From Wasilla to Washington

Dear Editors:

Sarah Palin’s Sept. 3 speech was a stem-winder, full of cutting one-liners aimed at Barack Obama. Of course, she didn’t write the speech herself; sources, including Time magazine’s website on Sept. 4, say the speech was written by Matthew Scully, George Bush’s speech writer. In fact, much of the speech was written before Palin was picked as McCain’s running mate, only tweaked to fit her story after she was selected. Even so, it was masterfully delivered – and very misleading.

For example, Palin said, “The Democratic nominee ... plans to raise income taxes, raise payroll taxes ... and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars.”

However, what Palin didn’t say was that Obama’s tax plan calls for raising taxes only on the incomes of people earning a quarter-million dollars or more a year. As reported by Abdon M. Pallasch in the Chicago Sun-Times on June 30, a nonpartisan analysis determined that under Obama’s tax plan the other 97.5 percent of taxpayers would receive a break. “The rich would pay more ... poor and middle-class less.” Hardly what one could call taxing working people.

Regarding payroll taxes – notably Social Security withholdings – any money earned above $102,000 is not taxed. In other words, the millionaires and billionaires pay Social Security tax only on $102,000 earned a year, and not on a penny above that. Obama’s plan calls for raising the cap from $102,000 to $250,000, a tax adjustment that would help make Social Security solvent for the future. Frankly, I think Obama’s being generous: Why shouldn’t millionaires and billionaires have to pay Social Security tax on all the money they earn just like the rest of us?

Another misleading statement by Palin was this: “I ... championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress.” But Palin hasn’t always been against earmarks. In a story appearing in the Sept. 4 edition of the Kansas City Star, Erika Bolston reported that: “As Alaska governor, (Palin) sought and obtained hundreds of millions of dollars in earmarks for the state, and as mayor of Wasilla, she hired lobbyist ... Steve Silver to steer federal money to her town.” Not exactly the reformer she portrays herself to be.

However, Palin didn’t mislead about everything;4sometimes she simply lied. She accused Obama of not authoring “a single major law or reform ... .” Yet, the Wikipedia article on Obama says: “During the 110th Congress, (Obama) helped create legislation regarding lobbying and electoral fraud, climate change, nuclear terrorism and care for returned U.S. military personnel.”

Finally, in an interview with Washington Post editors last week, Rick Davis, a Washington lobbyist and McCain’s campaign manager, said this election wasn’t about issues but about personalities. Well, that’s exactly what we have in Sarah Palin – a political personality. She’s smart; she delivered Matthew Scully’s speech superbly – and she twisted the facts like a seasoned Washington insider. In other words, just more of the same old stuff. Don’t we deserve better?

– Sandra Ellenberg, Durango

Passing up pet issues

Dear Editors,

Liberal voters are extremely idealistic. We all have a pet issue whether it is the environment, women’s rights, education, LGBTQ issues, access to health care, etc. That we are passionate is a strength. That we allow that passion to cloud our judgment is a weakness. Two months before the presidential election, I hear many Democrats and left-leaning Independents expressing doubts about Obama because they are not sure he cares as much about a specific issue as they do.

What people need to remember is that we are not electing one person; we are electing an entire administration. When the Republicans are voted out, their administration of conservative, corrupt cronies leaves with them. When Obama takes office, he will bring in hundreds of new people who will work for all of our pet issues.

Let’s not get so wrapped up in the minutia. There is a bigger picture. It’s time to roll up our sleeves and get to work to change the direction of our country.

– Diane Morazan, via e-mail

Playing the change card

Dear Editors,

For those of you unable to stand watching more than about 15 minutes of the GOP convention last week, I’d like to offer a brief review and synopsis. Watching the speeches and expecting any substance or ideas on dealing with the huge array of problems the last Republican president has burdened us with was futile but interesting. The real theme of this convention was character and change. I mean what else can the Republicans run on, their record? What struck me was how consistent the chanting was. “USA! USA!, Drill, Drill, Drill.”

War-for-oil! OK, a slight exaggeration, but not by much. It reminded me of those old B&W films of Hitler rousing up his base before unleashing his Blitzkreig. The crowd was mainly older, white and rather bored looking, dancing to crappy music and of course, chanting.

Sarah Palin clearly stole the show from John McBush. Attractive, younger and aggressive, she pumped fresh blood into a wheezing and sputtering campaign. This is what people were tuning in to see. Hardly any mention at all on the accomplishments of Bush and the last eight years of the GOP’s hideous control of Washington. Apparently, McCain was not going to let Obama have the change card without a fight. McCain for Change? Is he trying to say that “the only party capable of undoing the damage the previous president has done to this country and the world is the same party that created this mess?!” Change? VP pick Palin wants to outlaw all abortion and drill in ANWR. She’s also an avid hunter, maybe she’ll shoot an old man in the face just like Dick Cheney did.

If you really believe a 71 y/o white guy who’s been in Washington for nearly 30 years, voted with Bush 90 percent of the time and whose campaign staff is made up almost entirely of Washington lobbyists is going to bring positive change to our government, then good luck.

The message I took away from watching this dog and pony show was that a McCain/Palin administration could actually be worse than Bush/Cheney.

– Thanks, Bill Vana, Durango

McSame’s right hand

Dear Editors,

Let’s check to see who McSame has nominated for his VP. Here is a woman that stated in March 2007 she doesn’t know much about the Iraq war since she was so engrossed in running Alaska. She is a woman who believes the war is a task “from God.” She is a person who believes strangely enough that the war is being waged over oil. Well that’s one for the liberals. She supported the “Bridge to Nowhere,” even though at the convention she said, “I told those people in Washington, ‘Thanks but no thanks,’ saying that ‘If we want that bridge, we Alaskans will build it ourselves.’” Of course, she did come out against it when she was assured that the money would come to Alaska anyway. Oh, so that’s how they will build it anyway? Clever eh? Palin obtained $27 million in earmarks for the big city of Wasilla. The average per capita in earmarks is $50 per person. Wasilla has 8,000 residents. You do the math.

Palin has challenged global warming and is suing the U.S. government over protection of the polar bears. She has sanctioned previously illegal airborne wolf hunts and has offered a $150 bounty on the wolves. Palin wants to drill in ANWR. McSame opposes this. Palin believes it is God’s will to build a natural gas pipeline. “I think God’s will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that.” Give me a break!

This woman supports teaching creationism in public schools. She is anti-abortion, pro-abstinence-only policies (oops), and has slashed money to assist teen-aged mothers.

I could continue this for several pages but you get the point. Palin would like to start a race directly back to the mid ’50s.

Well I, for one, was a young adult in those years and regularly thank that same God that we survived the era.

– Frank Klein, via e-mail

Bouncing to the dark ages

To Whom It May Concern, 

I am writing you today on Sept, 14, 2008, to let Durango know that on the night of Sept. 13, a friend of mine and another man were kicked out of the Lost Dog Bar, apparently for embracing each other. They were given no warning to know their actions may have been offending to other patrons of the bar.

The bouncers of the bar came up to my friend and told him and his friend to “please leave the bar now.” But they failed to see the other couples in their front room “who were making out,” none of whom were asked to leave due to them being male-female couples. My friend was pretty embarrassed and disappointed and left the bar as requested. The bouncers and management really don’t usually care what’s going on in the bar as long as you’re spending money, but last night was different for my friends and me. There were multiple women dancing and grinding on each other, but nothing was said to them. When my friend exited the bar, my partner walked to the bouncers to ask why they had reacted so rash and harshly. The bouncers flagged down a passing police officer and said my partner was getting in their faces. The police officer then jumped from his car and asked what was going on. We explained the situation and were basically told that the bar had the right to refuse service to anyone.

You know, I agree if they were offending other people, but no one was bothered but the bouncers. We as gays and lesbians have many tough decisions in our lives that we have to choose to live ours lives a certain way. So I hate to have to worry about discrimination from a local bar we have been to many times, which would choose to take a night of celebration and turn it into this situation. I can say no one has to agree with our choices and lifestyles, but we don’t discriminate against straight couples and accept people for who they truly are. But to the owners of Lost Dog, this is 2008 and not the Middle Ages, so I would tell your overreacting bouncers to simply give a warning to people if they are doing something inappropriate. We live here and love our town, but this was a big step back in our daily struggle with how many people still view our lives and choices. Thank you for taking the time to read this, and I hope and wish that more people in this world would have respect for us as we do them. Have a great day and thank you for your time.

– Amber Robertson, via e-mail

Let history be the judge

Editors,

Is leadership predicated upon experience or wisdom? Experience without wisdom adds nothing to one’s ability to lead. Attacks on Obama’s experience are without merit in regard to his leadership. Yes, he has oratorical abilities (sadly lacking for the last eight years) but that is not why millions flock to hear him. Obama’s leadership mantle has been bestowed upon him because he, like no other contemporary, has recognized the grassroots movement for change that has been swelling in this nation over the last several years. Where did he recognize this groundswell? He recognized it through public service at the grassroots level.

Obama’s rise to leadership is as much a factor of history as it is his wisdom to recognize the flow of history. American history is replete with grassroots forces eventually finding the voice needed to give it coherence. Sometimes those voices were people already in leadership roles and others were from within the ranks. Franklin Roosevelt was called a traitor to his class when he championed the plight of the lowest Americans over the status quo. Martin Luther King Jr. did not start the Civil Rights Movement, it found him, and he became one of the strongest voices in history. The forces of the status quo accused Roosevelt and King of being traitors. History proves the charges were based upon fear and failure by the accusers to grasp the forces of history at work.

This election is about change versus the status quo; it is about wisdom on how to change versus continuation of a failed system that can only stay in power by appeals of fear and phony patriotism.

– Mark E. Qualls, via e-mail

Sensitivity issues

Dear Eds,

In mid-August, I was ready to sit out the election and concede the Oval Office to the “progressives.” Then something interesting happened. Obama dropped his walking-on-water schtick and appointed a fellow senator (and father of a financial lobbying firm consultant) that had four more years in the senate than John McCain. That’s a real bold way to promote change!

Can’t help but think that Obama had a reality check and came to the conclusion that his lack of leadership skills would have been exposed had he given H. Clinton the VP nod. Even Joe Biden has acknowledged that Hillary might have been a better pick.

What happened to Obama’s pledge to meet McCain “anywhere and anytime to debate the issues?” Nowhere can you find a list of the times Obama “reached across the aisle” to work with Republicans. You can find the holds he has put on judicial appointments and his record of 129 present votes in the Illinois senate. Maybe I’m not being fair as he has only shown up for work 143 days in the U.S. Senate. But, he still gets a paycheck!

When will the liberals learn that arrogant senators that are out of touch with real people (Gore, Kerry and now Obama) are losers? Obama ran an ad this week saying McCain couldn’t even send an e-mail. Almost instantly, a Boston Globe story from 2000 surfaced explaining how McCain’s war injuries prevented him from using a keyboard. And here I always thought that liberals were sensitive.

– Dennis Pierce, Durango