Open Thread (by bluegal at Crooks and Liars)
This is your liberal blogosphere at work, my friends. Any woman who dares to run for high office is SCARY, SCARY, SCARY. The so-called progressives are PROUD of the fact that they’ve made Sarah Palin such an object of scorn that her approval rating has plummeted and her disapproval rating has skyrocketed. How many times have we fought George Bush for pushing the fear buttons of our citizens with his lies? So why, in goddess’ name, would we want to BECOME George Bush? And don’t try to tell me Obama isn’t responsible for some of the trashing of Sarah Palin.—Caro
Is Palin the New Evita? (by Susie at Suburban Guerilla)
Naomi Wolf believes it. She says Palin has been picked as the titular head of the new police state… Me, I’m way past the point where I ascribe benign motives to these people: “Under the Palin-Rove police state, citizens will be targeted with state cyberterrorism. Bruce Fein of the American Freedom Agenda, a former Reagan official, warned me three years ago that the Bush team went after a Republican who had crossed them through cyberstalking: they messed with his email, messed with his phones and I believe messed with his bank account — he became a cyber-pariah, unemployable and haunted.”
Why can’t we just disagree with the woman on the issues, and refuse to make her an object of derision? Why do we insist on helping to destroy any respect for anyone of our gender who runs for national office? But if we’re going to talk about coercive tactics, we’d better be equal opportunity talkers. See below.—Caro
Missouri "Truth Squads" To Protect Obama Campaign (video)
Gov. Blunt Statement on Obama Campaign’s Abusive Use of Missouri Law Enforcement
JEFFERSON CITY - Gov. Matt Blunt … issued the following statement on news reports that have exposed plans by U.S. Senator Barack Obama to use Missouri law enforcement to threaten and intimidate his critics. “…What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment. This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals of Jefferson. I can think of nothing more offensive to Jefferson’s thinking than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil rights.”
Click here for more political and media news headlines.
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
- Caro's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
they're treating her like Hillary--
and i keep remembering that Quayle--and all other VP picks--never ever got this treatment. They're holding her to a much higher standard than Biden--and all others.
Two propositions that do not contradict
1. The usual suspects are treating Palin like Hillary, and for the same reasons: Tactical advantages and misogny.
2. Palin is genuinely dangerous.
Both could be true; both false; one true and the other false.
Personally, I think they're both true; it's just that I think they're all genuinely dangerous.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
i still have my Scream Pres. Quayle tee--
: >
wonder if they'll ask tonight about Bankruptcy?
On Bankruptcy: Biden vs. Obama -- http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2...
"...This Biden-supported bill made it much harder for an individual declaring bankruptcy to be given a clean slate, and typically resulted in a repayment plan for most or all of the debt. But it imposed practically no additional requirements on lenders regarding disclosures, marketing or underwriting practices. It is exactly these kinds of poor underwriting practices that have been scrutinized on the back of the accelerating rate of housing foreclosures and contributed significantly to the unsustainable debt burden many consumers now face.
..."
Obama's participation
You link to Larry Johnson's "No Quarter" website - hardly an unbiased source - and the article is full of vague inuendoes and associations with no hard and fast facts.
And personally, the idea of a president who's actions would be guided by Palin's known political and social ideology does scare the hell out of me regardless of the gender of the candidate.
Wait a minute
that is what Palin is like. She is a nightmare.
Remember what Steve Gilliard did to Michael Steele? Palin isn't getting anything worse, and she deserves every bit of it.
Don't you remember ...
... Hillary's own scream cartoon?
How can you equate the two?
Hillary Clinton is an accomplished woman with a long and public record of achievement. Sarah Palin was chosen for the same reason George Bush was Selected: She's an appealing figurehead who can be counted on to do what she's told. What, you assume all women are exempt from that sort of thing?
And Obama isnt
An appealing figurehead . . .?
What I've seen is the burden of guilt placed on Palin with very little legit evidence of her supposed evilness or her puppet master reputation. Very little. The burden of guilt is so deeply engrained amongst lefties that almost all reason has gone out the window.
That doesn't mean she isn't a conservative and has bad positions, but the day she was announced the narrative of Palin=evil was set in stone and everyone went out of their way to find reasons, truthy or no, to justify this narrative. It was striking. Few people knew much about her but they already had their minds made up and started adopting tales to fit into their predetermined narrative. It would have been one thing if the case was made against her and then the narrative developed, but that is definitely not what I saw.
This election made me realize that the pursuit of power leads to endless amounts of bullshit from everyone. I think the justification of BS is more disappointing than the actual BS itself. So it goes.
Thank you to both you and Caro
I keep having to repeat to my highly intelligent colleagues - there are much better arguments against Palin than "how stupid is she, heh, heh" and "she is so inexperienced it's frightening".
not just women
yeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhh!
It is sexist to assert
that women can't be just as terrifying as men.
I would be vehemently opposed to any man with Palin's philosophies and pattern of behavior, and mocking him would seem fair and wise to everyone in the Progressive community. Why deny Palin equal treatment?
How can it possibly be that mocking and denigrating Palin for her idiotic beliefs and frankly obscene Dominionist associations and secessionist affiliations is sexist, when I would do exactly the same thing to any man who held the same beliefs and positions? Equal means equal, nothing more nor less.
Would those arguing that Palin is getting a raw deal be equally supportive of, say, Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin or Phyllis Schlafly if they were the VP nominee? Palin is as bad on progressive issues as any of them, if not worse than, and just as dedicatedly opposed to anything that can be considered a progressive feminist agenda, much less a progressive humanist agenda.
Does Palin not deserve equal treatment, the same treatment that Progressives should give to a man with her beliefs? Does she need to be treated differently because she's a woman? Do progressives have to embrace every female candidate who comes along regardless of how vile, despicable, horrendous, reactionary, theocratic, inane, uninformed, uncaring, anti-Roe, and unpatriotic she is? Does being Progressive mean that every tenet that makes me a Progressive has to be stifled and abandoned because my opponent is a woman?
I don't think so; such an argument is absurd on its face. I hate everything that Sarah Palin stands for, and I insist on the right, or more accurately I embrace wholeheartedly the duty, to say so loudly and clearly and at every opportunity. I loath everything about Sarah Palin. I condemn without bounds every position she holds and every philosophy she espouses. Sarah Palin, and everyone who shares her beliefs, needs to be crushed at the polls and driven as far as possible from any position of civil authority, standing or influence.
A pox on Sarah Palin, on her associates, on her affiliates, on her supporters, on her defenders and on all who enable her. An equal-opportunity, gender-neutral pox, to be sure.
nobody questions male VP qualifications--even when
they don't have any--a la Quayle.
they just mocked, but never ever said he wasn't qualified to be VP.
Palin has more qualifications than Obama--and more than Quayle too.
Why would say that without
Why would say that without checking whether it's true? It took me less than a minute to find this from the NY Times:
Palin is terrible. It has nothing to do with her being a woman. Her left wing supporters have dismissed the criticisms of her that were not based on gender or her family uncritically because she's a woman. But they have proved to have bases in fact anyway.
As BIO says, why can't we treat women equally and say when they do a bad job? I'm not too crazy about Condoleeza Rice. She's a woman and she's black. But I think she did a terrible job of protecting this country as Nat'l Security Advisor and she's doing a bad job as Sec of State.
False on every assertion
Dan Quayle was roundly - and deservedly - mocked regarding his ineptitude and lack of qualifying ability. This NYT article from 1991 documents that only a third of voters ever considered him qualified.
In terms of relative qualification, Palin has seved as city council and mayor for a town of 5,000 to 7,000 that received millions of dollars of Federal and State subsidies, and less than two years as the accidental Governor of a state that is as remote from the day-to-day realities of the Lower 48 as anywhere could be. When she was mayor she was so inept that the town council had to hire a professional administrator to manage a $4 million dollar budget and a staff of less than 100; Palin wasn't capable.
Quayle was a twice-elected sitting United States Senator from Indiana, a seat bought and paid for by his wife's money connections and the Republican Party to be sure, but at least he had some experience at governance on a national level dealing with issues that affect the 99% of Americans who do not live a tax-free life subsidized by oil checks and the largess of 300 million other people.
At that, he was also unqualified, just as is Sarah Palin. But Quayle was not a religious fanatic who thinks that rape and incest victims should bear to term any pregnancies that result from the abuse they've suffered. Quayle was a bumbling dimwit, while Palin is a malicious fool; neither are qualified for the Executive Office and gender has nothing to do with it.
he was mocked, but there weren't
stories everyday about how he wasn't qualified--you guys can't pull up one story and call that equal.
voters thought he wasn't qualified--it wasn't the media narrative about him--that was that he was stupid and cute--not that he wasn't qualified.
i'll also remind everyone that they won in 88--
and that it didn't matter what people said about Quayle at all.
Quayle Was Also Feminized
with all the talk about his looks and being a pretty boy. For that matter, George H.W. Bush was feminized to a certain extent, too, what with all the questioning of his manhood (and you have to love a country where the war hero gets called a sissy, but his AWOL, fuckup of a son gets called manly - we have one fucked up media and culture). It's what they do when you're a man that they've decided not to back you, they turn you into a woman. Ask Gore and Kerry.
this was conventional wisdom about him in 88--Time--
"... the selection of Quayle, 41, a blond, boyish, baby-boom, back-bench Senator from Indiana, represented a bold leap across generational boundaries. Bush, it seemed, had looked in the mirror and found what was most needed in the second-banana role that he had played for eight years: a younger version of himself. Quayle radiates the same bumptious enthusiasm, the same uncritical loyalty, the same palpable gratitude and the same malleable mind-set that Bush brought to the G.O.P. ticket in 1980. ...
"
his war record was a big deal, and possible affair, and how Bush picked him personally,etc--and pretty much only 1 paragraph is about him being a lightweight--out of 8 pages
and this -- -"dim Dan" -- CJR-- http://backissues.cjrarchives.org/year/9...
But You, BIO
unlike a lot of commentators spewing this shit tend to do this with everyone. It's not that I find a lot of the mocking of Palin to be sexist (although there has been a good bit of overtly sexist crap coming even from "progressives"), it's that a lot of the people who are going crazy over her, have not treated men who are every bit as stupid or terrifying the same way.
I cannot tell you how enraged it makes me to read so many Blogger Boyz point out that the proof McCain is unfit is because he selected Palin. Nevermind that McCain didn't know the difference between Sunni and Shia, nearly bragged about not understanding economics, lies about fucking everything, and is as crooked as a three dollar bill. A lot of "progressives" have never managed half the vitriol towards him as they have towards Palin even though he's the top of the ticket and has already damaged this country enormously and continues to do so in ways that Palin can only dream of doing in the future. But what makes him awful is...her.
I do not mind people criticizing Palin. I fucking hate Palin. But the swarm on her has been so much more vicious than anything directed at men who are every bit as noxious. The MSM didn't treat Guiliani this way (even though the evidence of corruption was greater and his foreign policy expertise every bit as ridiculous) or Huckabee (whose religious beliefs aren't all that different). Or, hell, George W. Bush. Even now after he has actually ruined the country - instead of threatening to in the future - he isn't mocked by the media nearly to the extent Palin is.
So that's what pisses me off. It's not that Palin gets called on her shit, it's that so many men haven't been and continue not to be. And it's hard to chalk that difference in treatment up to anything other than sexism.
If I thought Palin was ushering in a new era of journalists being journalists and taking politicians' claims skeptically, then I'd be all for it. But I don't think we're seeing that. What we're seeing is her being held to a different standard than anyone else, including McCain. And that's the part I have a problem with because that doesn't just hurt Palin, it discourages other women from wanting to throw their hat into the ring. Because as Clinton and Palin prove, they will be treated more harshly than men with the same flaws and weaknesses. And that fucking sucks.
+100
I especially like the "executive experience" argument, where Obama claimed his campaign as a resume item, apparently in the same league as being governor of a state (leaving aside the issue of whether she's a good governor, she is one). Now, maybe anybody other than Obama would be still hearing about that one, but I know both Palin and Hillary would be.
Bottom line is that the only one of 'em fit for the office is Biden (D-MBNA). What a shame.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Which Doesn't Mean
that I want everyone to act as if Palin were fantastic (she's awful), but it is enraging to hear the same people mocking her experience who didn't (and don't) care about Obama's. And I can't help but notice that experience is unimportant when the woman has it and vitally important when the woman doesn't.
Hating BS does not a Palin endorsement make
Why the hell is that so damn hard to comprehend?
Much of the stuff about her is projected negativism (rape kits, book banning, etc.) based on ties to dominionists and right-wingers* that show essentially no causation for Palin's actions as Governor. I find few objections to Palin's policies as Gov., but mostly assumptions about her horrendous desire to push her supposed extremist views** onto the country. And, sure, she embellishes and lies, but what about Obama's apparent abilities to have whoppers himself? (Go to the original sources linked to.)
* Like Obama, Palin is an "empty slate" to many. (I supported Tony Knowles over her in 2006, but having looked at her for years is unimportant these days.) Many right-wingers project their fantasies onto her just as many left-wingers projected their fantasies onto Obama (Iraq, FISA, and on and on and on)
** She may very well have horrendous views on church and state, but I'm interested in how that influenced her time as Mayor and Governor and how it is influencing her campaign. I don't see McCain/Palin making as big an effort as Obama to strut out uber-cons in national "faith tours" and that says quite a bit to me. Obama's "faith outreach" is more troubling than anything Palin has done on the campaign trail, but that's conveniently ignored by most.
Good God, gc
You're in Alaska?!
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
You know what I mean, Lambert
I donated money to the DGA and have followed there campaigns with much interest since about 2003. Knowles was one of about five national pols on my Facebook page for the longest time.
Actually, no, I didn't
I thought it was really cool if you were in Alaska and was hoping you'd write about it. Another dream shattered!
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Who Said Anything About a Palin Endorsement?
I think Palin is awful, but I've also criticized the coverage of her and believe it's important that she be covered honestly and not truthily because truthiness destroys everything. It also hurts liberals and progressives by dumbing down our political discourse on just about every issue, as we've seen with the bailout.
Hillary had the experience ...
... and she was mocked as though she didn't.
It's just so FRUSTRATING.
An equal-opportunity shit-spewer
I suppose that's something, and in some perverse way I take a small amount of pride in the characterization. Thank You.
Someday, not now but when this political frenzy calms down, it will be very useful to take a look back on the charges and counter-charges of sexism and racism. There are many lessons here, about how we see each other and treat each other and what the limits ought to be in how we discuss each other.
There's too much anger now, too many frayed nerves and raw wounds on all sides to have a civilized discussion; the best I can do for it is to push back when absurdist claims are made that I need to STFU
about Sarah Palin because she's a woman and any complaints about her are sexist - and don't even try to say that isn't happening.
Are some of the BloggerBoyz sexist? Yeppers, they are; they are social conservatives who left the Republican Party and became Democrats because the criminal gang running the Republicans became too much for them to stomach; didn't turn them into enlightened Progressives and yes, for apparently forever, sexism trumps racism in this country. Same for the MSM; pigs, nearly all of them, before Palin showed up and they will be afterwards. That won't change until a lot of laws get changed, and none of that will happen under Republicans. Step 1, drive them from office.
Can't fix all of that this cycle. Gotta beat back the Republicans now, and start chewing on the Conservatives in the Democratic Party on November 5th. Meanwhile, I'm the worst kind of slut and I will sleep with anybody who moves my agenda of defeating Republicans, and no I won't expect them to respect me in the morning or ever call me again. Don't like it, really, but I'll do it anyway, because it is what needs doing.
If Sarah Palin were not so mockable, she wouldn't be getting as much grief from me. I don't give a damn whether she's female or male, that's ridiculous; damn her and everyone like her, and I don't care what their chromosomes are like. And what I find curious, deeply suspicious, is that the same people who are giving me trouble over criticizing Palin also give me trouble over criticizing McCain's character.
I think his choice of Palin is another item on the list of why he isn't suitable for the Presidency, along with his impulse control issues typified by his life-long record of crashing jet planes left and right; there are many reasons McCain should be defeated, not sure I can agree that some of them should be off-limits. Since when is it a Progressive value to defend Republicans, especially these two Republicans? Talk about the world turned upside-down.
There are a lot of jerks in this world, BDBlue; no argument there. Some of them are trying to kill me, while some of them are just jerks. My whole focus is on the killers now; I'll deal with the rudeness in another month or so.
[Tonight is Survivor, I'm cooking dinner for the grandson and then we'll watch his favorite show together. A lot of people dog the show, but for me it is an opportunity to discuss morality and courage and determination and the complexity of life with my little buddy. Off to shop now, and then to cook, so no more commentary from me today. Tears all around on that account, I'm sure.]
Survivor = Office Politics
I watched a couple of early episodes and decided it wasn't any different than going to work every day (this was back when I worked in a much more politicized environment in D.C.). Which is why it's good, it really does capture some aspect of the human experience.
Where is the scream picture ...
... of John McCain? Or of any other man running for national office, except for at one time Howard Dean?
So it sounds like your position is that I MUST hate. It is a requirement. I cannot simply disagree with someone on the issues, I must say nasty things about him or her?
So if I MUST condemn, just how vicious must I be? Is there a rulebook, or must I simply probe the depths of my anger and hatred at every opportunity, looking for the vilest and most hateful thing I can possibly say? If not, how far must I pull back? How do I gauge what is acceptable and what is not?
Absurd
I'm not telling you what to think or what to feel or what to say or do; suit yourself.
It is you who say that certain kinds of critique are off-limits, not me, and it is you who are responsible for setting your own limits, not me, but if you want to see a set of rules here are mine:
(1) Any Liberal, any Progressive, anyone whose help or connivance may in the future be useful in the pursuit of a Progressive agenda should be treated with at least minimal respect; this is going to be a long, hard slog and we'll need all the help we can get.
(2) Any Republican can be shat on at will, with no bounds and no regard for consequence. They aren't ever going to help, and they will slit your throat at the first opportunity; fuck ‘em all.
I'm sure I should have more rules, and probably a great deal more nuance, but I'm just a man so you really shouldn’t expect any more than this.
And now I really must run.
You mean I can only respect ...
... people I agree with politically?
I must show vicious hatred toward all others?
with no bounds and no regard for consequence
Silly Caro, didn't you know our betters should make decisions for us?
Why do you keep insisting on wanting me to own your feelings?
I'm not - repeat, not - telling you anything at all about how you bound respect for people, that's your business and you have complete authority for it - as well as responsibility for the choices you make. I have no interest in telling you what to think, feel, do or say - all of that is all upon you.
Hate whom you please, viciously or otherwise, or hate no one at all; nothing I've said, here or anywhere, has had even the slightest hint of telling you or anyone else they should hate. If you think you have an example, please provide the quote. Otherwise, please stop putting words in my mouth.
Many bad things have been said about Hillary. Sarah Palin is not Hillary Clinton. Using what happened to Hillary Clinton as a bludgeon to punish people who say unsavory things about Sarah Palin, be they false or true or likely, misses the greater point. Sarah Palin is the complete antithesis of Clinton, she stands for everything that Hillary has argued against and opposes everything Hillary has promoted. Sarah Palin and her SugarDaddy will be a disaster for America and set back the Progressive cause substantially - if not destroy it for ever. You're certainly free to treat such people with whatever level of respect you think they are due. They get none from me.
Whether or not Sarah Palin is treated fairly is just not on my radar. Maybe after the election, in a lessons-learned exercise, I could perhaps become interested in dealing with it. For the next few weeks, though, I see rebutting false claims made against her as a problem for the McCain/Palin campaign and as much as I'd like to lose sight of my main objective and step up to the plate to defend their interests, I just don't have time to fit it in between attacking both of them, defending the Democrats from questionable allegations, and promoting Progressive views.
There isn't a Republican office holder or candidate in this whole country that I give a damn about. They are all of them, the whole lot, the enemy of all things Progressive and good and decent. They are active participants in the furtherance of a vast criminal conspiracy. I, myself, have no respect for criminals who prey on the weak and the helpless, who will steal from children and the poor and the sick to fund wars that kill yet more helpless people for nothing more than the endless pursuit of material greed and unbridaled power.
They are a foul stench, a guttering sulpherous miasma, and they need putting out; whether that is accomplished with pure spring water or fermented warthog urine is in the moment of no matter to me.
Foul stench?
Sulpherous miasma? Is that how I must refer to them?
How about people who are wrong about how the political process can be used to help the great majority of us live fulfilling lives?
They're just wrong.
Dick Cheney is evil. I don't think either McCain or Palin is. And my point is that those who think they should be demonized, too, think *I* should demonize them, as well.
Seriously, Caro, that's the point I don't get
You write:
That's a disconnect for me. Why is that so? I don't get the logic.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Because if I'm not demonizing Republicans...
... for Obama, then I'm a stupid, bitter, racist, Republican plant.
Well, what would I know?
I'm a racist. As I've often said.
Got you, but I tend to keep it a little closer to an actual talking points (or at least I try) and "demonization" isn't on any list of talking points that I know of...
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Maybe not.
But the "she has no experience" talking point is exactly what was aimed at Hillary.
And the "she's so scary" notion was arrived at using other words, but was pasted on Hillary nevertheless.
Palin's supporters
don't worry Palin has supporters
PLease excuse me, I have to stuff all my money in a mattress.
Ouch! Ouch! Ouch!
Of course, Obama was just instrumental in passing hte trillion dollar giveaway, so I'm betting a lot of those brokers are ready to see the light...
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Liberal hate is just as ugly
as conservative hate. But it's more heartbreaking. The group that supposedly champions fairness and decency is now addicted to smearing and destroying at any costs.
That's why I'm roaming the desert now. I am completely disillusioned.
I overheard some guy in an Obama tshirt on his cell phone going on and on about how stupid Palin was and how she had zero knowledge of foreign policy.
When he got off the phone I asked him who he supported in the dem primary. "Obama".
"If depth of knowledge was your criteria, why didn't you support Hillary?" I asked.
"I don't trust her" he answered.
"Obama has flipped or spun on a number of big issues. You trust him more?"
"He has to do that to get elected".
They make me so tired.
Honestly, from out here in the desert it just looks like a bully club. Behind the champion of change and hope is one nasty mob.
Hillary Clinton, The Man of My Dreams
A bully club.
ExACTly.
No wonder bullying is such a problem in the schools. They learn it from their parents.
Biden's own Rezkos--Bankers--and we pay for his Amtrak--
Bankers were his Rezko-- "... the acquisition of his waterfront property a decade ago involved wealthy businessmen and campaign supporters, some of them bankers with an interest in legislation before the Senate, who bought his old house for top dollar, sold him four acres at cost and lent him $500,000 to build his new home. ...
Beyond landscaping costs, one of the Biden campaign’s largest regular expenditures is for Amtrak tickets for the senator and his aides or consultants. Going back to 2001, those expenses typically ranged from $9,000 to $15,000 a year — far exceeding that of his colleagues in Delaware’s Congressional delegation, whose campaigns spent between $500 and $3,000, federal election records show. ...
Mr. Biden’s aides acknowledged he sometimes uses campaign money to pay for trips if they “involved a meeting or event related to his campaign.” They could not explain why his campaign’s Amtrak expenditures are relatively high, ... The Biden campaign’s Amtrak expenses have remained high even in years without elections, ...
After extensive renovations, he sold it in February 1996, through word of mouth, to John R. Cochran III, the vice chairman of MBNA, one of the nation’s largest credit card companies. He agreed to pay Mr. Biden’s full asking price, $1.2 million. MBNA reimbursed Mr. Cochran for a loss he took on the sale of his old home, according to a 1997 securities filing, which said the company requested that he move to Delaware from Maryland.
...
To build his house, Mr. Biden turned to Beneficial National Bank. Its executives were active in state politics in Delaware, major campaign contributors to both parties nationally and advocates of changes to bankruptcy policy.
Not long before Mr. Biden obtained his construction loan from Beneficial in July 1997, he had offered to nominate the bank’s chairman, James H. Gilliam Jr., for a federal judge’s post in Delaware, ..." -- http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/02/us/pol...
Amtrack is GOOD!
It is wonderful we have a Senator who takes Amtrack every day and who understands its value. The air is cleaner for all the people who take Amtrack, and I could go on and on about its value. It would be a disaster if it were not properly maintained.
I used to take it to school, it was great. I sometimes take it to Balt. and NYC. We are paying for a great national resource that should be preserved and improved!
Amtrack *IS* good
And definitely *should* be encouraged.
but Biden shouldn't be charging us for his tickets--
that's the point--he makes more every year than like 90% of other Americans--and he charges his trips to us, unlike other DE politicians.
we're paying twice for it--in subsidies, and by Biden claiming campaign expenses even when he's not running.
biden is *not* charging you for his amtrak tickets
yes, his campaign for president spent $10,000+ quarterly on amtrak in 2007 and early 2008, with only a few hundred or thousand more dollars spent in april and may of 2008, and none since then.
obama's campaign for president has spent maybe a few thousand here and there on amtrak throughout his campaign, and maybe slightly more since biden joined the ticket, but if you think that's something, check out how much obama's campaign has spent on chartered aircraft -- way more than biden ever spent on trains.
i didn't check out what his senate campaigns have spent in the past, nor what his rivals for senate might have spent, because i don't care enough about it.
and according to that article you linked to -- regular commuters are elegible for discounted amtrak passes, and government employees who are regular commuters get an even deeper discount, but senate rules prevent senators from taking advantage of that last discount. if biden is smart, he's taken advantage of the first discount, but nowhere did i see any suggestion that he's illegally tried to take advantage of that extra discount.
you can check out what the presidential campaings have spent, and exactly who they've spent it with, here.
the article said he's been charging it even when not running--
read it. he's been charging far more than other DE pols on transportation for years and years.
i did read it, amber
that 'charging even when he wasn't running' talks about his senate campaigns -- if you have ever contributed to any of his senate campaigns, then i suppose he used some of your $$. also, it just says he spent relatively more on amtrak than did other people. nowhere does the article say how much they all spent on all forms of transportation when they weren't officially running [and keep in mind that money often gets paid out, or reported as paid out, long after an item was bought or a service used].
if you're willing to hunt down exactly how much biden and all the others have ever spent on total transportation charges, and if you're willing to detail exactly how much of each of those charges is suspect, then i'll start worrying about it. but i looked [quickly, i admit] through every single one of the reports for both the obama for america and biden for president committee reports for all of 2007 and 2008 at that site i linked you to, and for overall transportation, it does NOT look to me like biden's transportation expenses are out of line, whether the $$ went to amtrak or to some other vendor.
no, it doesn't --it specifically states otherwise--
".... A review of his finances found that when it comes to some of his largest expenses, like the purchase and upkeep of his home and his use of Amtrak trains to get around, he has benefited from resources and relationships not available to average Americans. ...
Beyond landscaping costs, one of the Biden campaign’s largest regular expenditures is for Amtrak tickets for the senator and his aides or consultants. Going back to 2001, those expenses typically ranged from $9,000 to $15,000 a year — far exceeding that of his colleagues in Delaware’s Congressional delegation, whose campaigns spent between $500 and $3,000, federal election records show. Like Mr. Biden, Delaware’s other senator, Thomas R. Carper, and Representative Michael N. Castle commute daily to Washington, their offices said.
Commuting on the train to and from Washington is an expensive proposition, $84 round trip from Wilmington or $1,062 for a monthly pass, although Amtrak offers a little-known discount for federal employees traveling on business. Senators cannot use their office travel allowance for commuting, according to a spokesman for the Senate Rules Committee.
But Mr. Biden’s aides acknowledged he sometimes uses campaign money to pay for trips if they “involved a meeting or event related to his campaign.” They could not explain why his campaign’s Amtrak expenditures are relatively high, other than to point out that they would include travel by his staff and consultants, as do those of other politicians.
The Biden campaign’s Amtrak expenses have remained high even in years without elections, when he was not actively campaigning and his committee retained a handful of part-time staff members and almost no consultants. In 2003, for instance — after he had just easily won re-election to another six-year term — his committee spent $10,874 on Amtrak tickets; that same year, the campaigns of Senator Carper and Representative Castle spent $1,257 and $589, respectively. ...
-- http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/02/us/pol...
Well, $8000 in Amtrak tickets is certainly more important
than a trillion dollar bailout.
Any suggestion is illegal or unethical? One thing Biden is not, is rich.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
throw biden from the train!
so? he spends his transportation $$ on trains and the other people don't. bfd. how much do they spend on other forms of transportation? is it comparable to how much biden spends on trains? the article never says, you can't be bothered to look it up, and neither can i. i did at least look up what his presidential campaign spent and for comparison i looked up what obama's presidential campaign spent. in general, biden spends his transportation $$ on trains and obama spends his on planes. and obama appears to have spent waaaaaaaay more in general than did biden.
well, DUH. that's what campaign money is for, to pay for expenses that are related to campaigning. that would include transportation, which, funnily enough, happens on trains.
could it be because he and his staff use trains and everybody else uses cars or planes or bicycles or motorcycles or horse-drawn carriages or ... ? did the person who wrote the article bother to look that up? apparently not. have you tried looking it up? apparently not. am i going to do either your homework or theirs and look this up? no.
so all the campaigns are spending campaign $$ in non-campaign years. that's bordering on sky is blue, water is wet. again, amtrak is only one form of transportation, how much is everybody spending on all forms of transportation all told? you can't be bothered to look it up, the author couldn't be bothered to look it up, i'll be damned if i'm going to look it up. or even care about it.
It includes tickets for staffers...
Which can inflate the numbers considerably.
And if that's the worst you can say about him, I'm happy.
Obama's people praise Gates--
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/...
"A senior adviser to Senator Barack Obama on Thursday lauded the work of Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, a Bush administration appointee, and said an Obama presidency should seek Republicans and independents for its policy team.
“I think Secretary Gates has been a good secretary of defense,” said Richard Danzig, a senior adviser on national security issues to the Democratic presidential candidate. “I think he’d be an even better one in an Obama administration.” ..."
imp point-- Village fools & the conventional wisdom on Palin--
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/m...
-- "I'm beginning to think that Palin is making a hash out of every answer just to give the media the opportunity to "correct" her with conservative propaganda.
On the Supreme Court business, the gasbag conventional wisdom is that Palin failed to promote the allegedly bedrock view that the courts shouldn't "make laws from the bench" or feature "activist judges." But that's conservative propaganda. They are happy to have the courts make law from the bench as long as it's a law they want and they certainly have no problem with activist judges as long as they are conservatives.
Their rhetoric stems from backlash against the Warren Court, and is now just an identifying tribal signal. It has no literal meaning. Chris Matthews and Howard Fineman criticizing Palin for being uninformed or politically inept is perfectly legitimate, but to criticize her for failing to properly parrot rightwing cant without mentioning that the cant is complete nonsense doesn't help us in the long run."