Several readers have asked me to weigh in on the selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as Senator John McCain’s vice presidential running mate. The way I see it, there are pros and cons to the Palin pick.
PRO – She’s a woman. Over 50% of voters are women, and we are seriously underrepresented in American government.
CON – She’s against women. Palin is part of the most extremist anti-woman platform the Republicans have put forth in years. These Republicans are on the warpath, trying to limit access to ordinary contraceptive methods like the birth control pill, which the majority of American women depend on at some point in their lives. Palin is right in with this crowd, going on record to state that she is against abortion even in the case of rape or incest.
PRO – The restoration of a female to this election could appeal to some voters who are disillusioned over Hillary’s primary loss.
CON – Palin is no Hillary Clinton. Palin’s resume is so thin, it actually includes her high school basketball “career.” She is a one-term governor of the 4th smallest state by population, and before that she was the mayor of a town smaller than Fort Oglethorpe. Most Americans only heard of her last week. She is best known as the bee-hived governor who was almost Miss Alaska. She has no experience outside the state, much less with foreign affairs. According to the New York Times, Palin only got her passport in July, 2007. Even then, she did not visit Iraq as she has claimed.
By contrast, Hillary Clinton is a serious, seasoned political leader known all around the world. It’s not just the age difference. Since her twenties, Clinton has been featured in publications like Life Magazine. She attracted attention not for beauty pageants but for historic accomplishments, like being the first Wellesley student to deliver the commencement address and using that opportunity to criticize the senator who spoke just before she did.
While Republicans hail Palin as a reformer, it is Clinton who is a true crusader. Hillary was a force to be reckoned with even before she teamed up with Bill. In the late sixties, she fought for civil rights, and in the seventies she helped impeach Richard Nixon. In the eighties, while Palin was strutting down the runway in a bikini, Clinton was fighting for education reform in Arkansas and being named Mother of the Year for the second time.
As First Lady for two terms in the nineties, Clinton was so active in domestic and foreign affairs that critics printed bumper stickers reading “Impeach the President and her husband, too.”
Clinton’s greatest obstacle is being ahead of her time. Consider her bid to reform healthcare. As First Lady she was unable to make it happen, but that plan is now integral to the Democratic platform. That’s what reformers do; they change the way we think about the world. Simply challenging an incumbent in your own party doesn’t make you a reformer.
The differences go beyond education and experience; Palin opposes everything Hillary Clinton stands for – health care, education, individual freedoms, and economic security for the middle class.
McCain must think women are stupid. He hopes to win Clinton supporters simply by adding a woman to his ticket. Some men may believe that all females are interchangeable; women know better.
PRO – Palin is a Washington outsider. After 8 years of Republican corruption, lies, and unjust war, many Americans are looking outside the Capitol for a fresh leader without ties, allegiances and debts.
CON – She is not just an outsider; she has absolutely no national experience. Republicans try to brush this away by pointing out that Obama has never been a governor and therefore has no “executive” experience – but the same can be said for McCain. If Palin is more qualified than Obama, then she is also more qualified than McCain. The Republicans need to reverse their ticket! The truth is, Sarah Palin is the least experienced candidate put forth in recent history. The presidency is far too important to risk on a loose cannon like McCain and a complete unknown like Palin.
PRO – A short resume means less baggage . . . right?
CON – For a politician with such a short history, Palin has been remarkably quick to immerse herself in scandalous abuses of power. Currently she is under investigation for trying to force the firing of her ex-brother-in-law as a favor to her sister.
As governor of Alaska (population comparable to Atlanta or Memphis), she has held her hand out for plenty of pork. Palin claims she opposed the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere.” Not true. Support for the bridge was part of her campaign platform. She only gave up on it after Washington turned against the project. Then she canceled the bridge, but kept most of the money for other projects. Although she claims she opposes earmarks, she has requested more per capita than any other governor.
While requesting federal dollars to study the mating habits of crabs, Palin used her line-item veto power to slash important funding for education and teen pregnancy prevention. She opposes teaching teens about condoms in spite of statistical and now personal evidence that “abstinence only” education has poor results.
Palin has an interesting strategy on changing Alaska’s status as the rape capital of America: Discourage victims from reporting. Under Mayor Palin, Wasilla women who reported rape had to pay for the cost of the forensic exam, reportedly a charge of $300-1,200. Charging women who report sex crimes is a sure way to reduce rape – well, rape reports, anyway.
PRO – Palin is an avid outdoorswoman, giving her a tough, not-afraid-to-get-her-hands-dirty image.
CON – Sarah Palin’s hands are a little too dirty. Palin wants to turn the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge into a private oil field for her corporate buddies.
Hunting does not always translate into caring about the environment or its inhabitants. Palin scoffs at global warming even as scientists document the shrinking of the ice caps and drowning of polar bears. Not that Palin cares about polar bears; she actually sued the Bush administration to have them taken off the endangered species list.
Wolves have fared no better under her watch. Until the program was stopped by a state judge, Palin was offering wolf hunters $150 for every hacked-off front foreleg they brought in.
PRO – The selection of a female vice presidential candidate is a historical first for the Republican Party. Finally, the Republicans have entered the 20th century. That’s not a typo. The press seems to have forgotten that Democrats met that milestone last century when Walter Mondale selected Geraldine Ferraro as his running mate in 1984. The Republicans are, finally, playing catch-up.
CON – In choosing Palin, John McCain passed over a long line of more qualified Republican leaders. If he wanted a female running mate, why not Kay Bailey Hutchison? Hutchison served as state treasurer of Texas before starting her fifteen years in the Senate. She is the most senior female Republican Senator, with a great deal of experience and responsibility.
Or how about Olympia Snowe? Snowe is the first woman who ever served in both houses, both in the state and nationally, and one of the first to serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee. She was named one of America’s top senators by Time Magazine, and holds a 79% approval rating in her home state of Maine. Snowe is as powerful as she is popular. She chairs the subcommittee that oversees the Navy and Marine Corps and also serves on the Finance Committee. In 35 years, Olympia Snowe has never lost an election.
With choices like Hutchison and Snowe (and Condoleeza Rice, and the list goes on), why did McCain choose a political newbie from the sticks? The answer is clear to hard-working women in all sorts of careers who have watched a younger, less qualified woman soar past them to assume positions at the top. It’s an old gimmick, really: Put a token female near the top to placate the other women in the organization. Just make sure it’s a woman who will fully support the good ol’ boys, without caring what happens to us other women, or our children, or our world.
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Monday, September 15, 2008
Monday, May 19, 2008
Let them run
The past few weeks have been very interesting for runners of all kinds. An athlete who could not run was carried. An athlete who can run was finally told he could. And in politics, Hillary Clinton was barraged with yet more calls to stop running.
Over 200,000 viewers enjoyed the YouTube video of Western Oregon University athlete Sara Tucholsky’s first home run. In a game against Central Washington University, Tucholsky hit the ball over the fence. At first base, she tore a ligament in her knee. When the umpire mistakenly ruled that one of her own team members could not run the bases for her, two Central Washington players picked her up and carried her around the bases. All over the blogosphere, Mallory Holtman and Liz Wallace are heralded as heroes for the selfless act that cost them the game but won them a place in our hearts -- and an entry on Wikipedia.
In other sports victories, double amputee Oscar Pistorius won the right to compete for a spot in the Olympics. Pistorius was born without fibulas (the long thin bones that run from knee to ankle.) Surgeons amputated both his legs below the knee when he was eleven months old. Running on special carbon-fiber blades, Pistorius holds the 400-meter Paralympic word record at 46.56 seconds.
Pistorius is not quite there yet; the qualifying requirement for the 400-meter event in Beijing is 45.55 seconds. The International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) had barred Pistorius from all able-bodied competition including the Olympics, considering his carbon-fiber running blades a “mechanical advantage” over other runners. Their fear was not that he would fail, but that he might succeed.
If Pistorius makes the cut, he will not be the first Paralympian to qualify for the Olympics. Natalie du Toit, a swimmer from South Africa, qualified for the 2008 Olympics on May 3rd. Du Toit was already competing internationally when she lost her left leg in a motorcycle accident. Du Toit swims without a prosthetic, so fairness was never questioned. A poem on her wall states, “It is not a disgrace not to reach for the stars, But it is a disgrace not to have stars to reach for.”
Like Du Toit, Hillary Clinton is a person who is not easily contented by merely having stars out there. Both women are driven to win. In either case, a win represents far more than a personal victory. Clinton is hardly disabled in the political arena – indeed, America would be hard-pressed to come up with any candidate who is sharper, more well-known, or more qualified to lead our country than Hillary Clinton. Yet, in the political arena, merely being female is still a gigantic perception liability, almost like an athlete competing without a limb.
Throughout Clinton’s campaign, this column has recorded and analyzed a steady stream of media misogyny used to smear the senator and former first lady. While much of the onslaught is presented as humor, it is notable that comic references to Clinton’s sex are invariably negative, and frequently downright hateful.
Since Obama first became a serious challenger, pundits have called for Clinton to drop out of the race. As Clinton’s campaign noted, the drop out cries followed Clinton’s victories, not Obama’s. Clinton had become like the runner on carbon-fiber blades, and much of society wanted to deny her the right to even be a contender – not because she could not win, but because she just might.
Obama now commands a strong lead, but a Clinton nomination is still mathematically possible. Why should the Democratic nomination be ended prematurely? Some Democrats want to end it so the Democratic Party can unify against John McCain. Yet polls show that Clinton is a stronger candidate against McCain. Democrats may shoot themselves in the foot by trying to silence their best candidate.
Quitting now would not only mean giving up the nomination. It would also represent an enormous loss to women everywhere. What woman has not been pressured with these same tactics to “just go home?” Month after month, women continue to hear that they cannot “have it all” (i.e. family and career), even as the majority of American women continue to do just that. We are inundated with magazine articles, Internet essays and news items telling us that women are “opting out” and just going home in large numbers. The facts prove otherwise, but it does not stop the media from feeding the guilt complex carried by working mothers and discouraging us with claims that we cannot succeed.
Being female is still a disadvantage in many fields. Where women have made inroads, they still do not receive the same wages and honors accorded to men. The more education and training a woman has, the less likely she is to earn as much as her peers. The wage gap between male and female physicians, for example, is much greater than the wage gap between male and female cashiers.
Oddly, many feminists are among those calling for Hillary to pull out of the race. The Democratic contest has opened a generational divide between older and younger feminists. Younger feminists are apt to say that the gender of the candidate is completely immaterial, so long as he or she supports feminism.
Older feminists recognize a troubling historical parallel. In the 1800’s, the feminist movement was strong and suffragettes were closer than ever to their goal of votes for women. Many suffragettes were also abolitionists, and were willing to temporarily lay aside the cause of votes for women in order to fight slavery. After the Civil War, the feminist movement spent a great deal of energy and resources fighting for the rights of black men, including the right to vote. As a result, black men received the right to vote fifty years before women.
At a campaign stop in Kentucky, Hillary Clinton responds to those who urge her to quit. “You don’t stop democracy in its tracks. You don’t tell some states that they can’t vote and other states that have already had the opportunity that they’re somehow more important. I want everybody to vote and everybody to help pick our next president.”
So run for all you’re worth. Run in your dark pantsuit. Run on your carbon-fiber blades. Run till the wind in your ears drowns out the incessant whining of those who tell you to go home. They’re only afraid that somehow, against the odds, you just might win.
Over 200,000 viewers enjoyed the YouTube video of Western Oregon University athlete Sara Tucholsky’s first home run. In a game against Central Washington University, Tucholsky hit the ball over the fence. At first base, she tore a ligament in her knee. When the umpire mistakenly ruled that one of her own team members could not run the bases for her, two Central Washington players picked her up and carried her around the bases. All over the blogosphere, Mallory Holtman and Liz Wallace are heralded as heroes for the selfless act that cost them the game but won them a place in our hearts -- and an entry on Wikipedia.
In other sports victories, double amputee Oscar Pistorius won the right to compete for a spot in the Olympics. Pistorius was born without fibulas (the long thin bones that run from knee to ankle.) Surgeons amputated both his legs below the knee when he was eleven months old. Running on special carbon-fiber blades, Pistorius holds the 400-meter Paralympic word record at 46.56 seconds.
Pistorius is not quite there yet; the qualifying requirement for the 400-meter event in Beijing is 45.55 seconds. The International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) had barred Pistorius from all able-bodied competition including the Olympics, considering his carbon-fiber running blades a “mechanical advantage” over other runners. Their fear was not that he would fail, but that he might succeed.
If Pistorius makes the cut, he will not be the first Paralympian to qualify for the Olympics. Natalie du Toit, a swimmer from South Africa, qualified for the 2008 Olympics on May 3rd. Du Toit was already competing internationally when she lost her left leg in a motorcycle accident. Du Toit swims without a prosthetic, so fairness was never questioned. A poem on her wall states, “It is not a disgrace not to reach for the stars, But it is a disgrace not to have stars to reach for.”
Like Du Toit, Hillary Clinton is a person who is not easily contented by merely having stars out there. Both women are driven to win. In either case, a win represents far more than a personal victory. Clinton is hardly disabled in the political arena – indeed, America would be hard-pressed to come up with any candidate who is sharper, more well-known, or more qualified to lead our country than Hillary Clinton. Yet, in the political arena, merely being female is still a gigantic perception liability, almost like an athlete competing without a limb.
Throughout Clinton’s campaign, this column has recorded and analyzed a steady stream of media misogyny used to smear the senator and former first lady. While much of the onslaught is presented as humor, it is notable that comic references to Clinton’s sex are invariably negative, and frequently downright hateful.
Since Obama first became a serious challenger, pundits have called for Clinton to drop out of the race. As Clinton’s campaign noted, the drop out cries followed Clinton’s victories, not Obama’s. Clinton had become like the runner on carbon-fiber blades, and much of society wanted to deny her the right to even be a contender – not because she could not win, but because she just might.
Obama now commands a strong lead, but a Clinton nomination is still mathematically possible. Why should the Democratic nomination be ended prematurely? Some Democrats want to end it so the Democratic Party can unify against John McCain. Yet polls show that Clinton is a stronger candidate against McCain. Democrats may shoot themselves in the foot by trying to silence their best candidate.
Quitting now would not only mean giving up the nomination. It would also represent an enormous loss to women everywhere. What woman has not been pressured with these same tactics to “just go home?” Month after month, women continue to hear that they cannot “have it all” (i.e. family and career), even as the majority of American women continue to do just that. We are inundated with magazine articles, Internet essays and news items telling us that women are “opting out” and just going home in large numbers. The facts prove otherwise, but it does not stop the media from feeding the guilt complex carried by working mothers and discouraging us with claims that we cannot succeed.
Being female is still a disadvantage in many fields. Where women have made inroads, they still do not receive the same wages and honors accorded to men. The more education and training a woman has, the less likely she is to earn as much as her peers. The wage gap between male and female physicians, for example, is much greater than the wage gap between male and female cashiers.
Oddly, many feminists are among those calling for Hillary to pull out of the race. The Democratic contest has opened a generational divide between older and younger feminists. Younger feminists are apt to say that the gender of the candidate is completely immaterial, so long as he or she supports feminism.
Older feminists recognize a troubling historical parallel. In the 1800’s, the feminist movement was strong and suffragettes were closer than ever to their goal of votes for women. Many suffragettes were also abolitionists, and were willing to temporarily lay aside the cause of votes for women in order to fight slavery. After the Civil War, the feminist movement spent a great deal of energy and resources fighting for the rights of black men, including the right to vote. As a result, black men received the right to vote fifty years before women.
At a campaign stop in Kentucky, Hillary Clinton responds to those who urge her to quit. “You don’t stop democracy in its tracks. You don’t tell some states that they can’t vote and other states that have already had the opportunity that they’re somehow more important. I want everybody to vote and everybody to help pick our next president.”
So run for all you’re worth. Run in your dark pantsuit. Run on your carbon-fiber blades. Run till the wind in your ears drowns out the incessant whining of those who tell you to go home. They’re only afraid that somehow, against the odds, you just might win.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Setting the record straight
Evaluating election rumors
With a flimsy platform and no strong candidate, Republicans are hoping to win the November election on whisper campaigns and character assassination. Let’s check out some of their claims.
No, Hillary Clinton did not defend the Black Panthers who killed and tortured Alex Rackley. Hillary Clinton was a student at that time, not an attorney or a politician. She attended the trial as a volunteer observer for the ACLU, but had no impact on the outcome. Like many students, she was concerned about whether the black defendants were receiving a fair trial, and she participated in protests calling for a change of venue.
No, people who oppose the Clintons do not meet an untimely demise. The “Clinton Body Count” is so preposterous that no reasonable person could entertain the idea. For a body-by-body debunking, see http://www.snopes.com/. The shorter version is: If Hillary Clinton had a 50-person hit list, wouldn’t the Republicans be all over that? She would certainly be sitting in jail for connections to even one murder.
No, Secret Service agents did not claim Hillary Clinton was rude and arrogant, mistreating her agents and even charging them rent. As early as 1993 Time Magazine reported a known political trick in which spurious Clinton stories were “leaked” to the press. Often these stories were attributed to anonymous Secret Service agents as a way to lend credibility to the false claim. As for rent, the Clintons are entitled to receive $1,100 per month for housing Secret Service agents in their Chappaqua, NY home – but they turned down the money.
No, Obama does not refuse to pledge the flag and yes, he has flags on his website. Obama has been videotaped pledging the flag. His website is red, white and blue (mostly blue.) The background centers on an eagle holding a shield and flag. His logo, shown multiple times on every page, is an interpretation of the American flag and the theme of hope (the sun rising over a field) all framed as a big O.
No, Obama does not attend a covertly Muslim church that excludes whites. Obama is a member of Trinity United Church of Christ (TUCC). The membership of TUCC is predominantly black, and the church places great emphasis on honoring African heritage and promoting the idea that “black is beautiful.” However, all people are welcome at the church, which adheres to the theology of the United Church of Christ.
No, Obama did not take the oath of office by swearing on the Koran. That would be a strange thing for a Christian to do. Obama was sworn in on the Bible.
No, John Edwards did not cause the 2004 flu vaccine shortage. The urban legend states that John Edwards sued a pharmaceutical company on behalf of a man who contracted the flu after receiving the vaccine. Supposedly the threat of further litigation ensures that no pharmaceutical company in the Unite States will dare to make the flu vaccine. The legend claims that the 2004 flu vaccine shortage resulted from contamination of a flu vaccine facility in the UK. This one is false all the way around. John Edwards never litigated a flu case. Anyway, the flu vaccine is manufactured in the United States. It was a US facility that was shut down due to contamination, resulting in the shortage. The real reason few pharmaceutical companies produce flu vaccine is because the profit margin for flu vaccine is very slim.
What about the Republican candidates? Is there a whisper campaign against them? Every email I have received has been against a Democrat. Even searching for GOP candidate names along with “urban legend,” I came up with very few stories, all of which are substantiated by reputable media outlets.
Yes, Senator McCain supported amnesty for illegal immigrants. In 2006 and 2007, McCain joined with Ted Kennedy in supporting Senate bills that would give amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. He also denounced and voted against an amendment designed to stop illegal immigrants from receiving social security benefits through identity fraud. McCain co-sponsored the Dream Act, which provided in-state tuition rates for illegal immigrants. Later he said he would have voted against his own legislation – but in fact he was absent when the vote was taken.
Yes, McCain is being swift-boated. There really is a group called Vietnam Veterans against John McCain. They claim that Senator McCain committed treason and does not deserve his medals because he gave the enemy information while he was being tortured as a POW. According to McCain’s own account, he did give the enemy information – some true and some false. For example, when asked to name the members of his squadron, he listed the names of the Green Bay Packers offensive line. McCain is a war hero as far as I am concerned, but it is true that this group exists and that they insist otherwise.
Yes, Mitt Romney transported his dog in a cage strapped to the top of the car during a 12-hour journey to visit his parents. The 1983 misadventure was reported in the Boston Globe last June. Romney clarified that he attempted to shield the dog with some sort of makeshift windshield. The scared pooch developed diarrhea, so Romney stopped at a gas station and hosed down the dog, the carrier, and the back of the car. Romney’s campaign-trail response to pet-loving critics: “They’re not happy that my dog loves fresh air.”
Speaking of dogs, Snopes confirms that Mike Huckabee’s son was fired from his job as a Boy Scout Camp counselor after he killed a dog by hanging. John Bailey, then director of Arkansas state police, claims Huckabee refused to allow police to investigate whether the boy violated animal cruelty laws. Huckabee says that Bailey is just a disgruntled employee. Huckabee says the dog was mangy, emaciated, and threatening, and that his son acted out of compassion.
Yes, Huckabee had a prominent role in the release of a serial rapist in Arkansas. Worse, the decision to release Wayne Dumond 25 years early appears to be politically motivated. Dumond was convicted and incarcerated while Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas. One of the victims, a seventeen-year-old high school cheerleader named Ashley Stevens, was distantly related to Clinton. Republicans seized on the connection to claim that the man had been wrongfully convicted.
Soon after election, Governor Huckabee began to agitate for Wayne Dumond’s release. In his book, “From Hope to Higher Ground,” Huckabee states that he worried Dumond might be innocent. He was callous enough to say this to Ashley Stevens when she begged him to keep Dumond behind bars. According to the Huffington Post, Huckabee’s office kept the visit secret, as well as letters from numerous victims warning that Dumond would strike again. They were right. Dumond then raped and then suffocated a 39-year-old woman. He was arrested again, the day after he allegedly raped and murdered a pregnant woman. Huckabee’s response amounts to “Who knew?” Other times he has blamed Clinton for Dumond’s release, pretending the commutation happened before his term.
In an election of this import, voters must make the effort to find out the truth. Don’t go into the voting precinct next Tuesday with a head full of lies. Cut through the urban legends – and even the campaign rhetoric – to consider a candidate’s true stance on the issues. Past voting records are the best clue.
We can believe that Democrats will institute nationwide healthcare coverage – and that Republicans consider it unnecessary. We can believe that Huckabee will be soft on crime and add to his 1,000+ pardons. We cannot believe McCain on immigration or Romney on abortion, because their positions are shifting and do not match their voting patterns. We can believe the Republicans when they say they will extend the war in the Middle East for 100 years or more. We can believe Democrats when they say they will end the war and bring troops home.
With a flimsy platform and no strong candidate, Republicans are hoping to win the November election on whisper campaigns and character assassination. Let’s check out some of their claims.
No, Hillary Clinton did not defend the Black Panthers who killed and tortured Alex Rackley. Hillary Clinton was a student at that time, not an attorney or a politician. She attended the trial as a volunteer observer for the ACLU, but had no impact on the outcome. Like many students, she was concerned about whether the black defendants were receiving a fair trial, and she participated in protests calling for a change of venue.
No, people who oppose the Clintons do not meet an untimely demise. The “Clinton Body Count” is so preposterous that no reasonable person could entertain the idea. For a body-by-body debunking, see http://www.snopes.com/. The shorter version is: If Hillary Clinton had a 50-person hit list, wouldn’t the Republicans be all over that? She would certainly be sitting in jail for connections to even one murder.
No, Secret Service agents did not claim Hillary Clinton was rude and arrogant, mistreating her agents and even charging them rent. As early as 1993 Time Magazine reported a known political trick in which spurious Clinton stories were “leaked” to the press. Often these stories were attributed to anonymous Secret Service agents as a way to lend credibility to the false claim. As for rent, the Clintons are entitled to receive $1,100 per month for housing Secret Service agents in their Chappaqua, NY home – but they turned down the money.
No, Obama does not refuse to pledge the flag and yes, he has flags on his website. Obama has been videotaped pledging the flag. His website is red, white and blue (mostly blue.) The background centers on an eagle holding a shield and flag. His logo, shown multiple times on every page, is an interpretation of the American flag and the theme of hope (the sun rising over a field) all framed as a big O.
No, Obama does not attend a covertly Muslim church that excludes whites. Obama is a member of Trinity United Church of Christ (TUCC). The membership of TUCC is predominantly black, and the church places great emphasis on honoring African heritage and promoting the idea that “black is beautiful.” However, all people are welcome at the church, which adheres to the theology of the United Church of Christ.
No, Obama did not take the oath of office by swearing on the Koran. That would be a strange thing for a Christian to do. Obama was sworn in on the Bible.
No, John Edwards did not cause the 2004 flu vaccine shortage. The urban legend states that John Edwards sued a pharmaceutical company on behalf of a man who contracted the flu after receiving the vaccine. Supposedly the threat of further litigation ensures that no pharmaceutical company in the Unite States will dare to make the flu vaccine. The legend claims that the 2004 flu vaccine shortage resulted from contamination of a flu vaccine facility in the UK. This one is false all the way around. John Edwards never litigated a flu case. Anyway, the flu vaccine is manufactured in the United States. It was a US facility that was shut down due to contamination, resulting in the shortage. The real reason few pharmaceutical companies produce flu vaccine is because the profit margin for flu vaccine is very slim.
What about the Republican candidates? Is there a whisper campaign against them? Every email I have received has been against a Democrat. Even searching for GOP candidate names along with “urban legend,” I came up with very few stories, all of which are substantiated by reputable media outlets.
Yes, Senator McCain supported amnesty for illegal immigrants. In 2006 and 2007, McCain joined with Ted Kennedy in supporting Senate bills that would give amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. He also denounced and voted against an amendment designed to stop illegal immigrants from receiving social security benefits through identity fraud. McCain co-sponsored the Dream Act, which provided in-state tuition rates for illegal immigrants. Later he said he would have voted against his own legislation – but in fact he was absent when the vote was taken.
Yes, McCain is being swift-boated. There really is a group called Vietnam Veterans against John McCain. They claim that Senator McCain committed treason and does not deserve his medals because he gave the enemy information while he was being tortured as a POW. According to McCain’s own account, he did give the enemy information – some true and some false. For example, when asked to name the members of his squadron, he listed the names of the Green Bay Packers offensive line. McCain is a war hero as far as I am concerned, but it is true that this group exists and that they insist otherwise.
Yes, Mitt Romney transported his dog in a cage strapped to the top of the car during a 12-hour journey to visit his parents. The 1983 misadventure was reported in the Boston Globe last June. Romney clarified that he attempted to shield the dog with some sort of makeshift windshield. The scared pooch developed diarrhea, so Romney stopped at a gas station and hosed down the dog, the carrier, and the back of the car. Romney’s campaign-trail response to pet-loving critics: “They’re not happy that my dog loves fresh air.”
Speaking of dogs, Snopes confirms that Mike Huckabee’s son was fired from his job as a Boy Scout Camp counselor after he killed a dog by hanging. John Bailey, then director of Arkansas state police, claims Huckabee refused to allow police to investigate whether the boy violated animal cruelty laws. Huckabee says that Bailey is just a disgruntled employee. Huckabee says the dog was mangy, emaciated, and threatening, and that his son acted out of compassion.
Yes, Huckabee had a prominent role in the release of a serial rapist in Arkansas. Worse, the decision to release Wayne Dumond 25 years early appears to be politically motivated. Dumond was convicted and incarcerated while Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas. One of the victims, a seventeen-year-old high school cheerleader named Ashley Stevens, was distantly related to Clinton. Republicans seized on the connection to claim that the man had been wrongfully convicted.
Soon after election, Governor Huckabee began to agitate for Wayne Dumond’s release. In his book, “From Hope to Higher Ground,” Huckabee states that he worried Dumond might be innocent. He was callous enough to say this to Ashley Stevens when she begged him to keep Dumond behind bars. According to the Huffington Post, Huckabee’s office kept the visit secret, as well as letters from numerous victims warning that Dumond would strike again. They were right. Dumond then raped and then suffocated a 39-year-old woman. He was arrested again, the day after he allegedly raped and murdered a pregnant woman. Huckabee’s response amounts to “Who knew?” Other times he has blamed Clinton for Dumond’s release, pretending the commutation happened before his term.
In an election of this import, voters must make the effort to find out the truth. Don’t go into the voting precinct next Tuesday with a head full of lies. Cut through the urban legends – and even the campaign rhetoric – to consider a candidate’s true stance on the issues. Past voting records are the best clue.
We can believe that Democrats will institute nationwide healthcare coverage – and that Republicans consider it unnecessary. We can believe that Huckabee will be soft on crime and add to his 1,000+ pardons. We cannot believe McCain on immigration or Romney on abortion, because their positions are shifting and do not match their voting patterns. We can believe the Republicans when they say they will extend the war in the Middle East for 100 years or more. We can believe Democrats when they say they will end the war and bring troops home.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
