Ross is love.

Um, all of them.

OK, I know I've been piling on a bit lately, and I don't feel great about that...but c'mon. C'mon! This lady just cannot be for real. Smarter Than Ross, '08. All we ask.

Retraction.

"She would not…she understands and has stated repeatedly that we're not going to do anything except in America's national security interest...In all due respect, people going around and… sticking a microphone while conversations are being held, and then all of a sudden that's—that's a person's position… This is a free country, but I don't think most Americans think that that's a definitve policy statement made by Governor Palin."

On Saturday night, Governor Palin was asked whether the U.S. should cross the Afghan border into Pakistan to chase terrorists. Senator Obama's position is that we should when necessary, and Governor Palin seems to agree with him. John McCain feels otherwise (they had strong words on the topic at Friday night's debate). McCain also, apparently, feels that taking a Vice Presidential candidate at their word while on a campaign stop constitutes a unforgiveable invasion of privacy.

Perhaps the presidential campaigns could let us know when they're making an official policy statement, and when they're just having expressing something that they believe. It's so hard to tell, these days.

 

Paul Newman.

The Hustler is one of my all-time favorite movies. Newman's Own Light Honey Mustard is one of my all-time favorite dressings.

Palin/Couric.

Last night's CBS Evening News interview with Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin.

Transparent.

 "It's my belief that this is exactly the time when Americans need to hear from the person who in approximately 40 days will be responsible for dealing with this mess...It will be part of the president's job to deal with more things at once. In my mind, actually, it's more important than ever that we present ourselves to the American people."  -Senator Obama

John McCain is now refusing to attend the first presidential debate, which had been scheduled (by the debate commission, and my TiVo) for this Friday. His campaign insists that, with the historic nature of the nation's financial crisis, he will not attend a debate until a bailout deal is reached. I'm sure that this had absolutely nothing to do with Senator Obama's call earlier in the week for a joint statement of economic principles by the two candidates. Congressional leaders aren't necessarily thrilled about two Presidential candidates storming into the Senate chamber to make big, splashy appearances before the camera. Obama says that he plans to continue the debate, and will only intercede in bailout negotiations if it's clear that he won't be a distraction.

The McCain campaign isn't just asking for this debate to be postponed: they'd also like to see the Vice Presidential debate between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin postponed indefinitely. Given Palin's rising negatives, and poor performance during the one time, thusfar, that she's taken questions from a reporter, that's terribly convenient.

Leaving aside the snarkiness for a moment, I think that this is a bad move politically. With Sarah Palin's glow having worn off, it reads like a desperation move: a game-changer, that I'm not sure people are going to buy.

¶ Meanwhile, President Bush is urging swift passage by Congress of his 700 billion dollar bailout plan for banks and investment firms. It's not likely: Republicans hate the idea of taking over private companies, libertarians consider it something akin to socialism, and Democrats aren't thrilled at the idea of giving President Bush that much money, with no strings attached, to pass out to the friends that couldn't run their companies responsibly to begin with (remember that time when I asked Britney Spears to keep an eye on my crack? It'd be a bit like that).The plan submitted to Congress, by the way? Three pages. Just enough room to scrawl: GIVE ME 700 BAJILLION DOLLARS.

Estimated cost per household to save the companies who lobbied a pliable Congress to remove all economic safeguards and regulations, and then proceeded to immediately do all of the things that those safeguards were in place to prevent? $17,064. And who didn't see that coming?

A little perspective.

So, with the word this morning that Morgan Stanley may be on the ropes, there's one thing that we need to be absolutely crystal clear about: if you count on two hands the people responsible for this crisis, John McCain is at the top of the politicians.

Every single piece of deregulatory legislation over the past decade and more has John McCain's fingerprints all over it. He's been President Bush's point man on all of this. The entire legacy of trickle-down, deregulated, anything goes, corporate welfare economic philosophy has brought us to this point. John McCain lead the fight for, along with his current leading economic advisor Phil Gramm, passage of the Gramm/Leach/Blealy Act, which tore down the walls between banks, investment houses, and insurance companies. It's the bill that allowed the sub-prime banking crisis to spill over into those other industries. It's why the American taxpayer had to spend 85 billion dollars the other day to rescue AIG. It's why dozens of other firms are at risk. There could not be a more simple, stright-line, cause-and-effect relationship. The thing is, everybody thinks that economics is a really complicated field. The facts is, it's only complicated on a small scale. The more you pull back, the easier it is to see the big picture.

They refer to these regulations that saw the US through the most productive economic decades of any nation in the history of the planet, derisively, as repressive "depression-era" regulations. Turns out, they learned a thing or two during the Great Depression, and some of those regulations weren't such terrible ideas. The remnants of them are the only things that may keep things from getting worse (which is why John McCain is suddenly all for regulation, changing his tuneon that topic, literally, overnight). Believe me, things are about to get bad by anyone's standards. Make no mistake: we're entering into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, and the man with his hands on the tiller is running for President, and winning. That's something that everyone needs to think about before heading to the voting booth.

Vote Tina Fey.

This settles it: I'm voting Tina Fey for President.

Next issue: Gay civil rights.

Me again. Back with more "just the facts" (mostly) research on the candidates on the issues most important to me. Consider it a crash course. This edition: homos.

The candidates on gay marriage/civil unions:

John McCain does not support a US Constitutional Amendment barring gay marriage, stating that one might be "appropriate" if "state remedies to judicial action" fail. That position puts him at odds with his party and their renewed commitment to such an amendment in the 2008 platform. He is opposed to gay marriages and civil unions, though he believes that states should be able to set their own policies with regard to other types of arrangements. He's been a forceful advocate of two efforts at amending the Arizona state constitution, saying "I'm proud to have led an effort in my home state to change our state constitution and to protect the sanctity of marriage as between a man and woman." One such effort failed in 2006, but seems closer to passing this year. There are currently similar efforts underway in Florida and California. He voted for, and does not support the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, the law that bars any federal agency from recognizing a civil or gay union of any kind. Sarah Palin has said that she'd support a ballot initiative in Alaska to to deny benefits to homosexual couples. She supported the successful 1998 amendment to the Alaska state constitution banning gay marriage.

Barack Obama likewise, does not support gay marriage, saying recently: "It's a union between a man and a woman...for me as a Christian, it is a sacred union. God's in the mix." He does not support a U.S. Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage. He does support nationally recognized same-sex civil unions with full marriage rights, saying: "I can afford those civil rights to others even if I don't have ... that view." He supports the full repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, and has been supportive of state efforts to expand marriage rights, particularly in California. Joe Biden supports same-sex civil unions, and calls gay marriage is "inevitable."

The candidates on employment discrimination:

Most states and localities in the United States still allow the denial of employment or termination of employment on the basis of sexual orientation. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act is the name of the current congressional effort to bar workplace discrimination federally. John McCain does not support it, and has voted against it. Barack Obama supports the bill, and sponsored similar legislation in the Illinois legislature. and supports expanding it to include protection for the transgendered (referred to as the "trans-inclusive" version of the bill). That position puts him out in front of even openly gay U.S. Representative Barney Frank and others, who believe that including gender identity protections could harm the bill's prospects. Joe Biden voted in favor of ENDA last year.

John McCain opposes the Employment Non-discrimination Act, and voted against passage, most recently, in 2007. The measure failed in the Senate by one vote. Sarah Palin is not on the record on the topic of workplace discrimination, but her state does not provide any protections.

The candidates on hate crimes legislation:

According to the FBI, one in six hate crimes occurs because of a victims sexual orientation. Under current law, the federal government has no authority to aid investigations or prosecutions of hate crimes against gays as it does in cases where the attack was perpetrated because of color, religion, race, or national origin. John McCain has voted against expanding hate crimes legislation to include sexual orientation. Sarah Palin, likewise, is on the record saying that she does not support expanding hate crimes legislation. Barack Obama supports expanding the federal definition of hate crimes, and Joe Biden is a co-sponsor of the 2007 legislation.

The candidates on gays in the military:

Barack Obama and Joe Biden support the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and the open service of gays and lesbians in the military. Biden calls it "ridiculous". John McCain fully supports Don't Ask, Don't Tell. 12,000 and counting service members have been booted from the military since the policy was enacted.

On gay adoption:

John McCain is opposed to any form of gay adoption, expressing a preference that children remain in the foster care system (interview video here). Sarah Palin is not, to my knowledge, on the record on the issue. Barack Obama and Joe Biden support  gay adoption rights.

*********************************

My take?

There's no contest on this one. While Senator Obama's religious opposition to the concept of gay marriage is indefensible, and is the same stance that I tore into John Edwards for, the fact remains that Obama would be the most forward-looking President on gay issues that this country has ever seen, standing up for almost every issue of importance to gays and lesbians. His opposition to the terminology "marriage" in favor of a civil arrangements with the same rights may rankle me a bit, but as a practical matter, there's not much difference. John McCain would proudly look to either maintain the status quo (at best), or move backward (esp. in the case of gay adoption). It's easy to forget that it was only five years ago that the Supreme Court decriminalized gay sex in this country. John McCain has only praise for the Justices in the narrow minority on that decision, and says that they are the type he'd like to nominate more of. His willingness to allow states some leeway on offering partnership benefits, while simultaneously supporting every state effort to block those rights may put him ahead of his party, but it hardly makes him a candidate that gay people have any reason to get behind. 

Palin on TV.

In case no one had noticed, while I've found things to respect and criticize about the other three candidates, I dislike the cynicism and demographic programming that Sarah Palin represents. Though I do appreciate her pretty, pretty glasses (damn my sexism!) As always, Salon.com's Joan Walsh sums up Palin's first effort at answering questions last night on ABC News:

"Alex Koppelman immediately caught the biggest gaffe of the interview: Palin's deer-in-the-headlights ignorance about the "Bush doctrine" that claims for the U.S. the right to unilateral, "preventive" war against nations perceived as fomenting threats against us. Her answer committing us to defend Georgia or the Ukraine against Russia was almost as bad, and the way she spelled out what NATO membership means, by rote, you could see the quickly crammed index cards in the back of her brain. She put Israel in charge of our Iran policy. John McCain should be ashamed of himself. Ashamed, on 9/11, to have picked someone as ignorant and unready to be president as Sarah Palin.

People who like that sort of thing are going to like Palin's interview, a lot. Apparently, there is a constituency of people who want their president to be just like them, who want him or her to be someone they can have a beer with, to be just as clueless and uninformed as they are. But I believe that's a small constituency. I believe that most Americans, most independents, and serious, patriotic conservatives, are going to see this interview and be very, very afraid. Her combative act didn't really work on Gibson; neither did familiarly peppering her sentences with "Charlie." Charlie did not seem charmed."

Though she didn't seem to quite grasp the premise of the question, she also essentially took Obama's stance on cross-border incursions into Pakistan. President Bush secretly authorized such incusions recently, and several Pakistani civilians were accidentally killed in the first such incursion. Obama has supported the idea, in the past, that that's something we need to do if necessary. McCain has defended Pakistan's rights as a "sovereign nation." Palin took the Obama position, saying: "I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop the terrorists who are hell-bent on destroying America, and our allies."

She also clarified her statement about Iraq being a "task from God" by saying that she was merely quoting Abraham Lincoln, who was known to utter the word "God" from point to point throughout his life, though never actually said anything like what she said. I sincerely wish Sarah Palin and her family all the best, but please, please America: I'm begging you this time: can we please not elect someone who can't answer questions that would be softballs if you lobbed them at me? Can we at least have that standard? Call it the "smarter than Ross" standard. It's really not a high bar.

Smarter than Ross. All I'm asking for.

Banning books in Wasilla.

I realize that any discussion of issues with regard to Vice Presidential nominee Palin is deeply sexist in nature, which is why she's appropriately refused to take any questions or have any on-the-record conversations with reporters in the almost two weeks since she was named. As a result, we're forced to infer her position on the issues of the day based upon her past actions. Doing so, naturally, only points to my deep aversion to women in positions of power, but that's just the kind of guy I am.

ABC news has done some deeply anti-feminist reporting on the topic of this alleged book-banning incident that occured while Palin was the mayor of Wasilla, Alaska during the mid-90s.

Here's what's been acknowledged by the McCain campaign, or is on the public record:

- Sarah Palin's church at the time she was mayor, The Assembly of God of Wasilla, Alaska, was actively working to have several pro-gay themed books removed from bookstores and the public library in Wasilla. Palin was an active member of the large congregation, and they were actively involved in her campaign as mayor.

 

- Palin inquired of the chief librarian, on at least two occasions, once at a city council meeting, about having books removed from the library. The librarian responded that all books were acquired appropriately, and that she would refuse any requests to ban books from the library. Palin's supporters in Alaska respond that the inquiries were "rhetorical" in nature.

 

- Within two weeks of these inquiries, the librarian was fired, though she was quickly reinstated after dissent from the local community.

 

- The reporter covering the story at the time recalls that two of the books mentioned by Palin were the gay-themed Pastor, I Am Gay, by local Wasilla clergyman Howard Betts, and Go Ask Alice, about living with a gay sibling.

 

Palin's take on all of this isn't really known. It's clear to me that she at least wanted books removed from the library, and quite possibly went a further step by removing the woman who blocked her efforts. The bit about "rhetorically" asking about banning books just doesn't make sense. Add to the mix that the influential church that helped her get elected just happened to want some of the same books banned, and I'm not sure that the defense has a very good case.