Is Sarah Palin more like Dick Cheney or more like Clarence Thomas?

A week ago, Sarah Palin didn't know what the Vice President does. "What exactly is it that the VP does every day?" Now she is asking for your vote.

Meanwhile, Palin's past has some disturbing parallels to Dick Cheney's.

* A scapegoating, firing, and influence peddling story that reminds us of the the Jim Wilson/Scooter Libby scandal.

* Oil company shill and global warming deny-er.

Alaskans call her appointment "A Bridge to Nowhere."

On the other hand, is she more like Clarence Thomas: a neophyte with no trail of experience to support her or to critcize, with no intellectual heft to bring to the table. An opportunistic choice consistent with John McCain's strategy of selling out his maverick credentials to the administration that accused his own adopted daughter of being a bastard from a liaison McCain supposedly had with an African American prostitute. McCain did not stand up to Karl Rove's slur of his own elementary-school age daughter, just so he could be President. McCain chose a running mate who, like Clarence Thomas, Joe Biden couldn't criticize without being portrayed as a bully.

I hope Biden unleashes all his fury at this Barbie politician and he should have all Feminist support behind him. With just a few months as governor under her belt, Palin is no Hillary.

In the meantime, even Associated Press confuses this ticket with Dick Cheney.

Compare the Candidates: Edwards, Clinton, Obama

Any two of these candidates will make a winning Prez-VP ticket, but for those who want to chose their favorite, the NYT election guide 2008 stacks their positions side by side to make a comparison easier than before. Here are the highlights for Edwards, Clinton, and Obama. The NYT analysis includes all the candidates from both parties.

Before we get to that, here's a humorous observation from the ultra-conservative Wall Street Journal: The "major domestic ambition this campaign season is the government takeover of the healthcare industry," according to an editorial in WSJ. They neglected to point out what a lousy job the healthcare industry is doing at protecting public health. The Wall Street Journal (WSJ Subscription Required)

Health care:

• Edwards: Would require health insurance for all. Require employers to provide insurance or contribute to cost, with subsidies for low-income people. Create regional nonprofit pools that offer private plans and at least one public plan like Medicare. Expand Medicaid and State Children’s Health Insurance Program to serve adults below the poverty line and children and parents below 250 percent of the line.
  
• Obama: Would not require health insurance for all. Would provide subsidies for low-income people. Create purchasing pool with choice of competing private plans and one public plan like Medicare. Expand Medicaid, State Children’s Health Insurance Program.


• Clinton: Would require health insurance for all. Require large employers to provide insurance or contribute to the cost. Provide tax credits to small businesses and subsidies for low-income people. Create a pool of private plans similar to the program for federal workers and one public plan similar to Medicare. Plans are portable from job to job. Expand Medicaid, State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

Reproductive rights:

• Edwards actively opposed John Roberts's nomination, partly based on his abortion views.
  
• All three candidates say they support Roe v. Wade that ruled childbearing decisions including decisions to terminate pregnancy were protected from government interference unless there was a compelling state interest. All three candidates criticized Supreme Court decision that upheld ban on partial-birth abortions.

Climate Change:

• Edwards and Obama state the U.S. must lead global efforts to reduce emission; would set targets for capping greenhouse pollution.
  
• All three candidates support a mandatory cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

Immigration:

• Edwards: Supports only a limited border fence. Clinton and Obama: Voted for the boondoggle fence along Mexican border.


• All three candidates support a path to legalization for illegal immigrants that includes learning English and paying fines; toughen penalties for hiring illegal immigrants.

Iran:

• Edwards: Engage in low-level diplomacy; tighten economic sanctions with international cooperation; military option not off the table; has said a non-aggression pact is a possibility down the road.


• Obama: Engage in direct diplomacy; tighten economic sanctions with international cooperation; would meet with the Iranian president with no preconditions; military option not off the table.


• Clinton: Direct diplomacy without preconditions; use economic sanctions; would not meet with the Iranian president; military option not off the table, but would not consider without congressional approval.

Iraq: [see Senate Joint Resolution 45 below]

• Edwards: Voted in 2002 for the Resolution, now opposed; opposed troop increase; withdraw 40,000 to 50,000 combat troops immediately and all troops within nine to 10 months.


• Clinton: Voted in 2002 for the Resolution, now opposed; opposed troop increase; start phased withdrawal within 60 days of taking office, with the goal to have most troops out by the end of 2013.


• Obama: Not a Senator at the time, but opposed the invasion from the beginning [although did not necessarily oppose the Resolution and seemed conflicted for much of the war’s first years]; opposed troop increase; withdraw one or two brigades a month to finish within 16 months.

The Resolution states that military intervention in Iraq is authorized in certain circumstances, including if the President determines that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

US, China Gang up for Greenhouse Gases; World Boos

China, the country that tortures monks, and the US, the country that tortures just about anyone else, joined forces to protect those who pollute and poison the world's residents at the Greehouse Gases Reduction Conference in Bali this week.


When unauthorized parallel meetings were held
at the Conference of 187 countries, leader Yvo de Boer, not known for his emotion, was overcome by jet lag and obstructionism and burst into tears.


According to the UK's Daily Mail:

Officials from China, which feels Western countries should do more to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, accused UN negotiators of ignoring conference protocol.

Mr de Boer, distinctively dressed in a floral shirt, stepped up to the microphone to defend his staff - only to find that the words would no longer come.
As his unfinished sentences trailed away, he broke down and walked off the platform to supportive applause.

"He wasn't just wiping his eyes, he was in floods of tears," said one observer.
"Three colleagues - one of them a woman - formed a protective group around him and escorted him out of the hall. It was all very dramatic."
Mr de Boer's breakdown came after nearly a fortnight of squabbling over proposals to cut carbon emissions.

Then there was piling by the US, recently overtaken by China for the spot of World's #1 Greenouse Gas polluter. US delegation chief Paula Dobriansky , a pretty face with an ugly message, was booed for refusing to support the Conference goals.


One delegate, from Papua New Guinea, pleaded with the US to lead on the issue. "Lead, follow, or get out of the way."

More info:

NYTimes

Sunday Mirror

Telegraph here and full coverage here

Celsias

YouTube: John Edwards on Climate Change

YouTube - John Edwards on Climate Change here.

Bush Power Grab-Let them Eat Spinach?

Now that global warming is confirmed by a broad scientific consensus that is almost unanimous, and food safety and exposure of imports to terrorism is widely acknowledged, George Bush found a revised secret route to undermine public safety legislation. Congress needs to step up and reassert its authority.

A new Executive Order would strip regulatory agencies of authority to regulate dangerous products unless it can establish "market failure."

The Bush administration ordered agencies to get White House approval before issuing "guidance" on regulatory matters, possibly subjecting such pronouncements to the same comment period and cost-benefit analyses as full-blown regulations. The executive order also requires agencies to document a "market failure" to justify any new regulation and puts a political appointee in each agency to oversee regulatory policies.

Thousands of Americans have died in Iraq - and more allies and civilians and contractors - and the Administration refuses to call it a failure. How many consumers have to die before it will declare a "market failure"?

The compelling testimony of Georgetown Law professor and Director of the Institute For Public Representation, David Vladeck, is here. He points out it applies to drafts, guidelines and policies as well as rules, and to agencies implementing laws passed by Congress that require hazard analysis, not market failure.

More from WaPo:

"There is no question who this panders to," said Rena Steinzor, a University of Maryland law professor who is critical of administration regulatory policy.

"It's maybe not surprising that having lost control of the Congress, the president is doing what he can to increase control of the executive branch," [said Peter Strauss, a professor at Columbia University law school].

There is no question of the resounding effect this will have on safety regulation as recognized by papers that cover Federal regulation. In Biotech-rich Thousand Oaks, CA, the paper said the "Power Grab [is] likely to change the country." TomPaine calls it a "chokehold. The Washington Times says the Order will establish Bush's legacy, which according to the Moonies is currently tainted because the Clinton regulations first blocked by Bush as anti-business did eventually go through relatively intact. The Times especially complains about Clinton's environmental protections, designed to prevent increased rates of global warming, and the Times denies the vast weight of climate change evidence.

The changes would be secret, too

In a February 13 hearing before a House Science and Technology subcommittee on oversight, chairman Brad Miller of North Carolina commented that new regulations could "be smothered in the crib by the RPO" without even the possibility of public scrutiny. ... Vladeck told the committee that the new executive order "goes back to the days when OIRA was allowed to conduct a big part of its business in secret."

C'mon, Congress. Eat your Spinach.

Tom Davis makes National Quote of the Week

Surface Air Temperature Increase 1960-2060
NASA Home > Life on Earth > In Everyday Life

Government Reform Committee Chair Henry Waxman charged another White House cover up, this time on global warming, when he said,

"We know that the White House possesses documents that contain evidence of an attempt by senior administration officials to mislead the public by injecting doubt into the science of global warming and minimize the potential danger,” said Waxman, adding that he is “not trying to obtain state secrets.”

The cover up facilitator for the past decade has been none other than former Chair Tom Davis of VA. Davis continues the White House spin in a linguistic gymnastic routine that earns him national recognition:

Here's my nomination for quote of the week: "The issue of politicizing science has itself become politicized." It was spoken by Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., at a hearing on global warming.

* * * *

[Y]es, truth always has been elusive, and always will remain so. Once we seemed to be able to agree on facts. But now we are told to dismiss facts if they get characterized as political. In Davis' world, it's political, and apparently dismissive on that basis, to speak up to make the point that someone else has been political.

It reminds me of my cub reporting days so many years ago. The local political establishment was alleged to be corrupt -- election fraud and such. The alleged
ringleader responded by telling me, with a tone of utter disdain, that those who alleged his corruption were "politically motivated." As if that were bad, or disqualifying, or a surprise, or relevant to whether the guy and his allies were actually corrupt. Perhaps you're wondering how a charge of stealing elections could be anything other than politically motivated.

* * * *

We seem to have two options: We must draw the curtain on political performance art to permit the pursuit of empirical data about global warming. Or, we could try what might be the most effective tool of all, at least nowadays, which would be taking scientific fact and finding fresh and innovative ways to present it through political performance art.

Did someone say Al Gore?