. He explained to me what they are envisioning at this time is a series of turbine like generators that would be mounted on pilings that would still leave enough water above the until for navigation. Each hundred untils would require a transmission line, and there would have to be some kind of substation on the shore. He said that they were looking for existing industrial sites for this kind of development to avoid adverse environmental impacts.

Irvin said that FERC does not rules specific to hydro kinetic facilties, and that they have to comply with all the regulations that FERC has for building a dam. That is why all the preliminary legal notices. Irvin also said that if they can get approval, and then do the appropriate studies to determine the proper locations for such facilities, that they hope to eventually place nearly 2500 units in our area. That's a lot, especially considering that each 100 requires a transmission line. Do the Math. 

Irvin also didn't know about the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, and didn't know for sure whether or not the pools behind the hi-lift dams on the Ohio, like Smithland, carried enough current for good power generation. He said that they had an Indiana power utility interested in power they could generate, if they can jump through the regulatory hoops. 

There are very sensitive endangered mussel beds in that part of the Ohio. Whether it would be too costly or not for them to jump through all the bureacratic hoops necessary is still up in the air. But, it has to be better than coal and nuclear, so I guess it's worth a look. But let's not kid ourselves. Without serious conservation measures, and a strong anti-waste campaign for electricity, we can switch to all kinds of different generation methods, but there is still going to be significant impacts. But, capturing the currents of large rivers has to be considered as at least as good a "bridge" to the future as T Boone Pickens self serving multi-million dollar ad campaign promoting natural gas, which he coincidentally owns most of. So, let's hear out FFP, and see what they have to say.

Presidential Politics

The Dems had their convention last week. I can't imagine anything being more well orchestrated. It blew my mind that the Clinton's came through so convincingly for Obama. Bill, in his speech, sliced and diced Bush's administration like only a former President could do. I mean, it was brutal but true. And he did it so gracefully. 

Hillary Clinton had an amazing convention. She proved beyond a doubt that she should have been on the ticket. We may never know why she wasn't, but the Obama's have to be wondering if they didn't make a big mistake. But all in all, they have to be thrilled about the convention. He got a huge jolt from it, and is reportedly drawing huge crowds as he and Biden tour the east. Hillary will live to fight on.

McCain, in a desperate attempt to stop the train coming out of the Dems convention, picked the Alaska Governor, Pahlin, to be his running mate. I heard some reporting that the Dems had responded by calling it a "hail Mary pass," an analogy to a last second all field throw by a quarterback in U.S. football to try to win a close game at the last second. I think it's a good description. Also, I heard some reporters report that McCain likes to shoot craps, something I didn't know before this, and that his gambling side was coming out in choosing Pahlin with little vetting. Who knows. It's very bizarre. One can only wonder what Mrs. McCain thinks? Why haven't any of the mainstream media asked her that?

The only thing in the way of an Obama victory is the system keeping eligible voters from voting by various means, and electronic voting machines without any paper trail being manipulated. Hopefully the Dems are on that, but I doubt it. Of course, there's the "Bradley effect" also, which would postulate that Obama needs at least a 6 or more point lead going into the election to win. Don't know about that, really, but I do know that the vote manipulation is a real issue and the Dems better address it.