A couple very interesting posts from RealClearPolitics's Jay Cost:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2008/08/palin_a_calculated_risk.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2008/09/what_the_heck_is_mccain_up_to.html
I'm quite pleased McCain pulled his running mate right off Wisteria Lane... purely for the entertainment value.
She has a Down's Syndrome son! Or is it grandson?!?! Her daughter's pregnant!!! She had her brother-in-law fired! She overfished! Her husbands an Eskimo! She's bringing over moose stew for the Poker game!
This election would have been infinitely more boring had he chosen Romney or Pawlenty. I await the explosion, the long-lost sibling and dead body to surface.
Science has no place in politics
Benjamin Radford, Livescience's Bad Science columnist.
Recently, the two men who want to be next president of the United States appeared in a televised two-hour forum on faith, hosted by megachurch minister Rick Warren....it's not hard to see why the pair participated: The so-called Faith Forum had important political implications, as both candidates court conservative Christian voters.
Yet the bigger story is another, lesser-known debate — one that transcends faith or politics. The debate, slated for April 18 in Philadelphia, was arranged by ScienceDebate 2008, a bipartisan group of Nobel laureates and other scholars who want to bring science to the fore of public discussion. The idea of a science debate is supported by virtually every scientific organization in the country, including the National Academy of Sciences.
The reason you probably haven't heard about the Science Debate is that it didn't happen. None of the candidates accepted. They found time for other public forums, including the Faith Forum, and a "Compassion Forum," but when it came to science — the very engine that drives America's technology — the candidates were conspicuously silent.
... It’s not clear why the candidates didn’t participate. Perhaps they felt that they weren't well-versed enough in science to really discuss it, lest the forum turn into an embarrassing, gaffe-riddled version of "Jeopardy!" Perhaps they think science isn’t sexy, and assumed that they should focus on more fundamental issues like the Iraq war, energy shortages, and the economy.
What they don't seem to understand is that science underlies all those issues, and many more. America needs a science-literate president now more than ever... The point is not to ask the candidates to explain Faraday's law of induction, or know the difference between mitosis and meiosis, but a basic understanding of what science is, and how it works, is essential to creating good laws and public policy.
It's not too late; Obama and McCain can still have a Science Debate before the election if they realize how important science is. After all, our energy and environmental problems can’t be solved with hot air.
http://www.livescience.com/culture/080826-bad-science-debate.html
Originally posted by Robtard
Don't worry, on CNN about an hour ago, Campell Brown asked McCain's spoke person (Tucker something) a flat out question of 'give me one example of what Palin has done that qualifies as an executive decision which would translate to her being able to take charge should McCain not be able to'. Dude skirted the question every which way possible and then implied that Palin being a woman was the issue people had.
Originally posted by Morgoths_Wrath
Bush Policies Are Weakening National Guard, Governors Say
By ROBERT PEARPublished: February 27, 2006
WASHINGTON, Feb. 26 — Governors of both parties said Sunday that Bush administration policies were stripping the National Guard of equipment and personnel needed to respond to hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, forest fires and other emergencies.Skip to next paragraph
Charles Dharapak/Associated Press
"We should be increasing the number of National Guard combat brigades, not reducing it," Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco said.
Tens of thousands of National Guard members have been sent to Iraq, along with much of the equipment needed to deal with natural disasters and terrorist threats in the United States, the governors said here at the winter meeting of the National Governors Association.The National Guard, which traces its roots to the colonial militia, has a dual federal-state role. Governors normally command the Guard in their states, but Guard members deployed overseas in support of a federal mission are under the control of the president.
The governors said they would present their concerns to President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Monday. In a preview of their message, all 50 governors signed a letter to the president opposing any cuts in the size of the National Guard.
"Unfortunately," the letter said, "when our National Guard men and women return from being deployed in foreign theaters, much of their equipment remains behind." The governors said the White House must immediately re-equip Guard units "to carry out their homeland security and domestic disaster duties."
Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, a Republican and chairman of the governors association, said: "The National Guard plays an incredibly valuable role in the states. What we are concerned about, as governors, is that when our troops are deployed for long periods of time, and their equipment goes with them but does not come back, the troops are very strained, and they no longer have the equipment they were trained to use."
Nearly one-third of the American ground forces in Iraq are members of the Army National Guard.
This month the Pentagon backed away from a budget proposal to reduce the authorized strength of the National Guard to 330,000 soldiers, from 350,000.
"We have no intention of cutting the number of Guard or Reserve brigades, reducing the number of Guard or Reserve soldiers, or cutting the level of Guard or Reserve funding," said the Army chief of staff, Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker.
Gov. Dirk Kempthorne of Idaho, a Republican, said Sunday that he was still "very concerned." The administration may have set aside the proposal on authorized strength, but it has not restored money to the budget to pay for 350,000 Guard members, he said.
In a recent report, the Government Accountability Office, an investigative arm of Congress, said that "extensive use of the Guard's equipment overseas has significantly reduced the amount of equipment available to governors for domestic needs."
Since 2003, the report said, the Army National Guard has left more than 64,000 pieces of equipment, valued at more than $1.2 billion, in Iraq. The Army has not kept track of most of this equipment and has no firm plans to replace it, the report said.
Governor Kempthorne said the National Guard was bearing "a totally disproportionate share" of proposed cuts in the growth of the Army's budget over the next five years, even as the Guard's responsibilities at home were increasing.
Governors of both parties said a Pentagon plan to reorganize the Army National Guard would significantly weaken its ability to save lives and property at home.
After Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, more than 40,000 Guard members helped evacuate storm victims, distributed food and water, provided emergency medical care, repaired homes and restored power.
Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco of Louisiana, a Democrat, said: "The Guard played an awesome role. We should be increasing the number of National Guard combat brigades, not reducing it."
Two other Democrats, Govs. Tom Vilsack of Iowa and Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, said the strength and resources of Guard units in their states were being depleted.
"We are not only missing National Guard personnel," Ms. Sebelius said. "We are also missing a lot of the equipment that's used to deal with situations at home, day in and day out."
Despite assurances from top administration officials, Mr. Vilsack said, "many of us are very concerned about what we're hearing, that the Pentagon, the administration, might reduce the resources for the National Guard so they can redirect resources to pay for more boots on the ground, more full-time military."
David M. Walker, the comptroller general of the United States, who heads the Government Accountability Office, said the governors had some basis for their concerns.
"The Army cannot account for over half the equipment that Army National Guard units have left overseas," Mr. Walker said. "And it has not developed replacement plans for the equipment, as Defense Department policy requires."
Originally posted by Morgoths_Wrath
Governors lose in power struggle over National Guard
By Kavan Peterson, Staff WriterA little-noticed change in federal law packs an important change in who is in charge the next time a state is devastated by a disaster such as Hurricane Katrina.
To the dismay of the nation’s governors, the White House now will be empowered to go over a governor’s head and call up National Guard troops to aid a state in time of natural disasters or other public emergencies. Up to now, governors were the sole commanders in chief of citizen soldiers in local Guard units during emergencies within the state.
A conflict over who should control Guard units arose in the days after Hurricane Katrina in 2005. President Bush sought to federalize control of Guardsmen in Louisiana in the chaos after the hurricane, but Gov. Kathleen Blanco (D) refused to relinquish command.
Over objections from all 50 governors, Congress in October tweaked the 200-year-old Insurrection Act to empower the hand of the president in future stateside emergencies. In a letter to Congress, the governors called the change "a dramatic expansion of federal authority during natural disasters that could cause confusion in the command-and-control of the National Guard and interfere with states' ability to respond to natural disasters within their borders."
The change adds to tensions between governors and the White House after more than four years of heavy federal deployment of state-based Guard forces to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since the 2001 terrorist attacks, four out of five guardsmen have been sent overseas in the largest deployment of the National Guard since World War II. Shortage of the Guard’s military equipment – such as helicopters to drop hay to snow-stranded cattle in Colorado – also is a nagging issue as much of units’ heavy equipment is left overseas and unavailable in case of a natural disaster at home.
A bipartisan majority of both chambers of Congress adopted the change as part of the 439-page, $538 billion 2007 Defense Authorization Bill signed into law last October.
The nation's governors through the National Governors Association (NGA) successfully lobbied to defeat a broader proposal to give the president power to federalize Guard troops without invoking the Insurrection Act. But the passage that became law also "disappointed" governors because it expands federal power and could cause confusion between state and federal authorities trying to respond to an emergency situation, said David Quam, an NGA homeland security advisor.
"Governors need to be focused on assisting their citizens during an emergency instead of looking over their shoulders to see if the federal government is going to step in," Quam said.
Under the U.S. Constitution, each state's National Guard unit is controlled by the governor in time of peace but can be called up for federal duty by the president. The National Guard employs 444,000 part-time soldiers between its two branches: the Army and Air National Guards.
The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 forbids U.S. troops from being deployed on American soil for law enforcement. The one exception is provided by the Insurrection Act of 1807, which lets the president use the military only for the purpose of putting down rebellions or enforcing constitutional rights if state authorities fail to do so. Under that law, the president can declare an insurrection and call in the armed forces. The act has been invoked only a handful of times in the past 50 years, including in 1957 to desegregate schools and in 1992 during riots in south central Los Angeles after the acquittal of police accused of beating Rodney King.
Congress changed the Insurrection Act to list "natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident" as conditions under which the president can deploy U.S. armed forces and federalize state Guard troops if he determines that "authorities of the state or possession are incapable of maintaining public order."
Backers of the new rules, including U.S. Sens. John W. Warner (R-Va.) and Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) said the changes were needed to clarify the role of the armed forces in responding to serious domestic emergencies.
Mark Smith, spokesperson for the Louisiana Governor's Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness, said local and state emergency responders know what their communities need during a crisis better than officials in Washington.
"The president should not be able to step in and take control of the National Guard without a governor's consent. The Guard belongs to the states, has always belonged to the states and should remain a function of the states," Smith said.
http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=170453
haha looks like the Bush Administration’s quest for more executive power is gonna come back to haunt them on Mr. Bound's defense of Gov. Palin's authority over the National Guard.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/31/alaska-national-guard-gen_n_122860.html
just another article. the list goes on and on. she has no real experience in foreign policy and very very little in executive experience.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I'm quite pleased McCain pulled his running mate right off Wisteria Lane... purely for the entertainment value.She has a Down's Syndrome son! Or is it grandson?!?! Her daughter's pregnant!!! She had her brother-in-law fired! She overfished! Her husbands an Eskimo! She's bringing over moose stew for the Poker game!
This election would have been infinitely more boring had he chosen Romney or Pawlenty. I await the explosion, the long-lost sibling and dead body to surface.
Found this post at another forum, for those Obamanots who claim that McCain is the same as Bush:
"On Iraq and Afghanistan John McCain fought against going in with too few troups, but Bush did it anyway.
In Iraq John McCain fought agaisnt De-Bathification but Bush did it anyway.
In Iraq John McCain argued against disbanding the Iraqi Army, but Bush did it anyway.
These three factors directly led the the chaos in Iraq ever since. Had John McCain been President we probably would have won the war and been home years ago. Unfortunately George W Bush was and he was too stupid to listen to the superior judgement of John McCain.
In Iraq, McCain fought for the Surge - and George W Bush finally listened. The sound JUDGEMENT of John McCain has snatched VICTORY from the jaws of defeat. Defeat Obama counceled, nay demanded, that we conceed to get our troups home a year sooner. Obama advocated retreat and defeat when it was popular to do so. John McCain stood up and fought for victory in war and WON.
John McCain fought against the United States ever condoning torture, but Bush did it anyway.
John McCain fought against the Bush Cheney tax cuts, but Bush did it anyway. Today, as our economy has softened McCain does not want to raise taxes because NO economist will tell you to ever raise taxes in a down economy. John McCain was right on taxes then and he is right now.
John McCain fought against the Bush Cheney Energy Bill. The one written by ENRON with Cheney behind closed doors that gave BILLIONS in tax credits to the big oil companies, (you know, the one Obama voted FOR even though he now mocks that bill as an example of what is wrong in Washington - the bill HE VOTED FOR).
John defied his party and recognized Global Warming as a serious threat as well as America's responsibility to be a leader in the world when facing such problems. George Bush is too stupid to recognize the science behind these findings and fights John McCain on this issue to this day.
John McCain is a fiscal conservative who opposes earmarks - all of them - and has fought against the irresponsible spending spree of Democrats and Republicans alike led by George W Bush that is destroying our future.
John McCain fought chronyism in Washington and fought against his own party in the aftermath of Katrina. He heaped scathing criticism on George W Bush for the incompetency shown by FEMA. Thank god George Bush listened as evidenced by the vastly superior government reaction to Gustov.
John McCain fought his entire party to co-author and pass campaign finance reform. (NOTE - the only bi-partisan effort Obama has ever been a part of was LEAD by John McCain).
John McCain was for Stem Cell Research, but Bush fought against it.
John McCain fought against a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting gay marriage, but Bush fought for it.
This goes back 25 years when John McCain was against sending 300 marines into Beirut without any real mission and sufficient support - he fought Ronald Reagan but Reagan did it anyway. Unfortunately because the President ignored John McCain, hundreds of Marines died and that was the first time America shied away from a fight with Terrorists.
Again and again, year after year John McCain has shown the wisdom, judgement, and courage to fight for the right thing, challenging his party leaders, most notably George W Bush when they were @#$%& up. John McCain is no more 4 more years of George W Bush than I am, except on the few things George Bush managed to get right.
And before you go touting that 95% voting with Bush record - you should do your homework and check Obama's voting record with Bush. It's way more than half of the time. The reason? Most of the things they pass are unanimous votes on bills that have no controversy. Things like naming a post office, honoring some fallen hero, etc., are the stuff of most of the bills that they pass and they all vote together. We just see the controversial issues - like the ones listed above and again and again on those, the controversial issues where real judgement was needed John McCain has been right and George W Bush has been wrong. "
That about settles that one! Hope McCain will bring that to light in the debates.
I smell a 10 point bounce for McCain in the polls in the next week. Any takers on a bet?
You know, I think you may have had a point about McCain's bounce had he or any of the other speakers actually said anything about ANY of that stuff you just listed, or anything else as far as policies go, for that matter. But so far they've concentrated completely and only on Obama and what they think is wrong with him, not at all saying what they'd want to do or why they're the right choice.
The most they've said is that McCain is a patriot and he was a POW and little else, as if that's all people need to hear to vote for him.
So hopefully tomorrow McCain actually says why you should vote for HIM as opposed to simply trying to tell people why they shouldn't vote for Obama.
If he does that, he'll see a bounce. He needs to get to the issues and address what he'd do to actually fix the economy, because that's his perceived weakness and it's not be mentioned at all during the convention thus far. If he just continues making the convention about his service and patriotism and Obama, there won't be much of a bounce.
Really, aside from Palin's speech - which was strong but I'm not sure how effective it will end up being since it was mostly just an introduction with some swipes at Obama - it's been a pretty lackluster convention.
Oh, I did like Huckabee's speech. That guy's always enjoyable.
Originally posted by xmarksthespotI doubt Ohio will bounce back, it seems pretty strong towards Obama.
That's probably still the result of the Democratic convention. Post-Republican convention polling data should come out in the coming days to see if there was any effect.I doubt McCain's speech will be bounce-worthy though.