Forget the Emmy, The Daily Show deserves a Pulitzer Prize.
He and his motley crew are doing the job that our media is failing to do: investigative journalism.
Enjoy and share.
Sarah Palin Gender Card
Look for a heavy dose of hypocrisy from Karl Rove, et al. – that in a practical universe – would destroy a party.
Aired: Wednesday, September 3rd 2008
(05:43)
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184086&title=sarah-palin-gender-card
Newt Gingrich
John Stewart attacks the hypocrisy that is Sarah Palin’s stance on abortion – and Newt does a poor job trying to dodge it
Aired: Wednesday, September 3rd 2008
(06:01)
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184087&title=newt-gingrich
Sarah Palin - Vet This!
John Stewart’s response the Republican assault on civil service at the RNC.
Aired: Thursday, September 4th
(08:42)
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184095&title=sarah-palin-vet-this
John McCain: Reformed Maverick
John McCain's bio film shows him through the wild years up to abandoning everything he's always stood for.
Aired: Friday, September 5th
(04:32)
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184113&title=john-mccain-reformed-maverick
Sarah Palin on ABC
Link to interview:
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=5783816
I've seen more depth in the shallow end of the kiddie pool - seen fewer scripted lines on a teleprompter.
Yes, she is Christian.
Yes, she shoots guns.
Yes, she is attractive in a sort of dominatrix-Tina-Fey-sort-of-way.
But does it matter to you that she is dumb as rocks?
"You can actually see Russia from parts of Alaska."
From where? The land bridge? ! !! !!!
God help us.
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=5783816
I've seen more depth in the shallow end of the kiddie pool - seen fewer scripted lines on a teleprompter.
Yes, she is Christian.
Yes, she shoots guns.
Yes, she is attractive in a sort of dominatrix-Tina-Fey-sort-of-way.
But does it matter to you that she is dumb as rocks?
"You can actually see Russia from parts of Alaska."
From where? The land bridge? ! !! !!!
God help us.
McCain's Integrity
by Andrew Sullivan
theAtlantic.com
10 Sep 2008 01:40 pm
For me, this surreal moment - like the entire surrealism of the past ten days - is not really about Sarah Palin or Barack Obama or pigs or fish or lipstick. It's about John McCain. The one thing I always thought I knew about him is that he is a decent and honest person. When he knows, as every sane person must, that Obama did not in any conceivable sense mean that Sarah Palin is a pig, what did he do? Did he come out and say so and end this charade? Or did he acquiesce in and thereby enable the mindless Rovianism that is now the core feature of his campaign?
So far, he has let us all down. My guess is he will continue to do so. And that decision, for my part, ends whatever respect I once had for him. On core moral issues, where this man knew what the right thing was, and had to pick between good and evil, he chose evil. When he knew that George W. Bush's war in Iraq was a fiasco and catastrophe, and before Donald Rumsfeld quit, McCain endorsed George W. Bush against his fellow Vietnam vet, John Kerry in 2004. By that decision, McCain lost any credibility that he can ever put country first. He put party first and his own career first ahead of what he knew was best for the country.
And when the Senate and House voted overwhelmingly to condemn and end the torture regime of Bush and Cheney in 2006, McCain again had a clear choice between good and evil, and chose evil.
He capitulated and enshrined torture as the policy of the United States, by allowing the CIA to use techniques as bad as and worse than the torture inflicted on him in Vietnam. He gave the war criminals in the White House retroactive immunity against the prosecution they so richly deserve. The enormity of this moral betrayal, this betrayal of his country's honor, has yet to sink in. But for my part, it now makes much more sense. He is not the man I thought he was.And when he had the chance to engage in a real and substantive debate against the most talented politician of the next generation in a fall campaign where vital issues are at stake, what did McCain do? He began his general campaign with a series of grotesque, trivial and absurd MTV-style attacks on Obama's virtues and implied disgusting things about his opponent's patriotism.
And then, because he could see he was going to lose, ten days ago, he threw caution to the wind and with no vetting whatsoever, picked a woman who, by her decision to endure her own eight-month pregnancy of a Down Syndrome child in public, that he was going to reignite the culture war as a last stand against Obama. That's all that is happening right now: a massive bump in the enthusiasm of the Christianist base. This is pure Rove.
Yes, McCain made a decision that revealed many appalling things about him. In the end, his final concern is not national security. No one who cares about national security would pick as vice-president someone who knows nothing about it as his replacement. No one who cares about this country's safety would gamble the security of the world on a total unknown because she polled well with the Christianist base. No person who truly believed that the surge was integral to this country's national security would pick as his veep candidate a woman who, so far as we can tell anything, opposed it at the time.
McCain has demonstrated in the last two months that he does not have the character to be president of the United States. And that is why it is more important than ever to ensure that Barack Obama is the next president. The alternative is now unthinkable. And McCain - no one else - has proved it.link:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/mccains-integri.html
theAtlantic.com
10 Sep 2008 01:40 pm
For me, this surreal moment - like the entire surrealism of the past ten days - is not really about Sarah Palin or Barack Obama or pigs or fish or lipstick. It's about John McCain. The one thing I always thought I knew about him is that he is a decent and honest person. When he knows, as every sane person must, that Obama did not in any conceivable sense mean that Sarah Palin is a pig, what did he do? Did he come out and say so and end this charade? Or did he acquiesce in and thereby enable the mindless Rovianism that is now the core feature of his campaign?
So far, he has let us all down. My guess is he will continue to do so. And that decision, for my part, ends whatever respect I once had for him. On core moral issues, where this man knew what the right thing was, and had to pick between good and evil, he chose evil. When he knew that George W. Bush's war in Iraq was a fiasco and catastrophe, and before Donald Rumsfeld quit, McCain endorsed George W. Bush against his fellow Vietnam vet, John Kerry in 2004. By that decision, McCain lost any credibility that he can ever put country first. He put party first and his own career first ahead of what he knew was best for the country.
And when the Senate and House voted overwhelmingly to condemn and end the torture regime of Bush and Cheney in 2006, McCain again had a clear choice between good and evil, and chose evil.
He capitulated and enshrined torture as the policy of the United States, by allowing the CIA to use techniques as bad as and worse than the torture inflicted on him in Vietnam. He gave the war criminals in the White House retroactive immunity against the prosecution they so richly deserve. The enormity of this moral betrayal, this betrayal of his country's honor, has yet to sink in. But for my part, it now makes much more sense. He is not the man I thought he was.And when he had the chance to engage in a real and substantive debate against the most talented politician of the next generation in a fall campaign where vital issues are at stake, what did McCain do? He began his general campaign with a series of grotesque, trivial and absurd MTV-style attacks on Obama's virtues and implied disgusting things about his opponent's patriotism.
And then, because he could see he was going to lose, ten days ago, he threw caution to the wind and with no vetting whatsoever, picked a woman who, by her decision to endure her own eight-month pregnancy of a Down Syndrome child in public, that he was going to reignite the culture war as a last stand against Obama. That's all that is happening right now: a massive bump in the enthusiasm of the Christianist base. This is pure Rove.
Yes, McCain made a decision that revealed many appalling things about him. In the end, his final concern is not national security. No one who cares about national security would pick as vice-president someone who knows nothing about it as his replacement. No one who cares about this country's safety would gamble the security of the world on a total unknown because she polled well with the Christianist base. No person who truly believed that the surge was integral to this country's national security would pick as his veep candidate a woman who, so far as we can tell anything, opposed it at the time.
McCain has demonstrated in the last two months that he does not have the character to be president of the United States. And that is why it is more important than ever to ensure that Barack Obama is the next president. The alternative is now unthinkable. And McCain - no one else - has proved it.link:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/mccains-integri.html
10 Questions for Sarah Palin
What ABC News anchor Charles Gibson should ask the candidate.
By Jack Shafer
Tuesday, Sept. 9, 2008, at 6:17 PM ET
ABC News anchor Charles Gibson's forthcoming interview with Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin—her first since being hoisted onto the ticket by John McCain—will give a national audience an unvarnished look at the candidate. Because Palin is telegenic and the interview will be shot against scenic Alaskan backdrops, the only thing to prevent the interview from turning into sweet Republican syrup will be tough questions from Gibson.
Gibson and his team got knocked by Washington Post columnist Tom Shales as "shoddy," "despicable," and "prosecutorial" after they hosted the April 16 debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Although I think the transcript tells a different story, Gibson will surely approach this interview on tip-toe lest he become the story again.
Gibson enters this Q&A at a disadvantage: Palin and her associates know volumes more about Gibson and his interviewing techniques and the questions that he's likely to ask than he knows about her and her positions. She'll have crammed like a Ph.D. candidate preparing for an oral examination, and her expert coaches will have prepared her on how to slip out of questions for which she doesn't have answers.
Gibson will wisely avoid the "gotcha" questions designed to prove that she's an ignoramus because she can't name all the capitals of the now-independent Soviet republics. Likewise, he'll skip the complicated hypotheticals ("If the president of North Korea has a stroke and nobody seems to be in charge and the country appears to have restarted its nuclear program, as president, what do you do?").
Because this is Palin's first interview, her coming-out if you will, Gibson has an obligation to ask questions about the issues thrust into the news by her words and actions. After covering that area, he needs to ask the sort of open-ended questions that will dislodge her from the script the McCainites have prepared. We need to hear her genuine views—which are largely unknown—on a range of issues.
Because the first instincts of a politician are to evade a tough question by dismissing it, filibustering, or answering a question that wasn't asked, Gibson's toughest job will be formulating the follow-up question to block her retreat.
Because the McCain campaign is running against Washington, they're got to run against George W. Bush and the Republican majority that not so long ago held Congress. Gibson needs a question that defines this separation. So he should start by asking:
1) What Bush administration policy do you disagree with most, and what would you have done differently?
She'll praise the president before damning his increased spending. To that answer Gibson should volley: Then how much smaller would the McCain budget be and where precisely should he cut?
If she tries to vague Gibson out, which she will, he need only restate his request for specifics. It will be like pouring sand into her gears. No Republican president has ever delivered on the promise to shrink the federal government, and no Republican president ever will.
Next question:
2) How are you like Hillary Clinton?
Palin will flash that million-dollar, time-buying smile. It's a trick question, but it's an honest trick question because it forces her to acknowledge the obvious similarities. Both women are ambitious, underrated, glass-ceiling crackers and family-career jugglers, but Palin will do her best to distance herself from the comparison because it violates her sense of self. In Palin's mind, Clinton is a baby-killer, a socialist, a Washington insider, and a vain pig. She'll evade with gracious words about how she differs from Clinton, but Gibson can guide her toward self-reflection by noting the similarities (ambitious, underrated, cracker, juggler) and daring her to deny them.
Some questions work because they contain a preface that prevents the questioned from escaping. Here's the earmark-pork question Gibson should ask:
3) You're running as a reformer, a crusader against the special interests and politics as usual. Setting aside for a moment Sen. Ted Stevens' legal problems, should Alaska return to the Senate this Republican who has delivered more pork to his state than virtually any other elected official? Yes or no?
Like a good, loyal Republican, she'll resist condemning Stevens and will extol his virtues, perhaps by perhaps by talking about his struggle to make government smaller. After she runs the line out 100 feet or so, Gibson should give it this yank:
But in the past you had no problem with asking Alaskans to vote out a standing Republican. You challenged the incumbent Republican governor, Frank Murkowski, on a pork-slaying, reformist platform and beat him in the primary. Isn't Stevens as antithetical to your views on good government as Murkowski?
The McCain campaign believes that Alaska's geographical proximity to Russia has given Palin standing as a foreign policy maven, or something akin. For the purposes of his interview, Gibson could accept this as a given in his preface and ask:
4) Unique among all U.S. governors, you lead a state that shares a border with Russia, a sometimes hostile nation with a nuclear arsenal and new geopolitical ambitions. Given that, how do you evaluate Vladimir Putin?
This untethered question evaporates upon being asked: Palin will respond with generalities from the "trust but verify" stockpile. Gibson's duty will be to wrap her answer in barbed wire and toss it back to her:
That's not very specific, governor. It's the sort of response I might get from the governor of Iowa. Can you share any special insight about Russia and Putin that you've gleaned from your years in office?
The vice president can't be the voice of loyal opposition to the president. She is always his slave, so on the campaign trail Palin will have to recant her previously stated view that global warming is not caused by man and accept McCain's view that it is. Politicians should feel free to change their views, if only because the process by which they change their views informs how they will govern. (Tim Russert used to cruise these waters every Sunday.) Gibson should force her to expand on how her mind was changed by asking:
5) Do you still disagree with John McCain's position that global warming is caused by man? If you've changed your mind in the last couple of weeks, please tell me why you changed your mind and when that happened.
She'll try to filibuster about the need for a vigorous debate on the issue, but Gibson is enough of a pro to make her fold and admit that she has surrendered to McCain's position. This follow-up will expose her as a socialist greenie:
Do you favor McCain's advocacy of a carbon-emission cap-and-trade system to stem climate change? If you've changed your mind in the last couple of weeks, please tell me why you changed your mind and when that happened.
Here's another issue that will require genuflection on Palin's part and force her to show how and why she changes her mind. She supports drilling in ANWR. McCain does not. Gibson should ask:
6) On the campaign trail or as vice president, will you try to persuade Mr. McCain to adopt your position on drilling in ANWR? Or have you adopted his?
Some questions must be asked simply because they're on everybody's mind. Just because the candidate will have a well-rehearsed answer shouldn't disqualify it. So, let's hear Gibson ask:
7) Were you for the bridge to nowhere before you were against it?
She can't shrug off the question or joke her way out of this one. If she's smart—and I think she is—she'll call it the biggest mistake of her political career and one from which she's learned many valuable lessons. Gibson's follow-up should explore the libertarian socialist paradise that Alaska has become and ask her if she intends block it from the federal trough. Make her give a number for Alaska's fair take, Charlie.
Every candidate hates the press, but no smart candidate vents on the topic without thinking through the consequences. Palin scalded the press in her acceptance speech, saying she wasn't seeking the "good opinion" of Washington "reporters and commentators." The comment may presage a campaign against the press, or it could have been just a populist wisecrack. Gibson could open the topic with this softball:
8) For most in the nation, you're an unknown quantity. What questions should the press be asking you?
She'll probably throw down platitudes about the glories of the First Amendment and salute the newspaper reporters in Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau who have kept government accountable. Blah, blah, blah. If she doesn't become unhinged, Gibson should invite her to with this follow-up:
What questions are out of bounds?
Will she protest the coverage of Bristol Palin's pregnancy, the nature of Trig Palin's birth, the investigation of her role in the firing of her state trooper brother-in-law? Will she draw a circle around her nuclear family that she forbids the press to enter, or will she acknowledge that she has already made every member of her clan a McCain-Palin campaign appendage and that it's too late to complain? If she's smart—and I think she is—she'll laugh and say that the testing only made her family stronger and better prepared for the future. As cheerful as can be, she'll say, I wish that the news about Bristol's pregnancy could have been released on our family's time table, not that of the press that was asking whether Trig was my baby. But that's all passed. I'm as used to sharp-elbow politics as I am to sharp-elbow basketball, so I hold no grudge against anybody, not even the nasty anonymous bloggers.
If she goes this direction, you can be sure that the McCain campaign will urge the press to consider no question out of bounds for the Obama-Biden ticket.
As a foreign policy novice, Palin deserves an open-ended question like this about what she knew before McCain picked her and what she's learned since:
9) What have you learned about foreign policy from John McCain since joining the ticket?
She'll ably recite chapter and verse from the McCain manual. Gibson's goal here shouldn't be to force a fumble but to see how far she'll carry the ball when given a field that stretches a thousand yards before her. Will she have a beginning, a middle, and an end questioning her answer? Will it reveal her a foreign policy prodigy or a dope whose understanding is miles wide and nano-inches deep. Gibson should resist asking a follow-up and just smile and nod his lunkhead nod that says, Tell me more. Can she fill dead air? Can she resist it?
Finally, Palin is the sort of politician for whom the personal is the political. She's already reaped political rewards from the deployment of her son, a soldier, to Iraq, so Gibson has every right to personalize her views by asking:
10) Your son is being sent to Iraq. What is he fighting for?
Follow-ups:
John McCain says we're on the road to victory in Iraq. How do you define victory? What exactly have we won?
******
Bonus questions for Gibson: What rights do suspected terrorists have? And if Gibson is up to it, this one: On Sept. 2, you and your husband issued a statement about Bristol Palin's pregnancy stating that you were "proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents." Was it Bristol's independent decision to have her baby? Would you have blocked her from getting an abortion if that had been her decision?
Send additional Palin questions to slate.pressbox@gmail.com. (E-mail may be quoted by name in "The Fray," Slate's readers' forum; in a future article; or elsewhere unless the writer stipulates otherwise. Permanent disclosure: Slate is owned by the Washington Post Co.)
Track my errors: This hand-built RSS feed will ring every time Slate runs a "Press Box" correction. For e-mail notification of errors in this specific column, type the word Gibson in the subject head of an e-mail message, and send it to slate.pressbox@gmail.com.
Jack Shafer is Slate's editor at large.
Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2199668/
By Jack Shafer
Tuesday, Sept. 9, 2008, at 6:17 PM ET
ABC News anchor Charles Gibson's forthcoming interview with Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin—her first since being hoisted onto the ticket by John McCain—will give a national audience an unvarnished look at the candidate. Because Palin is telegenic and the interview will be shot against scenic Alaskan backdrops, the only thing to prevent the interview from turning into sweet Republican syrup will be tough questions from Gibson.
Gibson and his team got knocked by Washington Post columnist Tom Shales as "shoddy," "despicable," and "prosecutorial" after they hosted the April 16 debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Although I think the transcript tells a different story, Gibson will surely approach this interview on tip-toe lest he become the story again.
Gibson enters this Q&A at a disadvantage: Palin and her associates know volumes more about Gibson and his interviewing techniques and the questions that he's likely to ask than he knows about her and her positions. She'll have crammed like a Ph.D. candidate preparing for an oral examination, and her expert coaches will have prepared her on how to slip out of questions for which she doesn't have answers.
Gibson will wisely avoid the "gotcha" questions designed to prove that she's an ignoramus because she can't name all the capitals of the now-independent Soviet republics. Likewise, he'll skip the complicated hypotheticals ("If the president of North Korea has a stroke and nobody seems to be in charge and the country appears to have restarted its nuclear program, as president, what do you do?").
Because this is Palin's first interview, her coming-out if you will, Gibson has an obligation to ask questions about the issues thrust into the news by her words and actions. After covering that area, he needs to ask the sort of open-ended questions that will dislodge her from the script the McCainites have prepared. We need to hear her genuine views—which are largely unknown—on a range of issues.
Because the first instincts of a politician are to evade a tough question by dismissing it, filibustering, or answering a question that wasn't asked, Gibson's toughest job will be formulating the follow-up question to block her retreat.
Because the McCain campaign is running against Washington, they're got to run against George W. Bush and the Republican majority that not so long ago held Congress. Gibson needs a question that defines this separation. So he should start by asking:
1) What Bush administration policy do you disagree with most, and what would you have done differently?
She'll praise the president before damning his increased spending. To that answer Gibson should volley: Then how much smaller would the McCain budget be and where precisely should he cut?
If she tries to vague Gibson out, which she will, he need only restate his request for specifics. It will be like pouring sand into her gears. No Republican president has ever delivered on the promise to shrink the federal government, and no Republican president ever will.
Next question:
2) How are you like Hillary Clinton?
Palin will flash that million-dollar, time-buying smile. It's a trick question, but it's an honest trick question because it forces her to acknowledge the obvious similarities. Both women are ambitious, underrated, glass-ceiling crackers and family-career jugglers, but Palin will do her best to distance herself from the comparison because it violates her sense of self. In Palin's mind, Clinton is a baby-killer, a socialist, a Washington insider, and a vain pig. She'll evade with gracious words about how she differs from Clinton, but Gibson can guide her toward self-reflection by noting the similarities (ambitious, underrated, cracker, juggler) and daring her to deny them.
Some questions work because they contain a preface that prevents the questioned from escaping. Here's the earmark-pork question Gibson should ask:
3) You're running as a reformer, a crusader against the special interests and politics as usual. Setting aside for a moment Sen. Ted Stevens' legal problems, should Alaska return to the Senate this Republican who has delivered more pork to his state than virtually any other elected official? Yes or no?
Like a good, loyal Republican, she'll resist condemning Stevens and will extol his virtues, perhaps by perhaps by talking about his struggle to make government smaller. After she runs the line out 100 feet or so, Gibson should give it this yank:
But in the past you had no problem with asking Alaskans to vote out a standing Republican. You challenged the incumbent Republican governor, Frank Murkowski, on a pork-slaying, reformist platform and beat him in the primary. Isn't Stevens as antithetical to your views on good government as Murkowski?
The McCain campaign believes that Alaska's geographical proximity to Russia has given Palin standing as a foreign policy maven, or something akin. For the purposes of his interview, Gibson could accept this as a given in his preface and ask:
4) Unique among all U.S. governors, you lead a state that shares a border with Russia, a sometimes hostile nation with a nuclear arsenal and new geopolitical ambitions. Given that, how do you evaluate Vladimir Putin?
This untethered question evaporates upon being asked: Palin will respond with generalities from the "trust but verify" stockpile. Gibson's duty will be to wrap her answer in barbed wire and toss it back to her:
That's not very specific, governor. It's the sort of response I might get from the governor of Iowa. Can you share any special insight about Russia and Putin that you've gleaned from your years in office?
The vice president can't be the voice of loyal opposition to the president. She is always his slave, so on the campaign trail Palin will have to recant her previously stated view that global warming is not caused by man and accept McCain's view that it is. Politicians should feel free to change their views, if only because the process by which they change their views informs how they will govern. (Tim Russert used to cruise these waters every Sunday.) Gibson should force her to expand on how her mind was changed by asking:
5) Do you still disagree with John McCain's position that global warming is caused by man? If you've changed your mind in the last couple of weeks, please tell me why you changed your mind and when that happened.
She'll try to filibuster about the need for a vigorous debate on the issue, but Gibson is enough of a pro to make her fold and admit that she has surrendered to McCain's position. This follow-up will expose her as a socialist greenie:
Do you favor McCain's advocacy of a carbon-emission cap-and-trade system to stem climate change? If you've changed your mind in the last couple of weeks, please tell me why you changed your mind and when that happened.
Here's another issue that will require genuflection on Palin's part and force her to show how and why she changes her mind. She supports drilling in ANWR. McCain does not. Gibson should ask:
6) On the campaign trail or as vice president, will you try to persuade Mr. McCain to adopt your position on drilling in ANWR? Or have you adopted his?
Some questions must be asked simply because they're on everybody's mind. Just because the candidate will have a well-rehearsed answer shouldn't disqualify it. So, let's hear Gibson ask:
7) Were you for the bridge to nowhere before you were against it?
She can't shrug off the question or joke her way out of this one. If she's smart—and I think she is—she'll call it the biggest mistake of her political career and one from which she's learned many valuable lessons. Gibson's follow-up should explore the libertarian socialist paradise that Alaska has become and ask her if she intends block it from the federal trough. Make her give a number for Alaska's fair take, Charlie.
Every candidate hates the press, but no smart candidate vents on the topic without thinking through the consequences. Palin scalded the press in her acceptance speech, saying she wasn't seeking the "good opinion" of Washington "reporters and commentators." The comment may presage a campaign against the press, or it could have been just a populist wisecrack. Gibson could open the topic with this softball:
8) For most in the nation, you're an unknown quantity. What questions should the press be asking you?
She'll probably throw down platitudes about the glories of the First Amendment and salute the newspaper reporters in Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau who have kept government accountable. Blah, blah, blah. If she doesn't become unhinged, Gibson should invite her to with this follow-up:
What questions are out of bounds?
Will she protest the coverage of Bristol Palin's pregnancy, the nature of Trig Palin's birth, the investigation of her role in the firing of her state trooper brother-in-law? Will she draw a circle around her nuclear family that she forbids the press to enter, or will she acknowledge that she has already made every member of her clan a McCain-Palin campaign appendage and that it's too late to complain? If she's smart—and I think she is—she'll laugh and say that the testing only made her family stronger and better prepared for the future. As cheerful as can be, she'll say, I wish that the news about Bristol's pregnancy could have been released on our family's time table, not that of the press that was asking whether Trig was my baby. But that's all passed. I'm as used to sharp-elbow politics as I am to sharp-elbow basketball, so I hold no grudge against anybody, not even the nasty anonymous bloggers.
If she goes this direction, you can be sure that the McCain campaign will urge the press to consider no question out of bounds for the Obama-Biden ticket.
As a foreign policy novice, Palin deserves an open-ended question like this about what she knew before McCain picked her and what she's learned since:
9) What have you learned about foreign policy from John McCain since joining the ticket?
She'll ably recite chapter and verse from the McCain manual. Gibson's goal here shouldn't be to force a fumble but to see how far she'll carry the ball when given a field that stretches a thousand yards before her. Will she have a beginning, a middle, and an end questioning her answer? Will it reveal her a foreign policy prodigy or a dope whose understanding is miles wide and nano-inches deep. Gibson should resist asking a follow-up and just smile and nod his lunkhead nod that says, Tell me more. Can she fill dead air? Can she resist it?
Finally, Palin is the sort of politician for whom the personal is the political. She's already reaped political rewards from the deployment of her son, a soldier, to Iraq, so Gibson has every right to personalize her views by asking:
10) Your son is being sent to Iraq. What is he fighting for?
Follow-ups:
John McCain says we're on the road to victory in Iraq. How do you define victory? What exactly have we won?
******
Bonus questions for Gibson: What rights do suspected terrorists have? And if Gibson is up to it, this one: On Sept. 2, you and your husband issued a statement about Bristol Palin's pregnancy stating that you were "proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents." Was it Bristol's independent decision to have her baby? Would you have blocked her from getting an abortion if that had been her decision?
Send additional Palin questions to slate.pressbox@gmail.com. (E-mail may be quoted by name in "The Fray," Slate's readers' forum; in a future article; or elsewhere unless the writer stipulates otherwise. Permanent disclosure: Slate is owned by the Washington Post Co.)
Track my errors: This hand-built RSS feed will ring every time Slate runs a "Press Box" correction. For e-mail notification of errors in this specific column, type the word Gibson in the subject head of an e-mail message, and send it to slate.pressbox@gmail.com.
Jack Shafer is Slate's editor at large.
Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2199668/
Why rednecks may rule the world
By Joe Bageant
Author of Deerhunting With Jesus
09:39 GMT, Saturday, 6 September 2008 10:39 UK
BBC
During this US election cycle we are hearing a lot from the pundits and candidates about "heartland voters," and "white working class voters."
What they are talking about are rednecks. But in their political correctness, media types cannot bring themselves to utter the word "redneck." So I'll say it for them: redneck-redneck-redneck-redneck.
The fact is that we American rednecks embrace the term in a sort of proud defiance. To us, the term redneck indicates a culture we were born in and enjoy. So I find it very interesting that politically correct people have taken it upon themselves to protect us from what has come to be one of our own warm and light hearted terms for one another.
On the other hand, I can quite imagine their concern, given what's at stake in the upcoming election. We represent at least a third of all voters and no US president has ever been elected without our support.
Consequently, rednecks have never had so many friends or so much attention as in 2008. Contrary to the stereotype, we are not all tobacco chewing, guffawing Southerners, but are scattered from coast to coast. Over 50% of us live in the "cultural south", which is to say places with white Southern Scots-Irish values - redneck values.
They include western Pennsylvania, central Missouri and southern Illinois, upstate Michigan and Minnesota, eastern Connecticut, northern New Hampshire…
So when you look at what pundits call the red state heartland, you are looking at the Republic of Redneckia.
As to having our delicate beer-sodden feelings protected from the term redneck; well, I appreciate the effort, though I highly suspect that the best way to hide snobbishness is to pose as protector of any class of folks you cannot bear. Thus we are being protected by the very people who look down on us - educated urban progressives.
And let's face it, there's plenty to look down on. By any tasteful standard, we ain't a pretty people.
Uppity and slick? Not us...
We come in one size: extra large. We are sometimes insolent and often quick to fight. We love competitive spectacle such as NASCAR and paintball, and believe gun ownership is the eleventh commandment.
We fry things nobody ever considered friable - things like cupcakes, banana sandwiches and batter dipped artificial cheese…even pickles.
And most of all we are defiant and suspicious of authority, and people who are "uppity" (sophisticated) and "slick" (people who use words with more than three syllables). Two should be enough for anybody.
And that is one of the reasons that, mystifying as it is to the outside world, John McCain's choice of the moose-shooting Alaskan woman with the pregnant unmarried teen daughter appeals to many redneck and working class Americans.
We all understand that there is a political class which dominates in America, and that Sarah Palin for damned sure is not one of them. And the more she is attacked by liberal Democratic elements (translation: elite highly-educated big city people) the more America's working mooks will come to her defence. Her daughter had a baby out of wedlock? Big deal. What family has not? She is a Christian fundamentalist who believes God spat on his beefy paws and made the world in seven days? So do at least 150 million other Americans. She snowmobiles and fishes and she is a looker to boot. She's a redneck.
American ethos
The term redneck indicates a lifestyle and culture that can be found in every state in our union. The essentials of redneck culture were brought to America by what we call the Scots Irish, after first being shipped to the Ulster Plantation, where our, uh, remarkable cultural legacy can still be seen every 12 July in Ireland.
Ultimately, the Scots Irish have had more of an effect on the American ethos than any other immigrant group. Here are a few you will recognize:
· Belief that no law is above God's law, not even the US Constitution.
· Hyper patriotism. A fighting defence of native land, home and heart, even when it is not actually threatened: ie, Iraq, Panama, Grenada, Somalia, Cuba, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Haiti and dozens more with righteous operations titles such as Enduring Freedom, Restore Hope, and Just Cause.
· A love of guns and tremendous respect for the warrior ideal. Along with this comes a strong sense of fealty and loyalty. Fealty to wartime leaders, whether it be FDR or George Bush.
· Self effacement, humility. We are usually the butt of our own jokes, in an effort not to appear aloof among one another.
· Belief that most things outside our own community and nation are inferior and threatening, that the world is jealous of the American lifestyle.
· Personal pride in equality. No man, however rich or powerful, is better than me.
· Perseverance and belief in hard work. If a man or a family is poor, it is because they did not work hard enough. God rewards those who work hard enough. So does the American system.
· The only free country in the world is the United States, and the only reason we ever go to war is to protect that freedom.
All this has become so deeply instilled as to now be reflexive. It represents many of the worst traits in American culture and a few of the best.
And that has every thinking person here in the US, except perhaps John McCain and Sarah Palin, worried.
Very worried.
Author of Deerhunting With Jesus
09:39 GMT, Saturday, 6 September 2008 10:39 UK
BBC
During this US election cycle we are hearing a lot from the pundits and candidates about "heartland voters," and "white working class voters."
What they are talking about are rednecks. But in their political correctness, media types cannot bring themselves to utter the word "redneck." So I'll say it for them: redneck-redneck-redneck-redneck.
The fact is that we American rednecks embrace the term in a sort of proud defiance. To us, the term redneck indicates a culture we were born in and enjoy. So I find it very interesting that politically correct people have taken it upon themselves to protect us from what has come to be one of our own warm and light hearted terms for one another.
On the other hand, I can quite imagine their concern, given what's at stake in the upcoming election. We represent at least a third of all voters and no US president has ever been elected without our support.
Consequently, rednecks have never had so many friends or so much attention as in 2008. Contrary to the stereotype, we are not all tobacco chewing, guffawing Southerners, but are scattered from coast to coast. Over 50% of us live in the "cultural south", which is to say places with white Southern Scots-Irish values - redneck values.
They include western Pennsylvania, central Missouri and southern Illinois, upstate Michigan and Minnesota, eastern Connecticut, northern New Hampshire…
So when you look at what pundits call the red state heartland, you are looking at the Republic of Redneckia.
As to having our delicate beer-sodden feelings protected from the term redneck; well, I appreciate the effort, though I highly suspect that the best way to hide snobbishness is to pose as protector of any class of folks you cannot bear. Thus we are being protected by the very people who look down on us - educated urban progressives.
And let's face it, there's plenty to look down on. By any tasteful standard, we ain't a pretty people.
Uppity and slick? Not us...
We come in one size: extra large. We are sometimes insolent and often quick to fight. We love competitive spectacle such as NASCAR and paintball, and believe gun ownership is the eleventh commandment.
We fry things nobody ever considered friable - things like cupcakes, banana sandwiches and batter dipped artificial cheese…even pickles.
And most of all we are defiant and suspicious of authority, and people who are "uppity" (sophisticated) and "slick" (people who use words with more than three syllables). Two should be enough for anybody.
And that is one of the reasons that, mystifying as it is to the outside world, John McCain's choice of the moose-shooting Alaskan woman with the pregnant unmarried teen daughter appeals to many redneck and working class Americans.
We all understand that there is a political class which dominates in America, and that Sarah Palin for damned sure is not one of them. And the more she is attacked by liberal Democratic elements (translation: elite highly-educated big city people) the more America's working mooks will come to her defence. Her daughter had a baby out of wedlock? Big deal. What family has not? She is a Christian fundamentalist who believes God spat on his beefy paws and made the world in seven days? So do at least 150 million other Americans. She snowmobiles and fishes and she is a looker to boot. She's a redneck.
American ethos
The term redneck indicates a lifestyle and culture that can be found in every state in our union. The essentials of redneck culture were brought to America by what we call the Scots Irish, after first being shipped to the Ulster Plantation, where our, uh, remarkable cultural legacy can still be seen every 12 July in Ireland.
Ultimately, the Scots Irish have had more of an effect on the American ethos than any other immigrant group. Here are a few you will recognize:
· Belief that no law is above God's law, not even the US Constitution.
· Hyper patriotism. A fighting defence of native land, home and heart, even when it is not actually threatened: ie, Iraq, Panama, Grenada, Somalia, Cuba, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Haiti and dozens more with righteous operations titles such as Enduring Freedom, Restore Hope, and Just Cause.
· A love of guns and tremendous respect for the warrior ideal. Along with this comes a strong sense of fealty and loyalty. Fealty to wartime leaders, whether it be FDR or George Bush.
· Self effacement, humility. We are usually the butt of our own jokes, in an effort not to appear aloof among one another.
· Belief that most things outside our own community and nation are inferior and threatening, that the world is jealous of the American lifestyle.
· Personal pride in equality. No man, however rich or powerful, is better than me.
· Perseverance and belief in hard work. If a man or a family is poor, it is because they did not work hard enough. God rewards those who work hard enough. So does the American system.
· The only free country in the world is the United States, and the only reason we ever go to war is to protect that freedom.
All this has become so deeply instilled as to now be reflexive. It represents many of the worst traits in American culture and a few of the best.
And that has every thinking person here in the US, except perhaps John McCain and Sarah Palin, worried.
Very worried.
Why We Are Going To Win
(Submitted via email from my Friend "Oz")
Dan,
Despite the national polls having the race “tied”, I have a lot of confidence that we are going to win. Here's why:
*Palin is a risk. I believe the choice indicates McCain and his camp know they are behind and they are hoping the enthusiasm created by her will cary them to victory in 2 months. But that will not happen. The media is chipping away at that veneer very quickly and people are already starting to see who she is. Have you seen the video yet where she claims God wants us to drill in Alaska? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhs-Faxi55o
*McCain has adopted the message of CHANGE. That is crazy talk for the incumbent party. Some still believe McCain is a maverick but those people would have voted for him anyway.*Both the maverick message and the choice of Palin will fire up his base, but it won't move anyone from the middle and it may even alienate some who wanted to vote for McCain.
*Almost all of the speakers at the Republican Convention ripped the Dems but didn't offer any substance. Again, this fired up the people who already agree with them but anyone watching the convention looking for a reason to vote for McCain found nothing. Where does he go from here? His Change message and the excitement of Palin will fade. All he has left are his war record and the surge. And the racist vote. McCain’s strongest message - experience - went out the window with Palin.
*McCain and the Bush administration are piggybacking on the Dems ideas:
1) Climate change and alternative energy are 2 things the republicans used to rail against. Now, they are all for them.
2) The republicans have given Barack hell for wanting to sit down with our perceived enemies. Now, the republicans have sat down with both Iran and North Korea.
3) Barack has been criticized for wanting to reduce troop levels. Now, Bush has said that 8,000 troops will be brought home by the end of the year.
4) Republican Change! Change! Change! = Bullsh*t! Bullsh*t! Bullsh*t! They have left themselves completely vulnerable to exposure. Barack and Biden should go for the jugular - so should we.
5) We need to unify Washington! Right. That is what Bush said too but it is more divided than 8 years ago. And the main theme to all of the major speeches at the republican convention was simply "the democrats suck!" That is divisive.
6) The republicans railed against Barack for not being qualified and for being too much of a celebrity with no substance. Palin is worse on both counts.
*Barack is starting to talk tougher. He said in an interview two days ago that there will be a sense of urgency for the last two months and that by the time November 4 is here, "the contrasts will be clear". And yesterday, he was absolutely correct when he said "You can dress a pig up in lipstick, but at the end of the day it's still a pig." He is starting to call their faux solutions to the floor - and we should too.
*Barack, in that same interview two days ago, talked about simplifying his message. About freaking time!
*Polls don't take a fair samples of the voters. The voters who registered recently - the young ones who are going to vote predominantly for Obama - are not on pollsters call lists. Also, the youngsters who only use a cell phone are not on those lists.
*And lastly and idea: I think what Barack should do is to video tape a number of short (2-3 minute) videos on a variety of hot topics - Economy, foreign policy, education, alternative energy, etc. - that are clear, specific and concise. The vids would spread like fire and, since they are so short, fit well with our busy, short attention span lives.
I am not comfortable but I am confident.
I feel if we win the debates, we will win in a landslide.
Oz
Dan,
Despite the national polls having the race “tied”, I have a lot of confidence that we are going to win. Here's why:
*Palin is a risk. I believe the choice indicates McCain and his camp know they are behind and they are hoping the enthusiasm created by her will cary them to victory in 2 months. But that will not happen. The media is chipping away at that veneer very quickly and people are already starting to see who she is. Have you seen the video yet where she claims God wants us to drill in Alaska? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhs-Faxi55o
*McCain has adopted the message of CHANGE. That is crazy talk for the incumbent party. Some still believe McCain is a maverick but those people would have voted for him anyway.*Both the maverick message and the choice of Palin will fire up his base, but it won't move anyone from the middle and it may even alienate some who wanted to vote for McCain.
*Almost all of the speakers at the Republican Convention ripped the Dems but didn't offer any substance. Again, this fired up the people who already agree with them but anyone watching the convention looking for a reason to vote for McCain found nothing. Where does he go from here? His Change message and the excitement of Palin will fade. All he has left are his war record and the surge. And the racist vote. McCain’s strongest message - experience - went out the window with Palin.
*McCain and the Bush administration are piggybacking on the Dems ideas:
1) Climate change and alternative energy are 2 things the republicans used to rail against. Now, they are all for them.
2) The republicans have given Barack hell for wanting to sit down with our perceived enemies. Now, the republicans have sat down with both Iran and North Korea.
3) Barack has been criticized for wanting to reduce troop levels. Now, Bush has said that 8,000 troops will be brought home by the end of the year.
4) Republican Change! Change! Change! = Bullsh*t! Bullsh*t! Bullsh*t! They have left themselves completely vulnerable to exposure. Barack and Biden should go for the jugular - so should we.
5) We need to unify Washington! Right. That is what Bush said too but it is more divided than 8 years ago. And the main theme to all of the major speeches at the republican convention was simply "the democrats suck!" That is divisive.
6) The republicans railed against Barack for not being qualified and for being too much of a celebrity with no substance. Palin is worse on both counts.
*Barack is starting to talk tougher. He said in an interview two days ago that there will be a sense of urgency for the last two months and that by the time November 4 is here, "the contrasts will be clear". And yesterday, he was absolutely correct when he said "You can dress a pig up in lipstick, but at the end of the day it's still a pig." He is starting to call their faux solutions to the floor - and we should too.
*Barack, in that same interview two days ago, talked about simplifying his message. About freaking time!
*Polls don't take a fair samples of the voters. The voters who registered recently - the young ones who are going to vote predominantly for Obama - are not on pollsters call lists. Also, the youngsters who only use a cell phone are not on those lists.
*And lastly and idea: I think what Barack should do is to video tape a number of short (2-3 minute) videos on a variety of hot topics - Economy, foreign policy, education, alternative energy, etc. - that are clear, specific and concise. The vids would spread like fire and, since they are so short, fit well with our busy, short attention span lives.
I am not comfortable but I am confident.
I feel if we win the debates, we will win in a landslide.
Oz
Education and Children
My Aunt Neva writes me:
"
Dan, it would be great if you would get this message out!
Neva
http://www.4children.org/news/908prese.htm
"
The link provided here is a comprehensive look at how the candidates view issues most important to children: eduation, health, poverty, government spending, etc. It provides an important perspective.
But I'm sure some follks out there would rather just talk about lipstick. Unbelievable.
Article:
COLUMBUS, Ohio, Sept 09, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ --
Barack Obama chose Ohio as the place to lay out a comprehensive vision for public education in a speech at Stebbins High School in the Dayton area. Despite some mistaken analysis of the speech by the media, Obama's positions on a wide variety of issues are quite close to core beliefs of the National Education Association (NEA), the Ohio Education Association (OEA) and our members. OEA members applauded his approach - to rise above partisanship toward a vision for a public education system that works.
"Senator Barack Obama understands that reform takes time and dedication and that true reform requires more than quick fixes," said OEA President Patricia Frost-Brooks. "His compelling vision and comprehensive strategies, both immediate and long-term, will pay dividends for our children, our communities and our state." In his speech Barack Obama committed to:
-- fixing and funding NCLB - after eight years of unfunded mandates
-- enhanced programs for recruiting, preparing and retaining teachers
-- overcoming the overemphasis on high-stakes tests
-- promoting 21st century skills, innovation and creativity
-- expanding early childhood programs so children come to school prepared to learn
-- calling for parental responsibility and involvement in the education of their children - both at school and in the home
-- pushing college-level coursework in high schools, such as advanced placement courses
-- holding the federal government accountable for its commitments on education
-- finding "new ways to increase teacher pay that are developed with teachers, not imposed on them," affirming collective bargaining rights.
On charter schools, Obama said Ohio should not have to endure private for-profit charter school operators who continue to sponsor under-performing public schools. He promised to:
-- work with governors in all states to insist on more accountability and transparency in the operation and academic performance evaluations of charter schools.
-- help successful charter schools grow, but close down the ones that are failing.
Speech:
Barack Obama
Dayton, Ohio 9/9/08
I believe the day of reckoning is here. (Cheers, applause.) Our -- our children and our country can't afford four more years of neglect and indifference. (Cheers, applause.) At this -- at this defining moment in our history, America faces few more urgent challenges than preparing our children to compete in a global economy. The decisions our leaders make about education in the coming years will shape our future for generations to come. They will help determine not only whether our children have the chance to fulfill their God-given potential or whether our workers have the chance to build a better life for their families, but whether we as a nation will remain in the 21st century the kind of global economic leader that we were in the 20th century.
And the rising importance of education reflects the new demands of our new world. In recent decades, revolutions in communications and information technology have broken down barriers that once kept countries and markets apart, creating a single, global economy that's more integrated and interconnected than ever before. In this economy, companies can plant their jobs wherever there's an Internet connection and someone willing to do the work, meaning that children here in Dayton are growing up competing with children not only in Detroit or Chicago or Los Angeles, but in Beijing and Delhi as well.
What matters, then, isn't what you do or where you live, but what you know. When two-thirds -- (applause) -- of all new jobs require a higher education or advanced training, knowledge is the most valuable skill you can sell. (Applause.) It's not only a pathway to opportunity, but it's a prerequisite for opportunity. Without a good preschool education, our children are less likely to keep up with their peers. Without a high school diploma -- (applause) -- without a high school diploma, you're likely to make about three times less than a college graduate. And without a college degree or industry certification, it's harder and harder to find a job that can help you support your family and keep up with rising costs.
It's not just that a world-class education is essential for workers to compete and win, it's that an educated workforce is essential for America to compete and win. (Applause.) Without a workforce trained in math, science and technology, and the other skills of the 21st century, our companies will innovate less, our economy will grow less, and our nation will be less competitive. If we want to outcompete the world tomorrow, we must out-educate the world today. (Cheers, applause.)
Let me -- let me be more specific. If we want to keep building the cars of the future here in America, then we can't afford to see the number of Ph.D.s in engineering climbing in China, South Korea and Japan even as it's dropped here in the United States. We can't afford a future where our high school students rank near the bottom in -- in math and science among industrialized countries, and our high school drop-out rate is one of the highest in the industrialized world.
"
Dan, it would be great if you would get this message out!
Neva
http://www.4children.org/news/908prese.htm
"
The link provided here is a comprehensive look at how the candidates view issues most important to children: eduation, health, poverty, government spending, etc. It provides an important perspective.
But I'm sure some follks out there would rather just talk about lipstick. Unbelievable.
Article:
COLUMBUS, Ohio, Sept 09, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ --
Barack Obama chose Ohio as the place to lay out a comprehensive vision for public education in a speech at Stebbins High School in the Dayton area. Despite some mistaken analysis of the speech by the media, Obama's positions on a wide variety of issues are quite close to core beliefs of the National Education Association (NEA), the Ohio Education Association (OEA) and our members. OEA members applauded his approach - to rise above partisanship toward a vision for a public education system that works.
"Senator Barack Obama understands that reform takes time and dedication and that true reform requires more than quick fixes," said OEA President Patricia Frost-Brooks. "His compelling vision and comprehensive strategies, both immediate and long-term, will pay dividends for our children, our communities and our state." In his speech Barack Obama committed to:
-- fixing and funding NCLB - after eight years of unfunded mandates
-- enhanced programs for recruiting, preparing and retaining teachers
-- overcoming the overemphasis on high-stakes tests
-- promoting 21st century skills, innovation and creativity
-- expanding early childhood programs so children come to school prepared to learn
-- calling for parental responsibility and involvement in the education of their children - both at school and in the home
-- pushing college-level coursework in high schools, such as advanced placement courses
-- holding the federal government accountable for its commitments on education
-- finding "new ways to increase teacher pay that are developed with teachers, not imposed on them," affirming collective bargaining rights.
On charter schools, Obama said Ohio should not have to endure private for-profit charter school operators who continue to sponsor under-performing public schools. He promised to:
-- work with governors in all states to insist on more accountability and transparency in the operation and academic performance evaluations of charter schools.
-- help successful charter schools grow, but close down the ones that are failing.
Speech:
Barack Obama
Dayton, Ohio 9/9/08
I believe the day of reckoning is here. (Cheers, applause.) Our -- our children and our country can't afford four more years of neglect and indifference. (Cheers, applause.) At this -- at this defining moment in our history, America faces few more urgent challenges than preparing our children to compete in a global economy. The decisions our leaders make about education in the coming years will shape our future for generations to come. They will help determine not only whether our children have the chance to fulfill their God-given potential or whether our workers have the chance to build a better life for their families, but whether we as a nation will remain in the 21st century the kind of global economic leader that we were in the 20th century.
And the rising importance of education reflects the new demands of our new world. In recent decades, revolutions in communications and information technology have broken down barriers that once kept countries and markets apart, creating a single, global economy that's more integrated and interconnected than ever before. In this economy, companies can plant their jobs wherever there's an Internet connection and someone willing to do the work, meaning that children here in Dayton are growing up competing with children not only in Detroit or Chicago or Los Angeles, but in Beijing and Delhi as well.
What matters, then, isn't what you do or where you live, but what you know. When two-thirds -- (applause) -- of all new jobs require a higher education or advanced training, knowledge is the most valuable skill you can sell. (Applause.) It's not only a pathway to opportunity, but it's a prerequisite for opportunity. Without a good preschool education, our children are less likely to keep up with their peers. Without a high school diploma -- (applause) -- without a high school diploma, you're likely to make about three times less than a college graduate. And without a college degree or industry certification, it's harder and harder to find a job that can help you support your family and keep up with rising costs.
It's not just that a world-class education is essential for workers to compete and win, it's that an educated workforce is essential for America to compete and win. (Applause.) Without a workforce trained in math, science and technology, and the other skills of the 21st century, our companies will innovate less, our economy will grow less, and our nation will be less competitive. If we want to outcompete the world tomorrow, we must out-educate the world today. (Cheers, applause.)
Let me -- let me be more specific. If we want to keep building the cars of the future here in America, then we can't afford to see the number of Ph.D.s in engineering climbing in China, South Korea and Japan even as it's dropped here in the United States. We can't afford a future where our high school students rank near the bottom in -- in math and science among industrialized countries, and our high school drop-out rate is one of the highest in the industrialized world.
Can Rock and Roll Save the World? Let's see...
As much as I hate to knock off my “Break Something For Abraham Lincoln” contest out of the top spot(http://delegatedan.blogspot.com/2008/09/contest-pick-something-for-delegate-dan.html) I have to do it. FYI: that contest is still going on… no winners yet… but I know I have some diligent viewers out there so stay tuned..
Upon watching the Dave Matthews Band close out their summer tour last night at the Greek Theatre, I got to thinking about all the awesome songs I have heard this summer - and over the last seven and a half years - that represent rally points for change.
Here is my idea:
From now until November 4th, I will remain hell-bent on doing everything I can from my blog universe to rally Obama votes in swing states. I have posters. I have bumper stickers.If you have a friend in this state who wants an Obama tshirt, I will buy for them and mail it to them. If they want an Obama coffee cups, it's theirs. I am offering to buy and send them anything Obama they want. We have to win these states.
Here is what I am offering:
1. To send anyone in any battleground state any Obama thing they want.
2. To send you, as a thank you for each person you "Obama-ize" in a battleground state, a CD of “Songs for Change”
Here are the songs that I have heard on the campaign trail for change:
"Better Way" Ben Harper
"Born in the USA" Bruce Springstein
"City of Blinding Light" U2
"Signed, Sealed, Delivered, I’m Yours" Stevie Wonder (played live at Investco field in Denver)
"Isn't She Lovely" Stevie Wonder (after Michelle Obama’s speech in Denver)
"Times they are a Changin''" Bob Dylan (covered by Melissa Etheridge in Denver)
"Sweet Caroline" Neil Diamond (after Caroline Kennedy’s speech in Denver… any excuse to hear this song is good one)
"The Rising" Bruce Springsteen (after Joe Biden’s speech in Denver)
“Yes We Can” Will I. Am and John Legend (played live at Investco Field in Denver)
Not my favorites, but I’ll include them because they are being used on the campaign trail:
"Change" Sheryl Crow (Played live at Investco Field in Denver)
"Still the One" Orleans (after Teddy Kennedy's speech in Denver. Lead singer from Orleans is actually a Democratic Congressmen now)
"Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow" (Bill Clinton’s theme song. Played yet again after his speech in Denver)
"Only in America" Brooks and Dunne (after Obama’s speech at Investco Field. A weird choice if you ask me… perhaps trying to reach out to some Red States)
And some personal favorite protests that I’ll throw in for the heck of it:
"Masters of War" written by Bob Dylan, covered by Pearl Jam
“World Wide Suicide” Pearl Jam (folks don’t know this is about Pat Tillman)
“Love Peace and Happiness” G Love
“Goodbye Daughters of the Revolution” The Black Crowes
"Government Did Nothing'" John Butler Trio
“American Baby” Dave Matthews Band
“Die Trying” Dave Matthews Band
“When The President Talks to God” Bright Eyes
“American Idiot” Green Day
“Not Ready to Make Nice” Dixie Chicks (Hell yes, I like the Dixie Chicks!)
*Any of you got some recommendations that you would like to share?*
And for your reference: Wikipedia has a really cool link about the history of protest songs:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protest_song
~ T H E B A T T L E G R O U N D S ~
There are NINETEEN states that are very much up for grabs. Do not pay attention to "national percentages" - the election is going to be won or lost in each of these individual states:
(reference: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/ )
The "toss up" / "grey" / "battleground" states:
New Hampshire
Virginia
North Carolina (Come on cousins!!!)
Florida
Michigan
Indiana
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Colorado
New Mexico
Nevada
There are also some that are "shaded" favoring one candidate, but are still much "too close to call":
Light Blue (Obama):
Oregon
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Iowa
Pink (McCain):
Georgia
Montana
North Dakota
Missouri
I recognize the bizarre nature of what I am proposing. I taught High School Civics for ten years and I will be the first to tell you that the dated logic of the Electoral College has lead to democratic crisis that our government has failed to deal with accurately since November of 2000. It is a system that needs to die. I didn't write the rules. I don't agree with them. This idea represents my best effort, given the circumstances, to restore political sanity within an insane system.
Now who wants a free CD?
contact: dans321@hotmail.com
Upon watching the Dave Matthews Band close out their summer tour last night at the Greek Theatre, I got to thinking about all the awesome songs I have heard this summer - and over the last seven and a half years - that represent rally points for change.
Here is my idea:
From now until November 4th, I will remain hell-bent on doing everything I can from my blog universe to rally Obama votes in swing states. I have posters. I have bumper stickers.If you have a friend in this state who wants an Obama tshirt, I will buy for them and mail it to them. If they want an Obama coffee cups, it's theirs. I am offering to buy and send them anything Obama they want. We have to win these states.
Here is what I am offering:
1. To send anyone in any battleground state any Obama thing they want.
2. To send you, as a thank you for each person you "Obama-ize" in a battleground state, a CD of “Songs for Change”
Here are the songs that I have heard on the campaign trail for change:
"Better Way" Ben Harper
"Born in the USA" Bruce Springstein
"City of Blinding Light" U2
"Signed, Sealed, Delivered, I’m Yours" Stevie Wonder (played live at Investco field in Denver)
"Isn't She Lovely" Stevie Wonder (after Michelle Obama’s speech in Denver)
"Times they are a Changin''" Bob Dylan (covered by Melissa Etheridge in Denver)
"Sweet Caroline" Neil Diamond (after Caroline Kennedy’s speech in Denver… any excuse to hear this song is good one)
"The Rising" Bruce Springsteen (after Joe Biden’s speech in Denver)
“Yes We Can” Will I. Am and John Legend (played live at Investco Field in Denver)
Not my favorites, but I’ll include them because they are being used on the campaign trail:
"Change" Sheryl Crow (Played live at Investco Field in Denver)
"Still the One" Orleans (after Teddy Kennedy's speech in Denver. Lead singer from Orleans is actually a Democratic Congressmen now)
"Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow" (Bill Clinton’s theme song. Played yet again after his speech in Denver)
"Only in America" Brooks and Dunne (after Obama’s speech at Investco Field. A weird choice if you ask me… perhaps trying to reach out to some Red States)
And some personal favorite protests that I’ll throw in for the heck of it:
"Masters of War" written by Bob Dylan, covered by Pearl Jam
“World Wide Suicide” Pearl Jam (folks don’t know this is about Pat Tillman)
“Love Peace and Happiness” G Love
“Goodbye Daughters of the Revolution” The Black Crowes
"Government Did Nothing'" John Butler Trio
“American Baby” Dave Matthews Band
“Die Trying” Dave Matthews Band
“When The President Talks to God” Bright Eyes
“American Idiot” Green Day
“Not Ready to Make Nice” Dixie Chicks (Hell yes, I like the Dixie Chicks!)
*Any of you got some recommendations that you would like to share?*
And for your reference: Wikipedia has a really cool link about the history of protest songs:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protest_song
~ T H E B A T T L E G R O U N D S ~
There are NINETEEN states that are very much up for grabs. Do not pay attention to "national percentages" - the election is going to be won or lost in each of these individual states:
(reference: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/ )
The "toss up" / "grey" / "battleground" states:
New Hampshire
Virginia
North Carolina (Come on cousins!!!)
Florida
Michigan
Indiana
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Colorado
New Mexico
Nevada
There are also some that are "shaded" favoring one candidate, but are still much "too close to call":
Light Blue (Obama):
Oregon
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Iowa
Pink (McCain):
Georgia
Montana
North Dakota
Missouri
I recognize the bizarre nature of what I am proposing. I taught High School Civics for ten years and I will be the first to tell you that the dated logic of the Electoral College has lead to democratic crisis that our government has failed to deal with accurately since November of 2000. It is a system that needs to die. I didn't write the rules. I don't agree with them. This idea represents my best effort, given the circumstances, to restore political sanity within an insane system.
Now who wants a free CD?
contact: dans321@hotmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)