George A. Sprecace M.D.,
J.D., F.A.C.P. and Allergy Associates of New
RESPONSE (Archives)...Daily Commentary on News of the Day
This is a new section. It will
quick reactions by myself to news and events of the day, day by day, in
this rapid-fire world of ours. Of course, as in military
a rapid response in one direction may occasionally have to be followed
by a "strategic withdrawal" in another direction. Charge that to
"the fog of war", and to the necessary flexibility any mental or
campaign must maintain to be effective. But the mission will
be the same: common sense, based upon facts and "real politick",
by a visceral sense of Justice and a commitment to be pro-active.
That's all I promise.
to return to the current Rapid Response list
SUNDAY, November 30, 2008
Joy and Joe... and I talk about "giving
scandal". Ms. Brown should be beatified...and these "Bishops"
should be defrocked. I was unaware of what she reports regarding
the recent State initiatives and the stance taken by those
pusillanimous State Catholic representatives. I plan to give her
report the broadest possible exposure, including direct letters of
inquiry to our own Bishop Cote, to the Connecticut Catholic Conference,
to my friend Bishop Loverde of Arlington, Va., to the National
Conference of Catholic Bishops and to the Papal Nuncio. I
will share this with my Pastor and with several priest
friends. and I will withhold all financial contributions
except those sent directly to my parish until I receive a responsive
the crux of the problem. Will call soon. Love, Joy
As I've suggested previously, I think
the Catholic bishops missed a real opportunity here and in other states
like Georgia and Montana. Imagine how the bills would have done
if the bishops had supported them publicly. They are trying to
build a house on the shifting sands of politics rather than the rock of
principle. Judie Brown sums it up well in the piece below.
Judie Brown, Personhood Amendment
and Catholic Bishops
- - -
remain steadfast, but.
By Judie Brown
Over the last few weeks, something rather
bizarre has occurred in the pro-life movement and it is difficult for
me to get my arms around it. So, I have decided to share the puzzlement
I am experiencing in the hopes that others, upon reading this, will
join me in a fervent Lenten prayer for healing.
This past January 17, as a personhood
proposal was being presented as a way to amend Georgia's state
constitution, the two bishops in that state made a public statement in
opposition to it. They wrote, "As the Catholic bishops of Georgia we,
along with our brother bishops throughout the world, have unceasingly
advocated for the sanctity of human life and continually supported
legislative efforts to increase protection of human life."
They claim to agree with the "objectives"
of the proposed state constitutional amendment but oppose the approach
because it "does not provide a realistic opportunity for ending or
reducing abortion in Georgia."
A few weeks later, on February 26, the
two Catholic bishops in Montana issued a statement expressing their
views on a proposed personhood amendment to the Montana state
constitution. They wrote, "We, the Catholic Bishops of Montana, remain
steadfast in our commitment to defend human life in all of its stages,
from conception to natural death."
They went on to commend the "objective"
of the efforts to amend the state's constitution, but pointed out that
they support efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution rather than the
state's. They wrote that they "do not believe that CI-100 is the most
beneficial venue to pursue necessary change." They listed several
strategies which they deem appropriate at the state level, including
funding pregnancy centers, providing support for expectant mothers and
passing a law requiring parental notice with judicial bypass prior to a
minor acquiring an abortion.
Two days later, the Colorado Catholic
Conference issued a statement regarding the proposal by Colorado for
Equal Rights to amend the Colorado state constitution with personhood
language. In that statement, the Colorado Catholic Conference said, "We
commend the goal of this effort to end abortion. but we do not believe
that this year's Colorado Personhood Amendment is the best means to
pursue this issue at this time."
The Colorado conference denied that any
of the bishops had lent their support to the personhood initiative
being promoted by Colorado for Equal Rights even though Bishop Tafoya,
one of the three bishops in Colorado, had his picture taken with the
campaign leader, Keith Mason, and had given every indication that he
supported the effort.
The thread that ties these three separate
actions together is the realization that even though these seven
Catholic bishops in three states all share the goal of doing all they
can to end the slaughter of the innocents, they also agree that
personhood amendments to state constitutions are not realistic, timely
or the best way to do things. Statements like those I have just
excerpted are the source of my confusion.
For the record and, if I may say so, for
the babies, allow me to point a few things out.
It was not anyone in the pro-life
movement, but rather United States Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun
who wrote in the Roe v. Wade decision, "If this suggestion of
personhood is established, the appellant's [abortion] case, of course,
collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically
by the [14th] Amendment."
In other words, if those who understand
that a preborn child is a person from the point of his creation want to
restore absolute legal protection to children, then personhood must be
established in the law. Justice Blackmun did not tell us how personhood
could be established, but he did give us a clue and this is why so many
pro-life activists have chosen to do what they can to propose
personhood amendments to the various state constitutions. The hope is
that one of these proposals will be passed by the people and if it
eventually arrives at the U.S. Supreme Court, the actual merits of
personhood will be argued.
Further, on March 7, 1974, Cardinal
Humberto Medeiros spoke at a United States Senate Judiciary Committee
hearing for the entire National Conference of Catholic Bishops and told
the senators that any proposed constitutional amendment ".should
clearly establish that, from conception onward, the unborn child is a
human person in the terms of the Constitution."
In that same statement, Cardinal Medeiros
also made it perfectly clear that every proposal should be "universal
and without exceptions."
So, a totally pro-abortion Supreme Court
justice and a cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church both came to the
same conclusion: Personhood is the key to ending the tyranny of the
abortion empire in America. And yet when we have three actively
dedicated pro-life organizations pursuing the very goal that Cardinal
Medeiros encouraged, we also have Catholic bishops publicly distancing
themselves from such efforts and opposing them in a variety of ways.
This is discouraging, but not surprising.
In fact, it is a harbinger of things to come if those committed to
pro-life principle do not press on rather than succumb to a spirit of
Now is not the time to accept defeat
simply because of the negative statements coming forth from Catholic
conferences whether in the east, the west or anywhere in between. We
cannot change the statements of those Church leaders who have chosen to
oppose personhood efforts, but on the other hand, we cannot abandon the
very principle that is foundational to all pro-life efforts not only in
Montana, Georgia and Colorado - but everywhere else.
Among the many legal minds who have
contributed to the fundamental strategy that underlies the necessary
pro-life legal efforts in these three states is that of the wise Notre
Dame law professor Charles Rice. In 35 years, he has never changed his
perspective on personhood. What he said in 1973 he continues to say
today. He teaches that it was the denial of personhood that was the
foundation for everything that the Nazis did to the Jews, the
Christians and others under their regime. The idea of relegating entire
classes of people to subhuman status was the crux of the Nazi
euthanasia program and all the gruesome acts that followed it.
Professor Rice ties that very attitude of
annihilation by dehumanization directly to the abortion industry of
today. And as he has written, the affirmation of the non-personhood of
the preborn child means that the particular human beings who fall into
this category are subject to all manner of cruelty and abuse, including
death because they have no rights - they are not human beings according
to the law.
This alone should give rise to a total
advocacy of personhood on the part of every single pro-life American in
our day and age. Whether a Catholic prelate or a man on the street,
there is no denying that the culture of death now has a tragic grip on
the thought process of those in authority in our nation and that must
As Professor Rice so eloquently wrote,
"Roe applies precisely the principle that underlay the Nazi
extermination of the Jews, that an innocent human being can be declared
to be a non-person and subjected to death at the discretion of those
who regard him as unfit or unwanted. The justices, who triggered the
abortion avalanche by their own free decision, are no more defensible
than the Nazi judges who acquiesced in the crimes of that regime and
the functionaries who administered its decrees at Auschwitz and similar
As if that were not enough, he concluded
on this sober note, "The Court will allow states to enact marginal
restrictions on surgical abortions, but those abortions are becoming
obsolete because of early abortifacient drugs and devices."
So, I am left bewildered and anguished by
these questions: Why not personhood? How can one be steadfast and at
the same time oppose such sensible strategies?
As Alan Keyes warned, "The evil that we
fight is but a shadow of the evil that we do."
Judie Brown is president of American
Life League and a member of the Pontifical Academy for Life. For three
decades, she has advocated personhood declarations in law.
FRIDAY and SATURDAY, November 28 and 29, 2008
So this is what has become of "THE LAND OF THE FREE AND THE HOME OF THE
Wal-Mart shoppers who trampled NY worker
THURSDAY, November 25 through 27, 2008
WE IN AMERICA HAVE MUCH TO BE THANKFUL FOR...TOO MUCH, IN FACT. A
country with 5% of the world's population should not be using over 30%
of the world's resources. For one thing, that's obscene.
For another, we are now seeing what happens to an economy that relies
for its life-blood on that kind of perpetual consumerism - whether we
can really afford it or not - instead of providing the food,
innovation, technology, stable financial structure and military prowess
that the whole world needs. This country has throughout its
history moved forward mainly through revolution, civil war, world wars,
crises and assassinations. This modus operandi may well have run
its course. And, as with the Fall of the British Empire beginning
in 1781, American Manifest Destiny may have begun to crumble beginning
with the 21st century. That is, unless we change.
Meanwhile, consider this: 1) check out the column by Cal Thomas
entitled "Mission Accomplished ll" (in The Day, Wednesday, Nov. 26),
especially in context with the approval by the Iraqii Parliament of the
withdrawal agreement with the U.S. forces; 2) the terrorists attacks in
India...and the lack of such attacks here. Will Democrats swallow
their bile long enough to give President George W. Bush some credit for
this state of affairs in America? We have much to be thankful to
our Creator for.
MONDAY, November 24, 2008
As you look through these
striking and poignant pictures (www.boston.com/bigpicture/2008/11/afghanistans_korengal_valley),
please take a moment to thank-and say a prayer for-the marvelous young
men and women of this great country of ours who have volunteered to
serve her in the Armed Forces, knowing that they, most probably, will
be going in harm's way on her behalf somewhere in the world. And
remember that each and every one of them deserves, and is entitled to,
our full and unconditional support for them and the mission they are
carrying out-without restriction and without partisan politics,
something our Congress would do well to remember. - Steve Percy
SATURDAY and SUNDAY, November 22 and 23, 2008
The time has come to say it: President George W. Bush has become a big
disappointment. Yes, he united the nation after 9/11. Yes,
revelations in the coming decade will probably support his decision to
practise pre-emptive self-defense by invading Iraq in March,
2003. Yes, he will be proven to have prevented further massive
attacks on this country during his time in office. And yes, he
drew the line at the abomination of abortion. These are important
But things go downhill from there. The first massive error was in
not firing Donald Rumsfeld by the Summer of 2003. He placed much too
much emphasis on "loyalty" despite grave incompetence, there and
elsewhere. He failed to rally Americans to the need for all of us to
share some of the burdens of his decisions..especially our military
needs...through a fair Draft, through rationing of vital resources like
foreign oil, and through other homefront actions. He failed to
demonstrate the hypocracy of many other nations who were attacking
America while undercutting our efforts, on behalf of all, through their
massive trading with the enemies. He failed to stop the
disintegration of his own Republican Party...through uncritical
adherence to the demands of the Fundamentalist Right and through
complicity in their newly-found spendthrift ways. He was asleep
at the switch, and was even complicit, in basing our national economy
on Americans' spending their brains out - on baseless credit -
and thereby provoking the current financial crash. I could go on.
But all you have to do is re-read my comments on Rapid Response on this
web-site throughout the last years since March, 2003. It's all
One final point. President Bush could not have prevented the
Democrats' successful efforts to tie John McCain to his unpopular
Presidency. But could have and should have aggressively explained
and defended his own actions to the public...rather than becoming
politically comatose and thereby guaranteeing the outcome. His
"Legacy"? I give him a "C".
FRIDAY, November 17 through 21, 2008
To re-cap. During the election campaign, I referred to Barack Obama
first as "Elmer Gantry on Prozak", then as an "empty suit", and finally
as the "Manchurian Candidate". I never thought he was
stupid...but I never could figure out who he really was. After he
was elected in a collective national aura of self-hypnosis, I stated in
this section that his hardest task would be keeping at bay the crazies
in his own party.
We are now starting to see who President-Elect Obama is: smart,
pragmatic and - most importantly - aware of his own weaknesses.
His choices for his Cabinet can be called "Clinton III": smart,
pragmatic, experienced and centrist. Not a "Change", but a good
sign, considering the leftist alternatives baying from Congress.
A real test will come quickly, as his group trys to deal with "Health
Care Reform". They can do a lot of good (see my numerous articles
on this web site, extending over thirty years). Or they can evoke
a great leap backward by ignoring the realities: more "want" than need;
lack of personal responsibility for self; need for personal financial
incentives and dis-incentives in seeking medical care; recognition of
the deep disaffection developed among health care professionals after
decades of treatment as second-class citizens.... We still don't
know who Barack Obama is...really. But at least the test format
is now established. Let's see.
SUNDAY, November 10 through 16, 2008
The Economy. There are two possible explanations for the current
display of action/inaction by our fearless leaders: 1) they don't know
what the hell is going on and are without a clue regarding how to
correct it and avoid this in the future; or 2) they do know what is
going on and are about to save Wall Street and the fat cats while again
screwing the average Joe. Scenario #2 is the worse of the
two. David Brooks explains it best in his most recent column
("Bailout To Nowhere", in The Day Saturday, November 15). Now
that the elections are over, can't those elected do for a change what's
for the common good instead of following their cynical pre-election
"promises"? Without effective debridement of this extensive
economic wound to the national body, the infection will spread into the
sepsis of a full-blown and prolonged Depression. Franklin
Delan'Obama please take note!
Meanwhile, the reported profusion of threats against the
President-Elect is outrageous. Any and all such public comments
should be promptly punished to the fullest extent of Federal Law as
being akin to "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater'".
SUNDAY, November 9, 2008
The Republican Party does not need just an oil
change and lube job. It needs a new motor to drive its better and
lasting ideas, a new suspension to support those positions with facts
and not simply with emotion and tradition, a new catalytic converter to
expunge the more odorous parts of its reputation, and a new
transmission to get its message from the motor to the driving wheels.
The body is OK. Simply giving it a new paint job would be rightly
seen as "putting lipstick on a pig". So let's get to work.
1) The one absolute that cannot be modified in any way, the only
Republican position that is a matter of life and death, is abortion: at
any time from the moment of conception; for any reason other than to
save the life of the mother. The Republican Party's constant position
must be reversal of Roe v. Wade, reversion of the issue to the States,
and a U.S. Constitutional Amendment declaring the conceptus a human
being with all of the accompanying rights - especially the right to
life. That will lose votes. It will lose some elections. But it will
move the national discussion along to final acceptance.
2) All other positions can be modified, depending upon existing
circumstances. This includes the desireable "strict interpretation" of
the Constitution. The "eight hundred pound gorilla sits where it
wants to sit". So work at selecting the most compatible judges - and
let them do their work.
3) We can work toward a more moral society, especially by
example. But we cannot legislate it. That work is for
parents and for societal pressures on individuals and
4) Immigration is a foundation-stone of this mation. The DAR and
SAR were immigrants. Only Indians were not immigrants. This
problem must be addressed: legally, practically and humanely.
Nativism is a self-inflicted wound, one of many, for the Republican
5) Civil Union, YES. Gay Marriage between two committed persons,
NO. Adoption by responsible gay couples, YES. Artificial methods
of birthing by gay couples, NO.
6) Individual responsibility, YES. Social responsibility by
society to help its poor, YES, by both volunteer action and by
government action when necessary. (See the responses of Hoover and of
FDR to the severe dislocations of the Great Depression).
7) Lower taxes and responsible government spending, YES, except when
the times and national challenges require a different approach.
8) Free enterprise, YES, but under the watchful eye of society to
encourage fairness in the face of the baser instincts of human nature.
(Alan Greenspan, take note!)
9) International trade, YES, subject to realistically fair
10) Cooperation with other world nations, YES, but always consistent
with our own self-interest and with a real-world view - not with
I could go on. But the perennial argument between "conservative" and
"progressive" views, within both the Republican and Democratic Parties,
has gone on since the founding of this unique nation. It has
become clear that, for the Democrats, it is a matter of barely ordered
chaos that makes good theatre; but for the Republicans is is a matter
of organizational life and death. FELLOW REPUBLICANS, WAKE UP!
SATURDAY, November 7 and 8, 2008
Res ipsa loquitur. GS
The world seen from Rome
Facts of When Human Life Begins
With Maureen Condic of the Westchester Institute
LAKE CITY, Utah, NOV. 7, 2008 (Zenit.org).- The conclusion of scientist
Maureen Condic that human life begins at a defined moment of conception
isn't an opinion based on a belief, but rather a "reflection of the way
the world is."
a senior fellow of the Westchester Institute for Ethics and the Human
Person, published her conclusions in a white paper titled "When Does
Human Life Begin?" In the report she addresses the topic using current
scientific data in human embryology.
associate professor of neurobiology and anatomy at the University of
Utah School of Medicine, Condic received her doctorate in neurobiology
from the University of California, Berkely. Her teaching focuses
primarily on embryonic development, and she directs the University of
Utah School of Medicine's course in human embryology.
the interview with ZENIT, Condic explains why the question of when
human life begins is important to address, and what scientific criteria
she used to define a "moment of conception."
This is the first white paper for the Westchester Institute. Why this
topic? Why now?
This is an important question, with significant biological, ethical and
philosophical dimensions. As I note in the paper, resolving when human
life begins has important implications for a number of controversial
political topics, including abortion and human embryonic stem cell
a scientist and as director of a medical school course in human
embryology, I have been considering the general question of when human
life begins for quite a few years. The argument put forward in the
white paper has grown out of discussions with philosophers, scientists
and ethicists, as well as out of my own research in this area.
this topic has come to the fore in the lead-up to the presidential
election. While the topic of when life begins has generally been
avoided by politicians and government officials, recently a number of
prominent figures have offered their interpretations, making this a
timely subject to consider with scientific rigor and neutrality.
You define the moment of conception as the second it takes for the
sperm and egg to fuse and form a zygote. What were the scientific
principles you used to arrive at this conclusion?
The central question of "when does human life begin" can be stated in a
somewhat different way: When do sperm and egg cease to be, and what
kind of thing takes their place once they cease to be?
address this question scientifically, we need to rely on sound
scientific argument and on the factual evidence. Scientists make
distinctions between different cell types (for example, sperm, egg and
the cell they produce at fertilization) based on two simple criteria:
Cells are known to be different because they are made of different
components and because they behave in distinct ways.
two criteria are used throughout the scientific enterprise to
distinguish one cell type from another, and they are the basis of all
scientific (as opposed to arbitrary, faith-based or political)
distinctions. I have applied these two criteria to the scientific data
concerning fertilization, and they are the basis for the conclusion
that a new human organism comes into existence at the moment of
Many in the scientific world would say that fertilization doesn't
happen in a moment, but rather that it is a process that comes to an
end at the end of the first cell cycle, which is 24 hours later. Why is
it important to define a "moment of conception," as opposed to a
"process of fertilization"?
It is not important to somehow define a "moment" or a "process" of
fertilization in the abstract. It is important to base conclusions and
judgments about human embryos on sound scientific reasoning and on the
best available scientific evidence.
this analysis led to a different conclusion -- for example, that
fertilization is a "process" -- I would have accepted this conclusion
as scientifically valid. However, a scientific analysis of the best
available data does not support the conclusion that fertilization is a
"process"; it supports the conclusion that fertilization is an event
that takes less than a second to complete.
events of the first 24 hours following sperm-egg fusion are clearly
unique, but they are also clearly acts of a human organism, not acts of
a mere human cell.
Do opinion, belief and politics have a place in defining the beginning
of a new life? How is it that the topic has become an issue of debate?
The topic of when human life begins is an issue of debate because it
has strong implications for public policy on matters that concern many
people; abortion, in-vitro fertilization and human embryo research. How
"opinion, belief and politics" have assumed such a large role in
deciding when life begins is a question for a sociologist or a
psychologist, not a biologist!
is important to appreciate that the scientific facts are themselves
entirely neutral; they are simply a reflection of the way the world is,
as opposed to how we may wish or imagine it to be.
is not to say that the scientific facts lend equal support to any and
all views of when human life begins. While people are free to formulate
their opinion on when human life begins in any manner they choose
(including belief and politics), not all opinions are equally
consistent with factual reality. Those who choose to ignore the facts
cannot expect their opinions to garner as much respect or to be given
as much credibility as those who base their opinions in sound
scientific observation and analysis.
opinions of members of the flat-Earth society should not carry as much
weight as those of astrophysicists in formulating national aerospace
policy. The opinions of those who reject the scientific evidence
concerning when life begins should not be the basis of public policy on
embryo-related topics, either.
Who needs to read this paper and why?
I think every person who is concerned about the important "life-issues"
of health care, abortion, assisted reproduction and stem-cell research
should read this article, because understanding when life begins is the
basis of a sound political, ethical and moral debate on these complex
and difficult topics. Certainly, all those charged with the formation
of public policy on these matters should read this argument and think
seriously about its implications. If we cannot know what a human embryo
is and when it comes into existence, we cannot make sound judgments
regarding any of the issues surrounding the human embryo.
What reactions have you received to the conclusions of your paper? What
do you hope will result from its publication?
Thus far, reactions have been thoughtful and considered. I hope this
will continue and that a clear understanding of the relevant scientific
evidence will help ground future public policy debates over
embryo-related issues in sound scientific fact -- rather than in mere
"opinion, belief and politics."
Well, after all is said and done, President-elect Obama. The end
of the beginning. And I trust it's not the beginning of the end.
All depends on how he interprets his "mandate", since 47% of the
electorate in this massive turnout voted against him, indicating once
again a centrist society. His biggest and most important problem
will be reining in the crazies in his party.
As for me, a paraphrased quote: "My President, may he be always
right. But, if not right he'll hear from me".
WEDNESDAY, November 3 through 5, 2008
> We rarely get a chance to see
another country's editorial about the USA ...
> Read this excerpt from a Romanian Newspaper.
> The article was written by Mr. Cornel Nistorescu, and published
> title "C'ntarea Americii", meaning 'Ode To America ' in the
> newspaper - Evenimentulzilei 'The Daily Event' or 'News of the
> ~An Ode to America?~
> Why are Americans so united? They would not resemble one another
> you painted them all one color! They speak all the languages of
> and form an astonishing mixture of civilizations and religious
> On 9/ll, the American tragedy turned three hundred million people
> hand put on the heart. Nobody rushed to accuse the White House,
> or the Secret Service that they are only a bunch of losers. Nobody
> to empty their bank accounts. Nobody rushed out onto the streets
> gape about. Instead the Americans volunteered to donate blood and
to give a
> helping hand.
> After the first moments of panic , they raised their flag over the
> ruins, putting on T-shirts, caps and ties in the colors of the
> flag. They placed flags on buildings and cars as if in every place
> every car a government official or the president was passing. On
> occasion, they started singing: "God Bless America?!"
> I watched the live broadcast and rerun after rerun for hours
> the story of the guy who went down one hundred floors with a woman
> wheelchair without knowing who she was, or of the Californian
> player, who gave his life fighting with the terrorists and
> plane from hitting a target that could have killed other hundreds
> thousands of people.
> How on earth were they able to respond united as one human being.
> Imperceptibly, with every word and musical note, the memory of
> into a modern myth of tragic heroes. And with every phone call,
> and millions of dollars were put into collection aimed at
rewarding not a
> man or a family, but a spirit, which no money can buy.
> What on earth can unites the Americans in such way? Their land?
> history? Their economic Power? Money?
> I tried for hours to find an answer, humming songs and murmuring
> with the risk of sounding commonplace, I thought things over, I
> only one conclusion... Only "FREEDOM" can work such miracles.
> (Cornel Nistorescu)
> - This deserves to be passed around the Internet forever. It took
> on the outside - looking in - to see what we take for granted!
> GOD BLESS AMERICA!!
SUNDAY, November 1 and 2, 2008
Now that's what we need, right now and in the White House. (And
no, I don't mean Tina Fey). GS
McCain pokes fun at campaign on 'SNL'
By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer Beth Fouhy, Associated Press Writer
– Sun Nov 2,
5:03 pm ET
NEW YORK – John McCain was a hit on "Saturday Night Live,"
just not as big a hit as his running mate.
The Republican, who poked fun at his presidential campaign's
financial shortcomings and his reputation as a political maverick in
Saturday's appearance, led the show to its second-best overnight
ratings since a December 1997 holiday episode.
NBC estimated Sunday that when the final
national viewer estimate is known later this week, it will be a little
less than 12 million people. Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's appearance two
weeks ago was seen by 15 million people, according to Nielsen Media Research.
The presidential hopeful made a cameo
appearance at the beginning of the show, with Tina Fey reprising her memorable
impersonation of Palin.
McCain, who is trailing Democrat Barack Obama
in most battleground
state polls, also appeared during the show's "Weekend Update"
newscast to announce he would pursue a new campaign strategy in the
closing days of the campaign.
"I thought I might try a strategy called
the reverse maverick. That's where I'd do whatever anybody tells me,"
And if that didn't work, "I'd go to the
double maverick. I'd just go totally berserk and freak everybody out,"
the Arizona senator
Earlier in the show, McCain and Fey's
Palin said they couldn't afford a half-hour campaign commercial on
network television like the one Obama aired earlier this week. They
said they'd sell campaign products on the QVC shopping channel instead.
Among other things, McCain advertised a
set of knives to cut through pork in Washington. His wife, Cindy
McCain, briefly appeared to advertise "McCain Fine-Gold" jewelry, a
play on the campaign
finance law McCain authored with Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold.
Fey's Palin advertised a set of "Joe"
dolls commemorating "Joe the Plumber," "Joe Six-Pack" and her
Democratic rival, Joe
Biden. She also pulled out T-shirts saying "Palin 2012" and
announced she wouldn't be returning to Alaska after the election.
"I'm either running in four years or I'm
going to be a white Oprah," she said.
Obama said Sunday that McCain was funny.
Addressing supporters in Ohio, he said the performance was an example
of how politicians can fight on the issues but bring civility to
politics by having a sense of humor.
Obama said he missed seeing "Saturday Night Live" —
he was in a motorcade in Missouri — but caught up by watching it on YouTube.
Associated Press writer Nedra Pickler in
Columbus, Ohio, and television writer David Bauder contributed to this
(c) Copyright 1999-2017, Allergy Associates of New London, PC