I worked so hard for the campaign. Hell, I'm an old beat up former bodybuilder w/ arthritis and a businessman and well lots of stuff, but nothing more meaningful than a "Barack Obama; Campaign for Change" precinct captain- volunteer- ever hopeful- believer!
On the day of the election I went from GOTV (getting out the vote) canvassing for miles and miles and doors and doors talking to everyone and moving them to vote. Then after 6PM I drove to another 'staging location' and met with a bunch of volunteers there and the exitement and tension was thick and well they asked if I'd take two more canvassing packs and hit the streets of Las Vegas one last time.
I did and it was amazing! When I'm more awake I'll write more about driving a first time voter, hispanic woman to the polls...so cool. And talking to an older voter who wanted to vote for Barack but was scared- literally of making the wrong choice but vote for Senator Obama he did:)
I have so many stories, but really what I will remember forever is watching the returns and simply being floored by how early in the night we'd already WON! I had just put together a plate of dinner and I went to my den where my wife was watching and she had this wry smile on her face and I looked at the MAP and I saw that number...284 and I thought it was wrong or a projection for later or maybe I was reading something wrong and then they showed Grant Park in Chi town and my wife said; 'honey, it's already over, Barack has won it' and I cried.
In my exhauastion of having worked so hard with so much urgency and a belief that we dare not lose and so we dare not slow down until 6:30 at night on Election Night...to see what I was seeing was just too much.
Bless us all the volunteers...the thousands and thousands of us who worked tirelessly w/ a belief so deep in our hearts in a better America. Bless all of you that voted w/ your hearts as well, the unity that we felt that night- the elation- don't ever forget it.
Bless you all America! We shocked the world and surprised ourselves and as hard as what's coming will be- BARACK OBAMA IS PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
When Barack took the stage w/ his beautiful smiling family I was as proud as if it were MY family up there and his speech...omg y'all! That was a speech for the ages- poetic- MLK like, awesome.
Whenever they showed some awestruck black kid or an older person with tears in their eyes, I'd start to tear up again, I was a wreck. An elated, exhausted, relieved, proud, vindicated, uplifted...wreck: )
So, Sarah Palin thinks the First Amendment is there to protect hateful, lying, power-hungry politicians from criticism- Oh you think 'She can't be that stupid', well you're wrong.
"In a conservative radio interview that aired in Washington, D.C. Friday morning, Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin said she fears her First Amendment rights may be threatened by "attacks" from reporters who suggest she is engaging in a negative campaign against Barack Obama.
Palin told WMAL-AM that her criticism of Obama's associations, like those with 1960s radical Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, should not be considered negative attacks. Rather, for reporters or columnists to suggest that it is going negative may constitute an attack that threatens a candidate's free speech rights under the Constitution, Palin said.
"If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations," Palin told host Chris Plante, "then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media."
Salon's Glenn Greenwald explains why this argument is frighteningly wrong:
If anything, Palin has this exactly backwards, since one thing that the First Amendment does actually guarantee is a free press. Thus, when the press criticizes a political candidate and a Governor such as Palin, that is a classic example of First Amendment rights being exercised, not abridged.
This isn't only about profound ignorance regarding our basic liberties, though it is obviously that. Palin here is also giving voice here to the standard right-wing grievance instinct: that it's inherently unfair when they're criticized. And now, apparently, it's even unconstitutional.
According to Palin, what the Founders intended with the First Amendment was that political candidates for the most powerful offices in the country and Governors of states would be free to say whatever they want without being criticized in the newspapers. The First Amendment was meant to ensure that powerful political officials would not be "attacked" in the papers. It is even possible to imagine more breathaking ignorance from someone holding high office and running for even higher office?"
If you're a person who prays, then please PRAY. Pray for Barack and Biden to be our next US administrators- the team to get us back on track. Ask G*d to not give the Republicans who have run a campaign based on hatred and lies make up any ground whatsoever.
Pray that the cool, collected, thoughtful, positive man of Ideals; Barack Obama is our next Commander in Chief- Pray for our country, pray for all our children who deserve a better day and pray for ourselves.
Like this; 'Dear Lord, please give us the strength and the courage and the temerity to VOTE, to go to the polls in massive numbers- to miss everything else that is less important- VOTE- to make our voices heard oh Lord and to safely escort a good Democrat into the office of President of the United States of America- Dear Lord, for this we pray...please dear Lord just give us the strength and we WILL do our part and VOTE.
Amen-
Joe Biden was correct in his statement that folks making $150,000 would get a tax cut. The oversimplification of the Obama tax policy and the 'taking one phrase out of context' is again mccain/palin sleaze tactics.
Here it is; study it and learn it and make repulsivecants look bushesque!
Per the Tax Policy Center, here is how Barack Obama's tax plan breaks down for individuals:
$0-$18,891 = $567 tax cut $18,982-$37,595 = $892 tax cut $37,596-$66,354 = $1,118 tax cut $66,355-$111,645 = $1,264 tax cut $111,646-$160,972 = $2,135 tax cut $160,973-$226,918 = $2,796 tax cut $226,919-$603,402 = $121 tax increase $603,403-$2.87 million = $93,709 tax increase $2.87 million-plus = $542,882 tax increase
Seems that the disgusting attack machine the Repulsivecans roll-out every election, coupled with the voter suppression efforts are tightening the race in Fl. Of Course, Fl.! So here is the final word on the fakery and the utter unamerican republican/mccain/palin/bush/rove/slime.
The Antidote: THE TRUTH
OK, finally- let’s clear this up!
In the six years since the Bush administration made it a priority, barely 100 people have been convicted and fewer than 200 have been charged with voter fraud. The overwhelming majority either were people who thought they were eligible but weren’t such as immigrants and felons or individuals registering fictitious people who couldn’t turn up to vote in any event.
A Worse Fraud Knowingly false cries of “voter fraud” are a much worse fraud the GOP is trying to foist on the country than the actual crime itself – which doesn’t exist in any event. But its real purpose is to intimidate voters, especially those who are uneducated, poor and black or brown when they show up to vote.
“If they found a single case of a conspiracy to affect the outcome of a Congressional election or a state-wide election, that would be significant,” Richard Hasen, an election law expert at Loyola University Law School, told the New York Times last year. “But what we see is isolated, small-scale activities that have not shown any kind of criminal intent.”
This doesn’t stop Republicans from trying.
Over the weekend, President Bush sent Attorney General Michael Mukasey a letter asking him to investigate the Ohio case already rejected by the Supreme Court. And don’t forget that five of the 12 US attorneys fired last year in the scandal that led to the resignation of Alberto Gonzales were illegally fired because they refused to pursue voter fraud with sufficient zeal to satisfy their ideologue masters in Washington.
It also explains the Republican attacks on Acorn, which pays people to register voters in low income and minority areas. A tiny handful of Acorn workers made up names this year, which was condemned by both Acorn and the Obama campaign; in fact, Acorn flagged suspicious registration forms before submitting them to county clerks, something the GOP vote suppressors never mention when doing cable news interviews.
But there is absolutely no evidence – none, nada, zip – that Acorn or anyone else resulted in a single fraudulent vote ever being cast since Acorn began its large-scale drives in 2004.
While attempts at voter suppression are partisan in intent, they are racial in effect.
The Democrats have not won an election without the black vote since 1964. The most effective and crude way to undermine their base is to minimize the vote in black areas. This is just what happened in Florida in 2000, where Republican Secretary of State Katherine Harris lowered dramatically the threshold for including someone on the “purge list.” By the time Harris and her minions were done, African-Americans were 88% of purged names even though they account for only 11% of the actual electorate.
McCain insiders say that the campaign and the Republican National Committee are allegedly conspiring with outside groups to supress voter registration and turnout. Bush’s weekend letter to Mukasey is another piece of damning evidence that the GOP plans to keep people from voting since they cannot be convinced to vote for McCain.
Angry yet America? Disgusted? Even if you’re a Republican, tell me this isn’t revolting.
Before I clip the arcticle that really attempts to show how stupid this over-exaggerated, utter bullshit, fairy-tale of ACORN is, allow me to vent.
The REAL take-aways from not only this article but common sense are: "there's a greater chance of getting hit by lightening than of a fraudulent voter actually voting" and the reason for that is: WE'VE NEVER SEEN ONE!! Did you catch that you lying, putrid, distracting Republicans?!
ACORN which is involved in all kinds of other positive and very American community support initiatives other than registering voters has been in business- registering voters for a LONG time and NO fraudulent votes have ever been found to be cast!! Now get this: Yes, they know at ACORN that sometimes they hire idiots that simply make shit up and hand it in...like Donald Duck...so they can get paid for nothing. NOW, does "Donald Duck" actually show up to vote, thus "threatening the very fabric of Democracy" (as McStupid has alleged)? NO!! Because there isn't anyone named Donald Duck!! Get it, a tempest in a teapot. What's worse for the Republican 'distractors' is that this is policed by ACORN every damn day! When they hand in the days registrations they ALWAYS red-flag the ones that look like someone faked it. But guess what? Once again, that FAKE PERSON CAN'T VOTE, because FAKE PEOPLE ARE FAKE! Get it now!?
Even if "Joe the lazy voter-registration worker" (Joe the plumbers other job...which btw, he's not even a plumber!!) writes the names of some athletes on NFL teams as has been mentioned...well guess what? Brian Urlacher is ALREADY REGISTERED TO VOTE, and HE CAN ONLY VOTE ONCE...so this second Brian Urlacher of the Chicago Bears doesn't exist sooooo you got it, he can't vote! And no one will show up at the polls w/ Brian Urlachers ID and try to vote, because wtf?! Why would he and what would be accomplished by that and oh yeah btw even if something so out of the bounds of what may really happen did actually happen (and it hasn't ever) WELLLL, we wouldn't count Brian's vote twice because ummmm it's illegal to vote twice and once you've voted you're marked off and if you show up again the system red-flags you and the nice old guy that takes your info before you go into the booth calls you on it and "ooops you say oh ha ha ha you know what I already voted and I forgot that I did..."
This whole thing is just utter bullshit and the biggest distraction to date by McCain/Palin and the sick thing is that this is the same dirty trick that Bush/Cheney (ROVE) pulled against Gore and Kerry and to some extent it worked like a charm. Oh sure, it drove the authorities (see idiots) to provision thousands of votes to only be counted AFTER The election- thus, after the attorneys wade in to fight on "legal grounds" every real vote ('cause remember they're all REAL, the stats: not ONE fake one was ever counted) and get lots of them...these actual voters actual votes, THROWN OUT!! Wow, ingenious Republican'ts huh?
While Barack has rightly called out McCain't and his sicko supporters on "distraction after distraction", we cannot as a society allow these politicos who pervert our free vote system get one iota of control over this process or allow them to throw even one monkey-wrench in.
You see folks, this system we have has worked without fail for many, many years and the only corruption in our simple 'sign-up and vote' system is the Republicans and their attorneys that call 'foul' every recent election so as to suppress votes of honest taxpaying citizens. Acorn workers fake names on registration forms to get paid...and nothing else. Stand up people, open your mouth and speak this truth to everyone you know, and especially any republican that disingenuously cries for the need to suppress Democratic voters.
OK, here's the story:
ACORN controversy: 'Stupid joke’ or fraud?
Republicans allege misconduct over phony voter registrations
The Associated Press
updated 6:23 p.m. PT, Sun., Oct. 19, 2008
NEW YORK - The stories are almost comical: Cartoon characters Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck, registered to vote in the U.S. presidential election on Nov. 4. The entire starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys football team, signed up to go the polls — in Nevada.
But no one in either presidential campaign is laughing. Not publicly, anyway.
Republicans, led by John McCain, are alleging widespread voter fraud. The Democrats and Barack Obama say the controversy is preposterous and is just political mudslinging.
In the middle is the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, known as ACORN, a grass-roots community group that has led liberal causes since it formed in 1970. This year, ACORN hired more than 13,000 part-time workers and sent them out in 21 states to sign up voters in minority and poor neighborhoods. The U.S. voter system requires individuals to register themselves to vote before going to the polls.
ACORN submitted 1.3 million registration cards to local election officials.
Along the way, bogus ones appeared — signed in the names of cartoon characters, professional football players and scores of others bearing the same handwriting. And in the past few days, those phony registrations have exploded into Republican condemnations of far-ranging misconduct, and the relatively obscure community activist group took a starring role in the final presidential debate.
Looking beyond the smoke and fire, the raging argument boils down to essentially this:
Is ACORN, according to McCain, perpetuating voter fraud that could be "destroying the fabric of democracy"? Or are Republicans trying to keep the disadvantaged, who tend to be Democrats, from casting ballots in a hotly contested presidential race that has drawn record numbers of new voters?
A dozen states investigating By legal definition, to commit voter fraud means a person would have to present some kind of documentation at the polls — a driver's license, a phone bill or another form of ID — that bears the name of Mickey Mouse, for example. To do so risks a fine and imprisonment under state laws.
Submitting fake registration cards is another matter. Local law enforcement agencies in about a dozen states are investigating fake registrations submitted by ACORN workers. Late last week, The Associated Press reported the FBI will be reviewing those cases.
Accusations of stolen votes have a long history in presidential elections. In the 2000 recount debacle that led to George W. Bush winning the presidency, Republicans claimed illegal ballots were cast. Democrats contended that legal ballots were thrown out. In 2004, when the presidential vote came down to Ohio in the state-by-state process of the U.S. presidential election, Democrats charged that long lines and malfunctioning machines in that state led to an inaccurate count.
But in this contest, involving the first African-American in American history with a real chance at becoming president, the vitriol is particularly pointed.
"This is all just one big head-fake," said Tova Wang of the government watchdog group Common Cause. "What silliness this is, at this point. It's all about creating this perception that there is a tremendous problem with voter fraud in this country, and it's not true."
Report: Voter fraud rare in U.S. On Friday, during a campaign appearance, Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin repeated McCain's recent claims that Obama has close ties to ACORN.
"You deserve to know," Palin told thousands in a park north of Cincinnati.
Obama helped represent ACORN in a successful 1995 suit against the state of Illinois, which forced enactment of the so-called motor-voter law, making it easier for people to register vote when they got their driving licenses. Obama said this week that he had "nothing to do with" ACORN's massive voter registration drive.
ACORN spokesman Brian Kettenring retaliated this week in a series of conference calls and interviews. "What we're seeing is the manufacture of a crisis, and attempts to smear Sen. Obama with it. It gives you an excuse should you lose or if there's a contested outcome of the election."
Voter fraud is rare in the United States, according to a 2007 report by the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law. Based on reviews of voter fraud claims at the federal and state level, the center's report asserted most problems were caused by things like technological glitches, clerical errors or mistakes made by voters and by election officials.
"It is more likely that an individual will be struck by lightning than he will impersonate another voter at the polls," the report said.
Alex Keyssar, a professor at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, calls the current controversy "chapter 22 in a drama that's been going on awhile. The pattern is that nothing much ever comes from this. There have been no known cases of people voting fraudulently."
"What we've seen," Keyssar said, "is sloppiness and someone's idea of a stupid joke, like registering as Donald Duck."
Lazy employees ACORN officials have repeatedly claimed that their own quality control workers were the first to discover problematic ballots. In every state investigating bad registrations, ACORN tipped off local officials to bogus or incomplete cards, spokesman Kettenring said.
Many states require that all registrations be submitted to local voting officials so that election directors are in charge of vetting problem ballots, not the groups collecting them.
Part-time ACORN workers receive one day of training and are paid $8 an hour to collect signatures, according to Kettenring. He blamed bogus cards on cheating and lazy employees trying to make a buck for doing nothing.
When caught, Kettenring said, those workers are fired. The group is in the process of tallying the number of bad cards ACORN flagged for election officials, he said. Kettenring said he doubted the percentage of such registrations would reach 2 percent.
But Republicans say any number of fake registrations is unacceptable and could affect the November election.
Signing up voters is a small part of ACORN activities. The group frequently leads challenges to minimum wage laws, predatory mortgage lending in poor and working-class neighborhoods and immigration policies.
Controversy is nothing new. Its leaders are currently locked in a legal dispute stemming from allegations that the brother of the group's founder misappropriated nearly $1 million of the nonprofit's money several years ago.
Since the 2004 election, ex-employees have been convicted of submitting false registrations in states including Florida and Missouri.
"There are certainly problems and I don't think anyone disagrees on that," said Wang of Common Cause. "But it doesn't get reported that ACORN finds these registrations errors themselves. They flag them as being no good, but they have to turn them in anyway."
"They don't get processed," she said. "And Mickey Mouse is not going to vote."
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
First- before I post my first thoughts after last nights "Last Debate" ended, I'd like to ask you a couple of questions.
1. Did you google "Joe the plumber"? The guy is either simply a republican plant (newsweeks best guess)who doesn't even have a plumbers license (he admitted this himself) and no means to actually "purchase" this plumbing company (he now admits) OR He's the Joe Wurzelbacher who owns 3 companies and is a staunch republican who doesn't want to responsibly pay his taxes.
Let's face it, the Bushes, the McCains- this is why they want to cut taxes for the wealthy- because they are the wealthy. Their families have always been wealthy- their friends have always been wealthy- teir constituents are mostly wealthy (37% of the over 90% of white people that attended the RNC make over $500,000 yearly)
NOW TO THE DEBATE:
I think everyone in America knew John McCain was going to come out aggressively tonight because the fact is he’s losing this election badly. Desperate measures were needed and at times McCain looked desperate. In his defense, anger is his best emotion and it caused his answers to be strong and well-rehearsed at the early parts of the debate. I also didn’t hear anything knew, but he was more forceful and that suits his style.
Early on Barack seemed too quiet and should have, I believe, gotten more forceful himself and there’s the catch-22. He absolutely is in fact a calmer and cooler and in my opinion more intelligent person, and that is HIS style but Barack also knows that to all of a sudden raise his voice or seem angry back is a double-edged sword that would not serve himself or US very well.
When McCain was given an opportunity to say how wrong it’s been for he and Palin to incite his base at rallies to the kind of ugly hostility that NO American is proud to see, he instead blamed a “great man” for pointing out the bad behavior and took no responsibility. In fact he took the opportunity to to take swipes at Senator Obama with the same disingenuous and untrue allegations that aren’t helping anyone and I think there he began really losing the debate.
From those moments on Senator Obama became reinvigorated and remained sharp, calm and started really outlining his best points with succinct alacrity and poise and McCain started exhibiting his sighing, fuming, heavy-breathing, sarcastic smiling, grumpy old man.
I was inspired once again by Barack’s ability to not fall for the ‘tit for tat’ and stay focused on the issues, and even saying so. Let’s get one thing straight here Republicans; it is not Senator Obama’s fault that Congressman Lewis chose to criticize the ugly tone of Ms. Palin’s remarks and how neither she or McCain stopped their audience from saying “kill him”, and “off with his head” and calling Barack a “terrorist” etc…
These are the same things all of us have said since the outset of this old, ugly McCain/Palin campaign tactics took hold- the media, the pundits and everyone I speak to day to day even Republicans have been unhappy with this hateful stuff from them.
John McCain is not only losing this election because of his temper, but also because of the grasp of a choice which was Sarah Palin, a women whose early novelty has worn off for voters and who not only leads the campaign in nasty but is not going along w/ Senator McCain apparently and when confronted by the media on being found GUILTY of the Abuse of Power and an Ethics Violation of Alaskan Ethics Laws failed to take one shred of responsibility and has again been castigated by the press on all sides. Yet, most of all McCain/ Palin are losing on the issues.
Although in the past couple weeks McCain seems almost Obamaesque in his ideas for the beaten economy, becoming more and more Democrat like, he still won’t even disagree that his tax cuts REALLY are for the wealthy and that his corporate giving plan REALLY is for Big Oil and Big Corporations- this he hasn’t denied in one debate and he didn’t do so tonight!
Obama kept trying to move McCain back to the issues not only because he realizes this garbage is simply a distraction, but also because it’s the issues about the economy, healthcare, education and how to get back our country’s standing in the world are what we care about- NOT some Chicago Professor named Bill Ayers.
After being brave enough to take a look at my wife and daughter and my college and retirement accounts today, I can tell you that I’m really concerned with how to get my country back on track and if John McCain thinks angrily and desperately taking 11 minutes of tonight’s debate struggling to get tough and condescending on these valueless side issues with Senator Obama was a good use of MY time, he’s dead wrong.
By TOMMY McCALL
Since 1929, Republicans and Democrats have each controlled the presidency for nearly 40 years. So which party has been better for American pocketbooks and capitalism as a whole? Well, here’s an experiment: imagine that during these years you had to invest exclusively under either Democratic or Republican administrations. How would you have fared?
As of Friday, a $10,000 investment in the S.& P. stock market index* would have grown to $11,733 if invested under Republican presidents only, although that would be $51,211 if we exclude Herbert Hoover’s presidency during the Great Depression. Invested under Democratic presidents only, $10,000 would have grown to $300,671 at a compound rate of 8.9 percent over nearly 40 years!
With all the other sound reasons to vote for Barack Obama- is it not providence that during the worst market downturn in our lifetime this fact has come to light?
Obama/Biden
Monday, October 13, 2008
McCain squirrels away his ACORN connection as campaign launches full-scale attack
Or, look MORE McPalin Lies!
Today the McCain campaign launched a full-scale assault against ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, setting the stage for claims of a "stolen election.
" Attack Dog-in-Chief Sarah Palin sent an email to supporters falsely claiming that ACORN's alleged voter registration efforts are part of a deliberate strategy to steal the election on behalf of Barack Obama.
Funny, but Palin's memo didn't include that fact that McCain has a recent - and real - association with ACORN, unlike the trumped up charges against Obama and his association with ACORN.
McCain was the keynote speaker at an ACORN rally in Miami in February 2006 and partnered with them on immigration issues. The rally was intended to call attention to the need for comprehensive immigration reform and was attended by hundreds of ACORN members. In the bizarro world of McCain-Palin, it's ok for McCain to work with ACORN and speak at their conference but it's treason for Obama to have no connection to them whatsoever except that in 1995, his law firm was retained to represent ACORN in lawsuit. Bertha Lewis, Chief Organizer of ACORN, released a statement today saying, "It has deeply saddened us to see Senator McCain abandon his historic support for ACORN and our efforts to support the goals of low-income Americans. Maybe it is out of desperation that Senator McCain has forgotten that he was for ACORN before he was against ACORN; he was for immigration reform before he was against immigration reform; and he was a maverick before he became erratic. We were thrilled to partner with him to help reform the outdated immigration laws in this country, and were pleased to work closely with him on this issue."
The 'Ugly Lies Campain' is Hurting McCain/Palin with the G O P!
GRAND RAPIDS -- He endorsed John McCain in the presidential primary, but now former Republican Gov. William Milliken is expressing doubts about his party's nominee.
"He is not the McCain I endorsed," said Milliken, reached at his Traverse City home Thursday. "He keeps saying, 'Who is Barack Obama?' I would ask the question, 'Who is John McCain?' because his campaign has become rather disappointing to me."I'm disappointed in the tenor and the personal attacks on the part of the McCain campaign, when he ought to be talking about the issues."Milliken, a lifelong Republican, is among some past leaders from the party's moderate wing voicing reservations and, in some cases, opposition to McCain's candidacy.
. During a stop in Grand Rapids on Thursday, Lincoln Chafee, a former Republican U.S. senator from Rhode Island, said he's voting for Obama and urging others to do likewise.McCain campaigned for Chafee's unsuccessful re-election bid in 2006, but Chafee said he is concerned McCain has swung to the right, a divisive strategy that could make it difficult for him to govern.
"That's not my kind of Republicanism," said Chafee, who now calls himself an independent. "I saw what Bush and Cheney did. They came in with a (budget) surplus and a stable world, and look what's happened now. In eight short years they've taken one peaceful and prosperous world, and they've torn it into tatters."
As for McCain's choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin for his running mate, "there's no question she's totally unqualified," Chafee said.Chafee said he has spoken with several other moderate Republican leaders, and "there are a whole lot of us deserting."
One of them is Phil Arthurhultz, a former Republican state senator from Whitehall, who was traveling the state with Chafee to drum up support for Obama.
Bob Eleveld is a former Kent County Republican chairman who led McCain's West Michigan campaign in 2000. This year, he has remained mum unless asked.
"I'm not supporting either of them at this point," he said. "Suffice it to say there are a number of people who have been strong Republicans in the past, including party chairs, who feel as I do."
He declined to name them.
In the past, McCain was more of a moderate known for his straight talk, Eleveld said."I think the straight talk is gone," he said, describing himself as a member of the party's moderate wing. "I think he's pandering to the Christian right. That's some straight talk from me."
Whether they represent a widespread movement or a few disenchanted members in the Republican Party is unclear.
Milliken stopped short of saying he will vote for Obama, but said he differs with McCain on the Iraq war and his choice of Palin.
"I know John McCain is 72. In my book, that's quite young," said Milliken, 86, Michigan's longest-serving governor. But he added, "What if she were to become president of the United States? The idea, to me, is quite disturbing, if not appalling.
"Increasingly, the party is moving toward rigidity, and I don't like that. I think Gerald Ford would hold generally the same view I'm holding on the direction of the Republican Party."
Please go here and enter a comment and send it. We cannot abide by racism from Sarah Palin, John McCain or their minions- thank you! http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Contacts/comment_form.html
Information that was sent: Email: scottybear@embarqmail.com Name:
Scott De Jack Phone: 702-845-4545 Address: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
Comments:To think that this was an introduction of the candidate for VP of the United States of America by a Sheriff of Law Enforcement, not some private event or a drunken Moose Lodge member ...! No, this guy hops up on stage with all of America watching- in his uniform no less, and calls the top of the Democratic ticket, the man running for President of the United States of America by his "Muslim sounding" middle name?! American's who are NOT racist, know exactly why he did this...hell, ALL Americans know why. Bigoted and racist inference again that Senator Obama is secretly Muslim. Which would not only be a shock to every single friend and family member of the Obama family who are more than aware of how devout a Christian is Barack and family. Even worse though is how blatantly racist this is to the millions of law-abiding, peaceful, 'normal', Muslims out there, who have to be so frightened and defensive of simply being a member of a church!? We all know that there are bad people from all walks and all faiths- I bet this police officer arrests many more people of other faiths than Muslims. So, it is blatant, it is disrespectful of a Senator, his family and the uniform of his chosen profession and his police department.
I just heard fineman say that the "that one" statement wasn't racial. I am a 54 year old white guy that grew up in NC and the rule was when you couldn't say N*****, you just said "that one" (or more acurately, that'n). Lots of people won't get that this was racist and like the comments I heard on the show wrtie this off as an old guy. Old guys grew up in a racist America and this is what is normal to them This is a note from a Texas newspaper from a week or so ago. From Letters to the Editors @ Fort Worth Star-Telegram - How racism works-- What if John McCain were a former president of the Harvard Law Review? And What if Barack Obama finished fifth from the bottom of his graduating class? What if McCain were still married to the first woman he said "I do" to? And, What if Obama were the candidate who left his first wife after she no longer measured up to his standards? What if Michelle Obama were a wife who not only became addicted to pain killers, but acquired them illegally through her charitable organization? What if Cindy McCain graduated from Harvard? What if Obama were a member of the "Keating 5"? What if McCain was a charismatic, eloquent speaker? If these questions reflected reality, do you really believe the election numbers would be as close as they are? This is what racism does: When there is a color difference, it covers up, rationalizes and minimizes positive qualities in one candidate and emphasizes negative qualities in another.
My wife said this to me many days ago: "If Barack Obama was white they'd be calling him the next Kennedy or Kennedyesque."
If Barack were white, this election would be a landslide. If Barack were white, McCain would've probably thrown in the towel. If Barack Obama was white, McCain's flaws- his arrogance- his lack of leadership- his poor decision-making and bitter personality would be fair game.
If Michelle Obama was white and Cindy McCain was black; the media would be all over Mrs. McCain's drug addiction and theft of drugs as an ongoing story.
This is part of the reason, that those of us with the ability to see past color and ethnicity realize how vastly more appealing Senator Obama is than Senator McCain. We're able to see the stark differences in intellect, warmth, grasp of the issues, morals, eloquence, demeanor and even organization.
Obama/Biden '08
McCain uses smear tactics…again.
Democrat calls his rival 'erratic' as both sides step up attacks
updated 5:43 p.m. PT, Sun., Oct. 5, 2008
Sarah Palin claimed in three separate appearances Saturday that Obama sees America as so imperfect "that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country."
The incendiary remarks referred to Obama's association with 1960s radical Bill Ayers, a founder of the Weather Underground whose members were blamed for several bombings when Obama was a child. Obama has denounced Ayers' radical views and activities, and there is no evidence they have palled around.
As if expecting the attack, Obama's campaign quickly fired back with a television ad that charged McCain, a 72-year-old four-term senator from Arizona, was "Erratic in a crisis. Out of touch on the economy."
The commercial, which starts playing nationally on cable television Monday, played upon McCain's stumbling response to America's brewing financial difficulties and shifting positions as Congress and the White House hammered out a $700 billion rescue plan.
Several Obama surrogates said Sunday that his supporters may reopen the issue of McCain's ties to Charles Keating, a convicted savings and loan owner whose actions two decades ago triggered a Senate ethics investigation that involved McCain as one of the "Keating Five."
Rep. Rahm Emanuel, a Chicago Democrat and Obama supporter, warned against McCain's strategy of attacking the Illinois senator's character.
"If we are going to go down this road, you know, Barack Obama was eight years old, somehow responsible for Bill Ayers," he said. "At 58, John McCain was associating with Charles Keating." While McCain’s friend Keating was actually convicted and spent many years in prison, Ayers was never convicted of a crime and is a well respected college professor to this day.
"If we really want to talk who is associating with who, we will," Emanuel said. "The American people will lose in that transaction."
Just months into his Senate career, in the late 1980s, McCain made what he has called "the worst mistake of my life." He participated in two meetings with banking regulators on behalf of Keating, a friend, campaign contributor and savings and loan financier who was later convicted of securities fraud.
Palin takes gloves off Palin, however, stayed on the attack Sunday, defending her claim that Obama "pals around with terrorists."
"The comments are about an association that has been known but hasn't been talked about," Palin said as she boarded her plane in Long Beach, Calif. "I think it's fair to talk about where Barack Obama kicked off his political career, in the guy's living room."
Palin's claim that Obama's association with Ayers "hasn't been talked about" is also not true. 1Obama was questioned about Ayers during a prime-time Democratic debate against Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton before April's Pennsylvania primary.
2McCain also raised the Ayers issue during a television news interview that month.
3Obama's association with Ayers was regularly brought up by commentators on some cable television news shows, by right-wing radio talk show hosts and on right-wing political Web sites using similar smear tactics.
At issue is Obama's association with Ayers. Both have served on the board of the same Chicago charity and live near each other in Chicago. Ayers also held a meet-the-candidate event at his home for Obama when Obama first ran for office in the mid-1990s, the event cited by Palin.
But while Ayers and Obama are acquainted, the charge that they "pal around" is a stretch of any reading of the public record. And it's simply wrong (a lie) to suggest that they were associated while Ayers was “committing terrorist acts.” Obama was 8 years old at the time the Weather Underground claimed credit for numerous bombings and was blamed for a pipe bomb that killed a San Francisco policeman. Like many McCain Palin untruths leveled against Obama; it seems desperate and can be easily disproved.
McCain adviser Greg Strimple predicted "a very aggressive last 30 days" of the campaign in a recent conference call with reporters.
McCain and his aides, Obama said, "are gambling that he can distract you with smears rather than talk to you about substance. They'd rather try to tear our campaign down than lift this country up. It's what you do when you're out of touch, out of ideas, and running out of time."
Noting the nation's serious economic problems, Obama said: "Instead of addressing these crises, Senator McCain's campaign has announced that they plan to turn the page on the discussion about our economy and spend the final weeks of this campaign launching Swiftboat-style attacks on me." He was referring to unsubstantiated allegations about 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry's decorated military record in Vietnam, who was defeated by incumbent President George W. Bush.
Obama leading by 49 percent in new poll McCain has tried desperately through the campaign to separate himself from Bush, a fellow Republican whose approval rating is near historic lows as American voters blame him for the crumbling economy and hold him responsible for he and Cheney’s unpopular Pre-emptive Iraq Invasion.
With American voters concerned about economic security above all other issues, Obama is trying to protect his growing margin over McCain and keep the focus on the potential financial meltdown that has sent shudders through the electorate over the past two weeks. While Obama’s input and was welcomed during the crisis, McCain made several missteps and was even rebuked by many republicans for grandstanding and attempting to politicize a national catastrophe.
A new poll published Sunday, meanwhile, showed Obama was leading McCain by 49 percent to 42 percent among likely voters in battleground Ohio. The Columbus Dispatch newspaper poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 2.2 percentage points.
Ohio is critical as the candidates battle to win 270 electoral votes. The state helped tip the balance to Bush in 2000, and its backing kept him in the White House in 2004.
McCain was not campaigning Sunday, taking the day off to prepare for Tuesday's second of three presidential debates at Belmont University in Nashville, Tenn. Obama's vice presidential candidate Joe Biden was not campaigning either. His mother-in-law sadly died on Sunday. Palin though held a fund-raising event in California and kept up her relentless attacks.
Well, McCain and Palin have finally decided that attack is the only way to go. Oh sure they've been attacking Barack from the get-go, but they've also interspersed ads that tell the voters about what they would do as President. They have also aired campaign ads attempting to show what they feel is the positives (short list!) of a McPalin White House.
Now we hear and see that they are done w/ any positve campaigning and are too go strictly negative, very low and slimy and hit Barack on the he's dangerous, he's black and he's had bad friends.
Specifically William Ayers name will be shot out at the next debate as if from a canon, just as it was from the double-sided mouth of Sarah Palin today.
William Ayers is a respected Professor in Chicago; not back then, NOW. William Ayers bombed a bunch of places a short time ago and went straight to prison right...uh no.
William Ayers has never been convicted of a crime. Read that again and now close your surprised hanging jaw. And oh yea, the stuff that McCain't is gonna ferociously be attempting to sell us "stupid Americans happened like FORTY years ago. Go ahead do the math, that's right- Barack was a little kid in Hawaii.
So, what I believe Barack needs to do when McCain jumps him at the debate is to turn the tables in a calm, chiding, "John, America sees your desperation here", kind of way!
Simply smile and say something about 'we knew the smear and fear campaign was going to start today John when we saw how the polls and the number of real American heroes, the Middle Class were jumping ship and voting for Obama/Biden!
'John', Barack should say- 'Bringing up stuff that occured when I was 8 years old...a man I hardly knew- certainly NOT as well as I know you- who has NEVER BEEN CONVICTED OF a CRIME and has for decades been living a quiet, ordinary life and is a respected college professor is simply DESPERATE.'
'Because John, if ya really wanna go down this path you'll have some 'splainin' to do! And not about people in your life from 40 years ago, and not people who've never been convicted of ANYTHING, but crazy people that are part of your life right now'! Non mainstream folks with bizarre ideals that you seem to not only share, but in private espouse them quietly.'
Or, something similar; and then go right back to current economy issues and how we'll fix a country beaten to a pulp by Bush/Cheney/McCain policies.
I do think that if Senator Obama stays focused and his voice stays light-hearted and his words strong and measured and he simply hits the "ridiculous" nature of McCain and his attacks and uses phrases like "desperation" and "smear and fear", that voters will reject these ugly tactics of McPalin- out of hand. If played correctly by the campaign- by Plouff, this stuff may actually hurt McCain and not even ruffle the O/B ticket one iota.
My faith in the intelligence and preparedness of our side is great. So, I do believe that Barack is ready for this mud slinging, and he needs to register NO surprise, no great emotion and make McCain't look really, really low for bringing it up.
Once again, even the MSM is now using the 'desperation' word after today's polls.
The opportunity to have as our President a man of wit, wisdom and intellectual vigor and youth is an opportunity we must seize- for it comes around in a very rarefied way.
To note also that Senator Obama has authored more legislation than people realize, partnered with more Republicans, been a politician longer than is understood, done more good for the nation that doesn't get talked about, was the first not-white Harvard Law Review President, and is a US Constitutional Law scholar and professor to boot is the awesome resume needed for these turbulent times.
Not to mention the antidote for eight years of Dark-Ages governance Americans have suffered.
~God bless Obama/Biden~
It's late and I'm just spent after having blogged my fingers to death attempting to find someone who'll tell me why the media gave Palin such a free pass tonight?!
She did an awful job at the debate; Not answering the questions, disrespectful, sarcastic and winking at the damn camera, her generalization answers, how obviously she was simply parroting memorized lines etc...
Over at MSNBC they really let me down by actually being nice and giving about her performance- I don't get it. They even said it was a given that she merely memorized talking points and said that's what Biden did as well? What? Not one panelist stepped forward and said "yes, but Joe Biden would understand his lines and what the meaning of his words were"!! Palin would simply be saying them and if you asked she couldn't tell you what the hell it meant-
Very strange out there tonight. The American people voted that Biden won the debate at almost every website I visited and yet the MSM is giving Palin high marks for just showing up, and not really giving the WINNER Joe Biden much credit at all for his simply wonderful performance tonight?!
Thoughts on this would be appreciated and even illuminating:~>
Scott
Anchorage, Alaska - When he faces off against Sarah Palin Thursday night, Joe Biden will have his hands full.
I should know. I've debated Governor Palin more than two dozen times. And she's a master, not of facts, figures, or insightful policy recommendations, but at the fine art of the nonanswer, the glittering generality. Against such charms there is little Senator Biden, or anyone, can do.
On paper, of course, the debate appears to be a mismatch.
In 2000, Palin was the mayor of an Alaskan town of 5,500 people, while Biden was serving his 28th year as a United States senator. Her major public policy concern was building a local ice rink and sports center. His major public policy concern was the State Department's decision to grant an export license to allow sales of heavy-lift helicopters to Turkey, during tense UN-sponsored Cyprus peace talks.
On paper, the difference in experience on both domestic and foreign policy is like the difference between shooting a bullet and throwing a bullet. Unfortunately for Biden, if recent history is an indicator, experience or a grasp of the issues won't matter when it comes to debating Palin.
On April 17, 2006, Palin and I participated in a debate at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks on agriculture issues. The next day, the Fairbanks Daily News Miner published this excerpt:
"Andrew Halcro, a declared independent candidate from Anchorage, came armed with statistics on agricultural productivity. Sarah Palin, a Republican from Wasilla, said the Matanuska Valley provides a positive example for other communities interested in agriculture to study."
On April 18, 2006, Palin and I sat together in a hotel coffee shop comparing campaign trail notes. As we talked about the debates, Palin made a comment that highlights the phenomenon that Biden is up against.
"Andrew, I watch you at these debates with no notes, no papers, and yet when asked questions, you spout off facts, figures, and policies, and I'm amazed. But then I look out into the audience and I ask myself, 'Does any of this really matter?' " Palin said.
While policy wonks such as Biden might cringe, it seemed to me that Palin was simply vocalizing her strength without realizing it. During the campaign, Palin's knowledge on public policy issues never matured – because it didn't have to. Her ability to fill the debate halls with her presence and her gift of the glittering generality made it possible for her to rely on populism instead of policy.
Palin is a master of the nonanswer. She can turn a 60-second response to a query about her specific solutions to healthcare challenges into a folksy story about how she's met people on the campaign trail who face healthcare challenges. All without uttering a word about her public-policy solutions to healthcare challenges.
In one debate, a moderator asked the candidates to name a bill the legislature had recently passed that we didn't like. I named one. Democratic candidate Tony Knowles named one. But Sarah Palin instead used her allotted time to criticize the incumbent governor, Frank Murkowski. Asked to name a bill we did like, the same pattern emerged: Palin didn't name a bill.
And when she does answer the actual question asked, she has a canny ability to connect with the audience on a personal level. For example, asked to name a major issue that had been ignored during the campaign, I discussed the health of local communities, Mr. Knowles talked about affordable healthcare, and Palin talked about ... the need to protect hunting and fishing rights.
So what does that mean for Biden? With shorter question-and-answer times and limited interaction between the two, he should simply ignore Palin in a respectful manner on the stage and answer the questions as though he were alone. Any attempt to flex his public-policy knowledge and show Palin is not ready for prime time will inevitably cast him in the role of the bully.
On the other side of the stage, if Palin is to be successful, she needs to do what she does best: fill the room with her presence and stick to the scripted sound bites.
• Andrew Halcro served two terms as a Republican member of the Alaska State House of Representatives. He ran for governor as an Independent in 2006, debating Sarah Palin more than two dozen times. He blogs at www.andrewhalcro.com .
Again, here is the most RECENT comment by General Patraeus on the idea of gaining "victory" in Iraq. Something that John McCain trumpets at every stop of his campaign and on the floor of the debate a couple nights ago, when he again tried to take Senator Obama to task for "not understanding" what VICTORY in IRAQ would look like.
Once again McCain's condescension leaves him looking either dimwitted or lying- you decide.
No victory in Iraq, says Petraeus
General Petraeus on the Iraq campaign
The outgoing commander of US troops in Iraq, Gen David Petraeus, has said that he will never declare victory there.
In a BBC interview, Gen Petraeus said that recent security gains were "not irreversible" and that the US still faced a "long struggle". When asked if US troops could withdraw from Iraqi cities by the middle of next year, he said that would be "doable". In his next job leading the US Central Command, Gen Petraeus will also oversee operations in Afghanistan.
This is not the sort of struggle where you take a hill, plant the flag and go home to a victory parade... it's not war with a simple slogan Gen David Petraeus
He said "the trends in Afghanistan have not gone in the right direction... and that has to be addressed". Afghanistan remained a "hugely important endeavour", he said. Earlier this week, President George W Bush announced a cut of 8,000 US troops in Iraq by February - with some 4,500 being sent to Afghanistan.
'Hard but hopeful'
Gen Petraeus took up his role in Iraq in February 2007, as President Bush announced his "surge" plan.
He has overseen its implementation, including the deployment of nearly 30,000 additional troops to trouble spots in Iraq.
In an interview with the BBC's Newsnight programme, Gen Petraeus said that when he took charge in Iraq "the violence was horrific and the fabric of society was being torn apart".
Leaving his post, he said there were "many storm clouds on the horizon which could develop into real problems".
Overall he summed up the situation as "still hard but hopeful", saying that progress in Iraq was "a bit more durable" but that the situation there remained fragile.
He said he did not know that he would ever use the word "victory": "This is not the sort of struggle where you take a hill, plant the flag and go home to a victory parade... it's not war with a simple slogan."
He said al-Qaeda's efforts to portray its jihad in Iraq as going well were "disingenuous". It was, in fact "going poorly", he said.
Of his strategy of establishing joint security stations in key locations, Gen Petraeus said that "you can't secure the people if you don't live with them".
He said it was now fair to say that the Iraqis were standing up as US forces stood down. The confidence and capability of Iraqi forces had increased substantially, he said.
Gen Petraeus did not confirm reports in the media that the US was preparing to withdraw all troops from Baghdad by next summer, but he did say that consideration was being given to removing US forces from a number of cities, including the capital.
Americans are being duped by the McCain/Palin campaign. This campaign is adept at playing on human weaknesses in rationally processing ideas and is using well-designed devices of manipulation to change people's minds. This is why they are not discussing the issues. They believe that they are more likely to win votes through mind manipulation than through the appeal to reason. And it seems to be working. Americans need to beware or else they will vote into office another regime of guile and deception, perhaps one that is even more artful at it than the Bush Administration. Many people were very impressed by Sarah Palin because the McCain campaign sold her as another "maverick." It built her image as someone who has engaged in ethics reform, stood up against big oil, did unconventional things such as sell a jet on E-Bay, opposed earmarks, and said "No thanks" to the "Bridge to Nowhere." It would have been quite another image had they told you that she was marred in corruption, supported big oil's lucrative interest in drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Preserve, never even sold the jet on E-Bay, requested millions in earmarks in both mayoral and gubernatorial capacities, and had originally been in favor of the "Bridge to Nowhere." True, all these facts were singularly exposed by the media, but that has done little or nothing to dislodge the maverick image the campaign had already scripted for this candidate. Repeat something often enough, and people will begin to internalize the idea and will be disposed to dismiss any evidence that contradicts it. This is what sunk the Titanic. Everyone said the Titanic was unsinkable. So when the ship approached an iceberg, the skipper said full speed ahead. And why? Well, because the Titanic was unsinkable. Never mind the facts. Is Sarah Palin a phony? Oh no! How could she be, she's a real maverick. The facts no longer count, for, like the Titanic, she too is unassailable. Such is the MO of the McCain/Palin campaign. The fact is, Palin is no maverick, but the McCain campaign doesn't care about facts. They care about image, and it is only an image and not reality that could possibly put her in the White House. John McCain is no maverick either. He was a foot soldier for the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a militant organization that spearheaded the neocon movement in the United States, and largely defined the foreign affairs policies of the Bush Administration. He was a major supporter of Almed Chalabi, the Iraqi charlatan responsible for providing the false intelligence that took us to war in Iraq. McCain was instrumental in helping to wastefully funnel millions of American tax payers' dollars to Chalibi's Iraqi National Congress, a group of Iraqi rebels who, from 1998 until shortly after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, futilely attempted to instigate a national uprising against Saddam Hussein. Far from living up to his image of being a champion of the rights of POW/MIAs, McCain sold out POW/MIA families by adding an amendment to the Missing Service Personnel Act of 1995, which eviscerated provisions of this law that made government more responsive to locating and providing the whereabouts of MIA/POWs. And, far from living up to his image of "not winning any popularity contests," McCain also lacks principled conviction. This former Vietnam POW, who himself was tortured, has even recapitulated his rejection of torture, and has supported the Bush Administration's refusal to place off bounds cruel and inhumane treatment of detainees including waterboarding. McCain is and always has been a servant of a far right, militant branch of the Republican Party that now dominates Washington under the Bush Administration. Obama was correct when he said that McCain's promise to bring change to Washington is like putting lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig. And McCain is still no maverick. This is what Americans would really be getting from a possible McCain/Palin administration. Unfortunately, this is not the image many Americans have. The ads that the McCain/Palin campaign run have been artfully created to manufacture reality according to what it wants Americans to believe, but not what is true. Here is a representative example: This past August, the McCain campaign published a video ad on the Internet portraying Obama as "The One." The video mocked Obama with a scene from the movie "The Ten Commandments" in which the waters parted for Moses, played by Charlton Heston. At one point the ad stated "He can do no wrong" and then the video showed CBS news correspondent Lara Logan ask Obama, "Do you have any doubts?" and Obama answering "Never." But here is what really transpired. The real question Logan asked was "Do you have any doubts about your foreign affairs experience?" The omission was designed to make it look like Obama did not have any doubts about anything whatsoever. It contrived reality to make him look arrogant. In another part of this video, Obama stated, "I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions." But this too was lifted out of context. The real event transpired at a closed meeting with Congressional representatives during which, referring to his speech delivered in Berlin, Obama stated that the 200,000 people who came to his speech came not just for him. Again the "not just for him" part was omitted for the deliberate purpose of making him sound arrogant. Obama in fact never said he was "The One" but rather that "we are the ones we've been waiting for." Here is the complete passage: "You see, the challenges we face will not be solved with one meeting in one night. It will not be resolved on even a Super Duper Tuesday. Change will not come if we wait for some other person or if we wait for some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. We are the hope of those boys who have so little, who've been told that they cannot have what they dream, that they cannot be what they imagine. Yes, they can." So Obama's real point was to emphasize that the people are the ones who must affect change. Yet, the ad said Obama "has anointed himself ready to carry the burden of The One." Not only was this false, but Obama's point was the exact opposite, namely the people, not he, must bear the burden. Obama is not, from all evidence to date, an arrogant man. But reality was twisted to turn him into one for purposes of discrediting him. After all, who wants an arrogant know-it-all, who thinks he's Moses, in the White House? But it gets even worse than this. The idea of painting a black man as arrogant helps to propagate an old stereotype of the "uppity" black person, a stereotype that is unfortunately still entertained in some Southern states. In fact, on September 4, House Representative Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA) actually called Obama and his wife "uppity." "Just from what little I've seen of and Mr. Obama," he said, "they're a member of an elitist-class individual that thinks that they're uppity." For the McCain campaign, the manufacturing of reality to fit the basest of human inclinations, even racism, is not off-limits. What made the Bush Administration so treacherous was its propensity to distort reality. Recall the Downing Street Memo, which reported that Bush wanted to "make the facts fit the policy" in order to sell the Iraq war to the American people. Sadly, this is exactly what the McCain/Palin campaign is all about: making the facts fit the image that it wants voters to buy. This bodes badly for the prognosis of what living under a McCain/Palin administration would be like. In all probability, much like the Bush Administration, it would lack candor and would do its best to manipulate and deceive the public into supporting its policies. The American public cannot afford to allow itself to be deceived again. The nation is in a fragile state. It is on the verge of economic collapse. This is reality. Nevertheless, McCain insists that the U.S. economy is "fundamentally sound." That too is what George W. Bush has said. Reality is here, McCain (and Bush) there. We are also in a quagmire in Iraq that McCain helped to get us into. Never mind whether the surge worked or not; in fact, McCain in 2002, prior to the invasion of Iraq, served as co-chair, with Joseph Lieberman, of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (CLI), which worked cooperatively with the Bush Administration to build public support for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. And Randy Scheunemann, now McCain's chief defense and foreign policy advisor, was the executive director of the CLI as well as a co-director of PNAC. As part of the PNAC credo, both McCain and Scheunemann support investing incredible amounts of money in waging and sustaining multiple, simultaneous wars overseas (including Iran). This would unavoidably be at the expense of neglecting pressing concerns at home, including the economy, healthcare, the environment, and education. Such is the historical and ideological baggage that comes with a McCain presidency no matter how the McCain/Palin campaign tries to spin it.
McCain aide’s firm was paid by Freddie Mac
The disclosure contradicts a statement Sunday night by McCain
By Jackie Calmes and David D. Kirkpatrick
The New York Times
updated 5:58 p.m. PT, Tues., Sept. 23, 2008
WASHINGTON - One of the giant mortgage companies at the heart of the credit crisis paid $15,000 a month to a firm owned by Senator John McCain’s campaign manager from the end of 2005 through last month, according to two people with direct knowledge of the arrangement. The disclosure contradicts a statement Sunday night by Mr. McCain that the campaign manager, Rick Davis, had no involvement with the company for the last several years. Mr. Davis’s firm received the payments from the company, Freddie Mac, until it was taken over by the government this month along with Fannie Mae, the other big mortgage lender whose deteriorating finances helped precipitate the cascading problems on Wall Street, the people said.
They said they did not recall Mr. Davis doing much substantive work for the company in return for the money, other than speak to a political action committee composed of high-ranking employees in October 2006 on the coming midterm congressional elections. They said Mr. Davis’s his firm, Davis & Manafort, was kept on the payroll because of Mr. Davis’s close ties to Mr. McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, who was widely expected by 2006 to run again for the White House.
Mr. Davis took a leave from Davis & Manafort for the duration of the campaign, but as a partner and equity-holder continues to share in its profits. No one at Davis & Manafort other than Mr. Davis was involved in efforts on Freddie Mac’s behalf, the people familiar with the arrangement said.
A Freddie Mac spokeswoman said the company would not comment. Jill Hazelbaker, a spokeswoman for the McCain campaign, did not dispute the payments to Mr. Davis’s firm. But she said that Mr. Davis had stopped taking a salary from his firm by the end of 2006 and that his work did not affect Mr. McCain.
“Senator McCain’s positions on policy matters are based upon what he believes to be in the public interest,” Ms. Hazelbaker said in a written statement.
The revelations come at a time when Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama are sparring over ties to lobbyists and special interests and seeking political advantage in a campaign being reshaped by the financial crisis and the plan to bail out investment firms.
Long history of cultivating allies Mr. McCain’s campaign has been attacking Senator Barack Obama, his Democratic rival, for his ties to former officials of the mortgage lenders, both of which have long histories of cultivating allies in the two parties to fend off efforts to restrict their activities. Mr. McCain has been running a television commercial suggesting that Mr. Obama takes advice on housing issues from Franklin D. Raines, a former chief executive of Fannie Mae, a contention flatly denied by Mr. Raines and the Obama campaign. Freddie Mac’s roughly $500,000 in payments to Davis & Manafort began immediately after Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in late 2005 disbanded an advocacy coalition that they had set up and hired Mr. Davis to run, the people familiar with the arrangement said.
Between 2000 and the end of 2005, Mr. Davis had received nearly $2 million as president of the coalition, the Homeownership Alliance, which the companies created to help them oppose new regulations and protect their status as federally chartered companies with implicit government backing. That status let them borrow cheaply, helping to fuel rapid growth but also their increased purchases of the risky mortgage securities that were their downfall.
On Sunday, in an interview with CNBC and the New York Times, Mr. McCain responded to a question about Mr. Davis’s role in the advocacy group by saying that his campaign manager “has had nothing to do with it since, and I’ll be glad to have his record examined by anybody who wants to look at it.”
Such assertions, along with McCain campaign television ads tying Mr. Obama to former Fannie Mae chiefs, have riled current and former officials of the two companies and provoked them to volunteer rebuttals of what they see as the McCain campaign’s inaccuracy and hypocrisy. The two officials with direct knowledge of Freddie Mac’s post-2005 contract with Mr. Davis spoke on condition of anonymity. One is a Democrat and the other a registered independent. Four other outside consultants, three Democrats and a Republican also speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed that it was widely known that Mr. Davis was being paid though his firm.
As president of the Homeownership Alliance, Mr. Davis got $30,000 to $35,000 a month. Mr. Davis, along with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, have characterized the alliance as a coalition of many housing industry and consumer groups to promote homeownership, but numerous current and former officials at both companies say the two mortgage companies created and bankrolled the operation to combat efforts by competitors to rein in their business. They dissolved the group at the end of 2005 as part of cost-cutting in the wake of accounting scandals and, at Freddie Mac, a lobbying scandal that forced out its former top Republican lobbyist.
Bias accusations against New York Times On Monday, the McCain campaign accused The New York Times of bias for reporting the payments to Mr. Davis from the mortgage giants. Mr. Davis said that had worked not for the two companies but for the advocacy group, which included other nonprofit organization as well.
After the Homeownership Alliance was dissolved, Mr. Davis asked to stay on a retainer, the people familiar with the deal said. Hollis McLoughlin, who was chief of staff to Richard F. Syron, Freddie Mac’s chief executive, arranged for a new contract with Davis & Manafort, at the reduced rate of $15,000 a month, they said. Mr. Syron lost his job in the government takeover this month. Mr. McLoughlin, who through a spokeswoman declined to comment, was a former chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Nicholas Brady in the first President Bush’s administration, and has longstanding Republican ties.
Mr. Davis was hired as a consultant, not a lobbyist, the officials said. Davis & Manafort in recent years has filed federal lobbying reports for a number of companies, including SBC Telecommunications, Fruit of the Loom, Comsat, Gtech, Airborne Express, BellSouth and Verizon—all businesses with legislative interests before the Senate Commerce Committee, where Mr. McCain has been chairman or senior Republican. It has filed no reports registering to lobby for Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae.
Later in 2006, Mr. Davis was working on Mr. McCain’s emerging presidential campaign, as chief financial officer. The only thing that Freddie Mac officials could recall Mr. Davis doing for the company was the October 2006 pre-election forum with mid-level and senior executives who contribute to Freddie PAC, the company’s political action committee.
An electronic invitation to the employees, read by an official to the New York Times, said “Please join us for political food for thought” with Paul Begala, a longtime Democratic consultant, “and Rick Davis, former 2000 presidential campaign manager and current advisor to Senator John McCain.” Mr. Begala, who also was a paid consultant to Freddie Mac until this month, confirmed that the event took place.
Not unusual to have people on payrolls A Freddie Mac executive said that as the event was being planned, and organizers were looking for a speaker from each party, “People at the office were saying, ‘Well, we have Rick Davis on contract and we never use him for anything. Why don’t we at least get him up here to talk like he knows what’s going on in the campaigns?”
It was not unusual for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to have well-connected people from both parties on their payrolls, but doing little work, in the high-flying days. The purpose, people who worked at the companies said, was bipartisan insurance against new regulations or loss of the implicit government guarantee, which seemed at risk during both the Clinton and current Bush administrations.
At least two other people associated with Mr. McCain have ties to either Freddie Mac. The lobbying firm of the Republican that Mr. McCain has enlisted to plan his transition to the White House should he be elected, William Timmons Sr., earned nearly $3 million from Freddie Mac between 2000 and its seizure, federal lobbying records show. Mr. Timmons is founder of Timmons & Co., one of Washington’s best-known lobbying shops. The payments were first reported by Bloomberg News.
Mark Buse, Mr. McCain’s chief of staff for his Senate office, also is a Freddie Mac alumnus. He and his former lobbying employer, ML Strategies, registered to lobby for the company in July 2003, and received $460,000 before the association ended after 2004.
Ties to mortgage giants Mr. McCain and his advisers have argued that whatever connections Mr. Davis and other McCain campaign officials have had to the mortgage giants, Mr. McCain in the Senate has been an advocate for reforming them. And they have suggested that Mr. Obama is linked to the companies through donations from their employees ties to former officials there, including James Johnson, another former chief executive of Fannie Mae who was the head of Mr. Obama’s vice presidential search team until stepping aside after coming under criticism for getting a mortgage on favorable terms.
In an interview Tuesday with conservative talk-radio host Neal Boortz, Mr. McCain said, “I remember warning at that time that Fannie and Freddie were out of control and that they needed to be reined in. And, frankly, I warned that this kind of thing could lead to serious problems. Now, in full disclosure, I didn’t foresee something this huge, but certainly I saw the fundamentals there for serious problems when you have a quasi government agency acting the way they did.”
When Mr. Boortz noted approvingly that Mr. McCain had co-sponsored a Senate bill to mandate new regulations, Mr. McCain said, “I remember it very well.”
But a Freddie Mac official said Mr. McCain “never took on the role that some other Republicans did” to try to limit the companies. He named instead Senators Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, John Sununu of New Hampshire and Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina, all of whom were on the banking committee during recent years. “I remember working against a number of amendments and they were always introduced by Hagel and Sununu. John McCain was never anywhere to be found.”
A check of the records for the legislation that Mr. Boortz mentioned shows that Senator Hagel was the original sponsor on Jan. 26, 2005, and Senators Sununu and Dole were co-sponsors then. Mr. McCain did not sign on as a co-sponsor for more than a year, on May 25, 2006.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26859857/page/2/
