NEW YORK – David Gregory's new job as moderator of "Meet the Press" is official with the announcement on the long-running NBC interview program that he will take over starting next Sunday.
The 38-year-old chief White House correspondent for NBC News was introduced Sunday by Tom Brokaw, fill-in moderator for "Meet the Press" since the death last June of Tim Russert, the program's moderator since 1991.
Gregory described it as "an incredible honor."
Unconfirmed reports that Gregory would likely win the job surfaced last week. Andrea Mitchell, Chuck Todd and Gwen Ifill had also been under consideration.
"Meet the Press" dominates the Sunday morning political landscape and is network TV's longest-running series. It premiered in November 1947.
___
[He has big shoes to fill. Tim Russert was a perfect fit for the show with his tough but fair questions and his genuine excitement just to be a part of politics. I do think that Gregory has the potential to grow into the role and I wish him all the best.]
Corsi: Well, what would be really helpful is if Senator Obama would release primary documents like his birth certificate. The campaign has a false, fake birth certificate posted on their website. How is anybody supposed to really piece together his life?Doocy: What do you mean they have a "false birth certificate" on their Web site?Corsi: The original birth certificate of Obama has never been released, and the campaign refuses to release it.Doocy: Well, couldn't it just be a State of Hawaii-produced duplicate?Corsi: No, it's a -- there's been good analysis of it on the Internet, and it's been shown to have watermarks from Photoshop. It's a fake document that's on the Web site right now, and the original birth certificate the campaign refuses to produce.
Corsi: Well, what would be really helpful is if Senator Obama would release primary documents like his birth certificate. The campaign has a false, fake birth certificate posted on their website. How is anybody supposed to really piece together his life?
Doocy: What do you mean they have a "false birth certificate" on their Web site?
Corsi: The original birth certificate of Obama has never been released, and the campaign refuses to release it.
Doocy: Well, couldn't it just be a State of Hawaii-produced duplicate?
Corsi: No, it's a -- there's been good analysis of it on the Internet, and it's been shown to have watermarks from Photoshop. It's a fake document that's on the Web site right now, and the original birth certificate the campaign refuses to produce.
Some of the conspiracy theories that have circulated about Obama are quite imaginative. One conservative blogger suggested that the campaign might have obtained a valid Hawaii birth certificate, soaked it in solvent, then reprinted it with Obama's information. Of course, this anonymous blogger didn't have access to the actual document and presents this as just one possible "scenario" without any evidence that such a thing actually happened or is even feasible.
We also note that so far none of those questioning the authenticity of the document have produced a shred of evidence that the information on it is incorrect. Instead, some speculate that somehow, maybe, he was born in another country and doesn't meet the Constitution's requirement that the president be a "natural-born citizen."
We think our colleagues at PolitiFact.com, who also dug into some of these loopy theories put it pretty well: "It is possible that Obama conspired his way to the precipice of the world’s biggest job, involving a vast network of people and government agencies over decades of lies. Anything’s possible. But step back and look at the overwhelming evidence to the contrary and your sense of what’s reasonable has to take over."
In fact, the conspiracy would need to be even deeper than our colleagues realized. In late July, a researcher looking to dig up dirt on Obama instead found a birth announcement that had been published in the Honolulu Advertiser on Sunday, Aug. 13, 1961:
Obama's birth announcement
The announcement was posted by a pro-Hillary Clinton blogger who grudgingly concluded that Obama "likely" was born Aug. 4, 1961 in Honolulu.
ASSOCIATED PRESS
October 23, 2008
Musgrave, Feeney and Knollenberg are extremely vulnerable, and Democrats – who are eyeing double-digit gains in their House majority – have been targeting them heavily. Bachmann, whose district is solidly conservative, has only recently emerged as a prime target after her controversial remarks on MSNBC's “Hardball,” which sparked a flood of campaign contributions to her Democratic opponent and have reshaped the race.
Democrats' House campaign group is dumping $1 million on TV ads in the district in hopes of helping Bachmann's challenger, Elwyn Tinklenberg, unseat her.
In a statement, Carrie James, a spokeswoman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said Bachmann, “crossed the line by launching negative and divisive personal attacks.”
Bachmann told the St. Cloud Times yesterday that she regretted using the term “anti-American” about Obama, saying her appearance on “Hardball” was “a big mistake.”
Earlier, she told the St. Cloud Rotary Club that she wished she could take back the statement, and she denied that she had said Obama was anti-American or suggested an investigation of members of Congress.
But during her “Hardball” appearance Friday, Bachmann said of Obama, “I'm very concerned that he may have anti-American views.”
Of lawmakers, she said, “I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out, are they pro-America or anti-America?”
Republicans downplayed the decision to abandon Bachmann, noting that she still has more than $1 million to get her through until Election Day.
The GOP's House campaign committee – far behind its Democratic counterpart in fundraising – had already cut its advertising substantially in competitive races, scaling back planned buys in the districts of Rep. Jon Porter of Nevada and Rep. Bill Sali of Idaho.
Also reduced were ads for candidates in southern Minnesota and central New Mexico who are in close contests with Democrats seeking to replace retiring Republicans, and districts in Florida, Kansas, Louisiana and Texas that are home to vulnerable Democrats.
Senator John McCain’s Record on Troop and Veterans’ Issues
Voting Against Veterans
· Veterans Groups Give McCain Failing Grades. In its most recent legislative ratings, the non-partisan Disabled American Veterans gave Sen. McCain a 20 percent rating for his voting record on veterans’ issues. Similarly, the non-partisan Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans of America gave McCain a "D" grade for his poor voting record on veterans’ issues, including McCain’s votes against additional body armor for troops in combat and additional funding for PTSD and TBI screening and treatment.
· McCain Voted Against Increased Funding for Veterans’ Health Care. Although McCain told voters at a campaign rally that improving veterans’ health care was his top domestic priority, he voted against increasing funding for veterans’ health care in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. (Greenville News, 12/12/2007; S.Amdt. 2745 to S.C.R. 95, Vote 40, 3/10/04; Senate S.C.R. 18, Vote 55, 3/16/05; S.Amdt. 3007 to S.C.R. 83, Vote 41, 3/14/06; H.R. 1591, Vote 126, 3/29/07)
· McCain Voted At Least 28 Times Against Veterans’ Benefits, Including Healthcare. Since arriving in the U.S. Senate in 1987, McCain has voted at least 28 times against ensuring important benefits for America’s veterans, including providing adequate healthcare. (2006 Senate Vote #7, 41, 63, 67, 98, 222; 2005 Senate Votes #55, 89, 90, 251, 343; 2004 Senate Votes #40, 48, 145; 2003 Senate Votes #74, 81, 83; 1999 Senate Vote #328; 1998 Senate Vote #175; 1997 Senate Vote #168; 1996 Senate Votes #115, 275; 1995 Senate Votes #76, 226, 466; 1994 Senate Vote #306; 1992 Senate Vote #194; 1991 Senate Vote #259)
· McCain Voted Against Providing Automatic Cost-of-Living Adjustments to Veterans. McCain voted against providing automatic annual cost-of-living adjustments for certain veterans’ benefits. (S. 869, Vote 259, 11/20/91)
· McCain Voted to Underfund Department of Veterans Affairs. McCain voted for an appropriations bill that underfunded the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development by $8.9 billion. (H.R. 2099, Vote 470, 9/27/95)
· McCain Voted Against a $13 Billion Increase in Funding for Veterans Programs. McCain voted against an amendment to increase spending on veterans programs by $13 billion. (S.C.R. 57, Vote 115, 5/16/96)
· McCain Voted Against $44.3 Billion for Veterans Programs. McCain was one of five senators to vote against a bill providing $44.3 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs, plus funding for other federal agencies. (H.R. 2684, Vote 328, 10/15/99)
· McCain Voted Against $47 Billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs. McCain was one of eight senators to vote against a bill that provided $47 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs. (H.R. 4635, Vote 272, 10/12/00)
· McCain Voted Against $51 Billion in Veterans Funding. McCain was one of five senators to vote against the bill and seven to vote against the conference report that provided $51.1 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs, as well as funding for the federal housing, environmental and emergency management agencies and NASA. (H.R. 2620, Vote 334, 11/8/01; Vote 269, 8/2/01)
· McCain Voted Against $122.7 Billion for Department of Veterans Affairs. McCain voted against an appropriations bill that included $122.7 billion in fiscal 2004 for the Department of Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development and other related agencies. (H.R. 2861, Vote 449, 11/12/03)
· McCain Opposed $500 Million for Counseling Services for Veterans with Mental Disorders. McCain voted against an amendment to appropriate $500 million annually from 2006-2010 for counseling, mental health and rehabilitation services for veterans diagnosed with mental illness, posttraumatic stress disorder or substance abuse. (S. 2020, S.Amdt. 2634, Vote 343, 11/17/05)
· McCain opposed an Assured Funding Stream for Veterans’ Health Care. McCain opposed providing an assured funding stream for veterans’ health care, taking into account annual changes in veterans’ population and inflation. (S.Amdt. 3141 to S.C.R. 83, Vote 63, 3/16/06)
· McCain Voted Against Adding More Than $400 Million for Veterans’ Care. McCain was one of 13 Republicans to vote against providing an additional $430 million to the Department of Veterans Affairs for outpatient care and treatment for veterans. (S.Amdt. 3642 to H.R. 4939, Vote 98, 4/26/06)
· McCain Supported Outsourcing VA Jobs. McCain opposed an amendment that would have prevented the Department of Veterans Affairs from outsourcing jobs, many held by blue-collar veterans, without first giving the workers a chance to compete. (S.Amdt. 2673 to H.R. 2642, Vote 315, 9/6/07)
· McCain Opposed the 21st Century GI Bill Because It Was Too Generous. McCain did not vote on the GI Bill that will provide better educational opportunities to veterans of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, paying full tuition at in-state schools and living expenses for those who have served at least three years since the 9/11 attacks. McCain said he opposes the bill because he thinks the generous benefits would "encourage more people to leave the military." (S.Amdt. 4803 to H.R. 2642, Vote 137, 5/22/08; Chattanooga Times Free Press, 6/2/08; Boston Globe, 5/23/08; ABCNews.com, 5/26/08)
· Disabled American Veterans Legislative Director Said That McCain’s Proposal Would Increase Costs For Veterans Because His Plan Relies On Private Hospitals Which Are More Expensive and Which Could Also Lead To Further Rationing Of Care. "To help veterans who live far from VA hospitals or need specialized care the VA can’t provide, McCain proposed giving low-income veterans and those who incurred injury during their service a card they could use at private hospitals. The proposal is not an attempt to privatize the VA, as critics have alleged, but rather, an effort to improve care and access to it, he said. Joe Violanti, legislative director of the Disabled American Veterans, a nonpartisan organization, said the proposal would increase costs because private hospitals are more expensive. The increased cost could lead to further rationing of care, he said." (Las Vegas Sun, 8/10/08)
Lack of Support for the Troops
· McCain co-sponsored the Use of Force Authorization. McCain supported the bill that gave President George W. Bush the green light--and a blank check--for going to war with Iraq. (SJ Res 46, 10/3/02)
· McCain Opposed Increasing Spending on TRICARE and Giving Greater Access to National Guard and Reservists. Although his campaign website devotes a large section to veterans issues, including expanding benefits for reservists and members of the National Guard, McCain voted against increasing spending on the TRICARE program by $20.3 billion over 10 years to give members of the National Guard and Reserves and their families greater access to the health care program. The increase would be offset by a reduction in tax cuts for the wealthy. (S.Amdt. 324 to S.C.R. 23, Vote 81, 3/25/03)
· McCain voted against holding Bush accountable for his actions in the war. McCain opposed the creation of an independent commission to investigate the development and use of intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq. (S.Amdt. 1275 to H.R. 2658, Vote 284, 7/16/03)
· McCain voted Against Establishing a $1 Billion Trust Fund for Military Health Facilities. McCain voted against establishing a $1 billion trust fund to improve military health facilities by refusing to repeal tax cuts for those making more than $1 million a year. (S.Amdt. 2735 to S.Amdt. 2707 to H.R. 4297, Vote 7, 2/2/06)
· Senator McCain opposed efforts to end the overextension of the military--a policy that is having a devastating impact on our troops. McCain voted against requiring mandatory minimum downtime between tours of duty for troops serving in Iraq. (S.Amdt.. 2909 to S.Amdt. 2011 to HR 1585, Vote 341, 9/19/07; S.Amdt. 2012 to S.Amdt. 2011 to HR 1585, Vote 241, 7/11/07)
· McCain announced his willingness to keep U.S. troops in Iraq for decades--a statement sure to inflame Iraqis and endanger American troops. McCain: "Make it a hundred" years in Iraq and "that would be fine with me." (Derry, New Hampshire Town Hall meeting, 1/3/08)
· McCain voted against a ban on waterboarding--a form of torture--in a move that could eventually endanger American troops. According to ThinkProgress, "the Senate brought the Intelligence Authorization Bill to the floor, which contained a provision from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) establishing one interrogation standard across the government. The bill requires the intelligence community to abide by the same standards as articulated in the Army Field Manual and bans waterboarding." McCain voted against the bill. (H.R. 2082, Vote 22, 2/13/08)
· McCain Also Supported Outsourcing at Walter Reed. McCain opposed an amendment to prevent the outsourcing of 350 federal employee jobs at Walter Reed Army Medical Center--outsourcing that contributed to the scandalous treatment of veterans at Walter Reed that McCain called a "disgrace." (S.Amdt. 4895 to H.R. 5631, Vote 234, 9/6/06; Speech to VFW in Kansas City, Mo., 4/4/08)
· Senator McCain has consistently opposed any plan to withdraw troops from Iraq--a policy that has directly weakened American efforts in Afghanistan. Senator McCain repeatedly voted against a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq. (S.Amdt. 3876 to S.Amdt. 3874 to H.R. 2764, Vote #438, 12/18/07; S.Amdt. 3875 to S.Amdt. 3874 to H.R. 2764, Vote #437, 12/18/07; S.Amdt.3164 to H.R. 3222, Vote #362, 10/3/07; S.Amdt. 2898 to S. Amdt. 2011 to H.R. 1585, Vote #346, 9/21/07; S. Amdt. 2924 to S.Amdt. 2011 to H.R.1585, Vote #345, 9/21/07; S.Amdt.2 087 to S.Amdt. 2011 to H.R. 1585, Vote #252, 7/18/07; S.Amdt. 643 to H.R. 1591, Vote #116, 3/27/07; S.Amdt. 4320 to S. 2766, Vote #182, 6/22/06; S.Amdt. 4442 to S. 2766, Vote #181, 6/22/06; S.Amdt. 2519 to S.1042, Vote #322, 11/15/05)
· McCain said it’s "not too important" when U.S. troops leave Iraq. This exchange occurred on NBC’s Today Show with Matt Lauer:
LAUER: If it's working, senator, do you now have a better estimate of when American forces can come home from Iraq? McCAIN: No, but that's not too important.
(NBC, Today Show, 6/11/08)
Cheerleading for War with Iraq--While Afghanistan was Unfinished
· McCain suggested that the war in Iraq could be won with a "smaller" force. "But the fact is I think we could go in with much smaller numbers than we had to do in the past. But I don't believe it's going to be nearly the size and scope that it was in 1991." (CBS News, Face the Nation, 9/15/02)
· McCain said winning the war would be "easy." "I know that as successful as I believe we will be, and I believe that the success will be fairly easy, we will still lose some American young men or women." (CNN, 9/24/02)
· McCain also said the actual fighting in Iraq would be easy. "We’re not going to get into house-to-house fighting in Baghdad. We may have to take out buildings, but we’re not going to have a bloodletting of trading American bodies for Iraqi bodies." (CNN, 9/29/02)
· Continuing his pattern, McCain also said on MSNBC that we would win the war in Iraq "easily." "But the point is that, one, we will win this conflict. We will win it easily." (MSNBC, 1/22/03)
· McCain argued Saddam was "a threat of the first order." Senator McCain said that a policy of containing Iraq to blunt its weapons of mass destruction program is "unsustainable, ineffective, unworkable and dangerous." McCain: "I believe Iraq is a threat of the first order, and only a change of regime will make Iraq a state that does not threaten us and others, and where liberated people assume the rights and responsibilities of freedom." (Speech to the Center for Strategic & International Studies, 2/13/03)
· McCain echoed Bush and Cheney’s rationale for going to war. McCain: "We're going to win this victory. Tragically, we will lose American lives. But it will be brief. We’re going to find massive evidence of weapons of mass destruction . . . It’s going to send the message throughout the Middle East that democracy can take hold in the Middle East." (Fox News, Hannity & Colmes, 2/21/03)
· "But I believe, Katie, that the Iraqi people will greet us as liberators." (NBC, 3/20/03)
· March 2003: "I believe that this conflict is still going to be relatively short." (NBC, Meet the Press, 3/30/03)
· McCain echoed Bush and Cheney’s talking points that the U.S. would only be in Iraq for a short time. McCain: "It’s clear that the end is very much in sight . . . It won’t be long . . . it’ll be a fairly short period of time." (ABC, 4/9/03)
Staunch Defense of the Iraq Invasion
· McCain maintained that the war was a good idea and that George W. Bush deserved "admiration." At the 2004 Republican National Convention, McCain, focusing on the war in Iraq, said that while weapons of mass destruction were not found, Saddam once had them and "he would have acquired them again." McCain said the mission in Iraq "gave hope to people long oppressed" and it was "necessary, achievable and noble." McCain: "For his determination to undertake it, and for his unflagging resolve to see it through to a just end, President Bush deserves not only our support, but our admiration." (Speech, Republican National Convention, 8/31/04)
· Senator McCain: "The war, the invasion was not a mistake. (Meet the Press, 1/6/08)
· McCain said the war in Iraq was "worth" it. Asked if the war was a good idea worth the price in blood and treasure, McCain: "It was worth getting rid of Saddam Hussein. He had used weapons of mass destruction, and it's clear that he was hell-bent on acquiring them." (Republican Debate, 1/24/08)
Dangerous Lack of Foreign Policy Knowledge
· When questioned about Osama bin Laden after the 1998 U.S. missile strikes in Afghanistan, McCain surmised that the terrorist leader wasn’t as "bad" as "depicted." "You could say, Look, is this guy, Laden, really the bad guy that's depicted? Most of us have never heard of him before." (Interview with Mother Jones magazine, 11/1998)
· McCain was unaware of previous Sunni-Shia violence before the Iraq War. "There’s not a history of clashes that are violent between Sunnis and Shias. So I think they can probably get along." (MSNBC, Hardball, 4/23/03)
· McCain said our military could just "muddle through" in Afghanistan. While giving a speech, McCain was asked about Afghanistan and replied, "I am concerned about it, but I’m not as concerned as I am about Iraq today, obviously, or I’d be talking about Afghanistan. But I believe that if Karzai can make the progress that he is making, that in the long term, we may muddle through in Afghanistan." (Speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, 11/5/03)
· McCain stated that Sunni al Qaeda was "supported" by the Shia Iranians. (2/2008)
· McCain again confused Sunni Muslim al Qaeda operatives with Shi’a Muslim insurgents. The Washington Post reported of McCain: "He said several times that Iran, a predominately Shiite country, was supplying the mostly Sunni militant group, al-Qaeda. In fact, officials have said they believe Iran is helping Shiite extremists in Iraq.
"Speaking to reporters in Amman, the Jordanian capital, McCain said he and two Senate colleagues traveling with him continue to be concerned about Iranian operatives ‘taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back.’
"Pressed to elaborate, McCain said it was ‘common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that's well known. And it's unfortunate.’" (Press conference, Amman, Jordan, 3/18/2008)
· Yet again, McCain demonstrated that he didn’t know whether al Qaeda was a Sunni or Shiite organization. While questioning General David Petraeus during a Senate hearing, the following exchange occurred:
MCCAIN: Do you still view al Qaeda in Iraq as a major threat? PETRAEUS: It is still a major threat, though it is certainly not as major a threat as it was say 15 months ago. MCCAIN: Certainly not an obscure sect of the Shi'ites overall? PETREAUS: No. MCCAIN: Or Sunnis or anybody else.
(Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing, 4/8/08)
· McCain incorrectly thought General David Petraeus was in charge of Afghanistan. The Army Times reported: "Speaking Monday at the annual meeting of the Associated Press, McCain was asked whether he, if elected, would shift combat troops from Iraq to Afghanistan to intensify the search for al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.
‘I would not do that unless Gen. (David) Petraeus said that he felt that the situation called for that,’ McCain said, referring to the top U.S. commander in Iraq.
"Petraeus, however, made clear last week that he has nothing to do with the decision. Testifying last week before four congressional committees, including the Senate Armed Services Committee on which McCain is the ranking Republican, Petraeus said the decision about whether troops could be shifted from Iraq to Afghanistan was not his responsibility because his portfolio is limited to the multi-national force in Iraq." (Annual meeting of the Associated Press, 4/14/08)
· McCain credited the "surge" for the "Anbar Awakening"--even though the Anbar Awakening preceded the surge by nearly a year. (7/22/08)
· John McCain has also recently demonstrated either serious knowledge gaps in terms of foreign policy, or mounting confusion, when discussing an array of other countries:
Spain: McCain refused to commit to meeting with the president of Spain, a NATO ally, after becoming confused about America’s relationship with Spain, its leader, and, possibly, exactly where Spain is located. (9/17/08)
Czech Republic and Slovakia: McCain referred to the two countries using the name "Czechoslovakia" several times--despite the fact that Czechoslakia split apart and hasn't existed since 1993. (7/15/08; (7/14/08))
Venezuela: McCain said that Venezuela was a Middle Eastern country. (9/30/08)
Senator Barack Obama is showing surprising strength among portions of the political coalition that returned George W. Bush to the White House four years ago, a cross section of support that, if it continues through Election Day, would exceed that of Bill Clinton in 1992, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News polls.
Underscoring the building strength of Obama's candidacy in the final phase of the campaign, he was ahead of McCain among various groups that voted for Bush four years ago: those with incomes greater than $50,000 a year; married women; suburbanites; white Catholics, and is even competitive among white men — a group that has not voted for a Democrat over a Republican since 1972, when pollsters began surveying people after they voted.
Of potential concern for Obama's strategists, a third of voters surveyed said they knew someone who does not support the Illinois Democrat because he is black. And, coming shortly after Obama's running mate, Senator Joseph Biden Jr. of Delaware, warned a group of Democratic donors that foreign leaders would test a President Obama in the first months of his term, voters are closely divided about Obama's ability to handle a crisis.
But, overall, the poll found that Obama would defeat Mr. McCain if the election were held now, with 52 percent of those identified as probable voters saying they would vote for Obama and 39 percent of them saying they would vote for McCain. Among registered voters, the spread between the two is almost identical, with 51 percent saying they would vote for Obama and 38 percent saying they would vote for McCain. A New York Times/CBS News poll taken a week ago showed a similar margin of victory for Obama.
The latest nationwide telephone poll was conducted Sunday through Wednesday with 1,152 adults nationwide, of whom 1,046 said they were registered to vote. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points. To measure support for the candidates among specific voting blocs, The Times combined data from the latest poll with that of the one conducted last week because some of the sub-groups were too small to be statistically reliable when extracted from a single survey.
Despite McCain's continued questioning of Obama's readiness, the number of voters surveyed who say Obama has prepared himself well enough for the presidency was at its highest yet in the newest poll, at 56 percent. When The Times and CBS News first asked the question, more voters said they believed Obama was not ready, 49 percent, than believed he was not, 44 percent. McCain still holds an edge on that front, with 64 percent saying they believe he is prepared for the presidency.
And there was fresh evidence that McCain's attacks on Obama's character and qualifications in tough commercials, mailings, speeches and robotic telephone calls were, if anything, harming McCain. The percentage of people who view McCain unfavorably was at its highest level since The Times and CBS began asking the question in 1999 — 46 percent said they held unfavorable views of him, with 39 percent saying they viewed him favorably. Obama was viewed favorably by 52 percent of the voters surveyed, and unfavorably by 31 percent of them.
Voters were almost evenly split over Obama's ability to handle a crisis wisely: 49 percent said they were confident he could, and 47 percent said they would be uneasy. But respondents showed less ease with McCain: 51 percent said they would be uneasy with his approach and 46 percent expressed confidence.
Obama fared still better than McCain on economic matters: 65 percent said they were somewhat confident or very confident in Obama's ability to handle the economy; 47 percent said the same thing about McCain.
In spite of McCain's sustained attack on Obama's proposal to raise income taxes on households and businesses that earn more than $250,000 a year — attacks often delivered with allusions to "Joe the Plumber" — Obama's plan received significant support in the new poll. It was called a "good idea" by 62 percent and a "bad idea" by 33 percent.
Yet, at the same time, voters were evenly divided over McCain's plan to make permanent Bush's 2001 tax cuts.
In another area where McCain could take heart, the last two polls offered fresh evidence that his choice of Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate had helped to excite two traditional bases of support for Republican presidential candidates — white people who say they attend church every week, who preferred McCain over Obama by 61 percent to 29 percent, and people from the South, 51 percent of whom said they would vote for McCain, compared with 40 percent who preferred Obama.
But the percentage of people who view Palin unfavorably, 40 percent, was still higher than the percentage of people who view her favorably, 31 percent.
Senior strategists of both parties have viewed the unpopularity of Bush and the Republican Party as major drags on McCain's chances. And the favorability ratings for both are at all-time lows: Bush's approval rating of 22 percent is tied for its worst in the history of the Times/CBS poll, and opinions of Republican Party are at their lowest since the poll first included questions about the political parties in 1985. Only 36 percent expressing a favorable opinion of the Republicans, compared with 56 percent who expressed a favorable view of the Democrats.
That difference in standing was reflected in comments from some respondents who said they had voted for Bush in 2004 but were now planning to vote for Obama.
"I've always been a Republican, but I've switched in the last four years," said Helen Taylor, 64, of Los Fresnos, Texas, in a follow-up interview. "I voted for Bush because I knew more about him than Kerry and I stuck with the Republican stance on things at that time. But I became concerned about things Bush was doing and now I'm more in line with the Democratic platform. I also like Barack Obama because he has intelligence and class and the ability to think on his feet."
Obama has a 16 point advantage over McCain among women in the combined data of the last two polls; Senator John Kerry outpolled Bush by three percentage points among women in 2004, according to exit polls conducted then.
Obama is supported by 45 percent of white women, and McCain is preferred by 42 percent; Bush had beaten Kerry with 55 percent of the vote among white women, according to exit polls.
Obama is tied with McCain among white men, a group that Bush won with 61 percent of their vote. Even Bill Clinton lost to George H.W. Bush among white men when he won the White House in 1992.
Yet some voters still ascribe racial motives those opposing Obama this year.
Among the 33 percent who said they knew someone who does not support Obama mainly because he is black was Robert Richter, a Democrat from Dunbar, Pennsylvania. "Some people are prejudiced and don't want to vote for him, for one thing, because he's black and for another, because they feel he's a Muslim," said Richter, who works at a gas station. "I think for some people saying Obama is a Muslim is their way of getting around the black issue."
Obama is Christian but a number of e-mails have circulated falsely alleging he is Muslim.
Post subject: Goldwater’s for ObamaPosted: 23 Oct 2008 10:59 amWhy McCain Has Lost Our Vote Being Barry Goldwater's granddaughter and living in Arizona, one would assume that I would be voting for our state's senator, John McCain. I am still struck by certain 'dyed in the wool' Republicans who are on the fence this election, as it seems like a no-brainer to me. Myself, along with my siblings and a few cousins, will not be supporting the Republican presidential candidates this year. We believe strongly in what our grandfather stood for: honesty, integrity, and personal freedom, free from political maneuvering and fear tactics. I learned a lot about my grandfather while producing the documentary, Mr. Conservative Goldwater on Goldwater. Our generation of Goldwaters expects government to provide for constitutional protections. We reject the constant intrusion into our personal lives, along with other crucial policy issues of the McCain/Palin ticket. My grandfather (Paka) would never suggest denying a woman's right to choose. My grandmother co-founded Planned Parenthood in Arizona in the 1930's, a cause my grandfather supported. I'm not sure about how he would feel about marriage rights based on same-sex orientation. I think he would feel that love and respect for ones privacy is what matters most and not the intolerance and poor judgment displayed by McCain over the years. Paka respected our civil liberties and passed on the message that that we should conduct our lives standing up for the basic freedoms we hold so dear. For a while, there were several candidates who aligned themselves with the Goldwater version of Conservative thought. My grandfather had undying respect for the U.S. Constitution, and an understanding of its true meanings. There always have been a glimmer of hope that someday, someone would "race through the gate" full steam in Goldwater style. Unfortunately, this hasn't happened, and the Republican brand has been tarnished in a shameless effort to gain votes and appeal to the lowest emotion, fear. Nothing about McCain, except for maybe a uniform, compares to the same ideology of what Goldwater stood for as a politician. The McCain/Palin plan is to appear diverse and inclusive, using women and minorities to push an agenda that makes us all financially vulnerable, fearful, and less safe. When you see the candidate's in political ads, you can't help but be reminded of the 1964 presidential campaign of Johnson/Goldwater, the 'origin of spin', that twists the truth and obscures what really matters. Nothing about the Republican ticket offers the hope America needs to regain it's standing in the world, that's why we're going to support Barack Obama. I think that Obama has shown his ability and integrity. After the last eight years, there's a lot of clean up do. Roll up your sleeves, Senators Obama and Biden, and we Goldwaters will roll ours up with you. http://www.stltoday.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=6258095
THE POLL: CBS-New York Times poll, national presidential race among registered voters.
THE NUMBERS: Barack Obama 52 percent, John McCain 39 percent.
OF INTEREST: About two-thirds say they are comfortable with Democrat Obama, while people were evenly split on whether they are comfortable with Republican McCain or uneasy about him. Three-fourths said Obama has the temperament and personality to be president, while just over half said that about McCain. By more than 3-1, likely voters expect Obama to win the election.
DETAILS: Conducted Oct. 19-22 by telephone with 771 likely voters. The margin of error is plus or minus 4 percentage points.
NEW YORK – Scott McClellan, President Bush's former press secretary, says he is backing Barack Obama for president.
McClellan made the endorsement during a taping of Comedian D.L. Hughley's new show that is premiering on CNN this weekend. The former Bush administration official said he wanted to support the candidate that has the best chance for changing the way Washington works and getting things done.
He's the second former Bush administration figure this week to publicly back Obama, following former Secretary of State Colin Powell. McClellan caused bitterness among his former co-workers with a tell-all book that criticized Bush.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_wEPff6QCA
Who is mentioned at least 30 times in the bible? That would be the poor. Dt. 15:11 states: 'For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land.'
I will say inregards to posts about abortion, that studies prove abortions decrease during a Democratic Presidency.
I am for the party that can cut taxes for the majority of Americans, grow our economy and actually help people in the process.
I am a new Democrat. I am a Christian. I voted for Obama.
My dear, you could not be more mistaken,
http://www.ontheissues.org/Soc ial/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htmHe is not a Muslim. He isn't reading a book on how to take down America. I would stop being so anti-Muslim if I were you. You have Muslim members of your party. Our country was founded on religious freedoms. People have a right to worship in the way of their choosing. I would encourage you to read this story: LinkObama is a Christian. I am a Christian. That being said, all religious beliefs of citizens of this country are protected by the Constitution and it's Amendments.The Republican party has swung too far right for the good of the country. They have lost perspective. They have fought, not for the majority of Americans, but for the top earnings bracket and for power. Economists are for Obama 2 to 1. Greenspan doesn't support McCain's tax plan because it is unbalanced. McCain can't cut enough spending to balance the cuts to the top earnings bracket. We are engaged in 2 wars. Our country is in an economic meltdown. We are undergoing a major shift in the job markets due to globalization. Cutting and freezing all spending is not feasible. I am not okay with our govt sending my husband to war without properly funding him, without the proper equipment to save his life and without just cause. McCain has voted for our troops and veterans only 20% of the time according to Disabled American Veterans. IAVA (Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America) gave McCain a grade of D. Obama votes for our troops and veterans 80% of the time according to Disabled American Veterans and received a grade of B+ from IAVA. I researched the voting records and platforms of both candidates. I chose Obama. I already voted, as have many on this site. I did actual research from respected sources. I did my homework and made an educated choice. This country gives everyone the right to vote, yet it is also a responsiblity. You have a responsiblity to know the truth. BTW, smears do not equal truth. I understand that republicans and democrats will never fully agree on the issues. Smears are not issues. I will debate on the actual issues. Your smears, however, are not welcome. They are counter productive to your cause and a bi-product of Karl Rove's tactics. Congratulations, Rove assumed you would not do your research. He was right.
RNC is reportedly pulling funding for Rep. Michelle Bachmann's campaign. (For those that missed it, Bachman made claims that Obama may have antiAmerican views. Then went on to say that the media should do an expose on Congress as to who is pro America and anti America. She basically was calling for a return to McCarthyism.) Before Bachmann made these statements, she was favored to win. She is now fighting for her seat. Her opponent has raised over 800,000 because of this.
This sends a clear message as to the weight of one's words. She has since tried to apologize, then blamed Chris Matthews of Hardball for misinterpreting what she said. Judge for yourself: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27328295#27328295
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – Barack Obama was voted the most influential man of 2008 in an online poll released on Tuesday that asked men to decide who most impacted the way they behave, buy and think.
The U.S. Democratic presidential candidate was ranked No.1 by readers on the AskMen.com lifestyle Web site, beating Apple chief executive Steve Jobs and Olympic swimming champion Michael Phelps, who landed in the No. 2 and No. 3 spots, respectively.
Republican presidential candidate John McCain was ranked No. 10 on the list, which was compiled on the basis of 200,000 votes from readers of the Web site whose average age is 27-28 years-old.
Last year's winner, British soccer star David Beckham, fell to No. 25 on the 2008 list, which asked men to go beyond professional success and likeability when picking their top 49 choices.
James Bassil, editor-in-chief of AskMen.com, said he thought Obama's top place was not so much a political endorsement of his candidacy as "a reflection of the interest the presidential race has ignited in the United States."
Stephen Colbert, host of the satirical news show "The Colbert Report," was the only other politically-minded name in the Top 10 of the 2008 list, which was dominated by sports stars, actors and musicians.
The Top 10 on the AskMen.com Most Influential Men list:
1) Barack Obama (Democratic presidential nominee)
2) Steve Jobs (Apple CEO)
3) Michael Phelps (Olympic swimmer)
4) Robert Downey, Jr (actor)
5) Stephen Colbert (political TV commentator)
6) Gordon Ramsay (celebrity chef)
7) Christian Bale (actor)
8) Rob Kay ("Rock Band" video game designer)
9) Cristiano Ronaldo (soccer player)
10) John McCain (Republican presidential nominee)
(Reporting by Jill Serjeant; Editing by Bob Tourtellotte and Dean Goodman)
This is regarding her post about why we should vote for McCain. This was my response:
It isn't that cut and dry. Why would I vote for a man that hasn't represented my best interests? Why would I vote for a vet that has NOT supported veterans and our troops overall? Why would I vote for a man that is not for equal pay between men and women? Why would I vote for a man that has driven strong conservatives away from voting for him? Why would I vote for a man that is not as supportive of utilizing diplomacy? Why would I vote for a man that cuts more taxes for the wealthy, than those he referred to as the 'fundamentals of our economy'? Why would I vote for a man that came out in opposition of the 21st century GI Bill that will allow so many veterans to attend college? Why would I vote for a man with a tax plan that Greenspan said was unbalanced? (McCain can't cut enough spending to balance said plan because we are fighting 2 wars, undergoing an economic meltdown, facing recession, undergoing a major shift in our job markets due to globalization, etc)
Times retracted the story regarding Michelle Obama ordering lobster from room service. Why? Because Michelle Obama wasn't staying at the Waldorf. This is just a clarification of what trolls were posting yesterday. Silly trolls, smears are not facts. I love that truth is on our side.
OBAMA '08!
Role of the Vice President as laid out in the Constitution
(courtesy of http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Vice_President.htm ):
Vice-Presidential Duties
The framers also devoted scant attention to the vice president's duties, providing only that he "shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be evenly divided" (Article I, section 3). In practice, the number of times vice presidents have exercised this right has varied greatly. John Adams holds the record at 29 votes, followed closely by John C. Calhoun with 28. Since the 1870s, however, no vice president has cast as many as 10 tie-breaking votes. While vice presidents have used their votes chiefly on legislative issues, they have also broken ties on the election of Senate officers, as well as on the appointment of committees in 1881 when the parties were evenly represented in the Senate.
The vice president's other constitutionally mandated duty was to receive from the states the tally of electoral ballots cast for president and vice president and to open the certificates "in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives," so that the total votes could be counted (Article II, section 1). Only a few happy vice presidents — John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Martin Van Buren, and George Bush — had the pleasure of announcing their own election as president. Many more were chagrined to announce the choice of some rival for the office.
Several framers ultimately refused to sign the Constitution, in part because they viewed the vice president's legislative role as a violation of the separation of powers doctrine. Elbridge Gerry, who would later serve as vice president, declared that the framers "might as well put the President himself as head of the legislature." Others thought the office unnecessary but agreed with Connecticut delegate Roger Sherman that "if the vice-President were not to be President of the Senate, he would be without employment, and some member [of the Senate, acting as presiding officer] must be deprived of his vote."
Under the original code of Senate rules, the presiding officer exercised great power over the conduct of the body's proceedings. Rule XVI provided that "every question of order shall be decided by the President [of the Senate], without debate; but if there be a doubt in his mind, he may call for a sense of the Senate." Thus, contrary to later practice, the presiding officer was the sole judge of proper procedure and his rulings could not be turned aside by the full Senate without his assent.
The first two vice presidents, Adams and Jefferson, did much to shape the nature of the office, setting precedents that were followed by others. During most of the nineteenth century, the degree of influence and the role played within the Senate depended chiefly on the personality and inclinations of the individual involved. Some had great parliamentary skill and presided well, while others found the task boring, were incapable of maintaining order, or chose to spend most of their time away from Washington, leaving the duty to a president pro tempore. Some made an effort to preside fairly, while others used their position to promote the political agenda of the administration.
During the twentieth century, the role of the vice president has evolved into more of an executive branch position. Now, the vice president is usually seen as an integral part of a president's administration and presides over the Senate only on ceremonial occasions or when a tie-breaking vote may be needed. Yet, even though the nature of the job has changed, it is still greatly affected by the personality and skills of the individual incumbent.
Now, compare that with what Govenor Palin believes the role of the Vice President to be:
Q: Brandon Garcia wants to know, “What does the Vice President do?”PALIN: That’s something that Piper would ask me! … [T]hey’re in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom.
[courtesy of http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/index.php/site/comments/palin_vice_president_in_charge_of_the_senate/ ]
By Eugene RobinsonTuesday, October 21, 2008; A17
Colin Powell demonstrated his eponymous "Powell Doctrine" of overwhelming force on Sunday when he endorsed Barack Obama on "Meet the Press." The one-time chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff systematically marshaled his assets to neutralize the Republican endgame strategy, which is to suffuse the air around Obama with a vague mist of terrorism, socialism and "otherness."
Powell was so definitive that it was easy to forget the disconnect: Obama made his reputation with a speech in 2002 warning against war in Iraq, while it was Powell who went before the United Nations and used his credibility to build support for the Iraq invasion.
Powell told Tom Brokaw that he still believes that war was the right course of action, on the basis of what he and other officials knew -- or thought they knew -- at the time. He said he believes the war was mishandled. And he said he still opposes a "deadline" for withdrawing U.S. troops, though he added that a "timeline" for withdrawal is beginning to emerge.
That would be a fair summation of John McCain's position on Iraq, not Obama's. Powell framed his endorsement largely in terms of how McCain, Sarah Palin and their supporters have conducted the campaign against Obama -- and what that conduct says about McCain's judgment. It was hard not to conclude, as my Post colleague Jonathan Capehart has as well, that Powell is offended by some of the Republican tactics and that he has decided to fire back in a way that Obama cannot.
On the attempt by McCain and Palin to use Obama's acquaintance with Vietnam-era radical William Ayers to suggest that Obama is somehow linked to terrorism:
"This Bill Ayers situation that's been going on for weeks became something of a central point of the campaign. But Mr. McCain says that he's a washed-out terrorist. Well, then, why do we keep talking about him? And why do we have these robo-calls going on around the country trying to suggest that, because of this very, very limited relationship that Senator Obama has had with Mr. Ayers, somehow, Mr. Obama is tainted? What they're trying to connect him to is some kind of terrorist feelings."
On the campaign of lies, spread by whisper and e-mail, to convince people that Obama is a Muslim:
"Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. He's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, 'What if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country?' The answer's no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some 7-year-old Muslim American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, 'He's a Muslim and he might be associated with terrorists.' This is not the way we should be doing it in America."
And on Palin's qualifications and readiness to assume high office, an issue that a few conservative commentators have taken on but Democrats refuse to touch, as if it were radioactive:
"I was also concerned at the selection of Governor Palin. She's a very distinguished woman, and she's to be admired, but at the same time, now that we have had a chance to watch her for some seven weeks, I don't believe she's ready to be president of the United States, which is the job of the vice president. And so that raised some question in my mind as to the judgment that Senator McCain made."
As the highest-profile Republican to defect to the enemy camp, Powell knew that his endorsement would create a huge stir. What I found fascinating was how he framed it more as a set of reasons to vote against the McCain-Palin ticket than a set of reasons to vote for Obama and Joe Biden. In talking about the Wall Street meltdown and the economic crisis, for example, Powell spoke of how McCain's herky-jerky response made it seem that he "didn't have a complete grasp" of what was going on. Powell went on to praise Obama's "steadiness" -- but mentioned nothing in particular that Obama did.
To those who would say he is only supporting Obama as a fellow African American, Powell pointed out that if this were the criterion, he could have made his endorsement months ago. Much more important, I think, is that Powell is a moderate Republican who listens to all this innuendo about terrorism and all this nonsense equating the income tax with socialism and wonders what in the world has happened to his once-grand old party.
The rhetoric he used to take his party to task followed the principle he made famous in the Persian Gulf War: overwhelming force.
eugenerobinson@washpost.com
By Michael D. ShearFirst Colin Powell. Now Ken Adelman?
Adelman is the latest Republican foreign-policy heavyweight to endorse Sen. Barack Obama, telling the New Yorker's George Packer that he intends to vote for the Democrat in two weeks.
"When the economic crisis broke, I found John McCain bouncing all over the place. In those first few crisis days, he was impetuous, inconsistent, and imprudent; ending up just plain weird," Adelman wrote, according to Packer. "Having worked with Ronald Reagan for seven years, and been with him in his critical three summits with Gorbachev, I've concluded that that's no way a president can act under pressure."
Adelman was a key part of George Bush's defense agency and has held senior policy positions under Presidents Reagan, Ford and even Nixon. He's a staunch conservative, though he has broken with Vice President Dick Cheney and former Defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld over the handling of the Iraq war.
But he told Packer that Sen. John McCain's pick of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate was the last straw.
"That decision showed appalling lack of judgment," he wrote in an e-mail, according to Packer. "Not only is Sarah Palin not close to being acceptable in high office -- I would not have hired her for even a mid-level post in the arms-control agency. But that selection contradicted McCain's main two, and best two, themes for his campaign -- Country First, and experience counts. Neither can he credibly claim, post-Palin pick."
In today's Post-ABC tracking poll, Obama is winning 22 percent of conservatives. That's his best showing yet among these voters, and if the percent holds on Election Day, it would be higher than conservative support for any Democratic nominee since 1980.
Obama also wins 12 percent support among Republicans in the tracking poll -- exactly double Kerry's 2004 Election Day haul.
By Juliet EilperinGRAND JUNCTION, Colo. -- For the third time today, Sarah Palin mocked Barack Obama for serving less than a year in the U.S. Senate before running for president."Now let's talk about experience for a minute," the GOP vice presidential nominee told an audience of several thousand tonight at Suplizio Field. "After a few terms as a Chicago politician, Barack Obama served about 300 days in the Senate" -- here the crowd interrupted Palin with a loud round of boos -- "Barack Obama served about 300 days in the Senate before he decided to run for president. Now, John McCain has spent his entire life serving his country, and serving you."To make that charge, the Alaska governor used some creative math. According to her spokeswoman Maria Comella, the campaign estimates that Obama served a total of 304 days in the Senate before setting his sights on the White House. The calculation is based on the number of days the Senate was in session from the day of Obama's swearing-in, on Jan. 3, 2005, to the day he announced his exploratory committee, on Jan. 16, 2007.
Including the days not spent on the Senate floor -- when senators such as Obama and McCain, spend much of their time working in their home states or traveling overseas -- Obama served 743 days as a senator before announcing his presidential bid.Palin, meanwhile, served 633 days as Alaska's governor before McCain picked her as his running mate. For 312 of those days, Palin stayed in her Wasilla home rather than in the state capital of Juneau, according to state records. Under the McCain-Palin calculus, that would give her 321 days on the job in Juneau as governor before deciding to run for higher office.
The Obama birth certificate, held by FactCheck writer Joe Miller
Alvin T. Onaka's signature stamp
The raised seal
Blowup of text
