Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Big Picture

People are getting so bogged down in the details of Ayers.

And the details of ACORN

Just as the did in Rev. Wright.

And Rezco.

Obama has a story to go with each. Most people are willing to buy one mistake. Obama is counting on that. They are counting on you being busy and worried. They are counting on you listening to this chunk...then that chunk.

But you have to look at the whole picture. Look at the pattern. It's all you have to go on. Obama has no record. he is telling you what he wants to do.

What guarantee do you have that he will do what he promises *if* you agree.

His word.

What's that worth?

That's where character and judgement come into play.

What sort of judgement does Obama have?

William Ayers

Bernadine Dohrn.

Tony Rezco.


Rev. Wright.

Edward Said.

Voting "present" over 100 times.

Look at the pattern. Don't get bogged down in the details.


Stella said...

Remember my comment about John McCain's pro-choice stance. I absolutely believe he would seek out Supreme Court Justices who are "pro-life." He showed his hand at the debate.

In the interest of fairness, Obama countered as follows:

OBAMA: Bob, I think it's going to be important to just—I'll respond to these two particular allegations that Senator McCain has made and that have gotten a lot of attention.

In fact, Mr. Ayers has become the centerpiece of Senator McCain's campaign over the last two or three weeks. This has been their primary focus. So let's get the record straight. Bill Ayers is a professor of education...

Forty years ago, when I was 8 years old, he engaged in despicable acts with a radical domestic group. I have roundly condemned those acts. Ten years ago he served and I served on a school reform board that was funded by one of Ronald Reagan's former ambassadors and close friends, Mr. Annenberg.

Other members on that board were the presidents of the University of Illinois, the president of Northwestern University, who happens to be a Republican, the president of The Chicago Tribune, a Republican-leaning newspaper.

Mr. Ayers is not involved in my campaign. He has never been involved in this campaign. And he will not advise me in the White House.

Stella said...

More of the big picture. One week after the bailout, AIG had a party that cost $400,000. Obama on AIG’s $400,000 party: ‘Fire the scoundrels!’

Today, thanks to Rep. Henry Waxman, Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, we have the bill for the junket. Total: $443,344. Wasn't that money supposed to go to families in financial crisis?
John McCain tonight was facetious, smirking, sarcastic, disrespectful, brooding, dismissive, rude, mean, condescending, [continually rolling his eyes], and wound up tight. Talking to "Joe the Plumber," he said: "Hey Joe, you're rich! Congratulations!"... His true self had shown brightly tonight and I bet most people were pretty turned off.

But most importantly, McCain is wrong on all the issues. He feigns compassion for Americans who are "hurting," but he offers only warmed over Republican "free market" policies. The corporate media have seized upon McCain telling Obama: "I'm not George Bush." But McCain's economic policies—deregulation, tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, cutting social programs with a "spending freeze" in a time of growing poverty and unemployment—are all George W. Bush's policies. AND THEY ALL FAILED!

BostonMaggie said...

OK, so Obama says fir the scoundrels. McCain agrees. McCain is the one as a record of being a reformer. McCain is the one with a record of fighting special interests. McCain is the one with a record of righting wrongs.

Obama has words.

Of course that's Waxman's take on the debate. It's partisan.

What would you say if I said Obama was smirking ans dismissive?

Waxman's opinion on the debate and McCain is worthless.

Of course AIG should be punished. You have a better chance of that with McCain than Obama.

BostonMaggie said...

On abortion. There is a middle ground on abortion. Obama is far, far left. McCain is more centrist.

Obama voted against born alive. I've listened to his own words saying why he would vote against it or "present".

McCain says Roe is flawed law and we need to reduce abortions.

I am pro-life. I want them reduced. I want 3rd trimester, and partial birth abortions stopped. There is no excuse.

McCain is not trying to stop the majority of them which are 1st trimester abortions, no one is.

McCain favors full disclosure on what an abortion is and all the fall-out which can come of it.

McCain wants parents involved when minors get them. I find the efforts to exclude parents outrageous. A school system can't give a teenager an aspirin, but someone can take a teenager to get an abortion. They trot out the incest defense which applies in some cases, but not most.

Stella said...

Yes, Maggie, I'm with you on wanting abortions reduced. Many liberals feel the same way, including me. But to accomplish that goal means adequate sex education in schools, an underfunded program since Bush assumed office. An "abstinence only" program is outrageous and laughable.

Why should federal funding be used for viagra, but not, according to Reality Check, abortion.

I understand your feelings about third trimester abortions. I am pro-choice and, frankly, get a little queezy about the procedure. I agree with much of Obama's platform, but this policy is challenging for me to support. I often ask myself whether it's infanticide or necessary to perform due to severe congenital defects.

I also can't categorically deny this practice: much depends on the individual situation. Partial-birth abortion unnerves me. Neither of us can determine the necessity for this procedure. We can disagree with the practice, but do not have the right to make this decision for women who choose this option.

This topic underscores the reason I want to see more young people—male and female—educated about sex and complete availability of birth control. Bush supports allowing pro-life workers in medical facilities to refuse the pill, IUD, and abortions to women who want them. That decision should not be left up to other people. Further, this draconian policy against women increases the necessity for abortions.

Since Bush has taken office, the CDC reports pregnancy and birth rates among girls aged 15–19 years have declined 34% [ostensibly due to birth control availability] since 1991, birth rates increased for the first time in 2006 (from 40.5 per 1,000 women in this age group in 2005 to 41.9 in 2006). Access to birth control would certainly ameliorate this problem. Ignorance leads to increased abortion: neither Bush nor McCain support sex education in schools.

Senator McCain strongly opposes efforts by the Democratic-controlled Congress to eliminate abstinence-only sex education classes for school-aged children. Senator McCain believes the correct policy for educating young children on this subject is to promote abstinence as the only safe and responsible alternative. To do otherwise is to send a mixed signal to children that, on the one hand they should not be sexually active, but on the other here is the way to go about it. If someone wants to prevent abortions, such policy is illogical.

McCain is not trying to stop the majority of them which are 1st trimester abortions, no one is. Not exactly. McCain favors full disclosure on what an abortion is and all the fall-out which can come of it.. Actually, McCain has been a long-standing supporter against abortion rights.

Contrary to his statement about Supreme Court nomination selection at the third debate, during his presidential run in 1999, AP wrote: On the issue of nominating Supreme Court justices based on an abortion litmus-test, “McCain has said that he will nominate justices based on their experience, and those who share his values... Another article from AP noted that "[a] spokesman said that McCain “has a 17-year voting record of supporting efforts to overturn Roe vs. Wade. He does that currently, and will continue to do that as president.

McCain wants parents involved when minors get them. We are on treacherous territory here. I concur that more teenagers are pregnant by accident than trauma, but even if only a small percentage of teenagers are pregnant from incest, those teenagers will suffer enough all their lives from what they endured and should not be forced to have a child at their family's discretion. They and all teenagers have a right to privacy.

According to RAINN, 15% of sexual assault and rape victims are under age 12. What happens if the child wants to terminate the pregnancy and the parents don't?

* Girls ages 16-19 are 4 times more likely than the general population to be victims of rape, attempted rape, or sexual assault.

* 7% of girls in grades 5-8 and 12% of girls in grades 9-12 said they had been sexually abused. 3% of boys grades 5-8 and 5% of boys in grades 9-12 said they had been sexually abused. 29% are age 12-17.

Given these statistics, abortion due to incest is neither a specious nor insignificant argument for young women who are victims of incest being allowed to maintain secrecy from their relatives.

Abortion and birth control are not an either/or decision. I don't believe in states' rights to determine abortion, which would not give fair access to all women who want one. I would like to see women using abortion less as a birth control method, but I am absolutely against outlawing Roe v. Wade.

I feel strongly about this (well, duh), which is only one reason why I cannot support McCain.

I feel strongly about something else. I hope you are feeling better.

BostonMaggie said...

I have to take this in chunks because I have to go to bed. I will come back to the rest.
Why should federal funding be used for viagra, but not, according to Reality Check, abortion.
First off, Congress stopped federal funding of erectile dysfunction drugs via Medicare and Medicaid on January 1, 2007.

Second, there was nothing wrong with those payments. Medicare was not giving it willy-nilly to dirty old men so they could play with erections all day. Men with normal healthy appetites were taking medications for legitimate problems (prostate or high blood pressure) and one of the side effects was erectile dysfunction. Their doctors were treating what for many patients was a devastating side effect.

It is no different than the doctor giving me Trazodone. Blue Cross will pay because insomnia is a side effect of my multiple myeloma. If I had Medicare or MassHealth (the Commonwealth's Medicaid plan) they would also pay my Trazodone.

When Viagra was billed the pharmacy had to bill with at least two ICD-9 codes, one to explain erectile dysfunction and one to explain the cause (high blood pressure, etc.).

Just like when someone comes into my work and says "I want a walker" I say well what do you have and they say "Congestive heart failure and it makes me wobbly and my doctor wrote this prescription." So, I file a claim with Medicare and write C.H.F. (ICD-9 code 428.0) and unsteady gait (ICD-9 code 781.2)

Sure there is some fraud and abuse but it is minimal and Medicare is constantly trying to fight it.

it is important when treating someone for a disease that the doctor not let side effects get the patient down. You and I know that better than most Stella. If a man gets depressed about his "manhood" how much harder is it to get him focused on fighting his prostate cancer? How much harder is it to get going on the lifestyle changes he needs to make to lower his blood pressure.

In conclusion, my point here is that while funding for birth control should be looked into, Viagra funding has no bearing on that conversation, it's just something to stir the pot.