Sarah Palin May Be a Pit Bull in Lipstick, but She’s No Populist.
Posted by Jim Hightower, JimHightower.com at 6:06 PM on September 4, 2008.

Mary Ellen Lease would be ashamed.

“Perfect populist pitch.” That’s how CBS political pundit Jeff Greenfield described Sarah Palin’s VP acceptance speech.

Excuse me, but real populists don’t support profiteering schemes of Big Oil or embrace the extension and expansion of tax giveaways to Wall Street speculators and corporate chieftans.

Palin might claim to be a pit bull in lipstick, but she’s damn sure no populist. As Greenfield must surely know in his less infatuated moments, she is to populism what near beer is to beer — only not as close. Indeed, she’s the candidate of the plutocrats. Mary Ellen Lease — a real hell-raising populist from the 1880s and 90s — would be appalled at the media’s perversion of this historic and proud term.

Jim Hightower is a national radio commentator, writer, public speaker, and author of “Thieves In High Places: They’ve Stolen Our Country And It’s Time to Take It Back.” He publishes the monthly “Hightower Lowdown,” co-edited by Phillip Frazer.

———–

Mary Elizabeth Lease
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Mary Elizabeth Lease (1850-1933) was an American lecturer, writer, and political activist. Most of her political work was done toward the cause of temperance. She was born to Irish immigrants Joseph P. and Mary Elizabeth (Murray) Clyens, in Ridgway, Pennsylvania. In 1895, she wrote The Problem of Civilization Solved, and in 1896, she moved to New York City where she edited the democratic newspaper, World. In addition, she worked as an editor for the National Encyclopedia of American Biography. Mary Elizabeth Lease was also known as Mary Ellen Lease. She was called “Queen Mary” (after the Queen Mary) by her supporters and “Mary Yellin” by her enemies. Lease died in Callicoon, New York.

At the age of twenty she moved to Kansas to teach school in Osage Mission (St. Paul, Kansas), and three years later she married Charles L. Lease, a local pharmacist. After unsuccessful farming ventures in Kingman County and in Texas, the Leases and their four children moved to Wichita, where she took a leading role in civic and social activities.

Lease was also involved in the Populist Party, gathering support for their cause. Though Lease is widely believed to have advised Kansas farmers to “raise less corn and more hell,” she later said that the admonition had been invented by reporters. Lease decided to let the quote stand because she thought “it was a right good bit of advice.” She believed that large business would make the people of America slaves, saying, “Wall street owns the country. It is no longer a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, but a government of Wall Street, by Wall Street, and for Wall Street. The great common people of this country are slaves, and monopoly is the master.”

By 1890, her involvement in the growing revolt of Kansas farmers against high mortgage interest and railroad rates had placed her in the forefront of the People’s (Populist) Party, and she stomped all over Kansas as well as the Far West and the South for the cause. She was a powerful and emotional speaker; Emporia editor William G. Allen White, who did not share her political views, wrote on one occasion that “she could recite the multiplication table and set a crowd hooting and harrahing at her will.” She made more than 160 speeches.
More an agitator than a practical politician, by 1896 Lease had become alienated from the Populist Party, and thereafter she turned to personal interests. She divorced her husband in 1902 and spent the rest of her life with one or another of her children in the East until her death in 1933.

Some claim Mary Elizabeth Lease to have been the model for Dorothy in L. Frank Baum’s The Wonderful Wizard of Oz.

——————————–

The “P” in “POW” Does Not Stand for “President.”
Posted by ZP Heller, The Real News Network at 11:12 AM on September 5, 2008.

McCain is hellbent on playing the POW card to the bitter end.

If the Republican National Convention revealed anything it’s that John McCain is hellbent on overplaying his POW card to the bitter end.  In the last few months alone we’ve seen the McCain campaign overuse McCain’s POW story to justify everything from his healthcare policy to forgetting how many houses he owns, from cheating at the Saddleback forum to his love of ABBA.  Each time McCain and the GOP invoke his past in vain they diminish the story’s potency and cheapen its respectability.  Such a political ploy compelled fellow former POWs like Dr. Phillip Butler to come forward and declare that this experience does not qualify McCain to lead, which Brave New PAC featured in its recent video that received over 190,000 views in the last few days.

Even the corporate media have grown weary of McCain trotting out his POW story. Andrew Sullivan channeled Joe Biden to dub McCain, “A noun, a verb, and POW.”  And Newsweek’s Howard Fineman said, “I think they are going to it way too many times.”  These pronouncements ought to have served as a cautionary sign for the McCain campaign, considering how deeply enamored the media has been with McCain throughout this election.  But judging from the RNC this week, McCain and the GOP just can’t help themselves.

While the Democrats made economic populism the central theme of their convention, the Republicans used their convention primarily to pay tribute to McCain’s military record.  On Tuesday night, the single charged moment in President Bush’s otherwise uninspired, unconvincing televised speech came when he referred to McCain’s POW past.  “Fellow citizens,” Bush said. “If the Hanoi Hilton could not break John McCain’s resolve to do what is best for his country, you can be sure the angry left never will.”

When the crowd applauded, two things became clear: 1) Republicans are willing to stoop so low as to depict the left as merciless Vietcong captors (ironic, considering it was Republicans like Bush and McCain who approved of torturing suspected terrorists); and 2) The Republicans can’t make this race about issues because they would lose.

A raging class war?  Rising unemployment?  Soaring gas prices?  Unaffordable healthcare?  A recession brought on by an unpopular war?  These are all crises courtesy of Bush and backed by McCain, who has virtually voted lockstep with the president.  Why bring up these subjects when you could be playing on your audience’s sympathies by touting your nominee’s time in a Vietnamese prison over thirty years ago?

For all the talk of candidates needing “experience” in this election, the only real experience the GOP is concerned with is McCain’s POW past.   That’s why Sarah Palin made the ludicrous claim that “there’s only one man who’s ever really fought for you,” and that it’s a long way from “a six-by-four cell in Hanoi to the Oval Office.”  That’s why John McCain devoted most of his speech last night to recounting his tale of woe, which we already heard during the video tribute that played only ten minutes earlier.  And that’s why McCain drew the rather obvious comparison that Obama doesn’t have “the scars” that he has.

The reality is that as terrible as McCain’s experience may have been, that alone does not qualify him to be president.  As Dr. Butler says, “The prisoner of war experience is not a good prerequisite for a president of the United States.”  And by telling and retelling his POW story, by exploiting it for political gain, McCain dishonors those who have served our country and renders his own experience meaningless.

Tagged as: george bush, john mccain, gop, economy, vietnam, minnesota, republicans, sarah palin, pow, st. paul, hanoi hilton
ZP Heller is the editorial director of Brave New Films. He has written for The American Prospect, AlterNet, The Philadelphia Inquirer, and The Huffington Post, covering everything from politics to pop culture.

The McCain Campaign’s Big McMansion Mystery Mistake
Posted by dday, Hullabaloo at 9:51 AM on September 5, 2008.

What exactly was that giant building on the screen behind John McCain last night?

To a man, everyone on the liberal blogger side of the aisle was stunned that the McCain campaign would allow the TV shot to go out to the world on his big night to be him in front of a lime green background. Cottage cheese and lime Jello, in the vernacular of the blogosphere. Surely they WATCHED the shot through a monitor and knew that it would make him look sickly. {Actually he looked older then he really is and did not give him an aura of environmentalism green - this is something he totally lost in the last half year of his campaign,}

But that’s not the only head-scratcher with the RNC staging, which the set designers had months to organize. The giant screen was useless outside of the room, always putting the speaker at the podium behind monochrome, or worse, in the East River (in Rudy Giuliani’s speech).

Putting the seats for dignitaries along the side of the stage was OK, but the white line across the boxes designating them looked to the TV angle like the seats were empty, in a wide shot. And then there’s this, which is absolutely amazing:

{ But The Real goof-off Seems to be More Serious: }

A lot of people were asking tonight: what the hell was that mansion up behind John McCain tonight during the first part of the speech? As I noted below, the TV close-ups only showed McCain’s head against the grass in the picture, which made it look like he was reprising his famed green screen performance. And when they panned out, it looked like McCain was showing off one of his mansions.

Well, several readers have written in to tell me that the building is actually the main building on the campus of the Walter Reed Middle School in North Hollywood, California. And sure enough, this page on the school’s website makes it pretty clear that they’re correct.

Could this be? Could the producers have wanted a shot of Walter Reed Army Medical Center, and they farmed it off to the intern who picked Walter Reed MIDDLE SCHOOL? I mean, is that possible? None of the consultants and muckety-mucks charged with picking the backgrounds know what Walter Reed looks like? As Josh Marshall says, “is this the RNC or a scene out Spinal Tap or Waiting for Guffman?”

You know, it wasn’t so long ago that these guys were the pros at this. Say what you will about Mission Accomplished Day, putting Bush in that flight suit was brilliant theater. Where did those people go?

UPDATE:

Here’s another fun wrinkle: It turns out that the building behind McCain was also used as the backdrop for Matt Santos’ announcement of his presidential candidacy on The West Wing. {So, was this a liberal Hollywood make-believe look-alike effort?

The Americas Society / Council of the Americas will have in September, in New York City, events with the Presidents of - Brazil (H.E. Luiz Inacio Lula Da Silva - September 22, 2008), Paraguay (H.E. Fernando Lugo - September 23, 2008), Colombia (H.E. Álvaro Uribe Vélez), and Argentina (H.E. Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner - September 25, 2008).

It is only natural that Americas Society and the Council follow very closely the US elections - this because of the fact that definite need for improving the US position among the States of the Western Hemisphere is in order, and many are worried about business an d security issues - specially in the light of efforts to bring back Cuba into the Organization of American States.

The following is an article from the Society’s website, and we look forward onto reporting on the meetings with the Presidents.

Vice Presidential Choices, Latin America Policy, and the Hispanic Vote.
Carlos Macias and Carin Zissis, The Americas Society / Council of the Americas.
September 2, 2008

While the U.S. presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain secure their nominations and announce running mates, questions arise over what the vice presidential candidates could contribute in terms of winning the Hispanic vote and U.S. policy toward the Western Hemisphere. Obama’s choice of longtime Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) as a vice presidential candidate could bolster the Democratic ticket because of his strong foreign policy credentials. Meanwhile, little is known about where Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin—embroiled in controversy over her teenage daughter’s pregnancy—stands on subjects such as immigration, trade, or U.S. policy toward Cuba.

Winning the Latino voting bloc has emerged as crucial for both camps, with the Democratic and Republican campaigns hiring special advisors to court Hispanic voters. According to a survey by the Pew Hispanic Center, Latino voters prefer Obama over McCain by a 2 to 1 ratio. Dallas Democratic State Representative Rafael Anchía said support for former candidate Hillary Clinton showed that Latinos did not need a Hispanic politician on the ticket to make a choice, responding to a question in a Dallas Morning News article as to whether Obama should have selected New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson as a running mate.

Some within the Democratic party fear that Latinos who supported Hillary Clinton in the primaries won’t vote for Obama in November. A National Journal article says that even though Latinos appear to lean toward the Democratic ticket, they lack a deep connection with Obama. Meanwhile, Alaska Governor Palin’s strong opposition to abortion could help with conservative Catholic Latino voters, suggested one expert to the Sacramento Bee.

Yet Palin’s position on the issue of immigration—an important matter to the Latino electorate—remains unclear. On the other hand, Obama and Biden stand aligned. Both emphasize the importance of securing American borders while supporting a path to legalization for undocumented immigrants. Additionally, they voted in support of the “Secure Fence Act of 2006,” which approved construction of a 700 mile-long fence along the U.S.-Mexican border.

Palin faces criticism for her lack of foreign policy experience and she has not been vocal on regional matters, including U.S. policy toward Cuba. Meanwhile, the island’s political transition has already sparked debate between Obama and McCain. Biden, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has demonstrated support for the U.S. embargo against Cuba. He voted in favor of the 1996 Helms-Burton Act, which opened the door to suing foreign companies that benefit from confiscated American property in Cuba. Following the resignation of longtime Cuban leader Fidel Castro, the Delaware senator proposed easing restrictions on travel and remittances from the United States, establishing direct mail, and supporting the creation of small businesses in the island without relaxing the embargo.

On the subject of trade, Biden has proven wary of Free Trade Agreements (FTA). He voted against FTAs signed with Oman, Singapore, Chile, and Central America. Biden also rejected the U.S.-Peru FTA in December 2007, saying, “[T]he Bush Administration has not proven that it will effectively enforce labor and environmental provisions.” When running for the 2008 Democratic nomination, Biden voiced support for revision of the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico, echoing Obama’s pledge to renegotiate the pact’s terms. However, Biden supported the extension of the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act, which provides preferential trade with Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru for some 5,600 products as part of efforts to eradicate drug trafficking.

Meanwhile, Palin has voiced support for international trade as Alaska’s governor, saying, “We are helping our economy and economies around the world through trade.” Although Palin has not been vocal on specific trade pacts in the Americas, Mexico and Chile stand among Alaska’s top ten export markets.

A new column by the Washington Post’s Marcela Sanchez takes a closer look at what an Obama-Biden victory could mean for U.S. policy toward Latin America and ponders whether it could help restore Washington’s standing in the region.

Send questions and comments for the editor to:  ascoa.online at as-coa.org.

To find better links to this article please go to:

 http://www.americas-society.org/article….

See more in: United States, North America, U.S. Policy, Democracy & Elections

Truthout OPINION:
http://www.truthout.org/article/the-anti-republican-republican-who-is-really-a-republican

The Anti-Republican Republican Who Is Really a Republican.
Friday September 5,  2008.
by: John Nichols, The Nation

Republican presidential nominee John McCain attempted to distance himself from his party despite running on its platform. (Photo: from the old files at Reuters)

St. Paul - In the eighth year of Republican dominance of the executive branch of the federal government, after an extended period in which Republicans also controlled the legislative branch of the same federal government, the party’s nominee for president told its convention, “We need to change the way government does almost everything: from the way we protect our security to the way we compete in the world economy; from the way we respond to disasters to the way we fuel our transportation network; from the way we train our workers to the way we educate our children.”

Never in recent American history has the candidate of a party seeking to maintain its hold on the presidency seen its candidate so aggressively dismiss the legacy of the incumbent commander-in-chief and his allies.

John McCain, the man George Bush so brutally beat for the Republican nomination in 2000, accepted that nomination in 2008 by declaring himself to be at war with Bush and Bushism.

“I fight to restore the pride and principles of our party,” McCain told the Republican National Convention Thursday night. “We were elected to change Washington, and we let Washington change us. We lost the trust of the American people when some Republicans gave in to the temptations of corruption. We lost their trust when rather than reform government, both parties made it bigger. We lost their trust when instead of freeing ourselves from a dangerous dependence on foreign oil, both parties and Senator (Barack) Obama passed another corporate welfare bill for oil companies. We lost their trust, when we valued our power over our principles.”

“We’re going to change that,” McCain promised the delegates and alternates who had just chosen him to lead the fight to keep the White House in the hands of their party. “We’re going to recover the people’s trust by standing up again for the values Americans admire. The party of Lincoln, Roosevelt and Reagan is going to get back to basics.”

Of course, McCain had to say this.

George Bush is a dramatically unpopular president, with an approval rating as low as that attained by Richard Nixon in the depths of the Watergate scandal. And the Republican party has become so riddled with corruption that, at a convention that has been graced with the presence of Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay and others party leaders who have been forced from office under clouds of scandal, McCain felt required to announce that, “I’ve fought corruption, and it didn’t matter if the culprits were Democrats or Republicans.”

To an even greater extent than his newly-minted running-mate, Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin - who introduced herself as a battler against crooked Republicans - McCain referenced his own record as “a maverick,” declaring that, “I don’t work for a party. I don’t work for a special interest. I don’t work for myself. I work for you.”

The whole anti-Republican Republican ruse might have succeeded, were it not for the fact that McCain’s rhetoric was at odds not merely with his own voting record - 90 percent with Bush - and his own Bush-on-steroids agenda.

Even as he was pledging to “change the way government does almost everything,” the senator from Arizona announced his commitment to much, much more of the same.

He pledged to maintain endless occupations of distant lands that empty the U.S. Treasury of precious resources that might pay for infrastructue renewal, housing and job creations initiatives for hurting Americans.

He outlined trade and tax policies that would extend, rather than alter a failed economic status quo.

He reintroduced flawed proposals for health care, education and entitlement reforms that Americans have wisely rejected.

And he threatened to achieve “energy independence” by declaring:

“We will drill…”

“We’ll drill…”

“More drilling…”

McCain’s rhetoric was that of a liberated man declaring his independence from his party’s failed president and corrupt Congresses.

But his platform was that of Republican candidate who, for all of his talk of reform, offers the crudest continuity to a country that is crying out for change.

————————————–

http://www.truthout.org/article/the-anti-obama-hate-fest

The Anti-Obama Hate-Fest
Thursday September 4,  2008.

by: Robert Parry, Consortium News

In his speech Thursday night, Senator John McCain, and others, continued the Republican Convention’s theme of stretching the truth about Obama. (Photo: Chris Gardner / Getty Images)

The Republican Party, which has defined modern-day negative politics, was back at it again, bashing Barack Obama and the news media in an ugly display that rivaled the old days of Nixon-Agnew - or George W. Bush’s last convention where GOP operatives passed out “Purple Heart Band-Aids” to mock John Kerry’s war wounds.

After a slow start because of Hurricane Gustav, the convention in St. Paul, Minnesota, has turned into an anti-Obama hate-fest with a nearly all-white gathering laughing at and mocking the nation’s first African-American presidential nominee of a major party.

However, beyond the pulsating contempt visible on the faces of the GOP delegates, many of the nasty attacks on Obama - as well as the effusive praise for the Republican ticket - were blatantly false, as if testing the depths of American gullibility and bigotry.

In speech after speech, Republicans didn’t so much as tell the Big Lie as they deployed Wholesale Lies.

The Associated Press, which mostly had been recycling the Republican spin about the supposedly “maverick” ticket of John McCain and Sarah Palin, was so struck by the litany of distortions that the AP produced a special fact-checking article describing how Republicans had “stretched the truth.”

For instance, Palin said about Obama, “it’s easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform - not even in the state senate.”

However, as the AP noted, Obama “worked with Republicans to pass legislation that expanded efforts to intercept illegal shipments of weapons of mass destruction and to help destroy conventional weapons stockpiles. The legislation became law last year.”

Plus, the AP reported, “In Illinois, he was the leader on two big, contentious measures in Illinois: studying racial profiling by police and requiring recordings of interrogations in potential death penalty cases. He also successfully co-sponsored major ethics reform legislation.”

The AP’s fact-checking article noted, too, that former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee’s slap at Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden - that Palin “got more votes running for mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, than Joe Biden got running for president of the United States” - was a “whopper.”

The AP wrote that “Palin got 616 votes in the 1996 mayor’s election, and got 909 in her 1999 re-election race, for a total of 1,525. Biden dropped out of the race after the Iowa caucuses, but he still got 76,165 votes in 23 states and the District of Columbia where he was on the ballot during the 2008 presidential primaries.”

Parallel Reality

The Republican National Convention also acted as if the Republicans had not controlled the White House for the past eight years and the Congress for most of that time.

“We need change, all right,” declared former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, “change from a liberal Washington to a conservative Washington! We have a prescription for every American who wants change in Washington - throw out the big-government liberals, and elect John McCain and Sarah Palin.”

Beyond this parallel universe of who runs Washington, there was fanciful puffery about the GOP “reformer” ticket - dubbed “maverick squared” - that doesn’t square with reality at all.

For instance, the AP cited Palin’s claim that “I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending … and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress ‘thanks but no thanks’ for that Bridge to Nowhere.”

The reality, of course, was much different.

As the AP noted. Palin, as mayor of the tiny town of Wasilla, hired a lobbyist and made annual treks to Washington seeking earmarked spending that totaled $27 million, and then as Alaska’s governor for less than two years, she sought nearly $750 million in special federal spending, “by far the largest per-capita request in the nation.”

And as for that $398 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents, the truth is that Palin enthusiastically supported the project before she reluctantly opposed it, rejecting the “Bridge to Nowhere” only after it had become politically indefensible.

The Los Angeles Times discovered that Sen. McCain had specifically cited several of Palin’s earmarks on his annual list of wasteful pork-barrel spending.

In 2001, for instance, McCain’s list included a $500,000 earmark for a public transportation project in Wasilla, and in 2002, he criticized $1 million targeted for an emergency communications center that Palin sought but local law enforcement said was redundant and a source of confusion.

Remaking Palin

Now, however, Palin has been transformed into a maverick reformer. McCain’s campaign even cites her experience as an abuser of the earmark process as part of the reason she supposedly understands why it must be scrapped.

McCain spokesman Taylor Griffin said Palin’s successes in getting earmarked funds “was one of the formative experiences that led her toward the reform-oriented stance that she has taken as her career has progressed.”

Nevertheless, Palin wrote in a newspaper column just this year that “the federal budget, in its various manifestations, is incredibly important to us, and congressional earmarks are one aspect of this relationship.” [For more details, see Los Angeles Times, Sept. 3, 2008]

Beyond the GOP’s reality-challenged speeches, there was the startling image of a nearly all-white convention - where only 36 of the 2,380 delegates were black, the smallest number in at least 40 years - rollicking in ridicule and bristling with animosity toward Obama, an African-American.

With their loud chants of “drill, baby, drill” regarding energy policy and boisterous shouts of “USA, USA” about “victory” in Iraq, there was a sense that St. Paul was hosting a convention of American Falangists, rather than that of a modern national party.

The whiff of authoritarianism extended to outside where demonstrators and journalists were swept off the streets in indiscriminate arrests.

What’s less clear about the GOP convention is whether the Republicans are on to something, that perhaps the United States has crossed over into a post-rational society that cares little about facts and reality or serious policy ideas and respectful debate, but rather is a nation moved by anger and ridicule, fear and nationalism.

——–

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, “Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush,” was written with two of his sons, Sam and Nat, and can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books, “Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq” and “Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & ‘Project Truth’” are also available there. Or go to Amazon.com.

“I Appreciate This Unique Moment” writes Roberto Savio.
IPS Interview with Barack Obama Regarding Mainly His Choice of Senator Biden for his Future VP.

DETROIT, Sep 3 (IPS) - Whether he wins or loses in the November election, Barack Obama will have made U.S. history as the first African American to lead a major political party.

In this Sep. 2, post-nomination exclusive interview with IPS correspondent Bankole Thompson, the Democratic presidential nominee defends his choice of Sen. Joe Biden as his vice president and answers wide-ranging questions, from the genocide in Sudan’s Darfur region, the U.S. war in Afghanistan, and the state of the economy to improving incomes and health care for all U.S. citizens.

***

Excerpts from the interview follow:

IPS: When you picked Sen. Joe Biden as your running mate, your critics say it changed your message of bringing change to Washington.

BARACK OBAMA: Senator Joe Biden is not a politician — he is a statesman. What I mean by that is he understands the ways of Washington, but he is not ruled by the ways of Washington, and he has always worked to maintain a strong sense of self and service in his 30-plus years in the Senate. He takes the train home every night to Delaware and has for years. He has stood up against leaders in his own party when he needed to and his foreign policy expertise is unmatched in the U.S. Senate. I selected him with the interest of the country in mind, not the politics of the moment.

IPS: Washington is known as a place of partisan rifts. How can you build a consensus and bring the change you talk about on the campaign trail and deal with the state of the economy?

BO: Right now we have a situation in Washington that is simply upside down. The town is run by lobbyists and powerful interests often at the expense of the people’s interest. As president, I’ll work in Washington to do what I have done my entire adult life: build coalitions around common goals and values to get things done. Even in this environment, I’m convinced that we share more in common than many would appreciate. The key is identifying and developing those common bonds in a way that forces government to work for and not against the American people, and engaging more Americans into our government’s decision-making.

IPS: The Bush administration has been criticised by human rights groups for not doing much in Darfur, Sudan. What will your approach be toward international conflicts like the genocide in Darfur?

BO: As president, I will make ending the genocide in Darfur a priority. I have traveled to the United Nations to meet with Sudanese officials and visited refugee camps on the Chad-Sudan border to raise international awareness of the ongoing humanitarian disaster there. As president, I will take immediate steps to end the genocide in Darfur by increasing pressure on the Sudanese and pressure the government to halt the killing and stop impeding the deployment of a robust international force. I will hold the government in Khartoum accountable for abiding by its commitments under the Comprehensive Peace Accord that ended the 30-year conflict between the north and south. I have also worked with [Republican] Senator Sam Brownback to pass the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act in 2006.

IPS: Which issue will be immediately addressed in an Obama administration? The Iraq war, labour, housing foreclosures, energy or college tuition?

BO: After eight years of President Bush and Vice President Cheney and the policies they have put in place, we know we have a lot of work to do at home and abroad. We have an economy in disarray and under assault because of rising foreclosures and falling home values, energy prices continue to consume more and more of our income and health care costs are spiraling out of control. Meanwhile, we continue to fight a war that should have never been authorised and never been waged while the real enemy continues to hide in the hills of Afghanistan. There is much work to do, but the key is to put the right people in place that allow us to begin tackling these big challenges head on.

IPS: Given the uniqueness of your nomination at this time in history, there are a lot of expectations from people about what you should do if elected in November. Do you see it as a burden or is it fair for people to expect so much out of your candidacy?

BO: Actually, I think expectations are high because people don’t believe their government has served them well over the past eight years, and they appreciate what it is like when government is working as it was under President [Bill] Clinton. I can’t view this charge as a burden because I chose to run for president, but I do appreciate this unique moment in history. From that standpoint, my main charge is to continue to acknowledge those who paved the way and to honour their work by always doing my very best. Anything less is unacceptable.

IPS: What role would former vice president Al Gore play in an Obama administration, since you’ve harped on global warming on the campaign trail?

BO: We would be honoured to have his support and expertise on a wide range of issues including fighting the causes of global warming and protecting the environment.

IPS: With the thousands that showed up at the party convention in Denver, are you confident that the Democratic troops are united behind you for November?

BO: I believe the Democratic Party is more united than it has ever been, and we are all dedicated to winning in November. We continue to welcome anyone who wants to join our cause to restore hope for our country and bring about the change we need in Washington.

GRIST TOP STORY September 4, 2008

Veep It Up: Palin digs into energy issues in convention speech.

Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin hit on a number of energy issues during her forceful convention speech on Wednesday night — and didn’t bring up climate change at all. She talked up her battles with Big Oil and touted a natural-gas pipeline project in Alaska. “We Americans need to produce more of our own oil and gas. And take it from a gal who knows the North Slope of Alaska: we’ve got lots of both,” she said. “Our opponents say, again and again, that drilling will not solve all of America’s energy problems — as if we all didn’t know that already. But the fact that drilling won’t solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all. Starting in January, in a McCain-Palin administration, we’re going to lay more pipelines and build more nuclear plants and create jobs with clean coal and move forward on solar, wind, geothermal, and other alternative sources.”

Other speakers last night also raised the issue of energy independence, including Rudy Giuliani, who let out a cry of “Drill, baby, drill!” Check out more Grist convention coverage.

—————–

Sarah Palin’s much-anticipated VP acceptance speech on Wednesday night included a lot of energy talk — and extensive criticism of Barack Obama.

RNC: Palin bullish on energy: VP acceptance speech hits on energy issues.
Posted by Kate Sheppard at 8:22 PM on 03 Sep 2008

Sarah Palin’s much-anticipated VP acceptance speech on Wednesday night included a lot of energy talk — and extensive criticism of Barack Obama.

“We are expected to govern with integrity, good will, clear convictions, and a servant’s heart,” she said. “I pledge to all Americans that I will carry myself in this spirit as vice president of the United States. This was the spirit that brought me to the governor’s office, when I took on the old politics as usual in Juneau … when I stood up to the special interests, the lobbyists, big oil companies, and the good-ol’ boys network.”

Palin emphasized her call to expand domestic drilling, and called for more nuclear, “clean coal,” and renewables.

“Our opponents say, again and again, that drilling will not solve all of America’s energy problems — as if we all didn’t know that already. But the fact that drilling won’t solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all,” she said. “Starting in January, in a McCain-Palin administration, we’re going to lay more pipelines and build more nuclear plants and create jobs with clean coal and move forward on solar, wind, geothermal, and other alternative sources. We need American energy resources, brought to you by American ingenuity, and produced by American workers.”

She talked up her moves as governor to suspend the state fuel tax, and said she “championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress.” She also repeated the line from her introduction speech last Friday about the “Bridge to Nowhere” — “I told the Congress ‘thanks, but no thanks,’ for that Bridge to Nowhere” — a claim that has been since disputed. Palin was actually for the bridge before she was against it.

“If our state wanted a bridge, we’d build it ourselves,” she said in tonight’s speech. Actually, the state still got the federal money, and they’re using millions of dollars from that pork to build a road meant to link up with said bridge that doesn’t yet exist.

She also talked up the tax she imposed on the oil industry in her state. “When oil and gas prices went up dramatically, and filled up the state treasury, I sent a large share of that revenue back where it belonged — directly to the people of Alaska,” she said. “And despite fierce opposition from oil company lobbyists, who kind of liked things the way they were, we broke their monopoly on power and resources.”

She talked about the natural-gas pipeline she has pushed for as governor and her call for increased drilling, both of which she asserted will bring the country closer to energy independence.

“I fought to bring about the largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history. And when that deal was struck, we began a nearly $40 billion natural-gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence,” she said. “That pipeline, when the last section is laid and its valves are opened, will lead America one step farther away from dependence on dangerous foreign powers that do not have our interests at heart.”

She continued on the topic of energy security, delving more into the issue than any other speaker so far at this convention.

“When a hurricane strikes in the Gulf of Mexico, this country should not be so dependent on imported oil that we are forced to draw from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And families cannot throw away more and more of their paychecks on gas and heating oil,” she continued. “With Russia wanting to control a vital pipeline in the Caucasus, and to divide and intimidate our European allies by using energy as a weapon, we cannot leave ourselves at the mercy of foreign suppliers.”

“To confront the threat that Iran might seek to cut off nearly a fifth of world energy supplies or that terrorists might strike again at the Abqaiq facility in Saudi Arabia or that Venezuela might shut off its oil deliveries, we Americans need to produce more of our own oil and gas,” she said. “And take it from a gal who knows the North Slope of Alaska: we’ve got lots of both.”

And later in the speech, “What does [Obama] actually seek to accomplish, after he’s done turning back the waters and healing the planet? … America needs more energy — our opponent is against producing it.”

—————————-

 

Palin comparison: Alaskan greens say McCain’s VP pick has anti-environmental record.
Posted by Kate Sheppard at 4:33 PM on 31 Aug 2008

John McCain’s surprise pick of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate has a lot of environmentalists in the state worried about the influence she might have on the presidential candidate’s environmental policy. McCain has worked hard to portray himself as a green Republican, but Palin has developed an anti-environmental reputation during her 20 months as governor, according to many in the state.

Her office in downtown Anchorage sits beside the ConocoPhillips building. “When I look every day, the big oil company’s building is right out there next to me, and it’s quite a reminder that we should have mutually beneficial relationships with the oil industry,” she said recently. Most people in the Alaskan environmental community see her as an ally of Big Oil, willing to set aside both science and the public good to benefit the industry.

“I think it’s a really extreme choice from a conservation perspective,” says Peter Van Tuyn, an Anchorage-based environmental lawyer who has advocated for the state’s native and conservation groups on environmental concerns for the past 15 years. “Picking Palin moves [McCain] even farther to right.”

Like Van Tuyn, many enviros in the state express concern about her push to open up more areas to oil and gas drilling, her stances against protecting endangered species, and her past denials of anthropogenic climate change.

But even environmentalists praise her for taking on political corruption related to the oil and gas industry. And other observers note that Palin has gone to battle against Big Oil on a number of issues, most notably pushing through a big tax increase on oil companies last year. “She’s viewed … as almost anti-oil” in her home state, Alaskan GOP pollster Mark Hellenthal told the Associated Press. “She’s probably pro-oil from a national perspective, but she’s not in the pocket of Big Oil. She’s fought them at every step.”

An inhospitable climate

Palin’s beliefs on global warming contrast sharply with those of McCain, who has long warned about the dangers of human-caused climate change and who in 2003 cosponsored the first major bill in the Senate to address the problem. McCain consistently talks up his climate change plan on the campaign trail and in his TV ads.

Palin’s got a different take. “A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location,” Palin told Newsmax in an interview published on Friday. But, she added, “I’m not one, though, who would attribute it to being man-made.”

In 2006, while running for governor, Palin said of climate change, “I will not pretend to have all the answers,” and cautioned against “overreaction” on the issue. A Palin spokesperson in 2006 said, “She’s not totally convinced one way or the other. Science will tell us … She thinks the jury’s still out.”

After Palin joined McCain’s ticket, her spokesperson said, “Gov. Palin not only stands with John McCain in his belief that global warming is a critical issue that must be addressed, but she has been a leader in addressing climate change.” Note that the statement dodges the issue of whether humans are responsible for global warming.

“I wouldn’t call her a climate change denier, but she is extremely close to that position,” John Toppenberg, director of the Alaska Wildlife Alliance, told Grist. “She seems to be failing to acknowledge virtually all credible science.”

Still, Palin has taken some small steps on climate change, creating a committee to develop Alaska’s climate-change strategy and making Alaska an observer, though not a member, of the Western Climate Initiative.

Drill here, drill now

Palin has a complicated relationship with the oil industry. Last year, she pushed through new oil taxes in Alaska, arguing that the tax plan proposed by the previous governor, Frank Murkowski, was too favorable to the industry. The new tax brought in about $6 billion during the last fiscal year, contributing to an expected budget surplus of as much as $9 billion. Palin used some of that excess to give each Alaskan $1,200 to help them deal with rising energy costs.

Palin says that she, like McCain, opposes the idea of a “windfall profits” tax on oil companies. And yet her strategy in Alaska looks an awful lot like Barack Obama’s plan to impose a windfall-profits tax and use the money to give each American $1,000 to help offset pain at the pump. Palin even praised some aspects of Obama’s energy plan earlier this month.

With billions from the new oil tax pouring in to Alaska’s treasury, it’s no wonder that Palin wants to give the oil industry more opportunities to drill — and more opportunities to be taxed. She has been an avid supporter of opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, as well as offshore areas, and has even chastised the Bush administration for not pushing hard enough to allow more drilling in her state.

“We have so much potential from tapping our resources here in Alaska. And we can do this with minimum environmental impact,” she said in her recent Newsmax interview. “We have a very pro-development president in President Bush, and yet he failed to push for opening up parts of Alaska to drilling through Congress — and a Republican-controlled Congress, I might add.”

In the past, Palin has been critical of McCain’s stance on drilling in the refuge. “Sen. McCain is wrong” on the issue of oil drilling, she said during a June 25 appearance on CNBC’s “Kudlow & Company.” “I think he’s going to evolve into eventually supporting ANWR opening … I’d like the opportunity to change his mind about ANWR,” she added.

While McCain previously opposed offshore drilling, this summer he changed his position; he now calls for the moratorium on offshore drilling to be lifted. He has long been a staunch opponent of drilling in the Arctic Refuge, but he’s been sounding a little less staunch lately. In June, he indicated at a campaign event in Missouri that he’d be “happy to examine it again.”

“ANWR is something that so far Sen. McCain has stood strong on,” said Alaska Wilderness League Executive Director Cindy Shogan. “We’re very concerned. Gov. Palin is a typical Alaska Republican. She wants to drill everywhere regardless of the impacts on the environment and the people.”

On Friday, McCain spokesperson Michael Goldfarb said, “Though Sen. McCain opposes drilling in ANWR, he continues to examine the issue in light of America’s energy needs.”

“I have really appreciated John McCain’s hard work on the Arctic Refuge in the past,” said Van Tuyn, who has previously worked with McCain on the issue. “It’s just been great. But I have seen the man change before my eyes on so many issues — even offshore drilling — and he’s said recently he’d reconsider the Arctic Refuge.” Van Tuyn said that Palin’s selection makes him worry that McCain could shift on this issue as well.

Frank Maisano, who represents the energy industry with the law firm Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, said Palin will lend some first-hand knowledge of the oil industry to the Republican ticket.

“Anybody who has any understanding of the oil industry and what it takes to get a barrel of oil out of the ground and to a consumer eventually, and the hard work and complexity that goes into that, is going to be a value,” said Maisano. “Anybody that has to deal with these industries on a regular basis like the governor of Alaska has to is going to have a much deeper understanding of the complexity and the difficulty of doing the work.”

Despite her pro-drilling stance, Palin has expressed reservations about drills moving into Alaska’s Bristol Bay, which Bush opened to drilling last year. Bristol Bay is home to the world’s largest sockeye salmon population and other big salmon runs. Said Palin, “the fear would be that our very rich fish resources would be put in jeopardy.” Her family owns a commercial fishing business. At the same time, Palin’s husband is an oil production operator for BP on Alaska’s North Slope.

Palin made a name for herself in Alaska a few years ago by fighting corruption as chair of the Alaska Gas and Oil Conservation Commission from 2003 to 2004. She ended up resigning from the post to protest the “lack of ethics” demonstrated by fellow Alaskan Republican leaders. Her campaign for governor in 2006 was based largely on promoting transparency in government; she pitted herself against the party establishment to defeat incumbent Gov. Frank Murkowski in the primary.

She has also gone head-to-head with Big Oil over construction plans for a trans-Alaska natural-gas pipeline. She wants one big enough that smaller companies can use it as well as the oil giants, and she didn’t like the terms the big companies had been negotiating with the Murkowski administration, which she said would have locked in pipeline-transit rates for decades and given the companies “a sweet deal.” ExxonMobil, ConocoPhilips, and BP have fought her pipeline plan, but she’s pushing ahead with it.

As for other forms of energy, there is some question as to where Palin stands. McCain has talked up renewables during his campaign, but Palin has been less bullish about their possibilities. “Alternative-energy solutions are far from imminent and would require more than 10 years to develop,” she said earlier this month.

Still, some environmental leaders in the state say she has voiced support for wind, hydro, and geothermal power, making her seem more open to renewables than her predecessors in the statehouse. Kate Troll, executive director of Alaska Conservation Voters, said Palin met with her group and seemed enthusiastic about the potential for renewables. But so far there’s been little more than verbal support for alternative energy sources.

“She presents a mixed bag of results. She’s a real strong supporter of drilling offshore and in the Arctic Refuge, and very strong on oil and gas issues, but at the same time she’s very strong on renewable energy,” said Troll. “How it all fits together, we don’t know, because she’s never really articulated her energy policy.” Troll says Palin pledged in June to outline a comprehensive energy plan and appointed an energy czar.

Clear and present endangerment

Another major concern for enviros is Palin’s stance on endangered species in the state. After the Bush administration’s Department of Interior listed the polar bear as a threatened species in May, the governor sued the department. “We believe that the … decision to list the polar bear was not based on the best scientific and commercial data available,” said Palin, who also penned an op-ed in The New York Times on the subject.

Palin and other state officials expressed concern that listing polar bears as threatened would impair oil and gas development in the state. Palin argued that the listing decision was based on “the unproven long-term impact of any future climate change on the species” and that a “comprehensive review” of the federal science by state wildlife officials found no reason to support listing the bears as endangered.

But emails released via a public-records request later showed that Alaskan state scientists agreed with federal researchers that polar bears are threatened by shrinking ice. “Overall, we believe that the methods and analytical approaches used to examine the currently available information supports the primary conclusions and inferences stated” in federal reports, wrote Robert Small, head of the marine mammals program for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

“This was the Bush administration Fish and Wildlife [Service]. It’s not like these people are bear-huggers,” said Van Tuyn. “State scientists looked at it and said that’s the best science, and Palin said, ‘Keep your mouths shut,’ and she turned around to the public and said, ‘I do not support listing the polar bear, the science doesn’t support it.’”

Palin has also opposed efforts to protect Cook Inlet beluga whales, a genetically distinct population of whales located only in this Alaskan inlet. Scientists estimate that they numbered 1,300 in the ’80s; now they’re down to just 375. Environmental groups have been pressing for a listing to protect the whales, but Palin has urged the federal government not to list, again citing threats to the oil and gas industry. “I am especially concerned that an unnecessary federal listing and designation of critical habitat would do serious long-term damage to the vibrant economy of the Cook Inlet area,” said Palin in a statement last year.

Many in the state say she’s demonstrated again and again a willingness to protect business interests over environmental concerns. “There isn’t a threatened or endangered species that she likes in this state,” said Van Tuyn.

Palin has also drawn heat from conservationists for pushing to let citizens shoot wolves from the air, and for supporting looser bear-hunting rules aimed at reducing bear populations in order to inflate numbers of moose and caribou, which draw big-game hunters to the state. She opposed a ballot initiative to change the law so that only Department of Fish and Game personnel could shoot wolves or bears from the air. She drew even more criticism for using $400,000 of taxpayer money to “educate Alaskans” about “predator control.” The ballot initiative was voted down last week.

“Decimating them with ongoing perpetual programs is in no way in line with environmentally responsible predator management,” said Toppenberg of the Alaska Wildlife Alliance. “The ecosystems up here are intact, but they certainly won’t be if we decimate the population in order to artificially inflate the population of moose and caribou.”

Mining vs. salmon

Palin has come into criticism recently for using her post as governor to influence a ballot initiative on clean water, which voters also rejected last week. “Proposition 4″ would have prohibited or restricted new mining operations that could affect salmon in the state’s streams and rivers, and was crafted in order to prevent the development of the Pebble Mine, which if approved would be the largest open-pit gold and copper mine in North America. Toxic runoff from the mine would threaten the Bristol Bay ecosystem, and put drinking water at risk. It is widely opposed by commercial fishers, native populations, and environmentalists in the state. While state regulatory agencies will get the final say on granting permits for the mine, the initiative would have made it considerably harder to move forward.

Just days before the vote on the ballot initiative, Palin stated publicly that she opposed it. “Let me take my governor’s hat off just for a minute here and tell you, personally, Prop. 4, I vote no on that,” she said. Groups that supported the measure argued that Palin’s comments were highly unethical. They also filed a legal complaint against the state government for improperly weighing in against Prop. 4 on the state’s website.

The Alaska Public Offices Commission ordered the state to take down the questionable web content, but said Palin’s public statement was permissible because she made it clear it was her personal opinion. Polls before her statement showed voters strongly in favor of the measure, but in the end nearly 60 percent of the public voted against it.

“Conventional wisdom around here is that [her statement] changed the tide on the proposition, from narrowly passing to being defeated,” said Van Tuyn.

Richard Jameson of the Renewable Resources Coalition, a nonprofit group that represents sportsmen, commercial fishermen, and native subsistence users and that cosponsored Prop. 4, said it’s been hard to get Palin to listen to their concerns about potential damage to fisheries. “We really haven’t had a good dialogue with her on the Pebble Mine or Prop. 4,” he said. “On the bigger issue, Pebble Mine, frankly we don’t know how she stands.”

On the ticket

David Jenkins, government affairs director of Republicans for Environmental Protection, which endorsed McCain last October, on Friday said he believes Palin “will defer to the top of the ticket” on issues like the Arctic Refuge and climate policy. He also said he thinks she will be an overall benefit to the ticket.

“[McCain’s] campaign has shown no sign of wavering on the refuge, so I don’t think there’s any reason to wring our hands over the pick of someone from Alaska,” said Jenkins. “I think it’s sort o