I received this fake invitation from the Presidential Inaugural Committee to "any of the public events" on inauguration day.
It's the kind of teaser that irritates.
I REALLY would like to be at the inauguration.
Oh well...... At least this fake invitation is pretty.
I'll frame it as a momento and watch the festivities from home.
I had to just say it on this site. I have been so busy. Can't wait until January 20th!!
Yes We Did!!
I found this post on AARP's website -- www.aarp.org
I didn't know half of this information, so I wonder how much Seniors in Florida or Ohio understand about McCain's beliefs.
There should be a campaign ad based on this information. They need to know what is at stake for them if McCain is elected.
--------------------------------------------------------
Medicare and Social Security
When it comes to issues affecting our aging population, once again Sen. John McCain has proven himself out of touch, aloof and in league with President Bush. He supported Bush’s plan to risk our Social Security benefits through privatization, voted to raise the Medicare eligibility age and missed a critical vote to reduce prescription drug costs for seniors.
McCain Voted Against Providing Health Insurance for Retirees of Bankrupt Steel Companies. McCain voted against a measure to provide temporary health insurance assistance to retirees of bankrupt steel companies. [S. Amdt. 3433, Vote #117, 5/21/02]
McCain Voted for Bush’s 2006 Social Security Privatization Plan. In 2006, McCain voted for the Social Security Reserve Fund. The proposal would shift Social Security’s annual surpluses into a reserve account that would be converted into risky private accounts. [SCR 83, Vote #68, 3/16/06; SCR 83, Vote #68, 3/16/06]
In 2000 McCain Wanted to Divert Social Security Money to Private Accounts. The Wall Street Journal reported that “[a] centerpiece of a McCain presidential bid in 2000 was a plan to divert a portion of Social Security payroll taxes to fund private accounts, much as President Bush proposed unsuccessfully.” The plan would put workers’ retirement money into the risky market and reduce the amount of Social Security payments they would receive from the government. The plan would undermine the Social Security system. [Wall Street Journal, 3/3/08]
McCain STILL Proposes Privatizing Social Security—Despite What His Website Says. McCain told the Wall Street Journal he still backs a system of private retirement accounts that he supported in 2000 and President Bush pushed unsuccessfully. The Journal reported he “disowned” details of a proposal on his 2008 campaign website that says he would “supplement” the existing Social Security system with personally managed accounts. But when asked about the position change he denied it and promised to change the website to reflect his true position. “I’m totally in favor of personal savings accounts… As part of Social Security reform, I believe that private savings accounts are a part of it—along the lines that President Bush proposed,” McCain told the Journal.[Wall Street Journal, 3/3/08; Campaign Website, accessed 3/3/08]
McCain Might Raise the Retirement Age and Reduce Cost-of-Living Adjustments. “[T]he McCain campaign says the candidate intends to keep Social Security solvent by reducing the growth in benefits over the coming decades to match projected growth in payroll tax revenues. Among the options are extending the retirement age to 68 and reducing cost-of-living adjustments, but the campaign hasn’t made any final decisions. ‘You can’t keep promises made to retirees,’ said Mr. Holtz-Eakin, McCain’s chief economic aide.” [Wall Street Journal, 3/3/08]
McCain Supported Deep Cuts That Put Social Security Benefits at Risk. In 2005, McCain supported a Social Security plan that would require deep benefit cuts or a massive increase in debt. That same year, McCain voted against prioritizing Social Security solvency over tax cuts for the wealthy. [SCR 18, Vote #49, 3/15/05; S. Amdt. 144 to SCR 18, Vote #47, 3/15/05]
McCain Voted to Use Social Security Money to Pay Off National Debt. In 2003, McCain voted to use Social Security funds to pay off federal debt. [HJR 51, Vote #201, 5/23/03]
McCain Voted Against Protecting Social Security Solvency with a Strategic Reserve. In 2001, McCain opposed reducing tax cuts for the wealthy to create a strategic reserve for Social Security. In the same year, McCain voted against a proposal to create “lockboxes” to protect Social Security and Medicare. [H.R. 1836, Senate RPC, Vote #145, 5/22/01; S. Amdt. 29, Vote #22, 3/13/01]
McCain Voted to Replace Social Security with Risk-Based Investments.
In 1998, McCain voted twice to replace Social Security’s guaranteed benefits with income from risk-based private investments. [SCR 86, Vote #56, 4/1/98; SCR 86, Vote #77, 4/1/98]McCain voted for the budget reconciliation bill that reduced spending on Medicare by $6.4 billion by requiring that beneficiariespurchase medical equipment and cutting payments to home health care providers. [S. 1932, Vote #363, 12/21/05; Congressional Quarterly, 12/26/05]
McCain Voted to Cut Billions from Medicare.
McCain Missed Critical Vote to Bargain for Lower Prescription Drug Prices for Seniors. McCain missed a vote to amend Medicare Part D so Medicare could negotiate lower prices for prescription drugs, just like the Department of Veterans Affairs does. Prices for prescription drugs under Medicare Part D are 50 percent higher than those for veterans because the VA can bargain. [S. 3, Vote #132, 4/18/07; New York Times, 4/19/07; Families USA, 1/07]
McCain Voted for Steep Increases in Seniors’ Medicare Premiums. McCain voted against protecting seniors from steep increases in their Medicare Part B premiums. Seniors faced the premium increase because Congress increased Medicare payments to physicians but failed to enact savings from Medicare payments to private health plans. [S. 1932, Vote #287, 11/3/05]
McCain Voted to Raise Medicare Eligibility Age. In 1997, McCain voted to support provisions that would increase the age for Medicare eligibility from 65 to 67 and impose a new $5 co-payment for home health care visits. [S. 947, Vote #112, 6/24/97; S. Amdt. 445, Vote #115, 6/25/97]
Source: http://www.aarp.org/community/groups/displayTopic.bt?pageNum=1&groupId=6762&topicId=680761
In light of the latest report of yet another Wall Street financial firm facing trouble and asking for a government bail out in the form of a bridge loan, AIG, I think the quotes below from John Kerry from his first interview after his loss in the 2004 election are very poignant.
Americans who are being swayed into voting for another 4 years of Republican control over this economy by manipulative, petty politics should consider the senator's words from 4 YEARS AGO! This is not a game folks! This is serious! And playing the good 'ol boy games as if it doesn't matter who we entrust with the stewardship of our country is LUNACY!
Americans need to CATCH A SMALL CLUE and get over whatever hang-ups they harbor that won't elect a capable person based on race, before it's too late to turn back the clock on the disastrous 8 years of Bush/Rove/Cheney incompetence.
------------------------------------------------
John Kerry in his first interview after his loss in the 2004 presidential election (Meet the Press - January 30, 2005):
"I mean, look, I think we waged a great campaign. Did we make some mistakes? You bet we did. I take responsibility for them. You know, I'm the person in charge, my campaign, I'm responsible. I'm not going to sit around worrying about what we did or didn't do.
But we did some unbelievable things. We raised more money than any Democratic campaign in history. We involved more volunteers than any campaign in history. I won more votes than any candidate on the Democratic side has ever won in history.
I lost, Tim, to an incumbent president by a closer margin than an incumbent president has ever won re-election before in the history of the country. And if you add up the popular vote in the battleground states, I won the popular vote in the battleground states by 2 percentage points. We just didn't distribute it correctly in Ohio."
.
KERRY: Well, Tim, you can call it what you want. I mean, if you think rolling back to the level that we had in the 1990s, when an awful lot of our friends made an awful lot of money and people did very well in America -- if you think that's raising taxes, then you can go ahead and have that definition. I think it's rolling back. I think it's rolling them back to a level of responsibility.
What you have today is irresponsibility. The president is going to add $4 trillion to the debt of this nation just with his tax cut, which is $1.9 trillion over the next 10 years, and his Social Security plan, which is about $1.6 trillion. That's almost $4 trillion, just in those two choices the president is making.
Now, you can look at -- look at this headline. Here's a headline that ought to send shudders through America: "Central Banks Shun U.S. Assets." This was last week in The Financial Times. Why are they shunning U.S. assets? Because of the fiscal irresponsibility of this administration.
And the president's plan on Social Security is not only dangerous for Social Security, it's dangerous for the fiscal long-term health of our country."
---------------------------------------------
Related articles:
After Frantic Day, Wall St. Banks Falter By ANDREW ROSS SORKIN In one of the most dramatic days in Wall Street history, Lehman Brothers said it will file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, while Merrill Lynch agreed to sell itself to Bank of America for about $50 billion. NEWS ANALYSIS Jittery Road Ahead By FLOYD NORRIS and VIKAS BAJAJ Wall Street and the federal government faced off over the weekend, raising worries of a sell-off when markets open on Monday. Stunning Fall for Main Street's Brokerage Firm By LOUISE STORY It's the end of an era for Merrill Lynch, the brokerage firm that brought Wall Street to Main Street.
Senator Obama needs a moment like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHve9iQymqE&feature=related
If we could have a moment like this, it would go along way towards dispelling the myth that Senator Obama lacks the bite required to lead and protect this nation.
Personally, I believe Senator Obama's speech against the Iraq War in 2002 hit the right tone for leadership.
Can we repeat that direct, no nonsense style on the campaign trail in the next couple of weeks? I do believe so. Senator Obama came very close with his recent straightforward rejection of the criticism around the "lipstick on a pig" comment.
With that strong stance, stated directly and unequivocally, Senator Obama shut down the hyperbole around that benign statement. I've seen him do this several times during this campaign.
First, during the primaries when Novak floated a rumor in the media that the Clinton's supposedly had evidence of infedelity on Obama's part. Obama slammed the story into submission with one press conference. He shut it down. To be honest, his handling of that story bolstered my belief that he might actually be able to pull this thing off.
Second, when he finally came out and severed his relationship with Rev. Wright. He shut the controversy down in the media. It doesn't mean that the Republicans won't bring it back if they feel it's the only way they can win, but his strong stance went a long way towards ending Wright as a factor to his success in this campaign.
He has the leadership skils to move the needle, I believe. It just seems that he has to be pushed to the point of defeat, before he will let this fiery side of his personality show.
I think Americans want to see more of this fire from Senator Obama. Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and even George H.W. Bush had moments like this that changed the game at times when their campaigns were looking to break away from their opponents. I have no doubt that the opportunity to clearly differentiate himself from McCain will come at some point during this campaign. Senator Obama just has to seize the moment and not look back until the election is over.
Let's get on it! Fired Up! and RTG!
I read this post by a blogger to a Washington Post article and it has had me thinking ever since. I'm skeptical of conspiracy theories, but parts of this one sounds somewhat plausible, especially when you consider the "drill now drill here" and "drill baby drill" slogans being touted by Republicans, as well as the region of the country Palin comes from and the fact that the new campaign label for her is that she is an "energy expert."
I will admit that parts of this post are far-fetched (i.e. I don't believe McCain would agree to step down), but authorizing drilling offshore and Alaska sounds plausible.
Editor's note: In 2004, election integrity activists challenged the results of Ohio's presidential election before the Ohio Supreme Court, and convinced Rep. Stephanie Tubbs-Jones (D-OH) and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) to challenge the state's Electoral College vote before a joint session of Congress. The reaction by Ohio's then Republican-controlled Legislature was to enact a series of election reforms that punished likely Democratic voters. Some of the laws adopted were later thrown out in court, such as penalizing voter registration drives. But others, including a technical process to require certain voters to prove their registrations are valid on Election Day -- or lose their right to vote, remain in effect. Two of the nation's top voting rights groups, Advancement Project and Project Vote, this week reported 600,000 Ohio voters could be effected. This article is a combination of the releases both groups issued this week. George W. Bush beat John Kerry by nearly 119,000 votes in Ohio in 2004. -- Steven Rosenfeld, AlterNet Democracy and Elections editor.
Columbus, Ohio August 13, 2008 -- Nearly 600,000 eligible Ohio voters may be dropped from the voter rolls if Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner doesn't act to protect these voters, according to findings based on publicly available information discovered by Advancement Project and Project Vote.
These voters -- disproportionately voters of color and young voters -- are subject to being removed from Ohio's voter registration rolls without notice or a hearing because of the state's vague regulations on vote caging, a process that enables representatives of one political party to challenge the voter registration credentials of voters at polling places on Election Day.
The Ohio counties with largest numbers of returned notices prior to March 2008 Presidential Primary are Cuyahoga, Franklin, Hamilton, Lucas and Summit, where Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati and Toledo are located.
The mechanism of caging or challenging voters dates back to legislation passed soon after the 2004 presidential election.
In 2005, Ohio's General Assembly introduced legislation, House Bill 3 (H.B.3) that overhauled Ohio's election system. H.B. 3, in part, requires voter information mailings and amends Ohio's challenge statute(s). In particular, it requires that 88 county boards of election mail all Ohio registered voters a non-forwardable notice 60 days before the election. Each board must compile into a list any notices that are returned as undeliverable. These lists, in turn, are available as public records to any individual or group seeking to use the list as a "caging list" to challenge voters.
The amended challenge law no longer requires the county boards to provide Ohio voters with notice that they are being removed from the voting rolls or a hearing for them to defend themselves of a challenge. Rather, the Ohio law permits the boards to review their own records and make a determination to the validity of the challenge.
This law was effective beginning 2006 and covers all primary, general, and special elections from 2006 through the November 2008 General Election. Advancement Project finds it extremely interesting, that this law "sunsets" effective January 1, 2009.
"A single returned piece of mail is not a reliable basis for challenging the right to vote," said Donita Judge, Ohio staff attorney, Advancement Project. "Mail may be returned for many reasons, including errors in the database from which the mailing is derived, errors in the mailing labels, failure to include an apartment number or poor matching criteria."
Advancement Project and Project Vote would like to see the Ohio Secretary of State, Jennifer Brunner, issue a directive prohibiting Ohio electors from challenging Ohio voters whose name appear on any returned mailings and/or any past, current or future caging list. This is the best remedy to ensure that all Ohio voters are treated in a uniform manner during the November 2008 election because it permits the county boards to send out information to Ohio voters and at the same time ensures that all voters are permitted to vote without the threat of being placed on a list that is subject to challenge for no other reason than a returned mailing.
"Partisan, challengers who have obtained a list of returned letters shouldn't be allowed to strip Ohio voters of their right to update their addresses" said Teresa James, attorney with Project Vote. The lack of notice to challenged voters under Ohio's 2006 challenge law allows this interference to take place quietly and behind closed doors. This violates the principles our nation was founded on. It is imperative that Secretary Brunner establish guidelines so that partisan challengers will not be permitted to lodge unfounded challenges that clog the election process, burden poll workers and disenfranchise eligible voters."
Ohio's current law is internally inconsistent. For instance, Ohio law permits voters who move from one precinct to another to change their address from 28-days prior to the election, up to and including Election Day. Yet, if a voter is challenged and removed from the rolls within 20 days of the Election and their registration is canceled, without notice, this cancels the effectiveness of a voter changing their address since there is no longer a registration on file. It also violates Ohio law and equal protection of the laws because this voter is not provided the same meaningful opportunity to update a valid registration up to and including Election Day as other Ohio voters.
The new election law also unfairly impacts black and Latino Americans and other voters of color. Advancement Project anticipates that significant number of voters of color will be included on the county generated caging lists because census data indicates that they move more frequently than whites. Furthermore, in light of the fact that college students change residences frequently, it is anticipated that large numbers of young voters will be included on the lists as well.
"Voter suppression and intimidation is driven by a desire to maintain the status quo, concluded Judge." "These acts are carried out in an effort to deprive certain Americans, especially those most marginalized, of a voice in our democracy. Election Day is the great equalizer -- it is the one day where if all was right in our democracy, it would not matter if a person is rich, poor, black, white, educated or not, we all would have the same amount of power."
Advancement Project partners with community organizations, bringing them the tools of legal advocacy and strategic communications to dismantle structural exclusion.
http://www.alternet.org/democracy/94977/
Convention bounce: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-07-poll_N.htm
McCain leads Democrat Barack Obama by 50%-46% among registered voters,...
but more disturbingly...
McCain leads Obama by 54%-44% among those seen as most likely to vote.
Hmm.....
http://headonradionetwork.com/blog/2008/08/13/how-to-get-around-caging-lists-opinion/
So you are hearing about Republican "caging lists" and are worried? Well you should be. The Republican machine will do everything in its power to make sure that some voters are denied the vote.
Now, before you go and open a vein in despair, there is something you can do. It will take a phone call and a trip to your local county registrar.
The thing to remember here is that it doesn't matter who or what you are. You can be "caged" if you are white/black/hispanic/rich/poor. Doesn't make a difference. Assume that you will be struck from the voting rolls and act accordingly. Here is Susan's step-by-step plan to screw up caging lists. Use it if you think it's worthwhile.
1. Call the local county seat/election registrar's office. Find out the cutoff date to register to vote and still be eligible to vote in the General Election. The other thing you will need to find out during this call is what kind of documentation (drivers license, birth certificate, etc) you will need to register to vote. No, I'm not crazy; there is a method to my madness.
2. Once you know the cutoff date for voter registration, two weeks before that date, toddle down to the county registrar's office and ask to check your registration status. If there is no trouble, great! If your name has been struck from the rolls, go to step 3.
3. When you are told you are not registered, then you should re-register right away! Whip out your documentation (which you will have brought with you) and re-register. If possible get confirmation of your re-registration in writing.
With luck the Republicans will not have time to strike you from the voting lists again. Good luck!
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PBS Caging Story (part 1 of 2): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drak3NcRpJc&NR=1
I just remembered something about Bush advocating something called an "ownership society" during the last presidential campaign (2004). He promoted this vague idea as some Big Idea of the Future that was supposed to help Americans take more control over their financial futures.
Like...whatever happened to that? What was it about exactly? Did it ever happen?
And, with hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of Americans losing their homes to foreclosure in the mortgage crisis, what does that say about the success of this "ownership society" idea?
Also, with the recent failed banks, along with those that are anticipated to fail in the near future, can Americans trust their social security to privately held accounts in our nation's financial institutions without oversight or increased regulation?
I'm confused. Why aren't we calling the Republicans on these failed ideas/policies/dreams/fairy-tales??!!
I've got my fingers and toes crossed. I've pulled out all of my baseball lucky charms. I've seen the local psychic.
Ok, maybe I'm exaggerrating a bit. ;-) But I am praying for an awesome outcome today!
I know you guys can do this today for Senator Obama, for all Americans, for our country, and for the world!
SO GO GET TO IT !!
Fired Up! and RTG!!
I should really be sleeping, but I have to get this off my chest. Did anyone see the "Up Close" segments on Anderson Cooper last night that profiled the democratic candidates. Well, in my humble opinion, Hillary's segment was very well done and was very flattering to her. CNN highlighted Hillary's educational and professional accomplishments. There was not a hint of negativity present in her profile, except for one sentence and small video clip of Hillary, Chelsea, and Bill walking to the helicopter after the Lewinsky scandal broke, which amounted to little more than an honorable mention.
Obama's segment however was an expose in negativity throughout his life. It seemed to be a segment meant to further blacken him as a human being. The segment went over his racial parentage, eventual abandonment by his father, his mother's marriage to an Indonesion man, how he lived in a cramped apartment with his white grandparents while attending a prestigious prep school, his drug use, his racial identity crisis, his choosing the black community by first marrying a black woman and then joining Rev. Wright's church. In contrast, his segment was littered with negative undertones, with the honorable mention going to his accomplishment of being elected the first Black person elected president of the Harvard Law Review.
In my opinion, the segments were geared towards subtley smearing Obama while magnifying Hillary's strengths and ignoring any controversy in her life. Showcasing Obama's problems with racial identity and almost blaming him for "choosing" the black community to identify with. Huh? Obama can't help who he fell in love with first of all. Second, society more to do with defining those of us with mixed-race parentage as Black than it being a deliberate choice on the part of the individuals. Third, Obama embraces both sides of his heritage--his whole political persona is about unity. Fourth, Rev. Wright obviously did not have that much influence on Obama or his message of unity would not be the central theme to his life and career. Fifth, much more weight should have been given to the positive aspects of his diverse background--instead every aspect of Obama's uniqueness was overlayed with a negative slant on the subject being examined.
And let me not mention the fact that they followed Obama's segment with a segment about Rev Wright and his claims that black children learn differently than white children. I wanted SCREAM!!!
I have much less respect for CNN, Anderson Cooper, and 360 for this trash. You know they will loop these bogus segments over and over again all weekend and leading up to the voting on Tuesday, all the while helping to sway voters to Hillary's side of the camp.
What can be done to stop this trash?!!!! It's subtle trash, subliminal in nature, but trash nonetheless.
The faster someone with some wit comes up with a campaign strategy to make Wright into the joke that he is, the sooner we can get back to the business of winning this election for Barack Obama and changing the direction of our country for real Americans.
In my humble opinion, RIDICULE is the best strategy against Wright's firebrand!
Don't legitimize this lunacy with your anger and emotions! Expose it for the JOKE that it is! Expose Wright for the JOKE that he is!
Don't get angry with this trash publicly or you will legitimize this mess. They want us to react rashly and without forethought. We need some thinking minds to come up with the winning knock-out punch to this fool!
Remember: Wit, Humor, Ridicule!!
Think on these things.....
Is this Rev. Wright for real!! I thought he was for helping people and had done so much good in his life.
Well his antics are potentially destroying our best hope to have a candidate that will actually help those people.
If he is as good as some on this blog seem to think he is, then he should be trying to help Obama get elected.
Instead he chooses the week before the NC primary (a place where our guy is finally running ahead of Hillary) to start this trash.
He is atrocious in my book, because he is helping our enemies. Wright is a hater. No amount of community service can make up for destroying the hopes of people looking for a candidate to bring real change.
It should be plainly obvious that Wright wants Barack Obama to lose this election. Maybe Wright is jealous of Obama's success.
Obama needs to denounce Wright at this point, or risk political ruin. If this denouncement causes a break in his support from African Americans, then so be it.
Relatively speaking, our guy competed against the Clinton negativity machine, a 20 point disadvantage to start, mass media exaggerating and distorting his truthful comments, and a network television "Gotcha" debate moderated by a former Clinton operative in a state where the demographics were stacked against him and he performed WELL!
Hillary is having to remind her supporters to send funds to her campaign, when Obama supporters donate willingly as part of the process of supporting our candidate. I don't understand how Hillary can have so much support from working class supporters in "Big" states that don't understand the need or power of the small donation. Numbers matter. And Obama has the numbers in every respect. That is why we have supported him to a comfortable lead in the number of states won, the most popular votes, the most delegates, and the most campaign funds to see this election through to it's conclusion.
Nope. Not dissuaded at all!
Go Obama!
I have seen the footage being played over the past few days regarding Clinton's little Bosnia fib.
Well, this has to be the best video of them all. The music really sets it off.
Please watch.
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=2VfjJi2qjR8&NR=1
I'm watching Lou Dobbs and I see the new pastor of Obama's church is showboating about race using the same distasteful, off-putting manner as his predecessor.
I'm sick of this talk of race. It is bringing Obama down. My whole perception of Obama and this campaign has deteriorated since this church business started, and I'm an African-American.
If these religious leaders insist on bringing this subject to the public's attention, why don't they do so in a manner that is calm and healing? Why the divisive vitriol? Why the accusations? Why can't they use a tone that helps Senator Obama?
I think Senator Obama must publicly separate himself from this church. They seem determined to lower the discourse of his campaign by providing fodder for his opponents.
I just heard on MSNBC that Governor Richardson will endorse Barack Obama today!
This is such good news!
Maybe our letters to the governor had an impact!
Obama '08
Bitter. Very bitter.
Her comments only hurt her own image and reputation, as well as that of Senator Clinton who supports those nasty comments by not firing her.
It's all an ugly mess on that side of the house.
In my humble opinion, the "monster" comment made by Obama's former aide pales in comparison to Ferrarro's vicious statements.
