GOP Lies, Hypocrisy, Shrill Attacks
Rod Dreher, the erratic prig on The Dallas Morning News editoral staff, has found a new love, Sarah Palin. A week ago, he decried Barack Obama for having a reputation for giving good speeches but little more. And he himself wasn't even going to credit Obama with good speech-making. He belittled Obama's convention speech as "really underwhelming," "mostly warmed-over Democratic boilerplate." He even mocked the Denver stage, calling the use of columns an attempt to look "like an ancient Greek temple." (Did anyone notice that when Palin herself mocked this, the GOP convention was displaying behind Palin a three-story majestic photograph of...Mount Rushmore? Can you say irony, hypocrisy, arrogance?)
This week, as one after another Republican traipses to the podium to attack Obama's character and background and twist and smear his record and platform, Dreher is suddenly energized, by...mostly warmed-over Republican boilerplate. Dreher calls Fred Thompson's and Joe Lieberman's speeches "boffo." He calls Palin's speech "outstanding," and "astonishing." "She knocked everybody flat." "American history was made tonight." "The Republicans have found their Obama! This woman is going to electrify the GOP. Game on." I guess Republicans are now OK with being able to give good speeches. Dreher's hypocrisy and puppy-like crush on the "pit bull with lipstick" would be embarrassing to a professional journalist, but Dreher is immune to objective self-awareness. So much for the swooning by the Dallas press.
Republicans are running on change? Anyone who listened to the snide, sarcastic, shrill attack by Sarah Palin recognizes the same-old Washington politics as usual. So much for McCain's promise to run an honorable campaign.
How does the Palin speech stand up to factual analysis? Not so well on that score, either.
Palin lied that she fought earmarks. She lied when she said she turned down money for the atrocious "Bridge to Nowhere." In fact, she championed the bridge. When Congress told her the money allocated couldn't be spent on the bridge, she didn't send the money back to taxpayers. She spent the pork money elsewhere in Alaska. As mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, Palin hired Washington lobbyists to bring home more pork. She finagled millions of dollars for tiny Wasilla out of Alaska's Ted Stevens, now facing trial for corruption.
Palin lied that Obama hasn't passed any legislation. In the US Senate, he sponsored legislation to intercept WMD and destroy conventional weapons stockpiles. In the Illinois Senate, he sponsored ethics reform. I admit that McCain has bigger bills to brag about, but to say Obama has not achievements is simply a lie. Ironically, no one no one at the GOP convention seemed to want to talk about McCain's accomplishments, such as McCain/Feingold campaign finance reform.
Palin lied when she said Obama plans to raise your taxes. McCain's tax cuts are skewed to the very rich. Obama's are aimed at the middle class. Independent analyses show that Obama's plan cuts middle class taxes more than McCain's does.
John McCain lied when he said Palin, as governor of Alaska, was responsible for Alaska's oil. Her primary power over oil on federal lands is to tax it, which she and the Alaska legislature did, allowing her to brag about balancing the Alaska budget, on the backs of American oil consumers everywhere else.
Mike Huckabee lied when he said Palin got more votes as mayor of Wasilla that Joe Biden got running for President. Palin got less than a thousand votes in each of her elections. Biden got 76,000. The GOP's grasp of math might explain the economy.
And on and on. Palin's lie after lie spoiled whatever compelling story she might have and might have told. Let's hope that Rod Dreher snaps out of his crush on Sarah before this shrill practitioner of the Rove playbook drags America into four more years of Bush/Cheney old-style, divisive politics.
Making a Case for the Other Guy
William McKenzie, in The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog, posts a challenge that I would have thought every professional journalist would be able to ace as a matter of course. McKenzie asks you to make the case for the other guy, the guy you don't support in this election. If you can't do that, you're pretty much just a partisan hack, not an objective analyst. So, I'll take the challenge. I don't support John McCain, but here's how he might be good for the country, if elected.
He says he's for energy independence, including development of alternative sources of energy.
He says he's for a cap-and-trade system to control greenhouse gas emissions.
He says he's for a balanced budget.
He actually has personally shunned the pork-laden earmark system.
He says he won't seek amendments to the Constitution to discriminate against gays or deny women the right to choose or outlaw the Spanish language.
He supports free trade.
He supports tax credits to defray the cost of health insurance premiums.
He used to support campaign finance reform, immigration reform, and a ban on torture; maybe if he's elected, he'll feel free of right wing pressure and return to these sensible positions.
Up until a month or two ago, I might have added as a good point for John McCain that he promised to run an honorable campaign and change the tone in Washington. After listening to Palin's shrill, partisan attack on Barack Obama, that's out the window now. That one speech outweights all the good points that I just laid out for John McCain.
No comments:
Post a Comment