When will we pay the piper?

Alan Greenspan has FINALLY raised the question that's been on my mind regarding proposed tax cuts and our growing deficit. The Bloomberg.com has posted a story, written by Scott Lanman.

Greenspan Says McCain Tax Plan Needs Corresponding Budget Cuts

By Scott Lanman

Sept. 12 (Bloomberg) -- Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said the country can't afford $3.3 trillion of tax cuts proposed by Republican presidential nominee John McCain without corresponding spending reductions. READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE.

The following statement appears on The Huffington Post in the comments section:

By spending money that we don't have, republicans HAVE taxed the American public. "Tax-and-spend-democrats" makes a really scary soundbite; however, "spend-and-spend-and-spend-republicans" are a far more dangerous reality.

How will John McCain Choose his Cabinet?

Tonight Republican Vice Presidential candidate, Alaska's Governor Sarah Palin, will give an interview with ABC's Charles's Gibson. This is the first television interview since the Republican Presidential candidate, Arizona Senator John McCain, announced her as his running mate almost two weeks ago. The McCain campaign has railed about the press treating this candidate harshly. In fact, many bloggers crossed the line with Palin and delved into her personal life.

BUT!

Bloggers and the people who comment on them are citizens, and citizens want to know about the people who offer themselves as leaders. The discussions over the past two weeks have veered into the personal because, frankly, that is all the McCain campaign has offered about Sarah Palin. Most of the substantive claims have been shaky. Had McCain's camp provided America with the opportunity to ask Palin questions earlier--in a forum other than People magazine--we would be talking about her answers instead of her family.

Sarah Palin may prove to be an outstanding public servant on the national scene, but the McCain camp's decision to sequester her for the past two weeks raises questions about how they judge her readiness to answer the tough questions. She might have been ready from day 1, but McCain's camp hasn't sent this signal. Still, the campaign's actions should not cast aspersions on Palin, rather it should raise questions about McCain's judgement. Why would he choose a running mate that he didn't feel comfortable allowing the press to ask questions for two weeks?

One of Palin's past statements and one of her current comments might indicate the campain's reason for limiting contact with Palin. Palin has a minor in Political Science, and she should know what the Vice President does. Yet in July, she told CNBC's Larry Kudlow: “As for that V.P. talk all the time, I tell ya, I still can't answer that question until somebody answers for me: What is it exactly that the V.P. does every day?" Some might deem it unfair to judge the candidate based on statements that she made before joining the ticket, but if the McCain campaign was seriously planning on picking Palin, they should've been grooming her in July--BEFORE announcing her as the running mate. Since announcing the Palin pick, the McCain camp has limited public access to Palin to her speeches. This tactic hasn't prevented gaffes. Palin's statement regarding the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae debacle indicates that she didn't understand the situation--which is frightening because in the information age, there is NO reason that she shouldn't. I realize that the McCain campaign has twisted reality to the point that any question about Palin is regarded as an attack. This posture is a transparent attempt to blame the questioner. Why? Why is the McCain campaign taking this tactic with someone that they are offering to the American public under the banner "Country First"?

The 2008 Presidential campaign MUST be about issues. My issue with Palin rests with John McCain. Choosing a cabinet is one of the most important job duties for the POTUS. His team helps chart the course for the nation. If McCain picked a running mate that he didn't trust to answer the tough questions, how is he going to choose a cabinet?

There MUST be a better way.

Former Presidential Aide Karl Rove keeps popping up on different television channels and in different magazines as some type of analyst lately. I've noticed that often times his comments include the words "chablis" or "chardonnay" as a code word to disparage someone who is educated. The comments strike me as an attempt to discredit people for persevering and achieving something that most Americans work hard for and encourage their children to get--a college degree. There are many smart people who do not have college degrees; however, those people don't disparage people for achieving said degree. I've been shocked that legitimate news organizations have been willing to "prop up" this kind of resentment.

Well, someone must've talked to Karl about his elitism refrain, but he doesn't get much better in his recent chablis-free "news item" posted to the Wall Street Journal online. Politics aside, and pandering to dispel accusations of bias in the main stream media aside, what qualifies Karl to write this type of analysis? Take way the numbers and the insulting language, and Karl's article is an attempt to point out the spin in Sen. Barack Obama's commercials. The problem is, Karl is so busy recasting the spin with his own spin to provide anything more than propaganda.

Still, the most laughable section is the last few lines. I don't want to "qive away the ending," but how can the WSJ even remotely find that section analysis? What is more, for all the bloviating about traditional values Karl's ilk engages in, I find it laughable that he thinks that someone shouldn't even try when things look tough. That notion is contrary to the American Character and not a value that any self-respecting foreparent has passed down.

Excuse me honey, your mental slip is showing

According to CNN, Dunkin Donuts has pulled an ad featuring Rachael Ray based on the fashion perspective of a...the words fail me.

Author Michelle Malkin decided that the ugly paisley scarf Rachael sported in the ad was part of some conspiracy to mainstream pro-Palestine/anti-war wear. Malkin made some vague connections to support her argument, and as a result, the donut chain yanked the ad to avoid any misconceptions.

One should also note that Malkin wrote a book entitled In Defense of Internment: The case for "racial profiling" in World War II and the War on Terror. The book takes a favorable view of Japanese internment camps, and uses them as an argument for...heck, you get the drift. Some people are impressed by the amount of research she incorporates into the book. I admit that I am impressed too. She conducted a whole lot of research and managed to draw the most ridiculous revisionist conclusion. That takes talent. Perhaps she used this same "talent" to draw her conclusion regarding Rachael's paisley scarf?

In a follow-up to the original scarfccusation post, Ms. Malkin (I am NOT posting a link. If you want to read it, you can google her yourself) opines that people who dismiss her view wouldn't be so forgiving if someone marketed a burberry plaid klan style hood. While that is probably true, it isn't a parallel argument. People have been wearing ugly scarves for a while, klan hoods--not so much.

"Oh, yeah. Well, that's why I wear sterling silver. I don't want to wear gold because that's what thugs wear," said the sarcastic lady while rolling her eyes.

Malkin goes on to say that we have to be diligent in a post-9/11 world about fashion that might lead to the mainstreaming of violence. I guess we need to add a fashion police division to the Department of Homeland Security?

How about an alternate theory? Prince wrote a song called Paisley Park (I think it was on an album by the same name). According to Prince:

The girl on the seesaw is laughing 'cause love is the color this place, it imparts. Admission is easy. Just say you believe, and come to this place in your heart. Paisley Park is in out hearts.

Maybe the paisley scarf encourages seesawing and laughter? Did Dunkin Donuts even consider Prince's point of view?

Of course not. 'cause that would be breathtakingly stupid.

You picked a fine time to grow a pair Scott

I received a call early this morning from my dad. He wanted to let me know that a mother cat and some kittens had taken up residence at his house. He also asked me if I'd read about former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan's new book What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception.

Apparently, the book confirms what most people suspect. The current administration spent most of their term in campaign mode, pursuing personal agendas at the expense of public good. Thanks a lot Scott. I'm sure the widows, widowers, fatherless, motherless, and those missing a child, fiance, cousin, or close friend due to the war and Katrina would've appreciated your candor at a much earlier juncture. Why now?

What people like Scott fail to realize is that their actions and interactions in the public arena aren't merely the details of THEIR story.

Scott's late admissions in a book that will probably make him rich demonstrates that he is just like those he castigates in his race to the top of the best-seller list.

Oh, the things that fall out of folk's mouths!

Folks have taken the concept of "much ado about nothing" to a whole new level this primary season. We've had to endure endless commentary from pundits, politicians, and every person with an opinion and internet access about every little word that has come out of the major candidates' mouths. Some of the comments were taken out of context, and some were just minor gaffes. Consequently, my eyes just rolled to the top of my head when I saw the CNN headline Clinton explains assassination reference. I clicked on the link anyway.

Now, her teeth should have jumped out of her mouth after she said that.

Update: She said it before.

What was that to say?