http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barry-michael-cooper/when-politics-became-the_b_134733.html
The definition of Hip Hop has always been a political one: at the heart of democracy lies the aorta of free speech. Be it George Orwell, V.I. Lenin, Karl Marx, or Donald Oliver Soper shooting the gift (of gab) in London at Speaker's Corner of Hyde Park, or KRS-One and Chuck D voicing their opposition to Reaganomics and a Dickensian New York in the late '80s, or Jay-Z, Puff, and Kanye describing theirBrave Rich World from Gulfstream-V windows 40,000 feet above Monaco in rhythmic iambic pentameter, Hip Hop is the vox of the common man speaking to power.
FDR was Hip Hop: "There is nothing to fear but fear itself."
MLK was Hip Hop: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
JFK was Hip Hop: "And so my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country."
RWR was Hip Hop: "The past few days when I've been at that window upstairs, I've thought a bit of the "shining city upon a hill"....And how stands the city on this winter night? More prosperous, more secure, and happier than it was eight years ago."
Bill Clinton is Hip Hop, too, but George Walker Bush embodies the flatline of Gangsta Rap: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised...Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing."Barack Obama is the greatest MC of all time. The DNC's Master of Ceremony's skills of Moving the Crowd have never been more evident than on the night of August 28th, 2008 in Denver's Invesco Stadium. It was the night Barack Obama fulfilled Martin Luther King's dream, and accepted the Democratic National Party's nomination for President. I wonder what went through his mind before he took the stage that night. Was it Jigga, as Obama mentally scrolled through his list of detractors in the media and politics, who tried to clown him by deifying him?: "I never claimed to have wings on/I get my/by any means on/when there's a drought/get your umbrellas out/that's when I brainstorm."
Maybe it was Rakim in the earbuds of Obama's iPod: "I'm not a regular competitor/ first rhyme editor/ Melody arranger, poet, etcetera/ Extra events, the grand finale like bonus/I am the man they call the microphonist."
Or maybe it was just Barack Obama being Barack Obama on this most historic night, transforming rap into epos: "We cannot turn back. America, we cannot turn back. Not with so much work to be done. Not with so many children to educate. And so many veterans to care for. Not with an economy to fix. And cities to rebuild, and farms to save. Not with so many families to protect, and so many lives to mend. America we cannot turn back. We cannot walk alone...in America, our destiny is inextricably linked."I don't know if John McCain is Hip Hop. I don't know if he or the Republican Party understands that it is the culture of Hip Hop that has directly -- and indirectly -- fueled the youth movement behind Barack Obama. Many have made this connection between Obama and Hip Hop, including the great New York Times columnist, Maureen Dowd, to a young Baltimore, Md. journalist by the name of Timothy Cooper.
Even Robin Williams said on Letterman a few weeks ago:
Obama running is wonderful. It's-initially it was very interesting with people being kind of afraid of going, 'You know, he's a very eloquent black man'. And some folks in Conneticut going, 'Well, he's a tan Kennedy'. But...what was their fear, though? Are they afraid that this very eloquent man will be elected President, and all of a sudden he takes the oath of office and goes, 'Yo what's up?!! (Williams grabbing his crotch in the b-boy style) Yo-yo-yo! Yo gonna keep it real! I'ma bring it home right now, no more of that Urkel stuff! I wanna introduce some members of my cabinet: this is Lil' Ray-Ray, Skinny G, Colin Powell, because he's bad! Keepin' it real!
The Gen-Y'ers have truly made the connection between Barack Obama and Hip Hop. They are his advance team on Facebook, My Space, and Friendster, an army of Millennials that has assisted the Obama campaign in raising hundreds of millions of dollars online. For this new paradigm--young white kids (and Asian, Latino, African-American, and multi-racial kids, too)--the culture of Hip Hop allowed them to embrace a black man without fear, suspicion, or loathing. These same Gen-Y'ers will go to a Jay-Z concert and know all the words to "Regrets" or "Lost Ones." Michael Phelps motored Beijing's Olympic blue cube -- stoked by the fires of Lil' Wayne lyrics playing in his head -- en route to a record eight gold medals. These same Millennials are also educating their parents around the breakfast and dinner table, letting them know that the Baby Boomer version of the American Dream, the Woodstock, flower power, peace, love, and Haight-Ashbury, has grown up in Eminem's 8 Mile of Detroit, Snoop Dogg's Long Beach, and Common's South Side of Chicago. Their world may not be a ghetto, but the Millennials have broadbanded it into their very own 3-G global 'hood. Which, incidentally, is Obama's hood, too.
So I don't know if John McCain is Hip Hop. Last week, with McCain and Sarah Palin -- the Charli Baltimore of the G.O.P. -- and their operatives flashing the political gang signs to their conservative base ("Terrorist", "Ayers", "Who is the real Barack Obama"?), The Straight Talk Express derailed into lyrics of David Bowie's "Candidate": "I'll make you a deal, like any other candidate/we'll pretend we're walking home 'cause your future's at stake...I'm having so much fun with the poisonous people/ spreading rumours and lies and stories they made up."
John McCain may be more Rock and Roll than Hip Hop, which --along with R&B-- was the Hip Hop of the '60s and '70s. The raison d'etre of John McCain seems to trapped between a pair of Bowie bookends: The Man Who Fell To Earth who joins forces with The Man Who Sold The World. No matter how much distance this heroic fighter pilot and former POW tries to put between George W. Bush -- who is on an unswerving, abominable path towards presiding over the most calamitous administration in American history -- McCain cannot escape the connection nor the facts. Wall Street continues to collapse. The ranks of the unemployed swell to hundreds of thousands every month. The war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and an increasingly unstable Pakistan seem to have no end in sight. Those are the facts, and so is this: life as we know it in this country is slowly rotting away. And that's not Hip Hop. That's the discord of an apocalypse. And -- quite possibly -- as Sen. John S. McCain may find out at the end of the last and final debate with Barack Obama on Wednesday at Hofstra University, his campaign's swan song.
http://www.villagevoice.com/2008-10-08/news/the-book-of-sarah/5
Along with the winks and folksy "doggone" moments early in her debate with Joe Biden last week, Sarah Palin repeated her familiar claim to the title of "maverick," declaring that "as a governor and as a mayor," she's had a "track record of reform" and has now "joined a team of mavericks."
Despite the free fall that her polling numbers went into after her disastrous interviews with Katie Couric, that branding as a "reformer" has been resilient. Introduced skillfully before tens of millions during an intense surge of interest six weeks ago, it's been hammered home with repeated soundbites.
But the label doesn't hold up under close scrutiny. From the controversy that catapulted her to the governorship, to her ties to the indicted patriarch of Alaska's GOP, to the multilayered nexus of lobbyists and Big Oil interests around her, and, finally, to the Wasilla sports complex that capped her mayoral career, the myth of Sarah Palin, reformer, withers under inspection.
PALIN'S CLAIM to fame as an Alaska reformer—that she risked her career to expose the chairman of the state GOP—is revisionist. In fact, Palin supported the methane-drilling project that helped sink GOP boss Randy Ruedrich before she later decided she was against it—a mirror of her flip-flop on the infamous Bridge to Nowhere. And her reversal had more to do with seizing a political opportunity than following her conscience.
In 2003, Ruedrich, an oil executive known for his ability to raise industry contributions for the party, was appointed to the powerful Alaska Oil & Gas Conservation Commission (OGCC) by Governor Frank Murkowski at the same time as Palin, who had finished her second term as Wasilla mayor the year before. Murkowski had given Palin the plum position to compensate for overlooking her when he appointed his own daughter Lisa to the U.S. Senate seat he vacated when he was elected governor in 2002. Palin's near-win in the Republican primary for lieutenant governor earlier that year—losing to the first Alaskan of native ancestry ever elected to state office—had made her a statewide star. She had filmed commercials and stumped for Frank Murkowski that fall, so he owed her. But she rejected other top posts that he offered until she got the one she wanted—a position that allowed her to live at home and commute to Anchorage, rather than relocate to Juneau. She certainly also saw the commission appointment as a stepping-stone, and as late as October 2003, she told reporters that she was considering a race against Lisa Murkowski in the upcoming 2004 special senate election.
When Murkowski made Palin the $122,400 chairwoman of the OGCC, one of her jobs was to oversee commission ethics, meaning she was charged with reporting any possible ethics violations by staff or commission members to the governor's office. By her own account, she first did that in September 2003, reaching out to a top Murkowski staffer about Ruedrich. But what she complained about then, according to a source familiar with these conversations, was Ruedrich's party business on state time. She said nothing about his blatant championing of a methane-drilling project by a company called Evergreen Resources—even though she'd witnessed it herself at a standing-room-only community meeting in August. Palin and Ruedrich went to the meeting because the commission had oversight powers over the drilling, and homeowners in the Wasilla area where she was once mayor were up in arms over the effects they feared it would have on their property and drinking water.
Chris Whittington-Evans, chair of the citizens' group that helped organize the meeting, says that Ruedrich presented a slideshow very similar to one the company itself had presented at any earlier session. Palin remained quiet through most of the meeting, though Evans recalls that she was questioned about a possible conflict of interest she might have. Palin was then chairing the campaign committee of a pro-Evergreen candidate for Borough Mayor of Mat-Su, the county that includes Wasilla. The candidate, Charlie Fannon, her former police chief, had taken $2,500 in donations from three Evergreen executives and a consultant, though community outrage eventually forced him to return some of the money. Ruedrich had given Fannon $500.
The same three executives had also just given $1,747 to Palin's 2002 campaign for lieutenant governor. In fact, with the low campaign-finance limits in Alaska, Evergreen was the second-largest giver to both Palin and Fannon. While still mayor, Palin had backed an Evergreen-designed bill that allowed the state to override local objections to the drilling and permitted an ordinance—introduced by her closest ally on the city council authorizing methane extraction—to become law. But the focus of the question at the community meeting was Fannon. Palin had asked Fannon to run and had filmed an ad for him. He was the only candidate she'd ever contributed to—and her father contributed as well. Evans says he found it odd when she insisted that there was no conflict between backing "a big promoter of methane-drilling" and sitting in judgment on the project.
That's what Tim Anderson, the Borough Mayor who beat Fannon and opposed the drilling, says now as well: "You could say that it was a conflict of interest" for Palin to be on the commission and supporting Fannon. Anderson was also at the August meeting and says that Palin sat up front with Ruedrich and Evergreen. "They were trying to convince the people that drilling underneath their homes wasn't a big problem." Fannon's narrow loss to Anderson, wrote the local newspaper The Frontiersman, confirmed the political potency of the methane issue. In early November, Evans sent Palin an e-mail detailing the case against Ruedrich and demanding that he be fired from the commission. Palin finally acted, forwarding the Evans e-mail to the state's attorney general. Two days later, Ruedrich resigned.
A few days after Ruedrich's resignation, Palin searched his commission e-mail and found damaging evidence of his ties to Evergreen and his party abuse of the commission. For reasons she has never explained, she took a month to send those e-mails to the attorney general. In that intervening time, she talked twice to the attorney general's office, and her own subsequent notes indicated that she expressed "concerns" about whether a continuing investigation was needed, since Ruedrich had already stepped down.
By the time she finally forwarded the e-mails, which were very damaging to Evergreen as well, the company had dumped its top Wasilla-based executive and had begun to withdraw from its Alaska adventure. A couple of weeks later, she surprised everyone and resigned herself, attributing it later to the dilatory response she was getting from state officials. In fact, when she quit, she had given the officials less time to act after getting the e-mails than she'd taken to send them.
Michelle Church, who was the director of the same citizens' group that Evans chaired, believes that Palin was "definitely supportive of the drilling" and "opportunistic" when she switched and went after Evergreen and Ruedrich. "It really strengthened her support in the community," recalls Church, who was elected to the Mat-Su assembly as a result of the methane controversy. "She turned on them because it was to her political advantage to do so." The target was the governorship.
When she resigned from the commission in January 2004, Palin was simply trying to decide which Murkowski she would challenge—Lisa for U.S. Senate, or Frank for the governorship. Lisa Murkowski had a couple million in the bank, while the governor's campaign kitty was strangely barren. Frank Murkowski's nepotism, proposed sales tax, and elimination of a longevity bonus for seniors—all of which happened before Palin took Ruedrich on—had depressed his approval ratings so badly that many thought he wouldn't seek re-election. Palin wrote an op-ed in the Anchorage Daily News in April 2004, reliving her days as basketball point guard "Sarah Barracuda" and lauding the good competition of public life. But a week later, she announced that she would not run against Lisa Murkowski, attributing it to her son Track, who she said opposed it. Then she set her sights on the governorship. When Murkowski, the oldest governor in America at 73, finally did decide in May 2006 to run again, Palin had already been an announced candidate for seven months, perfectly positioned as his reform nemesis. He spent a third of what he did in 2002 and lost badly.
SARAH PALIN'S MAVERICK image flies in the face of her longtime ties to the Republican patriarch of Alaska politics, Senator Ted Stevens, who is on trial in Washington for taking $250,000 in gifts from VECO, an oil-services company that was once Palin's biggest donor. Palin remained nominally neutral in the recent GOP primary, shunning two Republicans who tried to give the already-indicted Stevens a serious challenge. Her chief of staff, Mike Tibbles, left his state post to become Stevens's campaign manager, and she did a press conference with Stevens shortly before the vote. (Tibbles's wife is still a top appointee in Palin's administration.) A Stevens campaign consultant, Art Hackney, says: "She has campaigned with him, and they are enjoying a good relationship." Asked on a visit to New York recently if she was supporting Stevens's re-election, Palin replied that his trial had just started. "We'll see where that goes," said Palin, who forced the resignation of Ruedrich and another top Murkowski aide on ethics charges that never came close to reaching the level of an indictable offense.
Vic Vickers, a wealthy banker who ran against Stevens in the GOP primary and spent $700,000 of his own money, tells the Voice that Palin and Stevens "are very close" and that the two organizations "merged to defeat my candidacy." While Palin has called for the resignation of Stevens's son Ben as national committeeman, Vickers said that "vicious attacks" against him were "coming out of her office" during the primary. "They just torched me in the end," the anti-Bush and anti-war Republican said. Dave Cuddy, a more conventional Republican and former legislator who also challenged Stevens in the primary, said he reached out to Palin: "We did call, and we played telephone tag. I think she was uncomfortable. She didn't support me because she thought that I was not going to win."
Palin's ties to Stevens go back nearly a decade, when she retained Stevens's former chief of staff, Steve Silver, as the Washington lobbyist for Wasilla. He opened doors for her on lobbying trips to Washington for earmarks. Silver's firm was so tied to Stevens that it also included the senator's former counsel and, according to registration forms, his son. It also lobbied for Ketchikan Gateway Borough, the beneficiary of Stevens's pork-barrel favorite, the since-killed Bridge to Nowhere, as well as for the Alaska Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority, sponsor of the second Nowhere Bridge that's still alive and runs near Palin's house. Ironically, the firm was also so tight with Frank Murkowski that it was Murkowski's since-convicted top aide, Jim Clark, who once headed its lobbying unit and brought Silver aboard.
But one Stevens law firm wasn't enough for Palin. She hired the firm that included Stevens's brother-in-law, Bill Bittner, as counsel to the city, ultimately steering hundreds of thousands in payments to it, much of it associated with a costly lawsuit sparked by a Palin development decision. Bittner, who has engineered real-estate investments for Stevens, also rented an apartment to the state for Murkowski's use whenever he visited Anchorage. A year after Palin stepped down as mayor, she was one of three incorporators of a nonprofit called the Ted Stevens Excellence in Public Service Committee that he helped establish to support Republican women.
It's unclear why Bill Allen, the VECO president who has pled guilty to bribery charges and is expected to testify against Stevens, became such a large Palin donor in 2002. His contributions and bribes were usually connected to his business interests, and he had none in Wasilla. News accounts in Alaska indicate that in 2001, Palin drove from Wasilla to Allen's home in faraway Cook Inlet. Allen, other VECO executives, and their wives then gave Palin's campaign committee $5,000, contributing $500 apiece over a two-day period in late December.
No one else in Palin's underfinanced bid for lieutenant governor came close to VECO. Virtually the same group of executives repeated the pattern in 2003—giving $1,600 to Charlie Fannon's campaign committee, chaired by Palin. No one seemed to mind that the Alaska Public Offices Commission had collected the largest fine in its history ($28,000) from VECO who were paying employees to make illegal campaign contributions. In the current VECO scandals, which have already led to the convictions of several state legislators, it's clear that VECO continued the practice of reimbursing the campaign donations of its executives. Palin's lieutenant governor, Sean Parnell, who recently did a Fox News Sunday appearance on her behalf, collected $16,000 in VECO contributions as a state legislator.
JOHN McCAIN AND Palin share at least one common bond beyond their self-proclaimed independence: They're both very comfortable with lobbyists. Sean Parnell—who is running Alaska's government while Palin travels and is so trusted that he was one of only three Alaskans named to the national campaign's truth squad for Palin—was a lobbyist in the Anchorage office of the legendary Washington firm, Patton Boggs, before he was elected with Palin. Ironically, one of the charges in the eventual ethics complaint against Ruedrich was that he'd sent numerous e-mails to Evergreen's lobbyist, Kyle Parker, a Patton Boggs partner. Ruedrich admitted that he had even leaked a confidential commission memo on the methane controversy to Parker. Ruedrich was reporting at the time to Kevin Jardell, an assistant commissioner of administration who oversaw the commission. Jardell had lived for months in Ruedrich's home while he worked with Parker representing the state GOP in a reapportionment case, hired by Patton Boggs, which was the party's outside counsel.
This intertwining of interests was exposed when all the details of the Ruedrich scandal hit the headlines in 2004. Parnell was then Murkowski's deputy director of Oil & Gas. Undeterred by Patton's reputation, Parnell left his state job in 2005 to join the firm, where he soon had his own oil clients. Before joining the Murkowski administration, he had been the in-house lobbyist for ConocoPhillips. Parnell's bio makes him an odd choice to lead a truth squad—having moved from the state senate to an oil company, then back to a state oil job, and finally, becoming an outside lobbyist for oil interests while running for lieutenant governor.
Even closer to Palin than Parnell is the Alaskan lobbyist whose firm topped the charts in earnings: Wendy Chamberlain. Palin lists Chamberlain on her personal-disclosure forms because Chamberlain took Palin's daughter Willow and her own daughter on a 2007 summer trip to a basketball camp in Mexico. Palin insisted on the form that she had reimbursed Chamberlain—the legislature had passed a bill that barred executives from taking gifts from lobbyists. A Washington Post story last week revealed that Chamberlain's clients have deluged Palin with gifts, including three, worth $2,650, from the chief executive of a mining company (Parnell used to represent the same firm, Calista). Todd Palin took two trips from other Chamberlain clients, though the lobbyist claims she had no idea her clients were so generous with her friend.
In fact, Chamberlain tried to minimize her relationship with Palin in a Voice interview ("I know her about the same as any other lobbyist"), though news clips describe Palin and Chamberlain together working the sidewalks for Frank Murkowski in the 2002 campaign. Chamberlain was then married to Eldon Mulder, a state legislator who now runs his own lobbying firm. "We first met Governor Palin many years ago," Mulder says, "when our daughters were in basketball camp together. About six to eight years ago."
Chamberlain acknowledged that back then, one of her firm's clients was VECO. Mulder collected $9,000 in VECO contributions from 1999 to 2001, and, according to press reports, he used his position as chair of the House Finance committee to push for a tax-break bill introduced at VECO's request by another legislator eventually convicted of taking payoffs from VECO. Mulder was accused by a third House member—also a Republican—of threatening to cut off state funds if he got in the way of the VECO bill. Chamberlain became a lobbyist two years after her husband was first elected to the House in 1992 and ran into problems three times with the ethics committee—mostly for using state offices and funds for her lobbying business. Once, she was sanctioned for "poor judgment" when her husband weakened a cruise-ship-pollution bill in the interests of a Chamberlain client. Mulder and Chamberlain's lobbying partner, former House Speaker Joe Hayes, contributed $1,500 to Palin in 2006.
One Chamberlain client, the Pebble Partnership, has fared so well with Palin that the governor spoke out against a state initiative that would have erected environmental obstacles to its proposed mining project. A state watchdog group whose members she appoints is now looking at whether Palin's highly unusual public opposition to a ballot issue—with her saying, "Let me take my governor's hat off" for a moment of "personal privilege"—violated state laws. Chamberlain pushed so hard against the initiative that other clients, like the Alaska Association of Realtors, decided to oppose it at an executive meeting she attended. Chamberlain's husband also lobbied for Pebble, and three other lobbyists recently tied to the partnership, one of whom is dating Palin's legislative director, donated $4,150 to her.
In her 2006 race, Palin received $24,000 in contributions from lobbyists, most of them tied to the oil industry.
EVEN PALIN'S most plausible claim—that she's taken on Big Oil—is at best a half-truth. She did hike their taxes and push through a natural-gas pipeline deal that, at least for now, has cut them out. But delegates weren't chanting "Drill, baby, drill" during her convention speech without reason. Shortly after she became governor, she was elected chair of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC), a pro-industry coalition of 30 producer states. She soon tapped Michael Smith, who was assistant secretary of fossil energy at Bush's Energy Department, as its new executive director. Smith left the Abraham Group, the lobbying and consulting firm of former Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, to join IOGCC. Harper's Magazine said of Smith: "While in government, he pushed to promote oil drilling wherever a drop might be found"—and that was before Bush and McCain began pushing offshore drilling.
Smith isn't the only Palin connection to the most pro-oil administration in American history. One of her 2002 campaign treasurers, Hans Neidig, was named special assistant for Alaska in the Bush interior department. Neidig was selected by Drue Pearce, a former Alaska state senator now in charge of overseeing the federal role in the giant pipeline project. Pearce, a gushing Palin champion in recent news stories, joined in Palin's 2006 victory party.
Palin also selected Larry Hartig as state environmental-conservation commissioner, though Hartig's law firm, Hartig Rhodes, lists a dozen Alaska oil and drilling companies as clients, as well as a few mining companies. One well-known Hartig client, Halliburton Energy Services, has surprisingly extensive investments in the state—and even services the company that acquired Evergreen's Alaska interests. Another, Anadarko Petroleum, is owned by the 30th-largest corporate polluter in the country. Even Randy Ruedrich's onetime employer is a Hartig client, and the man Murkowski selected to replace Palin when she quit the Oil & Gas Commission in ostensible protest was a Hartig partner.
As commissioner, Hartig rushed to the aid last year of Shell when it ran into trouble getting offshore drilling permits from Bush's EPA. The onetime Evergreen lobbyist Kyle Parker actually e-mailed Hartig a draft letter for him to forward to an EPA appeals board, and Hartig obliged—altering the language but requesting an "expedited review" so "drilling can proceed this season." Palin has put Hartig in charge of the climate-change subcabinet she bragged about during the debate as well, suggesting that Carl Pope of the Sierra Club might not be far off when he declared: "No one is closer to the oil industry than Governor Palin."
Marathon Oil, a Wendy Chamberlain client and sponsor of Palin's inaugural, has already benefited from one unnoticed Palin decision—her support of an extension of a license that allows it and ConocoPhillips to continue exporting natural gas to Japan and other Asian countries. Palin championed this license though several gas users in Alaska objected that it would worsen the problem of declining gas reserves, and one, a major fertilizer-maker, shut its plant when the extension was granted, forcing 130 workers out of jobs. As frequently as Palin's lack of foreign-policy experience has been noted in the media, she has never cited her meeting with Japan's consul over gas issues, perhaps because it might appear inconsistent with her claim that Alaska is a bulwark of production for the U.S. itself.
Even Palin's ballyhooed pipeline is more a pipedream than it is the blow to Big Oil that Palin pretends it is. (Murkowski was about to award the deal to the oil giants when she beat him.) Two days after Palin's deal with TransCanada was approved, the company's chief executive, Hal Kvisle, repeated what he'd been saying all along: "Nothing goes ahead until Exxon is happy with it." While he was forced to pull back a bit from that moment of candor, his statement that "the five key players"—including TransCanada, the state, and three main producers—have to still "get together" and "craft something" is indisputably true.
All Palin has done is outsource the negotiations with the producers to TransCanada, who can conduct them very privately. She also offered the company a half-billion-dollar state bonus if it can get a deal going, though Palin's natural-resources commissioner, Tom Irwin, quit the Murkowski administration in part because it gave the producers financial incentives that he said were unnecessary. The only way Palin's pipeline becomes real (she claimed, absurdly, during the debate that the state was already "building" it) is if the producers, who have announced their own project now, are brought back into it—something, like Troopergate and her possible Pebble Mine violation, that won't be resolved until post-election.
THE $12.5 MILLION sports complex and hockey rink that is the lasting monument to Palin's two terms as Wasilla mayor is also a monument to the kind of insider politics that dismays Americans of both parties. Six months before Palin stepped down as mayor in October 2002, the city awarded nearly a half-million-dollar contract to design the biggest project in Wasilla history to Kumin Associates. Blase Burkhart was the Kumin architect on the job—the son of Roy Burkhart, who is frequently described as a "mentor" of Palin and was head of the local Republican Party (his wife, June, who also advised Palin, is the national committeewoman). Asked if the contract was a favor, Roy Burkhart, who contributed to her campaign in the same time frame that his son got the contract, said: "I really don't know." Palin then named Blase Burkhart to a seven-member builder-selection committee that picked Howdie Inc., a mostly residential contractor owned at the time by Howard Nugent. Formally awarded the contract a couple of weeks after Palin left office, Nugent has donated $4,000 to Palin campaigns. Two competitors protested the process that led to Nugent's contract. Burkhart and Nugent had done at least one project together before the complex—and have done several since.
A list of subcontractors on the job, obtained by the Voice, includes many with Palin ties. One was Spenard Builders Supply, the state's leading supplier of wood, floor, roof, and other "pre-engineered components." In addition to being a sponsor of Todd Palin's snow-machine team that has earned tens of thousands for the Palin family, Spenard hired Sarah Palin to do a statewide television commercial in 2004. When the Palins began building a new family home off Lake Lucille in 2002—at the same time that Palin was running for lieutenant governor and in her final months as mayor—Spenard supplied the materials, according to Antoine Bricks, who works in its Wasilla office. Spenard actually filed a notice "of its right to assert a lien" on the deed for the Palin property after contracting for labor and materials for the site. Spenard's name has popped up in the trial of Senator Stevens—it worked on the house that is at the center of the VECO scandal as well.
Todd Palin told Fox News that he built the two-story, 3,450-square-foot, four-bedroom, four-bath, wood house himself, with the help of contractors he described as "buddies." As mayor, Sarah Palin blocked an effort to require the filing of building permits in the wide-open city, and there is no public record of who the "buddies" were. The house was built very near the complex, on a site whose city purchase led to years of unsuccessful litigation and, now, $1.3 million in additional costs, with a law firm that's also donated to Palin collecting costly fees from the city.
Dorwin and Joanne Smith, the principals of complex subcontractor DJ Excavation & Development, have donated $7,100 to Palin and her allied candidate Charlie Fannon (Joanne is a Palin appointee on the state Board of Nursing). Sheldon Ewing, who owns another complex subcontractor, Weld Air, has donated $1,300, and PN&D, an engineering firm on the complex, has contributed $699.
Ewing was one of the few sports-complex contractors, aside from Spenard, willing to address the question of whether he worked on the house as well, but he had little to say: "I doubt that it occurred, but if it did indirectly, how would I know anyhow?" The odd timing of Palin's house construction—it was completed two months before she left City Hall and while she and Todd Palin were campaigning statewide for the first time—raises questions, especially considering its synergy with the complex.
Salon's David Talbot recently visited the complex, which, he said, resembled "a huge airplane hangar" so far away from the city's center that kids can't bike or walk there. It's adorned by a plaque commemorating Palin. Even as a governor, she is still such a champion of the complex—which loses money every year—that she just steered state funding for a new kitchen to it.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/790/
For most of the election, Sen. John McCain's campaign has been somewhat subtle about trying to tie Sen. Barack Obama to the former '60s radical William Ayers.
No longer. A 90-second Web ad released Oct. 8, 2008, features sinister music, side-by-side photographs of Obama and Ayers, and a series of dubious allegations about their past connections, including this one:
"Ayers and Obama ran a radical education foundation together."
Ayers was a founding member of the militant Vietnam-era anti-war group the Weathermen. He was investigated for his role in a series of domestic bombings, but the charges were dropped in 1974 due to prosecutorial misconduct. He is now an education professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and actively engaged in the city's civic life.
The McCain campaign said the "radical education foundation" to which they were referring is the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a charity endowed by publishing magnate Walter Annenberg that funded public-school programs in Chicago from 1995 to 2001.
We'll look at whether the foundation was radical. But first we have to grapple with whether Obama and Ayers ran it.
Obama served on the foundation's volunteer board from its inception in 1995 through its dissolution in 2001, and was chair for the first four years. So an argument can be made that he ran it, though an executive director handled day-to-day operations.
Ayers, who received his doctorate in education from Columbia University in 1987 and is now a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, was active in getting the foundation up and running. He and two other activists led the effort to secure the grant from Annenberg, and he worked without pay in the early months of 1995, prior to the board's hiring of an executive director, to help the foundation get incorporated and formulate its bylaws, said Ken Rolling, who was the foundation's only executive director. Ayers went on to become a member of the "collaborative," an advisory group that advised the board of directors and the staff.
However, Ayers "was never on the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge," and he "never made a decision programmatically or had a vote," Rolling said.
"He (Ayers) was at board meetings — which, by the way, were open — as a guest," Rolling said. "That is not anything near Bill Ayers and Barack Obama running the Chicago Annenberg Challenge."
Now, was the foundation radical?
The McCain campaign cited several pieces of evidence for that allegation, including a 1995 invitation from the foundation for applications from schools "that want to make radical changes in the way teachers teach and students learn." The campaign appears to have confused two different definitions of the word "radical." Clearly the invitation referred to "a considerable departure from the usual or traditional," rather than "advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs."
The campaign also cited two projects the foundation funded, one having to do with a United Nations-themed Peace School and another that focused on African-American studies.
"That is radical in the eye of this campaign and we imagine in the eyes of most Americans," said Michael Goldfarb, a spokesman for McCain. "It is a subjective thing, and there are going to be people in Berkeley and Chicago who think that is totally legitimate."
Teaching about the United Nations and African-American studies may not be everyone's cup of tea, but it's hardly "radical" in the same way Ayers' Vietnam-era activities were. Moreover, most of the projects the foundation funded (more on that below) were not remotely controversial.
The McCain campaign also cited an opinion piece by conservative commentator Stanley Kurtz in the Sept. 23, 2008, Wall Street Journal as evidence of the foundation's radicalism. Kurtz wrote that Ayers was the "guiding spirit" of the foundation, and it "translated Mr. Ayers's radicalism into practice."
But Ayers' views on education, though certainly reform-oriented and left-of-center, are not considered anywhere near as radical as his Vietnam-era views on war. And even if they were, there was a long list of individuals involved with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge whose positions provided them far more authority over its direction than Ayers' advisory role gave him.
Let's look at a few, starting with the funder. Annenberg was a lifelong Republican and former ambassador to the United Kingdom under President Richard Nixon. His widow, Leonore, has endorsed McCain. Kurtz might just as plausibly have accused Obama and the foundation of "translating Annenberg's conservatism into practice."
Among the other board members who served with Obama were: Stanley Ikenberry, former president of the University of Illinois; Arnold Weber, former president of Northwestern University and assistant secretary of labor in the Nixon administration; Scott Smith, then publisher of the Chicago Tribune; venture capitalist Edward Bottum; John McCarter, president of the Field Museum; Patricia Albjerg Graham, former dean of the Harvard University Graduate School of Education, and a host of other mainstream folks.
"The whole idea of it being radical when it was this tie of blue-chip, white-collar, CEOs and civic leaders is just ridiculous," said the foundation's former development director, Marianne Philbin.
The foundation gave money to groups of public schools – usually three to 10 – who partnered with some sort of outside organization to improve their students' achievement.
In his opinion piece, Kurtz puts a sinister spin on this: "Instead of funding schools directly, it required schools to affiliate with 'external partners,' which actually got the money...CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or ACORN)."
Rollings said the foundation tried to fund the schools directly, but doing so proved to be a "bureaucratic nightmare." But any external group that received money had to have created a program in partnership with a network of public schools.
And though ACORN is considered a liberal organization, the vast majority of the foundation's external partners were not remotely controversial. Here are a few examples: the Chicago Symphony, the University of Chicago, Loyola University, Northwestern University, the Chicago Children's Museum, the Museum of Science and Industry, the Field Museum, the Commercial Club of Chicago, the Garfield Park Conservatory Alliance and the Logan Square Neighborhood Association.
Had Kurtz chosen to accuse Obama of carrying water for the conservative Annenberg, he might have written: "CAC disbursed money to various business-friendly entities, such as the Museum of Science and Industry and the Commercial Club of Chicago."
See how easy it is?
The programs the foundation funded were designed to allow individuals from the "external partners" – whether the musicians in the symphony or the business leaders in the commercial club – to help improve student achievement. They were along the lines of mentoring by artists, literacy instruction, professional development for teachers and administrators, and training for parents in everything from computer skills to helping their children with homework to advocating for their children at school.
This last activity – something suburban parents practice with zeal – is also suspect in Kurtz's view: "CAC records show that board member Arnold Weber was concerned that parents 'organized' by community groups might be viewed by school principals 'as a political threat.'" That is typical of Kurtz's essay – relatively innocuous facts cast in the worst possible light. That's appropriate for an opinion piece, perhaps, but hardly grounds for a purportedly factual political ad accusing the group of radicalism.
We could go on and on with evidence that the Chicago Annenberg Challenge was a rather vanilla charitable group. For example, under the deal with Annenberg every dollar from him had to be matched by two from elsewhere. The co-funders were a host of respected, mainstream institutions, such as the National Science Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the W.K. Kellogg Foundation and the Chicago Public Schools.
In short, this was a mainstream foundation funded by a mainstream, Republican business leader and led by an overwhelmingly mainstream, civic-minded group of individuals. Ayers' involvement in its inception and on an advisory committee do not make it radical – nor does the funding of programs involving the United Nations and African-American studies.
This attack is false, but it's more than that – it's malicious. It unfairly tars not just Obama, but all the other prominent, well-respected Chicagoans who also volunteered their time to the foundation. They came from all walks of life and all political backgrounds, and there's ample evidence their mission was nothing more than improving ailing public schools in Chicago. Yet in the heat of a political campaign they have been accused of financing radicalism. That's Pants on Fire wrong.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/us/politics/13martin.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print
The most persistent falsehood about Senator Barack Obama’s background first hit in 2004 just two weeks after the Democratic convention speech that helped set him on the path to his presidential candidacy: “Obama is a Muslim who has concealed his religion.”
That statement, contained in a press release, spun a complex tale about the ancestry of Mr. Obama, who is Christian.
The press release was picked up by a conservative Web site, FreeRepublic.com, and spread steadily as others elaborated on its claims over the years in e-mail messages, Web sites and books. It continues to drive other false rumors about Mr. Obama’s background.
Just last Friday, a woman told Senator John McCain at a town-hall-style meeting, “I have read about him,” and “he’s an Arab.” Mr. McCain corrected her.
Until this month, the man who is widely credited with starting the cyberwhisper campaign that still dogs Mr. Obama was a secondary character in news reports, with deep explorations of his background largely confined to liberal blogs.
But an appearance in a documentary-style program on the Fox News Channel watched by three million people last week thrust the man, Andy Martin, and his past into the foreground. The program allowed Mr. Martin to assert falsely and without challenge that Mr. Obama had once trained to overthrow the government.
An examination of legal documents and election filings, along with interviews with his acquaintances, revealed Mr. Martin, 62, to be a man with a history of scintillating if not always factual claims. He has left a trail of animosity — some of it provoked by anti-Jewish comments — among political leaders, lawyers and judges in three states over more than 30 years.
He is a law school graduate, but his admission to the Illinois bar was blocked in the 1970s after a psychiatric finding of “moderately severe character defect manifested by well-documented ideation with a paranoid flavor and a grandiose character.”
Though he is not a lawyer, Mr. Martin went on to become a prodigious filer of lawsuits, and he made unsuccessful attempts to win public office for both parties in three states, as well as for president at least twice, in 1988 and 2000. Based in Chicago, he now identifies himself as a writer who focuses on his anti-Obama Web site and press releases.
Mr. Martin, in a series of interviews, did not dispute his influence in Obama rumors.
“Everybody uses my research as a takeoff point,” Mr. Martin said, adding, however, that some take his writings “and exaggerate them to suit their own fantasies.”
As for his background, he said: “I’m a colorful person. There’s always somebody who has a legitimate cause in their mind to be angry with me.”
When questions were raised last week about Mr. Martin’s appearance and claims on “Hannity’s America” on Fox News, the program’s producer said Mr. Martin was clearly expressing his opinion and not necessarily fact.
It was not Mr. Martin’s first turn on national television. The CBS News program “48 Hours” in 1993 devoted an hourlong program to what it called his prolific filing of frivolous lawsuits. He has filed so many lawsuits that a judge barred him from doing so in any federal court without preliminary approval.
He prepared to run as a Democrat for Congress in Connecticut, where paperwork for one of his campaign committees listed as one purpose “to exterminate Jew power.” He ran as a Republican for the Florida State Senate and the United States Senate in Illinois. When running for president in 1999, he aired a television advertisement in New Hampshire that accused George W. Bush of using cocaine.
In the 1990s, Mr. Martin was jailed in a case in Florida involving a physical altercation.
His newfound prominence, and the persistence of his line of political attack — updated regularly on his Web site and through press releases — amazes those from his past.
“Well, that’s just a bookend for me,” said Tom Slade, a former chairman of the Florida Republican Party, whom Mr. Martin sued for refusing to support him. Mr. Slade said Mr. Martin was driven like “a run-over dog, but he’s fearless.”
Given Mr. Obama’s unusual background, which was the focus of his first book, it was perhaps bound to become fodder for some opposed to his candidacy.
Mr. Obama was raised mostly by his white mother, an atheist, and his grandparents, who were Protestant, in Hawaii. He hardly knew his father, a Kenyan from a Muslim family who variously considered himself atheist or agnostic, Mr. Obama wrote. For a few childhood years, Mr. Obama lived in Indonesia with a stepfather he described as loosely following a liberal Islam.
Theories about Mr. Obama’s background have taken on a life of their own. But independent analysts seeking the origins of the cyberspace attacks wind up at Mr. Martin’s first press release, posted on the Free Republic Web site in August 2004.
Its general outlines have turned up in a host of works that have expounded falsely on Mr. Obama’s heritage or supposed attempts to conceal it, including “Obama Nation,” the widely discredited best seller about Mr. Obama by Jerome R. Corsi. Mr. Corsi opens the book with a quote from Mr. Martin.
“What he’s generating gets picked up in other places,” said Danielle Allen, a professor at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton University who has investigated the e-mail campaign’s circulation and origins, “and it’s an example of how the Internet has given power to sources we would have never taken seriously at another point in time.”
Ms. Allen said Mr. Martin’s original work found amplification in 2006, when a man named Ted Sampley wrote an article painting Mr. Obama as a secret practitioner of Islam. Quoting liberally from Mr. Martin, the article circulated on the Internet, and its contents eventually found their way into various e-mail messages, particularly an added claim that Mr. Obama had attended “Jakarta’s Muslim Wahhabi schools. Wahhabism is the radical teaching that created the Muslim terrorists who are now waging jihad on the rest of the world.”
Mr. Obama for two years attended a Catholic school in Indonesia, where he was taught about the Bible, he wrote in “Dreams From My Father,” and for two years went to an Indonesian public school open to all religions, where he was taught about the Koran.
Mr. Sampley, coincidentally, is a Vietnam veteran and longtime opponent of Mr. McCain and Senator John Kerry, both of whom he accused of ignoring his claims that American prisoners were left behind in Vietnam. He previously portrayed Mr. McCain as a “Manchurian candidate.” Speaking of Mr. Martin’s influence on his Obama writings, Mr. Sampley said, “I keyed off of his work.”
Mr. Martin’s depictions of Mr. Obama as a secret Muslim have found resonance among some Jewish voters who have received e-mail messages containing various versions of his initial theory, often by new authors and with new twists.
In his original press release, Mr. Martin wrote that he was personally “a strong supporter of the Muslim community.” But, he wrote of Mr. Obama, “it may well be that his concealment is meant to endanger Israel.” He added, “His Muslim religion would obviously raise serious questions in many Jewish circles.”
Yet in various court papers, Mr. Martin had impugned Jews.
A motion he filed in a 1983 bankruptcy case called the judge “a crooked, slimy Jew who has a history of lying and thieving common to members of his race.”
In another motion, filed in 1983, Mr. Martin wrote, “I am able to understand how the Holocaust took place, and with every passing day feel less and less sorry that it did.”
In an interview, Mr. Martin denied some statements against Jews attributed to him in court papers, blaming malicious judges for inserting them.
But in his “48 Hours” interview in 1993, he affirmed a different anti-Semitic part of the affidavit that included the line about the Holocaust, saying, “The record speaks for itself.”
When asked Friday about an assertion in his court papers that “Jews, historically and in daily living, act through clans and in wolf pack syndrome,” he said, “That one sort of rings a bell.”
He said he was not anti-Semitic. “I was trying to show that everybody in the bankruptcy court was Jewish and I was not Jewish,” he said, “and I was being victimized by religious bias.”
In discussing the denial of his admission to the Illinois bar, Mr. Martin said the psychiatric exam listing him as having a “moderately severe personality defect” was spitefully written by an evaluator he had clashed with.
Mr. Martin, who says he is from a well-off banking and farming family, is clearly pleased with his newfound attention. But, he said, others have added to his work in “scary” ways.
“They Google ‘Islam’ and ‘Obama’ and my stuff comes up and they take that and kind of use that — like a Christmas tree, and they decorate it,” he said. For instance, he said, he did not necessarily ascribe to a widely circulated e-mail message from the Israeli right-wing activist Ruth Matar, which includes the false assertion, “If Obama were elected, he would be the first Arab-American president.”
He said he had at least come to “accept” Mr. Obama’s word that he had found Jesus Christ. His intent, he said, was only to educate.
Kitty Bennett contributed reporting.
*I got this information from the listserv*
Looks like the Rethuglicans planted people in ACORN voter registration groups who would do bogus registrations, then turned them in. Then called for an investigation into ACORN. This to dovetail with McCain’s bogus claim that ACORN pressured banks to give home loans to people who were not qualified. But here’s some bottom lines to this story:ACORN has themselves identified to voter registration officials any bogus applications to register that they found. They are required to turn ALL of them in (good or not), but they went to the trouble to help registration officials identify bogus registrations. It’s the registration officials who have to accept or reject the registration application.Ultimately the person who filled out and turned in the bogus registrations has responsibility, not ACORNFinally, this is not about voting, it’s about voter registrations. Vote fraud occurs when someone actually shows up to vote on an improper registration. For the vast majority, no one is going to show up to vote at all using these registrations, because they don’t even KNOW they have been improperly registered (some of them may be dead).The Republicans are just messing with ACORN on this to create an issue where none existed. They also are just adding burden to the voter registrars’ jobs. It’s all about trying to tie Obama to vote fraud – while they conduct ACTUAL vote fraud with their other operatives.Dorchester attorney comes to ACORN’s defenseBy Laura CrimaldiSunday, October 12, 2008 - Added 22h agoAs election officials in eight states launch probes into possible voter registration fraud, a Dorchester attorney is defending the national advocacy group ACORN, accused of submitting thousands of potentially bogus forms.“It’s very frustrating to do all this great work and have 99 percent of our employees, sometimes in inclement weather, standing outside of bus stops and in front of stores to help register people in their community and have their work attacked because one percent steal from us,” said Brian W. Mellor, senior counsel for the Washington-based Project Vote.The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, which partnered with Project Vote in a national voter registration drive, is under fire for voter registration irregularities in Nevada, Indiana, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina and Missouri.Among the phony forms are registrations for the Dallas Cowboys in Nevada, names of the dead and even a fast-food restaurant, Jimmy Johns, handed to elections officials in Lake County, Ind.The Republican National Committee and Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign accuse ACORN of turning in illegitimate registrations to boost Democratic candidate Sen. Barack Obama.Mellor, who has worked for Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America in Jamaica Plain, said ACORN fired canvassers who submitted phony forms and separated potentially bogus forms from legitimate ones when they turned them in to election officials.Harvard L. Lomax, registrar of voters in Clark County, Nev., said in an interview that Mellor warned him there might be irregularities because registration is a “sloppy business.” Nevada authorities raided ACORN offices in Las Vegas last week. “My answer was, ‘It’s only a sloppy business when you guys are around,’ ” said Lomax.ACORN defenders note that the phony registrations do not mean people are voting illicitly since the people listed on them do not exist. Critics say the phony forms needlessly eat up pre-electoral time.Mellor said ACORN’s quality control requires that workers confirm the registration forms in follow-up phone calls. But all registration forms - even suspicious ones - are submitted to election officials. ACORN says it registered 1.3 million voters this year.“Nobody wants new voters. The last thing they want is a lot of low-income people voting because that will shake up their city. That’s why we’re registering,” Mellor said.And this:Exclusive: ACORN Responds to Voter Fraud AllegationsSunday , October 12, 2008This is a rush transcript from "On the Record ," October 10, 2008. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.JAMIE COLBY, FOX NEWS GUEST HOST: And it's not just your money that's at risk tonight. There is breaking news, more breaking news about another thing that is so important to all of us, your vote. For the past few days, we've been reporting about a group called ACORN. Their members hit the streets to register low-income voters. And we can tell you tonight that the organization is currently under investigation for fraud or registration irregularities in at least 13 states. There are also questions that have surfaced about Senator Obama's possible ties to this group.Well, joining us "On the Record" exclusively for his first interview, Scott Levenson is the national spokesperson for ACORN. And Scott, thank you very much for choosing us to talk to about this.First of all, tell me about these investigations into ACORN. Every day, we hear new information about people who can't even remember how many times they were encouraged to actually register by ACORN representatives.SCOTT LEVENSON, ACORN SPOKESMAN: Let's talk about what the real story here is because it's actually a great story. ACORN, along with Project Vote, registered 1.3 million folks over the last year. We saw record numbers of people interested and excited about this election in ways we never saw before. There are poor people and young people who are participating in this election in ways they never participated before. And that's our mission. Our mission is to enfranchise the disenfranchised and empower the disempowered.COLBY: Well, if you're going to sign up...LEVENSON: So we're...COLBY: Real quick...LEVENSON: ... Actually proud of the work we do.COLBY: You have signed up a lot of voters. I'm not sure you can personally answer. But if you can, how many of them are legal voters and have the right to vote? But why just the poor and disenfranchised? Because perhaps that benefits one party or another, one candidate or another. There's lots of wealthy people who are apathetic who might not vote. Why don't you just do a general get-out-the-vote?LEVENSON: Well, in fact, we are nonpartisan. We don't ask somebody their income level. We don't ask somebody who they're voting for. We don't ask somebody what party they belong to when we register them to vote. And you know, we've entered a bit of the silly season in politics. You know, all these stories that have come out over the last week...COLBY: About ACORN -- raids on your offices.LEVENSON: But it's really important to find out what the real story here is because we by law are required to hold onto and turn over every single voter registration form that's filled out.COLBY: And your position is that the elections commissions and boards should be responsible for checking those out. Your job is just...LEVENSON: Well, it's actually -- let me go -- it's really important for the public to understand what's gone on here. We spot proactively by ourselves any questionable voter registration form and proactively notify appropriate authorities at the time that we collect it. We have been turning over registration forms to the authorities in these states weekly...Watch the interview: Go to this site and click on Watch the interview, imbedded in the story.http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,436584,00.htmlOf course, being Faux News, she doesn’t let him completely tell the story before she starts spinning. But you get the gist of it.This is all related to this story below. Looks like the Rethuglicans implanted people in ACORN voter registration groups who would do bogus registrations, then turned them in, calling for an investigation into ACORN. This to dovetail with McCain’s bogus claim that ACORN pressured banks to give home loans to people who were not qualified. That’s in this story.HBOFF] Major UK banks seek $35B funds from government: UK mediaACORN Response to Senator McCain's Smear AdLast update: 4:50 p.m. EDT Oct. 12, 2008WASHINGTON, Oct 12, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ -- ACORN President Maude Hurd released the following statement today in response to the McCain campaign's new ad claiming that, among other things, ACORN is responsible for the mortgage crisis:"For almost a decade, ACORN, a community organization of 400,000 families in neighborhoods across the country, has been fighting against the predatory lending practices that have robbed our members of their homes, destabilized neighborhoods, and roiled the global economy.""In his newest ad, John McCain's campaign bizarrely claims, "ACORN forced banks to issue risky home loans, the same types of loans that caused the financial crisis we're in today." Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, ACORN has worked successfully to help working class families get good home loans on fair terms from legitimate banks and has fought vigorously against predatory lenders who have ripped off families in our communities. These predatory loans caused the crisis.""For more than a decade, ACORN members have held protests, released reports, and advocated for regulations to protect homeowners from predatory lenders. ACORN organizers and volunteers have been working day and night to help victims of the GOP economic meltdown to save their homes from foreclosure. In fact, ACORN has brought class action lawsuits against several predatory lenders, and has lobbied the Federal Reserve and Congress in support of regulations against predatory lending. ACORN has even been successful in convincing many lenders to treat homeowners more fairly and help families be able to make their mortgage payments and save their homes.""Unfortunately, the Bush administration and Congressional Republicans like John McCain have blocked the sensible regulations that ACORN and others proposed that would have averted the mortgage meltdown. If John McCain thinks that community organizers caused the foreclosure crisis, he knows even less about the economy than previously thought.""John McCain and the Republicans are desperately trying to shift the blame for the economic crisis they caused with a philosophy of deregulation and indifference to homeowners. All the grainy footage and creepy music in the world can't cancel out some simple, basic facts, and the facts about the economy are not on John McCain's side."SOURCE Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN)Copyright (C) 2008 PR Newswire. All rights reserved End of Story
Dorchester attorney comes to ACORN’s defensehttp://news.bostonherald.com/news/national/politics/2008/view.bg?articleid=1125026&srvc=home&position=activeACORN Response to Senator McCain's Smear Adhttp://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/acorn-response-senator-mccains-smear/story.aspx?guid={3359B4E7-C95F-4FB6-AA25-43850C78E4EC}&dist=hpprFox NewsACORN Responds to Voter Fraud Allegationshttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,436584,00.html
There has been alot of info floating around about ACORN etc, so I figured I would gather some information that I hope will help.
ACORN is the nation"s largest grassroots community organization of low- and moderate-income people with over 400,000 member families organized into more than 1,200 neighborhood chapters in 110 cities across the country. Since 1970, ACORN has been building community organizations that are committed to social and economic justice, and won victories on thousands of issues of concern to our members, through direct action, negotiation, legislative advocacy and voter participation. ACORN helps those who have historically been locked out become powerful players in our democratic system.
FYI - ACORN is REQUIRED by law to turn in every registration form they receive. They go through them and if they can't verify the person they flag it and let the election officials know. Also, just because they receive a fraudulent registration form doesn't mean it turns into a fraudulent vote. Voter fraud has been investigated and is extremely low. One report shows only 18 cases. This is a tactic used by the G.O.P. to distract voters while they engage in voter caging and voter suppression.
*This article Kind of puts it in perspective*
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rick-hasen/the-purge-surgewhy-the-go_b_133786.html
What explains the Republicans' fixation on ACORN in recent days? From Sen. McCain's campaign manager to GOP luminaries to the McCain campaign's own new web ad, ACORN appears to be target #1 of the GOP campaign against Senator Obama, surpassing even a focus on William Ayers. The claims are that ACORN is engaging in massive voter fraud through its voter registration activities, and -- according to the new web ad -- that the group forced banks to take on risky loans that have led to the country's financial crisis. Though at first glance it may look like this is about tying Senator Obama to a group that has been under investigation for its voter registration activities, the real point appears to be part of a broader Republican strategy to remove likely Democratic voters from the voter rolls and to lay the groundwork to contest the outcome of the presidential election in the event of an extremely close result in a battleground state.
Let's start with the direct Obama connection. The McCain campaign is trying to associate the campaign with ACORN's questionable activities, in the same kind of guilt-by-association claims made about William Ayers and Obama "palling around with terrorists." It is a nice bonus that ACORN has been involved in housing issues as well, as it is a chance to deflect attention from the Bush Administration's handling of economic issues and placing blame on a convenient scapegoat. (Next we will learn that ACORN invented financial derivatives.)
With the polls showing the McCain campaign consistently lagging, it is raising the ACORN issue among others to see if it sticks.
But we should resist the temptation to chalk up this ACORN obsession to just another guilt-by-association campaign tactic. For the last three elections, Republicans have been ramping up cries of voter fraud as a way of undermining the legitimacy of the election results should they not turn out in their favor and providing a reason for strict voting purges that are likely to remove many Democratic voters from the rolls.
We saw the voter fraud call in 2004, when Republicans virtually guaranteed that they would have challenged the presidential election results if John Kerry won and the results turned on the outcome in New Mexico, which Republicans said was rife with voter fraud. (Don't forget that this unsubstantiated concern drove the U.S. attorneys scandal.) We saw it with the activities of the American Center for Voting Rights, a Republican-aligned group that promoted the unsubstantiated claims of impersonation voter fraud in an often-successful effort to enact voter identification laws. We see it now with the reissuance of John Fund's book, Stealing Elections, full of anecdote but virtually no evidence of systematic voter fraud that can lead to a change in the outcome of elections. (The kind of fraud that leads to changes in election outcomes has been with absentee votes, which have mostly been ignored in these efforts.) And just try doing a Google News search for the term "voter fraud." You will see people who believe that foreign money is flooding the Obama campaign, that Obama is not a natural born citizen, and that the election will be stolen through voter fraud.
This is the reason that the ACORN controversy is a godsend to the Republicans. It fits into their meme that the election of Obama would be illegitimate and procured by fraud.
ACORN has been very active in registering voters, especially in big cities and in battleground states. It hires low income workers to do the registration (part of a way of providing additional employment for these workers), and there have been numerous documented cases of ACORN workers turning in fraudulent registration forms. These problems have led to convictions and new investigations -- including a raid earlier this week in Nevada (which, by the way, has a Democratic Secretary of State).
ACORN has claimed that it is a victim of the fraud, not a perpetrator of it. It argues that it can't help it if a small share of its workers are turning in these forms. I find this kind of argument unpersuasive. With these persistent problems, ACORN needs to find a different business model for registering voters, even if it means that fewer voters will be registered and fewer low income people employed in the voter registration business.
But the important point now is that fraudulent registrations put in by ACORN employees are not going to lead to fraud at the polls, and Governor Danforth recently claimed in a conference call with reporters. Why else would ACORN submit phony registration forms if not to game the outcome of the election, he asked. The answer is simply that these employees want to keep their jobs. And it is worse if employees are pressured to meet quotas to turn in a certain number of forms, something ACORN denies it is doing.
So even if Mickey Mouse is registering, he is not showing up on election day to cast ballots, and so far as I am aware, there have been no cases of phony voter registrations leading to the casting of votes in any election that have been on any large scale -- much less affected the outcome of elections. So we should all agree that those who submit fraudulent voter registration forms should be punished criminally, but that such activity is not going to affect the outcome of the presidential election: Obama is running way ahead in the polls, and if he wins in a landslide it is not because Donald Duck has voted thousands of times in key swing states.
But cries of voter fraud allow for harsh purging of voters from the rolls. Because of decentralization of election authority and a lack of administrative competence or will, the rolls are inaccurate in many states. Careless purging--driven by unsubstantiated fears about voter fraud--can lead to many eligible voters being incorrectly removed from the polls. Despite the fact that eligible voters are being removed from the polls, the GOP is pushing for more purging in Ohio, and they found a sympathetic federal judge, citing ACORN's activities, in requiring the Democratic Secretary of State to allow county elections board to purge of many new Ohio voters who do not have an exact match in inaccurate databases.
And if the election comes down to the counting of provisional ballots cast in a state like Colorado, look out. We can expect to see James Baker back on television, this time demanding that the results be changed in McCain's favor because of massive voter fraud. From little ACORNs can come mighty lawsuits.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/11/mccain-palin-first-ever-t_n_133878.html
A HISTORIC TICKET.... Now that Sarah Palin has been found to have abused her powers, violated state ethics, and lied about it, I did a little digging and found an interesting historical footnote.
The McCain/Palin ticket is the first in American history in which both candidates were found to have violated ethics standards before a national election.
McCain, of course, was admonished by Senate Ethics Committee "for exercising 'poor judgment' for intervening" with federal regulators on behalf of Charles Keating, as part of the infamous Keating Five scandal.
And now McCain's running mate has also been found to have violated state ethics laws and abused the powers of her office, as part of the "Troopergate" scandal.
The nation has had 102 major-party tickets covering 51 presidential elections over more than two centuries. And we've never had a ticket in which both candidates on the same ticket were responsible for ethics violations before a national election. McCain/Palin is the first.
It makes the whole "reform" pitch a little more difficult, doesn't it?
I came across this video and it was just the boost I needed, please share with other whom you think might need a boost to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLV-G8nR7nk&feature=related
As the 2008 campaign enters the final sprint toward the November 4th finish line, both campaigns are framing their final arguments to voters. As McCain's poll numbers in key states across the country continue to erode, we've seen his campaign tactics change. They have gone into 100 percent negative attack mode - literally 100 percent as far as I can tell - as that is currently the percentage of their ads that are negative. They are aimed at tearing down Obama personally and betting on the fact that they can raise doubts in enough swing voters minds' in key states like Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, New Hampshire and Colorado that they can tip the electorate over the next couple weeks. They are doing this through "guilt by association" politics. They don't want this final phase of the campaign to be about the economy or the other issues, that much is clear from their own strategists quotes in the press. They want it to be about Obama's relationships with people like William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright.
First, let me say that this is nothing new in politics. For as long as Presidential campaigns have been waged, both sides of always tried to accused their opponents of "sleeping with the enemy" or having connections to people who are not upstanding folks. As I'm sure many of you remember, we spent a lot of time defending Clinton against these types of attacks during the 1992 race. However, John McCain and Sarah Palin are going far further, and far nastier, with this tactic than any campaign in memory.
Our side should not let the McCain campaign drive this debate without pointing out their hypocrisy, and we should hold the traditional media accountable when they cover McCain's wild accusations without exploring any of the associations in McCain and Palin's careers. So I decided to put together a list of people with frightening beliefs and/or criminal backgrounds that McCain and Palin are tied to. My criterion is that I looked for people that are or were in fact closer to McCain or Palin than Ayers. I think we should all push to make the traditional media really dig into these relationships.
12. Pastor John Hagee. You all remember when the Pastor Hagee scandal broke a couple months ago. Since then, McCain has distanced himself from the Pastor, but it's still important to remember this relationship and to note that while Obama has also distanced himself from Rev. Wright, the McCain campaign, along with GOP operatives continue to tie the two to each other and it's expected that Wright's name will make a return to the debate during next week's debate in New York.
In February of 2008, Hagee endorsed McCain's candidacy, calling him a, "man of principle, [who] does not stand boldly on both sides of any issue." For his part, McCain said that he was "very honored by Pastor John Hagee's endorsement." Unfortunately, Hagee has a litany of statements in the public record that are not only troubling, they are downright offensive and radical. ThinkProgress has more on Hagee's past comments. For starters, Hagee once referred to Catholicism as "The Great Whore," and in talking about U.S. foreign policy he said, "The United States must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God's plan for both Israel and the West... a biblically prophesied end-time confrontation with Iran, which will lead to the Rapture, Tribulation, and Second Coming of Christ."
McCain has denounced some of these more radical statements, but the mere fact that he actively sought Hagee's endorsement for a year means that he should be held to account for Hagee's radical views - if Wright remains on the political table, Hagee should be there right next to him.
11. Thomas Muthee. Sarah and Todd Palin have another Pastor problem. His name is Thomas Muthee and he is an evangelist and witchdoctor, who Sarah Palin has credited with helping her to win her governorship in 2006. Hannah Strange from the Times Online has more on the Muthee-Palin relationship.
At a speech at the Wasilla Assembly of God on June 8 this year, Mrs Palin described how Thomas Muthee had laid his hands on her when he visited the church as a guest preacher in late 2005, prior to her successful gubernatorial bid. In video footage of the speech, she is seen saying: "As I was mayor and Pastor Muthee was here and he was praying over me, and you know how he speaks and he's so bold. And he was praying "Lord make a way, Lord make a way.""And I'm thinking, this guy's really bold, he doesn't even know what I'm going to do, he doesn't know what my plans are. And he's praying not "oh Lord if it be your will may she become governor," no, he just prayed for it. He said "Lord make a way and let her do this next step. And that's exactly what happened."
In video footage of the speech, she is seen saying: "As I was mayor and Pastor Muthee was here and he was praying over me, and you know how he speaks and he's so bold. And he was praying "Lord make a way, Lord make a way."
"And I'm thinking, this guy's really bold, he doesn't even know what I'm going to do, he doesn't know what my plans are. And he's praying not "oh Lord if it be your will may she become governor," no, he just prayed for it. He said "Lord make a way and let her do this next step. And that's exactly what happened."
Just like the Wright sermons, there are tons of YouTube clips that highlight this guy's sermons. The Palins' association with this guy really brings into question some serious issues - for example -does she believe that Muthee's spiritual hand helped seal her election in Alaska? Had this guy preached in front of Obama or his congregation, can you imagine what the outrage from the Right would be? Moreover, Muthee has made anti Catholic statements. He was once quoted as saying, "Brazil is occupied by Catholics... but people are being saved anyway!"
10. Mustafa Abu Naba'a. A while back, McCain also had another fundraising scandal involving one of his big bundlers from Florida, who also has close ties to Gov. Charlie Crist. This man is Mustafa Abu Naba'a, who is a dual citizen of Jordan and the Dominican Republic. He was tasked with collecting checks for McCain bundler Harry Sargeant III. His contribution to McCain was returned because the donations were solicited by a foreign national and may have been collected in violation of federal election laws. Matthew Mosk of the Washington Post has more on this fundraising scandal and it's implications - needless to say, this bundler wasn't doing things above-board and the fallout should be scrutinized - this is not the kind of person a presidential campaign or a potential President of the United States wants to have hanging around.
9. Ali Jawad. As the McCain campaign and RNC research team comb through the Obama campaigns donation history looking for ties to foreign donors and those presumably with Arab sounding names trying to draw some connection, it's important to remember that John McCain has had some issues in the recent past receiving donations from shady people that he later had to return.
One of those people was Ali Jawad, a member of McCain's Michigan Finance Committee. Jawad is president of Armada Oil & Gas Company and founder of the Lebanese American Heritage Club. According to Jake Tapper at ABC News:
In this 2002 story, Jawad is quoted saying he "rejects talk that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization that should be shunned by the United States and other governments. 'Killing innocent people -- we reject that,' he said. 'Hezbollah does not fit this category. It has protected its people."
The article goes on to say:
In 1997 he pleaded guilty to misdemeanor insurance fraud. Prosecutors accused him of submitting names of non-employees to Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan to receive health insurance benefits and claims. He received two years of probation and he paid approximately $6,000 in fines and restitution.
8. Oliver North, John Singlaub and U.S. Council for World Freedom. A couple days ago, the Associated Press detailed the relationship between John McCain and The U.S. Council for World Freedom. AP:
The U.S. Council for World Freedom aided rebels trying to overthrow the leftist government of Nicaragua. That landed the group in the middle of the Iran-Contra affair and in legal trouble with the Internal Revenue Service, which revoked the charitable organization's tax exemption. The council created by retired Army Maj. Gen. John Singlaub was the U.S. chapter of the World Anti-Communist League, an international organization linked to former Nazi collaborators and ultra-right-wing death squads in Central America. After setting up the U.S. council, Singlaub served as the international league's chairman.
The council created by retired Army Maj. Gen. John Singlaub was the U.S. chapter of the World Anti-Communist League, an international organization linked to former Nazi collaborators and ultra-right-wing death squads in Central America. After setting up the U.S. council, Singlaub served as the international league's chairman.
What's more?
In two interviews with The Associated Press in August and September, Singlaub said McCain became associated with the organization in the early 1980s as McCain launched his political career. McCain was elected to the U.S. House in 1982.
Launched his political career? Sound familiar?
The Council was notorious for its affiliation with white supremacists, etc. Also, remember that Oliver North played a large role during the Iran-Contra and was convicted in 1989 of shredding documents, accepting an illegal gratuity, and aiding and abetting in the obstruction of Congress. On February 12, 2008, the McCain campaign circulated a column that North wrote in the Washington Times touting, "extolling the senator's virtues, under the heading "In Case You Missed It: Oliver North on John McCain."
Sam Stein at the Huffington Post has a great piece about McCain's connections with the U.S. Council for World Freedom. You can read it here.
7. Charles Keating. For many younger voters, the name Charles Keating might not have meant anything until early this week. However, for those of us who have been around for a while and have been deeply involved in politics, the Keating Five Scandal is still very much in our memories. This week, the Obama campaign hit McCain hard on the Keating issue - producing a 13-minute documentary on the scandal and tying McCain's actions back then to the crisis we face today in our economy. They hit him on judgment and they want to re-introduce Charles Keating to the American people, and rightly so. Keating was a close friend of the McCain's. McCain and his family vacationed with Keating, on Keating's buck and the favors that McCain helped to curry for Keating during the 1980's helped to bring about the fall of the Savings and Loan industry, one of the largest economic calamities of the 20th century. Just this past week, ThinkProgress dug up a letter correspondence between McCain and Keating - which punctuates their friendship and loyalty.
The Washington Times reports that in 1986, John McCain wrote a note on House stationery to Charles Keating, chairman of a failed savings and loan association who went to prison in the late 1980s. In the letter, McCain apologized for listing Keating as part of his Senate campaign finance committee. Keating wrote in response: "You can call me anything, write anything or do anything. I'm yours till death do us part."
If public service is about watching who you keep as company, then Charles Keating is still very much on the table. For years since the scandal, McCain has written and talked about how the Keating Five Scandal changed his life and how he would be forever transformed by the incident. However, in a conference call with reporters last week, John Dowd, the lawyer who represented McCain during the Senate Ethics Committee investigation spoke of the investigation as a "classic political smear job" and professed that "John had not done anything wrong." This alone re-opens the entire incident and the press should now be asking John McCain if he too believes the investigation was a "smear job" and that he had "done nothing wrong." Keating is a classic example of the company you keep coming back to haunt you.
6. G. Gordon Liddy. Liddy has been a name in national politics for many years. However, many piece of his biography have been forgotten. If a candidate for President of the United States is presumed guilty for the company that he keeps, then McCain's relationship, both financial and personal, with G. Gordon Liddy is very troublesome. Oliver Willis has more in a recent Media Matters report that lays out this relationship:
As Media Matters for America has noted, Liddy served four and a half years in prison in connection with his conviction for his role in the Watergate break-in and the break-in at the office of the psychiatrist of Daniel Ellsberg, the military analyst who leaked the Pentagon Papers. Liddy has acknowledged preparing to kill someone during the Ellsberg break-in "if necessary"; plotting to murder journalist Jack Anderson; plotting with a "gangland figure" to murder Howard Hunt to stop him from cooperating with investigators; plotting to firebomb the Brookings Institution; and plotting to kidnap "leftist guerillas" at the 1972 Republican National Convention -- a plan he outlined to the Nixon administration using terminology borrowed from the Nazis. (The murder, firebombing, and kidnapping plots were never carried out; the break-ins were.) During the 1990s, Liddy reportedly instructed his radio audience on multiple occasions on how to shoot Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms agents and also reportedly said he had named his shooting targets after Bill and Hillary Clinton. Liddy has donated $5,000 to McCain's campaigns since 1998, including $1,000 in February 2008. In addition, McCain has appeared on Liddy's radio show during the presidential campaign, including as recently as May. An online video labeled "John McCain On The G. Gordon Liddy Show 11/8/07? includes a discussion between Liddy and McCain, whom Liddy described as an "old friend." During the segment, McCain praised Liddy's "adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great," said he was "proud" of Liddy, and said that "it's always a pleasure for me to come on your program."
Liddy has donated $5,000 to McCain's campaigns since 1998, including $1,000 in February 2008. In addition, McCain has appeared on Liddy's radio show during the presidential campaign, including as recently as May. An online video labeled "John McCain On The G. Gordon Liddy Show 11/8/07? includes a discussion between Liddy and McCain, whom Liddy described as an "old friend." During the segment, McCain praised Liddy's "adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great," said he was "proud" of Liddy, and said that "it's always a pleasure for me to come on your program."
5. Kemper Marley. Kemper Marley was a wealthy liquor distributor and Arizona rancher who had close ties to the Hensley family, namely Cindy McCain's father. He was long suspected of being involved in the bombing and murder of Don Bolles, an investigative reporter for The Arizona Republic who specialized in crime reporting. According to Marley's 1990 obituary in the New York Times, "John Harvey Adamson, the only person whose conviction in the slaying has been upheld, said in court documents that he had been hired by Max Dunlap, a wealthy contractor who had been reared by Mr. Marley, to kill Mr. Bolles for writing articles damaging to Mr. Marley."
A Phoenix-area newspaper did a story during McCain's 2000 Presidential bid about the Hensley family history and their associations with shady characters. According to the Phoenix News Times, "The Hensley saga, meanwhile, swirls with bygone accounts of illicit booze, gambling, horse racing, deceit and crime. James Hensley embarked on his road to riches as a bootlegger."Kemper's money, along with the Hensley family, helped John McCain get where he is today. It's important that questions are asked about McCain's knowledge of Kemper Marley and what involvement and impact he had on McCain's early political career.
4. Don Diamond. Then, there is Don Diamond. In April, 2008, the New York Times did a detailed story on Diamond's relationship with McCain and the favors that McCain curried for Diamond, who wanted to develop land in California on the site of a closed Army base.. In their lede, they write, "For Mr. McCain, the Arizona Republican who has staked two presidential campaigns on pledges to avoid even the appearance of dispensing an official favor for a donor, Mr. Diamond is the kind of friend who can pose a test."
Here's more from the Times:
Donald R. Diamond, a wealthy Arizona real estate developer, was racing to snap up a stretch of virgin California coast freed by the closing of an Army base a decade ago when he turned to an old friend, Senator John McCain. When Mr. Diamond wanted to buy land at the base, Fort Ord, Mr. McCain assigned an aide who set up a meeting at the Pentagon and later stepped in again to help speed up the sale, according to people involved and a deposition Mr. Diamond gave for a related lawsuit. When he appealed to a nearby city for the right to develop other property at the former base, Mr. Diamond submitted Mr. McCain's endorsement as "a close personal friend." Writing to officials in the city, Seaside, Calif., the senator said, "You will find him as honorable and committed as I have." Courting local officials and potential partners, Mr. Diamond's team promised that he could "help get through some of the red tape in dealing with the Department of the Army" because Mr. Diamond "has been very active with Senator McCain," a partner said in a deposition.A longtime political patron, Mr. Diamond is one of the elite fund-raisers Mr. McCain's current presidential campaign calls Innovators, having raised more than $250,000 so far. At home, Mr. Diamond is sometimes referred to as "The Donald," Arizona's answer to Donald Trump -- an outsized personality who invites public officials aboard his flotilla of yachts (the Ace, King, Jack and Queen of Diamonds), specializes in deals with the government, and unabashedly solicits support for his business interests from the recipients of his campaign contributions.
When Mr. Diamond wanted to buy land at the base, Fort Ord, Mr. McCain assigned an aide who set up a meeting at the Pentagon and later stepped in again to help speed up the sale, according to people involved and a deposition Mr. Diamond gave for a related lawsuit. When he appealed to a nearby city for the right to develop other property at the former base, Mr. Diamond submitted Mr. McCain's endorsement as "a close personal friend."
Writing to officials in the city, Seaside, Calif., the senator said, "You will find him as honorable and committed as I have."
Courting local officials and potential partners, Mr. Diamond's team promised that he could "help get through some of the red tape in dealing with the Department of the Army" because Mr. Diamond "has been very active with Senator McCain," a partner said in a deposition.
A longtime political patron, Mr. Diamond is one of the elite fund-raisers Mr. McCain's current presidential campaign calls Innovators, having raised more than $250,000 so far. At home, Mr. Diamond is sometimes referred to as "The Donald," Arizona's answer to Donald Trump -- an outsized personality who invites public officials aboard his flotilla of yachts (the Ace, King, Jack and Queen of Diamonds), specializes in deals with the government, and unabashedly solicits support for his business interests from the recipients of his campaign contributions.
3. Marylin Shannon. Over the past couple days you've heard the line about Obama "palling around with terrorists" come out of Sarah Palin's mouth on numerous occasions and with relative ease. Well, it's important to note that John McCain's friend, Marilyn Shannon, a Republican official from Oregon, once praised a woman who was convicted of attempted murder in the shooting of an abortion clinic doctor. According to Raw Story:
McCain and Shannon appeared together at a fundraiser for the Oregon Citizens Alliance in 1993, a gathering of Christian right extremists that even fellow Republicans advised McCain not to attend because the group was so far outside the mainstream. Speaking before McCain, Shannon offered some kind words for Shelley Shannon, who was accused and later convicted of shooting an abortion doctor: "I'm not related to Shelly Shannon, but I think she's a fine lady," the vice chairwoman of the state Republican Party said. McCain apparently said nothing to contradict that judgment, and less than three months later he voted against a bill that would make abortion clinic bombings a federal crime.Author and journalist Frederick Clarkson has written extensively about the Army of God, the radical Christian organization that trained Shelley Shannon and others like her to bomb abortion clinics and attack abortion providers. He provides some more details on Shannon. She was eventually convicted of the attempted murder of a Wichita, Kan., doctor and of committing a spree of abortion clinic arsons across the west.
Speaking before McCain, Shannon offered some kind words for Shelley Shannon, who was accused and later convicted of shooting an abortion doctor: "I'm not related to Shelly Shannon, but I think she's a fine lady," the vice chairwoman of the state Republican Party said. McCain apparently said nothing to contradict that judgment, and less than three months later he voted against a bill that would make abortion clinic bombings a federal crime.
Author and journalist Frederick Clarkson has written extensively about the Army of God, the radical Christian organization that trained Shelley Shannon and others like her to bomb abortion clinics and attack abortion providers. He provides some more details on Shannon. She was eventually convicted of the attempted murder of a Wichita, Kan., doctor and of committing a spree of abortion clinic arsons across the west.
Keep in mind that Shannon was a delegate for McCain to this year's Republican National Convention in Saint Paul. The McCain campaign showed no oversight in allowing her to attend. Moreover, as ThinkProgress points out - when asked by the CBS Early Show to respond to an article where accusations were made that McCain had palled around with someone who held these radical and dangerous views, McCain-Palin campaign spokesperson Nancy Pfotenhauer said, "The article also concluded is that if Senator McCain had hung out with somebody who had bombed abortion clinics, no one would consider [raising the issue] illegitimate.
So, what Pfotenhauer is saying is that this issue is legitimate and that McCain should have to respond. Let's see if he does.
2. Alaska Independence Party - Joe Vogler, Mark Chryson and Steve Stoll. As the GOP continues to parse and amplify the words of Jeremiah Wright, mind you, not his words on peace and spiritual matters, but rather the passages where he was critical of America on racial and foreign policy issues, it's important that we make sure Americans know about Joe Vogler, the founder of AIP. In some cases, his words are nearly identical to Rev. Wright's, and in many cases they are worse. Vogler has been quoted as saying, "the fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government" and "I won't be buried under their damn flag..."I'll be buried in Dawson. And when Alaska is an independent nation they can bring my bones home." Vogler even went so far as to renounce his allegiance to the United States, which is far more extreme than anything that came out of Rev. Wright's mouth. In the course of denouncing Federal regulation over land, he said, "And then you get mad. And you say, the hell with them. And you renounce allegiance, and you pledge your efforts, your effects, your honor, your life to Alaska." TPM has a great piece with all of these quotes, along with audio of Vogler's interview.
There's also Mark Chryson and Steve Stoll, both AIP members and close political associates of Sarah Palin. Here's Salon's write-up on these two and their association with Palin's run for Mayor of Wasilla.
Though Chryson belongs to a fringe political party, one that advocates the secession of Alaska from the Union, and that organizes with other like-minded secessionist movements from Canada to the Deep South, he is not without peculiar influence in state politics, especially the rise of Sarah Palin. An obscure figure outside of Alaska, Chryson has been a political fixture in the hometown of the Republican vice-presidential nominee for over a decade. During the 1990s, when Chryson directed the AIP, he and another radical right-winger, Steve Stoll, played a quiet but pivotal role in electing Palin as mayor of Wasilla and shaping her political agenda afterward. Both Stoll and Chryson not only contributed to Palin's campaign financially, they played major behind-the-scenes roles in the Palin camp before, during and after her victory. Palin backed Chryson as he successfully advanced a host of anti-tax, pro-gun initiatives, including one that altered the state Constitution's language to better facilitate the formation of anti-government militias. She joined in their vendetta against several local officials they disliked, and listened to their advice about hiring.
The Salon piece that I quote from above has some really ripe, detailed information on the AIP, as well as its more shady members. Palin has not renounced these men or to the best of my knowledge, even addressed their associations with them.
1. Todd Palin. The "first dude" has gotten pretty much a free ride from the traditional press over the past six weeks. He's done a couple softball interviews on FOX News and has pretty much sat in the background as his wife has been introduced on the national stage. Not much attention has been paid to the fact that Todd Palin was a member, for eight years, of the Alaska Independence Party, a radical group that advocates for Alaskan secession from the United States of America and is linked with radical secessionist groups, militias, and white supremacists groups from all over the country. We don't know the full extent of Todd Palin's beliefs when it comes to AIP and their radical views, but the problem is - no one is really asking. As Ambinder puts it in a post he did on October 4:
Todd Palin, a former member of the Alaska Independence Party, might well have seen America unlike his wife did -- that is, an America that one can secede from. He was comfortable belonging to and being associated with a political party whose founder seemed to delight in denouncing the principles that hold our union together.
If there is even a remote chance that this guy is going to be living in the Vice President's house or White House for the next 4 or 8 years, we deserve to know the truth about his radical views of America, especially given how much Gov. Palin has clearly relied on him for policy-making help while Governor of Alaska.
Over John McCain's long political career, he has made many "friends." It's evident in the short time that the country has known Sarah and Todd Palin that they also had a bunch of friends - all who should be causing trouble for them in the closing weeks of this campaign. If the McCain-Palin ticket wants to constantly remind voters about Obama's "friends," it's imperative that we do the same.
I offer this list to reporters, bloggers and muckrakers of all kinds. To be fair in this campaign, if we're going to be hearing a lot about Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright, we should be hearing about all of these people as well. In fact, all of them are far closer to McCain or Palin than Ayers ever was to Obama. And while Obama has denounced the actions of Ayers and the words or Wright, most of the people on this list have never been denounced by John McCain or Sarah Palin. As McCain and company go more and more negative and trumpet Obama's past associations, it's important that we push these stories and make sure the American people know that this "guilt by associations" politics cuts both ways.
The Video pretty much says it all:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eniG9l_7its
Make this Video go Viral...share fare and wide
McCain Sat on Board of Radical
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/06/why-mccains-time-with-cou_n_132470.html
Since Sunday, Democrats have been buzzing about the re-revelation that during the 1980s, Sen. John McCain served on the board of a far-right conservative organization that had supplied arms and funds to paramilitary organizations in Latin America.
Democratic strategist Paul Begala lit the fire when, during an appearance on Meet the Press, he warned that this relatively obscure detail from McCain's past could draw him into a guilt-by-association game he was bound to regret.
"John McCain sat on the board of...the U.S. Council for World Freedom," said Begala, "The Anti-Defamation League, in 1981 when McCain was on the board, said this about this organization. It was affiliated with the World Anti-Communist League - the parent organization - which ADL said 'has increasingly become a gathering place, a forum, a point of contact for extremists, racists and anti-Semites.'"
But McCain's involvement in the U.S. Council for World Freedom, which extended from 1981 through, possibly, 1986 is significant -- not merely because it ties him to unsavory characters but because it firmly associates him with a foreign policy that was, at the time and still, controversial.
"I didn't know that [McCain had] served on the board," said Shannon O'NeilDouglas Dillon Fellow for Latin American Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. "It is a little bit surprising to me. But all of those organizations did come from the Republican side mostly. Often the people were tied to the military and they saw the world in black and white terms... My impression is [McCain] still sees the world in back and white."
The USCWF was founded in Phoenix, Arizona in November 1981 as an offshoot of the World Anti-Communist League. The group was, from the onset, saddled with the disreputable reputation of its parent group. The WACL had ties to ultra-right figures and Latin American death squads. Roger Pearson, the chairman of the WACL, was expelled from the group in 1980 under allegations that he was a member of a neo-Nazi organization.
The U.S. Council of World Freedom claimed to be cleansed of these elements. The group's director, retired Major General John Singlaub, said he had purged some of the more "kooky" members, including a Mexican chapter that "blamed everything on the Jews," and "even accused Pope John Paul of being a Jew." The Anti-Defamation League, once critical, applauded Singlaub for his efforts. Moreover, the USCWF was granted a sense of political legitimacy when President Ronald Reagan addressed the group in September 1984.
But the group's secret activities were still controversial. It claimed to support "pro-Democratic resistance movements fighting communist totalitarianism." And during the 1980s it became a vehicle for the Reagan administration to prop up some of the more totalitarian, anti-communist efforts in Central America.
According to a March 1989 Washington Post article, the USCWF coordinated funding efforts with sources in Taiwan and South Korea to help contras in Nicaragua purchase some $5 million worth of arms. The group was charged with operating a plane that was shot down while flying supplies to these very same rebels. The council, according to a 1986 New York Times report, "provided $10 million to $25 million in cash and 'in-kind' aid: four to eight small aircraft (''non gun-mounted'') to the contras, boots to rebels fighting Soviet troops in Afghanistan, $20,000 in medicines to Cambodian resistance forces, and help for groups in Mozambique, Ethiopia and other countries." Singlaub and the council also reportedly provided Neo Hom and other factions of the Lao resistance with aid in the form of clothing and medicine - aid that the group subsequently turned into a scheme to raise fund from refugees.
The McCain campaign, in a statement to Politico, defended the efforts of the council. Brian Rogers, a spokesman, said that the Senator "disassociated himself" from the group "when questions were raised about its activities, but that in no way diminishes his leadership role in ensuring that the forces of democracy and freedom prevailed in Central America."
But Singlaub "does not recall any McCain resignation in 1984 or May 1986," the Associated Press reported early Tuesday, "nor does Joyce Downey, who oversaw the group's day-to-day activities."
Moreover, while the goal of confronting communism may be politically defensible, the methods that the group pursued elicited heavy complaint. In January 1987, Sen. Patrick Leahy criticized Singlaub and, by extension, the Reagan administration, for directly circumventing the will of Congress, which had cut off funds to paramilitary organizations like the contras.
'The open courting of General Singlaub and his groups," said Leahy, "I've never seen anything like it. The active fund-raising among wealthy people to back these programs - I think it's unprecedented... There seems to be more and more of a feeling that, 'Gee, we really want to do something to help the contras, but don't tell me what you're doing because I'm not supposed to know.'"
The funders of the U.S World Council of Freedom read like a who's who list of prominent conservative figures. Joe Coors, the Republican Beer baron was reportedly a big donor. Time Magazine wrote that the Christian Broadcasting Network was a backer as well. The Washington Times newspaper, owned by the controversial Reverend Sun Myung Moon, started a fundraising drive of its own. And Moon himself had numerous ties to Singlaub.
Through it all, McCain was a member. As reported by Politico, the council formally approached him during his run for elected office in 1982 and McCain, then a member of the House of Representatives, agreed to join, citing years later the organization's commitment to a freedom agenda. "They've got some good people involved," he said. Aides to his campaign said he resigned from the board of directors in 1984. But in 1985, McCain attended the group's "Freedom Fighter of the Year" award ceremony in Washington. And as late as July 1986, the organization's communications firm sent a letter with McCain's name on it regarding Singlaub's appearance at a conference "of nearly 40 countries... taking part in an annual observance to commemorate efforts on behalf of freedom throughout the world."
By then, the council's activities were becoming well known. In a 60 Minutes segment aired in '86, Singlaub was described as the President's "secret weapon to sidestep a Congress that will not permit him to act in the areas where he believes that our security interests are at stake." He did not contest the description.There is no reporting to suggest that McCain was directly involved in any of the USCWF's operational decisions. Begala, in his appearance on Meet The Press, actually took time to exonerate the Senator from any charge that he was associated with the organization's early anti-Semitic fringe membership. "Now, that's not John McCain," he said, "I don't think he is that."
But McCain's association with a group that reportedly circumvented law, financed right-wing military institutions, and engaged in sometimes brutal anti-communist tactics, could be telling for some voters. At the very least his time on the board of the U.S. Council of World Freedom provides a window of sorts into the foreign policy vision that he held back in the 1980s and one that he still seemingly holds today.
"Remember this happened during a time when you were either with us or against us," said Council on Foreign Relation's O'Neil. "Somewhat like the mindset," that we have seen with the Bush administration.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122315505846605217.html
John McCain would pay for his health plan with major reductions to Medicare and Medicaid, a top aide said, in a move that independent analysts estimate could result in cuts of $1.3 trillion over 10 years to the government programs.
The Republican presidential nominee has said little about the proposed cuts, but they are needed to keep his health-care plan "budget neutral," as he has promised. The McCain campaign hasn't given a specific figure for the cuts, but didn't dispute the analysts' estimate.
John McCain arrives at a town-hall meeting Friday at Colorado State University.
In the months since Sen. McCain introduced his health plan, statements made by his campaign have implied that the new tax credits he is proposing to help Americans buy health insurance would be paid for with other tax increases.
But Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Sen. McCain's senior policy adviser, said Sunday that the campaign has always planned to fund the tax credits, in part, with savings from Medicare and Medicaid. Those government health-care programs serve seniors, poor families and the disabled. Medicare spending for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30 is estimated at $457.5 billion.
Mr. Holtz-Eakin said the Medicare and Medicaid changes would improve the programs and eliminate fraud, but he didn't detail where the cuts would come from. "It's about giving them the benefit package that has been promised to them by law at lower cost," he said.
Both Sen. McCain and his Democratic rival, Sen. Barack Obama, have recently sought to refocus on health care. The issue once ranked at the top of voters' domestic concerns, but has in recent months been eclipsed by energy and the economy.
Sen. McCain charges that the Obama plan, which would create a government-run marketplace in which people could buy coverage, would lead to government-run health care. Sen. Obama charges that Sen. McCain's plan would leave many people unable to get insurance.
Sen. Obama's campaign turned up the volume in a major push on health care over the weekend with two days of attacks from the stump, four new television advertisements, a series of health-care events across the country and fliers to voters' homes in swing states.
Sen. Obama is focused on Sen. McCain's plan to offer a new tax credit of $2,500 per person and $5,000 per family toward insurance premiums. This would allow people to buy health coverage on the open market, where they may have more choices and might look for a better bargain.
In exchange, the government would begin taxing the value of health benefits people get through work. If an employer spends $10,000 to buy a worker health insurance, the worker would pay taxes on that money.
"It's a shell game," Sen. Obama told an outdoor rally of 28,000 people Sunday in Asheville, N.C. "Sen. McCain gives you a tax credit with one hand -- but raises your taxes with the other."
Sen. McCain's plan actually would lower taxes for most people. But that means the plan wouldn't pay for itself, because it cuts certain taxes more than it raises others.
The federal government imposes two taxes on wages, generally: an income tax, which funds the government's general operations, and the payroll tax, paid for by employers and employees, which funds Social Security and Medicare. If Sen. McCain were to apply both of these to the value of health benefits, he could fully pay for his new tax credits. That is what aides have in the past suggested he would do.
In April, when Sen. McCain gave a major speech about his health plan, Mr. Holtz-Eakin, the senior policy adviser, said the tax provisions alone were budget neutral -- meaning that health benefits would have to be subject to both income and payroll taxes.
Campaign officials have regularly implied since then that the tax plan was a wash. In the vice-presidential debate last week, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin described Sen. McCain's proposed tax credits and said: "That's budget neutral. That doesn't cost the government anything, as opposed to Barack Obama's plan to mandate health-care coverage and have this universal, government-run program."
Mr. Holtz-Eakin said the campaign never intended to apply the payroll tax to health benefits. That means that most people would see a net tax cut, contrary to Sen. Obama's assertions. Only those with very rich benefits packages are likely to see a net increase in taxes. But it also means that Sen. McCain must fill a huge budget hole -- which the campaign says will come from cuts to Medicare and Medicaid.
The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank, estimates that the McCain plan would cost the government $1.3 trillion over 10 years. The plan would allow as many as five million more people to have insurance, it estimates.
Mr. Holtz-Eakin said the plan is accurately described as budget neutral because it assumes enough savings in Medicare and Medicaid spending to make up the difference. He said the savings would come from eliminating Medicare fraud and by reforming payment policies to lower the overall cost of care. He said the new tax credits will help some low-income people avoid joining Medicaid. The campaign also proposes increasing Medicare premiums for wealthier seniors.
Sen. Obama also would rely on some Medicare savings to pay for his health-care plan, which would offer subsidies to help consumers pay for premiums. The Tax Policy Center estimates that his plan would cost $1.6 trillion over 10 years and cover 34 million more people.
Write to Laura Meckler at laura.meckler@wsj.com
**Put into perspective**
Those of us who analyze health policy and trends for a living have struggled to follow John McCain's health plan through its many seemingly-improvised changes. First he was taxing health benefits through both payroll and income tax. Then he said he only intended to apply income tax, which meant that his plan would create even larger deficits. Now he says there won't be deficits, because he's going to make up the cost of those tax credits by slashing Medicare and Medicaid.
When a candidate suddenly, almost whimsically changes the way he proposes to handle $1.3 trillion - which is the amount of money his plan puts in play over the next ten years - it's time to get nervous.
We already knew the McCain plan was going to cost most Americans money (in at least three different ways.) Now we know it could jeopardize their medical care when they get older, too. The end result of this off-the-cuff planning could change the way Americans receive, or don't receive, medical care in this country.
Even though the Washington Post gave Joe Biden "two pinocchios" for his remarks about the McCain health plan, a careful reading of even their critique shows that Biden told the real story. Middle-class wage earners could save something in the first year, but that amount would dwindle over time and eventually become a deficit. And the number of uninsured would actually increase over the long term, according to unbiased studies.
McCain's campaign is now saying that he has given up on the idea of taxing payroll taxes for health benefits, or that it was never intended in the first place. Yet the distinction was not drawn for quite some time, making it appear like a relatively last-minute tweak. Some lobbying may have been involved, too, since this change also insures that corporations won't have to pay a portion of McCain's tax increases. (Companies have payroll tax obligations, too).
With this change, conservative estimates now place the initial number of people losing employer benefits at twenty million. These twenty million people will have $5,000 in credits to buy $12,000 worth of coverage. And that $12,000 figure could rise rapidly without the bulk-buying power and employee satisfaction concerns of employers. (Yes, they do have them.)
McCain is also proposing to dismantle a number of the state rules governing insurance. The way carriers set rates, their ability to deny care, and other practices might be stripped of current consumer protections in many parts of the country. That $12,000 figure could skyrocket as these rules are lifted and as more coverage is transferred to from group to individual policies. (Individual rates tend to be lower now because enrollees tend to be younger and healthier. That will change, perhaps drastically, as the rest of us move in and other factors take over.)
It's important that Americans understand the implications of these changes. We should continue to discuss the uninsured, but it's also important to consider the underinsured - which now includes most of us to some extent. Insurers are covering less and less of the cost of care for those of who have coverage. As a result, personal medical indebtedness is increasing, even as credit is getting harder and costlier to obtain.
So we're talking about at least three kinds of health "tax increases" (more accurately described as increased personal cost) under the McCain plan: a "slow bleed" for people who retain coverage as the tax credit falls behind inflation, a $,7000-plus spike for people who lose their coverage immediately, and an increase in out-of-pocket costs (and denials, etc.) for people who still have insurance. What do we get in return? According to that neutral study, three million uninsured would gain coverage - briefly. After five years the number of uncovered would go up.
About this new Medicare/Medicaid wrinkle: Now that he's dropped the payroll tax idea, estimates show that McCain's plan would cost $1.3 trillion over the next ten years. But today, as Jonathan Cohn reports, he decided to zig instead of zag. He says he's going to make his plan revenue-neutral by cutting Medicare and Medicaid to make up the difference.
Specifically, McCain's campaign says " the savings would come from eliminating Medicare fraud and by reforming payment policies to lower the overall cost of care." Yet I know of no credible studies saying there is that kind of savings to be found in Medicare. By "reforming payment policies," they mean paying doctors and hospitals less. That means less treatment, less access to care, and a variety of other drastic problems for the one program we'll all join (if we're lucky enough to live that long.) There will also be severe repercussions in the health economy, too complex to go into here.
That means there's now a fourth way that McCain's plan will increase your out-of-pocket healthcare costs. When you cut Medicare and Medicaid payments to doctors and hospitals, they charge private payers more to help make up the difference. That means insurance will cost even more as a result - but that $5,000 won't be increased to cover the difference.
The McCain people also say their new credit will help prevent some low-income people from joining Medicare, further reducing costs. But how many low income people can make up the difference between the tax credit and the real cost - $7,000 and rising fast?
The conclusion seems impossible to avoid: McCain's health care ideas are risky, unstable, and poorly thought out. They could result in a 'healthcare meltdown' that Americans can ill afford. You don't want the surgeon who's operating on you to "wing it." The same is true for the President who can determine whether you can afford that surgery in the first place.
I've gathered some information that should help us fight back the smears and the lies. I agree that Obama needs to stay above the fray and keep the message on the economy. It's surrogates and supporters like us who have to fight back. We have come to far and worked to hard canvassing, phone calling, registering voters, convincing and informing undecideds, etc. for it to all go the way side like Kerry in 2004. We cannot afford another 4 years of the last eight. time is drawing close and we need this win. Fight back with truth. mccain and palin have allot of political skeletons that need to be forced out of the MSM closet. I've gathered some info, if you have more please share.
CNN truth report On Obama and Ayers:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMRON2GPXUA
Obama gives the go ahead to surrogates, to bring up Keating five and other associations:http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/10/5/19317/4480/333/621072
The Obama campaign already has an ad related to it - make it viral
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHW-RO1_WN0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsI_0bV2CZo
Also bring Up Mccains lobbyist:http://www.mccainslobbyist.com
Donald Diamond:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/04/23/it-goes-well-beyond-the-keating-five/
Richard Quinn:
http://politicalconsultantmisconduct.blogspot.com/2008/01/richard-quinn-associates-employee-of.html George Gordon Liddy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6F3biK1Mb0&feature=related
Mccain Voted to protect Domestic Terrorist
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/06/mccain-abotion-bombers/
Lets also include the GOP's newest talent, Palin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xmt0rLtgmK0
With all the re talk about a faux deep connrction to Ayers why has Mccains connection been kept under wraps?
Why is the NY Times continuing to ignore McCain's "own Bill Ayers"?
Summary: On October 4, The New York Times published a front-page article about Sen. Barack Obama's association with William Ayers -- at least the 18th Times article this year mentioning that association. But the Times has yet to mention Sen. John McCain's relationship with G. Gordon Liddy. The October 4 article quoted Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman denouncing Obama's association with Ayers but did not note that Chapman has described Liddy as McCain's "own Bill Ayers" and written that "[i]f Obama needs to answer questions about Ayers, McCain has the same obligation regarding Liddy."
On October 4, The New York Times published a 2,140-word front-page article about Sen. Barack Obama's association with former Weather Underground member William Ayers -- at least the 18th Times article this year mentioning that association. But the Times has yet to mention, let alone devote an entire article to, Sen. John McCain's relationship with radio host and convicted Watergate burglar G. Gordon Liddy. Indeed, in its October 4 article, the Times quoted Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman denouncing Obama's association with Ayers but did not note that Chapman has described Liddy as McCain's "own Bill Ayers" and has written that "[i]f Obama needs to answer questions about Ayers, McCain has the same obligation regarding Liddy." The Times, moreover, quoted McCain criticizing Obama for his association with Ayers without noting that Chapman has faulted McCain for what Chapman described as McCain's "howling hypocrisy on the subject."
As Media Matters for America has noted, Liddy served four and a half years in prison in connection with his conviction for his role in the Watergate break-in and the break-in at the office of the psychiatrist of Daniel Ellsberg, the military analyst who leaked the Pentagon Papers. Liddy has acknowledged preparing to kill someone during the Ellsberg break-in "if necessary"; plotting to murder journalist Jack Anderson; plotting with a "gangland figure" to murder Howard Hunt to stop him from cooperating with investigators; plotting to firebomb the Brookings Institution; and plotting to kidnap "leftist guerillas" at the 1972 Republican National Convention -- a plan he outlined to the Nixon administration using terminology borrowed from the Nazis. (The murder, firebombing, and kidnapping plots were never carried out; the break-ins were.) During the 1990s, Liddy reportedly instructed his radio audience on multiple occasions on how to shoot Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms agents and also reportedly said he had named his shooting targets after Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Liddy has donated $5,000 to McCain's campaigns since 1998, including $1,000 in February 2008. In addition, McCain has appeared on Liddy's radio show during the presidential campaign, including as recently as May. An online video labeled "John McCain On The G. Gordon Liddy Show 11/8/07" includes a discussion between Liddy and McCain, whom Liddy described as an "old friend." During the segment, McCain praised Liddy's "adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great," said he was "proud" of Liddy, and said that "it's always a pleasure for me to come on your program."
Additionally, in 1998, Liddy reportedly held a fundraiser at his home for McCain. Liddy was reportedly scheduled to speak at another fundraiser for McCain in 2000. The Charlotte Observer reported on January 23, 2000, that McCain's campaign vouched for Liddy's "character":
His [McCain's] campaign officials said Liddy's character will appeal to many voters because he was following orders from President Nixon and kept silent afterward."His (Liddy's) judgment might be in question, but I don't think his character is," said Ed Walker, the York County chairman of McCain's campaign. "He was following orders just like any good soldier, and he didn't tell on anybody. He felt like he was on a mission and kept his silence."
His [McCain's] campaign officials said Liddy's character will appeal to many voters because he was following orders from President Nixon and kept silent afterward.
"His (Liddy's) judgment might be in question, but I don't think his character is," said Ed Walker, the York County chairman of McCain's campaign. "He was following orders just like any good soldier, and he didn't tell on anybody. He felt like he was on a mission and kept his silence."
Liddy's 2000 speech was reportedly canceled due to bad weather.
Media Matters has documented that as of September 19, the Times had published 15 news articles and four opinion pieces referencing Obama's ties to Ayers. Since then, in addition to the October 4 article, the Times has published two more articles mentioning the association.
But despite having apparently judged Chapman's opinions on the candidates' controversial associations as being newsworthy, the Times has ignored entirely McCain's relationship with Liddy, according to a search of the Nexis database from January 1 through October 4*.
In his May 4 Tribune column, Chapman wrote:
What McCain didn't mention is that he has his own Bill Ayers -- in the form of G. Gordon Liddy. Now a conservative radio talk-show host, Liddy spent more than 4 years in prison for his role in the 1972 Watergate burglary. That was just one element of what Liddy did, and proposed to do, in a secret White House effort to subvert the Constitution. Far from repudiating him, McCain has embraced him.How close are McCain and Liddy? At least as close as Obama and Ayers appear to be. In 1998, Liddy's home was the site of a McCain fundraiser. Over the years, he has made at least four contributions totaling $5,000 to the senator's campaigns -- including $1,000 this year.Last November, McCain went on his radio show. Liddy greeted him as "an old friend," and McCain sounded like one. "I'm proud of you, I'm proud of your family," he gushed. "It's always a pleasure for me to come on your program, Gordon, and congratulations on your continued success and adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great."Which principles would those be? The ones that told Liddy it was fine to break into the office of the Democratic National Committee to plant bugs and photograph documents? The ones that made him propose to kidnap anti-war activists so they couldn't disrupt the 1972 Republican National Convention? The ones that inspired him to plan the murder (never carried out) of an unfriendly newspaper columnist?Liddy was in the thick of the biggest political scandal in American history -- and one of the greatest threats to the rule of law. He has said he has no regrets about what he did, insisting that he went to jail as "a prisoner of war."All this may sound like ancient history. But it's from the same era as the bombings Ayers helped carry out as a member of the Weather Underground. And Liddy's penchant for extreme solutions has not abated.[...]Given Liddy's record, it's hard to see why McCain would touch him with a 10-foot pole. On the contrary, he should be returning his donations and shunning his show. Yet the senator shows no qualms about associating with Liddy -- or celebrating his service to their common cause.How does McCain explain his howling hypocrisy on the subject? He doesn't. I made repeated inquiries to his campaign aides, which they refused to acknowledge, much less answer. On this topic, the pilot of the Straight Talk Express would rather stay parked in the garage. That's an odd policy for someone who is so forthright about his rival's responsibility. McCain thinks Obama should apologize for associating with a criminal extremist. To which Obama might reply: After you.
What McCain didn't mention is that he has his own Bill Ayers -- in the form of G. Gordon Liddy. Now a conservative radio talk-show host, Liddy spent more than 4 years in prison for his role in the 1972 Watergate burglary. That was just one element of what Liddy did, and proposed to do, in a secret White House effort to subvert the Constitution. Far from repudiating him, McCain has embraced him.
How close are McCain and Liddy? At least as close as Obama and Ayers appear to be. In 1998, Liddy's home was the site of a McCain fundraiser. Over the years, he has made at least four contributions totaling $5,000 to the senator's campaigns -- including $1,000 this year.
Last November, McCain went on his radio show. Liddy greeted him as "an old friend," and McCain sounded like one. "I'm proud of you, I'm proud of your family," he gushed. "It's always a pleasure for me to come on your program, Gordon, and congratulations on your continued success and adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great."
Which principles would those be? The ones that told Liddy it was fine to break into the office of the Democratic National Committee to plant bugs and photograph documents? The ones that made him propose to kidnap anti-war activists so they couldn't disrupt the 1972 Republican National Convention? The ones that inspired him to plan the murder (never carried out) of an unfriendly newspaper columnist?
Liddy was in the thick of the biggest political scandal in American history -- and one of the greatest threats to the rule of law. He has said he has no regrets about what he did, insisting that he went to jail as "a prisoner of war."
All this may sound like ancient history. But it's from the same era as the bombings Ayers helped carry out as a member of the Weather Underground. And Liddy's penchant for extreme solutions has not abated.
[...]
Given Liddy's record, it's hard to see why McCain would touch him with a 10-foot pole. On the contrary, he should be returning his donations and shunning his show. Yet the senator shows no qualms about associating with Liddy -- or celebrating his service to their common cause.
How does McCain explain his howling hypocrisy on the subject? He doesn't. I made repeated inquiries to his campaign aides, which they refused to acknowledge, much less answer. On this topic, the pilot of the Straight Talk Express would rather stay parked in the garage.
That's an odd policy for someone who is so forthright about his rival's responsibility. McCain thinks Obama should apologize for associating with a criminal extremist. To which Obama might reply: After you.
And in an August 22 blog post about an anti-Obama ad highlighting Obama's association to Ayers, Chapman wrote:
But conservatives may not want to draw attention to the issue of ties to violent radicals -- since John McCain is longtime pals with convicted Watergate burglar Gordon Liddy, who once plotted a journalist's murder (which was never carried out) and has advocated the shooting of federal law enforcement agents.If Obama needs to answer questions about Ayers, McCain has the same obligation regarding Liddy. How about they both get started?
But conservatives may not want to draw attention to the issue of ties to violent radicals -- since John McCain is longtime pals with convicted Watergate burglar Gordon Liddy, who once plotted a journalist's murder (which was never carried out) and has advocated the shooting of federal law enforcement agents.
If Obama needs to answer questions about Ayers, McCain has the same obligation regarding Liddy. How about they both get started?
From The New York Times' October 4 article "Obama and '60s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths":
Their relationship has become a touchstone for opponents of Mr. Obama, the Democratic senator, in his bid for the presidency. Video clips on YouTube, including a new advertisement that was broadcast on Friday, juxtapose Mr. Obama's face with the young Mr. Ayers or grainy shots of the bombings.In a televised interview last spring, Senator John McCain, Mr. Obama's Republican rival, asked, "How can you countenance someone who was engaged in bombings that could have or did kill innocent people?"[...]Since earning a doctorate in education at Columbia in 1987, Mr. Ayers has been a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, the author or editor of 15 books, and an advocate of school reform."He's done a lot of good in this city and nationally," Mayor Richard M. Daley said in an interview this week, explaining that he has long consulted Mr. Ayers on school issues. Mr. Daley, whose father was Chicago's mayor during the street violence accompanying the 1968 Democratic National Convention and the so-called Days of Rage the following year, said he saw the bombings of that time in the context of a polarized and turbulent era."This is 2008," Mr. Daley said. "People make mistakes. You judge a person by his whole life."That attitude is widely shared in Chicago, but it is not universal. Steve Chapman, a columnist for The Chicago Tribune, defended Mr. Obama's relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., his longtime pastor, whose black liberation theology and "God damn America" sermon became notorious last spring. But he denounced Mr. Obama for associating with Mr. Ayers, whom he said the University of Illinois should never have hired."I don't think there's a statute of limitations on terrorist bombings," Mr. Chapman said in an interview, speaking not of the law but of political and moral implications."If you're in public life, you ought to say, 'I don't want to be associated with this guy,' " Mr. Chapman said. "If John McCain had a long association with a guy who'd bombed abortion clinics, I don't think people would say, 'That's ancient history.' "
Their relationship has become a touchstone for opponents of Mr. Obama, the Democratic senator, in his bid for the presidency. Video clips on YouTube, including a new advertisement that was broadcast on Friday, juxtapose Mr. Obama's face with the young Mr. Ayers or grainy shots of the bombings.
In a televised interview last spring, Senator John McCain, Mr. Obama's Republican rival, asked, "How can you countenance someone who was engaged in bombings that could have or did kill innocent people?"
Since earning a doctorate in education at Columbia in 1987, Mr. Ayers has been a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, the author or editor of 15 books, and an advocate of school reform.
"He's done a lot of good in this city and nationally," Mayor Richard M. Daley said in an interview this week, explaining that he has long consulted Mr. Ayers on school issues. Mr. Daley, whose father was Chicago's mayor during the street violence accompanying the 1968 Democratic National Convention and the so-called Days of Rage the following year, said he saw the bombings of that time in the context of a polarized and turbulent era.
"This is 2008," Mr. Daley said. "People make mistakes. You judge a person by his whole life."
That attitude is widely shared in Chicago, but it is not universal. Steve Chapman, a columnist for The Chicago Tribune, defended Mr. Obama's relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., his longtime pastor, whose black liberation theology and "God damn America" sermon became notorious last spring. But he denounced Mr. Obama for associating with Mr. Ayers, whom he said the University of Illinois should never have hired.
"I don't think there's a statute of limitations on terrorist bombings," Mr. Chapman said in an interview, speaking not of the law but of political and moral implications.
"If you're in public life, you ought to say, 'I don't want to be associated with this guy,' " Mr. Chapman said. "If John McCain had a long association with a guy who'd bombed abortion clinics, I don't think people would say, 'That's ancient history.' "
— J.S.
*Media Matters searched the Nexis database for The New York Times for "McCain and Liddy"
Posted to the web on Saturday, October 04, 2008 at 04:23 PM ET
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=12342127
AS THE financial crisis pushes the economy back to the top of voters’ concerns, Barack Obama is starting to open up a clear lead over John McCain in the opinion polls. But among those who study economics for a living, Mr Obama’s lead is much more commanding. A survey of academic economists by The Economist finds the majority—at times by overwhelming margins—believe Mr Obama has the superior economic plan, a firmer grasp of economics and will appoint better economic advisers.
Our survey is not, by any means, a scientific poll of all economists. We e-mailed a questionnaire to 683 research associates, all we could track down, of the National Bureau of Economic Research, America’s premier association of applied academic economists, though the NBER itself played no role in the survey. A total of 142 responded, of whom 46% identified themselves as Democrats, 10% as Republicans and 44% as neither. This skewed party breakdown may reflect academia’s Democratic tilt, or possibly Democrats’ greater propensity to respond. Still, even if we exclude respondents with a party identification, Mr Obama retains a strong edge—though the McCain campaign should be buoyed by the fact that 530 economists have signed a statement endorsing his plans.
Does their opinion matter? Economics is just one of the many things the next president will have to worry about; voters still seem to prefer Mr McCain on foreign policy. And even on the economy, economists may not have the same priorities as the population at large. Arguably, what a president says about economics on the campaign trail is less important than how he responds to the unexpected challenges that inevitably arise once he is in office.
Yet economists’ opinions should count for something because irrespective of any party affiliation, most of them approach policy decisions with the same basic tool kit. Their assessment of the candidates’ economic credentials and plans represents an informed judgment on how well they will handle difficult trade-offs between efficiency, equity, growth and consensus-building.
Regardless of party affiliation, our respondents generally agree the economy is in bad shape, that the election is important to the course of economic policy and that the housing and financial crisis is the most critical economic issue facing America.
The detailed responses are bad news for Mr McCain (the full data are available here). Eighty per cent of respondents and no fewer than 71% of those who do not cleave to either main party say Mr Obama has a better grasp of economics. Even among Republicans Mr Obama has the edge: 46% versus 23% say Mr Obama has the better grasp of the subject. “I take McCain’s word on this one,” comments James Harrigan at the University of Virginia, a reference to Mr McCain’s infamous confession that he does not know as much about economics as he should. In fairness, Mr McCain’s lower grade may in part reflect greater candour about his weaknesses. Mr Obama’s more tightly managed image leaves fewer opportunities for such unvarnished introspection.
A candidate’s economic expertise may matter rather less if he surrounds himself with clever advisers. Unfortunately for Mr McCain, 81% of all respondents reckon Mr Obama is more likely to do that; among unaffiliated respondents, 71% say so. That is despite praise across party lines for the excellent Doug Holtz-Eakin, Mr McCain’s most prominent economic adviser and a former head of the Congressional Budget Office. “Although I have tended to vote Republican,” one reply says, “the Democrats have a deep pool of talented, moderate economists.”
There is an apparent contradiction between most economists’ support for free trade, low taxes and less intervention in the market and the low marks many give to Mr McCain, who is generally more supportive of those things than Mr Obama. It probably reflects a perception that the Republican Party under George Bush has subverted many of those ideals for ideology and political gain. Indeed, the majority of respondents rate Mr Bush’s economic record as very bad, and Republican respondents are only slightly less critical.
“John McCain has professed disdain for ‘so-called economists’, and for some the feeling has become mutual,” says Erik Brynjolfsson, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sloan School of Management. “Obama’s team is mainstream and non-ideological but extremely talented.”
On our one-to-five scale, economists on average give Mr Obama’s economic programme a 3.3 and Mr McCain’s a 2.2. Mr Obama, says Jonathan Parker, a non-aligned professor at Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management, “is a pragmatist not an ideologue. I expect Clintonian economic policies.” If, that is, crushing federal debt does not derail his taxing and spending plans.
On his plans to fix the financial crisis, Mr Obama averages 3.1, a point higher than Mr McCain. Still, some said they didn’t quite know what they were rating—reasonably enough, since neither candidate has produced clear plans of his own.
Where the candidates’ positions are more clearly articulated, Mr Obama scores better on nearly every issue: promoting fiscal discipline, energy policy, reducing the number of people without health insurance, controlling health-care costs, reforming financial regulation and boosting long-run economic growth. Twice as many economists think Mr McCain’s plan would be bad or very bad for long-run growth as Mr Obama’s. Given how much focus Mr McCain has put on his plan’s benefits for growth, this last is quite a repudiation.
Mr McCain gets his highest mark, an average of 3.5 and a clear advantage over Mr Obama, for his position on free trade and globalisation. If Mr Obama “would wake up on free trade”, one respondent says, “I could get behind the plans much more.” Perhaps surprisingly, the economists rated trade low in priority compared with the other issues listed. Only 53% say it is important or very important. Neither candidate scored at all well on dealing with the burgeoning cost of entitlements such as Medicare and Social Security.
The economists also prefer Mr Obama’s tax plans. Republicans and respondents who do not identify with either political party see Mr McCain’s tax policies as more efficient but less equitable. But the former prefer Mr McCain’s plans—43% of Republicans say they are good or very good—and the latter Mr Obama’s. Of non-affiliated respondents, 31% say Mr Obama’s are good or very good.
Either way, according to the economists, it would be difficult to do much worse than George Bush. The respondents give Mr Bush a dismal average of 1.7 on our five-point scale for his economic management. Eighty-two per cent thought Mr Bush’s record was bad or very bad; only 1% thought it was very good.
The Democrats were overwhelmingly negative, but nearly every respondent viewed Mr Bush’s record unfavourably. Half of Republican respondents thought Mr Bush deserves only a 2. “The minimum rating of one severely overestimates the quality of Bush’s economic policies,” says one non-aligned economist.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathlyn-and-gay-hendricks/the-obama-relationship-a_b_128896.html
And
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/02/obama-reveals-anniversary_n_131305.html
Videos:
**Barack & Michelle: Happy Anniversary**
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QAvfXeISzI
**Barack and Michelle: 16 years**
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9-bCSfH1XU&feature=related
**Barack Loves Michelle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdFLJXkG0_w&feature=related
**An Obama Love Story
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPYMaF2vAmg&NR=1
** Barack and Michelle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeuJwNP8zCU&feature=related
**Barack and Michelle Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grwX34qqpLA&feature=related
And of course Who Could Forget This Moment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAmLwiGkma0&feature=related
CNN did a fact check on palin's Russia claim...turns out, it isn't true...AT ALL...go figure
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/01/cnn-sarah-palin-has-never_n_130752.html#postComment
Sept. 29 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve will pump an additional $630 billion into the global financial system, flooding banks with cash to alleviate the worst banking crisis since the Great Depression.
The Fed increased its existing currency swaps with foreign central banks by $330 billion to $620 billion to make more dollars available worldwide. The Term Auction Facility, the Fed's emergency loan program, will expand by $300 billion to $450 billion. The European Central Bank, the Bank of England and the Bank of Japan are among the participating authorities.
The Fed's expansion of liquidity, the biggest since credit markets seized up last year, came hours before the U.S. House of Representatives rejected a $700 billion bailout for the financial industry. The crisis is reverberating through the global economy, causing stocks to plunge and forcing European governments to rescue four banks over the past two days alone.
``Today's blast of term liquidity will settle the funding markets down, and allow trust to slowly be restored between borrowers and lenders,'' said Chris Rupkey, chief financial economist at Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd. in New York. On the other hand, ``the Fed's balance sheet is about to explode.''
The MSCI World Index of stocks in 23 developed markets sank 6 percent, the most since its creation in 1970. Credit markets deteriorated further as authorities tried to save more financial institutions from collapse.
European Rescue
European governments have rescued four banks in two days and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. said today it helped Citigroup Inc. buy the banking operations of Wachovia Corp. after its shares collapsed. The Standard & Poor's 500 Index fell 3.8 percent and the cost of borrowing dollars for three months rose to the highest since January. The rate for euros hit a record.
``If people think the authorities may give in to fears, they are wrong,'' Financial Stability Forum Chairman Mario Draghi said today in Amsterdam, where the international group of regulators and finance officials is meeting. ``There is willingness and determination on winning the battle to restore confidence and stability.''
Banks and brokers have slowed lending as they struggle to restore their capital after $586 billion in credit losses and writedowns since the mortgage crisis began a year ago. The bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. also sparked fears among banks they wouldn't be repaid by counterparties, driving up the cost of short-term loans between banks.
Funding Risk
``By committing to provide a very large quantity of term funding, the Federal Reserve actions should reassure financial market participants that financing will be available against good collateral, lessening concerns about funding and rollover risk,'' the central bank said.
The Bank of England and the ECB will each double the size of their dollar swap facilities with the Fed to as much as $80 billion and $240 billion, respectively. The Swiss National Bank and the Bank of Japan will also double their dollar swap lines, while the central banks in Australia, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Canada tripled theirs.
All the banks extended their facilities until the end of April 2009.
The Fed is also increasing the size of its three 84-day TAF sales to $75 billion apiece, from $25 billion. That means the Fed will make a total of $225 billion available in 84-day loans. The central bank will keep the sales of 28-day credit at $75 billion.
Special Sales
In addition, the Fed will hold two special TAF sales in November totaling $150 billion so banks can have funding available for one or two weeks over year-end. The exact timing and terms will be determined later, the Fed said. The TAF program began in December, totaling $40 billion.
The bank-rescue plan being debated by Congress today would give the Fed more power over short-term interest rates by providing authority as of Oct. 1 to pay interest on reserves held at the central bank by financial institutions. That would make it easier for the Fed to pump funds into the banking system.
Paying interest on reserves puts a ``floor'' under the traded overnight rate, which would allow a central bank ``to provide liquidity during times of stress'' without affecting the rate, New York Fed economists said in a paper last month.
To contact the reporter on this story: Scott Lanman in Washington at slanman@bloomberg
* The story gets more intresting because it appears that McCain incoraged the whole thing*
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/30/mccain-urges-bush-to-spen_n_130729.html#postComment
Jed Lewison
John McCain today urged the Bush Administration -- on more than one occasion -- to immediately and uniliterally spend $1 trillion buying up home mortgages.
I was watching live when he made the proposal this morning, and it seemed like such a staggeringly insane idea that I assumed he couldn't be serious. He couldn't think that Bush should just spend $1 trillion without asking Congress for permission...could he?
But then I saw his economic adviser try to back the idea up, and then I saw McCain make the proposal again during the NBC Nightly newscast. So he's serious. He really thinks that Bush should just spend $1 trillion without talking to Congress, without seeking approval, without building any sort of consensus -- without getting any protections whatsoever for taxpayers.
This is the same John McCain who just a couple of days ago was railing on the $1 trillion price tag of the bailout (when it was actually $700 billion).
But just a few days after railing against the unbridled power of government, McCain now seems to envision the presidency as a dictatorship. He now thinks that Bush should just spend $1 trillion without allowing anyone to ask any questions -- and he supports doing it just one day after the House of Representatives voted down a $700 billion bailout.
This won't suprise anyone on the left. The question I have is this: when are conservatives going to wake up and realize that despite all his bluster about being a conservative, the Republican nominee for president has proposed the single largest expenditure in the history of this nation -- and that he's proposed that it be made without the approval of Congress?
McCain Repeats Keating Era Mistakes...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/01/mccain-repeating-keating_n_130612.html#postComment
Seath Colter Walls
As the stock market recovers from its biggest single-day drop since the crash of 1987, a former federal regulator who had a front-row view of John McCain's role in the Savings and Loan scandal says he is repeating some of the same mistakes.
William Black -- a deputy director of the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation during the "Keating Five" scandal that nearly ended McCain's political career -- says the Arizona Republican's chief errors at the time were underestimating the importance of regulation and relying too heavily on slanted advice from captains of industry.
"In the S&L crisis, he took his advice from the worst [kind of] criminal. Charles Keating is the person he went to for his policy advice," Black said. "Now, he certainly is getting advice from Phil Gramm, Carly Fiorina, Rick Davis -- the whole group of economic and top political advisers are lobbyist types. He just doesn't seem to get it, ever, that the advice is going to favor their clients. Even if they just stop being lobbyists, you can't just turn that off instantly. It's their mind state that develops. ... The biggest lesson is that, when you deregulate and de-supervise, you create an environment where control fraud emerges. You hyper-inflate bubbles; you get criminalization."
Though McCain's latest TV ads tout the senator's sporadic calls for more government regulation, Black notes with interest that McCain bragged recently that he was "fundamentally a deregulator." Black, who is now an associate professor of law and economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, also said that the deregulation that McCain was until recently proud to have championed effectively took corporate cops off the beat. "Nobody calls the Houston police department and says 'I think there a problem at Enron,'" he remarked.
Black, who has long been critical of McCain's role in the Keating affair, also viewed McCain's Tuesday announcement of his support for increased FDIC insurance rates as something of a sham, calling it "just one of his many contradictions" on economic matters.
In 1991, McCain railed against raising the FDIC insurance limit from $40,000 to its current $100,000 level. "The perversity of Federal deposit insurance is exemplified by the taxpayer bailout of the savings and loan industry," McCain said, while omitting his own role in the scandal that actually precipitated the S&L crisis.
"I think it is generally acknowledged that the failure of the savings and loan industry, to a large degree, can be directly attributed to the unwarranted expansion of deposit insurance," McCain continued. "Basic coverage was increased from $40,000 to $100,000. No longer was deposit insurance for the small depositor. It became the safety blanket for large, sophisticated depositors and freewheeling bankers."
Now, as McCain echoes Barack Obama's call to raise the FDIC insurance level from $100,000 to $250,000, Black believes the idea that FDIC insurance rates ever caused the S&L crisis can finally be put to rest as being "complete bunk."
Yet, despite being a withering McCain critic, Black isn't completely sold on Obama, either. While he notes with some satisfaction that the Illinois Democrat "did at least try to do some stuff on the regulation of subprime [mortgages] a couple of years ago, he wasn't on key committees." Overall, on financial regulatory matters, Black says Obama is "really somewhat untested. I'm not sure exactly what he would do." But Black notes that the "experienced" candidate is the one most likely to be tagged with responsibility for the current mess. "McCain purports to be on the committee that dealt with everything. [Meanwhile], he did nothing on subprime mortgages for years."
![[John McCain arrives at a town-hall meeting Friday at Colorado State University.]](http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/NA-AS979_HEALTH_D_20081005202208.jpg)
![[Chart]](http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/NA-AS970_HEALTH_NS_20081005191245.gif)
