Palin’s Problem: Inauthentic

Let’s give Governor Palin her dues. She came prepared and she performed brilliantly in the debates. She was on message and she got in her shots where she could. Well done Gov. Palin.

Here’s what bothered me. She seemed strikingly inauthentic. Her “oh, shucks by golly” act seemed put on. Did anyone respond positively when she winked at the camera? It didn’t have the desired affect on me. It seemed like pandering.

Her false-folksy comment “Say it ain’t so, Joe,” was obviously rehearsed. It was a sound-bite wanna-be. And what was it that Joe Biden said that caused Gov. Palin to react so? He mentioned George Bush; a president Gov. Palin insists should only be spoken of in past tense. Trying to burry a sitting president so he doesn’t stink up the hopes of his party is truly inauthentic.

Let’s be clear – John McCain and Sarah Palin are Republicans, the same party that brought you the last eight years of failed policies. To pretend otherwise is the ultimate in insincerity.

When she claimed that John McCain was talking about the American workforce when he said the “fundamentals of the economy are strong,” it seemed disingenuous. Did you believe her?

It seemed contrived when she blamed predator lenders for forcing people to buy houses that they could not afford. After all, it was John McCain who pushed through the deregulation to allow the financial system to get out of hand. When she outright refused to answer the question about deregulation, her words rang hollow.

Her “facts” about Obama’s plans to raise taxes were spurious and will not stand to any fair fact-check. Saying that Obama is proposing nearly a trillion dollars in new spending is patently false.

Governor Palin’s defense of John McCain’s healthcare plan was…well, indefensible. Joe Biden pointed out that John McCain’s plan is to tax our healthcare benefits to the tune of $3.6 trillion. McCain’s plan will cause 20 million people to be dropped from their employer’s healthcare coverage, forcing them to try to replace a $12,000 healthcare policy with a $5,000 tax deduction.

Putting aside for a moment the McCain-Palin plan to continue the legacy of George W. Bush, I have a bigger problem with Sarah Palin. She is inauthentic.

Don’t just Boot Bush – Reboot

It’s pretty clear that the American people want to boot Bush & Co. out of the Whitehouse. Barack Obama’s message of change absolutely resonated in Iowa, stunning the country with an astounding win. Even on the Republican side, the insurgent who criticized the President’s “bunker mentality” beat the corporate Bush-apologist in Iowa. Change has been the recurring theme of this campaign so far. However, I think we need more than change. We need to not just boot out Bush: we need to reboot the system.

Let’s face it. If any of the Democrats are elected, change will come. There is little doubt that Barack Obama, John Edwards or Hillary Clinton would change some of the Bush policies. Let’s be honest here. If you read the position papers of all three Democrats, you will find that most of the differences in position are tinkering around the edges. The core messages are the same. Healthcare is broken and needs to be fixed. The environment is in crisis and must be healed. Education is weak and has to be supported.

We also need to restore America’s standing in the world. The pictures of Abu Ghraib still circulate on the internet as inspiration for would-be terrorists. The Bush Administration has held prisoners without trial, based on secret evidence, while Bush hides behind a veil of “state secrets” and executive privilege. It is shameful.

One difference between Barack Obama and his Democratic rivals is his ability to not just change the reputation of America in the world, but to reset it, to give us a fresh start, to reboot the political system. The election of Barack Obama as president does more than continue the conversation with different players and an altered message. It completely changes the context of the conversation.

There are times when a system doesn’t just need to close the old programs and open new ones. Until we completely reset the system, there are programs that can continue to run in the background unnoticed. We need to reboot with Obama.

Can a Political Speech Make you Cry?

Can a political speech make you cry? This one did. God, I hope this man means what he says. Let’s hope our next president comes within 10% of this rhetoric. We would all be well served to think about what John Edwards has to say and then go out and act…today. Don’t wait for the next election. Join One Corps and get started today.

Sip 'n' Spit

Have you ever seen a guy on a sitcom reading the paper while sipping coffee and then suddenly spray the coffee all over the place? Comedians call that a “sip and spit.” Well, this morning I did a sip and spit, 21st Century style.

I was searching Google News for articles about the pending legislation to allow the federal government to negotiate prescription drug prices for Medicare Part D. Just as I took a sip of my Starbucks, I spotted the name of the person who is leading the opposition to this common sense approach. As I was wiping the mocha from my monitor, I stared at the name of the leader of the opposition – Iowa’s own Senator Chuck Grassley. What in the world is my Senator doing opposing cheaper drugs?

Let’s start with this assumption. Reasonable people can disagree, so I’d like to give Senator Grassley the benefit of the doubt instead of assuming that Senator Grassley is in the pocket of “big pharma.” The article quotes Senator Grassley as saying “Federal price negotiations would unravel the whole structure of the Medicare drug benefit, which relies on competing private plans.” I’m not sure how Senator Grassley reached this conclusion. Is he saying that if we don’t let the drug companies have their way, they will collapse?

Interestingly, just below Senator Grassley’s quote in the article is this fact. “Families USA, a senior advocacy organization, released a study Tuesday that found that prices for the most commonly prescribed medications are an average 58 percent higher under Medicare prescription-drug plans than those paid by the Department of Veterans Affairs.” That is because the VA is allowed to negotiate prices, while Medicare is not. So, doesn’t that point to the fact that, when we allow our government to use its massive buying power to negotiate on our behalf, we win?

This just seems like common sense, doesn’t it? You don’t have to be Warren Buffett to figure out that the government has massive buying power. If Wal-Mart can use its buying power to negotiate $4 prescriptions, shouldn’t our government be allowed to do the same thing on our behalf? How can cheaper drugs for seniors be a bad thing? Why would our Senator oppose such a common sense approach?

You know, now that I think of it, there might be a second reason to “sip and spit.” Have you ever sipped sour milk? When you sip something repulsive, you just naturally sip and spit. Maybe Iowans should sip this idea that negotiating better drug prices for seniors is a bad thing, and then spit it right out. This is an idea that we just can’t swallow.