I had this one typed up last night but thought it might be overkill yesterday. If I start posting more than three or four entries in a day you’re going to think I don’t have a life. Well, that may be true, but I hate to be quite so obvious.

Here’s a response to McCain’s most recent dip in the muck: falsely accusing Obama of supporting comprehensive sex-ed to kindergartners (implying Obama supported teaching the full complement of sex ed to five year olds). This simply isn’t true.

McClatchy (via Time & TPM):

This is a deliberately misleading accusation. It came hours after the Obama campaign released a TV ad critical of McCain’s votes on public education. As a state senator in Illinois, Obama did vote for but was not a sponsor of legislation dealing with sex ed for grades K-12.

But the legislation allowed local school boards to teach “age-appropriate” sex education, not comprehensive lessons to kindergartners, and it gave schools the ability to warn young children about inappropriate touching and sexual predators…

Obama spokesman Bill Burton said Tuesday of McCain’s ad: “It is shameful and downright perverse for the McCain campaign to use a bill that was written to protect young children from sexual predators as a recycled and discredited political attack against a father of two young girls.”

Then there’s the dubious claim of sexism over the pig comment – a common idiom that McCain has used himself. Hell, am I the only one that thinks McCain is on shaky ground here, accusing someone of a disturbing trend of sexism, considering his long history of questionable comments? Many of his can’t be explained away… like that just plain disgusting joke about Janet Reno and Chelsea Clinton. You know, the one that resulted in apologies to then President Clinton, his cabinet, and a couple news organizations. And lets not forget McCain made the same reference when speaking of Hillary Clinton in October 2007. Pot meet kettle… only in this case McCain isn’t really a pot – more like a 35 gallon cauldron (assuming they make ’em that big).

Look, I’m assuming most of us can agree warning children away from sexual predators is a good thing. I’m assuming most of us can agree that joking about a politician’s daughter – and a minor at that, is flat out inexcusable. If we can agree on that much, perhaps you’ll entertain the notion McCain is a schmuck.

Meanwhile the McCain camp is giving themselves a big pat on the back. They’re seeing this stuff cause some movement in the polls, thanks to all of us – the lemmings of the political process. We’re lapping up his swill like milk laid out to a bunch of clueless, adoring puppies, and more is certain to be in the pipeline.

It’s gotten to the point that I don’t give a flip about his efforts at bipartisan reform – like campaign finance. Those were years ago now. The McCain of this election cycle has been a dirty politician without conscience. He’s lost a heck of a lot more than my vote. He’s lost my respect. Shame on him for stooping so low. Shame on you for listening.

(trichinosis?)

Yeah, but is Paul making that bit up about the lobbyist?

Washington Post (9/2/2008):

As mayor of Wasilla, however, Palin oversaw the hiring of Robertson, Monagle & Eastaugh, an Anchorage-based law firm with close ties to Alaska’s most senior Republicans: Rep. Don Young and Sen. Ted Stevens, who was indicted in July on charges of accepting illegal gifts. The Wasilla account was handled by the former chief of staff to Stevens, Steven W. Silver, who is a partner in the firm…

Senate records show that Silver’s firm began working for Palin in early 2000, just as federal money began flowing.

In fiscal 2000, Wasilla received a $1 million earmark, tucked into a transportation appropriations bill, for a rail and bus project in the town. And in the winter of 2000, Palin appeared before congressional appropriations committees to seek earmarks, according to a report in the Anchorage Daily News.

Palin and the Wasilla City Council increased Silver’s fee from $24,000 to $36,000 a year by 2001, Senate records show.

Alex is right. There’s nothing wrong with pursuing earmarks. It’s accepted practice (recent Presidential campaigns not withstanding), and it’s legal.

Maverick
– noun
a lone dissenter, as an intellectual, an artist, or a politician, who takes an independent stand apart from his or her associates.

What’s wrong is brazenly pretending to be something that you’re not… lying for political gain. You know what’s even worse? Letting them get away with it. Can I tell you with certainty that my guy has never told a lie? Of course I can’t. But is he serving up this kind of whopper with a shit-eating grin every time he opens his mouth?

Yeah, I know I’ve been a little obsessed. In my defense, it’s pretty freaking important. Anyway, here’s a quick summary of a political discussion I witnessed today:

“I don’t share many of Palin’s political views, but she’s only McCain’s VP pick. I’ll take my chances with her and McCain over eight years with Obama’s pastor.”

My reply went something like this:
HUH?!? ONLY McCain’s VP?!? What, you figure McCain picked her because he doesn’t share her views – just to spice things up a little? So if you had to chose between someone who could end up President one day (dare I say likely), who you don’t agree with on the issues, and someone who may share your political views, but has a FORMER pastor you find distasteful – you’re going with the one who doesn’t share your views?

… or it would have, if I’d regained voluntary control over my larynx in time.

It’s really a shame you’re not here. You’d be witnessing my head exploding. It’s really quite a sight, or so I’m told. I’m tempted to take something I said a while ago back. Maybe some of you shouldn’t be voting.

I’m not used to feeling like the sane person in the room. It doesn’t feel as good as I thought it would.