First Door on the Left

Not entirely unexpected…

Alaska panel finds Palin abused power in firing

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) - Sarah Palin unlawfully abused her power as governor by trying to have her former brother-in-law fired as a state trooper, the chief investigator of an Alaska legislative panel concluded Friday. The politically charged inquiry imperiled her reputation as a reformer on John McCain’s Republican ticket.

Investigator Stephen Branchflower, in a report by a bipartisan panel that investigated the matter, found Palin in violation of a state ethics law that prohibits public officials from using their office for personal gain.

The inquiry looked into her dismissal of Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan, who said he lost his job because he resisted pressure to fire a state trooper involved in a bitter divorce with the governor’s sister. Palin says Monegan was fired as part of a legitimate budget dispute.

The panel found that Palin let the family grudge influence her decision-making even if it was not the sole reason Monegan was dismissed. “I feel vindicated,” Monegan said. “It sounds like they’ve validated my belief and opinions. And that tells me I’m not totally out in left field.”

Branchflower said Palin violated a statute of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.[..]

The nearly 300-page report does not recommend sanctions or a criminal investigation.

You have to kind of wonder about the last sentence of that article, though. If, as the first sentence indicates, what she did was unlawful, why will there be no sanctions or criminal investigation? When the rest of us break the law we usually pay the consequences for our actions. Why should an exception be made for the Republican vice presidential nominee?

But you know what? None of this is going to matter and everybody is going to forget about it (and Sarah Palin) in a few weeks anyway. You gotta admit, though, she was fun while she lasted. You betcha. Wink, wink.

Yep. With less then two months until the elections, I think the gloves are finally coming off. The McPalin campaign is screaming “victim” every time they turn around, and the Obama campaign is finally giving the Republicans a little taste of their own medicine. This is starting to get interesting. And fun.

Here are the two new ads the Obama campaign came out with today. The first defines what change really is and the second explains why we cannot have a president, especially in this day and age, who is technologically illiterate…

I’ll let Pickler tell you all about them (in her usual bipartisanical fashion).

P.S. Remember up top about how I mentioned the Republicans crying “victim” all the time? Well… the latest ad from the McCain camp is nothing but a big whine about how Barack Obama has “disrespected” Sarah Palin. Give me a break! What was that line Hillary Clinton used on Senator Obama back in January? Wasn’t it something about getting out of the kitchen if you can’t stand the heat? Perhaps it’s time for Johnny and the Republicans to get out of the kitchen.

(That ad, by the way, was about as racist as you can possibly get. Are they seriously accusing a black man of “disrespecting” a white woman? Is there supposed to be some kind of secret code in there for us “gentlemen of the south?” Senator McCain approves this message? I think Senator McCain owes Senator Obama an apology. Big time.)

Update: From Obama campaign manager David Plouffe…

“Today is the first day of the rest of the campaign, and today we are releasing two new ads that go directly at the fundamental issue in this race: John McCain is out of touch with the American people and unable to address the challenges facing the country in the 21st century and bring about real change, and that Barack Obama is the candidate who will bring about change that works for the middle class.

We will respond with speed and ferocity to John McCain’s attacks and we will take the fight to him, but we will do it on the big issues that matter to the American people. We will not allow John McCain and his band of Karl Rove disciples to make this big election about small things.”

Oh, the hypocrisy!

More here.

Update: There can be no doubt in anybody’s mind that Sarah Palin is, without doubt, a real Republican. She sure knows how to play The Victim Card - something at which our Republicans seem to excel…

Palin criticizes Obama again in solo appearance

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) - Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin on Thursday took an immediate swipe at Democratic nominee Barack Obama in her first solo campaign appearance since joining the GOP ticket. The Alaska governor also issued a fund-raising appeal that blamed the Democratic presidential ticket for spreading “misinformation and flat-out lies” about her family and her.[..]

In a fundraising letter issued Thursday, she wrote that “the Obama-Biden Democrats have been vicious in their attacks directed toward me, my family and John McCain. The misinformation and flat-out lies must be corrected.”[..]

She did not take questions from reporters.

It’s too bad she didn’t have the courage to take questions from reporters. One of them may have had the cajones to ask her specifically what “misinformation and flat-out lies” she was talking about. It really would be interesting to know what information we have about her, her family and John McCain is, in her mind, “misinformation and flat-out lies.”

If the lady cannot stand the heat, perhaps the lady should get out of the kitchen. (Uh-oh. Was that sexist? Oops!)

P.S. “Obama-Biden Democrats.” Is that like “McCain-Palin Republicans?” Just wondering…

P.P.S. Keep it up, Mrs. Palin! CNN reports…

Barack Obama’s campaign says it has raised more than $8 million from over 130,000 donors following Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin’s speech Wednesday night.

The campaign also says it is on track to raise $10 million before John McCain takes the podium at the Republican National Convention tonight.

(For those into such things… That’s about $61.54 per donor.)

The Republican National Committee tells Jonathan Martin that they raised “more than $1 million” since Palin’s speech. (The McCain campaign can no longer privately raise funds for itself, since Mr. McCain opted to accept $85 million in government financing for his general election campaign.)

Update: “Obama raises $10 million after Palin speech.”

I will confess to be just a little confused when somebody came up to me today and said that Barack Obama supports George W. Bush’s faith-based initiatives. In fact, I was told, he wants to make them bigger.

It always helps, I find, to read the fine print…

Now, I know there are some who bristle at the notion that faith has a place in the public square. But the fact is, leaders in both parties have recognized the value of a partnership between the White House and faith-based groups. President Clinton signed legislation that opened the door for faith-based groups to play a role in a number of areas, including helping people move from welfare to work. Al Gore proposed a partnership between Washington and faith-based groups to provide more support for the least of these. And President Bush came into office with a promise to “rally the armies of compassion,” establishing a new Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.

But what we saw instead was that the Office never fulfilled its promise. Support for social services to the poor and the needy have been consistently underfunded. Rather than promoting the cause of all faith-based organizations, former officials in the Office have described how it was used to promote partisan interests. As a result, the smaller congregations and community groups that were supposed to be empowered ended up getting short-changed.

Well, I still believe it’s a good idea to have a partnership between the White House and grassroots groups, both faith-based and secular. But it has to be a real partnership – not a photo-op. That’s what it will be when I’m President. I’ll establish a new Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. The new name will reflect a new commitment. This Council will not just be another name on the White House organization chart – it will be a critical part of my administration.

Now, make no mistake, as someone who used to teach constitutional law, I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don’t believe this partnership will endanger that idea – so long as we follow a few basic principles. First, if you get a federal grant, you can’t use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can’t discriminate against them – or against the people you hire – on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we’ll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work.

With these principles as a guide, my Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships will strengthen faith-based groups by making sure they know the opportunities open to them to build on their good works. Too often, faith-based groups – especially smaller congregations and those that aren’t well connected – don’t know how to apply for federal dollars, or how to navigate a government website to see what grants are available, or how to comply with federal laws and regulations. We rely too much on conferences in Washington, instead of getting technical assistance to the people who need it on the ground. What this means is that what’s stopping many faith-based groups from helping struggling families is simply a lack of knowledge about how the system works.

Well, that will change when I’m President. I will empower the nonprofit religious and community groups that do understand how this process works to train the thousands of groups that don’t. We’ll “train the trainers” by giving larger faith-based partners like Catholic Charities and Lutheran Services and secular nonprofits like Public/Private Ventures the support they need to help other groups build and run effective programs. Every house of worship that wants to run an effective program and that’s willing to abide by our constitution – from the largest mega-churches and synagogues to the smallest store-front churches and mosques – can and will have access to the information and support they need to run that program.

You can’t always take what the media tells you at face value. Sometimes you need to go directly to the source.

It was kind of a slow news today, wasn’t it? So much so that most of the major news networks led with this story: “Dobson accuses Obama of ‘distorting’ Bible.”

If anybody is an expert at distorting the Bible for financial and political gain, it is this man:

James Dobson

Though I consider myself a Christian, I am no fan of organized religion. I have seen it destroy too many lives. It should be noted, however, that James Dobson is not a reverend, minister or pastor of any religion. He is a child psychologist. My interpretation of the Bible carries as much weight as his, as does yours, and as does Barack Obama’s.

Senator Obama, for whatever reason, felt the need to respond. “I think you’ll see that he was just making stuff up, maybe for his own purposes.” Amen, brother.

I hope we can make it through this election without too much more of this ridiculousosity. I am not holding out a whole lot of hope, however. (Hey, I made up a word. Like it? I figure if a spoiled, ignorant and illiterate frat boy like George W. Bush can do it, so can I.)

If Johnny isn’t careful, he soon will not have a friend left in the right wing of the Republican party… not if he keeps insisting on denouncing their preachers…

McCain rejects pastor’s endorsement

John Hagee and John McCain

STOCKTON, Calif. (AP) - Republican John McCain on Thursday rejected endorsements from two influential but controversial televangelists, saying there is no place for their incendiary criticisms of other faiths.

McCain rejected the months-old endorsement of Texas preacher John Hagee after an audio recording surfaced in which the preacher said God sent Adolf Hitler to help Jews reach the promised land. McCain called the comment “crazy and unacceptable.”

He later repudiated the support of Rod Parsley, an Ohio preacher who has sharply criticized Islam and called the religion inherently violent.

McCain issued a statement Thursday afternoon announcing his decision about Hagee.

“Obviously, I find these remarks and others deeply offensive and indefensible, and I repudiate them. I did not know of them before Reverend Hagee’s endorsement, and I feel I must reject his endorsement as well,” he said.

Later, in Stockton, he told reporters: “I just think that the statement is crazy and unacceptable.”

Then in an interview with The Associated Press, McCain said he rejected Parsley’s support, too.

“I believe there is no place for that kind of dialogue in America, and I believe that even though he endorsed me, and I didn’t endorse him, the fact is that I repudiate such talk, and I reject his endorsement,” McCain told the AP.

Hagee had sparked controversy since the San Antonio pastor endorsed McCain on Feb. 27 shortly before the Texas presidential primary. Parsley’s views were aired Thursday in an ABC News report.

McCain actively courted Hagee, who leads a megachurch with a congregation in the tens of thousands and has an even wider television audience. Former GOP presidential rivals also sought Hagee’s backing.

Hagee has referred to the Roman Catholic Church as “the great whore” and called it a “false cult system.” He also has linked Hitler to the Catholic church, suggesting it helped shape his anti-Semitism. And Hagee said Hurricane Katrina was God’s retribution for homosexual sin.[..]

The other pastor, Parsley, has described Islam as an “anti-Christ religion” and the Muslim prophet Muhammad as “the mouthpiece of a conspiracy of spiritual evil,” according to ABC News.

There is nothing in the teachings of either Hagee or Parsley with which right wing Republicans do not agree. They cannot be happy that the presumptive presidential nominee of their party is rejecting their beliefs. I look for a lot of them to stay home come November 4.

I have been asked why I have not mentioned Jeremiah Wright.

It’s just that I don’t believe he is worth mentioning. The whole thing is a bunch of brouhaha over nothing. I firmly believe that a person, particularly a presidential candidate, should be judged by his own words and actions; not those of another.

Reverend Wright is serving one purpose, however. He is keeping the right occupied while we go about the business of winning this election.

There, I mentioned Jeremiah Wright. I’ll not mention him again.

UPDATE: Senator Obama has seen fit to mention the antics of Reverend Wright… “Obama says he’s outraged by former pastor’s comments.”

I was pleasantly surprised to open my Dallas Morning News this morning and read what they thought of Senator Obama’s speech yesterday. Here is their editorial in its entirety…

Obama’s speech was one for the history books

Has any major U.S. politician in modern times ever given a speech about race in America as unflinching, human and ultimately hopeful as the one Barack Obama delivered yesterday? Whether or not the speech satisfies critics of Mr. Obama’s close relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, this remarkable address was one for the history books.

And it was a speech only Barack Obama, with his complicated racial background and cool charisma, could have given. His challenge was enormous: to explain why he has spent two decades worshipping in a black church whose pastor – a man Mr. Obama calls his spiritual father – at times denounces the very country that Mr. Obama seeks to lead.

Many political observers had written the Obama campaign off. After yesterday’s magnificent address, we beg to differ. The Obama speech was effective for several key reasons:

He decried Mr. Wright’s offensive remarks but said they do not represent the totality of the man or his church. In any case, said Mr. Obama, these folks are like family to him, and you don’t disown your family. He portrayed his mentor as a figure of tragic pity: a man whose generation suffered real humiliation in segregated America, the memory of which “distorts reality.”

He emphasized that his former pastor erred in assuming that America had not changed and could not change – even though the presidential candidacy of a member of his own congregation refutes that belief. “But what we know – what we have seen – is that America can change,” Mr. Obama said. “That is the true genius of this nation.”

Mr. Obama explained that black anger has a historic context and cannot be denied. He also explained that white resentment has a context and cannot be denied, either. Both sides have legitimate claims, he said, but they err in magnifying grievances. We can continue to nurse our anger privately this election year and remain in this “racial stalemate” – or we can refuse it and come together to solve our problems.

Throughout the speech, Mr. Obama portrayed America’s racial history as fraught with tragedy and moral complexity but insisted that nothing can erase the fact that all Americans are, in some sense, family. That our destinies and our freedoms are, as the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. taught, inextricably bound.

The true genius of the Obama speech was both in its frankness about the nation’s racial problems and in its insistence that America is not defined by the evil of its past, but rather by its ability to repent and to be redeemed by our efforts to renew the bright promises of our nation’s founding.

It was possibly the most important major speech on race in America since Dr. King died, and it probably saved Mr. Obama’s candidacy. If, in the end, Barack Obama does not win the nomination, let it never be said that he did not serve his country.

I’ve been perusing the web and reading some of the reactions to the speech. They’ve been mostly what you what you expect. Democrats loved it; right wing Republicans hated it. I believe, in fact, that most of the reviews were written before the speech was even given. That’s why I was surprised to read this review this morning, right here in the very heart of Bush country.

Remember, the true wonder of this speech is that Barack Obama wrote it himself. I think most Americans, if they take the time to think and get beyond the knee jerk reactions of the right, will ultimately agree with his message.

For those of you who are still fixating on the words of Reverend Jeremiah Wright:

Answer me this:

1) What is the name of John McCain’s minister and what were the topics of his/her sermons for the past 24 months?

2) What is the name of Hillary Clinton’s minister and what were the topics of his/her sermons for the past 24 months?

3) What is the name of Mitt Romney’s minister and what were the topics of his/her sermons for the past 24 months?

Can’t answer, huh? Didn’t think so. So… can we move on now?

Update: Evidently not.

What’s it really like at the Trinity United Church of Christ?

Shocking. Is it any wonder that I no longer believe in organized religion?