MYTH OF A MAVERICK is....?___________________

Bad news, everyone.  Mike Leavitt, Bush's Secretary for Health & Human Services, thinks that a physician's job includes helping to make a "social statement" by denying care to women in need.  On the possibility that an upcoming potential regulation from HHS would lead to a great number of doctors refusing to (1) perform abortions or (2) prescribe contraceptives, Leavitt offers this:

That hasn’t happened, but what if it did? Wouldn’t that be an important and legitimate social statement?

No.  It's not "legitimate" for doctors to proselytize to the same vulnerable women that they're licensed and trusted to care for.  Doctors are asked to care for patients in an open-minded manner that leaves the patient, guided by the doctor's objective wisdom, in control, principles that HHS would run roughshod over.  ScienceBlogger PalMD, a practicing physician and good friend, has this to say on a similar issue:

For a physician to deny a patient care based on their own beliefs is a cop-out, and is a coercive use of their paternalistic powers. This decision doesn't just deny them your personal services. It may cause permanent psychological harm to the patient. And that's not what doctoring is all about.

Just so.  The Hippocratic Oath does not read, "first, make a social statement."  Let this be a reminder to us about what we get when we elect Republicans. They may act cute and cuddly now, and promise no litmus tests for judges, and pretend that they might choose pro-choice running mates, but that’s the general election.  Once in office, from any Republican president, you can expect more stunts placing ideology over responsible medicine.  Remember that on November 4th. I'm looking at you, swing voters & PUMAs.  You can't afford to support the other side, or sit this one out

Link

Definition of maverick

NOUN:

1) An unbranded range animal, especially a calf that has become separated from its mother, traditionally considered the property of the first person who brands it.

Pathetic......NUFF SAID>  

How can you go BACK to a question that was never ask??????? Lucy...u got some spanning to do!!!! Check this out everybody........

MCCAIN: Could I — are we going to get back to the importance of Supreme Court Justices or should I mention –

WARREN: We will get to that.

MCCAIN: OK. All right. OK.

WARREN: You’re jumping ahead…

The McCain campaign is fighting hard against charges that McCain cheated on the rules of debate at a rightwing evangelical forum in a California megachurch over the weekend by cribbing the questions in advance. They are so desperate, apparently, that a McCain operative even played the POW card, citing McCain’s imprisonment by the Vietnamese 40 years ago as evidence somehow that he did not cheat Saturday night.
What’s suspicious here is that the topic of the Supreme Court had not come up in McCain’s interview, so it was not a topic to go “back” to.

Even “Pastor Rick” Warren, the multimillionaire evangelist who hosted the event — and who clearly favored McCain in the questioning — has admitted that McCain was not sequestered during the live session with Obama.

Warren told the live audience in the hall and on CNN that McCain was in a “cone of silence” to prevent him from having the advantage of hearing the questions in advance. In fact, McCain was in his car during much of Obama’s session, where he certainly could have listened to the interview.

And this exchange from the forum appears to indicate that McCain knew that Warren was going to ask him a very specific question about the Supreme Court. Notice how McCain asks if he can go “back” to a question about the court:

    WARREN: Let’s deal with abortion. I, as a pastor, have to deal with this all the time, every different angle, every different pain, all of the decisions and all of that. Forty million abortions since Roe v. Wade. Some people, people who believe that life begins at conception, believe that’s a holocaust for many people. What point is a baby entitled to human rights?

    MCCAIN: At the moment of conception. (APPLAUSE). I have a 25- year pro-life record in the Congress, in the Senate. And as president of the United States, I will be a pro-life president. And this presidency will have pro-life policies. That’s my commitment. That’s my commitment to you.

    WARREN: OK, we don’t have to beleaguer on that one. Define marriage.

    MCCAIN: A union — a union between man and woman, between one man and one woman. That’s my definition of marriage.

    Could I — are we going to get back to the importance of Supreme Court Justices or should I mention –

    WARREN: We will get to that.

    MCCAIN: OK. All right. OK.

    WARREN: You’re jumping ahead…

    (CROSSTALK)

    MCCAIN: When we speak of the issue of the rights to the unborn, we need to talk about judges. But, anyway, go ahead.

What’s suspicious here is that the topic of the Supreme Court had not come up in McCain’s interview, so it was not a topic to go “back” to. On the other hand, Obama had been asked a question about the Supreme Court during his earlier session, which McCain supposedly had not heard...

-- Source: Reuters

State             Obama (D)   McCain (R)   RCP AverageRCP Status 

                             In the year of.....2004                      2000

Ohio (20)         45.3           46.8             McCain +1.5    

                                  Toss Up  Bush +2.1              Bush +3.5

Florida (27)     44.8           47.4              McCain +2.6   

                                  Toss Up  Bush +5.0              Bush +0.1

Virginia (13)    45.7           46.3              McCain +0.6   

                                  Toss Up  Bush +8.2               Bush +8.1

Michigan (17)  46.0          42.8              Obama +3.2  

                                   Toss Up  Kerry +3.4               Gore +5.2

Missouri (11)   45.0           47.3             McCain +2.3  

                                    Toss Up   Bush +7.2   Bush +3.3

Colorado (9)     45.3           45.8               McCain +0.5  

                                  Toss Up  Bush +4.7    Bush +8.4

Nevada (5)------           

                                  Toss Up  Bush +2.6    Bush +3.5

New Mexico (5)------   

                                  Toss Up   Bush +0.7    Gore +0.1

New Hampshire (4)   44.7              43.3               Obama +1.4  

                                  Toss Up   Kerry +1.3    Bush +1.3

The Electoral College is a body of 538 popularly elected representatives who formally select the President and Vice President of the United States.

Rather than directly voting for the President and Vice President, U.S. citizens cast votes for electors. Electors are technically free to vote for anyone eligible to be President, but in practice pledge to vote for specific candidates[1] and voters cast ballots for favored Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates by voting for correspondingly pledged electors.[2] Most states allow voters to choose between statewide slates of electors pledged to vote for the Presidential and Vice Presidential 'tickets' of various parties; the ticket that receives the most votes statewide 'wins' all of the votes cast by electors from that state. U.S. Presidential campaigns concentrate on winning the popular vote in a combination of states that choose a majority of the electors, rather than campaigning to win the most votes nationally.

The Electoral College is composed of 538 electors.[3] Each state has a number of electors equal to the number of its Senators and Representatives in the United States Congress. Additionally, the District of Columbia is given a number of electors equal to the number held by the smallest states.[4] U.S. territories are not represented in the Electoral College.

Each elector casts one vote for President and one vote for Vice President. In order to be elected, a candidate must have a majority (at least 270) of the electoral votes cast for that office. Should no candidate for President win a majority of the electoral votes, the choice is referred to the House of Representatives.[5] Should no candidate for Vice President possess a majority of the electoral votes, the choice is given to the Senate.[6]

The Constitution allows each state legislature to designate a method of choosing electors. Forty-eight states and the District of Columbia have adopted a winner-take-all popular vote rule where voters choose between statewide slates of electors pledged to vote for a specific Presidential and Vice Presidential candidate. The candidate that wins the most votes in the state wins the support of all of that state’s electors. Two other states, Maine and Nebraska, use a tiered system where a single elector is chosen within each Congressional district and two electors are chosen by statewide popular vote. Because the vast majority of electors are chosen by a statewide vote, U.S. Presidential elections are effectively an amalgamation of 51 separate and simultaneous first past the post elections, rather than a single national election.

Candidates with less than a plurality of the nationwide popular vote can win a Presidential election. This has happened on several occasions in American history.[7] Critics argue the Electoral College is inherently undemocratic and gives certain swing states disproportionate clout in selecting the President and Vice President. Adherents argue that the Electoral College is an important and distinguishing feature of the federal system, and protects the rights of smaller states. Numerous constitutional amendments have been submitted seeking a replacement of the Electoral College with a direct popular vote. However, no submission has ever successfully passed both Houses of Congress.

Barack Obama 228

183 Solid     45 Leaning

John McCain 178

139 Solid     39 Leaning

Toss Up 132

NOW this is a POLL we can use! Obama08/12

132 Toss Up

RCP Average   07/23 - 08/18--

47.4         44.8       McCain +2.6

Rasmussen   08/18 - 08/18     700 LV 

  48          46           McCain +2

Not bad at all.

Looks like someone doesnt have spell check. By E&P Staff Published: August 19, 2008 7:55 AM ET NEW YORK One of the most amusing typos of the season turned up for awhile overnight in a major Associated Press dispatch. Some in the liberal blogosphere, who have often criticized Sen. Joe Lieberman -- the Democrat turned Independent who has endorsed John McCain -- found it all too apt. The typo, in an article on the upcoming vice presidential picks due from McCain and Barack Obama and written by one of the top AP political scribes, Nedra Pickler, was soon corrected but can still be found viewed via Google at numerous news sites early this morning. After focusing on Obama, the article discusses several possible McCain picks, and relates, "His top contenders are said to include Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Less traditional choices mentioned include former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge, an abortion-rights supporter,

************************************

and Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman,

the Democratic vice presidential prick

in 2000 who now is an independent."

************************************

It's still up at such sites as the Houston Chronicle, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Cleveland's Plain Dealer and many more

ooops or maybe not...

The next President of the United States Of America

According to NPR, there is a half sister that doesn't exist, according to Cindy.

Documents show Kathleen Anne Hensley was born to Jim and Mary Jeanne Hensley on Feb. 23, 1943. They had been married for six years when Kathleen was born.

Jim Hensley was a bombardier on a B-17, flying over Europe during World War II.

He was injured and sent to a facility in West Virginia to recuperate. During that time, while still married to Mary Jeanne, Hensley met another woman — Marguerite Smith. Jim divorced Mary Jeanne and married Marguerite in 1945.

Whoa, does that history ring a bell??

Why is it, the more I learn about Cindy McCain the more I dislike her?

(Update - picture of Kathleen Portalski courtesy of Scarce)

When Hensley died in 2000, his will named not only Portalski but also a daughter of his wife Marguerite from her earlier marriage. So, Cindy McCain may be the only product of Jim and Marguerite's marriage, but she is not the only child of either.

She was, however, the sole inheritor of his considerable estate.
(clip...)

The Portalskis live in a modest home in central Phoenix. Kathleen is retired, as is her husband. Nicholas Portalski is a firefighter and emergency medical technician looking for work.

They say it would have been nice if they were left some of the Hensley fortune.

They also say they are Democrats, but Nicholas Portalski says he had another reason for coming forward.

"The fact that we don't exist," he says. "The fact that we've never been recognized, and then Cindy has to put such a fine point on it by saying something that's not true. Recently, again and again. It's just very, very hurtful."

Kathleen Portalski says she'd like an acknowledgment and an apology.

Kathleen was left about $10,000, and her credit cards were cut off the day of the funeral. Looks like the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

By GottaLaff

Fired up and Ready to go! to the WHITE HOUSE!  WOO! HOO! 

 America > United States > Washington DC > White House Tours   White House Tours

Barack Obama 228

183 Solid     45 Leaning

John McCain 163

139 Solid     24 Leaning

Toss Up 147

147 Toss Up

http://thepoliticalcarnival.blogspot.com/2008/08/approval-ratings-public-v-mccain.html

Great ad on McCain.....

Troops serving abroad have given nearly six times as much money to Obama's presidential campaign as they have to McCain's, the Center for Responsive Politics said.

The results also are striking because they favored Obama, who never has served in the military. McCain meanwhile, is a decorated war veteran who spent nearly five years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. The Arizona senator graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy and had a 22-year career as a naval aviator.

"Cross in the Dirt" story stolen from Solzhenitsyn (updated X2) by rickrocket Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:32:42 AM PDT

I was watching the forum last night and decided that since I hadn't eaten yet, I would try to listen to John McCain speak.  I was doing OK with the "my friends" and the evil chuckle when I heard him talk about his POW story of the cross in the dirt.  That was when I couldn't take it anymore.

It just sounded so fake and so contrived, so I did a little research about it.  Someone on here said it sounded like a scene from Ben-Hur, so I did a google search about Ben-Hur and cross in the sand and such.  No dice.  But I searched around a little bit more and here is what I found.  A story about Alexander Solzhenitsyn from his times in the Soviet Gulags.

    Along with other prisoners, he worked in the fields day after day, in rain and sun, during summer and winter. His life appeared to be nothing more than backbreaking labor and slow starvation. The intense suffering reduced him to a state of despair.

    On one particular day, the hopelessness of his situation became too much for him. He saw no reason to continue his struggle, no reason to keep on living. His life made no difference in the world. So he gave up.

    Leaving his shovel on the ground, he slowly walked to a crude bench and sat down. He knew that at any moment a guard would order him to stand up, and when he failed to respond, the guard would beat him to death, probably with his own shovel. He had seen it happen to other prisoners.

    As he waited, head down, he felt a presence. Slowly he looked up and saw a skinny old prisoner squat down beside him. The man said nothing. Instead, he used a stick to trace in the dirt the sign of the Cross. The man then got back up and returned to his work.

    As Solzhenitsyn stared at the Cross drawn in the dirt his entire perspective changed. He knew he was only one man against the all-powerful Soviet empire. Yet he knew there was something greater than the evil he saw in the prison camp, something greater than the Soviet Union.  He knew that hope for all people was represented by that simple Cross. Through the power of the Cross, anything was possible.

    Solzhenitsyn slowly rose to his feet, picked up his shovel, and went back to work. Outwardly, nothing had changed. Inside, he had received hope.

[From Luke Veronis, "The Sign of the Cross"; Communion, issue 8, Pascha 1997.]

So, it is very interesting that Mr. Solzhenitsyn and Mr. McCain had the same Christian guard/prisoner experience.  Or maybe it is all just a made up story.  Somehow I doubt that Alexander Solzhenitsyn heard John McCain's story and copied it.

UPDATE:  This story was actually excerpted from "The Gulag Archipelago" by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, which was released in the US in 1973.

UPDATE X2:  It seems that McCain is a bit of a Solzhenitsyn fan, as evidenced in his article in the NY Sun here. Thanks to Turing for the link.

I had a feeling that story was fake. WOW! McCain really needs to get aquainted with the internet. lol