THE SYSTOCRAT PAPERS

Congressman Dennis Kucinich is a Systocrat in the purest sense of the term - a man who can be consistently relied upon to speak and act upon the truth as he perceives it, without spin and regardless of the possible consequences to his own political career.  Exhibit A - his introduction of articles of impeachment against Bush and Cheney a few months ago, which, although entirely warranted under Articles I and II of the Constitution, was ignored by virtually every politician in Washington, including Obama and Pelosi, as politically non-expedient at the time.   Read More >>

Posted by Tom Douglas at 10:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Fellow Systocrats: 

One aspect of the main stream media's coverage of the first presidential debate that merits more analysis is the contention that Obama was “too nice,” specifically that he should not have agreed with McCain as many times as he did.  What’s missing from the post-debate coverage is some commentary on just how necessary it will be for the next President not only to seek common ground with people who hold different views, but to be strong and confident enough to express these views in order to narrow the scope of disputes, bridge the gap between competing positions and ultimately achieve consensus. 

Here’s an example that throws this issue into high relief.  I was talking with a neighbor last night, and she wanted to know what Obama’s position was re: effecting the military defense of this country.  Specifically, she stated that as a result of the closing of military bases up and down the Atlantic coast, she felt “exposed.”  “What if there’s an attack?” she wondered aloud.  “How will we defend ourselves?”

Here's the disturbing truth - there can be no effective military defense to an invisible enemy.  Modern warfare is fundamentally different from traditional warfare in that no modern army, especially one that plans to take on the vaunted military might of the United States, is going to present itself on any battlefield to be conveniently annihilated.  As the Russians learned in Afghanistan, and as we’ve learned in Vietnam and now in Bush’s ill-conceived “war on terror” it is difficult, if not impossible, to decisively defeat an enemy you can’t find.  This analysis also holds true in the event that we find ourselves arrayed against a sovereign nation, like Iran for example.  Our military might roll in and take over, but good luck maintaining the peace if the resistance is mounted by an unseen guerilla force that watches for an opportunity and strikes when it’s convenient for them to do so. 

Diplomacy is the key to resolving international conflicts in the modern era.  We need a leader who is willing and able to bring warring factions to the negotiating table and keep them there until a meaningful accord is reached.  In that regard, I ask readers to consider which diplomatic approach is likely more effective: the “you’re with us or against us” approach favored by both Bush and McCain, or Obama’s willingness to acknowledge the existence of common ground with an adversary in order to narrow the issues in dispute before addressing the contentious issues.  In light of McCain's behavior at the first debate, how are foreign leaders likely to react when McCain or his Secretary of State show up at the negotiating table, refuse to look their counterparts in the eye and otherwise act contemptuously towards them? 

Obviously strength is needed as well – we certainly don’t want a leader that can be easily rolled.  We can always threaten to impose economic sanctions, embargoes, etc, although these measures are useless against metanational terrorist groups.  But the proverbial big stick is only going to carry us but so far in the modern age.  What will we threaten foreign/terrorist leaders with in twenty years when it’s likely that most nations/terrorist organizations will not only have access to nuclear weapons or some futuristic equivalent, but also the means to direct these weapons to our shores from some remote location?  

The ability to find common ground is essential on the home front as well.  There are essentially two Americas right now – a red America and a blue America.  While there are obviouly divergent views within each “America,” there are nonetheless fundamental differences between many of the “Reds” and many of the “Blues” re: the direction this country should take in the next eight years.  What’s needed is a leader who’s confident enough to note the areas of agreement without fear of giving away some silly tactical advantage, in order to bring people together and get things done.  McCain and Obama both contend that they have the ability to bring people together to solve problems, but McCain’s actions and demeanor at the first debate strongly suggest otherwise. 

For those pundits who think Obama conceded too much, as a practical matter of debate strategy, by agreeing with some of McCain's statements, the debate transcript reveals that when Obama “agreed” with McCain, he really didn’t give away anything other than some soundbytes that McCain could take out of context and use against him.  I do agree that Obama did miss some opportunities to really blast McCain, by pointing out Ms. Palin's fondness for earmarks, for example, and I do think Obama should have confronted McCain directly re: McCain's repeated assertion that "Obama doesn't understand" various issues of national importance.  But the latest McCain ad is nothing more than pure political spin, taking Obama's comments out of context to manufacture the impression that somehow Obama "endorsed" McCain's position on certain issues.

Let’s look at the actual exchanges between Obama and McCain, taken out of context in McCain’s new ad, where Obama purportedly "agreed" with McCain:

EXCHANGE 1:

LEHRER: Are you going to vote for the [bailout] plan, Senator McCain?

MCCAIN:  . . . . Sure. But -- but let me -- let me point out, I also warned about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and warned about corporate greed and excess, and CEO pay, and all that. A lot of us saw this train wreck coming.

But there's also the issue of responsibility . . . You've mentioned President Dwight David Eisenhower. President Eisenhower, on the night before the Normandy invasion, went into his room, and he wrote out two letters.

One of them was a letter congratulating the great members of the military and allies that had conducted and succeeded in the greatest invasion in history, still to this day, and forever.

And he wrote out another letter, and that was a letter of resignation from the United States Army for the failure of the landings at Normandy.

Somehow we've lost that accountability. I've been heavily criticized because I called for the resignation of the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. We've got to start also holding people accountable, and we've got to reward people who succeed.

But somehow in Washington today -- and I'm afraid on Wall Street -- greed is rewarded, excess is rewarded, and corruption -- or certainly failure to carry out our responsibility is rewarded.

As president of the United States, people are going to be held accountable in my administration. And I promise you that that will happen.

LEHRER: Do you have something directly to say, Senator Obama, to Senator McCain about what he just said?

OBAMA: Well, I think Senator McCain's absolutely right that we need more responsibility, but we need it not just when there's a crisis. I mean, we've had years in which the reigning economic ideology has been what's good for Wall Street, but not what's good for Main Street.

And there are folks out there who've been struggling before this crisis took place. And that's why it's so important, as we solve this short-term problem, that we look at some of the underlying issues that have led to wages and incomes for ordinary Americans to go down, the -- a health care system that is broken, energy policies that are not working, because, you know, 10 days ago, John said that the fundamentals of the economy are sound.

LEHRER: Say it directly to him.

OBAMA: I do not think that they are.

LEHRER: Say it directly to him.

OBAMA: Well, the -- John, 10 days ago, you said that the fundamentals of the economy are sound. And...

MCCAIN: Are you afraid I couldn't hear him?

LEHRER: I'm just determined to get you all to talk to each other. I'm going to try.

OBAMA: The -- and I just fundamentally disagree. And unless we are holding ourselves accountable day in, day out, not just when there's a crisis for folks who have power and influence and can hire lobbyists, but for the nurse, the teacher, the police officer, who, frankly, at the end of each month, they've got a little financial crisis going on.

This exchange reveals that the only point on which Obama expressed agreement with McCain is that there needs to be more accountability.  Should he have disagreed with a statement that virtually 100% of Americans probably agree with just because McCain said it first?

"AGREEMENT" NO. 2:

Obama then agreed with McCain that the earmarks process has been abused and that lobbyists and special interest groups are responsible for “introducing these kinds of requests.  Again, would the vast majority of Americans disagree with this statement?  I don’t think Obama was required to disagree just because McCain stated a commonly held opinion before Obama had a chance to. 

"AGREEMENT" NO. 3:

Here’s the last “agreement” cited in McCain’s ad:

MCCAIN: Well -- well, let me give you an example of what Senator Obama finds objectionable, the business tax.

Right now, the United States of American business pays the second-highest business taxes in the world, 35 percent. Ireland pays 11 percent.

Now, if you're a business person, and you can locate any place in the world, then, obviously, if you go to the country where it's 11 percent tax versus 35 percent, you're going to be able to create jobs, increase your business, make more investment, et cetera.

I want to cut that business tax. I want to cut it so that businesses will remain in -- in the United States of America and create jobs . . .

OBAMA: Now, John mentioned the fact that business taxes on paper are high in this country, and he's absolutely right. Here's the problem: There are so many loopholes that have been written into the tax code, oftentimes with support of Senator McCain, that we actually see our businesses pay effectively one of the lowest tax rates in the world.

And what that means, then, is that there are people out there who are working every day, who are not getting a tax cut, and you want to give them more.

It's not like you want to close the loopholes. You just want to add an additional tax cut over the loopholes. And that's a problem?

In this last exchange, Obama's not really agreeing with McCain at all.  McCain says business taxes are high, and Obama counters by pointing out these taxes are high on paper, but that McCain has failed to tell the American people the whole story - in effect, American businesses are taxed at some of the lowest rates in the world due to gaping loopholes in our corporate tax code. 

The bottom line: reports of Obama's over-geniality are greatly exaggerated, both as a matter of fact and as a negative aspect of Obama's debating style.  The thoughtful reader will agree that Obama's performance at the first debate demonstrates that he has the ideal characteristics for a twenty-first century leader.

Posted by Tom Douglas at 02:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Fellow Systocrats:

A couple of days ago I posted a warning to American taxpayers re: the dangers of allowing our elected representatives to approve a massive 700 billion dollar bailout plan without allowing enough time to consider either the full implications or other viable alternatives.  Following up on that post, today I received an email, purportedly authored by one T.J. Birkenmeier, which sets forth a "Main Street" alternative to the 85 billion dollar AIG bailout.  The email is below - basically Mr. Birkenmeier proposes that instead of wasting money on a company that "put greed ahead of responsibility and used their good name to take risky bets that did not pay off," we should instead place this money in the hands of the American people, after deducting federal income tax.  Assuming that the taxable rate averages out to be 30% and that there are around 200 million people over the age of 18 in this country, Mr. Birkenmeier estimates that after taxes, each person would receive $297,500! Now, I have no idea who Mr. Birkenmeier is or what he does for a living, but I sure like the way he thinks! 

Unfortunately, the AIG bailout is a done deal (although AIG's shareholders are meeting on Monday to discuss more attractive alternatives) . . . BUT, the 700 billion dollar bailout proposed by the Bush administration is not!  So, in order to provide TSP readers with a more concrete idea of the sheer magnitude of a 700 billion dollar transaction, I've calculated the numbers for a Birkenmeier-style "Main Street" bailout, using his basic methodology. 

"Birk" calculates the number of Americans over the age of 18 at roughly 200 million.  The census department projects this number at 229,526,000 in 2008.  If we divide 700 billion by this number, we come up with $3,049,763 per taxpayer!  After we subtract 35% (the highest federal income tax rate for income over $357,700), or $1,067,417, each taxpayer is still left with $1,982,346!  Remember that the federal government is left with 245 billion dollars after collecting taxes on the Main Street bailout. 

Holy crap! 

UPDATE: While these large refund numbers make the heart of any red-blooded American beat a bit faster, it appears that Birk's math, and my own derivative calculations, may be off.  In response to the comment below by Dave R. I ran all of the calculations again.  Turns out that Birk's refund per taxpayer is $425 and the refund on the 700 billion package is $3,049 or so.  Damn - there goes that 52 inch HD flatscreen tv I was planning to buy once our Main Street lobby proved successful!  700 million is still a lot of bread, though.  I'm no mathematician, so if anyone else wants to weigh in on these calculations, please feel free. 

At the beginning of this roller coaster "bailout" ride, Treasury Secretary Paulson stated that the purpose of the bailout is to "buy up bad mortgage debt" in order to make our financial system function again.  Putting this kind of money into the hands of the American people instead of Wall Street might do more to solve the bad mortgage/foreclosure crisis.  By contrast, it's uncertain whether or not the "Wall Street" plan would do the same, since it's not clear whether or not 700 billion is enough to save the targeted financial entities, or that these entities won't simply resume their irresponsible ways, invite another disastrous collapse and then extend their dirty hands for more bailout money. 

700 billion dollars.  Isn't it interesting that 700 billion tax dollars is available to bail out irresponsible financial institutions, while we struggle to make funds available to aid the millions of homeless people in this country or for the millions of Americans who have been foreclosed on over the last year?  While there's little or no money available to help the residents of New Orleans rebuild after Hurricane Katrina, apparently we can come up with 700 billion dollars to pay inflated CEO salaries as a "thank you" for playing a large role in bringing about this crisis? 

700 BILLION DOLLARS!!!!!  I must say, I thought the Birkenmeier email was rather humorous when I first read it, but the more I think about it . . . maybe we should contact our elected representatives and lobby for the "Main Street" plan. 

In any event, thanks to "Birk" for a thought-provoking idea.  Here's a significant portion of his email:

I'm against the $85,000,000,000 bailout of AIG. Instead, I'm in favor of giving the $85,000,000,000 to America in a "We Deserve It Dividend."  To make the math simple, let's assume there are $200,000,000 bonafide U.S. Citizens 18+.  Our population is about 301,000,000 +/- counting every man, woman and child.  So, 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up.  So divide 200 million adults 18+ into $85 billion - that equals $425,000.00

My plan is to give $425,000 to every person 18+ as a "We Deserve It Dividend.  Of course, it would NOT be tax free.  So let's assume a tax rate of 30%.  Every individual 18+ has to pay $127,500.00 in taxes.  That sends $25,500,000,000 right back to Uncle Sam.  But it means that every adult 18+ has $297,500.00 in their pocket.  A husband and wife have $595,000.00. 

What would you do with $297,500.00 in your family?

Pay off your mortgage - housing crisis solved.  Repay college loans - what a great boost to new grads. Put away money for college - it'll be there.  Save in a bank - create money to loan to entrepreneurs.  Buy a new car - create jobs.  Invest in the market - capital drives growth. 

Pay for your parent's medical insurance - health care improves.  Enable Deadbeat Dads to come clean - or else.

Remember this is for every adult US Citizen 18+ including the folks who lost their jobs at Lehman Brothers and every other company that is cutting back.  And of course, for those serving in our Armed Forces. If we're going to redistribute wealth let's really do it . . .

As for AIG, liquidate it.  Sell off its parts.

Let American General go back to being American General.

Sell off the real estate.  Let the private sector bargain hunters cut it up and clean it up.

Here's my rationale: we deserve it and AIG doesn't.

Sure it's a crazy idea that can "never work."

But can you imagine the coast to coast block party???

Posted by Tom Douglas at 01:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (0)

Here’s a different perspective on the 700 billion dollar bailout proposed by the Bush administration – it marks the opening of a new offensive agains the American people.  For seven years, we've been at war with terrorists hell-bent on destroying the American way of life.  The problem is, most Americans still don’t know who the real terrorists are. 

I’m not talking about Al Qaeda or Osama Bin Laden.  Like hostile aliens in some b-rate television show on the sci-fi channel, these terrorists look just like the rest of us, as they slither through the general population, watching and waiting for their opportunity to put their blood-stained boots on our collective necks.  Today, America’s most diabolical and determined adversaries are the “disaster capitalists” i.e. neo-conservative, Milton Friedman acolytes who have been using the fear generated by the 9/11 attacks as a launching pad to implement radical, self-serving measures at the expense of the American people.  Exhibit A – the ill-advised, exclusively for-profit invasion of Iraq, a “military” operation that the Bush administration used as a front to funnel gazillions of our tax dollars to private defense and reconstruction contractors with ties to the White House, while our troops were sent to kill innocent Iraqi civilians and to be maimed or killed themselves in a rich man’s war.

So, what exactly is a “disaster capitalist?”  The term was recently coined by activist Naomi Klein in her excellent book The Shock Doctrine – The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, which should be required reading for anyone who seeks a better understanding of recent world events.  The book documents in meticulous detail the implementation around the globe of the now infamous neo-con philosophy, articulated by Milton Friedman (caricature above), that the best way to implement radical neo-conservative economic reforms is to force them upon helpless nations in the aftermath of a crisis.  These reforms usually include some combination of deregulation and privatization, especially with regard to lucrative, nationalized assets, so that large corporations can swoop in and take what they want, reaping huge profits at the expense of the local citizenry.  When the looting is done, the disaster capitalists fade back into the scenery to await the next opportunity, in most cases leaving the "host" nation's economic system fatally compromised.

There is no question that these disaster capitalists have had their way with the American people for the last seven years.  While most Americans are finding it increasingly difficult to make ends meet, these neo-cons and their cronies have fraudulently diverted gazillions of dollars that rightfully belong to the American people by deliberately misleading us into believing that the Iraq invasion was justified.  Given the embarrassingly thin case presented to the American people in support of this invasion, it’s probably fair to say that there would have been a great deal more outrage about the war if not for the fear that gripped the nation in the aftermath of 9/11. 

Now that our financial markets are collapsing, the disaster capitalists have once again emerged from their caves to coordinate another attack on the American people.  This latest offensive is in the form of a vague, three page document which asks the American taxpayer to eat the costs of a 700 billion dollar bailout plan designed to rescue certain large financial institutions from bad debts.  Naturally, the Bush administration is trying to push this thing through immediately, before people have a chance to fully understand the possible implications and before any other more reasonable alternatives can be proposed and evaluated.  Of course, the plan has no protections for taxpayers and specifically exempts any action taken by Treasury Secretary Paulson from legal or agency review.  By the way, Paulson formerly served as CEO of Goldman Sachs, one of the institutions that stands to gain from this bailout. 

Smells bad to me, folks. Smells real bad.  The question that we all should be asking is, what’s in it for them?  As Bob Herbert reports, “Lobbyists, bankers and Wall Street types are already hopping up and down like over-excited children, ready to burst into the government’s $700 billion piñata. This widespread eagerness is itself an indication that there is something too sweet about the Paulson plan.”  Moreover, this proposal is so important that Bush himself, the lamest of all lame duck presidents, actually emerged from his hiding place last night to put the fear of non-action into us, warning that the “entire economy is in danger,” and that we could face a “long and painful recession.” 

Are you concerned yet? 

Liberals and conservatives agree that the proposed bailout is a bad idea, for various reasons.  However, there's more here than meets the eye.  According to Ms. Klein, this bailout proposal is most likely the first step in a much broader plan to advance neo-con economic “reforms” at our expense and to our detriment:

The best summary of how the right plans to use the economic crisis to push through their policy wish list comes from Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich. On Sunday, Gingrich laid out 18 policy prescriptions for Congress to take in order to "return to a Reagan-Thatcher policy of economic growth through fundamental reforms." In the midst of this economic crisis, he is actually demanding the repeal of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which would lead to further deregulation of the financial industry. Gingrich is also calling for reforming the education system to allow "competition" (a.k.a. vouchers), strengthening border enforcement, cutting corporate taxes and his signature move: allowing offshore drilling.

It would be a grave mistake to underestimate the right's ability to use this crisis -- created by deregulation and privatization -- to demand more of the same. Don't forget that Newt Gingrich's 527 organization, American Solutions for Winning the Future, is still riding the wave of success from its offshore drilling campaign, "Drill Here, Drill Now!" Just four months ago, offshore drilling was not even on the political radar and now the U.S. House of Representatives has passed supportive legislation. Gingrich is holding an event this Saturday, September 27 that will be broadcast on satellite television to shore up public support for these controversial policies.

What Gingrich's wish list tells us is that the dumping of private debt into the public coffers is only stage one of the current shock. The second comes when the debt crisis currently being created by this bailout becomes the excuse to privatize social security, lower corporate taxes and cut spending on the poor. A President McCain would embrace these policies willingly. A President Obama would come under huge pressure from the think tanks and the corporate media to abandon his campaign promises and embrace austerity and "free-market stimulus.

For more commentary from Ms. Klein, click here to watch her discuss the bailout plan on Bill Maher's show.

The bottom line: we must all remain vigilant with respect to the bailout discussions in Washington over the next few days and be in touch with our elected officials as necessary, otherwise the disaster capitalists will likely stick it to us again.

Posted by Tom Douglas at 07:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Fellow Systocrats:

I posted this a couple of weeks ago after following up on some of the statements contained in Anne Kilkenny's now well-circulated email in which she gives us the local perspective on Sarah Palin.  This information was buried at the bottom of my Anne Kilkenny post, and since that time, this story has died - nobody in the mainstream media is talking about "Sports Complex-Gate."  I think this story really demonstrates why Palin is not ready to occupy the top spot in the executive branch of the United States government, so I've republished it here as it's own post.    

Of particular interest is a recent piece by the Wall Street Journal re: the ongoing Wasilla Sports Complex litigation, which Ms. Palin commissioned while she was Mayor.  As reported by WSJ, essentially, Ms. Palin's "administration" negotiated a favorable price ($126,000) for the 80 acre parcel of land that the Complex was to be built upon, but then failed to close the deal by executing the necessary documents confirming the sale agreement.  Meanwhile, another developer swooped in and bought the property out from under the town, precipitating a lawsuit by the town of Wasilla against the developer.  When the federal court ruled in favor of the developer, the town then (after Ms. Palin had left "office") decided to take the property by eminent domain. 

For the moment, the town has prevailed in that legal action - sort of.  An arbitrator recently ruled that Wasilla had the constitutional right to acquire the property by eminent domain, but that the developer was entitled to receive a whopping $836,378 for the land, plus an additional $336,000 in interest!  Obviously, that's a far cry from the $126,000 purchase the town had initially negotiated.  Further, Wasilla's city attorney estimates Wasilla's attorney fees at a quarter of a million dollars, and it's not over yet!  The developer has appealed, arguing that he's entitled to more interest! 

I would love to be able to report the actual language the judge(s) used to describe the town's incompetence in failing to close this deal, but my search of the usual online legal databases for the actual text of these decisions yielded nothing.  Nada.  Not a word about this ongoing dispute. 

Bottom line: as a result of the Palin "administration's" sloppy actions, the town of Wasilla is out well over a million bucks, with more attorney fees to come.  All because her administration didn't bother to do something that anyone who's been in business for twenty minutes would have done - get the contract signed! 

And there are people in this country that actually believe that Sarah Palin will be ready to lead on day one?  All I can say to those people is "wow."  

Posted by Tom Douglas at 05:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Why do McCain & Palin keep lying on the campaign trail, even after the media has repeatedly called them out for running a negative, dishonest campaign?

Because McCain, just like Bush before him, knows that there is a certain component of his constituency that will accept any information put forth by his camp and subsequently parroted by right wing media outlets like Fox News, conservative talk radio, etc.  To demonstrate this point, posted below is an email exchange  between “Marissa Adams” a liberal in Massachusetts, and “Danny Duke” a conservative out of Kentucky. 

The “Carol McCain” email that precedes the featured exchange is a bit lengthy, the content closely tracking an article that appeared in the Daily Mail Online.  However, for all of you “blue state” folks out there who are wondering whether anyone out there is paying attention to all of the smears, lies and misinformation about Barack Obama being disseminated by McCain and his cronies, here’s proof that the right wing media networks are just as effective as ever.  It is absolutely mindboggling how anyone could be this misinformed in the Internet Age, where accurate information about the candidates is a mere mouse click away, but TSP has nonetheless been informed by a reliable source that “Mr. Duke’s” views are all too common in the “red state” neck of the woods.

Equally troubling to the thoughtful reader is the profound difference of opinion between “Marissa” and “Danny” re: the information and issues that are relevant in evaluating the two presidential candidates, less than two months away from what will easily be the most important election of our generation to date.  Rather than succumbing to the temptation to pass judgment on our red state brothers and sisters, for now it is enough to reflect on what appears to be a rather pronounced divide between red and blue state values, and to contemplate how we might find common ground so that someday we can move forward again as one nation.

FROM:               “THIRD PARTY TAMMY”

SUBJECT:           FW: CAROL McCAIN (FORMER MRS. JOHN McCAIN)

Not trying to down anyone's favorite pick for president, but someone sent this to me and I have to ask, is McCain really the kind of man we  want as President?  Are any of them?   When is there going to be a real, good choice of a decent human being to run for the highest office in the country???

NO candidate today is worth a vote, but I guess that one of them will be a little  less than worthless and deserving of a vote against everyone else. (and there are still 50 women competing  for Miss America...)

Carol McCain

McCain likes to illustrate his moral fiber by referring to his five years as a prisoner-of-war in Vietnam . And to demonstrate his commitment to family values, the 71-year-old former US Navy pilot pays warm tribute to his beautiful blonde wife, Cindy, with whom he has four children. But there is  another Mrs. McCain who casts a ghostly shadow over the Senator's presidential campaign. She is seldom seen and rarely written about, despite being mother to McCain's three eldest children.

She was the woman  McCain dreamed of during his long incarceration and torture in Vietnam 's infamous 'Hanoi Hilton' prison and the woman who faithfully stayed at home looking after the children and waiting anxiously for news. But when McCain returned to America in 1973 to a fanfare of publicity and a handshake from Richard Nixon, he discovered his wife had been disfigured in a terrible car crash three years earlier. Her car had skidded on icy roads into a telegraph pole on Christmas Eve, 1969. Her  pelvis and one arm were shattered by the impact and she suffered massive internal injuries.

When Carol was discharged from hospital after six months of life-saving surgery, the prognosis was bleak. In order to save her legs, surgeons had been forced to cut away huge sections of shattered bone, taking with it her tall, willowy figure. She was confined to a wheelchair and was forced to use a catheter. Today, she stands at just 5' 4" and still walks awkwardly, with a pronounced limp.  Her body is held together by screws and metal plates and, at 70, her face is worn by wrinkles that speak of decades of silent suffering.

For nearly 30 years, Carol has maintained a dignified silence about the  accident, McCain and their divorce. But last week at the bungalow where she now lives at Virginia Beach, a faded seaside resort 200 miles south of Washington, she told The Mail on Sunday how McCain divorced her in 1980 and  married Cindy, 18 years his junior and the heir   to an Arizona brewing fortune, just one month later.

My marriage ended because John McCain didn't want to be 40, he wanted to be 25. You know that happens...it just does.'

In 1979 - while still married to Carol - he met Cindy at a cocktail party in Hawaii . Over the next six months he pursued her, flying around the country to see her. Then he began to push to end his marriage. Some of McCain's acquaintances are less  forgiving, however. They portray the politician as a self-centered womanizer who effectively abandoned his crippled wife to 'play the field'. They accuse him of finally settling on Cindy, a former rodeo beauty queen, for  financial reasons. 

Ted Sampley, who fought with US Special Forces in Vietnam and is now a leading campaigner for veterans' rights, said: 'I have been following John McCain's career for nearly 20 years. I know him personally. There is something wrong with this guy and let me tell you what it is: deceit.

When he came home and saw that Carol was not the beauty he left behind, he started running around on her almost right away. Everybody around him knew it. Eventually he met  Cindy and she was young and beautiful and very wealthy. At that point McCain just dumped Carol for something he thought was better."

McCain is the classic opportunist. He's always reaching for attention and glory,' he said. After he came home, Carol walked with a limp. So he threw her over for a poster girl with big money from Arizona . And the rest is history.'

Ross Perot, a billionaire Texas businessman, and a former presidential candidate, who paid her medical bills all those years ago, now believes that both Carol McCain and the American people have been taken in by a man who is unusually slick and cruel - even by the standards of modern politics.
______________________________________________________________________________

FROM:               “DANNY DUKE”

SUBJECT:           FW: CAROL McCAIN (FORMER MRS. JOHN McCAIN)

Hi Bitsy.  I wasn't going to respond to this but with Mr. Obama's comments about "lipstick on a pig" I find myself having to take a position in this race.  Now, I was NEVER  EVER going to vote for Obama, and have never been a McCain supporter (McCain is way too liberal for my tastes). The thing I find very concerning about Mr. Obama even being in the Presidential race  at this point is his affiliation with so many anti American individuals. For example, his friendship with someone who not only bombed the Pentagon, but to this day is unrepentant about this act, and actually is on record as saying that the 9-11 bombers did not kill enough Americans. Also, his 20 year relationship with a pastor who used his pulpit to spew his message of hate and  racial radicalism, instead of love and tolerance as Jesus would have had him espouse. Another example, Mr. Obama's admiration of the man whom he has called a mentor, a man whose teachings prove his socialists tendencies. This last point, when taken in tandem with Mr. Obama's promise to raise taxes and increase the size of government, can  only prove his own socialists tendencies. I think the choice for the President that could lead us in the most American, most positive way is VERY clear, especially in the light cast by the woman who would be the first female Vice President, the conservative Sarah Palin. 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

FROM:               “MARISSA ADAMS”

SUBJECT:           FW: CAROL McCAIN (FORMER MRS. JOHN McCAIN)

OK.  I am swamped at the moment but have to jump in as well with a few thoughts.

First, I am encouraged that this election has so many folks interested in politics and watching what is being represented on both sides (see, a positive statement).  With that being said, I'd like to ask that everyone consider the source of what they hear on all the candidates.  There is a lot being made up out there and you owe it to yourself to filter the truth from the fiction on both sides.  A lot of what Danny points  out about Obama is fiction (and please, those of you who still think he's Muslim get with the program: (1) the whole preacher issue shows he's a Christian; and (2) even if he was a Muslim which he's not they really aren't all evil and it would be pretty sad or someone to vote on a presidential candidate on a racist basis but hey, this  is America and you can be racist if you'd like; I just won't like you).

So back to my point, examples of false accusations in this campaign: we'd heard on Bill Maher that Sarah Palin's daughter's baby daddy (I can't remember his name) had his own MySpace page on which he refers to himself as a redneck and a huge party guy and says all sorts of horrible things.  If you don't like Sarah Palin (which I don't) you might say, "hey!  I knew it."  But if you actually look at the page - and as of a few nights ago there were 6 purportedly belonging to this same guy - it is clearly made up and made up very  recently.  Now MySpace can figure out how to police itself with folks making up fake accounts for someone who they are not but this proves my point.  The page is fake and we have no idea whether or not the baby daddy is a good guy, a bad guy or otherwise.  None of us really know these people.  So how to vote?

I  have met Barack Obama and have met and worked with a very good friend of his, Deval Patrick, the Governor of Massachusetts (before he was in politics we worked in the same law office in 1992; some exchanges we have had make me pretty certain he is a man of integrity).  I know others who know Barack Obama and can speak to his character.  If you don't actually have that kind of close connection to a candidate, please consider the sources and then make your best call and please vote.

Stand up for what you believe in on your issues.  My biggest issue is how America has fallen in the world view and how  more than ever we are thoroughly hated abroad because of the country's attitude as a whole about itself.  History shows that with such a prideful view of yourself, your country is going downhill in the worldwide power struggle that has been going on since the dawn of time.  My cousin was killed last week in Afghanistan.   Granted, he was a British and not an American soldier but he had been an American soldier.  How many of our family members have to die as America's image gets worse??  I don't care if John McCain (the subject of the original message below) divorced his wife and is evil, will be the next saint, has sex in the Oval office or what.  So much of that is irrelevant to the job they can do and John McCain will not get my vote if he is so bold as to think America needs to fix a situation that’s been broken for over 1000 years for reasons most Americans and most policy makers do not understand or even care about (I  majored in medieval history in college so please talk to me if you have any doubts about the history that has been ignored) and stay in Iraq and Afghanistan for another 100 years.

Since we are all really interested in this election, let's all take this seriously and be a part of trying to make the changes we all want.  Thanks  for listening to my rant. 

______________________________________________________________________________

FROM:               "DANNY DUKE"

SUBJECT:           FW: CAROL McCAIN (FORMER MRS. JOHN McCAIN)  

Marissa, the problem is the words actually came out of the pastors mouth, and were recorded by the church to broadcast in sermon form. Now, I  believe that fact is going to be hard to deny. Also, it is typical as a deflection technique to bring up Mrs Palin's family to take the attention off the real issue, Obama's qualifications to be president. Remember, Obama hasn't talked about his qualifications, since the very qualifications he would talk about would only reinforce his associations with the very people he has been distancing himself from.  As for the world view, I could care less, I don't see this as a chip on my shoulder. I see it as a burden that we as Americans have to bear, not because of some perceived social status in the world, but because of the men who signed that Document in 1776 to liberate this great nation from the monarchy that was England (see the rest of the world). It is a burden because of every American who, like your cousin, have given their lives so that we may live in the freest nation the world has ever seen. It is my Patriotic duty and the least I can do for  the young man by the last name “Duke” who died when a bomb from a Japanese dive bomber struck the magazine on the USS Arizona on that fateful December morning. I see it as my duty so as to not desecrate their memory and sacrifice.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

FROM:               "MARISSA ADAMS"

SUBJECT:           FW: CAROL McCAIN (FORMER MRS. JOHN McCAIN)

Wow!  So it's not ok to attack Sarah Palin's family (which I believe I was not doing but was supporting the fact that one story that is out there is actually NOT true) but it is ok to attack Obama's preacher?   Sarah Palin's future son in law is not Sarah Palin.  Barack Obama's preacher is not Barack Obama.  Attack the candidate factually and with support and knowledge and I can respect you.

Here's an attack.  As a mother with a very young son I have no respect for a woman who brings young children on stage at night during a political convention.  That would not be good for a "normal" child, i.e. one who has no sensory issues as a child with Down syndrome has (my nephew who resides with me having Down syndrome and I personally having very close contact with what this involves) and it certainly is no better for a child with  sensory issues.  I don't actually care what comes out of her mouth after seeing that.  In no way did that action benefit the child but it sure did let her paint a picture of a good family woman.  Most rational folks with babies can see that this was a choice she made for herself, not for her child.   Would you bring your young daughter on stage with you to such an event and disrespect her need for sleep and for not being in a crowd like that?
 
And pick up a history book my friend.  The very attitude of ridding the world of evil because YOUR way is better than someone else's?  Do you know how Rome fell and how the Crusades led to the Protestant Revolution?  A small history lesson in a nutshell.  The Roman Empire and the Catholic Church thought their way was the best.  They wanted to be beacons of light to the rest of the world who was backwards and not like them.  And they fell because it's one thing  to be oppressed, it's another thing to be oppressed by a nation or entity that thinks it KNOWS they are better than you.  This is actually how the American Revolution came about and please don't tell me you know more about that.  I've been studying it for more than 20 years very intensely (ask “Tammy” how mental I am about John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, etc.).  The Founding Fathers were not perfect and did not want to be put on a pedestal.  They made some very gutsy sacrifices and it is those sacrifices that this country is built upon but that we in fact dishonor when we THINK we KNOW we are better than everyone else.  People in China and Afghanistan and Iraq and every other country in the world are trying to get by just as you are and trying to conquer them because you know better?  Just pick up a history book.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

FROM:               “DANNY DUKE”

SUBJECT:           FW: CAROL McCAIN (FORMER MRS. JOHN McCAIN)

 Marissa, did you make Priscilla take her Bush sticker off her car?

______________________________________________________________________________

FROM:               “MARISSA ADAMS”

SUBJECT:           FW: CAROL McCAIN (FORMER MRS. JOHN McCAIN)

Absolutely.  I drove her car almost exclusively after she moved in and she drove mine.  I usually put a sticker on my car and this time I didn't.  She no longer has a car but drives mine while I take the bus.  So I didn't get a sticker this year and put it on my car because it would be like he driving a car with a McCain/Palin or Bush sticker.  I respect her values, presumably she respects mine but either of us driving around with a sticker (which really is an advertisement of a belief) that doesn't espouse our values is not right.  I won't make her follow my beliefs and ride around as if she does and this is why she removed the sticker.  She had no problem with it because in our disagreements we discuss them like adults. Your question isn't exactly a response to my email but I'm happy to answer it.

______________________________________________________________________________

FROM:               “DANNY DUKE”

SUBJECT:           FW: CAROL McCAIN (FORMER MRS. JOHN McCAIN)

I only opened your response today and only read part of the first paragraph when I was struck by the account of how “Priscilla” had to take the Bush sticker off her car when she got to Boston. I must say I was not disappointed by your response, though. Yes, it was everything I thought it would be, and more. Your condescending attitude toward me, bragging about your knowledge of our founding fathers. Your telling me to pick up a history book. Your giving me a small history lesson on the crusades and the Catholic Church. Yes, you fit very nicely with Michelle and Barak. I bet you see me as one of those middle class people that clings to their guns and religion.

______________________________________________________________________________
FROM:               “MARISSA ADAMS”

SUBJECT:           FW: CAROL McCAIN (FORMER MRS. JOHN McCAIN) 

I am sorry you still don't understand the ideas here.  No one was forced to remove a bumper sticker, we agreed to remove them when we traded cars.  I am also sorry that when faced with the point of view of an educated person you can only give a non-response.  I won't apologize for it nor do I carry it like a chip on my shoulder, it is who I am and has helped me form my world view.  I have no idea about your religion or gun ownership.  When you have something of substance to say feel free to contact me and we can discuss our opposing views.  But until then please keep your empty rhetoric to yourself.

 

Posted by Tom Douglas at 12:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Fellow Systocrats,

Since the first Sarah Palin interview with Charlie Gibson aired on ABC News last week, the Systocracy.com newsroom has been inundated with requests to go beyond the mainstream media's shallow, superficial coverage and provide some meaningful analysis.  Accordingly, here's the official TSP take on what went down, including the unspoken but obvious "subtext" of the interview. 

GIBSON: Let’s just cut right to the chase.  We all want to know how somebody like you, who doesn’t know squat about any of the issues facing this country, could possibly have the cohones, the hubris to even suggest that she has the experience to be veep or president of the U.S.

PALIN: I AM ready, Charlie.  Well, so far as I know, anyway.  Okay . . . tell you the truth, I really have no idea what the vice president does.  But I sure do pack ‘em in on the campaign trail.  Must be the new shades.  By the way Charlie, I think it’s inappropriate for you to be ogling my legs like that during this interview . . .

GIBSON: Um, you’re wearing a skirt above your knees.  You don’t really expect me to take you seriously, do you?  Hillary would have NEVER shown up for an interview dressed like that.  Listen, you want respect, wear a damn pantsuit.  Got it? 

PALIN: Yeah, well Hillary doesn’t have legs like these either.  Gotta have strong legs to shoot wolves from helicopters. 

GIBSON: What???

PALIN: If you’re not from Alaska, you’ll never understand.  Let’s move on.

GIBSON: Are you nervous about this interview?  You look nervous . . .

PALIN: (Moving her head from side to side with a finger in the air).  I look hot!  Paris Hilton’s got nothing on me!  By the way, how’s her presidential campaign going? 

GIBSON: (Looking down at his notes to hide his laughter).  Um, right.  Now, when I asked John McCain about your national security credentials . . .

PALIN: CHARLIE!!!!!!!  (Gibson pauses mid-sentence, dropping his notes).

GIBSON: What?  WHAT????

PALIN: (Collecting herself).  Um, sorry.  They told me to repeat your name as often as possible.  Look, I’m just trying to do a good job here . . . .

GIBSON: Whatever.  As I was saying, McCain cited the fact that you have commanded the Alaskan National Guard and that Alaska is close to Russia. 

PALIN: Well, I can see the Russian coast from Alaska, which by itself is enough to give anyone a comprehensive understanding of Russo-U.S. relations.  Other than that, I really don’t know anything about national security, so lets talk about energy independence . . .

GIBSON: Energy doesn’t have a damn thing to do with national security.

PALIN: (Sigh).  You’re right, but I haven’t finished the prep course on national security yet, so they told me to talk about energy independence instead.  Is that okay? 

GIBSON: Fine with me, so long as our t.v. audience understands that you don’t know a goddamn thing about national security.  Okay, let’s try a subject that you presumably do know something about – religion.  You said recently, in your old church, "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God." Are we fighting a holy war?

PALIN: I couldn’t have possibly said something so dangerously revealing abouy my religious beliefs.  You MUST have that wrong, Charlie.

GIBSON: (Leaning forward in his chair). Ridiculous woman, I have an army of fact-checkers at my disposal.  Those are your exact words – you can believe that! 

PALIN: Okay, you got me.  But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln's words when he said . . . let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God's side.

That's what that comment was all about, Charlie. And I do believe, though, that this war against extreme Islamic terrorists is the right thing. It's an unfortunate thing, because war is hell and I hate war, and, Charlie, today is the day that I send my first born, my son, my teenage son overseas with his Stryker brigade, 4,000 other wonderful American men and women, to fight for our country, for democracy, for our freedoms.

Charlie, those are freedoms that too many of us just take for granted. I hate war and I want to see war ended. We end war when we see victory, and we do see victory in sight in Iraq.

GIBSON: Interesting.  Aside from the remarks about your son, quite frankly I have no idea what you’re talking about, but I do need to move this along.  Now you do realize, of course, that the Iraqis had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, right? 

PALIN: (Long pause).  But the weapons of mass destruction . . . .

GIBSON: Yeah, we never did find those.  (Uncomfortable silence). 

PALIN: (Staring into space with a stunned look on her face).  Uh, wow. 

GIBSON:  (Disbelievingly) okaay . . . well anyway, you also said that "There is a plan and it is God's plan."

PALIN: I believe that there is a plan for this world and that plan for this world is for good . . . .

GIBSON: Oh.  Well, great.  So you are sending your son on a task that is from God, right?

PALIN: I don't know if the task is from God, Charlie.

GIBSON: Wait a minute.  I just quoted you as saying that the troops are on a task from God.  Now you’re telling me they’re not? 

PALIN: Err, um . . . .I need to chat with my handlers over a mooseburger.  Can we break for lunch? 

GIBSON: No.  Now, although we’ve already established that you aren’t prepared to anwer even the simplest national security questions, my producers want me to hammer you on this stuff to boost ratings.  Hmmm . . . . let's talk about Russia and Georgia, because they are near here, and as you’ve said, that does make a difference.  

The administration has said we've got to maintain the territorial integrity of Georgia. Do you believe the United States should try to restore Georgian sovereignty over South Ossetia and Abkhazia?

PALIN: First off, we're going to continue good relations with Saakashvili there. I was able to speak with him the other day and giving him my commitment, as John McCain's running mate . . .

GIBSON: Okay, well, you understand that you sound absolutely ridiculous when you say you spoke with Saakashvili, right?  I hope you didn’t embarrass yourself. 

PALIN: Old man, please – and stop looking at my legs!  (Crossing and recrossing her legs).  Getting back to your comment, let me tell you something - I know how to deal with those Russians.  As I’ve stated, just being near Russia provides the necessary insight into their internal affairs. (Palin leans forward conversationally).  You know, on a clear day, you can actually pick off a Ruskie or two from a certain island in Alaska, provided you have the right equipment and conditions.  You know, high powered rifle, scope, not too much wind.  Not as sporting as shooting wildlife from a helicopter, but . . .

GIBSON: What possible relevance does any of this have to the conflict between Russia and Georgia?

PALIN: Okay, well I really don’t know much about that topic either, but I’m supposed to talk about the Cold War . . .

GIBSON: The Cold War?  Excuse me, but I have 1981 on the line for you – they want their political terminology back.  (Shuffling papers).  Anyway, under the NATO treaty, wouldn't we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?

PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help. 

GIBSON: That is absolutely bananas.  No administration in its right mind is going to initiate a war with Russia over Georgia.  What about Iran?  Do you consider a nuclear Iran to be an existential threat to Israel?

PALIN: Um . . . existential . . . um . . .

GIBSON: Right, small words, sorry.  What should we do about a nuclear Iran?

PALIN: We have got to make sure that these weapons of mass destruction, that nuclear weapons are not given to those hands of Ahmadinejad, not that he would use them, but that he would allow terrorists to be able to use them. So we have got to put the pressure on Iran and we have got to count on our allies to help us, diplomatic pressure.

GIBSON: Yeah, well, as you ought to know, we’ve been threatening them for a long time, but it hasn’t worked.  What if Israel decided it felt threatened and needed to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?

PALIN: Here’s the only talking point that I can remember about Israel: “we are friends with Israel and I don't think that we should second guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security.”

GIBSON: So if we wouldn't second guess it and they decided they needed to do it because Iran was an existential threat, we would cooperative or agree with that.

PALIN: Here’s the only talking point that I can remember about Israel: “we are friends with Israel and I don't think that we should second guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security.”

GIBSON: So if it felt necessary, if it felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right.

PALIN: Here’s the only talking point that I can remember about Israel: “we are friends with Israel and I don't think that we should second guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security.”   

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

PALIN: You mean what he stands for?  His worldview?  Of course!!!  We both love Jesus!  And I like a good barbeque as much as the next gal.  (Nods as if remembering something).  Oh, and being on vacation.  Love that, just like my buddy Duyba.  Just listen to both of us say the word “nucular” and you’ll know that we’re on the same page.  (Slaps her knee in satisfaction). 

GIBSON: Well, ah, no.  I’m talking about the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.

PALIN: Still don’t know what the hell you’re talking about Charlie.  Now I can blather on for a minute or two about nothing in particular, or you can throw me a bone here . . .

GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?

PALIN: I agree that a president's job, when they swear in their oath to uphold our Constitution, their top priority is to defend the United States of America.

I know that John McCain will do that and I, as his vice president, families we are blessed with that vote of the American people and are elected to serve and are sworn in on January 20, that will be our top priority is to defend the American people.

GIBSON: Since your answer has nothing whatsoever to do with my question, I’m going to assume that you didn’t understand it.  (Speaking to someone off-camera)  Can we get an interpreter in here, pronto?  Someone who speaks PALINESE!!!!  (Turning back to Palin).  Let’s try this one more time.  Do we have a right to anticipatory self-defense? Do we have a right to make a preemptive strike again another country if we feel that country might strike us?

PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend. 

GIBSON: The obligation???  Sounds crazy to me.  Do we really have the right to be making cross-border attacks into Pakistan from Afghanistan, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?

PALIN: In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists who would seek to destroy America and our allies, we must do whatever it takes and we must not blink, Charlie, in making those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target.  It’s just like moose hunting, Charlie.  (Palin raises her arms as if aiming a rifle).  Now, when you’ve got that bugger in your sights . . . .

GIBSON: I got lost in a blizzard of words there. Is that a yes? That you think we have the right to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government, to go after terrorists who are in the Waziristan area?

PALIN: Absolutely.  When you receive a task from God, you can do whatever you need to do. 

GIBSON: But I thought you said . . . .

PALIN: Just let it go, Charlie.  Just let it go. 

Posted by Tom Douglas at 06:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Fellow Systocrats:

This post features editorial commentary from one Anne Kilkenny, Sarah Palin's neighbor since 1992, which was initially forwarded by email to 40 people in Ms. Kilkenny's inner circle on Sunday, August 31, 2008.   The origin of this email has been confirmed by Snopes.com, as Ms. KilKenny verified during a telephone conversation that she did in fact author the email.  

When asked why she decided to circulate this information, Ms. Kilkenny told the Daily Journal that "she wanted to offer people information and her experiences."  She went on to note "how affirming [this] has been.   I am pleased to know how idealistic Americans are.  They want information, not just the politics of destruction."   

Here's the email:

ABOUT SARAH PALIN

I am a resident of Wasilla, Alaska. I have known Sarah since 1992.  Everyone here knows Sarah, so it is nothing special to say we are on a first-name basis.  Our children have attended the same schools. Her father was my child's favorite substitute teacher. I also am on a first name basis with her parents and mother-in-law. I attended more City Council meetings during her administration than about 99% of the residents of the city.

She is enormously popular; in every way she's like the most popular girl in middle school. Even men who think she is a poor choice and won't vote for her can't quit smiling when talking about her because she is a "babe".

It is astonishing and almost scary how well she can keep a secret.  She kept her most recent pregnancy a secret from her children and parents for seven months.

She is "pro-life". She recently gave birth to a Down's syndrome baby.  There is no cover-up involved, here; Trig is her baby.

She is energetic and hardworking. She regularly worked out at the gym.

She is savvy. She doesn't take positions; she just "puts things out there" and if they prove to be popular, then she takes credit.

Her husband works a union job on the North Slope for BP and is a champion snowmobile racer. Todd Palin's kind of job is highly sought-after because of the schedule and high pay. He arranges his work schedule so he can fish for salmon in Bristol Bay for a month or so in summer, but by no stretch of the imagination is fishing their major source of income. Nor has her life-style ever been anything like that of native Alaskans.

Sarah and her whole family are avid hunters.

She's smart.

Her [executive] experience is as mayor of a city with a population of about 5,000 (at the time), and less than 2 years as governor of a state with about 670,000 residents.

During her mayoral administration most of the actual work of running this small city was turned over to an administrator. She had been pushed to hire this administrator by party power-brokers after she had gotten herself into some trouble over precipitous firings which had given rise to a recall campaign.

Sarah campaigned in Wasilla as a "fiscal conservative". During her 6 years as Mayor, she increased general government expenditures by over 33%. During those same 6 years the amount of taxes collected by the City increased by 38%. This was during a period of low inflation (1996-2002). She reduced progressive property taxes and increased a regressive sales tax which taxed even food. The tax cuts that she promoted benefited large corporate property owners way more than they benefited residents.

The huge increases in tax revenues during her mayoral administration weren't enough to fund everything on her wish list though, borrowed money was needed, too. She inherited a city with zero debt, but left it with indebtedness of over $22 million. What did Mayor Palin encourage the voters to borrow money for? Was it the infrastructure that she said she supported? The sewage treatment plant that the city lacked? or a new library? No. $1m for a park. $15m-plus for construction of a multi-use sports complex which she rushed through to build on a piece of property that the City didn't even have clear title to, that was still in litigation 7 yrs later--to the delight of the lawyers involved! The sports complex itself is a nice addition to the community but a huge money pit, not the profit-generator she claimed it would be. She also supported bonds for $5.5m for road projects that could have been done in 5-7 yrs without any borrowing.

While Mayor, City Hall was extensively remodeled and her office redecorated more than once.

These are small numbers, but Wasilla is a very small city.

As an oil producer, the high price of oil has created a budget surplus in Alaska . Rather than invest this surplus in technology that will make us energy independent and increase efficiency, as Governor she proposed distribution of this surplus to every individual in the state.

In this time of record state revenues and budget surpluses, she recommended that the state borrow/bond for road projects, even while she proposed distribution of surplus state revenues: spend today's surplus, borrow for needs.

She's not very tolerant of divergent opinions or open to outside ideas or compromise. As Mayor, she fought ideas that weren't generated by her or her staff. Ideas weren't evaluated on their merits, but on the basis of who proposed them.

While Sarah was Mayor of Wasilla she tried to fire our highly respected City Librarian because the Librarian refused to consider removing from the library some books that Sarah wanted removed. City residents rallied to the defense of the City Librarian and against Palin's attempt at out-and-out censorship, so Palin backed down and withdrew her termination letter. People who fought her attempt to oust the Librarian are on her enemies list to this day.

Sarah complained about the "old boy's club" when she first ran for Mayor, so what did she bring Wasilla? A new set of "old boys". Palin fired most of the experienced staff she inherited. At the City and as Governor she hired or elevated new, inexperienced, obscure people, creating a staff totally dependent on her for their jobs and eternally grateful and fiercely loyal--loyal to the point of abusing their power to further her personal agenda, as she has acknowledged happened in the case of pressuring the State's top cop (see below).

As Mayor, Sarah fired Wasilla's Police Chief because he "intimidated" her, she told the press. As Governor, her recent firing of Alaska 's top cop has the ring of familiarity about it. He served at her pleasure and she had every legal right to fire him, but it's pretty clear that an important factor in her decision to fire him was because he wouldn't fire her sister's ex-husband, a State Trooper. Under investigation for abuse of power, she has had to admit that more than 2 dozen contacts were made between her staff and family to the person that she later fired, pressuring him to fire her ex-brother-in-law. She tried to replace the man she fired with a man who she knew had been reprimanded for sexual harassment; when this caused a public furor, she withdrew her support.

She has bitten the hand of every person who extended theirs to her in help. The City Council person who personally escorted her around town introducing her to voters when she first ran for Wasilla City Council became one of her first targets when she was later elected Mayor. She abruptly fired her loyal City Administrator; even people who didn't like the guy were stunned by this ruthlessness.

Fear of retribution has kept all of these people from saying anything publicly about her.

When then-Governor Murkowski was handing out political plums, Sarah got the best, Chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission: one of the few jobs not in Juneau and one of the best paid. She had no background in oil & gas issues. Within months of scoring this great job which paid $122,400/yr, she was complaining in the press about the high salary. I was told that she hated that job: the commute, the structured hours, the work. Sarah became aware that a member of this Commission (who was also the State Chair of the Republican Party) engaged in unethical behavior on the job. In a gutsy move which some undoubtedly cautioned her could be political suicide, Sarah solved all her problems in one fell swoop: got out of the job she hated and garnered gobs of media attention as the patron saint of ethics and as a gutsy fighter against the "old boys' club" when she dramatically quit, exposing this man's ethics violations (for which he was fined).

As Mayor, she had her hand stuck out as far as anyone for pork from Senator Ted Stevens. Lately, she has castigated his pork-barrel politics and publicly humiliated him. She only opposed the "bridge to nowhere" after it became clear that it would be unwise not to.

As Governor, she gave the Legislature no direction and budget guidelines, then made a big grandstand display of line-item vetoing projects, calling them pork. Public outcry and further legislative action restored most of these projects--which had been vetoed simply because she was not aware of their importance--but with the unobservant she had gained a reputation as "anti-pork".

She is solidly Republican: no political maverick. The State party leaders hate her because she has bit them in the back and humiliated them. Other members of the party object to her self-description as a fiscal conservative.

Around Wasilla there are people who went to high school with Sarah. They call her "Sarah Barracuda" because of her unbridled ambition and predatory ruthlessness. Before she became so powerful, very ugly stories circulated around town about shenanigans she pulled to be made point guard on the high school basketball team. When Sarah's mother-in-law, a highly respected member of the community and experienced manager, ran for Mayor, Sarah refused to endorse her.

As Governor, she stepped outside of the box and put together [a] package of legislation known as "AGIA" that forced the oil companies to march to the beat of her drum.

Like most Alaskans, she favors drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. She has questioned if the loss of sea ice is linked to global warming. She campaigned "as a private citizen" against a state initiaitive that would have either a) protected salmon streams from pollution from mines, or b) tied up in the courts all mining in the state (depending on who you listen to). She has pushed the State's lawsuit against the Dept. of the Interior's decision to list polar bears as threatened species.

McCain is the oldest person to ever run for President; Sarah will be a heartbeat away from being President.

There [have] to be literally millions of Americans who are more knowledgeable and experienced than she.

However, there's a lot of people who have underestimated her and are regretting it.


CLAIM VS FACT

HOCKEY MOM: true for a few years

PTA MOM: true years ago when her first-born was in elementary school, not since

NRA SUPPORTER: absolutely true

SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE: mixed. Opposes gay marriage, BUT vetoed a bill that would have denied benefits to employees in same-sex relationships (said she did this because it was unconsitutional).

PRO-CREATIONISM: mixed. Supports it, BUT did nothing as Governor to promote it.

PRO-LIFE: mixed. Knowingly gave birth to a Down's syndrome baby BUT declined to call a special legislative session on some pro-life legislation

EXPERIENCED: Some high schools have more students than Wasilla has residents. Many cities have more residents than the state of Alaska .

No legislative experience other than City Council. Little hands-on
supervisory or managerial experience; needed help of a city administrator to run town of about 5,000.

POLITICAL MAVERICK: not at all

GUTSY: absolutely!

OPEN & TRANSPARENT: Good at keeping secrets. Not good at explaining actions.

HAS A DEVELOPED PHILOSOPHY OF PUBLIC POLICY: no

A “GREENIE”: no. Turned Wasilla into a wasteland of big box stores
and disconnected parking lots. Is pro-drilling off-shore and in ANWR.

FISCAL CONSERVATIVE: not by my definition!

PRO-INFRASTRUCTURE: No. Promoted a sports complex and park in a city without a sewage treatment plant or storm drainage system. Built streets to early 20th century standards.

PRO TAX RELIEF: Lowered taxes for businesses, increased tax burden on residents

PRO SMALL GOVERNMENT: No. Oversaw greatest expansion of city
government in Wasilla's history.

PRO LABOR/PRO UNION: No. Just because her husband works union
doesn't make her pro-labor. I have seen nothing to support any claim
that she is pro-labor/pro-union.
 
WHY AM I WRITING THIS?

First, I have long believed in the importance of being an informed voter. I am a voter registrar. For 10 years I put on student voting programs in the schools. If you google my name (Anne Kilkenny + Alaska ), you will find references to my participation in local government, education, and PTA/parent organizations.

Secondly, I've always operated in the belief that "Bad things happen when good people stay silent". Few people know as much as I do because few have gone to as many City Council meetings.

Third, I am just a housewife. I don't have a job she can bump me out of. I don't belong to any organization that shecan hurt. But, I am no fool; she is immensely popular here, and it is likely that this will cost me somehow in the future: that's life.

Fourth, she has hated me since back in 1996, when I was one of the 100 or so people who rallied to support the City Librarian against Sarah's attempt at censorship.

Fifth, I looked around and realized that everybody else was afraid to say anything because they were somehow vulnerable.

CAVEATS

I am not a statistician. I developed the numbers for the increase in spending & taxation 2 years ago (when Palin was running for Governor) from information supplied to me by the Finance Director of the City of
Wasilla, and I can't recall exactly what I adjusted for: did I adjust for inflation? for population increases? Right now, it is impossible for a private person to get any info out of City Hall--they are swamped. So I can't verify my numbers.

You may have noticed that there are various numbers circulating for the population of Wasilla, ranging from my "about 5,000", up to 9,000. The day Palin's selection was announced a city official told me that the current population is about 7,000. The official 2000 census count was 5,460. I have used about 5,000 because Palin was Mayor from 1996 to 2002, and the city was growing rapidly in the mid-90's.

Additional note from TSP:  Of particular interest is a recent piece by the Wall Street Journal re: the ongoing Wasilla Sports Complex litigation, which Ms. Palin commissioned while she was Mayor.  As reported by WSJ, essentially, Ms. Palin's "administration" negotiated a favorable price ($126,000) for the 80 acre parcel of land that the Complex was to be built upon, but then failed to close the deal by executing the necessary documents confirming the sale agreement.  Meanwhile, another developer swooped in and bought the property out from under the town, precipitating a lawsuit by the town of Wasilla against the developer.  When the federal court ruled in favor of the developer, the town then (after Ms. Palin had left "office") decided to take the property by eminent domain. 

For the moment, the town has prevailed in that legal action - sort of.  An arbitrator recently ruled that Wasilla had the constitutional right to acquire the property by eminent domain, but that the developer was entitled to receive a whopping $836,378 for the land, plus an additional $336,000 in interest!  Obviously, that's a far cry from the $126,000 purchase the town had initially negotiated.  Further, Wasilla's city attorney estimates Wasilla's attorney fees at a quarter of a million dollars, and it's not over yet!  The developer has appealed, arguing that he's entitled to more interest! 

I would love to be able to report the actual language the judge(s) used to describe the town's incompetence in failing to close this deal, but my search of the usual online legal databases for the actual text of these decisions yielded nothing.  Nada.  Not a word about this ongoing dispute. 

Bottom line: as a result of the Palin "administration's" sloppy actions, the town of Wasilla is down about a million bucks, with more attorney fees to come.  All because her administration didn't bother to do something that anyone who's been in business for twenty minutes would have done - get the contract signed! 

And there are people in this country that actually believe that Sarah Palin will be ready to lead on day one?  All I can say to those people is "wow."  

Posted by Tom Douglas at 04:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)