Another Palin Explanation

I think that people are finally getting the idea: a McCain presidency is basically just a Palin presidency in disguise... and a Palin presidency is just the neo-conservative arm of the Republican party running the country for 4 (or 8) more years. Frank Rich (New York Times Op-Ed Columnist) just wrote a blistering piece about what a Palin vice presidency would mean for the United States and how absurd it is that we are actually considering her as a vice presidential candidate at all.
First, he dismantled her RNC nomination speech, pointing out that, not only did she quote her unidentified writer out of context, the unidentified writer was Westbrook Pegler, "a rabid Joe McCarthyite who loathed F.D.R. and Ike and tirelessly advanced the theory that American Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe (“geese,” he called them) were all likely Communists."
Some other choice quotes follow:

"But race is just one manifestation of the emotion that defined the Palin rollout. That dominant emotion is fear — an abject fear of change. Fear of a demographical revolution that will put whites in the American minority by 2042. Fear of the technological revolution and globalization that have gutted those small towns and factories Palin apotheosized... And, last but hardly least, fear of illegal immigrants who do the low-paying jobs that Americans don’t want to do and of legal immigrants who do the high-paying jobs that poorly educated Americans are not qualified to do. No less revealing than Palin’s convention invocation of Pegler was the pointed omission of any mention of immigration, once the hottest Republican issue, by either her or McCain. Saying the word would have cued an eruption of immigrant-bashing ugliness, Pegler-style, before a national television audience."

"But the ultimate hypocrisy is that these woebegone, frightened opponents of change, sworn enemies of race-based college-admission initiatives, are now demanding their own affirmative action program for white folks applying to the electoral college. They want the bar for admission to the White House to be placed so low that legitimate scrutiny and criticism of Palin’s qualifications, record and family values can all be placed off limits. Byron York of National Review, a rare conservative who acknowledges the double standard, captured it best: “If the Obamas had a 17-year-old daughter who was unmarried and pregnant by a tough-talking black kid, my guess is if they all appeared onstage at a Democratic convention and the delegates were cheering wildly, a number of conservatives might be discussing the issue of dysfunctional black families.”"

In the end, Rich also provides some solid advice for Obama: "If Obama is to convey just what’s at stake, he must slice through the campaign’s lipstick jungle and show Americans the real perils that lie around the bend." Really good op-ed, I think. And one that, again, reminds Americans that a Palin vice presidency (actually, a Palin presidency) is NOT the option we want...

[via NYT]

McCain leading Obama?!?!

I was reading election information yesterday at some of the more reliable sources of polling information available on the internet: Princeton Election Consortium and InTrade Prediction Markets. I found out that Obama has actually fallen behind McCain in state polls and in InTrade predictions! This after McCain selected Palin as his VP!!! In case this is all because of my transcript of her RNC speech, I would like to clarify that I was being satirical in every instance where I seemed to be praising her. Do NOT vote for McCain and her based on my transcript. If McCain-Palin really win this election, I ... Actually, I have no idea what I'll do as I never really thought I would have to consider that outcome. Thank you very much everyone who apparently thinks that the McCain ticket is somehow better thanks to Palin's new vice presidential nomination...

Obama Science Policy

I just read through a questionnaire that Senator Obama finally responded to (Senator McCain still hasn't done so) regarding science/technology/space/environment/education policies in his administration. Being a fairly liberal person, I am pretty happy with what Senator Obama put down; feel free to read it if you want. They also have synopses of other things he has said about the above issues.

[via SEA]

Obama and NASA funding

I don't know if anyone was paying attention to this when it happened back in November 2007, but Obama unveiled his education plan to the US to much laudation that month. However, one thing that bothered me, which may not have been noticed by most others because, honestly, noone cares all that much about NASA anymore (nor does NASA give people reason to care, most of the time), was that he intended to pay for his education initiative by delaying funding for NASA's Constellation program:

Though Obama called for a renewed investment in math and science education, his plan would actually pull money from the federal government's greatest investments and achievements in math and science. Obama would delay funding for the NASA Constellation program for five years, though he would maintain the $500 million in funding the program would receive for its manufacturing and technology base, in order to help fund his education policy.

This bothered me quite a bit; after all, it's sort of depressing that the only way his campaign found to increase education funding was to delay (read: shut down) the future of America's human space exploration program (for those who don't know, Constellation will be replacing the aging space shuttle program).
So, when I read yesterday that Obama promised not to cut NASA funding, I was a bit confused. After reading a bit more carefully, I understood what was happening; Obama was speaking in Brevard County, Florida, where a large segment of the population is sustained by NASA's Cape Canaveral. He would have come down on the "wrong side" of the issue with that audience so he decided to change his mind (perhaps temporarily) about NASA's human space exploration program.
I have been grumbling about Obama quite a bit of late. The fact that I don't grumble about McCain shouldn't be read to mean I like him; it's more like McCain doesn't even show up on the radar as a viable presidential candidate in my eyes. And to be honest, I really don't think Obama's that bad; I think he's probably the most hope-inducing presidential candidate I have been around to see. It's just that he's not as principled as I thought he was when I heard his Race Speech (although that probably makes him a better candidate and president). I'm going to stop grumbling for some time.

[via Florida Today]

Obama okay with offshore oil-drilling

Earlier today, Barack Obama shifted his view on offshore oil drilling in the United States during a speech he gave to Michigan voters. Just to recap, previously, Senator Obama was strictly against drilling in the Gulf of Mexico for any reason, even to make things easier for Americans (which, in the long term, and probably even the short term, it won't do). His view has changed somewhat:

He said he might be willing to accept some exploration of limited offshore drilling as part of a more comprehensive energy bill that would include things he favors, like renewable fuels and batteries for electric-powered cars.

(By the way, the above quote is the most equivocal statement I've read in a long time in the New York Times ["might be willing", "some exploration", "more comprehensive"...]) It's sadly clear why he is doing this - to garner up some votes that McCain seemed to be taking away from him. But, if he really was going to be an "Ideas President" and the "Candidate for Change," he really would not succumb to such distractions. I understand that he wants limited exploration of offshore drilling, packaged within a larger push towards oil independence based on alternative energy investments and hybrid automobile incentives. But that still does not explain why anyone with generally smart economic advisors (some of them being UChicago professors) would suggest even limited offshore drilling when everyone (including Obama himself) says that there is no long-term benefit to drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Just a few days ago, he did the right thing, saying "I'm in favor of solving problems. What I don't want to do is say something because it sounds good politically." Why did he change his mind so suddenly?

[via NYT]

[2008-08-05] Update: I thought about this a little more last night... Somehow, I feel that what Obama did here was take the easier way out. If you will recall, his popularity (at least with me, I guess) skyrocketed when, instead of simply distancing himself from Rev. Wright, Senator Obama gave a speech on race relations that was so elegant in content and delivery that it has since become known as the Race Speech. He didn't take the simple way out there; rather, using his intelligence and eloquence, Obama explained to us his viewpoint and stance. Admittedly, he ultimately did back away from Rev. Wright (leaving Wright's church), but he did it with a measure of class that is unseen in current politicians. This time around, I can't say I feel he took any high road. He saw he was on the unpopular side of an issue. Despite knowing and admitting earlier to knowing that the right side of the issue was the unpopular side, he changed his view so that he was no longer on the right/unpopular side. Maybe I have McCain to blame for this particular situation (who, by the way, has proven many times over that he is worse for the environment and long-term human survival on the earth than Obama by several magnitudes). But, somehow, I feel the blame falls not just on McCain. This time around, Obama failed to raise the level of debate and Americans (and probably the world) will suffer as a consequence.

Obama on Israel-Palestine and Iran

 Obama, in his trip to the Middle East (and, it seems, Europe) reiterated his stance on Israel-Palestine, perhaps a little too strongly for Palestinian tastes:

"I'm here on this trip to reaffirm the special relationship between Israel and the United States, my abiding commitment to its security, and my hope that I can serve as an effective partner, whether as a ... senator or as a president, in bringing about a more lasting peace in the region," he said.

He went on to add that Jerusalem should remain Israel's "undivided" capital, although he backtracked very soon after, saying that everything should be up for negotiation (which, I guess, includes Jerusalem, part of which was annexed by Israel during the 1967 war). Certainly not his best bit of diplomacy...

[via Guardian]

To all who feel Obama is changing his tune

Really, the piece covers all the complaints I have heard made by people who say they don't like Obama. As the New Yorker article explains, most of the "shifts" aren't really shifts, although he does concede one (maybe two) "substantive tweaks" (as he calls them). And, I hate to put too sharp a point to it, are we really okay with any of the alternatives?

[via New Yorker Magazine]