To all Florida Obama supporters - it's finally time to GET OUT THE VOTE! Early vote in Florida begins today, and goes through November 2. Go to voteforchange.com for more info.
Remember, only tell OUR SUPPORTERS about early vote. Good luck, remember to bring your driver's license (or a picture ID with signature) to the polls, and I hope you'll post about your experiences in the comments.
There's a great new program from Florida for Obama:
If Barack Obama wins Florida, he will be the next President of the United States. The margin of victory here in 2004 was 380,978 votes. If you each commit to taking five friends, neighbors or family members to early vote, we will surpass this margin.
adoptfive.barackobama.com
Rolling Stone is out with a scathing expose of John McCain called "Make-Believe Maverick." It's fairly long, but quite a fascinating read. An excerpt:
Then there's torture — the issue most related to McCain's own experience as a POW. In 2005, in a highly public fight, McCain battled the president to stop the torture of enemy combatants, winning a victory to require military personnel to abide by the Army Field Manual when interrogating prisoners. But barely a year later, as he prepared to launch his presidential campaign, McCain cut a deal with the White House that allows the Bush administration to imprison detainees indefinitely and to flout the Geneva Conventions' prohibitions against torture. What his former allies in the anti-torture fight found most troubling was that McCain would not admit to his betrayal. Shortly after cutting the deal, McCain spoke to a group of retired military brass who had been working to ban torture. According to Wilkerson, Colin Powell's former deputy, McCain feigned outrage at Bush and Cheney, as though he too had had the rug pulled out from under him. "We all knew the opposite was the truth," recalls Wilkerson. "That's when I began to lose a little bit of my respect for the man and his bona fides as a straight shooter." But perhaps the most revealing of McCain's flip-flops was his promise, made at the beginning of the year, that he would "raise the level of political dialogue in America." McCain pledged he would "treat my opponents with respect and demand that they treat me with respect." Instead, with Rove protégé Steve Schmidt at the helm, McCain has turned the campaign into a torrent of debasing negativity, misrepresenting Barack Obama's positions on everything from sex education for kindergarteners to middle-class taxes. In September, in one of his most blatant embraces of Rove-like tactics, McCain hired Tucker Eskew — one of Rove's campaign operatives who smeared the senator and his family during the 2000 campaign in South Carolina. Throughout the campaign this year, McCain has tried to make the contest about honor and character. His own writing gives us the standard by which he should be judged. "Always telling the truth in a political campaign," he writes in Worth the Fighting For, "is a great test of character." He adds: "Patriotism that only serves and never risks one's self-interest isn't patriotism at all. It's selfishness. That's a lesson worth relearning from time to time." It's a lesson, it would appear, that the candidate himself could stand to relearn. "I'm sure John McCain loves his country," says Richard Clarke, the former counterterrorism czar under Bush. "But loving your country and lying to the American people are apparently not inconsistent in his view."
Then there's torture — the issue most related to McCain's own experience as a POW. In 2005, in a highly public fight, McCain battled the president to stop the torture of enemy combatants, winning a victory to require military personnel to abide by the Army Field Manual when interrogating prisoners. But barely a year later, as he prepared to launch his presidential campaign, McCain cut a deal with the White House that allows the Bush administration to imprison detainees indefinitely and to flout the Geneva Conventions' prohibitions against torture.
What his former allies in the anti-torture fight found most troubling was that McCain would not admit to his betrayal. Shortly after cutting the deal, McCain spoke to a group of retired military brass who had been working to ban torture. According to Wilkerson, Colin Powell's former deputy, McCain feigned outrage at Bush and Cheney, as though he too had had the rug pulled out from under him. "We all knew the opposite was the truth," recalls Wilkerson. "That's when I began to lose a little bit of my respect for the man and his bona fides as a straight shooter."
But perhaps the most revealing of McCain's flip-flops was his promise, made at the beginning of the year, that he would "raise the level of political dialogue in America." McCain pledged he would "treat my opponents with respect and demand that they treat me with respect." Instead, with Rove protégé Steve Schmidt at the helm, McCain has turned the campaign into a torrent of debasing negativity, misrepresenting Barack Obama's positions on everything from sex education for kindergarteners to middle-class taxes. In September, in one of his most blatant embraces of Rove-like tactics, McCain hired Tucker Eskew — one of Rove's campaign operatives who smeared the senator and his family during the 2000 campaign in South Carolina.
Throughout the campaign this year, McCain has tried to make the contest about honor and character. His own writing gives us the standard by which he should be judged. "Always telling the truth in a political campaign," he writes in Worth the Fighting For, "is a great test of character." He adds: "Patriotism that only serves and never risks one's self-interest isn't patriotism at all. It's selfishness. That's a lesson worth relearning from time to time." It's a lesson, it would appear, that the candidate himself could stand to relearn.
"I'm sure John McCain loves his country," says Richard Clarke, the former counterterrorism czar under Bush. "But loving your country and lying to the American people are apparently not inconsistent in his view."
First, some good news from the new Quinnipiac poll of battleground states. Let's keep up the good work:
From Quinnipiac University poll:FLORIDA: Obama 51, McCain 43OHIO: Obama 50, McCain 42PENNSYLVANIA: Obama 54, McCain 39Dates conducted: Sept. 27-29. Error margin: 3.4 percentage points.
From Quinnipiac University poll:
FLORIDA: Obama 51, McCain 43
OHIO: Obama 50, McCain 42
PENNSYLVANIA: Obama 54, McCain 39
Dates conducted: Sept. 27-29. Error margin: 3.4 percentage points.
Also, some striking video evidence of John McCain's temper. Recently he spoke before the Des Moines Register on a campaign trip to Iowa. Look at how testy he gets with the questions. It's not a pretty sight.
Jonathan Martin, who's been covering McCain for nearly two years, writes that the tape of his meeting yetserday with the Des Moines Register shows "a hard-edged McCain that is rarely seen on film."He's strikingly testy, though -- and perhaps I'm projecting -- he may be thinking, "What am I doing in a state I may not be able to win with a newspaper that will never endorse me?"One edgy moment: When he was asked if he had enjoyed taxpayer-backed health care throughout his life, McCain made abundantly clear what he thought of the question."You know that's an interesting statement, isn't it?" he observed. "And I have never been an astronaut, but I think I know the challenges of space. And i have never done a lot of things in my life that I think I am familar with."
Jonathan Martin, who's been covering McCain for nearly two years, writes that the tape of his meeting yetserday with the Des Moines Register shows "a hard-edged McCain that is rarely seen on film."
He's strikingly testy, though -- and perhaps I'm projecting -- he may be thinking, "What am I doing in a state I may not be able to win with a newspaper that will never endorse me?"
One edgy moment: When he was asked if he had enjoyed taxpayer-backed health care throughout his life, McCain made abundantly clear what he thought of the question."You know that's an interesting statement, isn't it?" he observed. "And I have never been an astronaut, but I think I know the challenges of space. And i have never done a lot of things in my life that I think I am familar with."
Hello all,
I'm so sorry to have misinformed everyone. In an earlier post, I had told everyone that I had found out that the address on your identification had to match the registration address in order for you to legally vote in Florida. I had gotten this from a contributor in one of the Obama groups. Turns out, this information is WRONG. I've learned my lesson, and I hope you will too - only trust information coming directly from the Obama campaign.
Here is the email I just received from the Obama campaign, with details about the false rumor.
There's a dangerous rumor going around the internet in Florida right now, and it's being repeated by some news outlets. To be clear: when you vote in Florida, the address on your identification CAN be different than your registration address. Thousands of voters around Florida could be discouraged from voting or even denied their rights based on this misunderstanding. And nobody knows better than Floridians how big a difference even a few votes can make. We need to make sure this false rumor isn't reported as truth and alert people to the facts. Write a letter to the editor of your local paper now and help preserve voting rights. The voter identification law is relatively new, and there is a lot of honest confusion around what will be required of Florida voters this November. But this election is too important to let the confusion go uncontested. With the devastating effects of the Bush-McCain economic policies being felt worse than ever, millions of Americans are counting on the change that only Barack Obama and Joe Biden can bring. Once this rumor gets established in people's minds, it will be very hard to dislodge. That's why we need to act now to push back with the truth. With our easy-to-use letter tool, it's simple to write and send letters to your local paper. Check it out now and help get the message out: http://fl.barackobama.com/FLvoting Keep fighting the good fight, Obama Action Wire
Good news coming out of Virginia tonight:
Virginia's first Republican governor since Reconstruction and its first lady will campaign for Democratic president candidate Barack Obama in southwest Virginia. Former Governor Linwood Holton is the father-in-law of Democratic Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, the first governor outside of Obama's home state of Illinois to endorse the senator. Holton will campaign on Obama's behalf with his daughter, First Lady Anne Holton, today and tomorrow. They will visit Wise, Abingdon, Galax, Wytheville, Christiansburg and Roanoke.
Virginia's first Republican governor since Reconstruction and its first lady will campaign for Democratic president candidate Barack Obama in southwest Virginia.
Former Governor Linwood Holton is the father-in-law of Democratic Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, the first governor outside of Obama's home state of Illinois to endorse the senator.
Holton will campaign on Obama's behalf with his daughter, First Lady Anne Holton, today and tomorrow. They will visit Wise, Abingdon, Galax, Wytheville, Christiansburg and Roanoke.
McCain said this today, as there came news of Lehman Bros. going bankrupt, and Merrill Lynch being bought by Bank of America:
On the campaign trail in Jacksonville, Florida, the Senator declared this morning that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong," despite what he described as "tremendous turmoil in our financial markets and Wall Street." The line may seem like GOP boilerplate, save for the fact that this morning, the McCain campaign released a television ad that began: "Our economy is in crisis." Moreover, with financial and job markets in disarray, and with Lehman Brothers, the troubled investment bank, filing for bankruptcy, it may not be the wisest political message to tell voters that the fundamentals are a-okay.
On the campaign trail in Jacksonville, Florida, the Senator declared this morning that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong," despite what he described as "tremendous turmoil in our financial markets and Wall Street."
The line may seem like GOP boilerplate, save for the fact that this morning, the McCain campaign released a television ad that began: "Our economy is in crisis." Moreover, with financial and job markets in disarray, and with Lehman Brothers, the troubled investment bank, filing for bankruptcy, it may not be the wisest political message to tell voters that the fundamentals are a-okay.
It just seems like incredibly bad timing on his part - he sounds a little like Herbert Hoover at the beginning of the Great Depression. Then again, I think it underscores, yet again, how little he understands what's going on, and why we cannot allow him to take the White House.
Joe Biden picked up on this while on a stop in Michigan:
Eight years ago, a man ran for President who claimed he was different, not a typical Republican. He called himself a reformer. He admitted that his Party, the Republican Party, had been wrong about things from time to time. He promised to work with Democrats and said he’d been doing that for a long time. That candidate was George W. Bush. Remember that? Remember the promise to reach across the aisle? To change the tone? To restore honor and dignity to the White House? We saw how that story ends. A record number of home foreclosures. Home values, tumbling. And the disturbing news that the crisis you’ve been facing on Main Street is now hitting Wall Street, taking down Lehman Brothers and threatening other financial institutions. We’ve seen eight straight months of job losses. Nearly 46 million Americans without health insurance. Average incomes down, while the price of everything — from gas to groceries — has skyrocketed. A military stretched thin from two wars and multiple deployments. A nation more polarized than I’ve ever seen in my career. And a culture in Washington where the very few wealthy and powerful have a seat at the table and everybody else is on the menu. Eight years later, we have another Republican nominee who’s telling us the exact same thing: This time it will be different, it really will. This time he’s going to put country before party, to change the tone, reach across the aisle, change the Republican Party, change the way Washington works. We’ve seen this movie before, folks. But as everyone knows, the sequel is always worse than the original. If we forget this history, we’re going to be doomed to repeat it — with four more just like the last eight, or worse. If you’re ready for four more years of George Bush, John McCain is your man. Just as George Herbert Walker Bush was nicknamed “Bush 41” and his son is known as “Bush 43,” John McCain could easily become known as “Bush 44.” The campaign a person runs says everything about the way they’ll govern. The McCain-Palin campaign has decided to bet the house on the politics perfected by Karl Rove. Those tactics may be good at squeaking by in an election, but they are bad if you want to lead one nation, indivisible. I count John McCain as a friend. I’ve known him since before he was a Senator. If he needed my personal help, I’d go. He served our country bravely, nobly. But America needs more than a great solider, America needs a wise leader. Take a hard look at the positions John has taken for the past 26 years, on the economy, on health care, on foreign policy, and you’ll see why I say that John McCain is just four more years of George Bush. On the issues that you talk about around the kitchen table, Mary’s college tuition, the cost of the MRI for mom, heating our home this winter — John McCain is profoundly out of touch. Senator McCain has confessed, quote, “It’s easy for me to go to Washington and frankly, be somewhat divorced from the day-to-day challenges people have.” And he’s right, if all you do is walk the halls of power, all you hear are the wants of the powerful. I believe that’s why Senator McCain could say with a straight face, as recently as this morning, and I quote “the fundamentals of our economy are strong.” That, “We’ve made great progress economically” during the Bush years. But friends, I could walk from here to Lansing, and I wouldn’t run into a single person who thought our economy was doing well, unless I ran into John McCain. John McCain just doesn’t seem to understand what middle class people are going through today. I don’t doubt that he cares. He just doesn’t think that we have any responsibility to help people who are hurting. My dad used to have an expression: “Don’t tell me what you value. Show me your budget, and I’ll tell you what you value.” By that measure, John McCain doesn’t stand with the middle class. He stands with George Bush firmly in the corner of the wealthy and well-connected. He stands with the CEO of Exxon-Mobil, who, while testifying before my Senate judiciary committee swore to me under oath that Exxon-Mobil didn’t need the tax breaks they’d been given to explore for oil. John McCain is so firmly in their corner he thinks the Exxon-Mobils of the world should get an additional $4 billion dollars a year in tax cuts. He stands in the corner of the wealthiest Americans by extending tax cuts for people making over a quarter million dollars a year, and then adding more than $300 billion on top of that for corporations and the wealthy. There is simply no daylight – at least none I can see — between John McCain and George Bush. On every major challenge we face, from the economy, to health care, to education and Iraq, you can barely tell them apart. Don’t take my word for it, look at the record. Ninety percent of the time, John McCain votes with George Bush. Here’s what that means: When George Bush called for Social Security to be privatized, John McCain stood with him – he even campaigned for that roundly rejected plan. When George Bush says that the government has no obligation to re-train or provide extended unemployment benefits for people who have lost their jobs due to trade agreements, John McCain echoes that view, and has said that Bush is “Right on trade… absolutely.” When George Bush said we shouldn’t investigate why the government’s response to Hurricane Katrina was so incompetent, John McCain stood with him. When George Bush initially opposed a new GI Bill that would send a new generation of veterans to college, John McCain stood with him, calling Senator Webb’s effort too generous. When George Bush blocked our efforts to provide health care to another 3.8 million children, John McCain stood with him. And when, in early 2007, George Bush suggested that the health care benefits you get through your employer should be taxed as income, John McCain stood with him. And now, ladies and gentlemen, John McCain has resurrected that idea, and made it an essential part of his health care plan. Issue after issue, vote after vote, the story is the same. In the last 16 years, he’s voted 23 times against the renewable energy – wind, solar, biofuels — we need to free ourselves from foreign oil. Since he arrived in the Senate over 20 years ago, he’s voted more than 19 times against the minimum wage. In 1994, I wrote and we passed a Crime bill that put 100,000 new police officers on the street, 3,300 of them here in Michigan, provided shelters and security for tens of thousands of battered women, and helped lead to an eight year drop in violent crime. John opposed the crime bill and the Violence Against Women Act it contained, calling them “ineffective” and “ill conceived.” Time and again John voted against increased funding for Pell grants to help families with incomes under $55,000 send their kids to college. Time and again, John McCain voted to make it harder for women to achieve equal pay for the same work – making it harder to prove, and punish, discrimination. He even voted against a study to determine if there is a gap between what men and women are paid. Twice. Governor Palin says all senators do is vote. Well, just imagine what the country would look like if John’s votes had become the law of the land. In John McCain’s America, we wouldn’t guarantee that more of energy would come from wind, solar, and other renewables. The minimum wage would still be $3.35 an hour. There would have been 100,000 fewer police on the beat. There would have been no national domestic violence hotline for the 1.5 million women who were in crisis and needed somewhere to turn. Over 160,000 members of the Guard and Reserve who answered their country’s call and served more than one tour in Iraq or Afghanistan would get no credit towards an education for their additional sacrifice. Fewer parents would be able to afford to send their kids to college. And women who were discriminated against on the basis of pay would more difficulty making their case. Thank God that’s not the America we live in. John McCain recently said: “the issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should.” Then he proved it by the advisors he chose to surround him – advisors who have further cocooned him from the reality facing the rest of us. People like Phil Gramm. The man who wrote John McCain’s economic plan actually said, repeatedly, that we’re not going through an economic recession. Phil Gramm says it’s just a mental recession. That we’re a nation of whiners. Tell that to my friend who flew jets for the Navy and then went to work for a commercial airline for over 20 years – only to see his pension wiped out while his CEO got a golden parachute. Don’t tell me that he is a whiner. Don’t tell me that the woman I met in Missouri who worked for the Chrysler plant for 13 years making minivans and lost her job when production moved to Canada is a whiner. Don’t tell me that an engineer who sees his job go overseas because his company has been given a tax break to leave instead of one to stay is a whiner. Don’t tell me that these people, people who are our nation’s heart and soul – deserve to be treated as economic scapegoats. These people worked hard, they did everything right, and they’re willing to work hard again. But instead of their government supporting them, their government walked away from them. Nobody stood up for them. Barack and I will. What is John’s response to the state of the economy? Let me quote him: “A lot of this is psychological.” Let me tell you something: Losing your job is more than a state of mind. It means staring at the ceiling at night thinking that you may lose your house because you can’t get next month’s mortgage payment. It means looking at your pregnant wife and not knowing how you’re going to come up with the money to pay for the delivery of your child, since you don’t have health care anymore. It means looking at your child when they come home from college at Christmas and saying “Honey, I’m sorry, we’re not going to be able to send you back next semester.” It’s not a state of mind. It’s a loss of dignity. When you and your economic advisors are so out of touch, it’s no surprise that your economic policies ignore the challenges that normal families face. Let me just give you one more example. In the midst of this housing crisis, John McCain said, “I will fight for those that lost their… real estate investments.” He went on to say, “It’s not the role of government to bail out big banks or small borrowers.” What about small borrowers? What about homeowners? What about the people who don’t invest in homes, but live in them? There’s an important distinction between the predators and the preyed upon. I heard that a Republican County Chairman right here in Michigan said that they’re keeping a list of foreclosed homes, suggesting that if you’ve lost your home, you should also lose your vote. I have a different idea. I think that if you’re worried about losing your home, you should vote for the guys who are going to help you keep it! Whatever happened to the guy, who once denounced tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans in a time of war as immoral. When someone running for election changes his views to satisfy the base of the party, that’s not change, that’s just more of the same Washington game. The problem is that in the Washington game today, the American people are losing. Ladies and Gentlemen, as of today, there are 50 days until Election Day. That’s just seven more weeks to talk about the direction we’re going to take this country, to talk about the issues of concern in your lives, to talk about you. But as his campaign manager has said, and I quote, “This election is not about issues.” When Senator McCain was subjected to unconscionable, scurrilous attacks in his 2000 primary campaign, I called him on the phone to ask what I could do. And now, some of the very same people and the tactics he once deplored his campaign now employs. The same campaign that once called for a town hall a week is now launching a low blow a day. Barack and I can take it. That’s not what bothers me. It bothers me that — as one media watchdog put it — John’s recent commercial is the, “latest in a number that resort to a dubious disregard for the facts.” As another news organization put it: The wheels have come off the straight talk express. But what really bothers me, is that every punch thrown at us — is an attempt to distract you. And they can be plenty distracting. Like the McCain advertisements that misrepresent a vote by Barack Obama to protect young children from sexual predators. Like Senator McCain’s effort to obscure the fact that Barack Obama’s tax cuts will benefit 95 percent of all working people. Like John McCain’s attempt to cloak himself in reform by misrepresenting his running mate’s record. It’s disappointing to me to think that John McCain really does approve this message. Every false debate we’re drawn into is a real conversation we don’t have with the American people. Character attacks get media attention, but they make this election about us when it really needs to be about you. Barack Obama believes that progress in this country is measured by how many people have a decent job where they’re shown respect. How many people can pay their mortgage. How many people can turn their ideas into a new business. How many people can turn to their kids and say “It’s going to be okay” with the knowledge that the opportunities they give will be better than the ones they received. That’s the American dream. That’s what the people in my neighborhood grew up believing. And I want our kids to have the same dream. Barack Obama starts from that vision of progress and will do what it takes to get us there. That’s why his tax cuts - benefit the middle class. That’s why he’ll make it easier for families to afford college for their kids. That’s why he says everyone should be able to have the same health care that members of Congress have. That’s why his energy plan will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, bring down gas prices, and, in the process, we’ll create five million new green jobs. Those are the changes we need. Yes, this campaign is about change, but it’s about even more than that. It’s about what we value as a people. It’s not just about a job, it’s about dignity. It’s not just about a paycheck. It’s about pride. It’s not just about opportunity. It’s about respect. That’s why Barack and I are in this race. We know we need change if we’re to restore dignity, pride, and respect. We know America’s best days are ahead of us, and we know why we’re here. We’re here for the for the cops and firefighters, the teachers and assembly line workers, the engineers and office workers, the small business owners and the retiree. All of the folks who play by the rules, work hard, and do what is asked of them. They deserve a government as good and an economy as strong as they are. We’re all are Americans. There has never been a challenge too great. The stakes have never been higher. My father always told me, “Champ, when you get knocked down, get up. Get up.” It’s time to get up. It’s time to trust the grit and determination of the American people. America is ready. You are ready. I am ready. And Barack Obama is ready. Our best days are yet to come. May God bless America and may God protect our troops.
Eight years ago, a man ran for President who claimed he was different, not a typical Republican. He called himself a reformer. He admitted that his Party, the Republican Party, had been wrong about things from time to time. He promised to work with Democrats and said he’d been doing that for a long time.
That candidate was George W. Bush. Remember that? Remember the promise to reach across the aisle? To change the tone? To restore honor and dignity to the White House?
We saw how that story ends. A record number of home foreclosures. Home values, tumbling. And the disturbing news that the crisis you’ve been facing on Main Street is now hitting Wall Street, taking down Lehman Brothers and threatening other financial institutions.
We’ve seen eight straight months of job losses. Nearly 46 million Americans without health insurance. Average incomes down, while the price of everything — from gas to groceries — has skyrocketed. A military stretched thin from two wars and multiple deployments.
A nation more polarized than I’ve ever seen in my career. And a culture in Washington where the very few wealthy and powerful have a seat at the table and everybody else is on the menu.
Eight years later, we have another Republican nominee who’s telling us the exact same thing: This time it will be different, it really will. This time he’s going to put country before party, to change the tone, reach across the aisle, change the Republican Party, change the way Washington works.
We’ve seen this movie before, folks. But as everyone knows, the sequel is always worse than the original.
If we forget this history, we’re going to be doomed to repeat it — with four more just like the last eight, or worse. If you’re ready for four more years of George Bush, John McCain is your man.
Just as George Herbert Walker Bush was nicknamed “Bush 41” and his son is known as “Bush 43,” John McCain could easily become known as “Bush 44.”
The campaign a person runs says everything about the way they’ll govern. The McCain-Palin campaign has decided to bet the house on the politics perfected by Karl Rove. Those tactics may be good at squeaking by in an election, but they are bad if you want to lead one nation, indivisible.
I count John McCain as a friend. I’ve known him since before he was a Senator. If he needed my personal help, I’d go. He served our country bravely, nobly. But America needs more than a great solider, America needs a wise leader.
Take a hard look at the positions John has taken for the past 26 years, on the economy, on health care, on foreign policy, and you’ll see why I say that John McCain is just four more years of George Bush. On the issues that you talk about around the kitchen table, Mary’s college tuition, the cost of the MRI for mom, heating our home this winter — John McCain is profoundly out of touch.
Senator McCain has confessed, quote, “It’s easy for me to go to Washington and frankly, be somewhat divorced from the day-to-day challenges people have.” And he’s right, if all you do is walk the halls of power, all you hear are the wants of the powerful.
I believe that’s why Senator McCain could say with a straight face, as recently as this morning, and I quote “the fundamentals of our economy are strong.” That, “We’ve made great progress economically” during the Bush years. But friends, I could walk from here to Lansing, and I wouldn’t run into a single person who thought our economy was doing well, unless I ran into John McCain.
John McCain just doesn’t seem to understand what middle class people are going through today. I don’t doubt that he cares. He just doesn’t think that we have any responsibility to help people who are hurting.
My dad used to have an expression: “Don’t tell me what you value. Show me your budget, and I’ll tell you what you value.” By that measure, John McCain doesn’t stand with the middle class. He stands with George Bush firmly in the corner of the wealthy and well-connected. He stands with the CEO of Exxon-Mobil, who, while testifying before my Senate judiciary committee swore to me under oath that Exxon-Mobil didn’t need the tax breaks they’d been given to explore for oil.
John McCain is so firmly in their corner he thinks the Exxon-Mobils of the world should get an additional $4 billion dollars a year in tax cuts.
He stands in the corner of the wealthiest Americans by extending tax cuts for people making over a quarter million dollars a year, and then adding more than $300 billion on top of that for corporations and the wealthy.
There is simply no daylight – at least none I can see — between John McCain and George Bush. On every major challenge we face, from the economy, to health care, to education and Iraq, you can barely tell them apart.
Don’t take my word for it, look at the record. Ninety percent of the time, John McCain votes with George Bush.
Here’s what that means:
When George Bush called for Social Security to be privatized, John McCain stood with him – he even campaigned for that roundly rejected plan.
When George Bush says that the government has no obligation to re-train or provide extended unemployment benefits for people who have lost their jobs due to trade agreements,
John McCain echoes that view, and has said that Bush is “Right on trade… absolutely.”
When George Bush said we shouldn’t investigate why the government’s response to Hurricane Katrina was so incompetent, John McCain stood with him.
When George Bush initially opposed a new GI Bill that would send a new generation of veterans to college, John McCain stood with him, calling Senator Webb’s effort too generous.
When George Bush blocked our efforts to provide health care to another 3.8 million children, John McCain stood with him.
And when, in early 2007, George Bush suggested that the health care benefits you get through your employer should be taxed as income, John McCain stood with him. And now, ladies and gentlemen, John McCain has resurrected that idea, and made it an essential part of his health care plan.
Issue after issue, vote after vote, the story is the same.
In the last 16 years, he’s voted 23 times against the renewable energy – wind, solar, biofuels — we need to free ourselves from foreign oil.
Since he arrived in the Senate over 20 years ago, he’s voted more than 19 times against the minimum wage.
In 1994, I wrote and we passed a Crime bill that put 100,000 new police officers on the street, 3,300 of them here in Michigan, provided shelters and security for tens of thousands of battered women, and helped lead to an eight year drop in violent crime. John opposed the crime bill and the Violence Against Women Act it contained, calling them “ineffective” and “ill conceived.”
Time and again John voted against increased funding for Pell grants to help families with incomes under $55,000 send their kids to college.
Time and again, John McCain voted to make it harder for women to achieve equal pay for the same work – making it harder to prove, and punish, discrimination. He even voted against a study to determine if there is a gap between what men and women are paid. Twice.
Governor Palin says all senators do is vote. Well, just imagine what the country would look like if John’s votes had become the law of the land.
In John McCain’s America, we wouldn’t guarantee that more of energy would come from wind, solar, and other renewables. The minimum wage would still be $3.35 an hour. There would have been 100,000 fewer police on the beat. There would have been no national domestic violence hotline for the 1.5 million women who were in crisis and needed somewhere to turn. Over 160,000 members of the Guard and Reserve who answered their country’s call and served more than one tour in Iraq or Afghanistan would get no credit towards an education for their additional sacrifice. Fewer parents would be able to afford to send their kids to college. And women who were discriminated against on the basis of pay would more difficulty making their case. Thank God that’s not the America we live in.
John McCain recently said: “the issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should.” Then he proved it by the advisors he chose to surround him – advisors who have further cocooned him from the reality facing the rest of us. People like Phil Gramm. The man who wrote John McCain’s economic plan actually said, repeatedly, that we’re not going through an economic recession. Phil Gramm says it’s just a mental recession. That we’re a nation of whiners.
Tell that to my friend who flew jets for the Navy and then went to work for a commercial airline for over 20 years – only to see his pension wiped out while his CEO got a golden parachute. Don’t tell me that he is a whiner.
Don’t tell me that the woman I met in Missouri who worked for the Chrysler plant for 13 years making minivans and lost her job when production moved to Canada is a whiner.
Don’t tell me that an engineer who sees his job go overseas because his company has been given a tax break to leave instead of one to stay is a whiner.
Don’t tell me that these people, people who are our nation’s heart and soul – deserve to be treated as economic scapegoats.
These people worked hard, they did everything right, and they’re willing to work hard again. But instead of their government supporting them, their government walked away from them. Nobody stood up for them.
Barack and I will.
What is John’s response to the state of the economy? Let me quote him: “A lot of this is psychological.” Let me tell you something: Losing your job is more than a state of mind.
It means staring at the ceiling at night thinking that you may lose your house because you can’t get next month’s mortgage payment. It means looking at your pregnant wife and not knowing how you’re going to come up with the money to pay for the delivery of your child, since you don’t have health care anymore. It means looking at your child when they come home from college at Christmas and saying “Honey, I’m sorry, we’re not going to be able to send you back next semester.” It’s not a state of mind. It’s a loss of dignity.
When you and your economic advisors are so out of touch, it’s no surprise that your economic policies ignore the challenges that normal families face.
Let me just give you one more example. In the midst of this housing crisis, John McCain said, “I will fight for those that lost their… real estate investments.” He went on to say, “It’s not the role of government to bail out big banks or small borrowers.” What about small borrowers? What about homeowners? What about the people who don’t invest in homes, but live in them? There’s an important distinction between the predators and the preyed upon.
I heard that a Republican County Chairman right here in Michigan said that they’re keeping a list of foreclosed homes, suggesting that if you’ve lost your home, you should also lose your vote. I have a different idea. I think that if you’re worried about losing your home, you should vote for the guys who are going to help you keep it!
Whatever happened to the guy, who once denounced tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans in a time of war as immoral.
When someone running for election changes his views to satisfy the base of the party, that’s not change, that’s just more of the same Washington game. The problem is that in the Washington game today, the American people are losing.
Ladies and Gentlemen, as of today, there are 50 days until Election Day. That’s just seven more weeks to talk about the direction we’re going to take this country, to talk about the issues of concern in your lives, to talk about you. But as his campaign manager has said, and I quote, “This election is not about issues.”
When Senator McCain was subjected to unconscionable, scurrilous attacks in his 2000 primary campaign, I called him on the phone to ask what I could do. And now, some of the very same people and the tactics he once deplored his campaign now employs. The same campaign that once called for a town hall a week is now launching a low blow a day.
Barack and I can take it. That’s not what bothers me.
It bothers me that — as one media watchdog put it — John’s recent commercial is the, “latest in a number that resort to a dubious disregard for the facts.” As another news organization put it: The wheels have come off the straight talk express.
But what really bothers me, is that every punch thrown at us — is an attempt to distract you. And they can be plenty distracting.
Like the McCain advertisements that misrepresent a vote by Barack Obama to protect young children from sexual predators. Like Senator McCain’s effort to obscure the fact that Barack Obama’s tax cuts will benefit 95 percent of all working people. Like John McCain’s attempt to cloak himself in reform by misrepresenting his running mate’s record.
It’s disappointing to me to think that John McCain really does approve this message.
Every false debate we’re drawn into is a real conversation we don’t have with the American people. Character attacks get media attention, but they make this election about us when it really needs to be about you.
Barack Obama believes that progress in this country is measured by how many people have a decent job where they’re shown respect. How many people can pay their mortgage. How many people can turn their ideas into a new business. How many people can turn to their kids and say “It’s going to be okay” with the knowledge that the opportunities they give will be better than the ones they received.
That’s the American dream. That’s what the people in my neighborhood grew up believing. And I want our kids to have the same dream.
Barack Obama starts from that vision of progress and will do what it takes to get us there. That’s why his tax cuts - benefit the middle class. That’s why he’ll make it easier for families to afford college for their kids. That’s why he says everyone should be able to have the same health care that members of Congress have. That’s why his energy plan will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, bring down gas prices, and, in the process, we’ll create five million new green jobs. Those are the changes we need.
Yes, this campaign is about change, but it’s about even more than that. It’s about what we value as a people. It’s not just about a job, it’s about dignity. It’s not just about a paycheck. It’s about pride. It’s not just about opportunity. It’s about respect. That’s why Barack and I are in this race.
We know we need change if we’re to restore dignity, pride, and respect. We know America’s best days are ahead of us, and we know why we’re here.
We’re here for the for the cops and firefighters, the teachers and assembly line workers, the engineers and office workers, the small business owners and the retiree.
All of the folks who play by the rules, work hard, and do what is asked of them. They deserve a government as good and an economy as strong as they are.
We’re all are Americans. There has never been a challenge too great. The stakes have never been higher.
My father always told me, “Champ, when you get knocked down, get up. Get up.” It’s time to get up. It’s time to trust the grit and determination of the American people.
America is ready. You are ready. I am ready. And Barack Obama is ready. Our best days are yet to come.
May God bless America and may God protect our troops.
As did Obama:
This morning we woke up to some very serious and troubling news from Wall Street. The situation with Lehman Brothers and other financial institutions is the latest in a wave of crises that are generating enormous uncertainty about the future of our financial markets. This turmoil is a major threat to our economy and its ability to create good-paying jobs and help working Americans pay their bills, save for their future, and make their mortgage payments. Today offers more evidence that too many folks in Washington and on Wall Street weren’t minding the store. For eight years, we’ve had policies that have shredded consumer protections, loosened oversight and regulation, and encouraged outsized bonuses to CEOs while ignoring middle-class Americans. The result is the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression. I certainly don’t fault Senator McCain for these problems. But I do fault the economic philosophy he subscribes to. It’s the same philosophy we’ve had for the last eight years – one that says we should give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. It’s a philosophy that says even common-sense regulations are unnecessary and unwise; one that says we should just stick our heads in the sand and ignore economic problems until they spiral into crises. Well now, instead of prosperity trickling down, the pain has trickled up – from the struggles of hardworking Americans on Main Street to the largest firms of Wall Street. This country can’t afford another four years of this failed philosophy. For years, I have called for modernizing the rules of the road to suit a 21st century market – rules that would protect American investors and consumers. And I’ve called for policies that grow our economy and our middle-class together. ______________________ It’s not that I think John McCain doesn’t care what’s going on in the lives of most Americans. I just think doesn’t know. He doesn’t get what’s happening between the mountain in Sedona where he lives and the corridors of Washington where he works. Why else would he say that we’ve made great progress economically under George Bush? Why else would he say that the economy isn’t something he understands as well as he should? Why else would he say, today, of all days – just a few hours ago – that the fundamentals of the economy are still strong? Senator – what economy are you talking about? What’s more fundamental than the ability to find a job that pays the bills and can raise a family? What’s more fundamental than knowing that your life savings is secure, and that you can retire with dignity? What’s more fundamental than knowing that you’ll have a roof over your head at the end of the day? What’s more fundamental than that? The fundamentals we use to measure economic strength are whether we are living up to that fundamental promise that has made this country great – that promise that America is the place where you can make it if you try – a promise that is the only reason that we are standing here today.
This morning we woke up to some very serious and troubling news from Wall Street.
The situation with Lehman Brothers and other financial institutions is the latest in a wave of crises that are generating enormous uncertainty about the future of our financial markets. This turmoil is a major threat to our economy and its ability to create good-paying jobs and help working Americans pay their bills, save for their future, and make their mortgage payments.
Today offers more evidence that too many folks in Washington and on Wall Street weren’t minding the store. For eight years, we’ve had policies that have shredded consumer protections, loosened oversight and regulation, and encouraged outsized bonuses to CEOs while ignoring middle-class Americans. The result is the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression.
I certainly don’t fault Senator McCain for these problems. But I do fault the economic philosophy he subscribes to. It’s the same philosophy we’ve had for the last eight years – one that says we should give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. It’s a philosophy that says even common-sense regulations are unnecessary and unwise; one that says we should just stick our heads in the sand and ignore economic problems until they spiral into crises.
Well now, instead of prosperity trickling down, the pain has trickled up – from the struggles of hardworking Americans on Main Street to the largest firms of Wall Street.
This country can’t afford another four years of this failed philosophy. For years, I have called for modernizing the rules of the road to suit a 21st century market – rules that would protect American investors and consumers. And I’ve called for policies that grow our economy and our middle-class together. ______________________ It’s not that I think John McCain doesn’t care what’s going on in the lives of most Americans. I just think doesn’t know. He doesn’t get what’s happening between the mountain in Sedona where he lives and the corridors of Washington where he works. Why else would he say that we’ve made great progress economically under George Bush? Why else would he say that the economy isn’t something he understands as well as he should? Why else would he say, today, of all days – just a few hours ago – that the fundamentals of the economy are still strong?
Senator – what economy are you talking about?
What’s more fundamental than the ability to find a job that pays the bills and can raise a family? What’s more fundamental than knowing that your life savings is secure, and that you can retire with dignity? What’s more fundamental than knowing that you’ll have a roof over your head at the end of the day? What’s more fundamental than that?
The fundamentals we use to measure economic strength are whether we are living up to that fundamental promise that has made this country great – that promise that America is the place where you can make it if you try – a promise that is the only reason that we are standing here today.
Yahoo! News article on Palin's "hypothetical" book banning:
The McCain campaign is defending Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's much-criticized inquiry into banning books at her hometown library, saying her questions were only hypothetical. Shortly after taking office in 1996 as mayor of Wasilla, a city of about 7,000 people, Palin asked the city's head librarian about banning books. Later, the librarian was notified by Palin that she was being fired, although Palin backed off under pressure.
The McCain campaign is defending Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's much-criticized inquiry into banning books at her hometown library, saying her questions were only hypothetical.
Shortly after taking office in 1996 as mayor of Wasilla, a city of about 7,000 people, Palin asked the city's head librarian about banning books. Later, the librarian was notified by Palin that she was being fired, although Palin backed off under pressure.
Politico story on how Sarah Palin is not as much of an anti-earmark reformer as was thought:
Senator John McCain recently told reporters that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has “learned that earmarks are bad.”But not that bad, apparently. According to a “summary of requests for federal appropriations” posted to her budget office’s website earlier this year, Palin requested millions of federal dollars for everything from improving recreational halibut fishing to studying the mating habits of crabs and the DNA of harbor seals.It’s a position at odds with her recasting as an anti-earmarking champion, and with the tone of the biting scorn she’s employed toward the budgetary practice this week.
Senator John McCain recently told reporters that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has “learned that earmarks are bad.”
But not that bad, apparently. According to a “summary of requests for federal appropriations” posted to her budget office’s website earlier this year, Palin requested millions of federal dollars for everything from improving recreational halibut fishing to studying the mating habits of crabs and the DNA of harbor seals.
It’s a position at odds with her recasting as an anti-earmarking champion, and with the tone of the biting scorn she’s employed toward the budgetary practice this week.
It's about time! A local TV reporter in Maine had McCain on and finally asked him some tough questions about the issues. Needless to say, John McCain looked VERY uncomfortable. We need to spread this around!
Reporter: "Well, you say you're sure she has the experience but again I'm just asking for an example - what experience does she have in the field of national security?"McCain: "Sure. Energy. She knows more about energy than probably anyone else in the United States of America. She is the Governor of a state where 20% of our energy supply comes from there and we all know that energy is a critical and vital national security issue. We've got to stop sending 700 billion dollars of American money to countries that don't like us very much. She's very well versed on that issue and she, uh, also represents is a Governor of a state that is right next to Russia and ah, ah, she really understands Russia and their newly aggressive behavior in the world which is also something that we have to be very concerned about."
Reporter: "Well, you say you're sure she has the experience but again I'm just asking for an example - what experience does she have in the field of national security?"
McCain: "Sure. Energy. She knows more about energy than probably anyone else in the United States of America. She is the Governor of a state where 20% of our energy supply comes from there and we all know that energy is a critical and vital national security issue. We've got to stop sending 700 billion dollars of American money to countries that don't like us very much. She's very well versed on that issue and she, uh, also represents is a Governor of a state that is right next to Russia and ah, ah, she really understands Russia and their newly aggressive behavior in the world which is also something that we have to be very concerned about."
Here's what Obama said, in its entirety:
Some of you may have -- I'm assuming you guys have heard this, watching the news. I'm talking about John McCain's economic politics, I say, "This is more of the same, you can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig." And suddenly they say, "Oh, you must be talking about the governor of Alaska." [Laughter from audience] See it would be funny, it would be funny except -- of course the news media all decided that that was the lead story yesterday. They'd much rather have the story -- this is the McCain campaign -- would much rather have the story about phony and foolish diversions than about the future. This happens every election cycle. Every four years. This is what we do. We've got an energy crisis. We have an education system that is not working for too many of our children and making us less competitive. We have an economy that is creating hardship for families all across America. We've got two wars going on, veterans coming home not being cared for -- and this is what they want to talk about! this is what they want to spend two of the last 55 days talking about. You know who ends up losing at the end of the day? It's not the Democratic candidate, It's not the republican candidate. It's you, the American people. because then we go another year or another four years or another eight years without addressing the issues that matter to you. Enough. I don't care what they say about me, but I love this country too much to let them take over another election with lies and phony outrage and swift-boat politics. Enough is enough.
Some of you may have -- I'm assuming you guys have heard this, watching the news. I'm talking about John McCain's economic politics, I say, "This is more of the same, you can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig."
And suddenly they say, "Oh, you must be talking about the governor of Alaska."
[Laughter from audience]
See it would be funny, it would be funny except -- of course the news media all decided that that was the lead story yesterday. They'd much rather have the story -- this is the McCain campaign -- would much rather have the story about phony and foolish diversions than about the future.
This happens every election cycle. Every four years. This is what we do. We've got an energy crisis. We have an education system that is not working for too many of our children and making us less competitive. We have an economy that is creating hardship for families all across America. We've got two wars going on, veterans coming home not being cared for -- and this is what they want to talk about! this is what they want to spend two of the last 55 days talking about.
You know who ends up losing at the end of the day? It's not the Democratic candidate, It's not the republican candidate. It's you, the American people. because then we go another year or another four years or another eight years without addressing the issues that matter to you. Enough.
I don't care what they say about me, but I love this country too much to let them take over another election with lies and phony outrage and swift-boat politics. Enough is enough.
Obama fights back against the recent McCain-Palin low blows - the infamous sex-ed ad, and the fake "lipstick on a pig" controversy.
Sen. Barack Obama on Wednesday accused Sen. John McCain's campaign of engaging in "lies" and "swift boat politics" in regard to his comment about "lipstick on a pig.""Spare me the phony outrage. Spare me the phony talk about change," Obama said at the start of an education event in Norfolk, Virginia. "We have real problems in this country right now. The American people are looking to us for answers, not distractions, not diversions, not manipulations. They want real answers to the real problems we are facing."I don't care what they say about me. But I love this country too much to let them take over another election with lies and phony outrage and swift boat politics. Enough is enough," he said, referring to how Swift Boat Veterans for Truth launched attacks against Sen. John Kerry in the 2004 presidential race. Obama said the McCain campaign was doing the type of thing that makes people "sick and tired of politics."
Sen. Barack Obama on Wednesday accused Sen. John McCain's campaign of engaging in "lies" and "swift boat politics" in regard to his comment about "lipstick on a pig."
"Spare me the phony outrage. Spare me the phony talk about change," Obama said at the start of an education event in Norfolk, Virginia.
"We have real problems in this country right now. The American people are looking to us for answers, not distractions, not diversions, not manipulations. They want real answers to the real problems we are facing.
"I don't care what they say about me. But I love this country too much to let them take over another election with lies and phony outrage and swift boat politics. Enough is enough," he said, referring to how Swift Boat Veterans for Truth launched attacks against Sen. John Kerry in the 2004 presidential race.
Obama said the McCain campaign was doing the type of thing that makes people "sick and tired of politics."
Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic has a scathing article lambasting McCain's integrity. Here it is, in its entirety:
For me, this surreal moment - like the entire surrealism of the past ten days - is not really about Sarah Palin or Barack Obama or pigs or fish or lipstick. It's about John McCain. The one thing I always thought I knew about him is that he is a decent and honest person. When he knows, as every sane person must, that Obama did not in any conceivable sense mean that Sarah Palin is a pig, what did he do? Did he come out and say so and end this charade? Or did he acquiesce in and thereby enable the mindless Rovianism that is now the core feature of his campaign?So far, he has let us all down. My guess is he will continue to do so. And that decision, for my part, ends whatever respect I once had for him. On core moral issues, where this man knew what the right thing was, and had to pick between good and evil, he chose evil. When he knew that George W. Bush's war in Iraq was a fiasco and catastrophe, and before Donald Rumsfeld quit, McCain endorsed George W. Bush against his fellow Vietnam vet, John Kerry in 2004. By that decision, McCain lost any credibility that he can ever put country first. He put party first and his own career first ahead of what he knew was best for the country.And when the Senate and House voted overwhelmingly to condemn and end the torture regime of Bush and Cheney in 2006, McCain again had a clear choice between good and evil, and chose evil. He capitulated and enshrined torture as the policy of the United States, by allowing the CIA to use techniques as bad as and worse than the torture inflicted on him in Vietnam. He gave the war criminals in the White House retroactive immunity against the prosecution they so richly deserve. The enormity of this moral betrayal, this betrayal of his country's honor, has yet to sink in. But for my part, it now makes much more sense. He is not the man I thought he was. And when he had the chance to engage in a real and substantive debate against the most talented politician of the next generation in a fall campaign where vital issues are at stake, what did McCain do? He began his general campaign with a series of grotesque, trivial and absurd MTV-style attacks on Obama's virtues and implied disgusting things about his opponent's patriotism. And then, because he could see he was going to lose, ten days ago, he threw caution to the wind and with no vetting whatsoever, picked a woman who, by her decision to endure her own eight-month pregnancy of a Down Syndrome child in public, that he was going to reignite the culture war as a last stand against Obama. That's all that is happening right now: a massive bump in the enthusiasm of the Christianist base. This is pure Rove.Yes, McCain made a decision that revealed many appalling things about him. In the end, his final concern is not national security. No one who cares about national security would pick as vice-president someone who knows nothing about it as his replacement. No one who cares about this country's safety would gamble the security of the world on a total unknown because she polled well with the Christianist base. No person who truly believed that the surge was integral to this country's national security would pick as his veep candidate a woman who, so far as we can tell anything, opposed it at the time. McCain has demonstrated in the last two months that he does not have the character to be president of the United States. And that is why it is more important than ever to ensure that Barack Obama is the next president. The alternative is now unthinkable. And McCain - no one else - has proved it.
For me, this surreal moment - like the entire surrealism of the past ten days - is not really about Sarah Palin or Barack Obama or pigs or fish or lipstick. It's about John McCain. The one thing I always thought I knew about him is that he is a decent and honest person. When he knows, as every sane person must, that Obama did not in any conceivable sense mean that Sarah Palin is a pig, what did he do? Did he come out and say so and end this charade? Or did he acquiesce in and thereby enable the mindless Rovianism that is now the core feature of his campaign?
So far, he has let us all down. My guess is he will continue to do so. And that decision, for my part, ends whatever respect I once had for him. On core moral issues, where this man knew what the right thing was, and had to pick between good and evil, he chose evil. When he knew that George W. Bush's war in Iraq was a fiasco and catastrophe, and before Donald Rumsfeld quit, McCain endorsed George W. Bush against his fellow Vietnam vet, John Kerry in 2004. By that decision, McCain lost any credibility that he can ever put country first. He put party first and his own career first ahead of what he knew was best for the country.
And when the Senate and House voted overwhelmingly to condemn and end the torture regime of Bush and Cheney in 2006, McCain again had a clear choice between good and evil, and chose evil.
He capitulated and enshrined torture as the policy of the United States, by allowing the CIA to use techniques as bad as and worse than the torture inflicted on him in Vietnam. He gave the war criminals in the White House retroactive immunity against the prosecution they so richly deserve. The enormity of this moral betrayal, this betrayal of his country's honor, has yet to sink in. But for my part, it now makes much more sense. He is not the man I thought he was.
And when he had the chance to engage in a real and substantive debate against the most talented politician of the next generation in a fall campaign where vital issues are at stake, what did McCain do? He began his general campaign with a series of grotesque, trivial and absurd MTV-style attacks on Obama's virtues and implied disgusting things about his opponent's patriotism.
And then, because he could see he was going to lose, ten days ago, he threw caution to the wind and with no vetting whatsoever, picked a woman who, by her decision to endure her own eight-month pregnancy of a Down Syndrome child in public, that he was going to reignite the culture war as a last stand against Obama. That's all that is happening right now: a massive bump in the enthusiasm of the Christianist base. This is pure Rove.
Yes, McCain made a decision that revealed many appalling things about him. In the end, his final concern is not national security. No one who cares about national security would pick as vice-president someone who knows nothing about it as his replacement. No one who cares about this country's safety would gamble the security of the world on a total unknown because she polled well with the Christianist base. No person who truly believed that the surge was integral to this country's national security would pick as his veep candidate a woman who, so far as we can tell anything, opposed it at the time.
McCain has demonstrated in the last two months that he does not have the character to be president of the United States. And that is why it is more important than ever to ensure that Barack Obama is the next president. The alternative is now unthinkable. And McCain - no one else - has proved it.
Obama campaign distributes a fact-check on the new McCain ad "Original Mavericks":
“Despite being discredited over and over again by numerous news organizations, the McCain campaign continues to repeat the lie that Sarah Palin stopped the Bridge to Nowhere. John McCain has voted with George Bush 90% of the time and he and Sarah Palin will continue Bush’s economic policies, his health care policy, his education policy, his energy policy, and his foreign policy. McCain and Palin will say or do anything to make people believe that they will change something besides the person sitting in the Oval Office. That’s the kind of politics people are tired of, and it’s anything but change,” said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton. AD WATCH FOR “ORIGINAL MAVERICKS” 9/8/08 VO: The original maverick. Reality: McCain Has Been A Reliable Vote For George Bush And THE Republican Party McCain Has Voted With Bush 90 Percent Of The Time In The Senate. According to Congressional Quarterly, McCain has voted in support of President Bush’s position 90 percent of the time since the beginning of his administration. [Congressional Quarterly, 8/15/08, http://www.cqpolitics.com/cq-assets/cqmultimedia/flash/votestudy/index.html] Arizona Republic Headline: “In Tight Senate Votes, McCain Not A Maverick. When It Matters The Most, He Seldom Bucks His Own Party.” “Over the years, Sen. John McCain has publicly condemned Republican Party leaders and occasionally voted against the GOP on selected issues. But an Arizona Republic analysis of his Senate votes on the most divided issues in the past decade shows that McCain almost never thwarted his party’s objectives.” [Arizona Republic, 5/7/08] McCain: On The “Most Important Issues Of Our Day, I Have Been Totally In Agreement And Support Of President Bush.” In a June 2005 interview on NBC’s “Meet The Press,” John McCain stated that he was a strong supporter of President Bush: “I have agreed with President Bush far more than I have disagreed. And on the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day, I have been totally in agreement and support of President Bush.” [NBC, “Meet The Press,” 6/19/05] VO: He fights pork barrel spending. CG: San Jose Mercery News: “McCain Faults Bush for Pork Barrel Spending” – 12/1/03 REALITY: MCCAIN HAS VOTED FOR PORK BARREL SPENDING McCain Has Voted For 12,673 Earmarks Totaling $144 Billion In Just Six Years. In just six of his 25 years in Congress, John McCain voted for spending bills that included 12,763 earmarks totally $144.408 billion according to the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, which the McCain campaign has cited as an authoritative source for the definition of earmarks. [Appropriations Bills From FYs 1994, 1996, 1998, 2002, 2004 and 2005 for which the Congressional Research Service totaled earmarks and for which John McCain voted for the conference reports. “Earmarks in Appropriation Acts: FY1994, FY1996, FY1998, FY2000, FY2002, FY2004, FY2005,” Congressional Research Service, 1/26/06; Senate.gov; Center For American Progress, 4/16/08] McCain Himself Has Asked For Earmarks Throughout His Career. As Factcheck.org pointed out in three cases they analyzed, “McCain may have requested, or been influential in securing, an earmark.” His $10 million request for funding for the Rehnquist Center in Arizona would “meet the public idea” of an earmark according to pork watchdog Taxpayers For Common Sense (TCS). McCain also asked the first Bush administration to “earmark” funds for a wastewater treatment plant, and got last-minute funds inserted into a conference report for an Air Force base, part of a plan that eventually reaped major profits for McCain supporters. TCS also called that an earmark, according to USA Today. [Factcheck.org; New York Times, 2/18/2006; WashingtonPost.com, 12/31/08; USA Today, 5/15/08] McCain Keeps Making Exceptions For Some Earmarks When People Question His Pledge. When journalists and analysts have pointed out that the McCain definition of earmarks includes billions in aid to Israel, he made an exception, saying “of course not. I’m not cutting any aid.” McCain similarly made exceptions for military housing, a breast cancer research program, billions for Everglades restoration and an Alabama ferry. [Center For American Progress, 4/16/08; Ben Smith, Politico.com, 4/16/08; ABC News, “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” 4/20/08; ”Tales from the Trail” Blog, Reuters, 4/30/2008; CNN Live Feed (Allentown, PA), 4/30/2008; Miami Herald, 6/5/08; Congressional Record, 9/24/07; Taxpayers For Common Sense website; Jonathan Martin, Politico.com, 4/24/08; NPR’s All Things Considered, 4/23/08] VO: She stopped the Bridge to Nowhere. CG: Anchorage Daily News: “Palin Flies High As Reformer” – 12/27/07 REALITY: PALIN WAS FOR THE BRIDGE TO NOWHERE BEFORE SHE WAS AGAINST IT Politifact: Palin’s Stance On “The Bridge To Nowhere” Is “A Full Flop.” Politfact, a service of CQ and the St. Petersburg Times wrote, “McCain said Palin has ‘stopped government from wasting taxpayers’ money on things they don’t want or need. And when we in Congress decided to build a bridge in Alaska to nowhere for $233-million of yours, she said, we don’t want it. If we need it, we’ll build our own in Alaska. She’s the one that stood up to them.’ Nevermind that Alaska didn’t give the money back. It spent the money on other transportation projects. The context of Palin’s and McCain’s recent statements suggest Palin flagged the so-called Bridge to Nowhere project as wasteful spending. But that’s not the tune she was singing when she was running for governor, particularly not when she was standing before the Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce asking for their vote. And so, we rate Palin’s position a Full Flop.” [Politifact] Anchorage Daily News Headline: “Palin Touts Stance on ‘Bridge to Nowhere,’ Doesn’t Note Flip Flop.” “When John McCain introduced Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate Friday, her reputation as a tough-minded budget-cutter was front and center. ‘I told Congress, thanks but no thanks on that bridge to nowhere,’ Palin told the cheering McCain crowd, referring to Ketchikan’s Gravina Island bridge. But Palin was for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it. The Alaska governor campaigned in 2006 on a build-the-bridge platform, telling Ketchikan residents she felt their pain when politicians called them ‘nowhere.’ They’re still feeling pain today in Ketchikan, over Palin’s subsequent decision to use the bridge funds for other projects — and over the timing of her announcement, which they say came in a pre-dawn press release that seemed aimed at national news deadlines. ‘I think that’s when the campaign for national office began,’ said Ketchikan Mayor Bob Weinstein on Saturday.” [Anchorage Daily News, 8/31/08] Palin Was for the Bridge to Nowhere Before She Was Against It. In 2006, Palin was asked, “Would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges?” She responded, “Yes. I would like to see Alaska’s infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now–while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.” [Ancorage Daily News, 10/22/06, republished 08/29/08] · 2006: Palin: Don’t Allow “Spinmeisters” To Turn Bridge To Nowhere Project “Into Something That’s So Negative.” “Part of my agenda is making sure that Southeast is heard. That your projects are important. That we go to bat for Southeast when we’re up against federal influences that aren’t in the best interest of Southeast.’ She cited the widespread negative attention focused on the Gravina Island crossing project. ‘We need to come to the defense of Southeast Alaska when proposals are on the table like the bridge and not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative,’ Palin said.” [Ketchikan Daily News, 10/2/06] · 2006: Palin On Bridge To Nowhere: “Would Not Stand In The Way Of The Progress Toward That Bridge.” According to the Ketchikan Daily News, “People across the nation struggle with the idea of building a bridge because they’ve been under these misperceptions about the bridge and the purpose,’ said Palin, who described the link as the Ketchikan area’s potential for expansion and growth…Palin said Alaska’s congressional delegation worked hard to obtain funding for the bridge as part of a package deal and that she ‘would not stand in the way of the progress toward that bridge.’” [Ketchikan Daily News, 8/9/06, accessed 8/29/08] · 2006: Palin Said People Across the Nation Were “Under These Misperceptions About the Bridge and its Purpose.” According to the Ketchikan Daily News in 2006, “‘People across the nation struggle with the idea of building a bridge because they’ve been under these misperceptions about the bridge and the purpose,’ said Palin, who described the link as the Ketchikan area’s potential for expansion and growth. The Ketchikan community now needs to have a strong, unified effort to say whether it wants the bridge or not. ‘And if you want the thing, there needs to be good justification,’ she said. ‘There needs to be the reasonableness that the rest of Alaska and the rest of the United States wants to see.’ She said that reasonableness could include a compromise in design and cost, such as limiting the link to a single span instead of the two-span Revilla-Pennock-Gravina route. ‘It’s pretty grandiose here, what is proposed,’ she said. Palin said Alaska’s congressional delegation worked hard to obtain funding for the bridge as part of a package deal and that she ‘would not stand in the way of the progress toward that bridge.’” [Ketchikan Daily News, 8/9/06] Palin’s Spokesman Said She Supported the Bridge to Nowhere. “Republican Sarah Palin’s spokesman, Curtis Smith, said Palin supports the Ketchikan bridge project, but had no immediate response to Murkowski’s plans.” [Ketchikan Daily News, 11/21/06] VO: He took on the drug industry. CG: AP: “McCain Calls for Permitting the Importation of Prescription Drugs from Canada” – 11/17/07 REALITY: MCCAIN HAS SIDED WITH THE DRUG COMPANIES McCain Opposed Advertising Regulations for Drug Ads. In 2003, McCain voted against an amendment that would require drug companies to release advertisements with balanced visual and audio information. The Health and Human Services secretary would be required to speed up the review process of such advertisements. The secretary also would be able to require drug companies to assess their drugs against similar ones that already exist and include those comparisons in advertisements. Drug companies violating the advertising rules would be subject to civil penalties. [2003 Senate Vote #248, 6/26/2003] McCain Voted Against Allowing States To Develop Programs To Force Pharmaceutical Companies To Discount Drug Prices For Americans. In 2002, McCain voted against clarifying that current law does not prohibit a state from entering into drug rebate agreements with a manufacturer in order to ensure affordability and accessibility of outpatient prescription drugs for State’s residents who are not otherwise eligible for medical assistance under Medicaid. [2002 Senate Vote #182, 7/18/2002] McCain Voted Against Medicaid Drug Discounts And Cracking Down On Provider Fraud. In 1995, McCain voted against restoring drug discounts to state Medicaid programs and public health facilities; to retain provisions against health care provider fraud and abuse; to retain current federal nursing home standards; and to remove provisions that provide greater or lesser Medicaid spending in states based upon the votes needed for passage. [1995 Senate Vote #573, 11/13/1995] VO: She took on big oil. CG: AP: Palin Takes on Oil Industry, Republicans” – 12/28/07 REALITY: PALIN HAS CLOSE TIES TO THE OIL INDUSTRY In Her 2002 Campaign for Lieutenant Governor, Palin Raised ‘About 10 Percent Of Her Campaign Fund’ From Veco, An Oil Company Under Federal Investigation. “While mayor of Wasilla, Palin ran for lieutenant governor in 2002. She gathered $5,000 — or about 10 percent of her campaign fund — from Veco officials or their wives along the way.” [Anchorage Daily News, 9/6/06] Palin Said She Had Begun Working With the White House and Even Talked With Dick Cheney About Alaska’s Energy Policy. In her 2007 State of the State Address, Palin said, “Of course, the primary focus of our long-term energy plan can be summed up in three words — NATURAL GAS PIPELNE! This gasline will fuel our homes, our economy, and careers for Alaskans - for generations. The gasline is critical not just for our future, but for the nation’s future. It’s also an essential component of our nation’s energy policy. Truly, for energy independence, the nation will look to Alaska. We’ve already begun working with the White House. In fact, I had a nice conversation with Vice President Cheney today. And we are also blessed to have a strong ally in former State Senator Drue Pearce, who’s been tasked by the President to get the gasline built. The energy industry is also engaged and I look forward to working with Congress and our legislators - our “partners” to deliver our natural gas to market.” [Excerpt from January 17, 2007 State of the State Address] The Weekly Standard Called Palin “The Nation’s Most Prominent Advocate of Drilling in ANWR.” Sen. John McCain was reconsidering his opposition to drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and planned to talk about the issue with Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, “the nation’s most prominent advocate of drilling in ANWR,” an article in The Weekly Standard said. “In an interview with The Weekly Standard aboard his campaign plane last week, McCain made clear he has not ruled out a change in his position ? to one that endorses drilling in ANWR.” [The Weekly Standard, 8/25/08] Palin Said She Would Beg to Disagree With Candidate Who Said We Can’t Drill Our Way Out of Our Problem. Asked by Invester’s Business Daily “Some politicians and presidential candidates say we can’t drill our way out of our energy problem and that drilling in ANWR will have no effect. What’s your best guess of the impact on prices?” Palin responded, “I beg to disagree with any candidate who would say we can’t drill our way out of our problem or that more supply won’t ultimately affect prices. Of course it will affect prices. Energy being a global market, it’s impossible to venture a guess on (specific) prices. We never would have thought oil would reach $140. Only a few months ago, we thought $100 would be the peak. And here it is at $140 (with) no end in sight. It’s very difficult to determine, but we do know the demand is going to continue to increase. The demand in Asia especially is one reason why prices are going to increase. But if I could predict energy prices, I wouldn’t be sitting here today.” [Investor’s Business Daily, 7/11/08] Sierra Club Director Carl Pope Said “No One is Closer to the Oil Industry Than Governor Palin.” “No one is closer to the oil industry than Governor Palin,” said Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club in comments reflecting the views of a cross section of environmental activists. They cite her eagerness to embrace expanded offshore oil development, her lawsuit against further protection of polar bears so as not to hinder oil drilling in Alaska’s ice-filled waters and her ardent support to allow oil companies into the Alaska wildlife refuge. [Associated Press, 8/30/08] Palin Took $13,000 from Lobbyists Representing the Oil Industry in Her 2006 Campaign for Governor. The lobbyists who donated to her campaign represent a range of industries, including oil and gas, tobacco, education and the Native Alaskan community. “She’s fought oil companies and party bosses and do-nothing bureaucrats and anyone who puts their interests before the interests of the people she swore an oath to serve,” Mr. McCain said Friday at an Ohio rally to introduce her as his running mate. But since Mrs. Palin leads a major oil-producing state, that industry is one of her top donors. She collected nearly $13,000 from lobbyists who represent oil and gas industries in her primary and general campaigns, according a review of her campaign donations and 2006 registered state lobbyists. [Washington Times, 9/1/08] Palin Said She Understood and Appreciated the Oil Industry. In 2006, Palin said, “I’m not anti-industry. As a former mayor of the fastest-growing area in Alaska and a former regulator of oil and gas, I understand and appreciate the contributions that industry provides to our state economy and the U.S. economy. My husband started his job on the Slope 18 years ago. He’s a blue collar union man up there, and I appreciate the job opportunities provided him. He’s from Dillingham, from Bristol Bay. He’s got good skills, a good work ethic and he has been rewarded for that work ethic, materially, if you will, with a good job on the North Slope. He’s the kind of Alaskan I want to see more of employed on the Slope. … I also have a great understanding of industry’s motivation. Industry’s motivation … unfortunately for us … is that they take as much possible and leave as little behind, but that’s what the CEOs of these producing companies are supposed to do; that’s what they are tasked to do by their shareholders. It’s all the more reason for us to understand what our relationship with the industry needs to be; that the state’s CEO works just as hard for the shareholders in this state, who are fellow Alaskans.” [Alaska Journal of Commerce, 10/8/06] VO: He battled Republicans and reformed Washington. CG: Boston Herald: “Maverick McCain Rips GOP” – 4/2/04 REALITY: MCCAIN ABRAMAOFF INVESTIGATION “IGNORED” ACTIONS BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS McCain Acknowledged That Members Had Responsibility In The Lobbying Scandal, But Refused To Investigate Member’s Actions In An Investigation That “Ignored” Congressional Republicans. McCain acknowledged that Members were responsible for their conduct in Congress surrounding the lobbying scandal, saying, “Many cast blame [for the Abramoff Scandal] only on the lobbying industry. But, we should not forget that we, as Members, owe it to the American people to conduct ourselves in a way that reinforces, rather than diminishes, the public’s faith and confidence in Congress.” But during his investigation, McCain refused to include the legislative actions taken by Members of Congress saying, “We stop when we find out where the money went.” The Associated Press reported that, “The intervention by congressional Republicans…was all but ignored in recent hearings on Capitol Hill led by [McCain], that examined Abramoff’s lobbying inside Interior. [Senator McCain, CQ Transcriptions, 1/25/06; Roll Call, 3/10/05; AP, 11/17/05] McCain’s Abramoff Report Said No Need for New Lobbying Laws Following Abramoff Scandal. The report by released by John McCain and the Senate Indian Affairs Committee in June 2006 on the Abramoff investigation argued that “no new lobbying restrictions are needed to prevent schemes like those used by former lobbyist Jack Abramoff.” In addition, “despite a pledge by McCain two years ago to get to the bottom of a now-convicted lobbyist’s influence-peddling, his committee’s 373-page report does not detail the relationships between Abramoff and the dozens of lawmakers to whom the lobbyist helped funnel hundreds of thousands of dollars in tribal political donations.” [Arizona Republic, 6/23/06] REALITY: McCain Has Backed Away From Bipartisan Reforms He Once Championed 2007: McCain Acknowledged His Shift On Immigration From Supporting Comprehensive Reform To Supporting An Enforcement First Strategy. “John McCain spent months earlier this year arguing that the United States must combine border security efforts with a temporary worker program and an eventual path to citizenship for many illegal immigrants. Now, the Republican presidential candidate emphasizes securing the borders first. The rest, he says, is still needed but will have to come later. ‘I understand why you would call it a, quote, shift,’ McCain told reporters Saturday after voters questioned him on his position during back-to-back appearances in this early voting state. ‘I say it is a lesson learned about what the American people’s priorities are. And their priority is to secure the borders.’ The shift in approach is likely to draw criticism from McCain’s GOP opponents. Immigration has been a flash point in the race, with rivals Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson all seizing on it.” [Associated Press, 11/3/07] · 2008: McCain Said He Would Oppose the Legislation He Authored With Kennedy. Asked whether he would vote for the immigration legislation he previously sponsored, McCain eventually replied, “No, I would not.” [CNN GOP Presidential Debate, 1/30/08] 2006: McCain Was “Noticeably Missing” From Latest Campaign Finance Reform Legislation, Likely To Avoid Charges Of Hypocrisy If He Side Steps The System In 2008. With John McCain “noticeably missing” as one of the former “key proponents of BCRA,” Senator Feingold and Congressmen Shays and Meehan offered campaign finance reform legislation “to raise the spending limits for the primary and general elections and significantly boost the matching funds available to candidates. They want to make these additional funds accessible to the candidates earlier in the process, provide additional public funds to candidates facing well-heeled opponents who are outside the public-financing system, and increase the current $3 tax check-off that finances presidential campaigns to $10 per individual, $20 for a married couple,” and to bring an “end to the use of ‘soft money’ from corporations and labor unions to pay for the national conventions held every four years.” McCain, who was “conspicuously absent from the latest [campaign finance reform] effort” was not made available for comment by his office. “Several people involved in discussions about the legislation said the senator’s absence was related to his widely expected bid for the presidency in 2008.” Meredith McGehee, a “longtime advocate for campaign finance reform,” said of McCain, “He does not want to be caught in a position where he can be accused, rightly or wrongly, of hypocrisy” should he opt out of public financing during the Republican presidential primary.” [Roll Call, 7/27/06; New York Sun, 7/28/06] · 2007: McCain Removed His Name From Campaign Finance Legislation. “People involved in the Republican primary campaign of Senator John McCain of Arizona say he, too, is beginning to seek private donations for the primary and general elections, albeit with the option of returning them. A longtime proponent of campaign finance change, Mr. McCain has recently removed his name as a co-sponsor of a bill to expand the presidential public financing program.” [New York Times, 1/23/07] VO: She battled Republicans and reformed Alaska. They’ll make history. They’ll change Washington. McCain. Palin. Real change. JOHN MCCAIN: I’m John McCain and I approve this message. CG: Wall Street Journal: “Palin Fought for Reform in Alaska” – 8/30/08 McCain-Palin The Original Mavericks Paid for by McCain-Palin 2008. Approved by John McCain. REALITY: PALIN IS PART OF THE SAME OLD CORRUPT ALASKA REPUBLICAN ESTABLISHMENT Palin Has Refused to Say If She Will Support Indicted Senator Stevens’ Re-Election Bid. “Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is not saying whether she will vote in November to send the indicted Ted Stevens back to the Senate for a seventh full term. The indictment has put Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) running mate in a tricky position. If Palin endorses Stevens, it will appear that she is undermining her message of taking on the GOP establishment and cleaning up corruption in her state. But should the popular governor oppose his reelection, it could deliver a blow to Stevens’s campaign and give Democrats ammunition as they try to pick up one more Senate seat. Palin’s spokesmen in the McCain campaign have not responded to several inquiries seeking comment on the governor’s position on Stevens. A spokesman for the McCain campaign told the Alaska-based Peninsula Clarion that Palin has yet to endorse Stevens, the paper reported on its website Friday.” [The Hill, 9/5/03] The Usual Alaska Suspects - Ted Stevens, Don Young, And Lisa Murkowski Fundraised For Palin. “Will we see Ted Stevens stumping for Sarah Palin? Palin said this morning that Stevens appeared at a fund-raiser for her in Ketchikan and gave a speech about ‘moving Alaska forward.’ But does that mean he’ll pop up in any advertisements? (Remember his arguably pivotal role at the end of the Knowles and Murkowski Senate race?) Palin said she doubts it and hasn’t asked… She said Don Young came to one of her fund-raisers two days ago, and she expects Lisa Murkowski at an upcoming event. Tonight she planned to talk with John Binkley, who she says is writing a letter to his supporters on her behalf, and she planned to meet with Frank Murkowski tomorrow morning.” [“The Trail” blog, Anchorage Daily News, 10/13/06] As Mayor, Palin Hired a Washington Lobbyist to Help Get Earmarks for Wasilla – Lobbyist Was Former Chief of Staff for Indicted Senator Ted Stevens. “And as mayor of the small town of Wasilla from 1996 to 2002, Palin also hired a Washington lobbying firm that helped secure $8 million in congressionally directed spending projects, known as earmarks, according to public spending records compiled by the watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste and lobbying documents. Wasilla’s lobbying firm was headed by Steven Silver — a former chief of staff to Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, a key proponent of the bridge project.” [USA Today, 8/31/08] JULY 2008: Legislature Voted to Appoint a Special Counsel to Investigate Palin Abuse of Power Claim. In July 2008, the Alaska State Legislator voted 12-0 to approve $100,000 for a special investigator to begin an investigation into claims Palin fired a former state official because he would not fire a state trooper who was involved in a bitter custody battle with Palin’s sister. The legislator’s intent was to investigate the events surrounding the termination of former Dept. of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan and potential abuses of power and improper action by Palin and her administration. [KTVA 11, 07/28/08] After agreeing to Legislative Inquiry, Palin Changed Her Mind and Tried to Have Troopergate Handled by Her Own Personnel Board. Palin made multiple statements saying that she would fully cooperate with the Legislative inquiry, but now she wants Troopergate to be handled by the State of Alaska Personnel Board, which has three members: Debra English, who Palin reappointed on January 29, 2008; Laura Plenert, a registered Republican; Alfred Tamagni, Sr., who gave $400 to the Palin/Parnell campaign in 2006. The latter two were appointed by Frank Murkowski. [Alaska Department of Administration, Division of Personnel Director’s Office Website; Van Flein Letter to Branchflower] Palin’s Lawyer Canceled the Deposition of an Aide Was a Key Witness in Troopergate. “The deposition of one of Gov. Sarah Palin’s staff members was canceled yesterday by the staffer’s attorney, in what is yet another setback to the state legislature’s investigation into claims that Palin fired the public safety commissioner after he refused to dismiss a trooper, Palin’s former brother in-law. Palin has denied any wrongdoing surrounding the dismissal of Walt Monegan, but has acknowledged that phone calls were made by her staff members to Public Safety officials regarding the trooper, Mike Wooten. One of those calls was made by Palin’s director of boards and commissions, Frank Bailey. Bailey was scheduled to be deposed as part of the legislature’s investigation, but his attorney canceled the deposition yesterday and challenged the legislature’s jurisdiction, according to the state senator running the probe.” [ABC News, 9/3/08] Palin Administration Refuses to Release E-Mails, Citing Executive Privilege. “E-mails from the Palin administration are being withheld from the public and the governor is citing executive privilege. With subject lines like ‘Fagan,’ ‘Andrew Halcro’ and even ‘Alaska Ear,’ it makes some wonder how those topics could possibly be policy related; especially since those same e-mails were copied to the governor’s husband. The administration says public employees need to know they can debate openly amongst themselves. Andree McLeod, who tried repeatedly to get a job with the Palin administration, obtained the e-mails through a public records request. The Department of Law says the e-mails are privileged. Officials say the private e-mails within the Palin administration won’t be released.” [KTUU, 8/6/08]
“Despite being discredited over and over again by numerous news organizations, the McCain campaign continues to repeat the lie that Sarah Palin stopped the Bridge to Nowhere. John McCain has voted with George Bush 90% of the time and he and Sarah Palin will continue Bush’s economic policies, his health care policy, his education policy, his energy policy, and his foreign policy. McCain and Palin will say or do anything to make people believe that they will change something besides the person sitting in the Oval Office. That’s the kind of politics people are tired of, and it’s anything but change,” said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton.
AD WATCH FOR “ORIGINAL MAVERICKS” 9/8/08 VO: The original maverick. Reality: McCain Has Been A Reliable Vote For George Bush And THE Republican Party McCain Has Voted With Bush 90 Percent Of The Time In The Senate. According to Congressional Quarterly, McCain has voted in support of President Bush’s position 90 percent of the time since the beginning of his administration. [Congressional Quarterly, 8/15/08, http://www.cqpolitics.com/cq-assets/cqmultimedia/flash/votestudy/index.html] Arizona Republic Headline: “In Tight Senate Votes, McCain Not A Maverick. When It Matters The Most, He Seldom Bucks His Own Party.” “Over the years, Sen. John McCain has publicly condemned Republican Party leaders and occasionally voted against the GOP on selected issues. But an Arizona Republic analysis of his Senate votes on the most divided issues in the past decade shows that McCain almost never thwarted his party’s objectives.” [Arizona Republic, 5/7/08] McCain: On The “Most Important Issues Of Our Day, I Have Been Totally In Agreement And Support Of President Bush.” In a June 2005 interview on NBC’s “Meet The Press,” John McCain stated that he was a strong supporter of President Bush: “I have agreed with President Bush far more than I have disagreed. And on the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day, I have been totally in agreement and support of President Bush.” [NBC, “Meet The Press,” 6/19/05] VO: He fights pork barrel spending. CG: San Jose Mercery News: “McCain Faults Bush for Pork Barrel Spending” – 12/1/03 REALITY: MCCAIN HAS VOTED FOR PORK BARREL SPENDING McCain Has Voted For 12,673 Earmarks Totaling $144 Billion In Just Six Years. In just six of his 25 years in Congress, John McCain voted for spending bills that included 12,763 earmarks totally $144.408 billion according to the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, which the McCain campaign has cited as an authoritative source for the definition of earmarks. [Appropriations Bills From FYs 1994, 1996, 1998, 2002, 2004 and 2005 for which the Congressional Research Service totaled earmarks and for which John McCain voted for the conference reports. “Earmarks in Appropriation Acts: FY1994, FY1996, FY1998, FY2000, FY2002, FY2004, FY2005,” Congressional Research Service, 1/26/06; Senate.gov; Center For American Progress, 4/16/08] McCain Himself Has Asked For Earmarks Throughout His Career. As Factcheck.org pointed out in three cases they analyzed, “McCain may have requested, or been influential in securing, an earmark.” His $10 million request for funding for the Rehnquist Center in Arizona would “meet the public idea” of an earmark according to pork watchdog Taxpayers For Common Sense (TCS). McCain also asked the first Bush administration to “earmark” funds for a wastewater treatment plant, and got last-minute funds inserted into a conference report for an Air Force base, part of a plan that eventually reaped major profits for McCain supporters. TCS also called that an earmark, according to USA Today. [Factcheck.org; New York Times, 2/18/2006; WashingtonPost.com, 12/31/08; USA Today, 5/15/08] McCain Keeps Making Exceptions For Some Earmarks When People Question His Pledge. When journalists and analysts have pointed out that the McCain definition of earmarks includes billions in aid to Israel, he made an exception, saying “of course not. I’m not cutting any aid.” McCain similarly made exceptions for military housing, a breast cancer research program, billions for Everglades restoration and an Alabama ferry. [Center For American Progress, 4/16/08; Ben Smith, Politico.com, 4/16/08; ABC News, “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” 4/20/08; ”Tales from the Trail” Blog, Reuters, 4/30/2008; CNN Live Feed (Allentown, PA), 4/30/2008; Miami Herald, 6/5/08; Congressional Record, 9/24/07; Taxpayers For Common Sense website; Jonathan Martin, Politico.com, 4/24/08; NPR’s All Things Considered, 4/23/08] VO: She stopped the Bridge to Nowhere. CG: Anchorage Daily News: “Palin Flies High As Reformer” – 12/27/07 REALITY: PALIN WAS FOR THE BRIDGE TO NOWHERE BEFORE SHE WAS AGAINST IT Politifact: Palin’s Stance On “The Bridge To Nowhere” Is “A Full Flop.” Politfact, a service of CQ and the St. Petersburg Times wrote, “McCain said Palin has ‘stopped government from wasting taxpayers’ money on things they don’t want or need. And when we in Congress decided to build a bridge in Alaska to nowhere for $233-million of yours, she said, we don’t want it. If we need it, we’ll build our own in Alaska. She’s the one that stood up to them.’ Nevermind that Alaska didn’t give the money back. It spent the money on other transportation projects. The context of Palin’s and McCain’s recent statements suggest Palin flagged the so-called Bridge to Nowhere project as wasteful spending. But that’s not the tune she was singing when she was running for governor, particularly not when she was standing before the Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce asking for their vote. And so, we rate Palin’s position a Full Flop.” [Politifact] Anchorage Daily News Headline: “Palin Touts Stance on ‘Bridge to Nowhere,’ Doesn’t Note Flip Flop.” “When John McCain introduced Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate Friday, her reputation as a tough-minded budget-cutter was front and center. ‘I told Congress, thanks but no thanks on that bridge to nowhere,’ Palin told the cheering McCain crowd, referring to Ketchikan’s Gravina Island bridge. But Palin was for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it. The Alaska governor campaigned in 2006 on a build-the-bridge platform, telling Ketchikan residents she felt their pain when politicians called them ‘nowhere.’ They’re still feeling pain today in Ketchikan, over Palin’s subsequent decision to use the bridge funds for other projects — and over the timing of her announcement, which they say came in a pre-dawn press release that seemed aimed at national news deadlines. ‘I think that’s when the campaign for national office began,’ said Ketchikan Mayor Bob Weinstein on Saturday.” [Anchorage Daily News, 8/31/08] Palin Was for the Bridge to Nowhere Before She Was Against It. In 2006, Palin was asked, “Would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges?” She responded, “Yes. I would like to see Alaska’s infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now–while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.” [Ancorage Daily News, 10/22/06, republished 08/29/08] · 2006: Palin: Don’t Allow “Spinmeisters” To Turn Bridge To Nowhere Project “Into Something That’s So Negative.” “Part of my agenda is making sure that Southeast is heard. That your projects are important. That we go to bat for Southeast when we’re up against federal influences that aren’t in the best interest of Southeast.’ She cited the widespread negative attention focused on the Gravina Island crossing project. ‘We need to come to the defense of Southeast Alaska when proposals are on the table like the bridge and not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative,’ Palin said.” [Ketchikan Daily News, 10/2/06] · 2006: Palin On Bridge To Nowhere: “Would Not Stand In The Way Of The Progress Toward That Bridge.” According to the Ketchikan Daily News, “People across the nation struggle with the idea of building a bridge because they’ve been under these misperceptions about the bridge and the purpose,’ said Palin, who described the link as the Ketchikan area’s potential for expansion and growth…Palin said Alaska’s congressional delegation worked hard to obtain funding for the bridge as part of a package deal and that she ‘would not stand in the way of the progress toward that bridge.’” [Ketchikan Daily News, 8/9/06, accessed 8/29/08] · 2006: Palin Said People Across the Nation Were “Under These Misperceptions About the Bridge and its Purpose.” According to the Ketchikan Daily News in 2006, “‘People across the nation struggle with the idea of building a bridge because they’ve been under these misperceptions about the bridge and the purpose,’ said Palin, who described the link as the Ketchikan area’s potential for expansion and growth. The Ketchikan community now needs to have a strong, unified effort to say whether it wants the bridge or not. ‘And if you want the thing, there needs to be good justification,’ she said. ‘There needs to be the reasonableness that the rest of Alaska and the rest of the United States wants to see.’ She said that reasonableness could include a compromise in design and cost, such as limiting the link to a single span instead of the two-span Revilla-Pennock-Gravina route. ‘It’s pretty grandiose here, what is proposed,’ she said. Palin said Alaska’s congressional delegation worked hard to obtain funding for the bridge as part of a package deal and that she ‘would not stand in the way of the progress toward that bridge.’” [Ketchikan Daily News, 8/9/06] Palin’s Spokesman Said She Supported the Bridge to Nowhere. “Republican Sarah Palin’s spokesman, Curtis Smith, said Palin supports the Ketchikan bridge project, but had no immediate response to Murkowski’s plans.” [Ketchikan Daily News, 11/21/06] VO: He took on the drug industry. CG: AP: “McCain Calls for Permitting the Importation of Prescription Drugs from Canada” – 11/17/07 REALITY: MCCAIN HAS SIDED WITH THE DRUG COMPANIES McCain Opposed Advertising Regulations for Drug Ads. In 2003, McCain voted against an amendment that would require drug companies to release advertisements with balanced visual and audio information. The Health and Human Services secretary would be required to speed up the review process of such advertisements. The secretary also would be able to require drug companies to assess their drugs against similar ones that already exist and include those comparisons in advertisements. Drug companies violating the advertising rules would be subject to civil penalties. [2003 Senate Vote #248, 6/26/2003] McCain Voted Against Allowing States To Develop Programs To Force Pharmaceutical Companies To Discount Drug Prices For Americans. In 2002, McCain voted against clarifying that current law does not prohibit a state from entering into drug rebate agreements with a manufacturer in order to ensure affordability and accessibility of outpatient prescription drugs for State’s residents who are not otherwise eligible for medical assistance under Medicaid. [2002 Senate Vote #182, 7/18/2002] McCain Voted Against Medicaid Drug Discounts And Cracking Down On Provider Fraud. In 1995, McCain voted against restoring drug discounts to state Medicaid programs and public health facilities; to retain provisions against health care provider fraud and abuse; to retain current federal nursing home standards; and to remove provisions that provide greater or lesser Medicaid spending in states based upon the votes needed for passage. [1995 Senate Vote #573, 11/13/1995] VO: She took on big oil. CG: AP: Palin Takes on Oil Industry, Republicans” – 12/28/07 REALITY: PALIN HAS CLOSE TIES TO THE OIL INDUSTRY In Her 2002 Campaign for Lieutenant Governor, Palin Raised ‘About 10 Percent Of Her Campaign Fund’ From Veco, An Oil Company Under Federal Investigation. “While mayor of Wasilla, Palin ran for lieutenant governor in 2002. She gathered $5,000 — or about 10 percent of her campaign fund — from Veco officials or their wives along the way.” [Anchorage Daily News, 9/6/06] Palin Said She Had Begun Working With the White House and Even Talked With Dick Cheney About Alaska’s Energy Policy. In her 2007 State of the State Address, Palin said, “Of course, the primary focus of our long-term energy plan can be summed up in three words — NATURAL GAS PIPELNE! This gasline will fuel our homes, our economy, and careers for Alaskans - for generations. The gasline is critical not just for our future, but for the nation’s future. It’s also an essential component of our nation’s energy policy. Truly, for energy independence, the nation will look to Alaska. We’ve already begun working with the White House. In fact, I had a nice conversation with Vice President Cheney today. And we are also blessed to have a strong ally in former State Senator Drue Pearce, who’s been tasked by the President to get the gasline built. The energy industry is also engaged and I look forward to working with Congress and our legislators - our “partners” to deliver our natural gas to market.” [Excerpt from January 17, 2007 State of the State Address] The Weekly Standard Called Palin “The Nation’s Most Prominent Advocate of Drilling in ANWR.” Sen. John McCain was reconsidering his opposition to drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and planned to talk about the issue with Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, “the nation’s most prominent advocate of drilling in ANWR,” an article in The Weekly Standard said. “In an interview with The Weekly Standard aboard his campaign plane last week, McCain made clear he has not ruled out a change in his position ? to one that endorses drilling in ANWR.” [The Weekly Standard, 8/25/08] Palin Said She Would Beg to Disagree With Candidate Who Said We Can’t Drill Our Way Out of Our Problem. Asked by Invester’s Business Daily “Some politicians and presidential candidates say we can’t drill our way out of our energy problem and that drilling in ANWR will have no effect. What’s your best guess of the impact on prices?” Palin responded, “I beg to disagree with any candidate who would say we can’t drill our way out of our problem or that more supply won’t ultimately affect prices. Of course it will affect prices. Energy being a global market, it’s impossible to venture a guess on (specific) prices. We never would have thought oil would reach $140. Only a few months ago, we thought $100 would be the peak. And here it is at $140 (with) no end in sight. It’s very difficult to determine, but we do know the demand is going to continue to increase. The demand in Asia especially is one reason why prices are going to increase. But if I could predict energy prices, I wouldn’t be sitting here today.” [Investor’s Business Daily, 7/11/08] Sierra Club Director Carl Pope Said “No One is Closer to the Oil Industry Than Governor Palin.” “No one is closer to the oil industry than Governor Palin,” said Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club in comments reflecting the views of a cross section of environmental activists. They cite her eagerness to embrace expanded offshore oil development, her lawsuit against further protection of polar bears so as not to hinder oil drilling in Alaska’s ice-filled waters and her ardent support to allow oil companies into the Alaska wildlife refuge. [Associated Press, 8/30/08] Palin Took $13,000 from Lobbyists Representing the Oil Industry in Her 2006 Campaign for Governor. The lobbyists who donated to her campaign represent a range of industries, including oil and gas, tobacco, education and the Native Alaskan community. “She’s fought oil companies and party bosses and do-nothing bureaucrats and anyone who puts their interests before the interests of the people she swore an oath to serve,” Mr. McCain said Friday at an Ohio rally to introduce her as his running mate. But since Mrs. Palin leads a major oil-producing state, that industry is one of her top donors. She collected nearly $13,000 from lobbyists who represent oil and gas industries in her primary and general campaigns, according a review of her campaign donations and 2006 registered state lobbyists. [Washington Times, 9/1/08] Palin Said She Understood and Appreciated the Oil Industry. In 2006, Palin said, “I’m not anti-industry. As a former mayor of the fastest-growing area in Alaska and a former regulator of oil and gas, I understand and appreciate the contributions that industry provides to our state economy and the U.S. economy. My husband started his job on the Slope 18 years ago. He’s a blue collar union man up there, and I appreciate the job opportunities provided him. He’s from Dillingham, from Bristol Bay. He’s got good skills, a good work ethic and he has been rewarded for that work ethic, materially, if you will, with a good job on the North Slope. He’s the kind of Alaskan I want to see more of employed on the Slope. … I also have a great understanding of industry’s motivation. Industry’s motivation … unfortunately for us … is that they take as much possible and leave as little behind, but that’s what the CEOs of these producing companies are supposed to do; that’s what they are tasked to do by their shareholders. It’s all the more reason for us to understand what our relationship with the industry needs to be; that the state’s CEO works just as hard for the shareholders in this state, who are fellow Alaskans.” [Alaska Journal of Commerce, 10/8/06] VO: He battled Republicans and reformed Washington. CG: Boston Herald: “Maverick McCain Rips GOP” – 4/2/04 REALITY: MCCAIN ABRAMAOFF INVESTIGATION “IGNORED” ACTIONS BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS McCain Acknowledged That Members Had Responsibility In The Lobbying Scandal, But Refused To Investigate Member’s Actions In An Investigation That “Ignored” Congressional Republicans. McCain acknowledged that Members were responsible for their conduct in Congress surrounding the lobbying scandal, saying, “Many cast blame [for the Abramoff Scandal] only on the lobbying industry. But, we should not forget that we, as Members, owe it to the American people to conduct ourselves in a way that reinforces, rather than diminishes, the public’s faith and confidence in Congress.” But during his investigation, McCain refused to include the legislative actions taken by Members of Congress saying, “We stop when we find out where the money went.” The Associated Press reported that, “The intervention by congressional Republicans…was all but ignored in recent hearings on Capitol Hill led by [McCain], that examined Abramoff’s lobbying inside Interior. [Senator McCain, CQ Transcriptions, 1/25/06; Roll Call, 3/10/05; AP, 11/17/05] McCain’s Abramoff Report Said No Need for New Lobbying Laws Following Abramoff Scandal. The report by released by John McCain and the Senate Indian Affairs Committee in June 2006 on the Abramoff investigation argued that “no new lobbying restrictions are needed to prevent schemes like those used by former lobbyist Jack Abramoff.” In addition, “despite a pledge by McCain two years ago to get to the bottom of a now-convicted lobbyist’s influence-peddling, his committee’s 373-page report does not detail the relationships between Abramoff and the dozens of lawmakers to whom the lobbyist helped funnel hundreds of thousands of dollars in tribal political donations.” [Arizona Republic, 6/23/06] REALITY: McCain Has Backed Away From Bipartisan Reforms He Once Championed 2007: McCain Acknowledged His Shift On Immigration From Supporting Comprehensive Reform To Supporting An Enforcement First Strategy. “John McCain spent months earlier this year arguing that the United States must combine border security efforts with a temporary worker program and an eventual path to citizenship for many illegal immigrants. Now, the Republican presidential candidate emphasizes securing the borders first. The rest, he says, is still needed but will have to come later. ‘I understand why you would call it a, quote, shift,’ McCain told reporters Saturday after voters questioned him on his position during back-to-back appearances in this early voting state. ‘I say it is a lesson learned about what the American people’s priorities are. And their priority is to secure the borders.’ The shift in approach is likely to draw criticism from McCain’s GOP opponents. Immigration has been a flash point in the race, with rivals Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson all seizing on it.” [Associated Press, 11/3/07] · 2008: McCain Said He Would Oppose the Legislation He Authored With Kennedy. Asked whether he would vote for the immigration legislation he previously sponsored, McCain eventually replied, “No, I would not.” [CNN GOP Presidential Debate, 1/30/08] 2006: McCain Was “Noticeably Missing” From Latest Campaign Finance Reform Legislation, Likely To Avoid Charges Of Hypocrisy If He Side Steps The System In 2008. With John McCain “noticeably missing” as one of the former “key proponents of BCRA,” Senator Feingold and Congressmen Shays and Meehan offered campaign finance reform legislation “to raise the spending limits for the primary and general elections and significantly boost the matching funds available to candidates. They want to make these additional funds accessible to the candidates earlier in the process, provide additional public funds to candidates facing well-heeled opponents who are outside the public-financing system, and increase the current $3 tax check-off that finances presidential campaigns to $10 per individual, $20 for a married couple,” and to bring an “end to the use of ‘soft money’ from corporations and labor unions to pay for the national conventions held every four years.” McCain, who was “conspicuously absent from the latest [campaign finance reform] effort” was not made available for comment by his office. “Several people involved in discussions about the legislation said the senator’s absence was related to his widely expected bid for the presidency in 2008.” Meredith McGehee, a “longtime advocate for campaign finance reform,” said of McCain, “He does not want to be caught in a position where he can be accused, rightly or wrongly, of hypocrisy” should he opt out of public financing during the Republican presidential primary.” [Roll Call, 7/27/06; New York Sun, 7/28/06] · 2007: McCain Removed His Name From Campaign Finance Legislation. “People involved in the Republican primary campaign of Senator John McCain of Arizona say he, too, is beginning to seek private donations for the primary and general elections, albeit with the option of returning them. A longtime proponent of campaign finance change, Mr. McCain has recently removed his name as a co-sponsor of a bill to expand the presidential public financing program.” [New York Times, 1/23/07] VO: She battled Republicans and reformed Alaska. They’ll make history. They’ll change Washington. McCain. Palin. Real change. JOHN MCCAIN: I’m John McCain and I approve this message. CG: Wall Street Journal: “Palin Fought for Reform in Alaska” – 8/30/08 McCain-Palin The Original Mavericks Paid for by McCain-Palin 2008. Approved by John McCain. REALITY: PALIN IS PART OF THE SAME OLD CORRUPT ALASKA REPUBLICAN ESTABLISHMENT Palin Has Refused to Say If She Will Support Indicted Senator Stevens’ Re-Election Bid. “Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is not saying whether she will vote in November to send the indicted Ted Stevens back to the Senate for a seventh full term. The indictment has put Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) running mate in a tricky position. If Palin endorses Stevens, it will appear that she is undermining her message of taking on the GOP establishment and cleaning up corruption in her state. But should the popular governor oppose his reelection, it could deliver a blow to Stevens’s campaign and give Democrats ammunition as they try to pick up one more Senate seat. Palin’s spokesmen in the McCain campaign have not responded to several inquiries seeking comment on the governor’s position on Stevens. A spokesman for the McCain campaign told the Alaska-based Peninsula Clarion that Palin has yet to endorse Stevens, the paper reported on its website Friday.” [The Hill, 9/5/03] The Usual Alaska Suspects - Ted Stevens, Don Young, And Lisa Murkowski Fundraised For Palin. “Will we see Ted Stevens stumping for Sarah Palin? Palin said this morning that Stevens appeared at a fund-raiser for her in Ketchikan and gave a speech about ‘moving Alaska forward.’ But does that mean he’ll pop up in any advertisements? (Remember his arguably pivotal role at the end of the Knowles and Murkowski Senate race?) Palin said she doubts it and hasn’t asked… She said Don Young came to one of her fund-raisers two days ago, and she expects Lisa Murkowski at an upcoming event. Tonight she planned to talk with John Binkley, who she says is writing a letter to his supporters on her behalf, and she planned to meet with Frank Murkowski tomorrow morning.” [“The Trail” blog, Anchorage Daily News, 10/13/06] As Mayor, Palin Hired a Washington Lobbyist to Help Get Earmarks for Wasilla – Lobbyist Was Former Chief of Staff for Indicted Senator Ted Stevens. “And as mayor of the small town of Wasilla from 1996 to 2002, Palin also hired a Washington lobbying firm that helped secure $8 million in congressionally directed spending projects, known as earmarks, according to public spending records compiled by the watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste and lobbying documents. Wasilla’s lobbying firm was headed by Steven Silver — a former chief of staff to Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, a key proponent of the bridge project.” [USA Today, 8/31/08] JULY 2008: Legislature Voted to Appoint a Special Counsel to Investigate Palin Abuse of Power Claim. In July 2008, the Alaska State Legislator voted 12-0 to approve $100,000 for a special investigator to begin an investigation into claims Palin fired a former state official because he would not fire a state trooper who was involved in a bitter custody battle with Palin’s sister. The legislator’s intent was to investigate the events surrounding the termination of former Dept. of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan and potential abuses of power and improper action by Palin and her administration. [KTVA 11, 07/28/08] After agreeing to Legislative Inquiry, Palin Changed Her Mind and Tried to Have Troopergate Handled by Her Own Personnel Board. Palin made multiple statements saying that she would fully cooperate with the Legislative inquiry, but now she wants Troopergate to be handled by the State of Alaska Personnel Board, which has three members: Debra English, who Palin reappointed on January 29, 2008; Laura Plenert, a registered Republican; Alfred Tamagni, Sr., who gave $400 to the Palin/Parnell campaign in 2006. The latter two were appointed by Frank Murkowski. [Alaska Department of Administration, Division of Personnel Director’s Office Website; Van Flein Letter to Branchflower] Palin’s Lawyer Canceled the Deposition of an Aide Was a Key Witness in Troopergate. “The deposition of one of Gov. Sarah Palin’s staff members was canceled yesterday by the staffer’s attorney, in what is yet another setback to the state legislature’s investigation into claims that Palin fired the public safety commissioner after he refused to dismiss a trooper, Palin’s former brother in-law. Palin has denied any wrongdoing surrounding the dismissal of Walt Monegan, but has acknowledged that phone calls were made by her staff members to Public Safety officials regarding the trooper, Mike Wooten. One of those calls was made by Palin’s director of boards and commissions, Frank Bailey. Bailey was scheduled to be deposed as part of the legislature’s investigation, but his attorney canceled the deposition yesterday and challenged the legislature’s jurisdiction, according to the state senator running the probe.” [ABC News, 9/3/08] Palin Administration Refuses to Release E-Mails, Citing Executive Privilege. “E-mails from the Palin administration are being withheld from the public and the governor is citing executive privilege. With subject lines like ‘Fagan,’ ‘Andrew Halcro’ and even ‘Alaska Ear,’ it makes some wonder how those topics could possibly be policy related; especially since those same e-mails were copied to the governor’s husband. The administration says public employees need to know they can debate openly amongst themselves. Andree McLeod, who tried repeatedly to get a job with the Palin administration, obtained the e-mails through a public records request. The Department of Law says the e-mails are privileged. Officials say the private e-mails within the Palin administration won’t be released.” [KTUU, 8/6/08]
AD WATCH FOR “ORIGINAL MAVERICKS” 9/8/08
VO: The original maverick.
Reality: McCain Has Been A Reliable Vote For George Bush And THE Republican Party
McCain Has Voted With Bush 90 Percent Of The Time In The Senate. According to Congressional Quarterly, McCain has voted in support of President Bush’s position 90 percent of the time since the beginning of his administration. [Congressional Quarterly, 8/15/08, http://www.cqpolitics.com/cq-assets/cqmultimedia/flash/votestudy/index.html]
Arizona Republic Headline: “In Tight Senate Votes, McCain Not A Maverick. When It Matters The Most, He Seldom Bucks His Own Party.” “Over the years, Sen. John McCain has publicly condemned Republican Party leaders and occasionally voted against the GOP on selected issues. But an Arizona Republic analysis of his Senate votes on the most divided issues in the past decade shows that McCain almost never thwarted his party’s objectives.” [Arizona Republic, 5/7/08]
McCain: On The “Most Important Issues Of Our Day, I Have Been Totally In Agreement And Support Of President Bush.” In a June 2005 interview on NBC’s “Meet The Press,” John McCain stated that he was a strong supporter of President Bush: “I have agreed with President Bush far more than I have disagreed. And on the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day, I have been totally in agreement and support of President Bush.” [NBC, “Meet The Press,” 6/19/05]
VO: He fights pork barrel spending.
CG: San Jose Mercery News: “McCain Faults Bush for Pork Barrel Spending” – 12/1/03
REALITY: MCCAIN HAS VOTED FOR PORK BARREL SPENDING
McCain Has Voted For 12,673 Earmarks Totaling $144 Billion In Just Six Years. In just six of his 25 years in Congress, John McCain voted for spending bills that included 12,763 earmarks totally $144.408 billion according to the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, which the McCain campaign has cited as an authoritative source for the definition of earmarks. [Appropriations Bills From FYs 1994, 1996, 1998, 2002, 2004 and 2005 for which the Congressional Research Service totaled earmarks and for which John McCain voted for the conference reports. “Earmarks in Appropriation Acts: FY1994, FY1996, FY1998, FY2000, FY2002, FY2004, FY2005,” Congressional Research Service, 1/26/06; Senate.gov; Center For American Progress, 4/16/08]
McCain Himself Has Asked For Earmarks Throughout His Career. As Factcheck.org pointed out in three cases they analyzed, “McCain may have requested, or been influential in securing, an earmark.” His $10 million request for funding for the Rehnquist Center in Arizona would “meet the public idea” of an earmark according to pork watchdog Taxpayers For Common Sense (TCS). McCain also asked the first Bush administration to “earmark” funds for a wastewater treatment plant, and got last-minute funds inserted into a conference report for an Air Force base, part of a plan that eventually reaped major profits for McCain supporters. TCS also called that an earmark, according to USA Today. [Factcheck.org; New York Times, 2/18/2006; WashingtonPost.com, 12/31/08; USA Today, 5/15/08]
McCain Keeps Making Exceptions For Some Earmarks When People Question His Pledge. When journalists and analysts have pointed out that the McCain definition of earmarks includes billions in aid to Israel, he made an exception, saying “of course not. I’m not cutting any aid.” McCain similarly made exceptions for military housing, a breast cancer research program, billions for Everglades restoration and an Alabama ferry. [Center For American Progress, 4/16/08; Ben Smith, Politico.com, 4/16/08; ABC News, “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” 4/20/08; ”Tales from the Trail” Blog, Reuters, 4/30/2008; CNN Live Feed (Allentown, PA), 4/30/2008; Miami Herald, 6/5/08; Congressional Record, 9/24/07; Taxpayers For Common Sense website; Jonathan Martin, Politico.com, 4/24/08; NPR’s All Things Considered, 4/23/08]
VO: She stopped the Bridge to Nowhere.
CG: Anchorage Daily News: “Palin Flies High As Reformer” – 12/27/07
REALITY: PALIN WAS FOR THE BRIDGE TO NOWHERE BEFORE SHE WAS AGAINST IT
Politifact: Palin’s Stance On “The Bridge To Nowhere” Is “A Full Flop.” Politfact, a service of CQ and the St. Petersburg Times wrote, “McCain said Palin has ‘stopped government from wasting taxpayers’ money on things they don’t want or need. And when we in Congress decided to build a bridge in Alaska to nowhere for $233-million of yours, she said, we don’t want it. If we need it, we’ll build our own in Alaska. She’s the one that stood up to them.’ Nevermind that Alaska didn’t give the money back. It spent the money on other transportation projects. The context of Palin’s and McCain’s recent statements suggest Palin flagged the so-called Bridge to Nowhere project as wasteful spending. But that’s not the tune she was singing when she was running for governor, particularly not when she was standing before the Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce asking for their vote. And so, we rate Palin’s position a Full Flop.” [Politifact]
Anchorage Daily News Headline: “Palin Touts Stance on ‘Bridge to Nowhere,’ Doesn’t Note Flip Flop.” “When John McCain introduced Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate Friday, her reputation as a tough-minded budget-cutter was front and center. ‘I told Congress, thanks but no thanks on that bridge to nowhere,’ Palin told the cheering McCain crowd, referring to Ketchikan’s Gravina Island bridge. But Palin was for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it. The Alaska governor campaigned in 2006 on a build-the-bridge platform, telling Ketchikan residents she felt their pain when politicians called them ‘nowhere.’ They’re still feeling pain today in Ketchikan, over Palin’s subsequent decision to use the bridge funds for other projects — and over the timing of her announcement, which they say came in a pre-dawn press release that seemed aimed at national news deadlines. ‘I think that’s when the campaign for national office began,’ said Ketchikan Mayor Bob Weinstein on Saturday.” [Anchorage Daily News, 8/31/08]
Palin Was for the Bridge to Nowhere Before She Was Against It. In 2006, Palin was asked, “Would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges?” She responded, “Yes. I would like to see Alaska’s infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now–while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.” [Ancorage Daily News, 10/22/06, republished 08/29/08]
· 2006: Palin: Don’t Allow “Spinmeisters” To Turn Bridge To Nowhere Project “Into Something That’s So Negative.” “Part of my agenda is making sure that Southeast is heard. That your projects are important. That we go to bat for Southeast when we’re up against federal influences that aren’t in the best interest of Southeast.’ She cited the widespread negative attention focused on the Gravina Island crossing project. ‘We need to come to the defense of Southeast Alaska when proposals are on the table like the bridge and not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative,’ Palin said.” [Ketchikan Daily News, 10/2/06]
· 2006: Palin On Bridge To Nowhere: “Would Not Stand In The Way Of The Progress Toward That Bridge.” According to the Ketchikan Daily News, “People across the nation struggle with the idea of building a bridge because they’ve been under these misperceptions about the bridge and the purpose,’ said Palin, who described the link as the Ketchikan area’s potential for expansion and growth…Palin said Alaska’s congressional delegation worked hard to obtain funding for the bridge as part of a package deal and that she ‘would not stand in the way of the progress toward that bridge.’” [Ketchikan Daily News, 8/9/06, accessed 8/29/08]
· 2006: Palin Said People Across the Nation Were “Under These Misperceptions About the Bridge and its Purpose.” According to the Ketchikan Daily News in 2006, “‘People across the nation struggle with the idea of building a bridge because they’ve been under these misperceptions about the bridge and the purpose,’ said Palin, who described the link as the Ketchikan area’s potential for expansion and growth. The Ketchikan community now needs to have a strong, unified effort to say whether it wants the bridge or not. ‘And if you want the thing, there needs to be good justification,’ she said. ‘There needs to be the reasonableness that the rest of Alaska and the rest of the United States wants to see.’ She said that reasonableness could include a compromise in design and cost, such as limiting the link to a single span instead of the two-span Revilla-Pennock-Gravina route. ‘It’s pretty grandiose here, what is proposed,’ she said. Palin said Alaska’s congressional delegation worked hard to obtain funding for the bridge as part of a package deal and that she ‘would not stand in the way of the progress toward that bridge.’” [Ketchikan Daily News, 8/9/06]
Palin’s Spokesman Said She Supported the Bridge to Nowhere. “Republican Sarah Palin’s spokesman, Curtis Smith, said Palin supports the Ketchikan bridge project, but had no immediate response to Murkowski’s plans.” [Ketchikan Daily News, 11/21/06]
VO: He took on the drug industry.
CG: AP: “McCain Calls for Permitting the Importation of Prescription Drugs from Canada” – 11/17/07
REALITY: MCCAIN HAS SIDED WITH THE DRUG COMPANIES
McCain Opposed Advertising Regulations for Drug Ads. In 2003, McCain voted against an amendment that would require drug companies to release advertisements with balanced visual and audio information. The Health and Human Services secretary would be required to speed up the review process of such advertisements. The secretary also would be able to require drug companies to assess their drugs against similar ones that already exist and include those comparisons in advertisements. Drug companies violating the advertising rules would be subject to civil penalties. [2003 Senate Vote #248, 6/26/2003]
McCain Voted Against Allowing States To Develop Programs To Force Pharmaceutical Companies To Discount Drug Prices For Americans. In 2002, McCain voted against clarifying that current law does not prohibit a state from entering into drug rebate agreements with a manufacturer in order to ensure affordability and accessibility of outpatient prescription drugs for State’s residents who are not otherwise eligible for medical assistance under Medicaid. [2002 Senate Vote #182, 7/18/2002]
McCain Voted Against Medicaid Drug Discounts And Cracking Down On Provider Fraud. In 1995, McCain voted against restoring drug discounts to state Medicaid programs and public health facilities; to retain provisions against health care provider fraud and abuse; to retain current federal nursing home standards; and to remove provisions that provide greater or lesser Medicaid spending in states based upon the votes needed for passage. [1995 Senate Vote #573, 11/13/1995]
VO: She took on big oil.
CG: AP: Palin Takes on Oil Industry, Republicans” – 12/28/07
REALITY: PALIN HAS CLOSE TIES TO THE OIL INDUSTRY
In Her 2002 Campaign for Lieutenant Governor, Palin Raised ‘About 10 Percent Of Her Campaign Fund’ From Veco, An Oil Company Under Federal Investigation. “While mayor of Wasilla, Palin ran for lieutenant governor in 2002. She gathered $5,000 — or about 10 percent of her campaign fund — from Veco officials or their wives along the way.” [Anchorage Daily News, 9/6/06]
Palin Said She Had Begun Working With the White House and Even Talked With Dick Cheney About Alaska’s Energy Policy. In her 2007 State of the State Address, Palin said, “Of course, the primary focus of our long-term energy plan can be summed up in three words — NATURAL GAS PIPELNE! This gasline will fuel our homes, our economy, and careers for Alaskans - for generations. The gasline is critical not just for our future, but for the nation’s future. It’s also an essential component of our nation’s energy policy. Truly, for energy independence, the nation will look to Alaska. We’ve already begun working with the White House. In fact, I had a nice conversation with Vice President Cheney today. And we are also blessed to have a strong ally in former State Senator Drue Pearce, who’s been tasked by the President to get the gasline built. The energy industry is also engaged and I look forward to working with Congress and our legislators - our “partners” to deliver our natural gas to market.” [Excerpt from January 17, 2007 State of the State Address]
The Weekly Standard Called Palin “The Nation’s Most Prominent Advocate of Drilling in ANWR.” Sen. John McCain was reconsidering his opposition to drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and planned to talk about the issue with Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, “the nation’s most prominent advocate of drilling in ANWR,” an article in The Weekly Standard said. “In an interview with The Weekly Standard aboard his campaign plane last week, McCain made clear he has not ruled out a change in his position ? to one that endorses drilling in ANWR.” [The Weekly Standard, 8/25/08]
Palin Said She Would Beg to Disagree With Candidate Who Said We Can’t Drill Our Way Out of Our Problem. Asked by Invester’s Business Daily “Some politicians and presidential candidates say we can’t drill our way out of our energy problem and that drilling in ANWR will have no effect. What’s your best guess of the impact on prices?” Palin responded, “I beg to disagree with any candidate who would say we can’t drill our way out of our problem or that more supply won’t ultimately affect prices. Of course it will affect prices. Energy being a global market, it’s impossible to venture a guess on (specific) prices. We never would have thought oil would reach $140. Only a few months ago, we thought $100 would be the peak. And here it is at $140 (with) no end in sight. It’s very difficult to determine, but we do know the demand is going to continue to increase. The demand in Asia especially is one reason why prices are going to increase. But if I could predict energy prices, I wouldn’t be sitting here today.” [Investor’s Business Daily, 7/11/08]
Sierra Club Director Carl Pope Said “No One is Closer to the Oil Industry Than Governor Palin.” “No one is closer to the oil industry than Governor Palin,” said Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club in comments reflecting the views of a cross section of environmental activists. They cite her eagerness to embrace expanded offshore oil development, her lawsuit against further protection of polar bears so as not to hinder oil drilling in Alaska’s ice-filled waters and her ardent support to allow oil companies into the Alaska wildlife refuge. [Associated Press, 8/30/08]
Palin Took $13,000 from Lobbyists Representing the Oil Industry in Her 2006 Campaign for Governor. The lobbyists who donated to her campaign represent a range of industries, including oil and gas, tobacco, education and the Native Alaskan community. “She’s fought oil companies and party bosses and do-nothing bureaucrats and anyone who puts their interests before the interests of the people she swore an oath to serve,” Mr. McCain said Friday at an Ohio rally to introduce her as his running mate. But since Mrs. Palin leads a major oil-producing state, that industry is one of her top donors. She collected nearly $13,000 from lobbyists who represent oil and gas industries in her primary and general campaigns, according a review of her campaign donations and 2006 registered state lobbyists. [Washington Times, 9/1/08]
Palin Said She Understood and Appreciated the Oil Industry. In 2006, Palin said, “I’m not anti-industry. As a former mayor of the fastest-growing area in Alaska and a former regulator of oil and gas, I understand and appreciate the contributions that industry provides to our state economy and the U.S. economy. My husband started his job on the Slope 18 years ago. He’s a blue collar union man up there, and I appreciate the job opportunities provided him. He’s from Dillingham, from Bristol Bay. He’s got good skills, a good work ethic and he has been rewarded for that work ethic, materially, if you will, with a good job on the North Slope. He’s the kind of Alaskan I want to see more of employed on the Slope. … I also have a great understanding of industry’s motivation. Industry’s motivation … unfortunately for us … is that they take as much possible and leave as little behind, but that’s what the CEOs of these producing companies are supposed to do; that’s what they are tasked to do by their shareholders. It’s all the more reason for us to understand what our relationship with the industry needs to be; that the state’s CEO works just as hard for the shareholders in this state, who are fellow Alaskans.” [Alaska Journal of Commerce, 10/8/06]
VO: He battled Republicans and reformed Washington.
CG: Boston Herald: “Maverick McCain Rips GOP” – 4/2/04
REALITY: MCCAIN ABRAMAOFF INVESTIGATION “IGNORED” ACTIONS BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
McCain Acknowledged That Members Had Responsibility In The Lobbying Scandal, But Refused To Investigate Member’s Actions In An Investigation That “Ignored” Congressional Republicans. McCain acknowledged that Members were responsible for their conduct in Congress surrounding the lobbying scandal, saying, “Many cast blame [for the Abramoff Scandal] only on the lobbying industry. But, we should not forget that we, as Members, owe it to the American people to conduct ourselves in a way that reinforces, rather than diminishes, the public’s faith and confidence in Congress.” But during his investigation, McCain refused to include the legislative actions taken by Members of Congress saying, “We stop when we find out where the money went.” The Associated Press reported that, “The intervention by congressional Republicans…was all but ignored in recent hearings on Capitol Hill led by [McCain], that examined Abramoff’s lobbying inside Interior. [Senator McCain, CQ Transcriptions, 1/25/06; Roll Call, 3/10/05; AP, 11/17/05]
McCain’s Abramoff Report Said No Need for New Lobbying Laws Following Abramoff Scandal. The report by released by John McCain and the Senate Indian Affairs Committee in June 2006 on the Abramoff investigation argued that “no new lobbying restrictions are needed to prevent schemes like those used by former lobbyist Jack Abramoff.” In addition, “despite a pledge by McCain two years ago to get to the bottom of a now-convicted lobbyist’s influence-peddling, his committee’s 373-page report does not detail the relationships between Abramoff and the dozens of lawmakers to whom the lobbyist helped funnel hundreds of thousands of dollars in tribal political donations.” [Arizona Republic, 6/23/06]
REALITY: McCain Has Backed Away From Bipartisan Reforms He Once Championed
2007: McCain Acknowledged His Shift On Immigration From Supporting Comprehensive Reform To Supporting An Enforcement First Strategy. “John McCain spent months earlier this year arguing that the United States must combine border security efforts with a temporary worker program and an eventual path to citizenship for many illegal immigrants. Now, the Republican presidential candidate emphasizes securing the borders first. The rest, he says, is still needed but will have to come later. ‘I understand why you would call it a, quote, shift,’ McCain told reporters Saturday after voters questioned him on his position during back-to-back appearances in this early voting state. ‘I say it is a lesson learned about what the American people’s priorities are. And their priority is to secure the borders.’ The shift in approach is likely to draw criticism from McCain’s GOP opponents. Immigration has been a flash point in the race, with rivals Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson all seizing on it.” [Associated Press, 11/3/07]
· 2008: McCain Said He Would Oppose the Legislation He Authored With Kennedy. Asked whether he would vote for the immigration legislation he previously sponsored, McCain eventually replied, “No, I would not.” [CNN GOP Presidential Debate, 1/30/08]
2006: McCain Was “Noticeably Missing” From Latest Campaign Finance Reform Legislation, Likely To Avoid Charges Of Hypocrisy If He Side Steps The System In 2008. With John McCain “noticeably missing” as one of the former “key proponents of BCRA,” Senator Feingold and Congressmen Shays and Meehan offered campaign finance reform legislation “to raise the spending limits for the primary and general elections and significantly boost the matching funds available to candidates. They want to make these additional funds accessible to the candidates earlier in the process, provide additional public funds to candidates facing well-heeled opponents who are outside the public-financing system, and increase the current $3 tax check-off that finances presidential campaigns to $10 per individual, $20 for a married couple,” and to bring an “end to the use of ‘soft money’ from corporations and labor unions to pay for the national conventions held every four years.” McCain, who was “conspicuously absent from the latest [campaign finance reform] effort” was not made available for comment by his office. “Several people involved in discussions about the legislation said the senator’s absence was related to his widely expected bid for the presidency in 2008.” Meredith McGehee, a “longtime advocate for campaign finance reform,” said of McCain, “He does not want to be caught in a position where he can be accused, rightly or wrongly, of hypocrisy” should he opt out of public financing during the Republican presidential primary.” [Roll Call, 7/27/06; New York Sun, 7/28/06]
· 2007: McCain Removed His Name From Campaign Finance Legislation. “People involved in the Republican primary campaign of Senator John McCain of Arizona say he, too, is beginning to seek private donations for the primary and general elections, albeit with the option of returning them. A longtime proponent of campaign finance change, Mr. McCain has recently removed his name as a co-sponsor of a bill to expand the presidential public financing program.” [New York Times, 1/23/07]
VO: She battled Republicans and reformed Alaska.
They’ll make history. They’ll change Washington. McCain. Palin. Real change.
JOHN MCCAIN: I’m John McCain and I approve this message.
CG: Wall Street Journal: “Palin Fought for Reform in Alaska” – 8/30/08
McCain-Palin
The Original Mavericks
Paid for by McCain-Palin 2008. Approved by John McCain.
REALITY: PALIN IS PART OF THE SAME OLD CORRUPT ALASKA REPUBLICAN ESTABLISHMENT
Palin Has Refused to Say If She Will Support Indicted Senator Stevens’ Re-Election Bid. “Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is not saying whether she will vote in November to send the indicted Ted Stevens back to the Senate for a seventh full term. The indictment has put Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) running mate in a tricky position. If Palin endorses Stevens, it will appear that she is undermining her message of taking on the GOP establishment and cleaning up corruption in her state. But should the popular governor oppose his reelection, it could deliver a blow to Stevens’s campaign and give Democrats ammunition as they try to pick up one more Senate seat. Palin’s spokesmen in the McCain campaign have not responded to several inquiries seeking comment on the governor’s position on Stevens. A spokesman for the McCain campaign told the Alaska-based Peninsula Clarion that Palin has yet to endorse Stevens, the paper reported on its website Friday.” [The Hill, 9/5/03]
The Usual Alaska Suspects - Ted Stevens, Don Young, And Lisa Murkowski Fundraised For Palin. “Will we see Ted Stevens stumping for Sarah Palin? Palin said this morning that Stevens appeared at a fund-raiser for her in Ketchikan and gave a speech about ‘moving Alaska forward.’ But does that mean he’ll pop up in any advertisements? (Remember his arguably pivotal role at the end of the Knowles and Murkowski Senate race?) Palin said she doubts it and hasn’t asked… She said Don Young came to one of her fund-raisers two days ago, and she expects Lisa Murkowski at an upcoming event. Tonight she planned to talk with John Binkley, who she says is writing a letter to his supporters on her behalf, and she planned to meet with Frank Murkowski tomorrow morning.” [“The Trail” blog, Anchorage Daily News, 10/13/06]
As Mayor, Palin Hired a Washington Lobbyist to Help Get Earmarks for Wasilla – Lobbyist Was Former Chief of Staff for Indicted Senator Ted Stevens. “And as mayor of the small town of Wasilla from 1996 to 2002, Palin also hired a Washington lobbying firm that helped secure $8 million in congressionally directed spending projects, known as earmarks, according to public spending records compiled by the watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste and lobbying documents. Wasilla’s lobbying firm was headed by Steven Silver — a former chief of staff to Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, a key proponent of the bridge project.” [USA Today, 8/31/08]
JULY 2008: Legislature Voted to Appoint a Special Counsel to Investigate Palin Abuse of Power Claim. In July 2008, the Alaska State Legislator voted 12-0 to approve $100,000 for a special investigator to begin an investigation into claims Palin fired a former state official because he would not fire a state trooper who was involved in a bitter custody battle with Palin’s sister. The legislator’s intent was to investigate the events surrounding the termination of former Dept. of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan and potential abuses of power and improper action by Palin and her administration. [KTVA 11, 07/28/08]
After agreeing to Legislative Inquiry, Palin Changed Her Mind and Tried to Have Troopergate Handled by Her Own Personnel Board. Palin made multiple statements saying that she would fully cooperate with the Legislative inquiry, but now she wants Troopergate to be handled by the State of Alaska Personnel Board, which has three members: Debra English, who Palin reappointed on January 29, 2008; Laura Plenert, a registered Republican; Alfred Tamagni, Sr., who gave $400 to the Palin/Parnell campaign in 2006. The latter two were appointed by Frank Murkowski. [Alaska Department of Administration, Division of Personnel Director’s Office Website; Van Flein Letter to Branchflower]
Palin’s Lawyer Canceled the Deposition of an Aide Was a Key Witness in Troopergate. “The deposition of one of Gov. Sarah Palin’s staff members was canceled yesterday by the staffer’s attorney, in what is yet another setback to the state legislature’s investigation into claims that Palin fired the public safety commissioner after he refused to dismiss a trooper, Palin’s former brother in-law. Palin has denied any wrongdoing surrounding the dismissal of Walt Monegan, but has acknowledged that phone calls were made by her staff members to Public Safety officials regarding the trooper, Mike Wooten. One of those calls was made by Palin’s director of boards and commissions, Frank Bailey. Bailey was scheduled to be deposed as part of the legislature’s investigation, but his attorney canceled the deposition yesterday and challenged the legislature’s jurisdiction, according to the state senator running the probe.” [ABC News, 9/3/08]
Palin Administration Refuses to Release E-Mails, Citing Executive Privilege. “E-mails from the Palin administration are being withheld from the public and the governor is citing executive privilege. With subject lines like ‘Fagan,’ ‘Andrew Halcro’ and even ‘Alaska Ear,’ it makes some wonder how those topics could possibly be policy related; especially since those same e-mails were copied to the governor’s husband. The administration says public employees need to know they can debate openly amongst themselves. Andree McLeod, who tried repeatedly to get a job with the Palin administration, obtained the e-mails through a public records request. The Department of Law says the e-mails are privileged. Officials say the private e-mails within the Palin administration won’t be released.” [KTUU, 8/6/08]
Gov. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania made a scathing attack on McCain-Palin recently:
"She [claims to be] a reformer," said the Pennsylvania Democrat. "And yet she is being investigated on the charge that she used her power as governor to fire someone who was going through a messy divorce with a relative of hers. Could you imagine if I was doing the same thing in Pennsylvania? You would be calling for my impeachment." "First of all, let me say it should be embarrassing for the Republican ticket that Rick Davis, Sen. McCain's campaign manager, said 'this election is not about issues.' Good lord, with all the challenges facing America it has to be about issues...They don't want to talk about issues because when the truth comes out about issues the American people will favor Sen. Obama tremendously."The McCain camp argues that, "Governor Palin, because of her executive experience as a mayor of a small 9,000 person town and governor of Alaska for 20 months, has that experience. Well, I refer you to a McCain camp document they put out when [Virginia] Gov. Kaine was considered to be vice president. They attacked his experience and derided Richmond [where Kaine was formerly mayor] because it was the 105th largest city ... I think Gov. Palin was mayor of the 50,000th [most populated] city in the America... It was fair game to say Gov. Kaine was not qualified because of his credentials. If they are going to be consistent then they believe that Gov. Palin is unqualified to be vice president."
"She [claims to be] a reformer," said the Pennsylvania Democrat. "And yet she is being investigated on the charge that she used her power as governor to fire someone who was going through a messy divorce with a relative of hers. Could you imagine if I was doing the same thing in Pennsylvania? You would be calling for my impeachment."
"First of all, let me say it should be embarrassing for the Republican ticket that Rick Davis, Sen. McCain's campaign manager, said 'this election is not about issues.' Good lord, with all the challenges facing America it has to be about issues...They don't want to talk about issues because when the truth comes out about issues the American people will favor Sen. Obama tremendously."
The McCain camp argues that, "Governor Palin, because of her executive experience as a mayor of a small 9,000 person town and governor of Alaska for 20 months, has that experience. Well, I refer you to a McCain camp document they put out when [Virginia] Gov. Kaine was considered to be vice president. They attacked his experience and derided Richmond [where Kaine was formerly mayor] because it was the 105th largest city ... I think Gov. Palin was mayor of the 50,000th [most populated] city in the America... It was fair game to say Gov. Kaine was not qualified because of his credentials. If they are going to be consistent then they believe that Gov. Palin is unqualified to be vice president."
Gov. Sarah Palin made a major gaffe when talking about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac out on the campaign trail:
Gov. Sarah Palin made her first potentially major gaffe during her time on the national scene while discussing the developments of the perilous housing market this past weekend. Speaking before voters in Colorado Springs, the Republican vice presidential nominee claimed that lending giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had "gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers." The companies, as McClatchy reported, "aren't taxpayer funded but operate as private companies. The takeover may result in a taxpayer bailout during reorganization." Economists and analysts pounced on the misstatement, saying it demonstrated a lack of understanding about one of the key economic issues likely to face the next administration. "You would like to think that someone who is going to be vice president and conceivable president would know what Fannie and Freddie do," said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. "These are huge institutions and they are absolutely central to our country's mortgage debt. To not have a clue what they do doesn't speak well for her, I'd say."
Gov. Sarah Palin made her first potentially major gaffe during her time on the national scene while discussing the developments of the perilous housing market this past weekend.
Speaking before voters in Colorado Springs, the Republican vice presidential nominee claimed that lending giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had "gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers." The companies, as McClatchy reported, "aren't taxpayer funded but operate as private companies. The takeover may result in a taxpayer bailout during reorganization."
Economists and analysts pounced on the misstatement, saying it demonstrated a lack of understanding about one of the key economic issues likely to face the next administration.
"You would like to think that someone who is going to be vice president and conceivable president would know what Fannie and Freddie do," said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. "These are huge institutions and they are absolutely central to our country's mortgage debt. To not have a clue what they do doesn't speak well for her, I'd say."
Rudy Giuliani, in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America," made the claim that Sarah Palin would have been ready for 9/11.
In an interview Wednesday on ABC's "Good Morning America," Giuliani was asked, "If she were the president on 9/11, you would have been confident?" Giuliani responded: "I'd be confident that she'd be able to handle it. She's been a governor of a state, she's been mayor of a city."
In an interview Wednesday on ABC's "Good Morning America," Giuliani was asked, "If she were the president on 9/11, you would have been confident?"
Giuliani responded: "I'd be confident that she'd be able to handle it. She's been a governor of a state, she's been mayor of a city."
Interesting expose by the Paper of Record about the "vetting" of Sarah Palin:
At the least, Republicans close to the campaign said it was increasingly apparent that Ms. Palin had been selected as Mr. McCain’s running mate with more haste than McCain advisers initially described.Up until midweek last week, some 48 to 72 hours before Mr. McCain introduced Ms. Palin at a Friday rally in Dayton, Ohio, Mr. McCain was still holding out the hope that he could choose a good friend, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, a Republican close to the campaign said. Mr. McCain had also been interested in another favorite, former Gov. Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania.But both men favor abortion rights, anathema to the Christian conservatives who make up a crucial base of the Republican Party. As word leaked out that Mr. McCain was seriously considering the men, the campaign was bombarded by outrage from influential conservatives who predicted an explosive floor fight at the convention and vowed rejection of Mr. Ridge or Mr. Lieberman by the delegates. Perhaps more important, several Republicans said, Mr. McCain was getting advice that if he did not do something to shake up the race, his campaign would be stuck on a potentially losing trajectory.With time running out — and as Mr. McCain discarded two safer choices, Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota and former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, as too predictable — he turned to Ms. Palin. He had his first face-to-face interview with her on Thursday and offered her the job moments later. Advisers to Mr. Pawlenty and another of the finalists on Mr. McCain’s list described an intensive vetting process for those candidates that lasted one to two months.“They didn’t seriously consider her until four or five days from the time she was picked, before she was asked, maybe the Thursday or Friday before,” said a Republican close to the campaign. “This was really kind of rushed at the end, because John didn’t get what he wanted. He wanted to do Joe or Ridge.”
At the least, Republicans close to the campaign said it was increasingly apparent that Ms. Palin had been selected as Mr. McCain’s running mate with more haste than McCain advisers initially described.
Up until midweek last week, some 48 to 72 hours before Mr. McCain introduced Ms. Palin at a Friday rally in Dayton, Ohio, Mr. McCain was still holding out the hope that he could choose a good friend, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, a Republican close to the campaign said. Mr. McCain had also been interested in another favorite, former Gov. Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania.
But both men favor abortion rights, anathema to the Christian conservatives who make up a crucial base of the Republican Party. As word leaked out that Mr. McCain was seriously considering the men, the campaign was bombarded by outrage from influential conservatives who predicted an explosive floor fight at the convention and vowed rejection of Mr. Ridge or Mr. Lieberman by the delegates.
Perhaps more important, several Republicans said, Mr. McCain was getting advice that if he did not do something to shake up the race, his campaign would be stuck on a potentially losing trajectory.
With time running out — and as Mr. McCain discarded two safer choices, Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota and former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, as too predictable — he turned to Ms. Palin. He had his first face-to-face interview with her on Thursday and offered her the job moments later. Advisers to Mr. Pawlenty and another of the finalists on Mr. McCain’s list described an intensive vetting process for those candidates that lasted one to two months.
“They didn’t seriously consider her until four or five days from the time she was picked, before she was asked, maybe the Thursday or Friday before,” said a Republican close to the campaign. “This was really kind of rushed at the end, because John didn’t get what he wanted. He wanted to do Joe or Ridge.”
Interesting piece from Michael Kinsley in Slate magazine:
It seems like just yesterday that the Republican Party was complaining about Barack Obama's lack of foreign-policy "experience." As a matter of fact, as I write (on Friday, Aug. 29) it actually was just yesterday. Even now, the Republican National Committee's main anti-Obama website has the witty address www.notready08.com. The contrast in experience, especially foreign-policy experience, between McCain and Obama was supposed to be the central focus of McCain's campaign.But that's so five minutes ago, before Sarah Palin. Already, conservative pundits are coming up with creative explanations for McCain's choice of a vice presidential running mate with essentially no foreign policy experience. First prize so far goes to Michael Barone, who notes on the U.S. News & World Report blog that, "Alaska is the only state with a border with Russia. And it is the only state with territory, in the Aleutian Islands, occupied by the enemy in World War II." I think we need to know what Sarah Palin has done, in her year and change as governor of Alaska, to protect the freedom of the Aleutian Islands, before deciding how many foreign policy experience credits she deserves on their account.The official response to the question of experience emerged within hours and is only slightly more plausible: She may not have foreign policy experience, but -unlike Obama, Joe Biden or even John McCain-she has had executive experience. Why, before her stint as governor of Alaska, population 670,000, she was mayor of a town of 9,000. Remember when the Republicans mocked Bill Clinton for being governor of a "small state"? That would be Arkansas, population 2.8 million. As it happens, 670,000 is the population of metropolitan Little Rock.
It seems like just yesterday that the Republican Party was complaining about Barack Obama's lack of foreign-policy "experience." As a matter of fact, as I write (on Friday, Aug. 29) it actually was just yesterday. Even now, the Republican National Committee's main anti-Obama website has the witty address www.notready08.com. The contrast in experience, especially foreign-policy experience, between McCain and Obama was supposed to be the central focus of McCain's campaign.
But that's so five minutes ago, before Sarah Palin. Already, conservative pundits are coming up with creative explanations for McCain's choice of a vice presidential running mate with essentially no foreign policy experience. First prize so far goes to Michael Barone, who notes on the U.S. News & World Report blog that, "Alaska is the only state with a border with Russia. And it is the only state with territory, in the Aleutian Islands, occupied by the enemy in World War II." I think we need to know what Sarah Palin has done, in her year and change as governor of Alaska, to protect the freedom of the Aleutian Islands, before deciding how many foreign policy experience credits she deserves on their account.
The official response to the question of experience emerged within hours and is only slightly more plausible: She may not have foreign policy experience, but -unlike Obama, Joe Biden or even John McCain-she has had executive experience. Why, before her stint as governor of Alaska, population 670,000, she was mayor of a town of 9,000. Remember when the Republicans mocked Bill Clinton for being governor of a "small state"? That would be Arkansas, population 2.8 million. As it happens, 670,000 is the population of metropolitan Little Rock.
