Politics Blog

• Politics Blog RSS
• Email Headlines
• Text Alerts
• On Your PDA

Category: Decision 2008

Oprah, You Are Wrong For Showing Your Bias!

What happen when celebrities engulf themselves into politics is that they have to be fair, balanced and objective. It has been stated that a certain talkshow queen has infuriated some on her staff because she is not willing to allow the Republican Party vice-presidential nominee, Alaska Governor, Sarah Palin to come on her show. Oprah, bad move.

Regardless of the fact that she is on record in support of Senator Barack Obama's bid for the presidency, she owe it to her viewers to let them hear both sides of the story and for them to be able to make their own decisions. There is a group of women in Florida that have started a boycott campaign against the Oprah show in light of her decision; and good for them. Oprah can learn from the likes of John Stewart, David Letterman, Ellen, Stephen Cobert, Jay Leno, and all the other gabfest gurus that have not shown themselves to be overly bias.

Though not a one of them have had Sarah Palin on their show, they have at least been open to having the other candidates come sit down with them and I doubt if any of them would take the stance that Oprah Winphrey is taking toward Gov. Palin. As far as the immediate future goes, Governor Palin is scheduled to go on "World News Tonight" with Charles Gibson soon. I am hooping that Oprah will have a change of heart, for it is only fair as a talk show host to not show your bias nature. And considering that there have been many unsavory characters that she has presented to her viewers, having Sarah Palin on cannot be all that bad. Given that the Fox News Channel is looked at as a right leaning shop, it still does not prevent them from having an open door policy for both sides of the aisle.

Category: Election 2008

The Palin pipeline lie

For me, a person who lies by implication is the worst kind of liar because they use a germ of truth to cover their culpability with the deliberate intention to deceive. But in deference to my critics who insist on literal definitions, I'm going to adopt the Anchorage Daily News language and call this stretching the truth, almost beyond recognition. From Palin's acceptance speech:

PALIN [from the transcript]: "I fought to bring about the largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history. And when that deal was struck, we began a nearly forty billion dollar natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence. That pipeline, when the last section is laid and its valves are opened, will lead America one step farther away from dependence on dangerous foreign powers that do not have our interests at heart.

THE FACTS: Palin implies that construction has begun on a major natural gas pipeline from the top of Alaska into Canada. That is not correct.

In fact, no building has begun and actual construction is years away, if it ever happens. This summer the Alaska Legislature, at Palin's request, passed a bill under which the state will issue a "license" to a Canadian energy company, TransCanada Corp., and pay it up to $500 million as an incentive to someday build this enormous project, which Alaska politicians have long sought with little success. The license is not a construction contract, and federal energy regulators have not yet approved the project.

I'm focusing on this issue specifically, because we had a rousing debate in the comment section on a earlier post of mine on the same subject. I would also note her careful language about our dependence on dangerous foreign powers because the pipeline that Palin's agreement has locked Alaska into would in fact run this line through Canada, so our energy supply is still controlled by a foreign country, just not a dangerous one. Not exactly the same as having sole control over the delivery. If Canada got mad at us, they could cut off the supply.

Category: John McCain

John McCain - Reformed Maverick

My critics may not believe this, but back in 2000, I was a McCain supporter. In those days he really was reformer and was willing to change the status quo. But he lost that race because Bush's dirty tricks team ran a smear campaign against him. Today, he's hired the very same man who destroyed him then, to invent smears against Obama. I respected the McCain of 2000. The McCain of 2008 is not the same man I knew then. Jon Stewart has the video proof.

American Bloviator: Lifestyles of the Libs & Famous

My co-blogger is transforming her politics blog into a real estate blog. (Thanks for the great landscape shots.)

"Lifestyles of Republicans," by Libby Spencer has been a nice series lately.

Looking forward to your upcoming series on the Left's mansions and high-priced wardrobes. The difference is that Republicans aren't going around bloviating about global warming -- while their SUV entourage idles and runs auto air-conditioning at the curb.[video]

Kudos to Al Gore. (Right outside his global warming speech).

As far as Lifestyles of Libs goes...

To my co-blogger: Please video link to Hollywood & D.C. Democrats with their homes and their dresses.

"So I wonder how many soccer Grandmas can boast six figure incomes based on political payola?"

How about we start here?

...And how many soccer Grandpas have a back yard that looks like this?

Category: Republicans

The McCains feel your pain -- yeah, right

Back when John Edwards was still in the race, the GOP loyalists -- amplified by the mythical 'liberal' press -- shouted to the rooftops that Edwards had no credibility on economic issues or climate change concerns because he was rich enough to afford one mansion. To this day I still hear those slurs from a certain segment of the far right partisans. Yet the McCains own so many houses, we still don't have a firm count on them. They own their own private jet. They give their kid a $50,000 a month line of credit. Yet you don't hear the same cries of hypocrisy from those who dissed Edwards. And Edwards at least earned his money himself. He didn't get it from his wife, who inherited it from her daddy.

At the Republican convention, Cindy McCain gave a stirring little speech about how she relates to the pain of all those Americans who are struggling to pay their bills in the ruined economy the GOP created in the last 8 years. Pretty ironic considering she was standing on stage in an outfit that according to Vanity Fair's estimate cost between $299,100 and $313,100.

They follow up by doing some comparison shopping. Click the link for the full list, but my favorite is the price of Cindy's outfit would pay for a year's worth of health care for 750 people. Funny I didn't hear a word about health care during the entire RNC.

The leaders of the GOP are the worst kind of hypocrites yet the ordinary Republicans buy their lies, time and time again, even though it's against their best interests. Unlike some, I don't think most Republicans are bad people, or stupid. I'm beginning to think though, that this guy was on to something. When it comes to politics, something happens in their brains that causes a huge disconnect between the rhetoric and the reality.

• Enlarge

Category: Election 2008

Nielsen: McCain's speech drew most viewers

Wiley ol' John McCain was supposed to be the dull one. But his acceptance speech drew more viewers than Barack Obama or Sarah Palin, says Nielsen.

The tally: McCain (38.9 million). Obama (38.3 million). Palin (37.2 million).

Joe Biden brings up the rear with 24 million watching his acceptance speech.

McCain's speech wasn't all that great. Viewers expected that going in. But apparently they wanted to see the guy who had the guts to appoint Palin, the most controversial veep flap since Obama dumped Hillary Clinton.

Here for Sunday talk shows: Palin, Palin, Palin.

And here for speech numbers.

Category: Republicans

Palin is perfect for the GOP

Now that we're getting to know her a little better I've realized why Palin is such a perfect choice for the McCain ticket. She can lie her face off without blinking. She's lied about so much, that I can't fit into one post, so let's just start with the popular lie about selling putting** the former governor's jet on Ebay, which McCain later claimed she sold at a profit.

This is a Big. Fat. Lie**. "In fact, the jet did not sell on eBay. It was sold to a businessman from Valdez named Larry Reynolds, who paid $2.1 million for the jet, shy of the original $2.7 million purchase price." And speaking of planes, I wonder how many hockey moms own their own seaplane?



This is Sarah's private plane. Granted she paid for it herself but they're not cheap. Guess she could afford it since she was earning a six figure income as head of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. A gig she got as a political patronage favor after helping then Gov. Murkowski's daughter win a state senate race. Yes that is the same Governor she later threw under the bus as too corrupt when she was running against him.

So I wonder how many hockey moms can boast six figure incomes based on political payola? And how many hockey moms have a back yard that looks like this? Maybe Sarah drives her kids to hockey games but she is no typical hockey mom. She's just a fresh face on the same old propaganda of the last 8 years.

[**Note: Correction issued in response to commenter pug. On checking the transcript, Palin didn't actually say she sold the plane, she merely strongly implied it. Her spokeswoman later insisted Thursday that the transaction occurred. But it was McCain himself that told the Big. Fat. Lie. In introducing Palin at a later campaign appearance he said, "You know what I enjoyed the most? She took the luxury jet that was acquired by her predecessor and sold it on eBay -- made a profit."

I think the intented effect of Palin's carefully worded statement is clear. However, my apologies to our readers for identifying the wrong liar. I stand by the rest of my post.]

Category: Election 2008

The bottom line in Election 08

The GOP are busy making a celebrity out of their VP. I can't blame them since their presidential candidate is so weak, they would like you to forget he's the one running for president. The ultimate choice is between Obama and McCain. If you love this country, skip the Sunday paper, skip the babble on the talk shows and take the time to watch their speeches again. This is your choice America.





One man, Obama, offers a vision for a better future. The other, McCain, offers the same old politics and empty divisive rhetoric that we've had for the last 8 years. McCain offers more of the same, Obama offers a fresh start. I don't see how the choice could be any clearer.

The Color Bias: Oprah

You know how liberals were crying in their Kashi a while back about the Fairness Doctrine and talk radio? Remember that? Never mind the free market and listeners CHOOSING conservative talk radio and the Rush Limbaughs of the airways. Listeners decided (on their very own) that they would rather tune in to Sean Hannity than Rhandi Rhodes. Air America was hailed as some great Democrat conduit, but without "listeners" and "advertisers" they went bye-bye.

"Franken beans! Franken beans!"

The reason lib talk radio died on the vine is that most people that listen to radio have jobs. They're driving to and from work, business meetings, sales calls, etc.

Enter Oprah, Sam Bernstein, Orange-Glo and 8-minute abs. This is "media" tailor-made for libs who don't have jobs and like gobbling up "As Seen on TV!" stuff. The Oprah Dem-O-Graphic, if you will.

Oprah made it abundantly clear very early on that she needs a moist towelette around Barack Obama. No problem. She can wear a bib over whomever she wants to.

If she doesn't want the first female Republican VP nominee on her television couch, so be it.

I'm just wondering if we'll be hearing about Conservatives petitioning Congress under the "Fairness Doctrine" for a Neo-Con "Oprah" show?

The reality is, thanks to "the free market," (something that doesn't exist in a Liberalictionary) viewers will opt to change the channel on Oprah. Because unbeknownst to her, and her herd of handlers, is that she might possibly have viewers who identify with Palin. So when you see her Nielsen numbers plummet, put the blame squarely on her blinding Obamafever.

Just look at what happened to US Weekly when they plaster their bias on the front cover?

Hey libs, stop sniveling about the Fairness Doctrine, you have more than enough channels for your mind-numbing, pre-presidential election bias, I mean "programming."

BTW, did anyone happen to see Barack Obama on Bill O'Reilly? Do you think Oprah had it DVR'ed?

Category: Institutions Of Higher Learning

The Politics Of University Trustees & Regents

This issue may not resonate with many of the readers of this site, but it is a matter that has been a thorn in my side for some time now. With the exception of the University of Michigan - Ann Arbor, Michigan State University, Wayne State University, and the State Board of Education, public universities are controlled by people that are appointed by the governor. The aforementioned governing bodies are elected by the people; a process that I feel is the best way for which anyone can be held accountable for their actions. So the million dollar question that I would like to pose is, "Why not allow for the electing of trustees/regents at the other publically funded institutions of higher learning?"

The importance of an election process versus the "political favor" appointment would allow for true transparency, while giving the people an opportunity to hold those elected accountable. Additionally, I feel that anyone that is willing to serve at an institution of higher learning would care more about the success of the place. I doubt very seriously that those that are appointed really have a vested interest in the success of the place for which they serve. They seem to care more about the perceived power that they possess than anything else. And for a position that one is appointed to, the power that they have is amazing.

A few things that I have noticed about those that serve at the "Big 3" is that many of their elected officials are alumni of the respective places where they serve. The importance of mentioning that makes it obvious to me that those people care about their respective alma maters and what better way to give back to your university than to be elected to serve. It also goes to show that they have a vested interest in what happens at the place where they serve. The appointed people usually are not graduates of the schools where they serve and only look at the position as some ego trip and a platform to make themselves feel that they are important. Are the "Big 3" colleges really that much different than the rest of their sisters and brothers that serve the purpose of educating people?

As a graduate of one of the non-Big 3 institutions, I would love to have a say in who serves on the Board of Regents that governs the university. I find it rather strange and disingenuois that I am given the opportunity to vote for people that govern over at the U of M, Wayne State or MSU. Those of us that may not find it important enough to have a say in who governs at the aforementioned three would like to have a say in who governs at our institutions of higher learning. It is easy to say that there are enough elected officials in this state, but some positions are truly worthy of being voted upon. I would feel much more comfortable in having a say in who governs at my alma mater than for those to be selected to govern there without me having a say.