On September 3rd, Republican VP candidate and current Alaska Governor Sarah Palin gave a very impressive acceptance speech. She seemed strong, bright, poised, and confident.
Her speech seemed to fire up the audience. Lots of applause. Standing ovations. And, based on interviews by the television reporters on the convention floor, Palin even seemed to win over some moderate pro-choice Republican women. It was that easy.
But that was just one speech, and it was written to strategically touch on talking points that would win points with the audience, and ignore others.
And the points they chose to ignore could make all the difference in voters' minds.
Here are just a few:
Governor Palin told us that she had "stood up to the ... big oil companies." She did not tell us that she had strongly supported Big Oil's efforts to drill in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. And she did not tell us that she had opposed listing polar bears as an endangered species because doing so would pose a "significant threat to [oil and gas] development."
Governor Palin told us that she had "championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress." She did not tell us that she herself had taken advantage of a whole lot of federal earmark spending. According to the Washington Post, "Palin helped secure almost $27 million in projects for her tiny hometown of Wasilla, Alaska."
Governor Palin said that she had told Congress "thanks, but no thanks" for the Bridge to Nowhere. She did not tell us that she had supported the bridge before she opposed it. In other words, she flip-flopped.
Governor Palin told us that Barack Obama "has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform -- not even in the state senate." She did not tell us that Obama, along with Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN), authored S. 2566, which passed in 2007, to keep weapons out of the hands of terrorists. She did not tell us that Obama, along with Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), authored the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, to require full disclosure of all entities and organizations receiving Federal funds. And she did not tell us that, this year alone, Obama sponsored many more Senate bills than his opponent, John McCain -- 70 to 22.
Governor Palin told us that Barack Obama wants to raise taxes. She did not tell us that Obama would actually cut taxes for over 95% of American families. Those who would have to pay more taxes under an Obama administration are the richest handful of Americans who are currently enjoying Bush's tax breaks for the very wealthy -- tax breaks that Obama would stop so that the rich will have to pay their fair share just as you and I do.
Governor Palin told us that Barack Obama "wants to forfeit" a victory in Iraq. She did not explain that you cannot win an occupation (as was so astutely noted on a sign held by Iraq war veteran Adam Kokesh the following night at the RNC).
Governor Palin told us, "This world of threats and dangers is not just a community, and it doesn't just need an organizer." What she is missing is the fact that the world community fared better when the U.S. did serve as its organizer. America's role in the world community changed for the worst when George W. Bush adopted his unilateral cowboy-style foreign policy. And, rather than make us safer, the Bush-McCain war policy has actually fueled an increased terrorist threat.
And while it seems obvious that McCain chose Palin as his running mate in an attempt to win over disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters, Governor Palin did not mention her extremist views that are pretty much the opposite of Senator Clinton's views on women's issues. She did not tell us, for instance, that she opposes abortion even in cases of rape or incest.
Finally, while the right wing may criticize Barack Obama's former ties to Pastor Jeremiah Wright, Governor Palin did not mention the fact that her own church recently heard a sermon professing that terrorist attacks on Israel amount to divine judgment on Jews for refusing to accept Jesus Christ as their lord and savior.
So, when all these things are considered, this election would seem like a shoo-in for the Democrats, right?
Wrong! Unfortunately.
Unlike some of us, the average American does not take the time to research political issues and dig between the lines. Politics is not everyone's hobby. The average American has just enough time to absorb what they can from a few minutes each day of cable or network news, and they trust that they are sufficiently informed.
Yet, even as the right wing decries the so-called "liberal media", the mainstream press does little more than just pass along the partisan talking points.
They say that true democracy requires an informed electorate. This is a problem today, as too many voters rely on too little information, or distorted information, to make their decisions.
This is why those of us who do obsess with politics need to spend every spare minute knocking on doors, literally and figuratively, and sharing the truth. This is going to be a very close election, and so much hangs in the balance. We must do all we can to counteract the swift boaters and the disinformation machine in general.
Heaven help us if we fail.
Schuh
Lancaster
7trends
Yes, heaven help us. Fantastic article! (even if it's scary)
1I have found lately that they don't want to hear the truth. When they are presented with the facts they still will support the ticket. Every single news show that I watched last night was stating the facts and lies that the McPalin ticket has been spewing. All of that just gets blamed on the "liberal media."
2I appreciate you making this public
3Hi, just popping in. I wanted to discuss one point for a minute. The whole "so that the rich will have to pay their fair share just as you and I do" mentality is one of the things I disagree with. We already have a highly progressive tax system. As it stands now, the top 20% of earners pay 80% of all taxes right now. 80%. So the rich are already paying their fair share and I'm not sure if people realize that.
I think the system is fine as it is now but I just don't see why people say rich people need to pay more and that Obama's plan to raise their taxes- it looked like 19% and 24% on the chart Citizen had up yesterday- is really "fair".
So then they will be paying, what, 90% of all taxes, maybe 95%, since everyone else's taxes are going down? I realize the economy is down right now and a break for everyone would help but this is one sticking point with me. The thought that the wealthy can just have their money redistributed because they just have too much and they aren't paying enough.
They top earners pay out 33% of their income. The bottom earners pay out 10%.
And it does not make sense to me how giving tax breaks to just the bottom 20% is going to stimulate the economy. They pay relatively very little taxes. And they purchase things from businesses run by people paying the other 80% of taxes who will not be getting breaks who will keep things expensive.
Anyways, I think the lower income people need the breaks, period. But I feel tax cuts for everyone would go a lot farther in bettering our economy for all.
4I despise palin
5Hey red... the wealthy are making like 90% of the $, so they pay 90% of the taxes.
6I see your point in stimulating the economy. Right now I'm having trouble seeing through my own pathetic financial situation to care about giving rich people a break.
I also agree with Red. Any way you look at it, Obama's plan of redistributing wealth is SOCIALISM.
Other attempts at socialism and communism have failed miserably, and I don't know how we, in the 21st century, can ignore what the past failures have taught us. And some will note that we should look at China as a model, but those who mention that fail to point out that China only started prospering once they introduced private property (the main pillar of capitalism).
While some who make seven figures did grow up with a silver spoon (or however that little phrase is worded
) a lot of people in the upper echelons of brackets worked hard to get there. Whether it was paying for a college education, climbing out of
poverty, opening a small business which grew into a large business (which in turn provided jobs to many people), or just using smarts and savvy to get ahead and amass capital --- whatever the
situation, they worked for their money and I feel it is not only wrong but also very communistic to say "you worked too hard, let us - the govt - have your money."
And I must point out, that it is a well-known fact that conservatives donate more time and money (even percentage-wise) than liberals. So it's not like all of the wealthy are sitting on piles of money greedily rubbing their hands. They spend money to stimulate the economy, the create jobs for those of us who are middle class, they donate money to private charities, and they pay taxes.
7I don't think all of the wealthy are sitting back on piles of money, although I personally know some who are (and some who aren't, to be fair).
8I wasn't aware of this well-known fact that conservatives give more time and money than liberals.
I can link it for you if you give me a few minutes!
9yes please do. that would be great.
10OK. Thanks. I only know a few conservatives so I only see on an anecdotal level the wealthier liberals in my life who have given time and money.
11I wasn't aware of that either wren.
12Arthur Brooks, a top scholar of economics and public policy, has spent years researching this trend, and even he was surprised by what he found. In "Who Really Cares", he demonstrates conclusively that conservatives really are compassionate-far more compassionate than their liberal foes. Strong families, church attendance, earned income (as opposed to state-subsidized income), and the belief that individuals, not government, offer the best solution to social ills-all of these factors determine how likely one is to give.
13(I got this from the Amazon.com description of Arthur Brooks' book "Who Really Cares" - if you google that you can get some of the more direct stats)
Here's something more concrete:
14"He writes that households headed by a conservative give roughly 30 percent more to charity each year than households headed by a liberal, despite the fact that the liberal families on average earn slightly more."
Ultimately, these are just stats. But I think what it shows is that while it's easy to demonize the rich and perhaps republicans, it is interesting to note that both camps are altruistic we just have different ideas on how to go about helping people - private donations and government intervention.
15yeah i will need to study how he came up with this exactly. i will find it today when i am not getting ready to walk out the door. i tend to take more stock into people who do things to not sell books in all honesty. but thanks for reporting back and name and location of your information.
16No problem. And like I said, we can ultimately get stats to say whatever we want. The point I'm trying to make is that it's easy to "take from the rich" when they're demonized and seen as greedy and evil, but when we really look into it, the rich got rich (in most cases) by working hard and overcoming difficulties.
While it is hard to be sympathetic when you're in your own financial crises, the choices you make now in terms of who is taxed and who isn't will ultimately affect you or someone in your family one day down the road. Who is to say that you (or your child, or your brother, etc) won't succeed tremendously (maybe opening your own business) and make a lot of money and help your community by giving well-paying jobs and spending money to stimulate the economy - and then to find that you're being taxed at almost 50% (and barely able to pay for those workers anymore) just because of your hard work and because you make "too much"
(as a side note, I am definitely not one of the "wealthy")
17Personally, I don't mind paying higher taxes to help those in lower tax & income brackets receive healthcare, better education, live in a community with lower crime, heck even beautifying parks & roads. I live in a society with other people and what happens to others no matter in what tax bracket affects me and others around me. I have worked very, very hard for what I have today & I don't mind helping others realize their potential as well. If thats called socialism or redistribution of wealth, I don't mind. So I am going to vote for the candidate that has the welfare of ALL people included in his tax plan. Thats all. I have done the research, I have seen the numbers, I am a Democrat. Thats where my values lie.
18My husband made a good point the other night. He said he wears his tax bracket level as a badge of honor!
19Well, if it's giving to charities, I'm not so sure. My ex-husband is wealthy and gives a LOT to charities but ONLY so he gets tax breaks. He couldn't give two sh*ts otherise.
20Hey, Wren, its still helping others whether the intent is there or not!
21Candy, you ROCK! Many of my family members make good money, and they don't mind paying more. We're democrats!
22Here are some of Brooks' stats. I'd like to take a look at the reports and surveys that are sourced at the bottom of the page.
I'll be totally honest here: I'm pretty thick when it comes to economics. I've read up on a lot of the issues and candidates' stances lately but my eyes glaze over at the parts about the economy and taxes.
I need to buckle down and really get informed about these
issues, STAT.
While I know that the economy is one of the most important issues in this election, it's not one of the ones that I am personally passionate about. It's not one of the issues that I literally have been losing sleep over lately.
23
Yeah, that's true.
24My boyfriend's father is the same way. He gives to charity for the SOLE REASON of getting a tax break. I don't even think he cares which charities he gives to.
25My point was that giving more money may not be what it seems. It could be for the tax breaks, which are HUGE.
26EXACTLY, whip!!!!
27Me neither. I'd have thought that a well know fact like that would be shouted from the rooftops.
28Well that's great and good for you. I just think that sometimes people misunderstand the differences between fiscal conservatives and liberals. I, on the other hand, would much rather take that "extra money" I make and give it to charities, family members in need, and make donations to groups that I know are helping the less fortunate in an efficient way. I've rarely seen a government agency spend money efficiently, so that's why I don't want to give them any more money to waste. I'd rather do it myself.
The main point I'm trying to make (and I hope I'm being successful) is that we all care about people, we all want people to succeed. We just see the process of getting there very differently.
29You're right about that. We see it very differently
30whip, thanks for the link!
31(and thanks to all of you for being very civil with me - an intruder!)
32You're not an intruder, this is a public post.
33Well, you do have good fashion sense...
34Wow, this thread exploded! Syako, I am glad you are here because you are so much better at explaining this that I am. But taxes is one of my main issues for this election. And I am not one of the "wealthy" either but the principle here is what bothers me.
35As far as not minding paying more, I am very hapy with the progressive tax system as it stands now. With people paying, 10, 15, 25, 28, 33 or 35% taxes based on their income. I think that is fair enough. If we ever did a flat tax, the country would be in real trouble! hah.
I hear this argument alot- that its your money and you should be able to give it to who you want. But we live in communities that need services for people. These services are NOT meeting the needs of people because they are not properly funded or properly managed. I don't mind "investing" in the government (not George Bush's govt) if they are funding and managing the programs responsibly. I don't trust the Republicans to do it, but I do trust the Democrats to do it, thats why I will vote for Obama.
And I agree with you on this:
"we all care about people, we all want people to succeed. We just see the process of getting there very differently"
But to be honest- I'm using this as a metaphor and not an insult- I don't know you, I don't know if you care about people like I care about people, so I want to give it to a trust worthy government that I voted for to distribute on my behalf.
Does that make sense? I guess I feel like I can't leave it up to my neighbors to give to charity.
36*happy
37There are other ways of raising more money. Is that really the only solution people can think of is just to take money from people they think have too much? Cutting spending in the government, cutting unnecessary programs, etc. I'm sure there are a bazillion things that could be done.
38It makes sense. I just disagree with you.
I've never seen the government work
efficiently regardless of who was in the White House or in Congress because I ultimately see it as a bureaucratic entity which has no feelings as it is not a human being. (wow, that sounds a
lot smarter in my head!)
Anyway, my husband grew up in the
Soviet Union and I've heard his family's horror stories of the government redistributing the wealth. I don't want this fine country to end up like that.
39(oh and thanks wren!)
40Proportionally, the wealthy give a smaller percentage of their net income which they can easily afford. On the other hand, medium class gives a higher percentage of their net income, so while the amount may be larger proportionally it's not the same.
PLUS with the tax breaks, it's almost a wash out for the wealthy.
_________________________
41If the lipstick fits...
Red, I think that cutting unnecessary programs and government spending is a great way to raise money. I want my government to of course look at themselves first and raise taxes as a last resort. I'm just not gonna be mad if my taxes go up.
42when you say "give" are you talking about charitable donations or taxes?
43I get your point, Candy! And I pretty much always expect taxes to go up but I can at least protest.
44Me? Give? Which one...I said it more than once.
45Shi is right. It comes down to more than just tax brackets. The wealthy are given tax breaks that others are not, so many are not paying close to 35%.
46I was talking to SJP
47wren - do you have a stat for that? or is that anecdotal?
48Yeah, whats that saying about Death and Taxes? The only two things you can rely on?
49Syako- sorry, my comment came right before yours...assumed it was me.
50Post A Comment
To post comments, please log in or register.