This widget is from VoteGopher…
•An interactive tool that provides users with issues-based coverage of the election in one
location
• Pick among 25 issues central to the election and explore side-by-side comparisons of the candidates
• Watch video breakdowns created by the VoteGopher team
• Begin our MyBallot feature and find your candidate
Here is a guest post by community member Deb Della Piana from Turn Left.
[If you would like to be a guest blogger on The Political Voices of Women, just join our community, and start posting.]
It’s election season, and I’m not about to let up on the McCain-Palin ticket. If I put these two at the larval stage, I’m giving them too much credit. To show that I’m not just a one-issue voter when it comes to McCain and Palin, the issue of women’s rights will not play into the article (but only this one time). I’ve done that article before, and there are other reasons I’d never vote for this ticket.
We already have people in government who believe they are above the law (one resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue right now) and it looks like McCain would like to add one more. Initially, Sarah Palin said she would cooperate voluntarily with the ongoing abuse of power investigation against her. Suddenly, the Alaska legislators are under pressure to wait until after the election to continue the investigation, and her husband is now going to ignore the subpoena he has received. I wonder if he’s getting pointers from campaign advisor Karl Rove about how best to ignore a subpoena and get away with it. It doesn’t take much in America these days, particularly if you’re an elected official. We’ve lowered the bar here to the point where we should all be doing the limbo.
McCain campaign spokesman Ed O’Callaghan is falsely accusing the supporters of Barack Obama of controlling the investigation. The fact is that the investigation was recommended prior to Palin’s selection by a bi-partisan Legislative Council, the vast majority of whom were Alaska Republicans. There’s no way this investigation should be delayed until after the election. If McCain chose this woman as a running mate with full knowledge of the accusations against her (and he says he knew from the beginning), then let the chips fall where they may.
McCain wants to distract, not inform. If he distracts, you may not learn that his plan is to privatize and cut Social Security approximately one percent per year, along the lines of the proposed Bush plan. Workers who retire ten years after the McCain plan is put in place would see a ten percent reduction in benefits from the very beginning.
Next on the McCain-Palin hit list is the nation’s health care system. Their plan would effectively dismantle the employer-based coverage that protects most American families by converting health care benefits into income on which employees would have to pay taxes. The idea is to force millions of Americans into the non-group market where costs are high and services are limited. Benefits that millions now have would be lost. This is what the Republicans call the ‘free market’ system, much like the one currently bringing down Wall Street at the taxpayers’ expense.
John McCain’s confusion about who’s who in the world continues to embarrass. This from a candidate supposedly superior to Barack Obama in the foreign policy field. When asked if he would commit to a meeting with Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, McCain refused. Apparently, McCain thought Zapatero was a Latin American autocrat. Randy Scheunemann, McCain’s foreign policy advisor, denied it was yet another McCain gaffe, but rather an intentional policy position with regard to Spain. Why would McCain refuse to commit to a meeting with a Democratic NATO ally with 1,000 troops serving in Afghanistan? Either McCain is intent on hiding his confusion from the public or he is upset (as is President Bush) that Spain pulled its troops from Iraq in 2004. Someone should point out to both George Bush and John McCain that there sometimes are repercussions when other nations find they’ve been deliberately lied to.
Al Gore’s Challenge For Environmentally Friendly Power
Al Gore wants Americans to abandon electricity that is generated by fossil fuels, and instead develop environmentally friendly power. Gore thinks we can do this within ten years, what do you think?
—
From The New York Times - Gore Calls for Carbon-Free Electric Power…
Former Vice President Al Gore said on Thursday that Americans must abandon electricity generated by fossil fuels within a decade and rely on the sun, the winds and other environmentally friendly sources of power, or risk losing their national security as well as their creature comforts.“The survival of the United States of America as we know it is at risk,” Mr. Gore said in a speech to an energy conference here. “The future of human civilization is at stake.”
From TreeHugger…
There’s also a warning from Gore: If we don’t act, the price of oil will keep rising because of demand from China and India, most of the world will be at the mercy of oil-producing countries, and irreparable harm will be done to the planet and the ecosystems that support our life.
From The Slant…
It appears even Al Gore (right) can’t get congressional Democrats to move quickly in addressing global warming.
According to The Hill, activism to save the world from greenhouse gases and global warming are taking a backseat to the hue and cry over $4-a-gallon gas.
The big concern: Appearing too much of a tree-hugger in a close presidential election would leave Democrats open to political reprisals from Republicans. The last thing Democrats — even those from an environmentally conscience state like Florida — want is to be seen as “soft” on energy.
[cross-posted at The Care2 Election Blog]
Breaking: Cheney’s Office Pushed for Trims to EPA Congressional Testimony
Vice President Cheney’s office pushed for major deletions in congressional testimony on the public health consequences of climate change, fearing the presentation might make it harder to avoid regulating greenhouse gases, a former EPA officials said.
—
TPM is reporting…
Vice President Dick Cheney’s office apparently worked to cut swaths of the Center for Disease Control’s congressional testimony on the effects of greenhouse gases.
The information was revealed in a letter from recently-resigned associate deputy EPA administrator, Jason Burnett, obtained by the AP, to Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA):
From Think Progress…
The White House’s deletions — which were “overwhelmingly denounced” by scientists and environmental health experts — included “details on how many people might be adversely affected because of increased warming and the scientific basis for some of the CDC’s analysis on what kinds of diseases might be spread in a warmer climate and rising sea levels.” (See the unredacted testimony here.)
Much more to come on this.
The Defense Department is the nation’s biggest polluter. But, the Pentagon doesn’t want to clean up their mess, even when the health of the environment and the American people are at risk.
From The Washington Post
The Defense Department, the nation’s biggest polluter, is resisting orders from the Environmental Protection Agency to clean up Fort Meade and two other military bases where the EPA says dumped chemicals pose “imminent and substantial” dangers to public health and the environment.
DoD Defies EPA on Military Site Cleanups…
In other words, the Pentagon’s response is a blend of “I’ll do it because I want to, not because you tell me to” and “who’s gonna make me?” Aren’t you comforted to know that a third-grade mentality is driving the response to dangerous chemicals leaking into soil and groundwater?
Roundup: Election Politics of Offshore Oil Drilling — by Catherine Morgan (cross-posted at The Care2 Election Blog)
Yesterday was my first post in a series on the gas crisis and offshore drilling. For that reason, I decided today’s political blog roundup will focus on the different opinions and reactions from around the blogosphere on this issue. We have some for drilling, and some against it. Let me know what you think in comments.
I’ll start with my personal opinion/theory regarding the relationship between high gas prices and the recent announcement by Bush/McCain to lift a ban on offshore drilling…
With regards to the gas & oil crisis — Does anyone else get the feeling we have been manipulated and duped AGAIN by the Bush administration? It’s all starting to feel really familiar.
1. Scare the American people (in this case with increasing gas prices).
2. Appear to be doing everything you can to get to the bottom of the crisis (go to OPEC, hold hearings, etc.)
3. Just when there appears to be nothing anyone can do…The Bush administration comes to the rescue and announces a plan to lift the ban on offshore oil drilling, because it’s the only way to help the American people and lower the price of gas.
Sound familiar?
What came first? The crisis or the solution?
I think with closer inspection (most likely after there is nothing anyone can do to change the outcome) - Revelations will come to light, that the Bush administration manipulated the “speculators” to cause an unnecessary but dramatic rise in gas/oil prices…For the ultimate purpose of lifting the ban on offshore drilling, and giving the brass ring to the oil companies.
Additionally, this is going to be the GOP “ace” in the hole, and “the perfect storm” for facilitating a third Bush presidency. I imagine it will go something like this…
The Democrats want to continue making you pay high gas prices during a weak economy…But the Republicans want to help you keep more of your hard earned money….bla, bla, bla.
The trouble is…there is no evidence that offshore drilling will help in the short or even long term. But that is not the “spin” you will be hearing from Bush/McCain. What at first appeared to me as a campaign killer for McCain, could actually be part of a carefully orchestrated campaign winner. Give McCain the experience, the Iraq war, and now the illusion of helping the economy (the number one issue of the American people). I shutter to think.
So, that’s what I think. However, not everyone agrees with me.
Shocking!
Well, not really.
But, I do want to take a look at all sides of this issue. Admittedly, mine is a very visceral reaction to the news of possible offshore drilling.
Let’s take a look at what other bloggers are saying about this. We’ll start with my good friend, Kay B. Day, from Covering Florida and Right Commentary, who has a totally different opinion from mine.
Earlier in the week I reached out to a couple of people to see what their take was on offshore drilling, and she was kind enough to send me her thoughts in an email. Although I don’t completely agree with her on this one…I must admit, she has a much more thought-out response to it. Here it is…
Will Offshore Drilling Lower Gas Prices? - by Catherine Morgan (cross-posted at The Care2 Election Blog)
This will be part one in a series of posts I will be doing on gas prices and offshore drilling. I want to take a look at the facts, and attempt to separate the truth from the fiction. Would offshore drilling lower gas prices? Why do the oil companies need more places to drill, if they aren’t even using all of what they have now? How would more offshore drilling effect the environment? Does this have more to do with politics than the people? These are just a few of the many question we will try to answer here.
Let’s start with an article in today’s New York Times. Here are a few excepts from that article, I really recommend you read the full piece.
READ FULL POST AT THE CARE2 ELECTION BLOG
Midwest Flooding: Mother Nature or Failing Infrastructure? - by Catherine Morgan (cross-posted at The Care2 Election Blog)
Levees are breaking and the Midwest is flooding. This will end-up being a huge disaster, hurting not just the people who are flooded. We will all be affected by this one way or another, with more strain on our economy and higher food prices.
MSNBC has an Interactive Map of the Midwest Flooding, showing the areas of concern.
The question many are asking…
Is ‘Mother Nature’ Really To Blame for Midwest Flooding?
The U.S. infrastructure appears to be falling apart, and we are spending all of our “borrowed” money in Iraq. At this point, we wont need the terrorists to destroy our country, it’s going to just fall apart bit by bit on its own.
Also See:
Care2 News Network
McCain Want To Lift Federal Ban on Offshore Drilling — by Catherine Morgan (cross-posted at The Care2 Election Blog)
McCain announced today, that he wants to allow states to drill for offshore oil. You have got to be kidding me. The only clip I could find about this (below) is focusing on another one of his campaign supporter controversies. But, I think the real story here is his desire to lift the federal ban on offshore drilling.
From The Washington Post - The Trail…
Republican Sen. John McCain today called for an end to the federal ban on offshore oil drilling, a move that would let states decide whether oil rigs would sprout up along the Atlantic and Pacific coastlines.The move is a dramatic break with the environmental groups McCain has been courting for months, but is designed to reassure voters angry about rising gas prices. McCain said he would push for new incentives to help convince state officials to allow the drilling once the 27-year-old federal ban is lifted.
From Politics Junky…
With gasoline prices rising and the United States chronically dependent on foreign oil, the Republican presidential contender said his proposal would “be very helpful in the short term resolving our energy crisis.”
That of course is horseshit as oil is traded on a global market and any oil tapped from the ocean (or ANWR, for that matter) would have little if any influence on the price of oil. Even if it had a nominal effect it would be at least five years before US consumers saw it. It’s not like US oil companies would find new oil reserves and only sell it to Americans for a discount. They sell it to the highest bidder, which may be China or India. And then there’s the problem of refineries…But that’s a more complicated message than telling the American people that crazy environmentalists are keeping gas prices high by blocking exploration on our own shores. So much for straight talk.
From Michelle Malkin’s blog…
Just a recap: McCain was AWOL on the windfall profits tax debate in the Senate (a failed Carter relic that he says he’d be “glad to look at”). He had nothing to say about Rep. John Peterson’s effort to lift the offshore drilling ban when it was up for a vote last week. And as I noted back on May 22, he has channeled the entire Democrat presidential field’s class warfare rhetoric and repeatedly referred to the oil industry’s “obscene profits.”
Now, he’s announced he wants to lift the offshore drilling moratorium and will give an energy speech tomorrow. He was for it before he was against it before he was for it again. Positively Kerryesque:
From Tammy at Tammy’s Blog…
In light of our soaring energy costs, John McCain wants the federal moratorium on offshore oil and gas drilling to be lifted, and individual states given the right to pursue energy exploration in waters near their own coasts. With gasoline prices rising and the good old US chronically dependent on foreign oil, McCain said his proposal would “be very helpful in the short term resolving our energy crisis.” He even wants to go so far as to offer the states incentives, including a greater share of royalties paid by companies that drill for oil, as an incentive to permit exploration. Asked how far offshore states should be given control of drilling rights, he said that was a matter for negotiation. Wow, imagine how delightful our beaches will be?! He offered no other details for his proposal, which he is expected to describe more fully on Tuesday in an energy speech. Stay tuned for that.
What do you think? Is this the most ridiculous thing you have ever hear?
How Bad Are Gas Prices Hurting You? — by Catherine Morgan (cross-posted at The Care2 Election Blog)
How high are gas prices where you live? How bad are record high gas prices hurting you and your family? Have you needed to cut back on your driving? Has the cost of gas affected your ability to buy food or medication?
From The New York Times…
Gasoline prices reached a national average of $4 a gallon for the first time over the weekend, adding more strain to motorists across the country.
But the pain is not being felt uniformly. Across broad swaths of the South, Southwest and the upper Great Plains, the combination of low incomes, high gas prices and heavy dependence on pickup trucks and vans is putting an even tighter squeeze on family budgets.
Here in the Mississippi Delta, some farm workers are borrowing money from their bosses so they can fill their tanks and get to work. Some are switching jobs for shorter commutes.
People are giving up meat so they can buy fuel. Gasoline theft is rising. And drivers are running out of gas more often, leaving their cars by the side of the road until they can scrape together gas money.
The disparity between rural America and the rest of the country is a matter of simple home economics. Nationwide, Americans are now spending about 4 percent of their take-home income on gasoline. By contrast, in some counties in the Mississippi Delta, that figure has surpassed 13 percent.
As a result, gasoline expenses are rivaling what families spend on food and housing.
From Pam at Pam’s Coffee Conversation…
It was inevitable — the Era of $4.00+/gal gasoline is officially here. And it may not entirely be a bad thing.
After months of debate on the floors of Congress, it seems that the politicos in Washington are no closer to being honest with the American public that before. The GOP wants to convince you that if only the oil companies were allowed to drill in ANWR and off the coasts of Florida and California that gasoline prices will come down. They want you to believe that Exxon will choose to only supply oil to US consumer if a foreign entity like China or India offers to buy it at a higher price. Do you believe that Exxon will turn down a profit?
The Democrats want to convince you that they will one day find the gumption to take on “Big Oil” and their windfall profits and government subsidies.
What neither side of the aisle wants to tell the American public is that it’s time to get a new attitude about fossil fuel consumption. Proposals like drilling in ANWR and a gasoline tax can only offer temporary relief from pump prices, at best. In order to address America’s fuel needs Americans need to begin rethinking how they live and even where they live.
From Off The Cuff…
While I do know that because the greedy oil jerks in the middle east are sending the prices through the roof as in $138 a barrel and telling us that the reason is demand, it is also evident that they could, if they so chose, drop the price just as fast according to demand. Just as evident, is the fact that the greedy oil companies in this country could, if they so chose, drop the price of gas at the pump so that the financial bleeding that’s going on could have a breather. At this time, AAA says that the national average on gas is $4 a gallon. Is this criminal or what?
The problem that I see is that though congress has some say in this, they are doing nothing or nearly nothing. Although they had the top 5 CEOs of the greedy oil companies in front of them for a big show, the truth is that congress apparently cannot afford, in an election year, to piss off the oil companies so they put on the show and let us all hang by our fingernails.
Also See:
How High Will Gas Prices Go?
Skyrocketing Gas Prices
What Is The Real Reason Gas Prices Are So High
Answering the question, Where are all the women political bloggers? Well, if you are here, you have found them. We are dedicated to giving women bloggers a voice, starting with our list of over 500 women political bloggers. And now, in addition to guest bloggers, and our growing community, we will also feature regular contributing editors.
The Political Voices of Women