Archive for the ‘POTUS ’08’ category

About That Inaugural Stuff

January 20, 2009

With no attempt to find a coherent theme . . .

First, before the speech, how about John Roberts butchering the oath? And how cool was it to see the president on a national stage while someone else mumbled and bumbled and fumbled their words? Even more than my relief at the death of his policies is my joy at never having to listen to George Bush give another speech.

Second, this might have been my favorite line from the speech:

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and non-believers.

“And non-believers!?” What? Doesn’t he know the atheists and their no-believing-in-god selves are the cause of all this country’s problems? (Well, them and the homersexshuls)  God is punishing all of us for their evil non-beliefs. Doesn’t he know that? Doesn’t he watch the 700 club? Didn’t he listen to POTUS wannabe Mitt Romney when he told us it was critically important for people of all faiths to unite against those with none? Apparently not. Good for Obama.

Third, I like this section, too:

The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works — whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end.

If he takes that seriously, the first government project to die won’t be the War in Iraq, it’ll be the War on Drugs. Whatever little good it has done is far, far outweighed by the direct and collateral costs.

Fourth, now on the POTUS website:

“While we have come a long way since the Stonewall riots in 1969, we still have a lot of work to do. Too often, the issue of LGBT rights is exploited by those seeking to divide us. But at its core, this issue is about who we are as Americans. It’s about whether this nation is going to live up to its founding promise of equality by treating all its citizens with dignity and respect.”

— Barack Obama, June 1, 2007

He then lists policy goals, I disagree with some, but heartily applaud these:

  • Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples: President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.
  • Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage: President Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples.
  • Repeal Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell: President Obama agrees with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and other military experts that we need to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited. The U.S. government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation. Additionally, more than 300 language experts have been fired under this policy, including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. The President will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals.
  • Expand Adoption Rights: President Obama believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. He thinks that a child will benefit from a healthy and loving home, whether the parents are gay or not.

That’s straight from the White House website. Let’s hope Congress follows the lead and has the guts to do what’s rational and right.

Finally, cynic that I am, it was almost moving to watch that inaugural address with my students and my fellow teachers, an audience about ninety per cent African American. As a history teacher and political junkie, I know what Obama’s election means. The folks in that room with me know and feel what it means. Being with them as he officially became president? Well, that felt good.


Campaign Crazies Update

November 5, 2008

A quick post about two of the most ridiculous presidential campaign characters I can remember.

Sarah Palin’s 150K wardrobe? She did the shopping herself. Sua sponte. And did so without telling the donor what was happening. Fiscal responsibility, huh? Nothing easier than spending other people’s money.

Even better, the supposed champion of pork cutting, open government, and reform, won’t tell us whether or not she voted for convicted felon and pork champion Ted Stevens in the Alaska senate race.

As for the other walking punchline . . .

Now that his fifteen minutes are up, what do you think the answer will be to the first “where are they now?” story about Joe the Plumber? My bet is either in Alaska helping Todd Palin and his Alaska Independence Party buddies secede, or else in federal prison for tax evasion after representing himself at trial and failing to convince the judge that the graduated income tax is a socialist plot to destroy America and therefore unconstitutional.

I Didn’t Vote

November 4, 2008

I meant to vote. I’d gotten excited about it. Walking over to the polls, pulling the kids in their wagon, I even decided to vote Obama instead of Bob Barr. (McCain ceased to be an option when he picked Palin.) But when I got there, my name wasn’t on the list for the precinct. I walked back home and checked the Secretary of State’s website, and, apparently, I neglected to register to vote when we moved to Louisiana. Oops.

I’m going to feel really bad if Louisiana ends up as a tie, or if Obama loses by one vote.

This Lady Deserves To Have Her House Egged

November 3, 2008

Holy cow, could this lady possibly be more of an a%%hole?

A Grosse Pointe Farms woman has doled out political tricks by refusing Halloween treats to children whose parents support Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

Shirley Nagel passed out candy Friday — but only to those who shared her support for Republican presidential candidate John McCain and running mate Sarah Palin.

Fox 2 News says a sign posted outside Nagel’s house, about 12 miles west of Detroit, served notice to all trick-or-treaters. It read: “No handouts for Obama supporters, liars, tricksters or kids of supporters.”

She enforced it, too:

Nagel tells WJBK-TV that “Obama’s scary.” When asked about children who’d been turned away empty-handed and crying, she said: “Oh well. Everybody has a choice.”

What? I mean, how in the world can anyone be such a self righteous dip shit? Humiliating kids because of what their parents think? That’s unreal.

Palin Doesn’t Know Who The Prime Minister Of Canada Is

November 3, 2008

She was prank called by some Canadian comic pretending to be Nicolas Sarkozy. She remained oblivious to the joke, despite many hints, like this one:

When Audette refers to Canadian singer Steph Carse as Canada’s prime minister, Palin replies: “Well, he’s doing fine and yeah, when you come into a position underestimated it gives you an opportunity to prove the pundits and the critics wrong. You work that much harder.” Canada’s prime minister is Stephen Harper.

So what? We’re talking about Canada.

Well, first, she’s going to be the vice president. Familiarity with our neighbors ought to be a priority.

Second, the ticket’s big strength is supposed to be foreign policy.

Third, Russia’s proximity to Alaska made her an expert on Russia. Guess what’s even closer? Canada. By her own logic, then, she ought to be an expert on Canada. Unless her logic is faulty.

On the one had, I am terrified that someone this arrogantly ignorant could be become vice president tomorrow. On the other hand, I kind of hope McPalin wins, because the Daily Show, Colbert and SNL will be that much funnier for the next four years. What an idiot.

But That Would Mean Sarah Palin Shouldn’t Vote

November 1, 2008

The Bossier Independent has a list of reasons not to vote, among them:

If you have never read the constitution and don’t understand the powers of each branch, and if you can’t grasp the importance of the separation of powers, then stay home.

If you don’t believe that the protections of the constitution are inviolable, please don’t vote.

Well, McCain’s veep candidate . . .

1) Thinks the vp is in charge of the senate;

2) Thinks James Madison wrote the pledge of allegiance;

3) Thinks the first amendment protects government officials from criticism by the press;

4) Can’t even name a single newspaper or magazine she regularly reads.

There are no excuses for that kind of ignorance from the vice f@%king presidential candidate. Being unbelievably uninformed may or may not be a good reason not to vote. It sure as hell is a good reason not to be elected.

And She Could One Day Be Nominating Federal Judges

October 31, 2008

Just when you think she can’t look any dumber, Sarah Palin speaks ex tempore again:

ABC News’ Steven Portnoy reports: In a conservative radio interview that aired in Washington, D.C. Friday morning, Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin said she fears her First Amendment rights may be threatened by “attacks” from reporters who suggest she is engaging in a negative campaign against Barack Obama.

Palin told WMAL-AM that her criticism of Obama’s associations, like those with 1960s radical Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, should not be considered negative attacks.  Rather, for reporters or columnists to suggest that it is going negative may constitute an attack that threatens a candidate’s free speech rights under the Constitution, Palin said.

“If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations,” Palin told host Chris Plante, “then I don’t know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media.”

Yes, she really said that the media offering an opinion contrary to her own is a violation of her first amendment rights.

If you haven’t graduated from the fifth grade yet, and don’t realize how idiotic that statement is, the first amendment only limits government power. It explicitly protects the right of the press to call stupid politicians stupid politicans. That’s what that whole freedom of the press thing is about.