The World As I See It

Newspapers across the country are suffering from declining readership, and many have either closed or are facing impending closure – most place the lion’s share of the blame on the Internet.  Pundits claim the instant access offered by the Internet is driving people from the printed word to the electronic word.  I’m not sure if I’m ready to buy into this conclusion, simply because I think there’s also a growing lack of confidence in the “objectivity” of newspapers among the reading public.

For example several weeks ago the LA Times ran an article, “Many Nursing jobs, but only the strong need apply (http://articles.latimes.com/2009/apr/27/health/he-nurses27)” .  The article was available in its entirety on line nearly two days before it ran in the print version of the Los Angeles Times, and upon reading it I found that it appeared to have more in common with a PR piece for the C.N.A. rather than an unbiased, objective piece of reporting.   I took issue with several parts of the article, and submitted a letter to the editor and one to the Reader’s Representative.  I wasn’t sure if they’d run it, but I thought that at the very least they’d print a correction.  They did neither, but after some persistent follow-up on my part; including several telephone calls to Ms. Gold, the reader representative which remain unanswered, and two calls to Mr. Newton, A Sr. VP at the LA Times who communicated with me that he ask the reporter to call me which she never did, and a lengthy conversation with someone named Maria they quietly ran my letter on the “Health” page in their internet edition.  A copy of my letter can be found here (http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-hew-letters18-2009may18,0,3851881,full.story).

I felt compelled to address several shortcomings that I found in the article.  The first and most obvious was the number of new licenses issued that the C.N.A. representatives tout to prove the success of the California Nurse/Patient ratio law that they helped push into law.  Though it’s correct that there have been nearly 100,000 new licenses issued since the law was passed five years ago, a nearly equal number of licenses have been lost, so it’s been a wash.  The reporter had an obligation to report the fact, not just the rhetoric.  The reporter also appeared unable or unwilling to interview a variety of nurses, since the three nurses she interviewed were all from C.N.A.-represented hospitals, and if this was to be a pro-union piece she should have at least interviewed nurses from the S.E.I.U. and U.N.A.C.; better yet she should have interviewed two non-union nurses and one union nurse as this would have been a fairer representation of nurses.  But the worst offense, in my opinion, was her failure to identify one of the nurses she interviewed as a member of the C.N.A./N.N.O.C. Council of Presidents.

It’s reporting and editing such as this that’s caused the reading public to loose faith on the ability of their local newspaper to report, rather than make, the news.  Just like the LA Times refused to cover the recent “Anti-Tax” parties attended by thousands in LA based on the excuse that these were manufactured events; but would show up to cover a couple of hundred people who showed up at a recent LA School Board meeting to protest impending lay-offs.  As anyone who has ever organized an event, protest or rally in this city knows, it’s all “manufactured” because as a rule you have to get permits, put out press releases, etc.  So if events being organized and manufactured is the LA Times threshold then they shouldn’t cover any such event but of course they cover those that they seem sympathetic to.  And this is one of the primary reasons, this citizen, thinks that people are turning to the Internet because more often than not we know the bias of blogs, forums and other “news sources” from these sites.

A day doesn’t seem to go by that President Obama doesn’t remind the American people that we are in an economic crisis, and more recently near an economic catastrophe. So I’m not surprised to see that every time the President or one of his “economic gurus” open their mouths the stock market seems to sink even lower with it hovering just around 1997 levels and erasing nearly all the gains seen under both the Clinton and Bush administrations. With friends like these we surely don’t need enemies!

I know there are many that have accused the Bush Administration of engaging in fear mongering; however fear mongering isn’t/wasn’t the sole domain of the Bush Administration. Presently the Obama Administration has made liberal use of this age-old tactic. For those unfamiliar with the concept, I have provided the definition of fear mongering courtesy of Wikipedia.

Fear mongering– (or scaremongering) is the use of fear to influence the opinions and actions of others towards some specific end. The feared object or subject is sometimes exaggerated, and the pattern of fear mongering is usually one of repetition, in order to continuously reinforce the intended effects of this tactic

I can’t seem to recall any previous President who has made such liberal use of the word crisis and catastrophe as our current President. This apparent, nearly pathological, need to whip up public hysteria does not give me confidence in his ability to lead our Nation; but then again I have always been weary of his preparedness to lead since he had little to no real life experience that provided me with an reasonable reason to believe that he had the requisite skills to be elected the to the highest office of our land. Of course, regardless of his experience or lack thereof he could have opted for informing us of the harsh realities but he could also lift up our spirits with the “hope” he consistently hyped during his campaign. Of course if he did that then he wouldn’t be able to drive the American people into a fearful panic that then serves to distract our attention from the constant gaffes and mistakes being made by both his team and him.

When he’s not busy whipping the American people into a fear-ridden mass paralysis inaction and thus contributing to the continued slide in consumer confidence, which is of course another reason why our economy continues to stumble along. He was pushing through the “Stimulus Package”, a package that is estimated to cost several future generations and us somewhere around one trillion dollars (and this is a conservative estimate). This package was so urgent that no one in Congress was given less than 9 hours to read the humongous bill. Why, because there were those in Congress and President Obama busy trying to “save us” which meant that there was no time for something as impertinent as reading the bill and questions were limited to a handful of hours. This ludicrous situation was highlighted in a recent YouTube video by Congressman Price (R-GA) who created a short video. In this video he highlights the 1,000+ highlighting a copy of the final bill in his possession, and it was distressing to learn that even this final bill seemed to have be hurriedly slapped together with hand written notes in the margin and numbers (often totaling in the millions) written over, next to and above lined out sums. Also missing was the much-promised vaunted transparency that then Senator and now President Obama hawked throughout the campaign trail. A promise he failed to keep – miserably.

So in closing, I hear that today President Obama will address Congress and his new media public relations groupies (i.e.: CNN, NBC, MSNBC, et al) have informed us that he will be “Reaganesque”, which I think is ironic considering how much the Democrats despised President Reagan, and thus have a hard time envisioning him giving a speech in such a manner (except if he’s had two to three days to rehearse and his teleprompter) – but we’ll see. Tonight perhaps he’ll finally stop campaigning for the office of the President and actually lead from the office of the President.

Update – tonight’s Presidential address seemed to me to be more of the same, so much for being “Reaganesque”.

You better be quick and hop to, why because those who say they have all the answers have once again spoken; and this time they have deemed that the American worker must, absolutely must have the Employee Free Choice Act signed into law. To fail to enact this important, to hear them speak of it, act would be to rob the American worker of freedoms they do not currently enjoy. However, those who support the passage of this act, including our erstwhile President Obama and his Secretary of Labor nominee Congresswoman Hilda Solis, know that it’s not so much about free choice but more about the removal of the secret ballot from the American worker. Unions, just like their adversary employers, each have a vested interested in workers choosing to have or reject unionization. However, over the past decades unions have seen their membership rolls continue to thin out, except in California, with public-sector jobs being some of the few growth areas for unions.

So committed are the proponents of the Employee Free Choice Act that they descended on DC this week to lobby for this Act’s passage and to deliver a petition with one million signatures in support of the Employee Free Choice Act. Now, I know that one million may seem like a large number, but keep in mind that there are approximately 16 million union members, and a untold numbers of non-union employees; so one million signatures is hardly a resounding endorsement of support. At the very least the union should’ve been able to deliver 16 million signatures or failing that 8 million. But one million signatures is just pitiful, but it does make an argument for Congress to quash the Act, because if union’s that have been the loudest advocates for this Act could get a petition with so few signatures then it would appear that the American workers prefers to retain their freedom to a secret ballot.

Supports of the Employee Free Choice Act like to argue that it only streamline the current system, but even Gov. George McGovern (one of the stalwarts of the Democratic party) has come out against it (to read his Wall Street Journal Op-Ed). He even went so far as to film a commercial asking, no begging, that the Democratic party should not become the party that takes away an employee’s right to a secret ballot. Click here to see his commercial . Of course supporters of the Act would argue that signing a card signifying the desire to join a union is equal, if not better, then the current secret vote. They even argue that in past unionization actions they have been bewildered at vote outcomes that reject the union when they can produce numerous cards showing that workers express an interest in a union. Of course there is vast difference between expressing an interest in joining a union versus actually choosing to join a union. I can express an interest in purchasing a Maserati but that doesn’t mean I’m going to buy one.

Oh the gnashing of teeth and the wringing of hands that must be taking place right now in the ivory towers of the union bigwigs, and the White House at the news that the confirmation of Congresswoman Hilda Solis for Secretary of Labor has been held up. Whether or not she is qualified for the position of Secretary of Labor isn’t so much an issue for as her obfuscation when she was asked about her support of the Employee Free Choice Act. Instead of laying it out for the committee she chose to word parse and pretend that she had formulated no opinion, since the Administration (i.e. President Obama) hadn’t “taken a stance”.

She wanted to act as though she was not one of the co-sponsors of record for the Employee Free Choice Act, and that the other co-sponsor was of course then-Senator Obama; and let’s not forget his campaign promise to sign the Employee Free Choice Act into law if it came to his desk. So with all this knowledge, Solis wanted her questioners to somehow believe she had no opinion. Oh and did I mention that she is on the Board of Directors and Treasurer of a group known as American Rights at Work, a group devoted to the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act.

As I use to tell my children when it was obvious they were attempting to pull the wool over my eyes – does Congresswoman Solis think that we’re stupid? An honest, and of course a completely uncharacteristic trait of most Washington insiders, would have been to make a clear distinction between what she as a Congresswoman and a representative of a group of constituents believed in and what she as a potential Secretary of Labor who must work with both business and labor leaders might be expected to believe in and how that might impact how the Secretary would do her work. But no, this was not to be, instead she sat there and said she had no opinion. Would such a lame excuse have been tolerated from let’s say fervent pro-business, anti-labor Congressperson been accepted – of course not. But then again I think that those individuals in Obamaland expect everyone else to simply buy their rhetoric without questions and we all know what road that can take people down.

If Solis wanted us to see her as an upstanding and ethical person she would have been brutally honest with the committee and explain how she would be able to put those earnest feelings into a context where they could be integrated into whatever policies the Administration championed and what ever laws Congress passed. Too bad she had to play the politician card, and too bad the Obama Administration showed the American people that the ”Hope and Change” President Obama promised to bring to America didn’t begin when he took the oath of office and apparently has yet to be implemented.

As the New Year dawn’s unions and their supporters, many of whom are legislators that owe their elections to the vast sums of money unions donated to their campaign, are gearing up to tackle the “Employee Free Choice Act”, also known as the “Card Check Bill”. As with so much legislation the words that were chosen to describe the bill don’t necessarily provide an accurate picture of the intent of the bill. Oh sure — free choice – everyone is in favor of free choice. Unfortunately this bill isn’t so much about free choice as it is about weighing the fight to unionize in favor of one group over the other.

Unions contend that employers impede their ability to unionize under the current system and thus are pushing for what they describe as a more streamline approach, which is the card check. Simply put if a union can gather a majority or set number of employees to sign cards indicating that they want union representation then voila the union “wins”, and if the employer drags their feet then the employer can face sanctions and fines. Now to some this may seem a simplified and fuss free approach to what can often be a long drawn out procedure to union recognition for employees who want such representation.

However, I wonder if those who support this approach would be willing to allow for the same approach to decertification? As it stands now decertify is an onerous and tedious task, and for good reason. Just as one should not approach unionizing without thought, full disclosure and discussion one should not decertify without full and complete discussion for all involved. Both the act of unionizing and decertifying can and often has far reaching implications, not only for the employees who are seeking this action but also for the employer and community at large.

Here is a link to information about the Employee Free Choice Act — http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Employee_Free_Choice_Act. However, I propose to my fellow pro-union and “Employee Free Choice Act” supporters, allow the same rules that the Employee Free Choice Act will invoke to those wish to decertify, because those who want to ride themselves of a union should have the same “free choice” as those who wish to bring in a union, n’est pas?

Of course they may argue that the Free Choice Act may subject employees who wish to decertify to undue influence and intimidation and therefore a secret ballot is called for, but the same can be said for those who wish to unionize. A secret ballot protects all individuals and organizations from undue influence, intimidation and tampering. And yes unions are equally culpable of the same bad behavior they often accuse employers of perpetrating. Don’t just take my word for it, you need only look up the hearing transcripts of the NLRB hearing that involved Cedars-Sinai and the C.N.A. where non-union supporters (nurses) were threatened by C.N.A. representatives: Threats such as we know where your children go to school, and where you walk your little doggies (authors emphasis added).

So before you give the Employee Free Choice Act a pass, remember that if the same rules cannot be applied to those who wish to remove a union then the bill/law is flawed and is not deserving of support.

It really ticks me off when a group purports to be non-partisan, but in practice is anything but – and this election cycle has been a good example of this growing problem.  Except for those who may have been living under a rock most people know about the growing allegations of voter registration fraud and possible voter fraud that have been laid at the feet of A.C.O.R.N.  At last count similar accusations have been lodged in about fifteen different states.  These allegations are serious, and they also undermine voter confidence in the system.  A.C.O.R.N., in my opinion has done little to set the record straight, including their recent political ad that accused John McCain and Republicans of trying to steal the election.  Now that’s irony personified since A.C.O.R.N. is on the record endorsing Obama and they are the organization that is under scrutiny in both “blue” and “red” states and by both Democratic and Republican Secretary of States – so one has to wonder who is trying to “steal” the election.  A.C.O.R.Ns’ motives are not pure, they purport to be non-partisan yet they endorse a candidate for president – this is not the action of a non-partisan organization.  If they were truly committed to simply getting out the vote then they would not pick and chose how they promote the cause.  By way of example let me share an email from a young lady in Ohio who attempted to make use of an A.C.O.R.N. early registration “booth”.

I am an 18-year-old student at a local community college in Columbus Ohio. Through out this whole week I have seen Vote Early signs everywhere. But on those signs is Obama’s face. I am voting for McCain and this seems a little biased, because I feel that you can vote early but it should not have only one candidate’s  face on the poster. Then today as I was walking to class I noticed a large cut out of Obama. There was a van with “VOTE OHIO VOTE OBAMA” I was curious enough that I decided to go up and ask if I wanted to vote early but wanted to vote for McCain would they be able to take me. The lady I spoke with said well…uhh…I would have to speak with my adviser. This really made me angry. If you want to vote early it should be by absentee ballot only. This would eliminate voter fraud in my opinion, and then I could go to class in peace!
Katie C

After reading this young lady’s email you have to ask yourself was it legal for an early voting area/booth to display any campaign material, let alone only the picture of only one candidate.  In California, such electioneering is illegal and can get one arrested.  Groups that use public monies, i.e. taxpayer dollars, for something such as getting out the vote have an obligation to not prostelize in favor of any party, proposition, or candidate.  Their only focus should be helping people access, complete, and turn in their voter registration forms, these groups should also do everything they can do about helping folks get their hands on ALL the information about the issues, not what the organization picks and chooses.  The above example is abhorrent, and inexcusable.  I hope that the Ohio Secretary of State takes steps to punish such behavior, but from the numerous published reports that I have read about the Ohio Secretary of State she probably thinks such electioneering is acceptable and I wouldn’t be surprised if she gave A.C.O.R.N. an award for what I can only describe as illicit and immoral actions.

Many of you may remember how Senator Obama accused Senator McCain of running negative ads, going so far as to say that Senator McCain’s ads were negative 100% of the time; and of course he Senator Obama has been above all the fray running nothing but a “positive’ campaign.  But negative campaigning like “beauty” is obviously in the eye of the beholder and if Senator Obama can wiggle his way out of or distance himself from negative comments about his opposition then I guess he thinks he can claim that he has done no negative campaign.  First he promised to take public financing for his campaign, but reneged on that promise when it become convenient, now he breaks his pledge to avoid negative campaigning and I think he decided to go negative because in his word parsing world since his campaign and he are attacking an “average” person and not a political adversary then it must be okay.
Senator Obama is not above negative campaigning, and his partner-in-crime this time is his running mate Senator Biden (the man Obama said was the “champion” of the blue collar worker and middle America).  Senator Biden is such a champion of Middle America that he thought nothing of attacking and impugning a citizen.  The verbal attack took place on Thursday (10/16) morning while Senator Biden was being interviewed on national television.  Now most American’s have come to expect politicians to vilify one another which explains in no small part why so many people eschew the notion of running for any elective office, no matter how small, for fear of their entire life being laid bare before the public.  However, this unfortunate practice has become business as usual for those in the public eye, but now Senators Obama and Biden have stooped to a whole new low and begun to attack the average, on the street individual.  Of course the media could not resist and jumped into the whole thing with characteristic glee going so far as to even reveal that this individual owed back taxes to the State.  Make no mistake, Senator Obama joined in this “beat on the little guy who doesn’t kow tow to us” theme when at a rally later in the day he also brought up the person we have come to know as “Joe the Plumber”.  Shame on you Senators Obama and Biden!
To this citizen, the glee with which Senators Obama and Biden went after a regular citizen is reprehensible.  Why did Senators Obama and Biden, their campaign, and surrogates go after this average American citizen?  Their actions illustrate negative campaign at its ultimate low and if we tolerate candidates attacking citizens for daring to ask questions and seek answers then we set a tone in this nation that can only have a chilling effect on our freedom of speech and our freedom to question those who wish to be our leaders – and we all know where that path leads.

For months now Senator Obama has beaten the drum about the failing economy and he has made the economy one of the pillars of his campaign; however his actions this past week show that what is important to Senator Obama is not the problems we currently face with the economy, but with his campaign and his bid for the highest office in our land.  In short it was more important that he continue to pander to every audience he could and to raise money for his campaign than show up in DC and work to resolve this crisis.  Oh yes, he did go for one day, but only because President Bush requested him to attend, and reports of his behavior, comments and actions during these meetings belay his much carefully crafted image of the skilled, seasoned and reasoned legislator that his team, the media and he has so carefully crafted.

As a management expert I would have to argue with Senator Obama’s flawed logic that staying in telephone contact with such individuals as Representative Pelosi, Senator Franks, et al does equate being in the “thick of things” as a crisis of this magnitude calls for from its leaders.  In fact I would argue that this crisis is such that every Senator and Congressperson should have been in attendance during all the various negotiations and meetings, and that abdicating this responsibility to another elected official or one’s staff (even a staff that has in essence been the defacto Senator for nearly two years) is not the actions of a seasoned or experienced leader, it is however a good example of a “paper tiger”.  Or as is so often the practice of Senator Obama voting present on a hot button or controversial issue rather than taking a stand.

Democrats and others have been sounding the clarion call of the failure of our economy and using this fear to rally many to their side and to attempt to portray themselves as the only party that will be able to deliver our nation from its economic woes.  Unfortunately when we needed all hands to be on deck, so to speak, to handle this crisis (you know the one that only the keen Democratic mind can save us from) the two top Democrats (Senators Obama and Biden) decide it was more important to make campaign speeches and to hold campaign events.  Senator Obama defends his actions by stating that he can (and Presidents should be) able to multi-task.  The problem is that what has taken place this week is not about multi-tasking, but all about making sure the constituents that elected you to represent them have a voice; but then again I’m sure his constituents and their interests are accustomed to being pawned off to others since that’s exactly what’s Senator Obama’s been doing from almost the first day he was elected to Congress.  Then there’s Senator Biden who is so concerned about this financial crisis that he makes sure to insert millions of dollars of earmarks into these fragile negotiations.  You should also take a look at how your Senators and Congressman or Congresswoman voted on the Financial Deregulation Act of 1999.   Senators Feinstein and Boxer voted yes and no respectfully and Congressman Schiff voted yes.  Oh, and just for fun, Congresswoman Pelosi, who is constantly harping about the so-called failed Bush Administration economic plan, voted YES.  So it looks like some members of Congress were all for deregulation before they were in favor of regulation.

Before you dismiss my observations and criticism of Senator Obama’s action during this time of financial crisis, let me remind you that early on in the Bush Administration many of the same pundits and elected officials that think it’s perfectly okay for Senator Obama to handle this crisis via long-distance had a field day when President Bush spent a holiday at his ranch in Crawford during a negotiation period (over something not deemed as emergent as our current financial crisis).  So why are they not pointing their finger at Senators Obama and Biden and demanding that they return post-haste to DC, perhaps so they can then accomplish to paint Senator Obama as a seasoned executive with enough gravitas to get the “job done” and Senator Obama can focus on what he seems to prefer to do which is once again to focus on the sizzle and not the steak.

Let us not forget that many of the principal players in this current crisis are on the Obama team.  Senator Dodd and Obama were the top two recipients of funds from Fannie Mae or was it Freddie Mac (both quasi-governmental agencies that had no business using taxpayer dollars to lobby legislators), then there’s Congressman Frank who loves Freddie and Fannie so much that he all but accused Senator McCain of histrionics when Senator McCain tried in vain to warn Congress that Freddie and Fannie were at risk of causing grave financial consequences to “We the People”.

What this citizen cannot believe is the audacity so many of the now indignant Senators and Congressman (especially Senator Obama and Biden) who feathered their nest with money from some of the very organizations and companies that helped to usher in this time of crisis.  They spin ever so confidentially the story that Senator McCain is out of touch with economic reality, all the while they and their chronies worked to silence his voice, but they overlooked the redundancy that is our government and they cannot outrun the tapes and transcripts of those many meetings.  Should have and could have Senator McCain been more perseverant about these issues, without a doubt, but it can be somewhat difficult when you are a “minority” voice and a majority from both parties seem to be intent on growing fat off of the public largesse.

So I remind my readers a President must be able to make the tough decisions and must be willing to pull the all nighters when circumstances call for it and must put aside his/her own priorities when the situation demands it.  Unfortunately once again Senator Obama demonstrates that running his campaign is more important to him than doing the job he was elected for by the good people of Illinois; and Illinois may be able to find an absentee-Senator acceptable, but I don’t think this Country can afford an absentee-President and our men and women in uniform can ill afford an absentee-Commander-in-Chief.

You’ve got to give Governor Sarah Palin credit for putting up with some of the CRAP that has been coming from the media.  Many in the media are engaging in behavior so disreputable that they might as well be labeled as the reprobates that they are behaving as these days.

Is it fair for the media and the public at large to ask questions about how Governor Palin has acquitted herself while in Public Office of course?  Her votes, how she ran her campaigns, how she dealt with staff conflicts etc. are all fair games.  By evaluating these actions we are provided a glimpse into how she may behave as a potential Vice-President.  What is beyond the pale is the innuendos and rumor mongering that has taken over common sense and fair and balance journalism.  Even the New York Times (a paper not known for it’s right-lean) was quick to jump into the rumor mongering game and then had to turn around an issue an apology for providing false (yes I’m sure that this shocks you that the editor of the New York Times failed to vet their information completely before going to print) information to the public about Gov. Palin being a member of a third political party prior to joining the Republican Party.  Which is interesting since I thought we had a right to assemble in this country and folks were allowed to change political party affiliation as they see fit.  Of course if Gov. Palin had run and been elected to her office as this third party’s candidate and then turned around and changed her party, let’s say like that guy from Vermont did then maybe one could argue misleading the public, but even that would have been a minor “bump”; but this in and of itself would probably not be news worthy except it seemed to involve the most scurrilous class of people A Republican and a woman at that!  At issue here is that the same media that seems so fascinated with Gov. Palin, who’s only the VP pick while Sen. Obama, who’s the Presidential Nominee, seems to get a free pass at the same level of scrutiny.  While she’s been both a mayor (albeit of a small town) and then a Governor she has also been a commissioner of one of Alaska’s more significant commission and let’s not forget a member of the PTA a training ground for many women who eventually enter politics.  Senator Obama may have racked up a few more years in elected office, but I don’t put much stock in the time he’s spent in the US Senate since most of that time has been spent campaigning for the office of President.  Of course there were the years spent in the Illinois State House where most of the time he was busy taking the ever critical position of voting “present” nearly 100 times which really underwhelms this person.  When the rubber hits the road I think I would prefer a Governor who had the added experience of mayor (no matter how small or big the town) who had been trained by the good old folks at the PTA – because that group knows how to prepare community activists, over a smooth talking, prefer to vote present rather then aye or nay because it may come back to haunt me politico.  And the next time they decry Gov. Palin on her supposed lack of experience in case, God forbid, something happened to McCain remember President Harry S. Truman. “During his few weeks as Vice President, he scarcely saw President Roosevelt, and received no briefing on the development of the atomic bomb or the unfolding difficulties with Soviet Russia. Suddenly these and a host of other wartime problems became Truman’s to solve when, on April 12, 1945, he became President.”  He seemed to do alright and is remembered as one of our greats.

But what has me blogging today are not rumors such as those above, but instead the out right dismal failure of the self-appointed representatives and spokes groups of women’s rights.  And the greatest offender is the National Organization for Women (N.O.W.).  N.O.W. an organization according to its own public relations has approximately 500,000 supporting members (not women, but members) has decided to vilify Palin on their website, and has made no pubic statement (at least to my knowledge) about the double-standard being used to attack Palin versus let’s say their “women” candidates Obama and Biden (such shining examples of feminism that I’m sure every American woman would want their daughters to aspire to be just like them).  Granted I didn’t expect N.O.W. to endorse Palin though that might have been nice since its not every day that a woman makes it on to a Vice-Presidential ticket of a major party, just ask Senator Clinton; but they could have acknowledged her achievement.  But since N.O.W. couldn’t — so it didn’t and now everything representatives of N.O.W. have advocated such as whether or not a woman has children, is married, how she looks etc., should never count has been made to count because N.O.W.’s hatred of women who do not cleave to their “feminist” platform has caused them to remain silent.  So next time when N.O.W. comes knocking at your door for money to support them because “without them” women would be sent back to the 1950’s or further remember their silence on the invectives being used to tear down Gov. Palin for simply being what real women right’s advocates have always fought for which simply put is to be able to be comfortable in their own skins and to dream big.  You may disagree with some or all or Gov. Palin’s politics, but that doesn’t mean we can’t applaud her for her accomplishments.  But, N.O.W. should be ashamed for putting their politics before the “women” that their organization purports to empower.  Maybe this moose hunting, hockey playing, mother of five is too much woman for them.

In case you missed it Senator John McCain announced his pick for a running mate, and for many it was quite a surprise – the governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin.  For many, including myself, the announcement was a surprise.  My daughters and I watched and listened as Governor Palin spoke to a standing room only crowd in the Nutter Center in Dayton, OH.  Her demeanor, presence and words were exciting and gives this voter hope and interest in this year’s election.

It was also during her speech that the Obama campaign chose to release an official announcement about McCain’s VP pick.  Considering Obama proclaims that he is the candidate of change, that he’s a different kind of politician, etc., etc., etc.  His campaign chose to issue a press release that denigrated not only her as a person, and gave a back-handed slap to anyone who comes from or lives in a “small” town.  His announcement could have begun by recognizing the she is the Governor, but instead chose to begin with this official statement:

“Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency. Governor Palin shares John McCain’s commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade, the agenda of Big Oil and continuing George Bush’s failed economic policies — that’s not the change we need, it’s just more of the same,” said spokesman Bill Burton.

This statement is not that a of surrogate and thus providing Obama the opportunity as he has done so many times in the past to pretend that such a comment is not endorsed by him, this statement is from his spokesperson so we can only conclude that it is representative of his true feelings for middle-Americans and I would go so far as to say for women also – and that not only is he an elitist (because only an elitist would look down his nose at a former mayor of a town of 9,000) but he’s also a chauvinist.

If Obama was indeed the candidate of change that he professes to be he should have congratulated Governor Palin on being not only chosen as McCain’s running mate but also her historic role as being the first women to be selected as the running mate on a Republican ticket.  But, as happens so frequently with someone who is acting a role versus living a role we can catch snatches of his true self.  From his comments about “angry people clinging to their bibles and guns”, that if he were President he would require people staying in the Lincoln Bedroom to read and not watch TV, these are all comments of elitism.

Am I excited about this choice, yes!  Is she perhaps a little light on so-called “national” experience possibly but no less than Obama, and as the governor of Alaska and a former mayor she has quite a bit more experience serving in a executive and a leader of disparate groups. And she has shown extreme capabilities to adapt and she appears to be a quick learner. She cleared and cleaned “the house” in Alaska and hopefully will do the same if McCain/Palin are elected.  Whereas Obama has little experience outside as that of a State Legislator since his time in Congress has been spent more on his bid for the nomination of his party instead of serving the interest of the constituents of his state.  I think that McCain made a very unexpected choice, but one that does jive with his often maverick reputation.  Today our 2008 election is to not only going to interesting, but historic.