Palin is spinning, but Clinton Lied

My friend with the offensively named blog posted this from the Atlantic on Google Reader.

There's a hole in the logic though. Palin may be spinning this story, but Clinton flat out lied. Like, she actually made up an entire story from scratch. At least there's some truth to the Palin claim, even if some of the context is held back. A truer analogy would be if there had never been a Bridge to Nowhere and SP concocted one from thin air only to bolster her claim that she made it vanish. Very big difference.

East Village Republican vs. Billyburg Commie Pinko Liberal

Our latest debate over my last post:

BCPL:
the mccain campaign's press release for this ad confirms that all these quotes were pre-2006, when mccain's brand as a straight-talking bi-partisan maverick was still alive and well.

EVR:
Please, the accolades stopped because everyone knew he was going to run for president. Minus some recent (and slight) political maneuvering, McCain’s bi-partisan brand of governing is alive and well. See: Feingold’s latest praise.

This is in sharp contrast to your boy Obama who is second-to-none when it comes to Clinton-esque triangulation and can’t claim a single battle scar from choosing principle over popularity. This is why he lacks any significant across-the-aisle respect.

BCPL:
it's too bad he is in the process of reversing that image with his:

1. flip-flops (now supporting regressive bush tax cuts for the super-rich, now seeking political support of the christianist "agents of intolerance"),

EVR:
1) Looking at the entire picture, McCain’s original stance against the Bush tax cuts was due to his desire to have them accompanied by spending cuts. He’s been a supply-sider his entire career and has been as tough as anyone on fiscal restraint. He took a principled stand against the Big Government Conservatism that Bush brought to the White House, knowing that it could haunt him one day. He also rightly admits that at this point, repealing the cuts would be devastating for the economy.

2) The Bush tax cuts were incredibly PROGRESSIVE. The wealthiest 1% of the pop earn 19% of the income but pay 37% of the income tax. The top 10% pay 68%. The top 25% pay 85%. The bottom 50% pay 13%.

3) Can we please put the "seeking support of evangelists" complaint to bed? He needs these votes if he has any chance to win. Would I like him to denounce these crazies? Yes. Do I blame him for looking for their support? No. There is a stark difference between looking for evangelical votes (or votes from "agents of intolerance") and actively joining and participating in a church that is lead by a total religious nut case. For the sake of intellectual honesty, let's not equivocate on this one.

BCPL:
2. double-speak (erroneously offering off-shore drilling and a gas-tax suspension as a salve for high gas prices, falsely claiming "obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign"), and

3. political chicanery (blaming barack "paris/brittney" obama for high gas prices, claiming that obama snubbed wounded troops because he couldn't bring along cameras).

EVR:
Agree that the claim that Obama snubbed wounded troops was lame. But claiming that Obama is more deserving of a front cover on Entertainment Weekly than Congressional Quarterly is a fair argument. Second, I agree that the Dems would rather lose the war than lose their power. Their treatment of this war has been one of the most disgraceful things I've ever witnessed as an American. From Harry Reid declaring, prematurely, that the war is lost, to Obama's refusal to admit that the current stability in Iraq might be due mainly to the surge, it certainly appears that these positions have more to do with Democratic Party politics than a desire to see America achieve victory.

Regarding energy, off-shore drilling and a gas tax suspension would indeed lower gasoline prices at the pump. Drilling would drive prices down immediately (see: laws of supply and demand and global speculation) and the gas tax suspension is obvious. That said, the gas tax suspension is a quick fix political ploy and no substitute for sound, long-term strategy. Besides all the political maneuvering, the truth is that we need a comprehensive plan; one which includes both short term, environmentally sound drilling, and long term investment in renewables and nuclear. P.S. hasn't Obama actually recently reversed on drilling? Gosh, what a quandary for the Democrats! A candidate is actually making sense on energy! Also, Paris Hilton may be on to something on this issue.

BCPL:
much like these video quotes, i've always maintained respect for mccain and his message even while disagreeing with many of his policy positions. however, he has allowed this campaign to bring out the worst in him, and that respect is now in incredibly short supply.

and sorry, no uber-links this time. ;)

Just Beat It ... Again: A Response to the Billyburg Commie Pinko Liberal

My well-intentioned friend, the Billyburg Commie Pinko Liberal, recently posted a piece about the evil Republican joy of torture. BCPL listed 5 reasons he’s against the use of any "enhanced" information seeking techniques:

1. Immoral and inhumane
2. Universally illegal (under the Geneva Conventions, UCMJ and US Law, among others)
3. Ineffective
4. Counter-productive, making us less safe
5. Inconsistent with American values

At the end of last year, I posted a few thoughts on the subject; inspired by the previous evening’s Democratic debate. You’ll see that while I don’t condone torture for torture’s sake, there is something to be gained from “enhanced interrogation techniques.” The ticking bomb scenario may be mostly academic, but it’s a necessary discussion none-the-less and ultimately separates those who support a reasonable security measure vs. those who are dogmatically demented by liberal ideology.

Here’s my take again:

The United States must not be in the business of torture. However, to be brutally honest, I believe there are more important things to care about than whether or not a few EVIL ANIMALS WHO SEEK TO MURDER INNOCENT PEOPLE get roughed up a bit by their American captors. The main points against it (what it may do to our moral standing in the world; it makes us less safe) seem a bit naive -- these Islamic Crazies were killing women and children way before Bush and Cheney took office and began "ruining" America's international good will.

Further, only three terrorists were actually subjected to waterboarding, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind operations chief of 9/11. His interrogation was conducted not to extract a confession but in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 when further attacks seemed likely and intelligence about Al Qaeda's operations was limited. The CIA Director testified that these interrogations saved lives. To put it bluntly, I'm not losing any sleep knowing that bad guys like KSM are being thoroughly questioned.

Maybe the BCPL should be concerned about more important issues, like the fact that Iran may have nukes soon and Obama only wants to sit down and have a little chat about it.

A Re-rebuttal to the Commie Pinko's Obama Comments

Below is the list of arguments made by the Billyburg Commie Pinko Liberal in rebuttal to my previous Obama post (see below). Here's my re-re-buttal.

Look out for the EVR ripping the commie pinko liberal a new ass on his blog shortly.


EVR argument #1

Obama is not a post-partisan politician.

Commie Pinko rebuttal

You can't expect BO to be his own man because he's too new. Also, just look at his time spent as a state senator and you'll see he's bipartisan.

The truth

I actually did look at BO's record. It is the ultimate example of a man legislating as politcal operative. Check it out.

When the phone rings at 3 a.m., do we want a president whose favorite vote seems to be, "present"?

EVR argument #2

BO's premise that his good judgement overrides his lack of experience is flawed: This country needs a man who makes decisions based on what he thinks is right and not what is politically expedient.

Commie Pink rebuttal

Look how far that argument has gotten us with the devil, W. Also, both McCain and Obama combine principled leadership with politcal strategery, just look at the littany of flip-flops on each side.

The truth

McCain is an imperfect candidate and at times seems to buck the party line just to tweak the GOP's nuts, but he's a man with convictions. He's proven time and again that he's willing to do tough work that won't make him popular (i.e. Immigration reform, Campaign Finance reform, the Gang of 14 vote on judges, etc.). He pissed me off by voting against the Bush tax cuts, and even used very liberal language to rail against them ("lining the pockets of the wealthy," etc.), but his main motivation for the "nay" vote was that he felt that any tax cuts should be accompanied by spending cuts. In my mind, a bad vote that will be used against him, but a vote made in the name of principle none-the-less.

BO, on the other hand, has now pivoted from former positions on: an immediate Iraq pullout, the D.C. gun ban, the terror suveillance program, unilateral action on NAFTA, and public campaign fincancing. Obama seems to be promising a third Bush administration with all of these right wing views!

More Obama Myths to come soon ... plus rebuttals on the Billyburg Pinko Liberal's posts. Stay tuned...