25 posts tagged “politicians”

ENOUGH!

Clinton-Bush-Kennedy-Cuomo-Franken-Schwartzenegger.

Nothing more than celebrities from either the world of politics or the world of entertainment. A name is not a qualification for office although name recognition is most certainly a huge advantage.

Truth be told, none of these people are any more qualified for high political office than you, me or that lawyer behind the tree. The only positive thing that can be said about most, but not all of them is that they are not attorneys. Their names are their advantage, not their talents. In fact, it may be the final measure of how far our system of governance has degenerated to have a United States Senate candidate like Al Franken still in contention for a seat in that formerly august body. Seating Franken would be, on a number of levels, a real joke.

The article below examines the prospects of Caroline Kennedy as the next Senator from the State of New York, so designated by appointment, not election. The fact is that she is no more or less qualified than any of the long time hack pols that have served in Congress for decades.

It is rather amusing that some of them denounce her potential appointment based upon her lack of experience. Should we note that constantly being reelected to Congress is absolutely no qualification to serve either? It not only is not a special qualification, but a case can easily be made that once someone has served a term or two, they should automatically be disqualified from returning to office. Familiarity does, in fact, breed contempt, not to mention corruption, dishonesty and a serious disconnect from constituents which often coincides with an ever more beneficial association with lobbyists, special interests and identity groups.

Ms. Kennedy could serve as well as anyone else. And that is the most important point. Our form of governance was originally designed to be based upon public service provided by citizen legislators. There was no special emphasis on a need for attorneys, political royal families, celebrities or professional career politicians. We have sort of evolved in that direction over time and, as a result, we now find ourselves facing a failure of government on all levels in this country. Very few of the people we elect to serve the best interests of the nation and the people do so. Instead they more often than not serve themselves.

The Kennedy clan is one of our political royal families. Anyone who can list the reasons why the Kennedy's are irreplaceable, raise your hands. Like all politicians, they come and they go, leaving behind them nothing that could not have been accomplished by others. Caroline Kennedy just might make an excellent Senator but so would millions of other New Yorkers. She has no special credentials or amazing powers. As a matter of fact, she is somewhat suspect since she chose not to run for the office via the regular elective process but she does seek to be appointed to the office, a much easier and less intrusive path to follow.

America, we all need to get past the idea that celebrities, political royalty, professional career politicians or entertainers are required in order to conduct the business of government. As we know all to well, they are not very good at it. In reality, we not only do not need them, they have screwed things up beyond any one's wildest expectations.

What we need is concerned, engaged and dedicated Americans, interested in the greater good, who would be willing to serve only a term or two and thereafter return to their prior lives and careers, making way for the next generation of citizen legislators. NO Schwartzenegger, NO Cuomo, NO Franken, NO Kennedy, NO Bush, NO Clinton and most especially NO-NO-NO-NO professional career politicians.


Caroline Kennedy's credentials debated in Senate bid
By David M. Halbfinger

She has not held a full-time job in years, has not run for even the lowliest office, and has promoted such noncontroversial causes as patriotism, poetry and public service. Yet Caroline Kennedy's decision to ask Governor David A. Paterson to appoint her to Hillary Rodham Clinton's Senate seat suggests that she believes she is as well prepared as anyone to serve as the next senator from New York — and is ready to throw her famously publicity-averse self into the challenge of winning back-to-back elections in 2010 and 2012.

Already, some columnists, bloggers and even potential colleagues in Congress have begun asking if she would be taken seriously if not for her surname. Representative Gary Ackerman, a New York Democrat, told a radio host on Wednesday that he did not know what Kennedy's qualifications were, "except that she has name recognition — but so does J. Lo."

Aside from a 22-month, three-day-a-week stint as director of strategic partnerships for the New York City schools, her commitments generally involve nonprofit boards: the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Inc., the American Ballet Theater, the Commission on Presidential Debates and the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation.

But friends and associates say that Kennedy, 51, is no dilettante, and that her career is replete with examples of the kind of hands-on policy work and behind-the-scenes maneuvering that could serve her well.

Last spring, she joined the search committee for a new director of the Harvard University Institute of Politics, where she and Senator Edward Kennedy, her uncle, are members of an advisory panel. The university wanted a big-name politician. But Ms. Kennedy argued for someone who would view the post as a career maker, not a career ender, others involved said.

Her choice was Bill Purcell, a two-term Nashville mayor. Her uncle, whose voice carried the greatest weight on the board, had fallen ill with brain cancer, and might have gone in a different direction, one insider said. But over six weeks, she patiently made her case and eventually won over members of the institute's board and Harvard officials.

"She's not shy about pushing people in a direction, and very good at doing it in a way that people don't even realize they're being pushed," said Heather Campion, one board member.

As one might expect, she is also the consummate insider: When Rupert Murdoch's young daughter was applying to the Brearley School, Kennedy, a board member who had attended the school and sent her two daughters there, wrote a letter of recommendation, a News Corporation spokeswoman confirmed.

Kennedy's work with the city's public schools has won much attention, but has not been widely understood. Hired in October 2002 (her $1 salary meant she did not have to fill out financial disclosure forms) to overhaul the schools' private fund-raising, she took on a haphazard operation and gave it a new mission: privately raising seed money to test new reforms, while trying to persuade New Yorkers to get involved in the schools in meaningful ways.

A rock concert in Central Park raised $2 million; a tag sale there drew tens of thousands of bargain hunters. (Some of them, unwittingly, walked off with evening bags that had belonged to her mother, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, according to Ann Moore, the chief executive of Time Inc., which sponsored the event.) By the time she left in August 2004, she had raised more than $70 million for an academy to train reform-minded principals. Nearly 200 city school principals are graduates, the majority in high-poverty schools.
Schools Chancellor Joel Klein credited her with bringing in a $51 million gift from Bill Gates's foundation despite lingering ill will over Klein's battles with Microsoft while he was at the Justice Department.

"She's good in the room, but she's also good at getting people to focus and come together quickly," Klein said. . Kennedy is now vice chairwoman of the schools' nonprofit fund-raising arm, but she continues to visit schools across the city, with no entourage or press aide.

Indeed, one of the more interesting hurdles Kennedy faces would be in telling her story to voters, and to interviewers. Like her mother, she has carefully guarded her privacy.

Yet Kennedy spent about six weeks barnstorming battleground states for Barack Obama and took to it with gusto: An aide recalled her strolling into a Republican headquarters near Ocala, Florida, and peppering voters with questions at every turn.

But in brief interviews during the Democratic National Convention, and on "Meet the Press" after she had helped Obama vet his potential running mates, Kennedy easily deflected the few serious questions she was asked. She deadpanned to Tom Brokaw that his own name had come up in the vetting. And she dryly told Wolf Blitzer, "I just want to be with the best political team on television as much as I possibly can."

As a candidate or senator, she would presumably have a tougher time dodging questions.

Away from the cameras, Kennedy immersed herself in the vice-presidential search, joining Eric Holder, now Obama's choice for attorney general.

"Eric was the quiet one, and she was the one that, really, when I said something, asked, 'Who? Why? How come?' " said Representative Joe Baca, chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, who met with them to analyze the contenders. "She did most of the talking."

Kennedy also took it upon herself to write a lengthy memo for Obama, a senior campaign adviser said. "I think she sized up the field in a way that was thoughtful and sophisticated and right," he said. "And I think it weighed heavily with him."

True to form, Kennedy declined to be interviewed for this article. But she did cooperate indirectly, freeing a few friends and associates, through an intermediary, to discuss her.

They and several others, described a woman who is surprisingly down to earth: who carried sensible shoes in her bag for the walk home from a dressy event at Tavern on the Green; who declined a lift downtown when caught without an umbrella in a rainstorm, instead heading for the subway in a baseball cap; who does not shirk her periodic safety patrol duty, with its reflective vests and walkie-talkies, as a Collegiate School mom; who is an assiduous e-mailer, if not so fast at returning voice mail; who has a personal assistant, but does not use her as a gatekeeper the way so many not-so-famous people do; and who loves to play Running Charades, a version of the popular parlor game.

"There's nothing at all pretentious about her," said Jane Rosenthal, the co-founder of the Tribeca Film Festival and a longtime friend of Kennedy and her husband, Edwin Schlossberg.

Kennedy has said that it was her children who got her to give Obama a look last year. Elaine Jones, a retired head of the NAACP fund, speculated that Kennedy's children — her two daughters are in college and her son is in high school — were also the reasons she had not entered public life sooner.

"A fishbowl can adversely affect a child," Jones said. "Her mother found a way to keep her children real. Caroline, I think, wanted that for her children. So I think, without knowing it, subconsciously, she was trying to get her kids to this point."

Copyright © 2008 The International Herald Tribune www.iht.com

Sphere: Related Content

As illustrated in the editorial that follows, Barack Obama is driven by doctrine rather than facts on the matter of taxation. He speaks to the beliefs of the political left, not to the evidence that shows those beliefs as completely wrong headed. Similar to the case of the discredited theory of "global warming", Obama promotes a theory about income distribution that is not supported by the historical record. His theory doesn't even have the unscientific and unproven computer generated "projections" to fall back on as do global warmists.

Time to speak truth to power. Here in the USA, we have the richest poor in the world. They own more cars, more televisions, more microwave ovens and have larger homes than those in poverty virtually anywhere else. How? Because we have had a successful and growing economy every decade since the end of the Second World War. The chart above, provided by the US Census Bureau, clearly shows that since 1959, in spite of a booming total population, the number of people in poverty has diminished as has the percentage of people in poverty. That despite the continued increase in the total annual income that identifies those who live below the poverty level.

The piece referred to below provides additional details and analysis as to why, here in America, both the rich and the poor have gotten richer. Further, there have been any number of comparative studies over recent years that contrast those living below the poverty level here against those in the same category in other industrial nations. America's poor consistently do better and will likely continue in that status into the future if Obama administration policy does not destroy or seriously diminish the engine of our economy with punitive tax laws.

None of this is to say that more cannot be done for the "poor" in America. But what historically does not work in their favor is handouts, welfare and other giveaways. The hard lesson that we have repeatedly learned is that government largess to the "poor" trap those same folks in a generational cycle of continued poverty. Making people dependent on government handouts does not lift them out of poverty. Instead, it catches them in a world of basic subsistence that holds entire families in place, not likely to take advantage of the opportunities offered by a free market based economy in this democratic society.

Relative to tax policy, punishing the "rich", who are most likely to be the one's generating the investment necessary to grow the economy, in truth punishes the "poor" by diminishing the opportunity to break the cycle of poverty. When the government takes more money from the "rich" so that it can be redistributed to the "poor", it is the "poor" who become further enmeshed in the downward cycle of dependence and poverty. All the while, the "rich" invest less or pass on their additional costs that so inflate prices as to take many goods and services out of the reach of the "poor".

That is a matter of record, not a matter of doctrine.


Inequality Myths
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Economy: President-elect Barack Obama argues big tax hikes on the rich are needed in part to help redress the growing wealth gap in America. Unfortunately, that argument doesn't pan out when you look at the data.

Speaking to NBC's Tom Brokaw on Sunday, Obama laid out his views: "It turns out," he said, "that our economy grows best when the benefits of the economy are most widely spread. And that has been true historically."

He followed up by saying, in the last 15 years or so, "You've seen a huge shift in terms of resources to the wealthiest and the vast majority of Americans taking home less and less. Their incomes, their wages have flatlined at a time that costs of everything have gone up, and we've actually become a more productive society."

Our new president might want to talk to some of his sterling economic advisers about this, because he got virtually all of it wrong.

Start with the notion that our economy grows "best" when its benefits are most widely spread.

In fact, America's fast-growing economy has always bred differences in income. Some people are smarter, more talented, better educated and trained, or more entrepreneurial. In a free-market society — or relatively free, anyway — they'll do better. But they make the rest of us richer, too. We may envy them, but we're better off.

As for spreading the wealth, the definitive data come from the Gini ratio, calculated by the Census Bureau. Simply put, the Gini ratio measures income dispersion in a society — that is, inequality.

Go back to 1947, as the U.S. emerged from World War II and the Great Depression. Since that year, the U.S. has had the most amazing run of wealth and income creation of any economy ever. We are today the richest country on earth, and No. 2 isn't close.

Yet, over that time, according to the Census Bureau, U.S. income inequality has risen by 15%. Why? Fast-growing economies are almost always accompanied by income inequality — it was true of the U.S. in the past, and it's true of India and China today.

This isn't a bad thing. We benefit from this. The rich earn a lot of income, yes, but they pay even more in taxes. They also create thousands of businesses, millions of jobs and trillions in income.

That said, it's shocking to discover a little-known truth: The U.S. today has one of the most progressive tax codes in the industrialized world. And it's gotten more so over time.

As IRS data show, in 1980, the top 1% earned 8.5% of all adjusted gross income but paid 19% of all taxes. By 2006, that same group's share of AGI had risen to 22%, but its share of taxes had soared to 40%. That is, their tax bill rose faster than their income share.

A recent OECD study looked at federal tax rates paid by the rich vs. low-income workers in rich countries. The U.S. ratio is 1.3 — vs. an average of less than 1.2 for other wealthy nations. As American Enterprise Institute economist Kevin Hassett noted, "the U.S. redistributes far more than the typical developed country."

Unfortunately, the focus on inequality obscures a key fact: Americans aren't taking home "less and less," as Obama says. Nor have wages "flatlined." Indeed, incomes are growing for everyone.

Again, census data tell the story.

Incomes for the poorest one-fifth of all earners have grown on average 3.9% a year since 1994. Meanwhile, those in the middle three-fifths of incomes — broadly speaking, the middle class — have grown by 3.4% to 3.6% a year. Incomes grew after inflation, too. So it's simply wrong to say there was no growth.

To correct these imaginary inequities, Obama talks about hitting the top 5% of incomes with new, higher taxes. But guess what? That'll only punish the millions of Americans who rely on the top earners for jobs and incomes. During a time of national recession, such policies aren't only unwise — they could prove disastrous.

Sphere: Related Content

Reading the article below will cause any serious minded person to pause. It speaks to the dangers and threats that exist in the world around us. To ignore that reality is simply ignorant and foolish.

Only those who care not for the future of the nation will downplay the significance of the spread of high technology in a world with access to WMD from a variety of sources. Not getting this message is to not understand human nature. And not to have learned the lessons of history. And not to know that life requires facing up to and dealing with reality, regardless of what one wishes, hopes or feels.

Americans are a peaceful people by nature. We here are not warmongers. When forced to fight to defend ourselves, our allies or our way of life, we will not only fight but we will battle hard. But given our choice, we would prefer the world to be a happy place, where everyone gets along and where, if there is a dispute of some sort, those involved sit down together and work out a solution acceptable to both sides. Americans want to be deal makers, not war makers. We like to share the advantages that we enjoy with the rest of the planet and we desire the ideal of a peaceful world into perpetuity.

The problem is, what we want and the reality of this life are very, very different. Human nature is not all hearts and flowers. The bad news: it appears that although virtually everything else has changed since humans first emerged from caves, human nature has remained the same. There is little prospect that it will change in the foreseeable future. Thus it has been observed that history illustrates that those periods of world peace enjoyed in the past have simply represented the lulls between wars. Humans, by their nature, have a proclivity for war. We can all wish it were not so, but it is and has always been.

Although anti-war sentiment represents a fine and noble goal, hope has no substance while history records the hard truth. Facts, not feelings, will underlie the history of our times. We can all hope and pray for peace but we had better, all the while, prepare for attack from those who wholly dislike, even hate, who we are and what we stand for in this world. Remember what those who fight have testified to for a very long time, "Only the dead have seen the end of war".

All of which brings us to our current circumstances. Candidate Obama ran on an anti-war, anti-military funding, anti-missile defense platform. He received wide support from his supporters for that stance. Many believe he will implement this portion of his platform once he is in office. Yet, as explained below, the threat is real and the potential outcomes of that threat are both frightening and unacceptable. So where are we?

Since becoming President-Elect, one of Obama's new daily routines is a complete national security briefing. He is now privy to the same information that is provided to George Bush as to the state of the world. Such briefings are not a matter of theory or hope. They represent a regular snapshot of the hard reality of a dangerous, threatening and, in some instances, hostile world.

It is not the catchy sound bites common to campaigning. It is not the mesmerizing rhetoric of hope or change. It is what Obama will have to deal with as POTUS, each and every day, beginning on the afternoon of January 20, 2009. On that day, the opportunity for finger pointing will have passed and from that time forward the proverbial buck will stop with him.

Expect that there will be a decided difference between Obama the campaigner and Obama the President. When the responsibility for the welfare of a nation with over 300 million people falls upon his shoulders alone, it will have a very sobering effect. We are at war and will be when he assumes office. That will continue to go forward, although Obama may adjust the priorities.

Terrorists will continue to target our homeland, our people, our allies and our overseas interests. The new President will have to continue on with most all of the things we do now to protect all of those interests. He may initiate and follow through on a promise of more contact with our enemies, but that will not change the threats in the near future or the hard realities of the world.

Missile defense? What Obama will choose remains to be seen. But we can all take some solace in the fact that as President he will receive far more detailed and harrowing information than this article presents. At the end of the day, it is hard to believe that a President Obama will leave American society open to and vulnerable to utter destruction.

We hope! It is a matter of do or die.


What a Single Nuclear Warhead Could Do
Why the U.S. needs a space-based missile defense against an EMP attack.
By BRIAN T. KENNEDY

As severe as the global financial crisis now is, it does not pose an existential threat to the U.S. Through fits and starts we will sort out the best way to revive the country's economic engine. Mistakes can be tolerated, however painful. The same may not be true with matters of national security.

Although President George W. Bush has accomplished more in the way of missile defense than his predecessors -- including Ronald Reagan -- he will leave office with only a rudimentary system designed to stop a handful of North Korean missiles launched at our West Coast. Barack Obama will become commander in chief of a country essentially undefended against Russian, Chinese, Iranian or ship-launched terrorist missiles. This is not acceptable.

The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, have proven how vulnerable we are. On that day, Islamic terrorists flew planes into our buildings. It is not unreasonable to believe that if they obtain nuclear weapons, they might use them to destroy us.
And yet too many policy makers have rejected three basic facts about our position in the world today:

First, as the defender of the Free World, the U.S. will be the target of destruction or, more likely, strategic marginalization by Russia, China and the radical Islamic world.

Second, this marginalization and threat of destruction is possible because the U.S. is not so powerful that it can dictate military and political affairs to the world whenever it wants. The U.S. has the nuclear capability to vanquish any foe, but is not likely to use it except as a last resort.

Third, America will remain in a condition of strategic vulnerability as long as it fails to build defenses against the most powerful political and military weapons arrayed against us: ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads. Such missiles can be used to destroy our country, blackmail or paralyze us.

Any consideration of how best to provide for the common defense must begin by acknowledging these facts.

Consider Iran. For the past decade, Iran -- with the assistance of Russia, China and North Korea -- has been developing missile technology. Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani announced in 2004 their ability to mass produce the Shahab-3 missile capable of carrying a lethal payload to Israel or -- if launched from a ship -- to an American city.

The current controversy over Iran's nuclear production is really about whether it is capable of producing nuclear warheads. This possibility is made more urgent by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's statement in 2005: "Is it possible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism? But you had best know that this slogan and this goal are attainable, and surely can be achieved."

Mr. Ahmadinejad takes seriously, even if the average Iranian does not, radical Islam's goal of converting, subjugating or destroying the infidel peoples -- first and foremost the citizens of the U.S. and Israel. Even after 9/11, we appear not to take that threat seriously. We should.

Think about this scenario: An ordinary-looking freighter ship heading toward New York or Los Angeles launches a missile from its hull or from a canister lowered into the sea. It hits a densely populated area. A million people are incinerated. The ship is then sunk. No one claims responsibility. There is no firm evidence as to who sponsored the attack, and thus no one against whom to launch a counterstrike.

But as terrible as that scenario sounds, there is one that is worse. Let us say the freighter ship launches a nuclear-armed Shahab-3 missile off the coast of the U.S. and the missile explodes 300 miles over Chicago. The nuclear detonation in space creates an electromagnetic pulse (EMP).

Gamma rays from the explosion, through the Compton Effect, generate three classes of disruptive electromagnetic pulses, which permanently destroy consumer electronics, the electronics in some automobiles and, most importantly, the hundreds of large transformers that distribute power throughout the U.S. All of our lights, refrigerators, water-pumping stations, TVs and radios stop running. We have no communication and no ability to provide food and water to 300 million Americans.

This is what is referred to as an EMP attack, and such an attack would effectively throw America back technologically into the early 19th century. It would require the Iranians to be able to produce a warhead as sophisticated as we expect the Russians or the Chinese to possess. But that is certainly attainable. Common sense would suggest that, absent food and water, the number of people who could die of deprivation and as a result of social breakdown might run well into the millions.

Let us be clear. A successful EMP attack on the U.S. would have a dramatic effect on the country, to say the least. Even one that only affected part of the country would cripple the economy for years. Dropping nuclear weapons on or retaliating against whoever caused the attack would not help. And an EMP attack is not far-fetched.

Twice in the last eight years, in the Caspian Sea, the Iranians have tested their ability to launch ballistic missiles in a way to set off an EMP. The congressionally mandated EMP Commission, with some of America's finest scientists, has released its findings and issued two separate reports, the most recent in April, describing the devastating effects of such an attack on the U.S.

The only solution to this problem is a robust, multi layered missile-defense system. The most effective layer in this system is in space, using space-based interceptors that destroy an enemy warhead in its ascent phase when it is easily identifiable, slower, and has not yet deployed decoys. We know it can work from tests conducted in the early 1990s. We have the technology. What we lack is the political will to make it a reality.

An EMP attack is not one from which America could recover as we did after Pearl Harbor. Such an attack might mean the end of the United States and most likely the Free World. It is of the highest priority to have a president and policy makers not merely acknowledge the problem, but also make comprehensive missile defense a reality as soon as possible.

Mr. Kennedy is president of the Claremont Institute and a member of the Independent Working Group on Missile Defense

Sphere: Related Content

Anybody buying the 'team of rivals' line of pablum being put forward in some quarters (e.g. the biased media) as the reason why President-Elect Obama has selected Ms. Clinton as the nominee for Secretary of State? Those that do likely do not have a clue about the high stakes game of political poker being played in government on the Cabinet level.

It would be impossible to have paid even the slightest attention to the political careers of both Bill & Hillary Clinton and, at the same time, believe that this appointment is all hearts and flowers (such would require the "suspension of disbelief"). The Clinton's are noting if not bright and calculating pols who do nothing by accident or without regard to their futures in government. Their track record is clear and unmistakable.

Take a moment to think back to the pre-Democrat party convention in Denver. Obama had the delegate lead but the nomination was not yet secured. Hillary had the momentum, particularly in big states with real election primaries rather than the easily manipulated small state caucuses. Obama had peaked a bit early and Hillary was on the come.

Much of the electorate was either deeply concerned or highly giddy over the prospect of a long and bloody convention floor fight over the nomination. It appeared that the supposed party of the common working man, the little guy, was going to have it's nominee determined in the back rooms, out of sight of party regulars, by the "super delegates" and the party hierarchy. Hillary's troops were determined and dedicated to her cause. The fear of the party tearing itself apart on national television was palpable. Republicans rejoiced while Democrat party types sweat blood.

At a key moment, the two major contenders and their senior staff met to try and determine a path of solidarity and victory. Clinton brought momentum and highly committed delegates on her side. Obama had the delegate lead and the sympathies of the world at hand. But he also had the advance benefit of the most important wild card: super delegates. As the convention loomed, increasing numbers of super delegates began to publicly proclaim their support for Obama. Although certainly a powerful advantage, it was not necessarily an impossible to overcome advantage. Hillary had Bill and a host of high profile, powerful figures who could pressure and arm twist super delegates to reconsider their positions.

Is simple surrender by Hillary really a believable scenario? Not at all. Most certainly she went into her key meeting with Obama with the intent and with the ability to cut a deal that would continue to advance her political career beyond the dead end of the United States Senate. Most probably a range of options were discussed but it is highly likely that Hillary had her eye on a high profile Cabinet position from the get go. Making a deal was obviously in the best interests of both Obama and Clinton, not to mention saving their party a high profile public embarrassment.

It is important to note how long the public dance leading to the formal announcement of this deal took. Details had to be worked out and agreed to by both parties. In that process, it appears Hillary came out ahead. She gained clearance to name her own senior team at State, without needing the approval of the Obama team. That is a very unusual development. Further, she was able to publicly establish herself as an independent voice who will advise the President, not a role player who will automatically follow policy as dictated by the White House. She gained the capability to run her own shop, leaving her with wide latitude to promote her career and appear as a decision maker.

It will be fascinating going forward to watch how the Obama White House will articulate with the State Department. Obama advertises in advance that he invites dissenting voices around him in order to better inform his decision making process. That sounds good. But we are talking the Clinton's here. Hillary arrives with a train load of old baggage, not the least of which is her husband, as well as with a career promoting agenda and plan. That may or may not work out well for Obama. One thing for sure, Hillary and her devotees will never settle for Secretary of State as her final stop.

She cut a deal to move up the political ladder. Do not bet against her.


Hillary of State
How much will this cost the Obama administration?
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL

One rule of employee relations? Never hire someone you can't afford to fire.
Barack Obama's offer to let Hillary Clinton be secretary of state has already been marked down as a brilliant co-option of his former rival. But nothing comes for free, and the question is just how big a price Mr. Obama will pay in the end.

For now, he is getting only praise for his surprise pick. The move fits neatly into the media narrative that Mr. Obama is drafting a team that will challenge his thinking. It's also being described as a gesture that could heal party wounds and mollify Clinton supporters Mr. Obama never won to his side.

The actual motivation? Short term, Mr. Obama understands his real struggles are going to be in the Senate, where he will need 60 votes. Left there with nothing but a potential future run against Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton would be tempted to use her position to highlight her differences with the sitting president. Even as a junior senator, she could gum up his works. Mr. Obama does not need that.

The job at State all but eliminates this threat. As the nation's top diplomat, Mrs. Clinton will be barred, both by law and by custom, from partisan politics.
She'll have to dismantle her extensive political operation, and end the patronage that has earned her continued loyalty.

There's arguably also not enough time for Mrs. Clinton to make her mark as secretary of state, and find a reason to break with her boss, and piece back together her empire, and get into a presidential race. They both know that in taking this cabinet post, Mrs. Clinton is clearing herself from Mr. Obama's political path.

Having lived with, up close, the Clinton political threat, Mr. Obama might be forgiven for agreeing to just about anything to forestall a repeat. But no one should forget that this is Mrs. Clinton we are talking about -- with all her ambitions, all her frustrations, all her family relations and all her past. The price of neutralizing Mrs. Clinton as an outside rival, by bringing her inside, could make today's bailouts look cheap.

The early media pronouncement is that Mr. Obama is getting, for this post of top diplomat, a woman with great "experience." Oh, how short memories are. Mrs. Clinton staked her early primary claim on foreign policy. So determined was she to out-tough Mr. Obama that she walked into wild exaggerations -- Bosnian sniper fire and Northern Ireland peace, to name a few.

Egged on by former Clintonite Gregory Craig (Mr. Obama's newly picked White House general counsel), the media reported on just how little "experience" she'd had as the former first lady. Mrs. Clinton worked hard on foreign policy in the Senate, but it still remains far from clear how talented she'll prove at this job. Mr. Obama is taking a flyer on one of his bigger promises -- that of changing American foreign policy.

His onetime rival will also have plenty of leeway to go rogue. The State Department is traditionally hard to rein in, and Mrs. Clinton has insisted she also be free of traditional constraints. She's demanded the right to staff her department with her own people. And while national security advisers are often more powerful than secretaries of state, she wants the ability to circumvent that position and go directly to Mr. Obama.

This is the stuff ugly internal disputes are made of.

As for the issues, there are plenty on which the rivals disagreed in the primaries, from how tough to be on Iran to how strongly to stand with Israel. And let's not forget any differences between Mr. Obama and Bill Clinton -- since no matter how many promises to the contrary, he will be co-secretary of state.

Speaking of Bill, Mr. Obama famously noted during the primary that it was time to move beyond the Clinton era. Instead, he's dragging that baggage back into the White House living room. The Obama team is combing through the hundreds of thousands of donors to Mr. Clinton's foundation. Those papers surely contain compromising conflicts. There was good reason the Clinton's have always refused to make that information public.

Mr. Obama can now sit on those documents, renege on his pledges to be one of the most "transparent" presidencies in history, and endure the rightful outrage that will follow. Or he can release them, and guarantee a feeding frenzy. Either option will prove an unpleasant side story to his more pressing policy concerns.
And that's just the immediate issue. There are also the 1990s Clinton documents, which remain under wraps at the Clinton library, but not forever.

Having made the grand gesture, Mr. Obama can now only get rid of Mrs. Clinton at risk of another party rift. The president-elect now owns Mrs. Clinton's past, and future, behavior. That could turn out to be some deal.

Write to kim@wsj.com
Copyright 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Sphere: Related Content

The story that follows reports the claim by the Speaker of the House that she knew absolutely nothing about the hush money paid by Democrat Congressman Tim Mahoney, a family and morals candidate, to his mistress. Ms. Pelosi would have the public believe that, as the most important legislative leader in Congress, she was a complete and total air head relative to her Democrat team. Further, she is saying that, even though others in the Dem leadership team and rank and file knew about the problem, she had not a clue.

Really?

If true, what does that say about our Dear Speaker? If she knew nothing than she simply is paying no attention to the House in general and her partisans in particular. Can someone in that number one leadership position be so disengaged, distracted or just plain dumb, and be doing the job the nation, the Congress and the House expects and requires that she do to an acceptable standard? Obviously not. If accurate, this claim openly proclaims incompetence and begs the question, "Should anyone so disconnected hold such a key position in such troubled times?". The answer is self-evident. She should be removed and placed on a back bench where she can do no additional harm.

If what she claims is untrue (which is most likely), then she is an openly public liar who believes truth is not an important or practical value in American society. It is often said that the far left does not believe that truth is an important virtue and this just might be an high profile example of that point. No one, Pelosi especially, ascends to the position of Speaker without being a well informed, ruthless pol who knows where every skeleton is buried and where every sparrow falls. In practice on the far left, the ends justify the means as a matter of practice. Such is not the exception, it is the rule. Best guess: Pelosi is not being truthful. If so, she should be removed and placed on a back bench where she can do no additional harm.

This is not rocket science. In this matter, she is being either dishonest or incompetent. Either way, she has got no business being in a leadership position and, if you believe her, you should not permit yourself to vote.


Pelosi Statement on Congressman Tim Mahoney

Contact: Brendan Daly or Nadeam Elshami, +1-202-226-7616
WASHINGTON, Oct. 13

Speaker Nancy Pelosi today issued the following statement on Congressman Tim Mahoney of Florida:

"I just learned today about the serious allegations concerning Congressman Tim Mahoney. These charges must be immediately and thoroughly investigated by the House Ethics Committee."

SOURCE Office of the Speaker of the House
Copyright © 2008 Yahoo! Inc. All Rights Reserved.

For additional information CLICK THE LINK BELOW:
Congressman's $121,000 Payoff to Alleged Mistress

Sphere: Related Content

Whether speaking at an off the record fund raiser in Marin County California during the primaries or making an off the cuff answer to a question on a rope line over the weekend, candidate Obama repeatedly speaks the truth when he is off script and not reading from a teleprompter. What he says when he is exclusively speaking his own mind is very revealing in terms of what he really believes. The script is pure electoral politics designed to influence voters to vote Obama. The comments from within are an honest insight into the man and how he sees the world and his role in it.

The article below is about his comment to a working man on a rope line who had made a remark about taxes. The recorded Obama reply tells us all we need to know about the candidate's view of tax policy and the future reality all working Americans would face under an Obama presidency. All of the script babble that Obama mouths regarding tax cuts for 95% of working citizens simply does not match up with what the man believes and plans.

One such remark uttered during a campaign might, just might, be written off as a misstatement due to fatigue, loss of focus or whatever. But these repeated insights about taxes, guns, religion, lapel pins, being punished with a baby, the bombing of Pakistan, unconditional meetings, pro-Palestinian statements and the like. These represent opportunities to view and understand the inner Obama, the unvarnished man, the political reality.

Interested in the truth? Listen to the unguarded utterances of the candidate. That, along with a careful look Obama's record, will give you an honest understanding of who he is and what he thinks. That is the basis upon which to make a voting decision.

The script is smoke, mirrors, misdirection and wholly misleading. We have an obligation to inform our votes. Listen to the inner Obama and study the record. Once done you will know what to do on November 4th.


Obama to Plumber: My Plan Will 'Spread the Wealth Around'
Barack Obama tells a plumber in Ohio he wants to "spread the wealth around," eliciting criticism that his economic recovery plan is socialist in nature.
FOXNews.com

Barack Obama told a tax-burdened plumber over the weekend that his economic philosophy is to "spread the wealth around" -- a comment that may only draw fire from riled-up John McCain supporters who have taken to calling Obama a "socialist" at the Republican's rallies.

Obama made the remark, caught on camera, after fielding some tough questions from the plumber Sunday in Ohio, where the Democratic candidate canvassed neighborhoods and encouraged residents to vote early.

"Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" the plumber asked, complaining that he was being taxed "more and more for fulfilling the American dream."

"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too," Obama responded. "My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Obama's remarks drew fresh criticism on the blogosphere that the Illinois senator favors a breed of wealth redistribution -- as well as a rebuke from the McCain campaign.

"If Barack Obama's goal as President is to 'spread the wealth around,' perhaps his unconditional meetings with Hugo Chavez, Raul Castro, and Kim Jong-Il aren't so crazy -- if nothing else they can advise an Obama administration on economic policy," McCain spokesman Michael Goldfarb said in a written statement to FOXNews.com. "In contrast, John McCain's goal as president will be to let the American people prosper unburdened by government and ever higher taxes."

Obama frequently rails against what he calls a Republican concept that tax breaks for the wealthy will somehow "trickle down" to middle-class Americans.

Obama says he will not raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.

However, McCain's aides and supporters argue that Obama wrongly wants to raise taxes on businesses in a time of economic distress.

Both candidates spent Monday discussing how they would resurrect the ailing economy. McCain again pointed to his plan to buy up cumbersome mortgages from homeowners and renegotiate them. Obama unveiled what he called an economic rescue plan for the middle class, which included a 90-day moratorium on foreclosures.

Click here to watch the video of Obama's remarks.

FOX News' Bonney Kapp contributed to this report.

Sphere: Related Content

What follows is a parody about the widely covered and quickly forgotten speech by candidate Obama in a football stadium in Denver at the conclusion of the Democrat convention. It is written, tongue in cheek, by David Brooks of the NYT.

Although a humorous rendition of that speech it needs to be noted that Brooks is one of the true lost puppies of the big biased media. If you follow his work at all you come away with the impression of a writer without portfolio. He seems to be a talent in waiting of a philosophical base. Here he parody's Obama. There he pillories Palin. Here he praises McCain and there he praises Biden. When a reader attempts to get his sense of direction, the only thing that comes across is that he drinks from the Washington insider chalice and his devotion is to that inside the famed Beltway. He seems to forget that most Americans disdain that which he worships.

Too bad since, as the following illustrates, the man has talent and a sense of humor.


A Speech to the Delegates
By DAVID BROOKS
DENVER

My fellow Americans, it is an honor to address the Democratic National Convention at this defining moment in history. We stand at a crossroads at a pivot point, near a fork in the road on the edge of a precipice in the midst of the most consequential election since last year’s “American Idol.”

One path before us leads to the past, and the extinction of the human race. The other path leads to the future, when we will all be dead. We must choose wisely.

We must close the book on the bleeding wounds of the old politics of division and sail our ship up a mountain of hope and plant our flag on the sunrise of a thousand tomorrows with an American promise that will never die! For this election isn’t about the past or the present, or even the pluperfect conditional.
It’s about the future, and Barack Obama loves the future because that’s where all his accomplishments are.

We meet today to pass the torch to a new generation of Americans, a generation that came of age amidst iced chais and mocha strawberry Frappuccinos®, a generation with a historical memory that doesn’t extend back past Coke Zero.

We meet today to heal the divisions that have torn this country. For we are all one country and one American family, whether we are caring and thoughtful Democrats or hate-filled and war-crazed Republicans. We must bring together left and right, marinara and carbonara, John and Elizabeth Edwards. On United we stand, on US Airways, there’s a 25-minute delay.

Ladies and gentleman, I never expected to be speaking before you today. Like so many of our speakers at this convention, I come from a hard-working, middle-class family. I was leading a miserable little life, but, nevertheless, overcame great odds to live the American Dream. My great-grandfather fought in Patton’s Army, along with Barack Obama’s great-grand uncles’ fourth cousin once removed.

As a child, I was abandoned by my parents and lived with a colony of ants. We didn’t have much in the way of material possession, but we did have each other and the ability to carry far more than our own body weights. When I was young, I was temporarily paralyzed in a horrible anteater accident, but I never gave up my dream: the dream of speaking at a national political convention so my speech could be talked over by Wolf Blitzer and a gang of pundits.

And today we Democrats meet in Denver, a suburb of Boulder, a city whose motto is, “A Taxi? You Must be Dreaming.”

And in Denver, we Democrats showed America that we have cute daughters who will someday provide us with prestigious car-window stickers. We heard Hillary Clinton’s ringing endorsement of “the weak-looking thin guy who’s bound to lose.”

We heard from Joe Biden, whose 643 years in the Senate make him uniquely qualified to talk to the middle class, whose family has been riding the Acela and before that the Metroliner for generations, who has been given a lifetime ban from the quiet car and who is himself a verbal train wreck waiting to happen.

We got to know Barack and Michelle Obama, two tall, thin, rich, beautiful people who don’t perspire, but who nonetheless feel compassion for their squatter and smellier fellow citizens. We know that Barack could have gone to a prestigious law firm, like his big donors in the luxury boxes, but he chose to put his ego aside to become a professional politician, president of the United States and redeemer of the human race. We heard about his time as a community organizer, the three most fulfilling months of his life.

We were thrilled by his speech in front of the Greek columns, which were conscientiously recycled from the concert, “Yanni, Live at the Acropolis.” We were honored by his pledge, that if elected president, he will serve at least four months before running for higher office. We were moved by his campaign slogan, “Vote Obama: He’s better than you’ll ever be.” We were inspired by dozens of Democratic senators who declared their lifelong love of John McCain before denouncing him as a reactionary opportunist who would destroy the country.

No, this country cannot afford to elect John Bushmccain. Under Republican rule, locusts have stripped the land, adults wear crocs in public and M&M’s have lost their flavor. We must instead ride to the uplands of hope!

For as Barack Obama suggested Thursday night, wherever there is a president who needs to tap our natural-gas reserves, I’ll be there. Wherever there is a need for a capital-gains readjustment for targeted small businesses, I’ll be there.
Wherever there is a president committed to direct diplomacy with nuclear proliferators, I’ll be there, too! God bless the Democrats, and God Bless America!

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

Sphere: Related Content

The formerly reasonably decent Sunday news show, 'Meet The Biased Press', was a real hoot on Sunday. A panel of learned journalists weighed in on the VP debate of last Thursday night. Without doubt, intoned these highly partial experts, Joe Biden was the winner.

How could they tell? Well, he was much better versed about the procedures of the United States Senate and he had a greater recall of votes cast therein by whom and for what. Governor Palin, on the other hand, did not demonstrate such depth of knowledge about the workings of the Congress and thus she did not demonstrate any real substantive understanding of government (by the way, ignore the fact that she is not running for Congress). In other words, according to these lords of all that the rest of us are allowed to believe, Biden beat Palin on substance.

Well, hang on to your horses all you gifted journalists. Those of us out here in unwashed territory are well aware of your biased opinions and your unending drive to elect Obama and tear down Palin. Never forget what that backwoods commoner Lincoln said, "You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time. But you cannot fool all of the people all of time". In short, the American people are not nearly as dumb as you believe we are in your heart of hearts. We see your agenda and most of us do not follow your lead.

For instance:

• We expect a thirty plus year Washington insider like Biden will have a much better grip on the politics and procedures of the Congress than the Governor of Alaska. If he didn't, that would be deeply worrisome.
• We also expect that the same longtime member of Congress would not have much, if any, understanding of the inner workings of Alaska state government or the most important issues affecting the citizens of Wasilla, Alaska. We know, however, that Governor (and former Wasilla Mayor) Palin would win any debate with Biden that focused on the entrenched politics and procedures associated with Alaska or Wasilla.
• We were interested in seeing if Palin could hold her own in circumstances wildly favorable to Biden, all while the nation watched. She did.
• As those of you in the forth estate like to point out relative to the Nixon-Kennedy debate, Nixon was better on substance but Kennedy was a clear winner on style. The lesson learned then, and it has held true ever since, is that style trumps substance every time in national politics. Media types cannot acknowledge what the vast majority of viewers of that debate last week learned which was, in terms of style, it was not a contest. Palin won going away. It is why the far left got so vicious after the debate and it is why press mavens all declare on such august programs as 'Meet The Biased Press' that Biden was the winner. Only those elites and their fellow closed minded, doctrine driven Obamaniacs came to that conclusion.
• Pay attention: 70 MILLION viewers tuned into to that debate. Only one debate in the entire history of all televised political debates had more people watching. Additionally, this VP debate drew 35% more viewers than the opening Obama-McCain debate. Why? Do you even remotely think it was to watch a United States Senator who has been pontificating on TV for more than 30 years including during multiple debates as a candidate for his party's presidential nomination? Not! It was to watch and listen to Palin in an effort by most viewers to get a handle on who she is and what she is all about. Most liked what they saw and her performance was an important boost to a drifting McCain campaign.
• As the piece that follows establishes, Biden was flat wrong on the facts 14 times during a 90 minute debate. Those who claim he won based upon substance conveniently ignore those errors and omissions. Did he know he was not being truthful? Only Joe knows the answer to that question. If he did know at the time, than he was lying in an effort to sound competent and better prepared. Is a potential Vice President capable of such dishonesty? Well, as the world knows, Joe Biden has been caught plagiarising speeches in the past. But after all he is a lawyer and as the public is well aware, lawyers will do anything to win their case.
• On the other hand, Palin made one error on the facts. She mispronounced the name of our lead General in Afghanistan. She acknowledged that error and apologized for it in an interview the following day. We have heard not a peep from Biden about his multiple errors on the facts. And we won't.

As noted earlier, the easiest way to judge the outcome of the VP debate is to observe the reaction of the far left. Had Palin fallen on her face as they so widely expected, they would have been endlessly parodying her performance throughout the land. Instead the far left mounted vicious personal attacks that have yet to end because they know they must bring her down.

Their problem is that she survived September, the one month during which they had to destroy her. They knew that failure to do so would allow her to emerge in the post VP debate political environment with renewed momentum. Palin weathered a horrendous storm, most of it personal and all of it designed to end her brief career on the national political stage. That effort included the collusion of the big liberal media, who gave it their best shot and who unilaterally, without citing his errors, declared him the winner. It did not work.

What does that say about Palin? What does it say about the American voters?

Biden's 14 Lies

1. TAX VOTE: Biden said McCain voted “the exact same way” as Obama to increase taxes on Americans earning just $42,000, but McCain DID NOT VOTE THAT WAY.

2. AHMEDINIJAD MEETING: Joe Biden lied when he said that Barack Obama never said that he would sit down unconditionally with Mahmoud Ahmedinijad of Iran. Barack Obama did say specifically, and Joe Biden attacked him for it.

3. OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING: Biden said, “Drill we must.” But Biden has opposed offshore drilling and even compared offshore drilling to “raping” the Outer Continental Shelf.”

4. TROOP FUNDING: Joe Biden lied when he indicated that John McCain and Barack Obama voted the same way against funding the troops in the field. John McCain opposed a bill that included a timeline, that the President of the United States had already said he would veto regardless of it’s passage.

5. OPPOSING CLEAN COAL: Biden says he’s always been for clean coal, but he just told a voter that he is against clean coal and any new coal plants in America and has a record of voting against clean coal and coal in the U.S. Senate.

6. ALERNATIVE ENERGY VOTES: According to FactCheck.org, Biden is exaggerating and overstating John McCain’s record voting for alternative energy when he says he voted against it 23 times.

7. HEALTH INSURANCE: Biden falsely said McCain will raise taxes on people's health insurance coverage -- they get a tax credit to offset any tax hike. Independent fact checkers have confirmed this attack is false

8. OIL TAXES: Biden falsely said Palin supported a windfall profits tax in Alaska -- she reformed the state tax and revenue system, it's not a windfall profits tax.

9. AFGHANISTAN / GEN. MCKIERNAN COMMENTS: Biden said that top military commander in Iraq said the principles of the surge could not be applied to Afghanistan, but the commander of NATO's International Security Assistance Force Gen. David D. McKiernan said that there were principles of the surge strategy, including working with tribes, that could be applied in Afghanistan.

10. REGULATION: Biden falsely said McCain weakened regulation -- he actually called for more regulation on Fannie and Freddie.

11. IRAQ: When Joe Biden lied when he said that John McCain was “dead wrong on Iraq”, because Joe Biden shared the same vote to authorize the war and differed on the surge strategy where they John McCain has been proven right.

12. TAX INCREASES: Biden said Americans earning less than $250,000 wouldn’t see higher taxes, but the Obama-Biden tax plan would raise taxes on individuals making $200,000 or more.

13. BAILOUT: Biden said the economic rescue legislation matches the four principles that Obama laid out, but in reality it doesn’t meet two of the four principles that Obama outlined on Sept. 19, which were that it include an emergency economic stimulus package, and that it be part of “part of a globally coordinated effort with our partners in the G-20.”

14. REAGAN TAX RATES: Biden is wrong in saying that under Obama, Americans won't pay any more in taxes then they did under Reagan.

Posted by: Ace

Sphere: Related Content

In an example of the ultimate irony, a longtime member of the Congressional Black Caucus has verbalized clear and unmistakable racism in an open forum for all to hear.

Florida Representative Alcee Hastings may or may not be a racist at his core but one thing for sure can be said about his remarks reported in the article below: the words are verbal racism pure and simple.

If this life is to be a level playing field, it is not OK for anyone to practice blatant racism regardless of their race, color or ethnicity. More importantly, it is even less acceptable for anyone on the public dole, who is a public servant, to mouth such hateful, racially offensive statements.

It is not necessary to go very far out on a limb to guess that Hastings has never met and does not know Governor Palin. He would have no more clue than the rest of us as to who she is, what she believes, how she has lived her life or her views about race and ethnicity. The only thing we all know for sure, including Hastings, is that Governor Palin is a married white Alaska born woman with five children.

For Hastings to claim or infer that he knows, and therefore blacks and Jews must also know, that "Anyone toting guns and stripping Moose don't care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks" is making a racist contention on it's face. Not to mention it is small, rude, stupid, wrong and poor usage of the English language. Most importantly, it is a all out insult on the intelligence of Jews and blacks.

Worse yet, consider that Hastings attended three different universities, earned a law degree and served as a judge in a circuit court in Florida (what the heck goes on in the Sunshine State?). A JUDGE! He sounds more like a fool than a jurist. However, considering he is a lawyer, we should not be too surprised.

Note his use of the English language. The statement quoted earlier is not that of a distinguished well educated thoughtful man, it is street language clearly designed to make a race based, emotionally manipulative appeal to blacks and Jews for unashamed political outcomes.

Hastings is another in the long line of political hacks that occupies space in the House of Reprehensibles. Like most others there, he is a waste of time and space as well as an embarrassment to himself, his family, his state and this nation.

Racism is as racism does.


Florida Congressman: Palin 'Don't Care Too Much What They Do With Jews and Blacks'
Rigel Anderson

ABC News' Teddy Davis Reports: Florida Democratic Congressman Alcee Hastings pointed to Sarah Palin on Wednesday to rally Jews to Obama.

"If Sarah Palin isn’t enough of a reason for you to get over whatever your problem is with Barack Obama, then you damn well had better pay attention," said Hastings. "Anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks. So, you just think this through."

Hastings, who is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, made his comments in Washington, D.C., while participating in a panel discussion sponsored by the National Jewish Democratic Council.

Asked what the congressman meant, Hastings spokesman David Goldenberg told ABC News that he was trying to argue that Palin is an "extremely conservative woman who is out of touch with mainstream America."

After saying that Palin "don't care too much" about Jews and blacks, Hastings argued that African Americans and Jews should come together behind Obama because there are many issues on which they agree.

"Just like Jews, blacks care about affordable health care, energy independence, and the separation of church and state," said Hastings. "And just like blacks, Jews care about equal pay for equal work, investment in alternative energy, and a woman's right to choose."

Asked about the Hastings criticism, Palin spokeswoman Maria Comella said, "We’re taking a pass."

Sphere: Related Content