I was just checking out some of our community posts, and I came across this by Pamela Lyn…
Recently our own “Myrna the Mynx”, Tracy Viselli and Sarah Granger were prominently featured in a
MediaShift post entitled “Will the Big Tent in Denver Help Bloggers Break Through“?The article broke through to Digg’s front page. Check it out.
Also See:
Watch as Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates dance around the truth about the consequences for Russia’s actions in the Russia-Georgia conflict.
Try not to laugh
—
url: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=li25wM6JTUkI give everyone of those journalists credit for maintaining a poker face during those interviews. However, don’t you wonder what was going on off-camera?
Now with a straight face, explain to me how Russia’s international reputation is any worse than that of the United States after the Iraq WMD debacle. If, as Secretary Gates states, “the world is looking at Russia through a different set of lenses”, just imagine the magnifying lens they’re using to look at the US.
As for the impact on Russia’s reputation referred to by Secretary Rice, apparently no one in the Bush Administration saw this 2007 interview with Garry Kasparov. I sure did.
—
url: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Z9g7jN3Kso
A little earlier today, Reuters correspondent Oleg Shchedrov reported the following on the Russia-Georgia conflict:
“Washington demanded on Friday that Russia pull its troops out of Georgia ‘now,’ but Moscow said it would be another 10 days before the bulk of its force left Georgian soil.
In a sign of growing tension between Moscow and the West over the conflict in Georgia, a Russian news agency reported that Russia had temporarily frozen cooperation with the NATO alliance, though there was no immediate confirmation.
In some of Washington’s toughest comments to date, the White House declared Russia in violation of its commitments to leave the territory of Georgia after routing Georgian forces in a war that erupted two weeks ago.
White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said he could not imagine a circumstance in which the United States would engage in military-to-military cooperation with Moscow until the Georgia situation was resolved.
U.S. impatience has been growing by the day as it waits for a full-scale pullout of troops and weaponry that Russia sent into its small Caucasus neighbor two weeks ago to counter a Georgian attack on the Moscow-backed South Ossetia region.
A Reuters reporter saw a column of T-72 main battle tanks lumbering across the border from Russia into Georgia — the first sign of heavy armor being withdrawn from Georgian soil — but elsewhere Russian forces remained in place.
As Charles Amico noted in his blog, “We The People”:
“So the Bush Administration has overplayed its hand again and has been blowing smoke at Russia in the form of bellicose language expected to threaten the Russians. Do you really believe this tactic will work? If you do, wake up.”
Related posts:
OK, I posted on the Saddleback Forum yesterday, and I thought that was all I would be doing. But, it seems what was being billed as a “fair” forum (with McCain unable to hear the questions ahead of time, during Obama’s hour), didn’t really go down that way at all. At the time Obama’s interview began, McCain hadn’t even left his hotel yet. What? Didn’t they mention that McCain was placed in a “cone of silence” or something? McCain apparently didn’t even get to Saddleback until a half-hour after he was supposedly in a cone of silence, and was able to hear at least half of the “secret” questions, giving him a huge advantage.
—
From News Hounds…
Saturday night, immediately after the Saddleback Forum, FOX News had a panel ready for analysis on the Strategy Room.. Everyone on the panel agreed that John McCain was strong and decisive. In fact, McCain was so quick with his answers that he finished at least 15 minutes ahead of schedule. There may be a reason for McCain’s strong and decisive responses. The New York Times reports that John McCain was not in “a cone of silence” to prevent him from hearing the questions because he was,in fact, caught in traffic while Obama was questioned by Pastor Rick Warren
It also raises profound questions about the honesty of John McCain. His campaign is trying to turn it around acting shocked that anyone could accuse John McCain of cheating.
After months of following the debates on the US “oil crisis”, watching gasoline prices rise and then slowly decline and, spending most of July watching the endless parade of charts and graphs pro and con offshore drilling on C-SPAN, I’ve come to the conclusion that self-interest is clearly winning out over common sense.
Here’s why I’ve reached this conclusion.
1. A recent Rasmussen Report poll* found that 64% of the American public now supports opening up protected coastal areas to off-shore oil drilling. I suspect that many in this group are the same people who still don’t believe in global warming, still believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 bombings and, now believe that China is drilling for oil off the coast of Florida.
2. I’m willing to guess that the vast majority of the aforementioned 64% probably doesn’t own coastal property or work in the fishing or resort industry. I suspect that they have an image that coastal residents all live like residents in Malibu. NOT!
3. I’ll go out on a limb and say that the 55% of Americans (as cited by the Rasmussen poll) who agree with the Republican proposal for building more nuclear plants probably won’t want to have one of these new plants placed within 10 miles of their home or have the nuclear waste stored within a hundred miles. I also suspect that they would be highly upset if someone proposed placing a wind farm near their home. Too unsightly.
4. I suspect that the vast majority of people who now support off-shore drilling might be a little upset if their community was re-zoned or their property declared as eminent domain in order to build all of the support facilities for the new off-shore drilling platforms.
5. You don’t have to try to fool all of the people, all of the time. You only have to feed them enough mis-information to get them to put self interest ahead of common sense.
As Peter Dizikes pointed out in his article, “Did you hear that Alaska has more oil than the Middle East?” for Salon.com there are probably more myths, half truths and twists of science being pumped out about offshore oil drilling than there will ever be barrels of oil pumped from the sea.
Here is another great post from community member Deb Della Piana. Deb also blogs at Turn Left.
[If you would like to be a guest blogger on The Political Voices of Women, just join our community, and start posting.]
If you’ve been paying attention to the world news lately, you know that Pervez Musharaff is about to be impeached. That’s why the rumor is he’s resigning. Yes, the “I” word; the word nobody in America wants to say. In order to impeach Musharaff, the coalition government must prove that he has subverted the constitution or is guilty of gross misconduct. Sound familiar? The basis for Musharaff’s impeachment may very well lie in the dismissal of the judiciary last November and the six-week suspension of the constitution. Seems rational to me. In Israel, Ehud Olmert was subjected to four rounds of intensive questioning by police as part of a corruption inquiry. Due to strong political and public pressure, Mr. Olmert has announced that he will not seek re-election and that he will resign as soon as his party elects a new leader in September. Tony Blair’s blind allegiance to George Bush and his participation in the deception surrounding the Iraq war outlined in the now-famous Downing Street Memo led to the downfall of his administration and the unraveling of his political career.
Back in America, George Bush is still running the show. He has installed himself as an imperial leader and we’ve allowed him to do so. He has relegated the nation’s system of checks and balances on the presidency to an irrelevant historical footnote. He has assaulted the Constitution with impunity in his quest to expand the powers of the presidency. We’ve spent nearly eight years laughing at his sometimes unintelligible Bushisms and seemingly ridiculous statements. I remember when everyone laughed as Bush stated that leading the country would be a lot easier if it were a dictatorship. From where I’m sitting today, I don’t think he was kidding. The joke’s on us. We’re supposed to be the most advanced Democracy in the world, but we refuse to hold our leaders accountable for their actions.
Instead, we have lame-brained elected officials like Nancy Pelosi appearing on The View and making the most absurd statement that I’ve heard yet regarding President Bush and the “I” word. I’m paraphrasing here, but the gist of it is that she’d be happy to advance Articles of Impeachment against George Bush if someone can tell her the law he has broken. Where do you want us to start, Nancy? Is there a more obvious reason why our spineless Congress’ approval rating is hovering around the 9% mark? Let’s just get real here. I have a hard time imagining the American public not being outraged over that foolish statement. You know, we don’t need all 35 articles that were originally presented. We only need one.
Have you heard about the new anti-Obama book? I imagine the people that will buy this book, are the same people that blindly forward emails around, about Obama being a Muslim. Personally, I don’t think this book will hurt Obama in the same way that swiftboaters hurt John Kerry.
But, I guess it really comes down to how the main stream media decides to cover it. Do they allow the lies to be repeated so many times that they take on a life of their own? Or, do they focus on the truth, and refuse to perpetuate the rhetoric? Only time will tell.
What do you think? Can Barack Obama be swifboated? Do you think the Obama campaign is doing enough to debunk this book? What part do you think the media will play in debunking or perpetuating the lies?
And, regardless of whether you support Barack Obama or not…Don’t you think he should win or lose the election based on the truth? Let me know what you think in comments.
Here is an interesting video about the book (and its author)…
Read more »
—
Here is some of what bloggers are saying…
Will You Be Blogging The Democratic National Convention? I’m attempting to get as many of my ducks in a row as possible, before I begin to blog about the convention. Here is how you can help me, and we can help each other.
If you will be blogging the convention, please leave me your link in the comments of this post. I want to develop a list of bloggers that I (and anyone else) can refer to, for links and stories on the convention. If you are going to the convention, leave me your link. If you are going to be doing a play-by-play from your home, leave me your link. Let me know in comments, how often you will be blogging, and where you will be blogging from.
And, if you are a member of The Political Voices of Women Community…Please cross-post as many of your convention posts as you can to our community blog. I will be using many of them as guest posts for this blog, and may also use some in my convention coverage for The Care2 Election Blog.
It seems I will also be oovooing the convention for Care2, along with Care2 bloggers who will be at the convention. Will you be oovooing? If so, please let me know, maybe we can do something together.
Well, I think that’s it. I look forward to hearing from you. 
Here is another great post from community member Deb Della Piana. Deb also blogs at Turn Left.
[If you would like to be a guest blogger on The Political Voices of Women, just join our community, and start posting.]
I was doing my usual amount of reading a while ago and found a headline that absolutely freaked me out. It read, “Gays could split over McCain.” I had to read it at least two or three times before it fully sank in. I don’t understand how gays could possibly split over McCain. Actually, I don’t understand how any self-respecting GLBT individual could even consider wasting a perfectly good vote on John McCain. As some one who has been gay since the womb, let me take it even one step further: I don’t understand the whole Gay Republican thing. It’s just an oxymoron. And I certainly don’t want to hear the excuse that there’s more to being gay than just sexuality. I fundamentally agree, of course. The most important thing is civil rights…the same civil rights that heterosexual Americans are blessed with. And that’s where the equation becomes:
Gay + Republican = Oxymoron.
I wonder if any members of the Log Cabin Republicans have actually read the proposed 2008 Republican Platform that will be presented at the convention. I have read it and nowhere in that platform is there a reference to the GLBT community…at least no direct references. There are several clandestine (or stealth) references to our community there, however. We’re mostly mentioned as something that heterosexual people have to be protected from.
Protecting the sanctity of marriage
Apparently, we’re a threat to heterosexual marriage in some way. I’m not quite sure how the threat works and, quite frankly, neither is the Republican Party. I haven’t read one good reason yet for the need for ‘protection,’ yet the 2008 platform calls for a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. I quote directly, “We believe, and social science confirms, that the well-being of children is best accomplished in the environment of the home, nurtured by their mother and father anchored by bonds of marriage.” Now, here’s the rub: “We further believe that legal recognition and the accompanying benefits afforded couples should be preserved for that unique and special union of one man and one woman which has been historically called marriage.”
These quotations come from the section entitled ‘Protecting Marriage,’ so I’m not sure just exactly how the kids fit in here, but I’ll get to that. We are apparently trying to protect marriage here, but I’m not sure just exactly how gay marriages threaten heterosexual marriages. If we are allowed to legally marry, does the divorce rate of heterosexual marriages go up exponentially? We’ve been allowed to legally marry here in Massachusetts now for four years. They sky has not fallen in. In fact, it has become a non-issue here. We pretty much peacefully co-exist. A Constitutional Amendment, for those of you Log Cabin Republicans who still do not get it, does not protect heterosexual marriage. What it does do is write discrimination into the U.S. Constitution. The usual suspects of poverty, infidelity, lack of communication, domestic violence, and alcohol and drug abuse will continue to be the biggest threats to any marriage, heterosexual or not.
Here is another great post from community member Deb Della Piana. [If you would like to be a guest blogger on The Political Voices of Women, just join our community, and start posting.]
What will be in the Bush Library?
Time is winding down and there’s a lot of debate about George Bush’s legacy these days. Remember the spin surrounding the administration’s renewed efforts on the Middle East peace process? That was all about trying to bring one positive event to Bush’s legacy. Admittedly he hasn’t spent much time brokering peace between the Israelis and Palestinians, but that’s only because he’s been busy orchestrating wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. A president only has so much time in a day. While others ruminate about Bush’s replacement, I’m delving into more concrete things, like the Bush Library at Southern Methodist University. What will go into that library? What will best represent the Bush Legacy? I have some suggestions.
I’d break it down into “rooms,” the first being The 9-11 Room. That was truly a watershed event, an opportunity both for domestic unity after a tainted election and unprecedented international cooperation. Instead President Bush very quickly reduced it to one giant photo op. Remember that photo of Bush at Ground Zero, holding a megaphone in one hand with his other arm around the shoulders of one of New York City’s finest? The firefighter in the photo is just one of the many men and women who spent days and nights breathing in the acrid smoke and sifting thorough the still-smoldering debris. The photo would certainly illustrate the President’s solidarity with these heroes. But there’s another story he wants to avoid. It’s the story of how the government suppressed the danger of breathing the air in New York in the days following the attacks. In 2006, ninety people died of illnesses tied to 9-11 recovery efforts; that’s up from about twenty. It’s a story about forgotten people, once hailed as heroes, suffering with chronic illnesses and slowly dying in obscurity with little support from the government they so willingly believed in and selflessly served.
Next, comes The Protect America Room with a copy of the U.S.A. Patriot Act, signed into law on October 26, 2001. This historic document marks the birth of the all-out attack on our Constitutional rights, giving the government unprecedented powers to search telephone, e-mail, medical and financial records without a court order all in the name of fighting terrorism. Let’s not forget the Protect America Act of 2007, a law that legitimizes Bush’s illegal wiretapping of his own citizens. According to the ACLU’s web site, it allows for the “massive, untargeted collection of international communications without court order or meaningful oversight by either Congress or the courts.” For a while, it was touch and go. Would the bill include retroactive immunity for the telecoms who aided and abetted our felonious president or not? In the end, the criminals won because our spineless Congress let them win.
The War on Terror Room would come next. President Bush likes to call himself a “war president.” That’s because starting wars is the one of the two things he is good at. (The other is lying.) That timeless photo of the now-free Iraqis toppling Saddam’s statue would have to be included. However, the administration should refrain from using actual war photos. It’s never good to show people on either side being blown up by roadside bombs and/or shot. Instead, they can include a film clip timeline of the speeches leading up to the Iraq war…the inspirational ones incorporating the 935 lies Bush and the key members of his administration told to justify the war. The Center for Public Integrity has already done all the work at http://www.publicintegrity.org! Bush should avoid any mention of the other war zone, Afghanistan, and the dismal effort made to capture the real architect of the 9-11 terrorist attacks. Out of sight, out of mind and that’s a good thing. People don’t really remember why we’re there to begin with, but I’m sure of one thing: We’re not there to catch Osama bin Laden.
The Domestic Policy Room would have its own Veto Zone. The President can tout his tax cuts for the richest Americans, while the poor and middle class stagger under a sagging economy of his creation. In the Veto Zone, Bush can showcase his tough stand against the “fiscally irresponsible” expansion of the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act. This law provides health care coverage to 3.9 million uninsured children at an additional cost of $34.5 billion dollars over five years (an increase that would be covered by a 61-cent increase in the cigarette tax and other tobacco taxes). In contrast, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated the monthly cost of the Iraq war to be about $12 billion. The total cost of the Iraq war could run up to $3 trillion. Do the math and determine who is truly fiscally irresponsible. Any guesses?
The misinformed won’t stop there. The Disaster Response Room will feature that powerful 2005 Hurricane Katrina speech where Mr. Bush says “the Gulf Coast must be rebuilt with an eye toward wiping out the persistent poverty and racial injustice plain to all in the suffering of the black and the poor in Hurricane Katrina’s wake.” It’s 2008 and many are still displaced and waiting to go back home. Others have given up entirely on ever returning to their home state. Brad Pitt’s Make It Right Foundation is doing more to build affordable housing in New Orleans than our own government. Instead, abandoned buildings are being purchased for conversion to high priced condos. The same thing is happening in Mississippi, where areas are turning into casino havens for the rich. The Bush administration’s version of the war on poverty is displacing and dispersing the poor throughout the rest of the country to fend for themselves.
Don’t forget the Interrogation Room. Here the torture techniques admittedly okayed by Bush himself, continually honed at Guantanamo Bay and applied to extreme at Abu Ghraib will be hailed as powerful tools in the war on terror. It smacks of hypocrisy that George Bush once cited Saddam Hussein’s cruelty as a justification for removing him from power. Of course, our president doesn’t see himself in that light. He believes it’s his destiny is to bring freedom and democracy to the Middle East, one way or another. He answers to a higher power. The end justifies the means.
Finally, let’s finish the library with the Congressional Mastery Room. The bully president will be shown brazenly breaking many national and international laws and still escaping impeachment, while simultaneously holding a Democratic Congress hostage and preventing any legislation that might actually benefit the American people from becoming law.
When news of the John Edwards affair broke yesterday, it was very shocking. I had heard the rumors, but always assumed they were untrue. I didn’t watch the Nightline interview last night, but just in case you wanted to see it, and missed it. Here is the full interview, in two parts, and some of the reaction and commentary from around the web. I hope you’ll let me know what you think about this in comments.
John Edwards interview on ABC…
Part One
—
Part Two
—
Tami Winfrey Harris, contributing editor to The Political Voices of Women, wrote a very personal response to the shocking news about John Edwards…
I Am Disappointed In You, John Edwards…
Long time readers know that I was a supporter of John Edwards’ presidential campaign. I believed in his platform and thought he would make a wonderful president of the United States. You know, I still believe in his platform, but I am woefully disappointed in the man. On the one hand, I don’t think sexual habits have anything to do with the ability to be a leader. The list of unfaithful men who Americans swoon over is long: From Thomas Jefferson to JFK to MLK. And none of my Republican friends better say one word to me about this, as their presidential candidate is married to his former mistress.But I am disappointed that powerful men, even the ones that seem “better than that” seem always to live down to the public’s lowest expectations of them.
There was an interesting comment on a post about Hillary, it’s a look at the John Edwards scandal from another point of view…
Re: Senator Edwards
From all the news coverage tonight I didn’t hear one word on the question of whether Senator Obama wins the nomination if Senator Edward tells the truth last year when the story broke.
Does anyone really believe that Senator Clinton looses the Iowa caucuses if Senator Edwards is not in the race, especially after the landslide of working class voters who supported Senator Clinton after Senator Edwards left the race?
And what of the value of the Edwards endorsement, the timing of which stepped all over an important moment for Senator Clinton.
So all of the above leads to the question of motive. Was it just revenge for perceived slights during the 2004 campaign? Will some one at least try to find out?
And finally, exactly how hard did the media investigate the Edwards story when it mattered.
I find it hard to believe that if the story was reversed, the “What if” questions and investigation of motive would not have been a center point of the story.
Fraud has been committed against the members of the Democratic Party potentially resulting in an illegitimate nominee. But not one word uttered about it.
Denise from BlogHer, wrote a post on The Edwards Affair, that has many comments from the women of BlogHer…
For months we’ve heard John Edwards deny rumors that he had an affair with Rielle Hunter. He’s also denied being the father of Hunter’s baby. Today, he revealed that he did, after all, have an affair with Hunter but continues to deny paternity. The blogosphere is buzzing.
Sister Toldjah says Looks like The Enquirer got it right after all and questions the MSM’s handling of the story.
. . .
Some of us are saying this is not news, this is not a story, this is no big deal… And the blog posts just keep rolling in. The tweets continue to fly.
Are you tweeting it or blogging it? Are you talking about it offline with coworkers, family and friends? IS this news? Does this matter to you?
The MOMocrats also had a strong response to a man they were supporting as president…
Top ten reasons I’m done with this John Edwards affair (and you should be too)
Also See:
Erin Kotecki Vest wrote for The Huffington Post…Edwards Affair: A Hard Lesson For The Left Half of the Blogosphere.
PunditMom wrote Political Rule #1 — If You Want To Be President, Keep It In Your Pants.
The Politico story has almost 1800 comments.
The New York Times – Edwards Admits to Affair in 2006
Well, if you are over your shock (and I’m not quite there yet), please let me know how you feel about the John Edwards affair in comments.
Also…Do you think if voters knew of this before the primaries, that the outcome of the election would have been different?
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
