Dena Langdon's Blog

We Have The Perfect Dog for the Obamas--check out the one in the middle

Dena, St. Thomas — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 23:22:05 EST

Click headline to enlarge
V.I. shelters offer Obama choices for the next First Dog
By GENEVIEVE RYAN
Tuesday, November 18th 2008

Daily News Photo by SEAN McCOY Please, Mr. President, pick me. Dolly, Loretta and Reba are three Chihuahua mixes.

President-elect Barack Obama made a now-famous Election Night promise to his daughters, Malia, 10, and Sasha, 7: "You've earned that new puppy that is coming with us to the White House."

There's no taking it back now - he said it front of a hundred thousand people in Grant Park, Chicago and hundreds of millions of television viewers worldwide.

Obama's was the first acceptance speech in U.S. history to include the mention of a family pet, though presidential pets certainly have received their share of the limelight. The White House website has an entire section devoted to the pets that have occupied their masters' chambers, and there is even a Presidential Pets Museum in Williamsburg, Va.

There hasn't been a president in residence in the White House in a long, long time who did not own a dog. Not since Woodrow Wilson, in fact.

Most presidential dogs were purebreds - a notable exception was Lyndon Johnson's mixed breed, which he named J. Edgar - but Obama hopes to adopt a "mutt" for his daughters - from a shelter where there are "mutts like me," our 44th president said in his first news conference as president-elect.

Obama disclosed that the family will need to find a "hypoallergenic" dog because his daughter Malia has allergies.

Dr. Jack Boden, veterinarian at Imperial Animal Hospital on St. Thomas, said that dogs that don't shed are the best option for people who suffer from allergies. When a dog sheds, the skin attached to the root of the hair follicle - skin that contains the protein to which some people are allergic - breaks up into small particles that can be breathed in, Boden said.

Frequently brushing the dog is good for both the dog and owner who suffers from allergies because it stimulates oils in the skin to keep the coat shiny and gets rid of fur that would otherwise be spread throughout the house.

"By and large, short-haired dogs with single coats - no undercoat - seem to be the best recommendation for allergy sufferers," said Boden.

Some of the breeds and mixes that are considered hypoallergenic are Chihuahuas - both long-hair and short-hair - Bichon Frisé, Greyhound, Schnauzer, Poodle, Goldendoodle or any Poodle hybrid, Yorkshire, Silky Terrier and any from a long list of non-shedding terriers.

Many websites have emerged to help the Obama family find a dog, including www. obamafamilydog.com, and thousands of people have given opinions on personal blogs and on news websites.

But since the Obamas have stated they would like to get a dog from a shelter, what better place than from one here in the Virgin Islands?

If the Obamas are interested in Chihuahuas, The Humane Society on St. Thomas has three cute little Chihuahua-mix puppies up for adoption. The three are 2-month-old sisters found in the Crown Bay area and brought into the shelter on Oct. 19. All are in good health and have up-to-date shots. Dolly is a short hair mix and has a cream coat with a little touch of white, and Loretta and Reba are both tan with short hair. All three have sweet dispositions, the Humane Society staff say.

On St. Croix, the Animal Welfare Center has more than 100 dogs waiting for adoption, and most are mixed breeds.

Shortly before Election Day, the AWC put two of the mixed breed puppies up for adoption: "Obama," a black and white Crucian mix, and "McCain," a lab-bulldog mix. McCain was adopted the day before the election, but "Obama" is still waiting for a home.

A White House would be nice - big lawn, lots of room to run, two adoring little girls to play fetch with.

"Obama" has qualities of "leadership and and can-do attitude" said Animal Welfare Center's communications director, Gretchen Sherrill.

Other St. Croix shelter puppies that might work for the Obamas are "Sticky," a black terrier mix with longish fur and brown eyes, and "Chrissy," also a terrier mix. "Chrissy" has short tan fur with a white chest and belly and a dark brown face.

"I think it'd be great to have a Crucian in the White House; we'd love for the Virgin Islands to be represented through man's best friend," said Sherrill.

To find out about animals for adoption on St. Croix, call 778-1650, on St. John, call 774-1625 and on St. Thomas, call 775-0599.

First dogs

The dogs that belonged to the presidents of the United States. As Harry Truman said, "If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog."

- George Washington: Mopsey, Taster, Cloe, Tipler, Forester, Captain, Lady Rover, Vulcan, Sweetlips and Searcher, all foxhounds.

- Thomas Jefferson: Briards and foxhounds.

- James Monroe: Spaniel.

- John Tyler: Le Beau, a greyhound.

- Abraham Lincoln: Jip and Fido, unknown breeds.

- Ulysses S. Grant: Faithful, a Newfoundland.

- Rutherford B. Hayes: Grim, a greyhound; Duke, an English mastiff; Hector, a Newfoundland; Dot, a terrier.

- Grover Cleveland: Unnamed Japanese poodle.

- Benjamin Harrison: Dash and various dogs of unknown breeds.

- Theodore Roosevelt: Pete, a bull terrier; Sailor Boy, a Chesapeake Bay Retriever; Skip, a mixed breed; Manchu, a Pekingese; Jack and Peter, both terriers.

- Woodrow Wilson: Davie, an Airedale.

- Warden Harding: Laddie Boy, an Airedale; Old Boy, a bulldog.

- Calvin Coolidge: Peter Pan, a terrier; Paul Pry, an Airedale; Rob Roy, a white collie; Prudence Prim, a white collie; Calamity Jane, a Shetland sheepdog; Tiny Tim and Blackberry, both Chow Chows; Ruby Rough, a collie; Boston Beans, a bulldog; King Kole, a German shepherd; Bessie, a collie; and Palo Alto, a setter.

- Herbert Hoover: King Tut, a German shepherd; Big Ben and Sonnie, both fox terriers; Glen, a Scottish collie; Yukonan, an Eski.

- Franklin D. Roosevelt: Fala, a Scottish terrier; Majora, a German shepherd; Meggie, a Scottish terrier; Winks, a Llewellyn setter; Tiny, an English sheepdog; President, a Great Dane; and Blaze, a mastiff.

- Harry S. Truman: Feller, a cocker spaniel; and Mike, an Irish setter.

- Dwight D. Eisenhower: Heidi, a Weimaraner.

- John F. Kennedy: Charlie, a Welsh terrier; Shannan, an Irish cocker spaniel plus their puppies: Blackie, Butterfly, Streaker, and White Tips. Also, Pushinka, a gift from the premier of Russia, who was the daughter of Laika, the first dog in space.

- Lyndon B. Johnson: Him and Her, both beagles; Freckles, their puppy; Blanco, a white collie; Yuki, a mixed breed; J. Edgar, a mixed breed.

- Richard Nixon: Vicky, a poodle; Pasha, a Yorkshire terrier; and King Timahoe, an Irish setter. Checkers, a cocker spaniel, immortalized in a 1952 political speech by vice presidential candidate Nixon, died five years before Nixon was elected president.

- Gerald Ford: Liberty, a golden retriever.

- Jimmy Carter: Grits, a mixed breed.

- Ronald Reagan: Lucky, a Bouvier des Flandres; Rex, a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel.

- George H. W.Bush: Millie*, a springer spaniel; Ranger and Spot, two of Millie's puppies.

- Bill Clinton: Buddy, a Chocolate Labrador.

- George W. Bush: Spot, Millie's daughter, an English springer spaniel; Barney and Mrs. Beasley, Scottish terriers.

* While in the White House, Millie was a busy dog. She "co-authored" a children's story, "Millie's Book," with the help of First Lady Barbara Bush and she gave birth to a litter of six puppies, one of which was Spot, who returned to the White House with President George W. Bush, making Spot the only dog with the distinction of being a second-generation presidential dog.

- Contact reporter Genevieve Ryan at 774-8772 ext. 340 or e-mail gryan@dailynews.vi.

Leave Clinton in the Senate, PLEASE

Dena, St. Thomas — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 12:40:54 EST

I didn' trust Clinton to be VP and I sure don't trust her to be Sec. of State. President-Elect, please leave her where she is or she will undermine you, for sure.

Gay Marriage--thoughts on how to succeed

Dena, St. Thomas — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 16:18:43 EST

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-stranahan/four-lessons-gay-marriage_b_142469.html

Why You Haven't Heard from Me Lately

Dena, St. Thomas — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 17:17:18 EST

Dear Friends,

During the last weeks before election, I noticed none of you were posting comments to my messages, so I figured everyone was too busy doing something else. I decided to send a private group of emails to friends and "foes" of Obama to correct the lies spread by McCain people, complete with verifyable sites and didn't copy them also to this site. I have just found out that a number of them said they were energized by my emails to get going with discussions with other reluctant friends and family and were as pleased as I was with the ultimate results.

In the last few days I have emailed a couple of suggestions directly to the new site set up by the campaign, change.gov. Perhaps we can share those ideas here and with change.gov to do our part to help with making meaningful changes. As Barack said, it's up to us to help. This is not the end. It's the beginning.

Yes, We Did

Dena, St. Thomas — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 03:48:02 EST

Happy Days are Here Again!

Obama's Good Judgment on The Middle East

Dena, St. Thomas — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 17:59:11 EDT

Petraeus Talk Seems to Bolster Obama By Spencer Ackerman 10/8/08 4:16 PM

Gen. David Petraeus (WDCpix)

Throughout Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign, the Republican nominee has wrapped himself in the mantle of U.S. Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, proclaiming himself the leading advocate of the former commanding general in Iraq who devised last year’s controversial troop surge. Yet during a talk Wednesday about Iraq at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington policy organization, Petraeus repeatedly made statements that bolstered the foreign-policy proposals of Sen. Barack Obama, McCain’s Democratic rival, or cut against McCain’s own lines.

Petraeus relinquished command in Iraq last month. He assumes responsibility for U.S. Central Command later this month, putting him in charge of U.S. forces in the Middle East and South Asia.

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

As a serving military officer, Petraeus attempted to avoid any explicit political discussion. “I’m not walking into minefields now,” Petraeus said, to laughter, when asked a question that referred to Tuesday night’s presidential debate. In fact, the general averred that he didn’t watch the debate.

Yet Petraeus, whether intentionally or not, often waded into areas of dispute between Obama and McCain involving Afghanistan, negotiating with adversaries and other recent campaign controversies. Each time, the general either lent tacit support to Obama or denied tacit support to McCain.

Unbidden, Petraeus discussed whether his strategy in Iraq — protecting the population while cleaving apart the insurgency through reconciliation efforts to crush the remaining hard-core enemies — could also work in Afghanistan. The question has particular salience as Petraeus takes over U.S. Central Command, which will put him at the helm of all U.S. troops in the Middle East and South Asia, thereby giving him a large role in the Afghanistan war.

“Some of the concepts used in Iraq are transplantable [to Afghanistan] while others perhaps are not,” he said. “Every situation is unique.”

Petraeus pointed to efforts by Hamid Karzai’s government to negotiate a deal with the Taliban that would potentially bring some Taliban members back to power, saying that if they are “willing to reconcile,” it would be “a positive step.”

In saying that, Petraeus implicitly allied with U.S. Army Gen. David McKiernan, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan. Last week, McKiernan rejected the idea of replicating the blend of counterinsurgency strategy employed in Iraq. “The word that I don’t use in Afghanistan is the word ’surge,’” McKiernan said, opting against recruiting Pashtun tribal fighters to supplement Afghan security forces against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. “There are countless other differences between Iraq and Afghanistan,” he added.

McCain, however, has argued that the Afghanistan war is ripe for a direct replication of Petraeus’ Iraq strategy of population-centric counterinsurgency. “Sen. Obama calls for more troops,” McCain said in the Sept. 26 debate, “but what he doesn’t understand, it’s got to be a new strategy, the same strategy that he condemned in Iraq. It’s going to have to be employed in Afghanistan.”

McCain qualified that statement in Tuesday’s debate, but clung to it while discussing Afghanistan and Pakistan. “Gen. Petraeus had a strategy,” McCain said, “the same strategy — very, very different, because of the conditions and the situation — but the same fundamental strategy that succeeded in Iraq. And that is to get the support of the people.”

Petraeus also came out unambiguously in his talk at Heritage for opening communications with America’s adversaries, a position McCain is attacking Obama for endorsing. Citing his Iraq experience, Petraeus said, “You have to talk to enemies.” He added that it was necessary to have a particular goal for discussion and to perform advance work to understand the motivations of his interlocutors.

All that was the subject of one of the most contentious tussles between McCain and Obama in the first presidential debate, with Obama contending that his intent to negotiate with foreign adversaries without “precondition” did not mean that he would neglect diplomatic “preparation.”

McCain, apparently perceiving an opportunity for attack, Tuesday again used Obama’s comments to attack his judgment. “Sen. Obama, without precondition, wants to sit down and negotiate with them, without preconditions,” McCain said, referring to Iran.

Yet Petraeus emphasized throughout his lecture that reaching out to insurgent groups — some “with our blood on their hands,” he said — was necessary to the ultimate goal of turning them against irreconcilable enemies like Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Petraeus favorably cited the example of one of his British deputies, who in a previous assignment had to negotiate with Martin McGuiness of the Irish Republican Army, responsible for killing some of the British commander’s troops. The British officer, Petraeus said, occasionally wanted to “reach across the table” and choke his former adversary but understood that such negotiations were key to ending a war.

Petraeus reflected at length on the need to “take away and hold the strongholds and safe havens” possessed by Al Qaeda in Iraq during 2007 and 2008, saying that without doing so, the rest of the counterinsurgency strategy “won’t work.” While he did not initially make reference to Al Qaeda’s much greater presence in the Federal Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan, it was hard not to hear the overtones of the current argument over Pakistan policy between Obama and McCain.

McCain has attacked Obama for explicitly stating conditions under which he would order U.S. military action against the senior leadership of Al Qaeda in Pakistan, deriding that by saying Obama is “going to attack Pakistan,” while advocating that the Pakistanis perform the task instead of U.S. troops.

Barbara Starr of CNN attempted to draw Petraeus out further, asking him about the importance of capturing or killing Osama bin Laden, believed to be in the tribal areas of Pakistan. Petraeus did not tip his hand on advocating anything, saying merely, “clearly, Osama bin Laden remains very important, if for no other reason than sheer symbolic importance,” and warning that “decapitating” Al Qaeda would not end the threat from a jihadist entity that he compared to a “syndicate.”

He did, however, say that he was encouraged by what he called signs that the Pakistanis “increasingly see an existential threat to their country being in FATA,” referring to the tribal areas — something that might gel with McCain’s stated preference.

Naturally, since Petraeus centered his hour-plus talk on progress in Iraq, McCain could fairly claim to be closer to the general than Obama — who opposed the surge — on the subject. But, particularly given the Republican-friendly audience, it was remarkable as well what Petraeus did not say.

Unlike his three recent rounds of congressional testimony, Petraeus did not discuss withdrawal from Iraq. He did not issue warnings that withdrawal — which Obama and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki support, while McCain instead calls for “victory” — would lead to a downward spiral of violence.

While the general warned that there were several “potential storm clouds” threatening to undermine progress, he said that Iraq was on a more stable footing since his last appearance on Capitol Hill in April. He never said terms like “victory” or “success” that McCain uses, and which the GOP nominee frequently chides Obama for avoiding.

The Heritage Foundation crowd clearly loved hearing from Petraeus. The think tank’s executive vice president, Philip Truluck, referred to Petraeus’ “history-making service in Iraq” before the audience greeted the general with the first of two prolonged standing ovations. A questioner proclaimed himself “honored and proud to be in the same room with you.”

Petraeus has repeatedly averred that he has no interest in running for president. “I think that Gen. Sherman had it right,” he told Fox News’s Chris Wallace in December, when asked if he’d run, referring to Sherman’s famous declaration that if nominated he would not run, and if elected, he would not serve.

But given McCain’s recent lagging poll numbers, perhaps many at Heritage hope Petraeus will change his mind before 2012.

"Overhead Projector" was upgrade of Sky Theater at Chicago's Plantarium: another LIE from McCain

Dena, St. Thomas — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 12:34:26 EDT

The truth behind the "$3 million dollar projector" by Deoliver47 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 08:45:47 AM PDT

Watching John McCain stagger and stumble through last night's debate was hard to do. I found it curious that he seemed stuck on stupid with an "earmarks" rant about Senator Obama having approved money for a "$3 million dollar projector".

When I hear the word "projector" it brings to mind the AV projectors that aides wheel into my classroom weekly. I had no idea what McCain was talking about, and promptly forgot about it as the debate moved on towards the conclusion.

This morning, while reading through the roundups of articles on the debate, and other commentary on the campaign, I headed over to the NYT to read their editorial Politics of Attack and afterwards,
I decided to read and recommend comments, and post one of my own.

Deoliver47's diary :: ::

Much to my surprise I found this comment, which I recommended as did many other readers. I hope the Editorial Board will make it one of their featured selections.

I am an Associate Professor of Astronomy at the University of Chicago (the University that today has added yet another Nobel Prize winner in the sciences for the US). I would like to comment on Sen. McCain's statement during the today's debate that Sen. Obama has earmarked "$3 million for an overhead projector at a planetarium in Chicago, Ill. My friends, do we need to spend that kind of money?"
The way Sen. McCain has phrased it suggests that Sen. Obama approved spending $3 million on an old-fashioned piece of office equipment (overhead projector).
The 3 million is actually for an upgrade of the SkyTheater - a full dome projection system, which is probably the main attraction of the Adler Planetarium and is quite sophisticated and impressive piece of equipment.
I find it appalling that Sen. McCain would call a science education tool for public (largely children) for a historic planetarium with millions of visitors a year a wasteful earmark. The planetarium's focus, as stated on their website (http://adlerplanetarium.org) is "on inspiring young people, particularly women and minorities, to pursue careers in science." Is an investment in such public facility at the time when US competitiveness in math and sciences is a constant source of alarm a waste?
"American's ability to compete in a 21st Century economy rests on our continued investments in math and science education," said Rep. Brian Baird, Chairman of the Research and Science Education Subcommittee in Congress, after the passage of The 21st Century Competitiveness Act of 2007.
Considering such investments "wasteful earmarks" today, even in the face of the financial crisis, will severely cripple US economic competitiveness in the increasingly high-tech world down the road.
— Andrey Kravtsov, Chicago, IL

http://community.nytimes.com/...

Shame on McCain - again, for misrepresentation and distortion (read "lying").

Curious I went to visit the Adler Planetarium website, and thoroughly enjoyed exploring their exhibits.

Did Biden win the Debate?

Dena, St. Thomas — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 09:28:13 EDT

You betcha! Biden was as close to perfect as anyone could imagine--he did himself and the ticket proud.

Reaching Out to Friends

Dena, St. Thomas — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 16:04:09 EDT

You may want to try what I am doing. I formed two groups from the personal friends in my email address book: Democratic Friends and Obama Skeptics? I forward them articles pertinent to making an informed choice, debunking lies, etc. So far 4 Republicans have asked to be removed from the list, but the rest are staying on. Perhaps, something will reach the skeptics. The Democratic Friends receive information they can relay or not. Can't hurt and might just persuade someone to come to his or her senses and vote for Obama. The single objection I get from those not voting for Obama: "I just don't trust him." They won't give specifics. Abandon the lost causes and go for the rest!

Ask About These Criteria When You Persuade Fence Sitters

Dena, St. Thomas — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 00:48:43 EDT

This could help in persuading voters to go for Obama:

Dear concerned citizens of America and Mass Media of the U.S.A.

As a concerned registered independent voter, forensic psychiatrist, disabled American I made my decision to vote after taking into consideration following joint tickets attributes and characteristics.

1. Has the ticket shown adequate calmness, coolness, and connectedness’s under pressure to lead our nation [Presidential Temperament]?

2. Has the ticket shown sustained sound “Judgment and Caliber”?

3. Has the ticket shown adequate understanding of depth and degree to address the crucial challenges in their their purpose, policies, and positions [ Honesty, integrity and sincerity]?

4. Has the ticket sufficient “understanding and knowledge” of inside Washington workings [Experience]”?

5. Has the ticket reservoir resilience, wisdom, and vigor to address the present and future f our beloved “Great-grand Nation”?

6. Has the ticket enough joint foreign policy experience and exposure based on ” Values, Virtues, Vastness, and ” [American moral soul]”?

7. Has their campaign talk, slogans, ads, plans, and programs based on facts and are they free of fear, fiction, frivolous labels, unfair attacks, negativity, and impulsively? [No “imminent danger to national
security and safety”].

8. Has the ticket genuinely kept on message of country first and politics last and avoided copying [Message change”]?

9.Has the ticket message stayed away from Culture divide and war[ Disaster prevention ]?

10. Has the ticket resisted being surrounded, supported and surrogate’s by divisiveness, distortion’s, and destructive characters, [ Real patriotism VS shiftiness and shameless parrot-ism]?

I have personally and professionally concluded that OBAMA-BIDEN ticket will lift and inspire our greatgrand nation back to its greatness within and restore our global standing with the use of maximum, firm
international diplomacy and minimal force if and when indicated {” Peace thru Strenght “}.

Yours sincerely,

COL. A.M.Khajawall [Ret] MD.
Forensic psychiatrist, Disabled American Veteran and Iraq
Freedom team. Grass roots California leader per Senator McCain’s mailings."

Source: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/09/16/palin-to-meet-foreign-leaders-at-un/?mod=blog

Indict the McCain Campaign and Make them Pay Damages

Dena, St. Thomas — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 11:33:56 EDT

The voter fraud coming from the McCain camp has begun--this is beyond outrageous: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/11/215330/858/425/595547 also read http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/11/215330/858/425/595547 and keep on this story

"Hot off the wire from the Cincinnati Enquirer:

About one-third of the absentee ballot applications received at the Hamilton County Board of Elections have been ruled invalid because Republican Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign printed a version of the form with an extra, unneeded box on it.

Just wait! It gets better!

Moo Means Hello's diary :: ::

It turns out the problem is that the McCain campaign added a box on these forms that required you to check it to confirm you were an eligible voter. Yep, that's right- check here if you are eligible to vote. I guess the act of actually requesting an absentee ballot doesn't qualify that. And if you don't check it...

... bingo. You get the picture. And the McCain campaign has sent out over a MILLION of these forms. The State of Ohio and the local election boards, understandably, don't want to pay to fix the mistake on this- how much d'you want to bet the McCain campaign wants to pay to fix it?

Over seven-hundred and fifty absentee applications have been rejected so far. If we're counting on absentee and early voting to help us mobilize our GOTV effort, then this is a clear and present danger to it.

It looks like these were sent to the general public, meaning all Ohio voters would be affected. And again, remember, these were the applications for absentee ballots... but if you're going to be gone, and there's a process to have to do everything all over again... how many votes are we going to lose, especially with a million in the pipline?

We need to get the word out! Make sure our boys and girls on the ground know about these sorts of shenanigans, and can take action to fix it! Jennifer Brunner, the Ohio Secretary of State is already involved, but we need to get the media's attention on this one. We're gonna need every single vote we can get this election cycle. We can ill afford another debacle like Florida, and we all know the shenanigans that were played in Ohio the last go-round.

Spread the word!

UPDATE:

From the comments, thanks to Chumley, seems like this is the tip of the iceburg:

See HERE.
Quote:
Just listening to the substitute host, Lee Rayburn, on the Thom Hartmann show:
"Misleading" absentee ballot applications are being mailed out by the McCain campaign to registered Democratic voters in purple states. The return addresses are inaccurate, as well as other information. "Misleading, lying" mailers are going out in Florida and other purple states. It's a caging tactic.
Calls are coming in verifying that this is happening in small towns, as well as larger ones.

UPDATE 2
Wow, my first time on the rec list! Thanks, guys! For someone who sneered at Democrats less than four years ago, and who was an active RedState poster less than two, it's a hell of an honor! There's power in numbers, we need to make damn sure we're letting people know this BS is going on.

UPDATE 3
Edit: In the comments below, BerkeyBee mentions that:

... the Republicans mailed out requests for ballot applications to Republicans. Jennifer Brunner, the Democratic Secty of State, ruled the applications were ILLEGAL, meaning that the Hamilton county BOE could not send out absentee ballots to Republicans.
But instead of just requiring that the ballot applications be thrown away (which is what Ken Blackwell would have required), they are notifying these people that their applications were invalid.
The Republicans are claiming that they have used these forms before.

So, in Ohio at least, we may just have a case of extreme irony and misfortune amongst McCain's base. As much as I enjoy schadenfreude (sp), no matter the party, election fraud needs to be stopped. As as chumley pointed out, this is happening elsewhere. Since Ohio is a key state in this election, we need to be aware of similar things happening in the future."

Alert: Jews and Homosexuals--Palin is poison

Dena, St. Thomas — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 00:27:59 EDT

Please assist in disseminating this video, it is very important that voters are made aware of just who Sarah Palin really is. I have also read that her church believe in "converting" homosexuals to heterosexualty. Disgusting!

"Palin's Pastor Agrees God Punishes Jews Who Don't Convert"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqMCvq26d2M

Moved? Re-register Alert!

Dena, St. Thomas — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 18:02:22 EDT

Politics http://www.miller-mccune.com/article/662 Nearly 600,000 Subject to Possible Caging in Ohio

How many voter-registration mass mailers are "returned to sender" in the run-up to Election Day may determine how many Ohio residents are eligible to vote.

By: David Rosenfeld | September 05, 2008 | 05:00 AM (PDT) | 1 Comments

Ohio election officials are sending out a mass mailer stamped “do not forward” to all registered voters today (Sept. 5) with an absentee ballot application and other important notices for Nov. 4.

What’s important here is not so much what’s going out as what’s being returned to sender.

Unbeknownst to the would-be recipients, the same mailer — just 60 days before the election — has the potential to determine their eligibility to vote, challenged not by election officials but by partisan opposition.

A similar mailer in March netted nondeliverable mail from almost 600,000 registered voters in just five Ohio counties who could now have their ballots thrown out for voting under the wrong address.

The National Voter Registration Act prohibits any state from purging names from the voting rolls within 90 days of an election.

The law doesn’t, however, preclude mass partisan challenges on or shortly before Election Day — known as voter caging — based on the same returned envelopes from state-sponsored mailers like the ones in Ohio and others going out across the country.

In 2004, the year the national election hinged on results from Ohio, the Ohio Republican Party challenged 35,000 voters based on returned mail from the GOP's own friendly reminder notices. From 2004 to 2006, Republicans challenged 77,000 voters this way nationwide. A consent decree issued in 1982 and amended in 1987 enjoins the GOP from instituting “ballot security programs” that focus on minority voters.

No evidence so far suggests Republicans — vote caging is essentially a GOP sport — have mounted a caging campaign this year. Yet, in July, Franklin County Election Director and County GOP Chairman Doug Preisse told reporters he didn’t rule out challenges before November, particularly because of increased home foreclosures, which would make failures to change address on voter registration records more common.

A challenged voter will likely cast a provisional ballot, which often requires voters to return to election divisions to prove their identity and address. Nearly a third of all 1.6 million provisional ballots cast in 2004 were thrown out.

Voting-rights groups don’t oppose voter-roll housekeeping, but they cite the federal law as evidence that executing it so close to the actual election isn’t fair.

The fraud that voter caging purportedly roots out is relatively rare, although vote solicitors working for the liberal group ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, in 2004 and again this year were accused of submitting false registration forms. Ohio is one of five states where ACORN employees have been investigated and, in some instances, jailed over submitting false voter registration forms.

Unrelated to ACORN, the Web site GOP.com cites two voting-fraud court cases in Ohio, both focused on individuals casting a second ballot intentionally.

On Nov. 1, 2004, voter-rights groups reacted and challenged the partisan caging in Ohio all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in just two days but lost in a final-hour appeal. This year, they want to be as proactive as possible, said Donita Judge, Ohio staff attorney for the nonprofit Advancement Project.

“A single returned piece of mail is not a reliable basis for challenging the right to vote,” Judge said. “Mail may be returned for many reasons, including errors in the database from which the mailing is derived, errors in the mailing labels, failure to include an apartment number or poor matching criteria.”

Since 2005, Ohio state law has required a non-forwarded mailer 60 days before each federal election. The suspicious part about the law, Judge said, is that it’s set to expire after the November election.

But it’s not all about throwing votes out. Another aspect of Ohio’s reformed election law is that it opens a window between Sept. 30 and Oct. 6 when voters can register one minute and cast a ballot the next.

That’s generally seen as a benefit for Democrats this year since the new registrations refer mainly to 400,000 or so resident college students in Ohio. Obama holds a 2-to-1 lead over McCain among 18- to 34-year-olds, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll released last month.

Following a statewide mailer similar to the one going out today, before the Ohio primary in March, the Advancement Project obtained the lists of returned notices through simple public records requests. The organization requested records from five urban Ohio counties — Cuyahoga, Franklin, Hamilton, Lucas and Summit.

The total came to 600,000 names out of 3 million voters, amounting to 19.7 percent of all registered voters.

Sally Krisel, director of the Hamilton County Board of Elections, said the high percentage was misleading because the mailer in her county included those on the inactive voter roll. Considering only active registered voters, the county received about 5 percent returned in March, she said.

Inactive voters, tagged for possible removal, are given two years to cast a ballot before they can be removed from the rolls. None of the returned, 60-day notices are used for that purpose, Krisel said.

“We have not purged anybody this year,” she said. “In big counties, we’re often carrying a lot of inactive voters.”

In Franklin County, the March mailer went to all registered voters as well. Out of 780,000, more than 150,000 notices were returned. Those voters are now excluded from receiving another notice this week, said Ben Piscitelli, spokesman for the Franklin County Board of Elections. The only public records request for the list so far came from the Obama campaign, Piscitelli said.

Meanwhile, the sweeping Ohio election law loosens the rules around challenging voters. It also strips much of the ability of voters to know they are being challenged and defend their right to vote before an election judge.

Out of Palin's Mouth--an damning admission

Dena, St. Thomas — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 01:43:41 EDT

"How would she effectively run a city without experienced leaders? ' 't’s not rocket science,” Palin said, “It’s $6 million and 53 employees.'”

http://www.washingtonindependent.com/4027/palin-on-running-wasilla-its-not-rocket-science

First they Lie, Now they're Stealing--Republicans, of course

Dena, St. Thomas — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 01:37:53 EDT

False Flag: McCain goes Nixon, combining lies with illegal activity by Geekesque Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 03:30:34 PM PDT

Digg it!

John McCain may have been a man of honor at one time in his life. He was a man of courage.

Now, he's a liar. And a thief. Literally.

Today, on a day he reached out with one hand to reach out in the spirit of national unity, with the other he slaps the very notion of decency in the face.

The lies, the smears, and the crimes below the fold.

Geekesque's diary :: ::

The Denver Post exposes the shameful stunt:

This morning, Republicans tell me that a worker at Invesco Field in Denver saved thousands of unused flags from the Democratic National Convention that were headed for the garbage. Guerrilla campaigning. They will use these flags at their own event today in Colorado Springs with John McCain and Sarah Palin.
Before McCain speaks today, veterans will haul these garbage bags filled with flags out onto the stage — with dramatic effect, no doubt — and tell the story.
"What you see in the picture I sent you is less than half of total flags," a Republican official emailed. "We estimate the total number to be around 12,000 small flags and one full size 3×5 flag."
I’m not sure what the DNC was supposed to do with unused hand-flags, frankly. But the Republicans are obviously questioning someone’s patriotism here.

Oh noez! The Democrats hateses the flag!!

Not quite.

"American flags were proudly waved by the 75,000 people who joined Barack Obama at the Democratic Convention. John McCain should applaud that, but instead his supporters wrongfully took leftover bundles of our flags from the stadium to play a cheap political stunt calling into question our patriotism. On the same day he agrees to join Barack Obama at Ground Zero on September 11, John McCain attacks the patriotism of Obama supporters who so proudly waved the American flag at our historic event in Denver just days ago."

That's right.

McCain Republican operatives STOLE flags. That's right. Not 'rescued.'

STOLE.

All of the flags at Invesco were picked up and put in bags and into storage, along with the unused flags and campaign signs. The flags were going to be donated, and the signs were going to be sent out to be used elsewhere

But, that didn't stop the McCain Republicans from attempting to lie about the patriotism of Obama supporters.

They did so gleefully. Because they have no shame, no decency, no honor.

John McCain was a hero at one point. Now, he's just another lying Republican criminal in the line of Nixon, Bush, and Cheney. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/6/183034/8308/70/575554

The Suggestion of Book Banning Nixes Palin

Dena, St. Thomas — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 15:16:31 EDT

Anyone who would ask a librarian about her view on book banning is a Nazi in my book--no thanks!

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/51821.html

The Low-Down on Palin from Those Who Know Her

Dena, St. Thomas — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 02:19:56 EDT

Want the low-down on Palin? http://www.laprogressive.com/2008/09/05/alaskans-speak-in-a-frightened-whisper-palin-is-%e2%80%9cracist-sexist-vindictive-and-mean%e2%80%9d/

and here is the entire article:

Alaskans Speak (In A Frightened Whisper): Palin Is “Racist, Sexist, Vindictive, And Mean”

September 5, 2008

by Charley James –

“So Sambo beat the bitch!”

This is how Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin described Barack Obama’s win over Hillary Clinton to political colleagues in a restaurant a few days after Obama locked up the Democratic Party presidential nomination.

According to Lucille, the waitress serving her table at the time and who asked that her last name not be used, Gov. Palin was eating lunch with five or six people when the subject of the Democrat’s primary battle came up. The governor, seemingly not caring that people at nearby tables would likely hear her, uttered the slur and then laughed loudly as her meal mates joined in appreciatively.

“It was kind of disgusting,” Lucille, who is part Aboriginal, said in a phone interview after admitting that she is frightened of being discovered telling folks in the “lower 48” about life near the North Pole.

Then, almost with a sigh, she added, “But that’s just Alaska.”

Racial and ethnic slurs may be “just Alaska” and, clearly, they are common, everyday chatter for Palin.

Besides insulting Obama with a Step-N’-Fetch-It, “darkie musical” swipe, people who know her say she refers regularly to Alaska’s Aboriginal people as “Arctic Arabs” – how efficient, lumping two apparently undesirable groups into one ugly description – as well as the more colourful “mukluks” along with the totally unimaginative “f**king Eskimo’s,” according to a number of Alaskans and Wasillians interviewed for this article.

But being openly racist is only the tip of the Palin iceberg. According to Alaskans interviewed for this article, she is also vindictive and mean. We’re talking Rove mean and Nixon vindictive.

No wonder the vast sea of white, cheering faces at the Republican Convention went wild for Sarah: They adore the type, it’s in their genetic code. So much for McCain’s pledge of a “high road” campaign; Palin is incapable of being part of one.

Tough Getting People Who Know Her to Talk
It’s not easy getting people in the 49th state to speak critically about Palin – especially people in Wasilla, where she was mayor. For one thing, with every journalist in the world calling, phone lines into Alaska have been mostly jammed since Friday; as often as not, a recording told me that “all circuits are busy” or numbers just wouldn’t ring. I should think a state that’s been made richer than God by oil could afford telephone lines and cell towers for everyone.

On a more practical level, many people in Alaska, and particularly Wasilla, are reluctant to speak or be quoted by name because they’re afraid of her as well as the state Republican Party machine. Apparently, the power elite are as mean as the winters.

“The GOP is kind of like organized crime up here,” an insurance agent in Anchorage who knows the Palin family, explained. “It’s corrupt and arrogant. They’re all rich because they do private sweetheart deals with the oil companies, and they can destroy anyone. And they will, if they have to.”

“Once Palin became mayor,” he continued, “She became part of that inner circle.”

Like most other people interviewed, he didn’t want his name used out of fear of retribution. Maybe it’s the long winter nights where you don’t see the sun for months that makes people feel as if they’re under constant danger from “the authorities.” As I interviewed residents it began sounding as if living in Alaska controlled by the state Republican Party is like living in the old Soviet Union: See nothing that’s happening, say nothing offensive, and the political commissars leave you alone. But speak out and you get disappeared into a gulag north of the Arctic Circle for who-knows-how-long.

Alright, that’s an exaggeration brought on by my getting too little sleep and building too much anger as I worked this article. But there’s ample evidence of Palin’s vindictive willingness to destroy people she sees as opponents. Just ask the Wasilla town administrator she hired before firing him because he rebelled against the way Palin demanded he do his job, or the town librarian who refused to hold the book burning Walpurgisnach Mayor Palin demanded.

Ironically, Palin was pushed into hiring the administrator by the party poobahs who helped get her elected after she got herself into trouble over a number of precipitous firings which gave rise to a recall campaign.

“People who fought her attempt to oust the librarian are on her enemies list to this day,” states Anne Kilkenny, a Wasilla resident and one of the few Alaskans willing to speak on-the-record, for attribution, about Palin. In fact, Kilkenny actually circulated an e-mail letter about Palin that was verified and printed by The Nation.

For good measure, Palin booted the Wasilla police chief from office because, she told a local newspaper, he “intimidated” her.

Running on Extreme Fringe Evangelical Views
Sarah Palin drew early attention from state GOP apparatchiks when, during her first mayoral campaign, she ran on an anti-abortion platform. Normally, political parties do not get involved in Alaskan municipal elections because they are nonpartisan. But once word of her extreme fringe evangelical views made its way to Juneau, the state capitol, state Republicans tossed some money behind her campaign.

Once in office, Palin set out to build a machine that chewed up anyone who got in her way. The good, Godly Christian turns out to be anything but.

“She’s doesn’t like different opinions and she refuses to compromise,” Kilkenny notes. “When she was mayor, she fought ideas that weren’t hers. Worse, ideas weren’t evaluated on their merits but on the basis of who proposed them.”

Sound familiar? Palin may well be Dick Cheney’s reincarnate.

Something else has a familiar Republican ring to it: Her tax policies, and a “refund surpluses but borrow for the future” attitude.

According to Kilkenny and others in Wasilla as well as Juneau, Palin reduced progressive property taxes for businesses while mayor and increased a regressive sales tax which even hits necessities such as food. The tax cuts she promoted in her St. Paul speech actually benefited large corporate property owners far more than they benefited residents. Indeed, Kilkenny insists that many Wasilla home owners actually saw their tax bill skyrocket to make up for the shortfall. Two other Wasillian’s with whom I spoke said property taxes on their modest, three bedroom homes rose during the Palin regime.

To an outsider, it would seem hard to do, but an oil-rich town with zero debt on the day she was inaugurated mayor was left saddled with $22 million of debt by the time she moved away to become governor – especially since nothing was spent on things such as improving the city’s infrastructure or building a much-needed sewage treatment plant. So what did Mayor Palin spend the taxpayer’s money on, if not fixing streets and scrubbing sewage?

For starters, she remodelled her office. Several times over, as a matter of fact.

Then Palin spent $1 million on an unnecessary, new park that no one other than the contractors and Palin seemed to want. Next, Sarah doled out more than $15 million of taxpayer money for a sports complex that she shoved through even though the city did not own clear title to the land; now, seven years later, the matter is still in litigation and lawyer fees are said to be close to at least half of the original estimated price of the facility.

She also worked hard to get voters approval of a $5.5 million bond proposal for roads that could have been built without borrowing. Anchorage may not be the center of the financial universe but, like good Republicans everywhere, Sarah Palin knows how to please Alaskan bankers and bond dealers.

For good measure, she turned Wasilla into a wasteland of big box stores and disconnected parking lots.

Sarah Barracuda
En route to the governor’s igloo, Palin managed to land what Anne Kilkenny says is the plumb political appointment in the state: Chair of Alaska’s Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (OGCC), a $122,400 per year patronage slot with no real authority to do anything other than hold meetings. She took the job despite having no background in energy issues and, as it turned out, not liking the work.

“She hated the job,” an OGCC staff member who is not authorized to speak with the news media told me. “She hated the hours and she hated what little work there was to do. But she couldn’t figure out a way to get out of the thing without offending Gov. Murkowski” and the state Republican Party regulars, some of whom were pissed off they didn’t get appointed.

But ever the opportunist, Palin quickly concocted a way. First, she waged a campaign with the local news media claiming that the position was overpaid and should be abolished – despite the fact that she lobbied Murkowski hard to get it. Then, mounting what she saw as a white horse, Palin raised a cloud of dust by resigning from the OGCC and riding away with an undeserved reputation as a “reformer.”

But when a local reporter dared to suggest that the reformer Empress has no clothes, Palin tried to get her fired.

“She came at me like I was trying to steal her kids,” said the targeted reporter, who now works for an oil company in Anchorage. “I heard she had a wild temper and vicious mean streak but it’s nothing like you can imagine until she turns it on you.”

Not surprising since some of her high school classmates still openly call her “Sarah Barracuda,” Kilkenny insists.

Still, as a Republican Party hack Palin managed to get herself elected running under the false flag of a “reformer.”

And what did she bring to the job? No legislative experience other than a city council of a village of 5,000 people, which is smaller than some high schools in Chicago. Little hands-on supervisory or managerial experience; after all, she needed to hire a city administrator to run Wasilla. No executive experience, except for almost being recalled as mayor. A philosophy of setting public policy based on one word: No.

And what has she done since winning the job?

According to Kilkenny, nothing. Well, nothing other than suggesting the state’s multi-multi-million dollar, oil-generated surplus be distributed to residents and finance future state needs by borrowing money. Gee, doesn’t that sound precisely what George Bush did with the surplus he inherited from Bill Clinton in 2001 and we all know in what great shape Bush’s economic policies left the nation.

It may explain why, when asked by reporters, including me, what she thought about Palin being picked to be McCain’s running mate, her mother-in-law replied with a sardonic, “What has Sarah done to qualify her to be vice president?” Of course, when the woman – said by many I spoke with to be well-respected in Wasilla – was running to succeed Palin as mayor, Sarah refused to endorse her, so that may explain the family tension.

As Governor, Palin gave the legislature no direction and budget guidelines, according to the chair of a legislative committee. But then she staged a huge grandstand play of line-item vetoing countless projects, calling them pork. “They were restored because of public outcry and legislative action,” the aide said. “She vetoed them mostly because she had no idea what they were or why they were important.”

But it was enough to get the McCain, who is mostly unobservant of the world around him anyway, to think Palin has a reputation as being “anti-pork”.

In fact, Juneau observers note that Palin kept her hand stuck out as far as anyone for pork ladled out by indicted Sen. Ted Stevens. She only opposed the “bridge to nowhere” after it became clear that it would be politically unwise to keep supporting it, these same insiders assert. Then, Palin fell back on her old habits and publicly humiliated him for pork-barrel politics.

As for being “ready on day one” to be commander in chief, despite the repeated public claims she’s made, the Alaska National Guard commander said that, “she has made no command decisions, other than sending some troops to help fight a few brush fires and march in parades at county fairs.”

“Sambo Beat the Bitch”
“Palin is a conniving, manipulative, a**hole,” someone who thinks these are positive traits in a governor told me, summing up Palin’s tenure in Alaska state and local politics.

“She’s a bigot, a racist, and a liar,” is the more blunt assessment of Arnold Gerstheimer who lived in Alaska until two years ago and is now a businessman in Idaho.

“Juneau is a small town; everybody knows everyone else,” he adds. “These stories about what she calls blacks and Eskimos, well, anyone not white and good looking actually, were around long before she became a glint in John McCain’s rheumy eyes. Why do I know they’re true? Because everyone who isn’t aboriginal or Indian in Alaska talks that way.”

“Sambo beat the bitch” may be everyday language up in the bush. Whether it – and the outlook, politics and worldview Palin reflects when she says such things in public – should be part of a presidential campaign is another thing altogether. The comment says as much about McCain as it does about Palin, and it says a lot of things about Americans who overlook such statements (as well as her record) and vote anyway for McCain.

by Charley James

Charley James is an American journalist, author and essayist who lives in Toronto.

Reprinted with permission from The Progressive Curmudgeon

Time to Get Specific on the Issues

Dena, St. Thomas — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 01:04:22 EDT

After listening to the CNN interviews and pundits today, it seems Barack needs to get very specific about the issues and keep hitting on them. We have to make this about issues--Republicans want it to be about personality? Don't they know McCain doesn't have one? This is serious folks. In talking to people, I do ask whether they are better off now than they were eight years ago--by far most us aren't. Then I tick off the issues--sure gives them something to ponder as Barack is on our side and the opposition knows it. The other question is should the president die in office, would they rather have Joe Biden or Palin as president. She's palin comparison.

Why do Republicans Have to Lie? They can't win with the Truth

Dena, St. Thomas — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 00:21:03 EDT

They really have no shame:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/03/bidens_vote_total_higher_than.html

Biden's Vote Total? Higher Than Palin's

By Juliet Eilperin
ST. PAUL -- Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee got a big laugh from the crowd at tonight's convention when he said that as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin outpolled her Democratic counterpart, Joseph Biden.

"She got more votes running for mayor of the town of Alaska than Joe Biden got running for president of the United States," Huckabee declared, sparking applause.

There's just one problem with Huckabee's statement: it's not true. Biden collected a total of 63,157 votes during the Democratic primaries and caucuses this year. By contrast, Wasilla boasts a population of 9,780.

Running statewide, Biden still comes out on top. Palin got the backing of 114,697 Alaskans in her 2006 gubernatorial bid, compared to the 135,253 votes Biden got in his 2002 Senate race.

How Dare They Mock Obama for Being an Organizer

Dena, St. Thomas — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 18:41:13 EDT

"Someone needs to remind Mrs. Holy Roller (Palin) that Jesus Christ was a community organizer and Pontius Pilate was a governor."

The Truth about Their Tax Differences

Dena, St. Thomas — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 15:47:20 EDT

Obama and McCain Tax ProposalsAccording to a new analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain are both proposing tax plans that would result in cuts for most American families. Obama's plan gives the biggest cuts to those who make the least, while McCain would give the largest cuts to the very wealthy. For the approximately 147,000 families that make up the top 0.1 percent of the income scale, the difference between the two plans is stark. While McCain offers a $269,364 tax cut, Obama would raise their taxes, on average, by $701,885 - a difference of nearly $1 million.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html

Republican Party: Arian Cocoon

Dena, St. Thomas — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 15:43:22 EDT

As a Democrat (open-minded and inclusive), I'm watching the Republican Convention. I am struck by the cynicism, negativity, lack of new ideas, out-of-touch-with reality "jokes" and the sameness of the audience. Nazi was what kept coming to mind. I'm going to keep watching as long as I can without throwing up. I can't think of a better show to mobilize the Democrats and thinking Independents, and thinking Republicans (oxymoron?). Just unbelievable--not just the lies but the separate world in which Republicans live. Scary. P.S. John McCain just can't stay away from beauty queens.

Cindy McCain is as Arrogant as John

Dena, St. Thomas — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 01:28:33 EDT

A friend of my cousin works for Hertz Rent-a-Car and reported that Cindy McCain pushed ahead of two other people in line and said to the woman at the desk, "Do you have any idea who I am?" The woman responded, "Yes, Mrs. Cain, and you are third in line."

How to Effectively Debunk the Attack Ads

Dena, St. Thomas — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 18:51:30 EDT

Someone high up in the Obama campaign needs to read this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-romm/obamas-self-defeating-rhe_b_117463.html

McCain's Envy of Obama

Dena, St. Thomas — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 01:49:20 EDT

Maureen Dowd has written an intelligent Op-Ed piece on McCain being green with envy of Obama--explains a lot about his "childish" ads of late. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/06/opinion/06dowd.html?_r=1&em&oref=slogin

Here's an excerpt:

"Now John McCain is pea-green with envy. That’s the only explanation for why a man who prides himself on honor, a man who vowed not to take the low road in the campaign, having been mugged by W. and Rove in South Carolina in 2000, is engaging in a festival of juvenilia.

The Arizona senator who built his reputation on being a brave proponent of big solutions is running a schoolyard campaign about tire gauges and Paris Hilton, childishly accusing his opponent of being too serious, too popular and not patriotic enough.

Even his own mother, the magical 96-year-old Roberta McCain, let slip that she thought the Paris Hilton-Britney Spears ad was 'kinda stupid.'”

Indiana Meeting of Republicans for Obama

Dena, St. Thomas — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 23:06:50 EDT

Chuck Lasker on the Huffington Post describes the meeting in his home for area Republicans who are voting for Obama: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chuck-lasker/republicans-gather-to-sup_b_116294.html Here's a long excerpt:

"The meeting began with a telephone call from Susan Eisenhower, granddaughter of Dwight D. Eisenhower, author of four books, most recently "Partners in Space: US-Russian Cooperation After the Cold War," and outspoken Republican for Obama. Ms. Eisenhower explained that she was first impressed with Barack Obama when Senator Obama called her to request a meeting to discuss foreign policy. When she explained that she was a Republican, and that she didn't intend to support a Democrat, he simply stated that party didn't matter, he was seeking expertise and she came recommended. In time, she became a strong supporter, while remaining a committed Republican.

I told Ms. Eisenhower that the Hamilton County Republican Party Chairman, Charlie White, stated in an interview, "Any past Republican who is supporting the most liberal member of the United States Senate is either not a Republican anymore or they are a former Republican who is into style more than substance." She responded that this sounded too much like "you're either with us or against us" for her taste, and that it was unfair to make such declarations. When her grandfather ran for President as a Republican, he attracted many Democrats, as did Ronald Reagan, and nobody said they were no longer Democrats.

Over snacks, iced tea and lemonade, we each shared our stories of why we've crossed over to support a Democrat in the upcoming Presidential election. For most of us, it's our first time to do so. Attendees included Southern Baptists, Catholics, evangelicals, the nonreligious and even atheists. It was a kind of therapy session for us all, as we are all dedicated to Republican principles but feel we've been betrayed by the neoconservatives who have taken over the Republican Party. We aren't changing parties, and most of us plan to vote for GOP candidates in other positions this year.

The issues of importance were varied, from the Iraq war, to the economy, personal liberty, health care, education, and even life/choice. In each case, we didn't agree with all of Obama's positions, but the ones we did agree on were of higher importance than the ones we didn't. We all agreed that Obama has the leadership and judgment to lead the country in a much-needed new direction of nonpartisanship and independence from special interests and corporate influence.

After our discussion, we broke up and chatted in groups for over an hour, enjoying like-minded fellowship. The energy level was high as we all had stories of other RFOs we know, including "whispering RFOs" who are less public than ourselves, that made it clear we are at the core of a true grass roots movement with political clout."

The Real Story about Barack's Airplane

Dena, St. Thomas — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 23:03:32 EDT

Snoppes has the story on why Barack's plane does not have the American flag on the tail--some Republican friends hopped all over this change without knowing the whole story, so here it is:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/airplane.asp

Paint Your Barn for Obama

Dena, St. Thomas — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 22:49:36 EDT

How great this is from Ohio: http://silencedmajority.blogs.com/silenced_majority_portal/2008/08/barack-barns-of.html

Barack Barns of Ohio

the story
see also Barack Like Me

Does Anyone Know if This is a Reliable Source?

Dena, St. Thomas — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 09:59:33 EDT

"This article comes from
Tom Flocco.com
http://tomflocco.com/

JOHN MCCAIN’S WIFE HIDING WAR PROFITS, UNTAXED OFF-SHORE ACCOUNTS?

Federal agents: Cindy McCain’s full tax returns will show war profits, pre-9/11 insider trading, secret off-shore accounts linked to 1241 Class C Nevada corporation payoffs and bribes

by Tom Flocco

Washington—June 18, 2008—TomFlocco.com—According to a high-placed federal agent actively based in Washington, DC who spoke with federal whistleblower Stewart Webb, Republican presidential candidate and Senate Armed Services Ranking Member John McCain’s wife Cindy Hensley McCain’s multiple undisclosed federal income tax returns will reveal millions in Iraq War military procurement contract profits involving Hensley & Co. (Hensley Beer), Mrs. McCain’s large Anheuser-Busch beer distribution firm.

In more shocking allegations which media and Democratic congressional leaders have failed to investigate, Thomas Heneghan, a U.S. intelligence authority with scores of federal contacts, said federal agents also know that Mrs. McCain made millions in insider short-sale profits involving Swiss re-insurance put option stock orders placed prior to the September 11 attacks—profits of death which have remained untaxed by the U.S. government and raise questions as to her 9/11 tip-off.

Heneghan alleges Cindy McCain’s complete 2001 tax return would also reveal that she has a secret offshore 1241 corporation set up with “private trust accounts established by Senator McCain’s late ‘Keating Five’ scandal and Bush 41 money launderer Leonard Millman who was also Stewart Webb’s father-in-law—all of which screams for a federal probe before the November 4 election.

Heneghan also alleged that Mrs. McCain has made millions from a joint business enterprise with both Hillary and Bill Clinton and Fox News billionaire Ruppert Murdoch which involves a pornographic website with its 1241 corporate headquarters in the Cayman Islands.

Using an arm’s length distance from his wife’s assets to shield himself from conflict of interest problems, McCain released only a two-page summary from his wife’s separate 2006 federal income taxes which were filed six months late via an IRS-approved extension, after which Mrs. McCain received a 2007 tax extension until October 15, 2008—just 19 days before the November 4 presidential election—unless she files for an additional extension to hide the profits until after the election.

HIDING WAR PROFITEERING CONFLICTS?

Heneghan told TomFlocco.com last week that Anheuser-Busch is one of a number of companies under a widespread federal investigation over the last few months into bid-rigging, bribery and kickbacks by members of the military and civilians connected to the Pentagon purchasing system involving Iraq War profiteering.

Webb, who said he was illegally imprisoned by President George H.W. Bush just prior to the Bush-Clinton election from 1992-1993 as a political dissident in order to obstruct justice and suppress his knowledge of Bush 41 Iran Contra drugs-for-weapons evidence, alleged to us that last week’s offer by a European company to purchase Anheuser-Busch could be a pre-arranged attempt to hide evidence of wartime beer company profits tied to Mrs. McCain’s reported $100 million-plus financial empire and untaxed off-shore income linked to 9/11profits—all of which could expose conflicts of interest and threaten the viability of John McCain’s presidential candidacy.

While complete income tax transparency would reassure the public that the McCains and their family members have not profited either directly or indirectly by the sale of Anheuser-Busch nonalcoholic beer and bottled water products in war zones, Democratic party leader acquiescence and U.S. media recalcitrance in exerting enough pressure on Senator McCain and his wife has resulted in the release of incomplete data regarding Cindy McCain’s vast beer fortune and alleged untaxed off-shore finances.

According to reports, Senator McCain began an extramarital relationship after meeting Cindy Hensley in 1979, after which he divorced his first wife Carol in April, 1980 and married Hensley the next month in May, 1980 after signing her prenuptial agreement which allowed Mrs. McCain to file separate taxes for 27 years which effectively helped avoid continued public financial scrutiny while her husband sought elective office.

The heiress originally said she would never make her tax return public but decided to disclose her $6 million total income from 2006 via the top two summary pages which included $4.5 million from rental real estate, royalties, partnerships and trusts, $300,000 in salary income, $280,000+ in dividends and $740,000+ in capital gains—part of her reportedly vast personal holdings which include Arizona’s Hensley Beer and a total $100+ million net worth.

The McCain presidential campaign took advantage of the Memorial Day weekend to make Mrs. McCain’s incomplete tax disclosure, also waiting to make the two pages public after releasing Senator McCain’s medical records—making the tax issue almost a complete afterthought.

GENERAL SHELTON AND ANHEUSER ‘BUSH’

Anheuser-Busch’s Budweiser beer is sold on military bases throughout the world and its nonalcoholic beer and bottled water products are contracted to the Afghanistan and Iraq war zones.

Military beer sales leave Cindy Hensley-McCain open to questions about war profiteering since Hensley Beer is the third largest Anheuser-Busch distributor in the U.S. while Senator John McCain sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee with war oversight and Democrats look the other way.

While the military has tried to discourage heavy drinking among the troops, beer and wine distributors have lobbied the House of Representatives to increase the number of military stores that sell beer and wine.

“Military personnel should be able to purchase beer in the most convenient way possible,” said Terry McAuley, military sales director for Anheuser-Busch—even though the Pentagon opposes the lobby while attempting to deglamorize the use of alcohol, claiming it disrupts discipline and could hurt military readiness and safety.

Just prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks, President Bush’s then top military advisor and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Hugh Shelton met in California for eight hours with his successor General Richard B. Myers—“Black-Jack” Myers, according to intelligence insiders—and Air Force Chief of Staff General Michael E. Ryan to discuss how to obtain seats on corporate boards, pay packages, perks, stock options, approaching future employers and landing lucrative consulting contracts according to June 2005 news reports.

In late 2001 August A. Busch III, Chairman of Anheuser-Busch and his son August A. Busch IV met with Shelton in Manassas, Virginia to finalize Shelton’s seat on the company board of directors, his salary of $181,518 and 10,000 stock options on Anheuser-Busch shares currently worth $565,100 dollars according to the Corporate Library research organization.

Shelton’s responsibilities reportedly include advising the company and its distributorships like Hensley Beer regarding which senators, congressmen and military procurement officers to call to facilitate the distribution of hundreds of thousands of Anheuser-Busch bottles of water and nonalcoholic beer products to troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

WEAK DEMOCRAT OVERSIGHT = MORE HENSLEY WAR PROFITS?

As a member of the company’s corporate governance and nominating committees, Shelton participates in key decisions involving current reports that foreign entities are seeking to buy Anheuser-Busch outright or acquire it via a hostile takeover—but Democrats are not questioning whether there is an attempt to gain influence with a possible McCain presidency and/or potentially adjusting records involving Hensley Beer.

Nine months ago military officials said $6 billion in procurement contracts providing for essential supplies such as food, water and shelter to U.S. soldiers in Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan were under review by criminal investigators regarding bid-rigging, bribery and kickbacks—a figure more than double what the Defense Department had previously disclosed.

A study by the Defense Department’s inspector general found that the Pentagon couldn’t properly account for more than a trillion dollars in monies spent; and a Government Accounting Office report found Defense inventory systems so lax that the U.S. Army lost track of 56 airplanes, 32 tanks and 36 Javelin missile command launch-units.

Hensley Beer executives Robert Delgado—president and chief executive officer, Andrew McCain—Hensley chief financial officer and John McCain’s step-son from his first marriage to Carol Shepp, and August Busch III—chairman of Anheuser-Busch’s executive committee, are among Senator McCain’s top career givers.

In 2000 McCain voted against the fiscal 2001 transportation appropriations bill which set a national standard of .08 % blood alcohol level for drunken driving while the National Beer Wholesalers Association also opposed the legislation, telling members it had succeeded in “delaying and diluting the version of the bill.”

McCain recently courted NASCAR voters and internet video fans this spring, serving as honorary starter at a North Carolina speedway race with his wife Cindy and Dale Earnhardt Jr. who drove the Budweiser car which was painted military camouflage rather than its trademark red as NASCAR’s official beer brewed by Anheuser-Busch—whose products have helped to create the McCain family fortune.

According to reports, Anheuser-Busch has also been signing contracts and investing hundreds of millions in brewery operations in China and Vietnam; and controversial Clinton administration figure James Riady’s Lippo Group is the holder of a license for a Sea World attraction in Indonesia while Anheuser-Busch owns all the Sea World theme parks in the U.S. and some overseas operations.

The Senate Armed Services Committee and its Ranking Member McCain in particular have not assured voters that Anheuser-Busch’s military beer, water and non-alcoholic beverage contracts are not linked to the Pentagon bid-rigging and bribery scandal being probed, raising questions as to why McCain has not referred publicly to the scandal.

Minnesota Republican Representative John Kline, a retired Marine colonel was “appalled” at the “clear breakdown in leadership” that allowed some Army contracting officers to corrupt the procurement system.

American voters may have a problem regarding weak oversight by the Democratic Party leaders who have thus far ignored Cindy McCain’s finances and possible war-profiteering, her complete lack of income tax transparency and untaxed off-shore corporate profits."

Facts against the Fiction of McCain ads

Dena, St. Thomas — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 02:32:48 EDT

William Bradley wrote this article for the Huffington Post: buzz it up http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-bradley/13-things-to-know-about-t_b_115740.html

"Okay, another day, another John McCain attack ad on Barack Obama. This one came in over the weekend. It's the third straight, as the McCain campaign is increasingly abandoning positive advertising in favor of negative ads on the frontrunner. Though the positive ad I wrote about on July 10th is still in rotation, at least for now.

The latest Mac attack ad plays above. And here is the text:

Announcer: Barack Obama never held a single Senate hearing on Afghanistan.
He hadn't been to Iraq in years.
He voted against funding our troops.
And now, he made time to go to the gym, but cancelled a visit with wounded troops.
Seems the Pentagon wouldn't allow him to bring cameras.
John McCain is always there for our troops.
McCain. Country first.
John McCain: I'm John McCain and I approve this message.

Here are 13 things to know about this ad.

1. Campaigns go very negative like this when they are very worried. John McCain's campaign has now put out out three straight negative TV ads in a row, attacking Barack Obama. And the McCain message in the free media is virtually all negative.

2. The reason the McCain campaign is so worried is that the Olympics start in less than two weeks. At the height of summer, most experts think that whomever has a steady lead going in will have a steady lead coming out. The next big event after the Olympics? The Democratic National Convention. At which Obama will accept the presidential nomination in a speech at Denver's football stadium before 80,000 screaming supporters.

3. This TV ad is media bait. There is no serious buy behind it. I've gone through this before with McCain's new campaign director, Steve Schmidt, when he was Arnold Schwarzenegger's campaign manager in 2006. The Schwarzenegger campaign rolled out a couple of TV ads early on, which I pointed out then were running in San Diego at midnight. In this case, think Denver, Harrisburg, and, naturally, Washington. The purpose of this ad is to further press commentary to continue a storyline. A major caveat. This does not mean that there is not a serious ad, and a serious new ad buy, coming.

4. In keeping with what I just wrote, this ad is the highest-rated YouTube video for McCain of the general election campaign. What that means is that the ad is being pushed out to create a frenzy amongst the conservative Republican base, whipped up by the right-wing talk show circuit and blogosphere. I think more people have seen it on YouTube than have seen it on their TV sets.

5. Obama is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee on Europe. Afghanistan, as it happens, is not in Europe. Afghanistan is covered by an entirely separate subcommittee. Thus the attack on Obama for failing to hold a hearing on Afghanistan is non-serious. This does not mean that he should not have done so, as an eager beaver presidential candidate. Surely, McCain would have been opportunistic enough to do so.

6. ... But it turns out that McCain has missed every hearing for the past two years of the Senate Armed Services Committee on Afghanistan. McCain is the ranking Republican member of this very powerful committee. It's only in the last week that McCain has endorsed Joe Biden's -- and Obama's -- plan to send more US brigades to Afghanistan.

7. It's true that Obama hadn't been to Iraq for two years. McCain has been there a lot. There was the time last year when he toured a Baghdad market, declaring everything to be copacetic. As it should have been, with him wearing a bullet-proof vest, accompanied by a company of paratroopers and a flight of helicopter gunships. As most shoppers undoubtedly were.

8. Obama voted for troop funding on all but one occasion. When he decided to try to force the Bush administration to set a timeline for US troop withdrawal.

9. Obama's visit to the US military hospital in Germany was never, despite the statement in this ad, on his media schedule. He actually visited the US military hospital in Baghdad a few days earlier, sans media. The former head of the military hospital in Germany has denounced the ad, noting that Obama visited the military hospital in Baghdad with no fanfare whasoever.

10. Obama pulled out of the German military hospital visit when the Pentagon informed his military advisor on the trip, retired Air Force General Scott Gration, that only Senate staff could accompany him. This happened after all the Senate staffers along for the Congressional delegation visit to the Middle East had been sent home. Which meant that General Gration, a highly decorated Air Force veteran who is not a member of Obama's Senate staff, was effectively disinvited from visiting the military hospital at the well-known Air Force base at Ramstein.

11. While the TV ad says that McCain is always there for the troops, he actually opposed the new GI Bill authored by Obama ally Jim Webb, the former Navy Secretary-turned-Virginia Senator. Webb, as it happens, is an old friend of McCain, who has called him "a legendary fighting man," as befits the most highly decorated Marine combat officer of the Vietnam War. McCain lost badly in the Senate on Webb's new GI bill, but he and President Bush later tried to take some credit for its passage.

12. And with regard to always being there for the troops, it is interesting to note that McCain actually voted against $360 million for armored tactical wheeled vehicles for units deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. And that McCain just held a big ticket fundraiser at the home of one of the country's largest defense contractors, Ronald Perelman, whose MacAndrews & Forbes holding company owns AM General, manufacturer of the HumVee. The HumVee became known in the Iraq War as a "Purple Heart box."

Here is the actual scene from which Obama's purported German workout in lieu of visiting wounded troops is taken. Note that it is Obama visiting enthusiastic American soldiers in the Middle East.

13. The footage in the McCain attack ad which accompanies the text about Obama spending time at the gym rather than visiting wounded troops is not actually of Obama working out in Berlin.

Actually, it is, as you see above, footage of Obama visiting with the troops in Kuwait. Hitting a 3-point jump shot on the first try, to the screams of the enthusiastic American soldiers.

Oh, what a tangled web ... And all that stuff."

McCain's "McCarthyism"

Dena, St. Thomas — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 02:14:14 EDT

Outstanding article to buzz up on Huffington Post by Mark Green http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-green/mccains-1968-heroism-cant_b_115981.html

Here it is without the headline:

"Pundits on the talks shows say that the '08 election is all about Barack Obama: Can he pass the commander-in-chief test and avoid gaffes and reassure white voters? The burden is always put on him.

But another question is whether John McCain can pass the character test. So far, he's failing.

What? A bona fide war hero and POW survivor is being questioned about character?

Well, yes. It's time that McCain's acolytes and the mainstream media stopped assuming that his
extraordinary military service nearly 40 years ago gives him immunity to questions about being President today in a different century.

First, there is the unpleasant fact that in the past week McCain has sounded more like McCarthy in his patriotism-baiting of Obama. When he repeatedly says that Obama for political reasons "would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign," he's imputing a political motive than he can't know, doesn't know, and is contradicted by the available evidence.

Agree with Obama's Iraq policies or not, surely he's been consistently opposed to our invasion and occupation of a country that didn't attack us, dating from the speech he gave in 2002 -- of course before he was a U.S. Senator or presumptive Democratic nominee.

Bluntly, what McCain is doing is a familiar trope -- from tail gunner Joe to Richard Nixon's "positive polarization" to Bush 41's campaigning in flag factories against a guy with a foreign-sounding last name to Bush 43's "with us or with the terrorists" rhetoric after 9/11. Divide and conquer.

This is especially unconvincing since Obama's policies are essentially the same as those held by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki, the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton Commission, nearly all Senate Democrats -- and McCain himself, who told Wolf Blitzer that Obama's 16-month withdrawl timeline might be acceptable.

Do Senators Clinton, Biden, Hagel, Kennedy etc. too want America to lose a war, or do they simply disagree with McCain's judgment?

Second, this line of personal attack is one of numerous examples of McCain's Zig-Zag Express. When it comes to flip-flopping, McCain recently has made John Kerry (falsely accused of this) look like the Rock of Gibraltar.

For years MCain impressively built up his popular "maverick" brand, attacking the far right on a variety of issues. But in frequent 180 degree turns, now he instead supports tax cuts for the rich, panders to the religious right, opposes affirmative action and votes against anti-torture rules for the CIA. Exactly who is shifting positions for political reasons?

McCain said two months ago that he wanted to run a "civil campaign" free of personal attacks. Now he all but accuses Obama of being unpatriotic, nearly treasonous. His recent ad asserting that Obama refused to visit troops because he couldn't bring cameras along and chose to go to the gym instead is, well, a lie. Factcheck.org, the Washington Post and the New York Times have analyzed the facts and said as much. But it plays into McCain's strategy that he's a "real American President," as one of his first ads unsubtly put it.

Normally, when a Republican presidential candidate wants to "swift boat" an opponent, he winks at third party groups to do it for him -- like the ads spotlighting Willie Horton in 1988 (which we now know that Bush 41's Lee Atwater helped coordinate) or those by veterans falsely attacking Kerry's war record, which McCain rightly and courageously condemned. Yet here it's McCain himself who is personally swift-boating Obama in a dishonorable and desperate attempt to trip up the leading candidate. He's engaging in the tactics that he deplored.

But as Ann Coulter knows, sometimes a narrative is too lucrative or compelling not to use even if it's untrue. So a campaign full of Karl Rove proteges will continue the story of McCain as patriotic and Obama as a combination of Lennon and Lenin. Until two things happen.

First, the national media needs to start covering McCain's sleazy tactics and repeated lies as often, say, as they covered Rev. Wright. That shouldn't take the courage of a Murrow, only reporters who won't let McCain continue to hide under his hero halo anymore.

And second, while Obama should and will stay calm in the face of personal, contrived assaults, he can't and won't accept Pat Buchanan's convenient suggestion to me in a Hardball debate and to others -- i.e., just ignore it. Democrats learned from Gore and Kerry, as Mark Twain informed us, that "a lie gets half way around the world before truth puts on her boots." So while Obama himself stays cool, his campaign and surrogates and ads have to bludgeon McCain not on personal attributes but on policy flaws -- on his unpopular plans on Iraq, social security, oil giveaways, global warming, tax fairness, mortgage fraud, on being George Bush's poodle. If McCain insists on telling lies about Obama, the Obama Team should respond by telling the truth about him.

Start with the truth that a maverick has morphed into a McCarthy -- and that the honorable McCain of 2000 wouldn't vote for the angry McCain of 2008."

NYT Frank Rich's Great Article

Dena, St. Thomas — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 00:12:40 EDT

He really shows what a bumbling idiot McCain is in "How Obama Became Acting President" http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/27/opinion/27rich.html?ex=1233028800&en=5a34c91697988002&ei=5087&excamp=NYT-E-I-NYT-E-AT-0729-L4&WT.mc_ev=click&WT.mc_id=NYT-E-I-NYT-E-AT-0729-L4

Here is most of it:

"The growing Obama clout derives not from national polls, where his lead is modest. Nor is it a gift from the press, which still gives free passes to its old bus mate John McCain. It was laughable to watch journalists stamp their feet last week to try to push Mr. Obama into saying he was “wrong” about the surge. More than five years and 4,100 American fatalities later, they’re still not demanding that Mr. McCain admit he was wrong when he assured us that our adventure in Iraq would be fast, produce little American “bloodletting” and “be paid for by the Iraqis.”

Never mind. This election remains about the present and the future, where Iraq’s $10 billion a month drain on American pocketbooks and military readiness is just one moving part in a matrix of national crises stretching from the gas pump to Pakistan. That’s the high-rolling political casino where Mr. Obama amassed the chips he cashed in last week. The “change” that he can at times wield like a glib marketing gimmick is increasingly becoming a substantive reality — sometimes through Mr. Obama’s instigation, sometimes by luck. Obama-branded change is snowballing, whether it’s change you happen to believe in or not.

Looking back now, we can see that the fortnight preceding the candidate’s flight to Kuwait was like a sequence in an old movie where wind blows away calendar pages to announce an epochal plot turn. First, on July 7, the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, dissed Bush dogma by raising the prospect of a withdrawal timetable for our troops. Then, on July 15, Mr. McCain suddenly noticed that more Americans are dying in Afghanistan than Iraq and called for more American forces to be sent there. It was a long-overdue recognition of the obvious that he could no longer avoid: both Robert Gates, the defense secretary, and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had already called for more American troops to battle the resurgent Taliban, echoing the policy proposed by Mr. Obama a year ago.

On July 17 we learned that President Bush, who had labeled direct talks with Iran “appeasement,” would send the No. 3 official in the State Department to multilateral nuclear talks with Iran. Lest anyone doubt that the White House had moved away from the rigid stand endorsed by Mr. McCain and toward Mr. Obama’s, a former Rumsfeld apparatchik weighed in on The Wall Street Journal’s op-ed page: “Now Bush Is Appeasing Iran.”

Within 24 hours, the White House did another U-turn, endorsing an Iraq withdrawal timetable as long as it was labeled a “general time horizon.” In a flash, as Mr. Obama touched down in Kuwait, Mr. Maliki approvingly cited the Democratic candidate by name while laying out a troop-withdrawal calendar of his own that, like Mr. Obama’s, would wind down in 2010. On Tuesday, the British prime minister, Gordon Brown, announced a major drawdown of his nation’s troops by early 2009.

But it’s not merely the foreign policy consensus that is shifting Obama-ward. The Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens has now joined another high-profile McCain supporter, Arnold Schwarzenegger, in knocking the McCain nostrum that America can drill its way out of its energy crisis. Mr. Pickens, who financed the Swift-boat campaign smearing John Kerry in 2004, was thought to be a sugar daddy for similar assaults against the Democrats this year. Instead, he is underwriting nonpartisan ads promoting wind power and speaks of how he would welcome Al Gore as energy czar if there’s an Obama administration.

The Obama stampede is forcing Mr. McCain to surrender on other domestic fronts. After the Democrat ran ads in 14 states berating chief executives who are “making more in 10 minutes” than many workers do in a year, a newly populist Mr. McCain began railing against “corporate greed” — much as he also followed Mr. Obama’s example and belatedly endorsed a homeowners’ bailout he had at first opposed. Given that Mr. McCain has already used a refitted, hand-me-down Obama campaign slogan (“A Leader You Can Believe In”), it can’t be long before he takes up fist bumps. They’ve become the rage among young (nonterrorist) American businessmen, according to USA Today.

“We have one president at a time,” Mr. Obama is careful to say. True, but the sitting president, a lame duck despised by voters and shunned by his own party’s candidates, now has all the gravitas of Mr. Cellophane in “Chicago.” The opening for a successor arrived prematurely, and the vacuum had been waiting to be filled. What was most striking about the Obama speech in Berlin was not anything he said so much as the alternative reality it fostered: many American children have never before seen huge crowds turn out abroad to wave American flags instead of burn them.

Mr. McCain could also have stepped into the leadership gap left by Mr. Bush’s de facto abdication. His inability to even make a stab at doing so is troubling. While drama-queen commentators on television last week were busy building up false suspense about the Obama trip — will he make a world-class gaffe? will he have too large an audience in Germany? — few focused on the alarms that Mr. McCain’s behavior at home raise about his fitness to be president.

Once again the candidate was making factual errors about the only subject he cares about, imagining an Iraq-Pakistan border and garbling the chronology of the Anbar Awakening. Once again he displayed a tantrum-prone temperament ill-suited to a high-pressure 21st-century presidency. His grim-faced crusade to brand his opponent as a traitor who wants to “lose a war” isn’t even a competent impersonation of Joe McCarthy. Mr. McCain comes off instead like the ineffectual Mr. Wilson, the retired neighbor perpetually busting a gasket at the antics of pesky little Dennis the Menace.

The week’s most revealing incident occurred on Wednesday when the new, supposedly improved McCain campaign management finalized its grand plan to counter Mr. Obama’s Berlin speech with a “Mission Accomplished”-like helicopter landing on an oil rig off Louisiana’s coast. The announcement was posted on politico.com even as any American with a television could see that Hurricane Dolly was imminent. Needless to say, this bit of theater was almost immediately “postponed” but not before raising the question of whether a McCain administration would be just as hapless in anticipating the next Katrina as the Bush-Brownie storm watch.

When not plotting such stunts, the McCain campaign whines about its lack of press attention like a lover jilted for a younger guy. The McCain camp should be careful what it wishes for. As its relentless goading of Mr. Obama to visit Iraq only ratcheted up anticipation for the Democrat’s triumphant trip, so its insistent demand for joint town-hall meetings with Mr. Obama and for more televised chronicling of Mr. McCain’s wanderings could be self-inflicted disasters in the making.

Mr. McCain may be most comfortable at town-hall meetings before largely friendly crowds, but his performance under pressure at this year’s G.O.P. primary debates was erratic. His sound-bite-deep knowledge of the country’s No. 1 issue, the economy, is a Gerald Ford train wreck waiting to happen in any matchup with Mr. Obama that requires focused, time-limited answers rather than rambling.

During Mr. McCain’s last two tours of the Middle East — conducted without the invasive scrutiny of network anchors — the only news he generated was his confusion of Sunni with Shia and his embarrassing stroll through a “safe” Baghdad market with helicopter cover. He should thank his stars that few TV viewers saw that he was even less at home when walking through a chaotic Pennsylvania supermarket last week. He inveighed against the price of milk while reading from a note card and felt the pain of a shopper planted by the local Republican Party.

The election remains Mr. Obama’s to lose, and he could lose it, whether through unexpected events, his own vanity or a vice-presidential misfire. But what we’ve learned this month is that America, our allies and most likely the next Congress are moving toward Mr. Obama’s post-Iraq vision of the future, whether he reaches the White House or not. That’s some small comfort as we contemplate the strange alternative offered by the Republicans: a candidate so oblivious to our nation’s big challenges ahead that he is doubling down in his campaign against both Mr. Maliki and Mr. Obama to be elected commander in chief of the surge. "

Most Effective Way to Debunk Smears

Dena, St. Thomas — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 04:41:16 EDT

Great advice from the Jed Report http://www.jedreport.com/2008/07/the-best-anti-s.html:

Tue Jul 29, 9:45 AM PacificThe most effective anti-smear message of the campaign

One of the big challenges with defending Barack Obama -- or anyone else, for that matter -- against false, viral smears is that the last thing you want to do is to inadvertently reinforce the smear.

In late June, Professor Sam Wang, a neuroscientist at Princeton (mindgeek at Daily Kos), penned a New York Times op-ed describing how debunking falsehoods by repeating the falsehoods can in fact strengthen the original falsehood. Consequently, the best way to spread the truth is by leading with the truth to debunk the smear. For example, emphasize that "Barack Obama IS a Christian" instead of saying what he is not.

Today, Ben Smith posted a new mailer from AFL-CIO aimed at debunking several of the most prominent smears against Barack Obama, and it is by far the best effort I've seen during the entire campaign to combat the smears.

As you can see, instead of answering each smear in the negative, the mailer instead poses questions that can be answered positively. In this fashion, the flier is reinforcing who Barack Obama actually is instead of who Barack Obama is not.

(.pdf version of the mailer)

It's excellent -- kudos to the AFL-CIO and whoever designed the mailer. Great job -- and thanks.

Update: Greg Sargent (who originally posted the flyer earlier today) picks up on this post here, noting the contrast between this flyer and the official anti-smear website, which leads with the smears.

Update 2: If you want to let the AFL-CIO know that you appreciate their flyer and want to encourage them to to distribute as much as possible, you can leave them thank you note here.

Lack of Progress in Congress Orchestrated By Bush and Republican Minority

Dena, St. Thomas — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 04:35:49 EDT

Here is the truth--don't forget to support all Dems running for Congress.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-l-borosage/congress-the-roots-of-obs_b_115669.html

"But take another look. The reputation of the Congress would be very different had the Republican minority and George Bush not orchestrated a systematic campaign of obstruction to bottle up any progress. For example, majorities in both Houses of Congress voted for:

Setting a date certain to bring the occupation of Iraq to an end, freeing up the $12 billion a month in direct costs (about a billion a day in total) for vital needs here at home;

Saving seniors tens of billions in prescription drug prices by empowering Medicare to negotiate discounts for its bulk purchases;

Investing billions in renewable energy sources and energy efficiency, generating green collar jobs, and paying for it by repealing subsidies for oil companies already pocketing the greatest profits in recorded history;

Providing health care for millions of children of working and poor families, giving them with a chance for a healthy start to life;

Insuring that soldiers be guaranteed adequate rest and recovery between deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan;

The Congress also managed to pass the first increase in the minimum wage in a decade, the largest increase in college aid since the GI Bill, and cleaned up its own act a bit. Now this isn't everything, but stopping a bad war, changing our energy policy, caring for the troops and providing more affordable health care to seniors and children isn't a bad start.

What stopped these measures from becoming law was a purposeful and unprecedented "block and blame" obstruction strategy by the Republican minority. In the Senate, Republicans have routinely filibustered every major piece of Democratic legislation. As a report by the Campaign for America's Future which I help direct reveals, this has forced a record number of cloture votes that require a super-majority of sixty votes to end the filibusters. This was reinforced by over 119 veto threats by President Bush(who never issued a veto as the previous Republican congresses ran up record deficits). Majority rule has essentially been repealed.

The strategy hasn't been a secret. Conservatives have openly gloated about it. Conservative pundit Charles Krauthammer told Fox News viewers, "I think [Democrats' inability to pass legislation][ will give the Republicans the one opening they are going to have in 2008. Everything is running against the Republicans, but I think they have a chance if they argue that the Democrats have been in charge and they are the do-nothing Congress." Or as former Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott, R-Miss, told Roll Call, "The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail...and so far it's working for us."

Now this is sort of like knee-capping the postman and then complaining that the mail is late. Will Republicans get away with it? As the economy has plummeted, they've started to worry. Recently, Republican Senators up for re-election have started to bail out, moving to help overcome filibusters and veto threats on Medicare funding. Politico reports that GOP leaders are advising vulnerable senators to "get well" with voters by siding with Democrats on everything but energy and national security.

As the economy gets worse, incumbent legislators should be nervous whether in the majority or the minority. But as Republicans posture about the do-nothing Congress, it's worth remembering that much would have gotten done had they not been in the way."

Obama Has Good Judgment on Middle East

Dena, St. Thomas — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 04:28:27 EDT

Afghanistan's Ambassador likes Obama's plan. McCain's is wanting.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/30/afghan-ambassador-trumpet_n_115756.html

An excerpt:

"Afghanistan's Ambassador to the United States trumpeted major portions of Barack Obama's approach towards his country on Tuesday, marking the second time in as many weeks that an official at the center of U.S.-Mideast policy has echoed the Illinois Senator's agenda.

Said Jawad, who has been at the ambassador's post since 2003, avoided specific references to Obama and his rival Sen. John McCain. But on a broad range of issues that divide the two candidates -- defining the main battleground in the war on terror, U.S. military commitments to Afghanistan, and combating terrorist activity in Pakistan -- he agreed with the prescriptions of the presumptive Democratic nominee."

USA Today/Gallup Poll Flawed

Dena, St. Thomas — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 04:23:09 EDT

Obama is still ahead in all polls except one flawed one by USA Today/Gallup:

"Eight years ago the Gallup organization got in hot water for using a likely voter screen several weeks before Election Day that produced wild fluctuations in candidate preference. At one point, the Gallup tracking poll went from an 8 point Gore lead to an 11 point Bush lead in three days. Of course, this was nonsense. The wild swings in the tracking poll were almost entirely caused by the likely voter screen. Those results were not to be believed. And neither are these," according to Alan Abramowitz.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-abramowitz/about-that-new-iusa-today_b_115663.html

Andrea Mitchell Exposes Lies in McCain Ad

Dena, St. Thomas — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 04:14:11 EDT

Cudos to Andrea Mitchell--we need more like her: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/28/andrea-mitchell-leads-med_n_115501.html

Here's an excerpt:

"Displaying nothing more than a studied neutrality in tone, and well-armed with the facts that she herself obtained while overseas with both the CODEL and the Obama campaign, Mitchell was a leader in the field of not letting lying dogs sleep. Terming the ad "literally not true," and confidently summing up the ad as 'inexplicable.'"

If McCain Knows How to Capture Bin Laden, Why Hasn't he told Bush?

Dena, St. Thomas — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 04:47:46 EDT

What an idiot--McCain is quickly losing any credibility he may have had:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/25/john-mccain-i-know-how-to_n_115050.html

"With reporting by Rachel Weiner

Last week, John McCain proclaimed that he knew how to win wars. Today, he's taking it a step further, telling voters that he not only knows how to capture and bring to justice Osama bin Laden, but is going to do it.

Appearing on the Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer, the Arizona Republican was reminded that he had vowed to bring Osama bin Laden to justice and was asked how he would differ in that task from President Bush.

Initially saying that he would not "telegraph" the specifics, McCain declared, "Look, I know the area, I've been there, I know wars, I know how to win wars, and I know how to improve our capabilities so that we will capture Osama bin Laden -- or put it this way, bring him to justice... We will do it, I know how to do it."

Proclaiming that he will capture the elusive terrorist leader -- and knows how to do it -- is a fairly bold assertion and leads to the question: what information is McCain holding back from the Bush administration?"

But the Senator has made broad foreign policy promises before. This past week he told a crowd in Albuquerque, New Mexico: "I know how to win wars. I know how to win wars... And if I'm elected President, I will turn around the war in Afghanistan, just as we have turned around the war in Iraq, with a comprehensive strategy for victory, I know how to do that."

In today's CNN interview, McCain suggested that a Nuremberg Trial-style hearing for bin Laden would be appropriate upon his capture.

"We have various options. The Nuremberg Trials are certainly an example of the kind of tribunal that we could move forward with. I don't think we'd have any difficulty in devising an international -- internationally supported mechanism that would mete out justice. There's no problem there."

Early in the campaign, it should be noted, McCain went hard after Barack Obama for saying that Bin Laden should not be a "martyr." Obama also suggested Nuremburg as a model -- to which McCain replied that Obama didn't understand the reference."

Ban on Foreign Service Workers --Update

Dena, St. Thomas — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 04:42:34 EDT

McCain spoke in Canada and South America--must have forgotten that in recent criticism of Obama: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/24/obama-berlin-speech-us-fo_n_114752.html

"**UPDATE 7/25** ThinkProgress now reports that the bar on Foreign Service workers attending Obama's speech in Berlin --through what a diplomat's union called an "unnecessarily narrow interpretation" of the Foreign Affairs Manual-- may be even more partisan than initially reported. Despite railing against Obama for giving a speech outside the country, John McCain himself gave a speech in Ottowa as recently as June of this year, as reported by The Huffington Post's Rachel Weiner yesterday. Now, ThinkProgress reveals that McCain's speech in Canada prompted no such restrictions for the country's Foreign Service workers. In fact:

The event was reportedly organized in part by U.S. Ambassador to Canada David Wilkins, whom President Bush appointed in 2005. But more than that, the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa confirmed to ThinkProgress that Wilkins also attended the event.

Not only did McCain make clear references to and critiques of Obama's policy positions in the speech, but he also referred to his own presidential campaign six times.

***

Although it appears most of Berlin is heading to Obama's speech today, US Foreign Service personnel will be banned from the event. And they are not happy. The American Foreign Service Association, a union of Foreign Service workers are opposing the rule. Read more from The Washington Post. And watch the speech live here.

The U.S. Embassy in Berlin has instructed Foreign Service personnel stationed there not to attend Sen. Barack Obama's public rally today, which the State Department this week labeled a "partisan political activity" prohibited under its regulations for those serving overseas.

Government employees serving in the United States are permitted to attend such events under the Hatch Act, which bars other partisan activity, such as contributing money or working in behalf of a candidate...
...The American Foreign Service Association, the union of the diplomatic corps, objected to the ruling, calling it an "unnecessarily narrow interpretation" of the Foreign Affairs Manual. "The fact that you are working for the U.S. government overseas should not preclude political activity that you could engage in in the United States," one retired senior Foreign Service officer said.

HuffPost blogger Jacob Heilbrunn looks into the political connections around the rule:

Indeed, the administration has a long and tawdry record of trying to browbeat government agencies into submission, whether it's the CIA or the Centers for Disease Control. The State Department is perhaps highest on the list of conservatives and neocons who see it as the center of disloyalty and treachery. But this latest action represents a new low. If it's going to these lengths, the Bush administration must be really worried about Sen. John McCain's prospects. "

Why the Troop Visit Was Cancelled

Dena, St. Thomas — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 04:00:31 EDT

Pentagon is responsible--McCain lied, http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/25/obama-skips-visit-with-troops/?ex=1217649600&en=c3913b95d26173f3&ei=5070&emc=eta1

"The Cancellation of Obama’s Troop Visit

By Jeff Zeleny

Updated | 12:24 p.m.: BERLIN - Senator Barack Obama is off to Paris, after spending the first leisurely morning of an otherwise vigorous dawn-to-dusk schedule that has taken him through six countries over the last week.

So why the sudden gap in Mr. Obama’s schedule?

A visit to a United States military base in Germany on Friday morning was cancelled, stirring trans-Atlantic criticism from his rivals about Mr. Obama’s decision to take a pass on an opportunity to see troops at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center. But some aides to Mr. Obama said the Pentagon suggested the campaign should scrap the stop because it could be viewed as a campaign event.

“Senator Obama had hoped to and had every intention of visiting our troops to express his appreciation and gratitude for their service to our country,” said Scott Gration, a retired two-star Air Force general who advises the campaign and is traveling on the Obama trip. “Senator Obama did not want to have a trip to see our wounded warriors perceived as a campaign event when his visit was to show his appreciation for our troops and decided instead not to go.”

The decision left a curious gap in Mr. Obama’s schedule, and aides spent the better part of a day trying to explain the canceled visit that was first reported here by Spiegel Online, the Web publication of Der Spiegel.

Brian Rogers, a spokesman for the McCain campaign, criticized the move.

“Barack Obama is wrong,” Mr. Rogers said in a statement. “It is never ‘inappropriate’ to visit our men and women in the military.”

Aides to Mr. Obama were quick to point out that when Mr. Obama toured Iraq earlier this week as part of Congressional delegation to the region, he spent time visiting troops at a combat support hospital in Baghdad’s Green Zone.

Updated section from briefing on the Obama campaign plane:

Aboard the flight to Paris, aides to Mr. Obama sought to clarify the sequence of events leading up to canceling the visit to troops.

Robert Gibbs, a senior strategist, said the Obama campaign received official permission two weeks ago from the Pentagon to land a plane in Ramstein, Germany. But on Wednesday, he said, military officials advised the campaign of concerns about a political visit being a violation of government rules.

“It is entirely likely that someone would have attacked us for having gone,” Mr. Gibbs said, “and it’s entirely likely - and it has come about - that people have attacked us for not going.”

An earlier statement on Thursday from Mr. Gibbs seemed to suggest it was the senator’s decision.

“The senator decided out of respect for these servicemen and women that it would be inappropriate to make a stop to visit troops at a U.S. military facility as part of a trip funded by the campaign,” Mr. Gibbs said.

In any case, had Mr. Obama ended up visiting soldiers who are recovering from wounds in Iraq and Afghanistan, he was not planning to take reporters along. But it never came to pass because of the controversy.

Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, issued a statement emphasizing that the Pentagon did not cancel Mr. Obama’s visit.

“Senator Obama, in his official capacity, is always welcome to visit Landstuhl or any other military hospital. But it is not permitted to bring with him campaign staff. His team was notified of that, and they made a decision not to visit the hospital. But we were ready and willing to host him there. In fact, we had made arrangements for his campaign plane to land at Ramstein, and to take care of the campaign staff and press in a passenger terminal there, while the senator and senate staff, if he liked, went on to visit wounded warriors. They made a decision based on their own calculations not to visit. Senator Obama, like any other member of the senate, is always welcome to visit our wounded warriors or our military hospitals around the world. But they do so in their official capacity, and not as a candidate. He can come in and bring senate staffers as well, if he likes, but campaign staffers and press are not permitted to accompany him. That would be a violation of DoD directives.”

Mr. Obama will spend a brief time in Paris, before setting off for London on the final day of his trip.

Michael Falcone contributed to this post. "

Michelle Courts Women in Florida

Dena, St. Thomas — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 00:07:54 EDT

She is marvelous and raising funds from Clinton supporters in Florida:

"The candidate's wife wore white. Not a hint of camouflage.

Campaigning in a linen sheath one week after The New Yorker magazine caricatured her as a black militant, Michelle Obama addressed hundreds of donors in Miami Wednesday in her largest event in Florida so far. About 800 people contributed between $100 and $5,000 to her husband's presidential campaign.

''It means a great deal to me, to us, to have you among us,'' she told the crowd, acknowledging that some had supported ''the great Hillary Rodham Clinton'' in the Florida primary.

"The voices of women in this election are going to make a difference. They can't be underestimated.''

Read the complete story at miamiherald.com

Obama's Popularity with Latinos Soars

Dena, St. Thomas — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:07:16 EDT

Obama is now more popular than McCain and more popular than Clinton was with Latino voters:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/24/poll-sharp-reversal-for-o_n_114747.html

Excerpt:

"Obama is rated favorably by 76% of Latino registered voters, making him much
more popular among that voting group than McCain (44% favorable) and
President Bush (27% favorable). He now appears to be even more popular than
Hillary Clinton among Latinos (73% favorable). "

Bush Administration Kills Right to Listen

Dena, St. Thomas — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:54:22 EDT

This is an outrage going on right now in Berlin--

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/24/obama-berlin-speech-us-fo_n_114752.html

"Although it appears most of Berlin is heading to Obama's speech today, US Foreign Service personnel will be banned from the event. And they are not happy. The American Foreign Service Association, a union of Foreign Service workers are opposing the rule. Read more from The Washington Post. And watch the speech live here.

The U.S. Embassy in Berlin has instructed Foreign Service personnel stationed there not to attend Sen. Barack Obama's public rally today, which the State Department this week labeled a "partisan political activity" prohibited under its regulations for those serving overseas.

Government employees serving in the United States are permitted to attend such events under the Hatch Act, which bars other partisan activity, such as contributing money or working in behalf of a candidate...
...The American Foreign Service Association, the union of the diplomatic corps, objected to the ruling, calling it an "unnecessarily narrow interpretation" of the Foreign Affairs Manual. "The fact that you are working for the U.S. government overseas should not preclude political activity that you could engage in in the United States," one retired senior Foreign Service officer said.

HuffPost blogger Jacob Heilbrunn looks into the political connections around the rule:

Indeed, the administration has a long and tawdry record of trying to browbeat government agencies into submission, whether it's the CIA or the Centers for Disease Control. The State Department is perhaps highest on the list of conservatives and neocons who see it as the center of disloyalty and treachery. But this latest action represents a new low. If it's going to these lengths, the Bush administration must be really worried about Sen. John McCain's prospects. "

Scam Alert

Dena, St. Thomas — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:18:43 EDT

Yesterday, in central New York, we received a phone call from a man insisting we make a $150 donation by credit card through him to the Obama campaign. We refused, saying we do all our donations on line. He said "we don't have online donations down here" and when we said we had given all we could, he hung up.

For those of you online, I urge you to continue your donations only through this method.

McCain Strategy Falling Apart

Dena, St. Thomas — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 04:02:28 EDT

"Watching it all fall apart at oncePosted July 22nd, 2008 at 2:45 pm

Share This | Spotlight | Permalink

Matt Yglesias had a very good item this morning, noting the “debacle” for the Republican approach to foreign policy.

[McCain had] spent, several weeks with the main theme of his campaign being, quite literally, to criticize Barack Obama for not having been physically present in Iraq recently. This (of course) got Obama to go to Iraq, thus setting up a dilemma. Either Obama would survey the “progress” in Iraq and change his position, thus making him a flip-flopper, or else he would refuse to change his position, thus making him obstinate and out of touch with reality.
But instead of either of those things happening, Obama went to Iraq and Iraqi leaders said he’d been right all along! That’s about as close to “game, set, match” as you get in terms of real world events influencing your political campaign. What’s more, given the domestic situation and John McCain’s inability to talk about domestic issues persuasively, he can’t afford to play for a draw on Iraq.

Quite right. David Kurtz added how surprised he is to see “just how complete the Republican collapse on foreign policy has been in the short span of just a few weeks.” Kurtz noted that it’s “hard to think of any recent historical parallels.”

I’d just add that it goes beyond just Iraq. Over the last couple of months, the entire GOP foreign policy — the strategy, the worldview, the assumptions, the tactics — has crumbled to the point of destruction. The Bush administration bucked the McCain approach and adopted the Clinton policy to reach an accord with North Korea. McCain endorsed Obama’s policy on Afghanistan. Bush established the most direct diplomatic efforts with Iran since 1979. Just today, the administration sounded very Obama-esque in reaching out to Syria, which would have been unthinkable a year ago. Hell, the Bush administration is even distributing memoranda, telling officials to stop using language such as “jihadists,” “mujahedeen,” and “Islamo-fascism.”

And what’s left? To hear McCain tell it, the surge.

For McCain, that’s literally the only thing that matters anymore. In 2007, Bush and McCain decided it was wise to send thousands of additional troops into Iraq, in order to provide “breathing space” for political progress. Violence came down, Iraq became less unstable, but the political progress hasn’t materialized. To that, McCain effectively says, “Close enough.”

Now, I thought there was a general consensus among experts that the reduction in violence in Iraq can be connected to a variety of factors, including the surge, the “Awakening” in Anbar, the Sadr ceasefire, the completion of ethnic cleansing campaigns, and the fact that we’ve put a lot of the people who were shooting at us on the payroll. McCain sees a direct and unambiguous connection — more U.S. troops went in, Iraq got better — but that’s probably an overly simplistic take on what’s transpired.

But nevertheless, even if we accept McCain’s unsophisticated spin at face value, there’s just not much of an argument here. McCain, faced with the most important national security and foreign policy decision in a generation, got the war wrong. Indeed, he kept getting the war wrong, telling Americans we had to “stay the course” while the Bush/Rumsfeld policy was failing miserably. Now there’s a sovereign Iraqi government, and wouldn’t you know it, the prime minister thinks McCain is still wrong.

And the surge is supposed to be the saving grace? McCain got the big question wrong, and was half-right about a tactical decision after supporting a half-decade of failure? Please.

At this point, McCain has nothing to fall back on. His surrogates, desperate to find something, have fallen back to, “Oh yeah, we’ll he’s still inexperienced!”

It’s the wholesale collapse of the Republican foreign policy. Let’s see if voters notice." http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/16284.html

More on McCain's Idiocy

Dena, St. Thomas — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 02:35:53 EDT

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/16271.htmlIdiocy Watch: McCain blames Obama for high gas prices in new adPosted July 21st, 2008 at 1:40 pm

Share This | Spotlight | Permalink

Several recent polls show Americans believe Barack Obama is better prepared to deal with energy prices than John McCain, and given the importance of the issue on the minds of voters, the McCain campaign has decided to rely on a tried-and-true method of campaigning: lie like a rug.

Here’s McCain’s latest television ad:

For those who can’t watch clips online, the ad starts with an announcer explaining, “Gas prices — $4, $5, no end in sight, because some in Washington are still saying no to drilling in America. No to independence from foreign oil. Who can you thank for rising prices at the pump?”

At that point, you hear a crowd chanting, “Obama, Obama, Obama.”

The announcer comes back to conclude, “One man knows we must now drill more in America and rescue our family budgets. Don’t hope for more energy, vote for it. McCain.”

I occasionally think about something Time’s Joe Klein wrote in April about McCain’s style. Klein predicted that McCain would avoid a cheap and pathetic style of campaigning, because he knows better. McCain, Klein said, “sees the tawdry ceremonies of politics — the spin and hucksterism — as unworthy.” If he doesn’t, “McCain will have to live with the knowledge that in the most important business of his life, he chose expediency over honor.”

For McCain, it appears the equation is simple. If abandoning honor and honesty will give him the presidency, then so be it. The truth, McCain has concluded, is for losers.

To anyone who cares about reality, the ad doesn’t make a lick of sense. McCain has to hope, desperately, that we’re all idiots.

For example, the ad says gas prices are high “because some in Washington are still saying no to drilling in America.” How’s that, exactly? No one is saying no to “drilling in America.” There’s all kinds of drilling in America. There’s drilling in U.S. waters, and on U.S. land. I don’t know of a single U.S. policy maker who wants “drilling in America” to stop.

Worse, the ad wants Americans to believe that prices would be lower if there was more “drilling in America.” McCain knows that’s not true, but hopes to fool just enough people, playing them for suckers. It’s shameful.

In fact, I know John McCain’s pitch a transparent scam, in large part because John McCain told me so.

For what it’s worth, the Obama campaign continues to talk to voters like grown-ups: “John McCain said recently that ‘our dangerous dependence on foreign oil has been thirty years in the making, and was caused by the failure of politicians in Washington.’ As someone who’s been in Washington for 26 years, Senator McCain is one of those politicians, and he’s consistently opposed investments in renewable energy that would reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Now he’s proposing nearly $4 billion in tax breaks for the oil companies and Washington gimmicks that he admits will only provide ‘psychological relief’ to consumers. Barack Obama has fought for energy independence in the Senate and has a plan to invest $150 billion in renewable sources of energy that will create five million new jobs and provide struggling families with an immediate energy rebate and a $1,000 middle-class tax cut.”

My hunch is, there’s going to come a point in the not-too-distant future when John McCain looks back at this period of his campaign and asks himself, “I wonder what would have happened if I tried to run as an honest, honorable candidate.” I guess he (and we) will never know.

Now McCain Blames Obama for Rising Price of Oil

Dena, St. Thomas — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 02:29:09 EDT

I couldn't believe it, but that's what he has done in a new ad: Link to the article for the whole story.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/21/AR2008072102636.html

McCain Urges More Drilling, Blames Obama for Gas Prices
By Howard KurtzTuesday, July 22, 2008; Page A04

The Ad: (Narrator) Gas prices -- $4, $5, no end in sight, because some in Washington are still saying no to drilling in America. No to independence from foreign oil. Who can you thank for rising prices at the pump?

NAFTA and Farm Subsidies Upsetting Latinos in Florida

Dena, St. Thomas — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 03:50:33 EDT

Florida--again--seems a stir is brewing over the Latino vote in South Florida, particularly over NAFTA and farm subsidies:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/104/story/44838.html

Some Florida Dems miffed by who runs Obama's Latin outreachBy Andres Oppenheimer | Miami Herald

There is a fierce behind-the-scenes battle for influence over presumptive Democratic candidate Barack Obama's Hispanic and Latin American agenda, and some Democratic strategists say that its outcome could determine the result of the November elections.

Some Obama backers in South Florida, in particular, are especially miffed at what they see as excessive power by labor-union-tied, left-leaning Mexican-American leaders at Obama's Chicago headquarters over the campaign's nationwide Hispanic and Latin American policy strategies.

In a confidential July 4 memo sent to 25 prominent South Florida Hispanics, former Miami Mayor Maurice Ferre -- well respected in nationwide Democratic circles -- called for creation of a ''South Florida Hispanic policy advisory group'' to counterbalance what he perceives as excessive micro-management of state campaigns by Obama's Chicago headquarters.

In an interview, Ferre said that in an effort to win Florida — which may be the key swing state in which Hispanics may decide the election — his group would also try to steer the Obama campaign away from criticism of the North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico, and the pending free-trade deal with Colombia.

Obama's stands against NAFTA and the free-trade deal with Colombia have been applauded in some Midwestern industrialized states that have lost factories to Mexico. Florida's business community and many of the state's Hispanics support the deals, however.

Similarly, Obama's support for farm subsidies has been welcomed in U.S. farm states but is decried as unfair by virtually all Latin American countries and many U.S. Latinos.

Ferre's memo was written shortly after the Obama campaign appointed Cuauhtemoc ''Temo'' Figueroa, a Mexican American with a labor-union background, as head of its national Hispanic get-out-the-vote effort in Obama's Chicago headquarters. Figueroa, whose parents were farm-worker organizers, was a top official of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

''In the inner circle of candidate Obama's campaign there is no one who has deep knowledge or shown interest in Latin America or Hispanics in the United States,'' Ferre wrote in his memo.

Senior Obama foreign-policy advisor Tony Lake ''has never shown major knowledge or interest in Latin America,'' he wrote.

Ferre said that while top Latino leaders such as New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, former Clinton Transportation Secretary Federico Pena and U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., have direct access to Obama, "that is very different than BEING in the inner circle of the Obama campaign.''

''My experience with how the Obama campaign handled the delegate vote on June 1 in Puerto Rico was disastrous,'' Ferre wrote. "The principal decision makers, operatives and advertisements were all made in or through Chicago. The result is that [Sen. Hillary] Clinton got almost 70 percent of the vote in Puerto Rico.''

Simon Ferro, a former Florida Democratic Party chairman and U.S. ambassador to Panama who was one the recipients of Ferre's memo, said he agrees that the Obama campaign should give a greater role to South Florida Democrats.

''They have to empower more local Democrats and give them more ownership of the campaign,'' Ferro said. "You want to make the local people know that they are involved in a material way. I'm sure it will happen, but I haven't seen it yet.''

Spokesmen for the Obama campaign readily concede that the campaign will focus on four key swing states that happen to have huge Hispanic populations — New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado and Florida. And of the four, Florida carries the largest number of electoral votes and may decide the general election, they say.

But Obama spokesmen caution that the Latino vote outreach team led by Figueroa has no connection with the campaign's Latin America policy team, which is led by foreign-policy experts such as Washington-based Dan Restrepo and Florida resident Frank Sanchez.

''Temo'' Figueroa does not participate in Latin America policy meetings, Sanchez said. In addition, the campaign has appointed a Cuban American from Miami, Carlos Odio, as his deputy, he said.

The Obama campaign is just starting to build its Florida organization. Unlike the situation in most other states, it had not done so previously because the Democratic National Committee did not recognize the results of the state's January primary.

''We just opened our office in Tampa three days ago,'' Sanchez said Friday. "In terms of staff, we are still putting that together, but we hope to have that in place within the next two weeks. Admittedly, we are playing catch-up, but you are going to see a Latino outreach the likes of which no presidential campaign has ever seen.''

Over the next two weeks, the Obama campaign will hire 300 paid staffers in Florida and enlist hundreds of volunteers, campaign officials say. Among the newly enlisted, well-known South Florida Democrats are pollster Sergio Bendixen, who will be a senior Hispanic strategist for Obama's national Hispanic campaign, and former U.S. Ambassador to the Organization of American States Luis Lauredo, who will join the group of campaign spokesmen on Latin American issues.

Comparatively, Republicans for several months have had a national network of informal Latin American advisors, most of them Floridians.

McCAIN ADVISOR

Asked in a recent interview about his top Latin American advisor, likely Republican candidate Sen. John McCain cited his top foreign-policy aide, Randy Scheunemann.

Asked in an interview last week whom he relies on for advice on Latin American issues, Scheunemann mentioned Florida legislators Lincoln and Mario Diaz-Balart, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Sen. Mel Martinez, former State Department Latin American chief Otto Reich and former congressional staffer Stephen Vermillion.

''My fear was that, as in previous Democratic campaigns, we would have a pan-Hispanic message that would be essentially aimed at Mexican Americans,'' said Freddy Balsera, an Obama campaign spokesman in Miami. "But the Florida Hispanic message will be specific to Florida Hispanics, based on issues, experience and motivations that move Hispanics in this state.''

Told about the Obama campaign plans for Florida, Ferre said he is not ruling out a quick correction: "They are very intelligent people. They may have realized that they don't have a handle of the Latin community, and that the only way to do it is at the local level.''

Alaska Up for Grabs

Dena, St. Thomas — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 03:43:26 EDT

Alaska may be Obama's after all. Read entire article at http://www.adn.com/3017/story/470374.html

"Gas prices, influence, Iraq define Democrats' debate

HOUSE: Young and Democrats Berkowitz and Benson tackle issues.

By SEAN COCKERHAM
scockerham@adn.com

Published: July 21st, 2008 12:59 AM
Last Modified: July 21st, 2008 02:17 PM

Alaska Congressman Don Young and the Democrats pursuing his seat sparred over corruption, campaign contributors, the Iraq war and high gas prices Sunday."

McCain Bombs with Michiganders

Dena, St. Thomas — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 03:25:18 EDT

With another flip-flop and lack of understanding of the auto industry, McCain may be losing his supporters in Michigan, according to Detroit Daily News' Daniel Howes :

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080721/OPINION03/807210326

"What's McCain doing?

"You'd think before you come to Detroit or GM, you'd have a pretty concise answer on this," an executive with a rival automaker tells me. "Michigan should be a competitive state for him, but it almost feels like he's doing what he can to lose it."

Yes, it does. The Big Mitten, the sickest state economy in America, is shaping up to be a battleground in this fall's election. How does it make political sense, then, for McCain to swoop in, do a 180 in the name of "federalism" and punt on the national emissions standard that Detroit (and, truth be told, Toyota and the others) desperately want and that he once said he supported?

It doesn't. Even Sen. Barack Obama, whose sharp, tough-love rhetoric for Detroit has softened and grown more realistic as the campaign lengthens, has the smarts to support state-by-state emissions standards only if a national standard is deemed insufficient. Meaning the Illinois Democrat gets the benefit of mollifying his friends on the coasts while showing a little Midwestern love for the autos.

Is that so hard to understand? Apparently not for Obama, who scored points last week with auto execs because he and his campaign at least look like they're paying as much attention to corporate pressures as to the plights of auto workers."

What CBS didn't Report about Maliki on Withdrawal

Dena, St. Thomas — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 02:33:04 EDT

"Maliki: So far the Americans have had trouble agreeing to a concrete timetable for withdrawal, because they feel it would appear tantamount to an admission of defeat. But that isn't the case at all. If we come to an agreement, it is not evidence of a defeat, but of a victory, of a severe blow we have inflicted on al-Qaida and the militias. The American lead negotiators realize this now, and that's why I expect to see an agreement taking shape even before the end of President Bush's term in office. With these negotiations, we will start the whole thing over again, on a clearer, better basis, because the first proposals were unacceptable to us."

So, in addition to liking Obama's timetable, Maliki doesn't see withdrawal as "tantamount to an admission of defeat." Take that, Bush/McCain.

The above quote is from the interview between Maliki and Der Spiegel. Sorry, no link--received it in an email.

Why A Lifelong Conservative Voting for Obama

Dena, St. Thomas — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 11:14:51 EDT

Share with your conservative friends:"I'm a lifelong conservative activist and I'm backing Barack Obama

BY LARRY HUNTER

Wednesday, July 16th 2008, 7:39 PM

I'm a lifelong Republican - a supply-side conservative. I worked in the Reagan White House. I was the chief economist at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for five years. In 1994, I helped write the Republican Contract with America. I served on Bob Dole's presidential campaign team and was chief economist for Jack Kemp's Empower America.

This November, I'm voting for Barack Obama.

When I first made this decision, many colleagues were shocked. How could I support a candidate with a domestic policy platform that's antithetical to almost everything I believe in?

The answer is simple: Unjustified war and unconstitutional abridgment of individual rights vs. ill-conceived tax and economic policies - this is the difference between venial and mortal sins.

Taxes, economic policy and health care reform matter, of course. But how we extract ourselves from the bloody boondoggle in Iraq, how we avoid getting into a war with Iran and how we preserve our individual rights while dealing with real foreign threats - these are of greater importance.

John McCain would continue the Bush administration's commitment to interventionism and constitutional overreach. Obama promises a humbler engagement with our allies, while promising retaliation against any enemy who dares attack us. That's what conservatism used to mean - and it's what George W. Bush promised as a candidate.

Plus, when it comes to domestic issues, I don't take Obama at his word. That may sound cynical. But the fact that he says just about all the wrong things on domestic issues doesn't bother me as much as it once would have. After all, the Republicans said all the right things - fiscal responsibility, spending restraint - and it didn't mean a thing. It is a sad commentary on American politics today, but it's taken as a given that politicians, all of them, must pander, obfuscate and prevaricate.

Besides, I suspect Obama is more free-market friendly than he lets on. He taught at the University of Chicago, a hotbed of right-of-center thought. His economic advisers, notably Austan Goolsbee, recognize that ordinary citizens stand to gain more from open markets than from government meddling. That's got to rub off.

When it comes to health care, I am hoping Obama quietly recognizes that a crusade against pharmaceutical companies would result in the opposite of any intended effect. And in any event, McCain's plans in this area are deeply problematic, too. Take drug reimportation. McCain (like Obama) says he's perfectly comfortable with this ill-conceived scheme, which would drive research and development dollars away from the next generation of miracle cures.

But overall, based on his embrace of centrist advisers and policies, it seems likely that Obama will turn out to be in the mold of John Kennedy - who was fond of noting that "a rising tide lifts all boats." Over the last few decades, economic growth has made Americans at every income level better off. For all his borderline pessimistic rhetoric, Obama knows this. And I believe he is savvy enough to realize that the real threat to middle-class families and the poor - an economic undertow that drags everyone down - cannot be counteracted by an activist government.

Or maybe not. But here's the thing: Even if my hopes on domestic policy are dashed and Obama reveals himself as an unreconstructed, dyed-in-the-wool, big-government liberal, I'm still voting for him.

These past eight years, we have spent over a trillion dollars on foreign soil - and lost countless lives - and done what I consider irreparable damage to our Constitution.

If economic damage from well-intentioned but misbegotten Obama economic schemes is the ransom we must pay him to clean up this foreign policy mess, then so be it. It's not nearly as costly as enduring four more years of what we suffered the last eight years.

#################

Hunter is the former staff director of the Congressional Joint Economic Committee and president of the Social Security Institute."

Full Text of Obama's Iraq Speech--Masterful

Dena, St. Thomas — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 03:56:18 EDT

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/full_text_of_obamas_iraq_speec.php#more

Is McCain Trying to Get Obama Killed by Leaking Details of His Trip to Iraq?

Dena, St. Thomas — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 02:17:50 EDT

McCain disclosed that Obama will be in Iraq this weekend--a MAJOR security no-no:

For full story, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/18/mccain-leaks-details-of-o_n_113682.html

"If it is true that Obama is going to Iraq this weekend, it is a very serious mistake for McCain to have disclosed it publically. Even for run-of-the-mill CODELs the military gives guidance like, "'Please strongly discourage Congressional offices from issuing press releases prior to their trips which mention their intent to travel to the AOR and/or the dates of that travel or their scheduled meetings. Such releases are a serious compromise to OPSEC." If Obama is going to Iraq this weekend, I can not begin to imagine how much this is complicating the security planning for the trip.'

It's known that Obama is leaving on his foreign trip this weekend and the Journal OpEd page this morning said that Obama could arrive in Iraq "as early as this weekend." And with a slew of reporters in tow, it's not exactly highly classified information. But there is a reason definite information about these sorts of trips aren't released in advance.

Hypothetically, maybe McCain was just guessing. But even so it would still be a serious lapse of judgment on his part.

In fact, McCain was furious when the press reported on his son serving in Iraq -- he feared the coverage would make him a target. "

Becky Bonnette's Astounding Finding

Dena, St. Thomas — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:20:12 EDT

3 Facts That Could Change This Election (If We Share Them) http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6430781

Here are 3 Stunning facts that could not only change the outcome of this election, but with regard to the first two points, they could change the results of every election for years to come if we make enough people aware of them.

I want to keep this as simple and short as poss ible, so that the people who need to read this actually do. And again, I encourage you to share this information with as many people as you can, either by recommending and commenting on this thread, by emailing these points out and or by posting a link to this thread on the appropriate websites.

1) Over 70% of our National Debt was created by just 3 Republican presidents.

Go ahead, get out your calculator and add up debt by president/party. Apparently the party that claims fiscally responsibility thinks it's ok to borrow massive amounts of money from foreign countries like China. Consider that we spend hundreds of billions of dollars in interest payments on this debt each year. That means more and more of your hard earned money is going to make interest only payments on what is basically a Giant National Credit Card. Not to mention the fact our debt/deficits are largely behind the weakness of our dollar, which in turns makes gas more expensive and creates other serious problems.

If you want to learn more about the National Debt, check out these links:

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock /
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...
http://zfacts .com/p/447.html (A running clock with the cost of the war)
http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/business...

2) According to new research from Larry Bartels out of Princeton, real middle class wage growth is double when a Democrat is president compared to when a Republican is president.

'...Even more remarkable, the real incomes of working-poor families...grew six times as fast when Democrats held the White House. Only the incomes of affluent families were relatively impervious to partisan politics, growing robustly under Democrats and Republicans alike...': http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/magazine/27wwln-ideal...

Here is a short summary of this research: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008...

And here is a good, short audio interview with Larry Bartels: http://youngturks.wmod.llnwd.net/a591/o1/4-25-08Bartels...

3) 90% of Americans would pay less taxes under Obama's proposed tax plan compared to McCain's.

This is according to the non-partisan Tax Policy Institute as reported by CNN: http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidates...

People making under $112,000 a year in individual (not household) income would pay less taxes under Obama's plan.

By contrast, John McCain's tax cuts mostly benefit the top 10% of Americans. Under McCain's plan, people making over 2 .9 million dollars in individual annual income would get almost a million dollar tax break.

Conclusion: Countless millions of Americans vote Republican because they believe they'll pay less taxes and that they'll have their money spent more responsibly. As you can see, those beliefs are directly contradicted by the facts. Of course we can choose to ignore the facts and instead focus on which candidate is wearing a flag pin (you ever notice that Hillary and McCain don't wear them? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vi5nbZvS9cg ) but I think we're a smarter country than that.

PS---If you're not sure how to respond to those laughably bad, factually inaccurate anti-Obama smear emails and or you want more information on John McCain, here is a nice resource guide of articles, videos and commentary: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

THANK YOU SO MUCH, BECKY

McCain Lies About Support of 300 economists

Dena, St. Thomas — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:04:24 EDT

McCain doesn't have the support of the economists he claims he has: http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/07/11/mccain_economists/index.html

"Following up on the Politico's discovery that some of the 300 economists touted as endorsing John McCain's economic plan hadn't read it and don't support it, Nico Pitney and Sam Stein of the Huffington Post decided to dig deeper. They sent e-mails to about half of these dismal scientists questioning their attitude toward McCain and his platform, and a fifth of those responded.

Seems a lot of "McCain's economists" aren't all that supportive, with his "gas tax holiday" proposal and his first-term balanced budget pledge (the central point of his "plan") earning widespread mockery.

You can read it all, but my favorite response was from Peter J. Van Blokland of the University of Florida, who said he didn't support making Bush's tax cuts permanent, didn't support the gas tax holiday, didn't support the balanced budget pledge and hadn't, in fact, endorsed McCain. Other than that, I guess, he's a pretty solid member of McCain's economic team.

Combined with yesterday's over-the-top repudiation by McCain of his top economic advisor, Phil Gramm, it appears this hasn't been a great week for McCainomics.

― Ed Kilgor"

Perhaps McCain Can't be President under our Constitution

Dena, St. Thomas — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 23:53:41 EDT

In Alex Koppleman's War Room, http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/07/11/mccain_eligibility/index.html?source=newsletter, an article states McCain may not be eligible to run for President as a natural-born citizen. Constitutional scholars differ.

"At the end of a pretty stressful week for John McCain, he's now being told by a constitutional scholar from his own state that he may not eligible for the presidency in the first place.

Professor Gabriel J. Chin of the University of Arizona wrote the analysis suggesting that McCain's birth in the Panama Canal Zone while his father was on active military duty qualified him as a citizen under a law later enacted by Congress, but didn't make him a "natural-born citizen," which is what the Constitution requires for the presidency.

This issue has been kicking around constitutional circles for a while, and Chin's opinion is decidedly a minority view. Indeed, earlier this year "the Senate approved a nonbinding resolution declaring that Mr. McCain is eligible to be president. Its sponsors said the nation's founders would have never intended to deny the presidency to the offspring of military personnel stationed out of the country."

That's almost certainly true. But it may be a tougher argument for McCain to make now that he's devoted to "strict constructionist" interpretations of the Constitution.

After all, if you start messing with the language of the Founders, next thing you know, you've got a constitutional right to privacy, and we can't have that, eh?

― Ed Kilgore"

McCain's Condition is the Problem with Him

Dena, St. Thomas — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 00:49:00 EDT

Alec Baldwin in the Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alec-baldwin/mccains-problem-not-age-b_b_112133.html, accurately characterizes the problem with McCain. It's not his age. It's his condition.

"The problem with John McCain is not his age, it's his condition. McCain's true lack of the abundant energy required to function as president, even performing the job on the most basic level, is what must be questioned. Perhaps McCain could have served in the 1950s, back in a time when the job was significantly less complicated than it is today. However, the world has grown far more dangerous and complicated in the last decade. (I know this because the Bush administration has worked incredibly hard for eight years to convince me of this.) The world today requires that we have a president who has the mental and physical capability and stamina to face issues such as terrorism, global warming and the energy crisis we are currently steeped in, not to mention the link between all three.

John McCain had a relatively brief and less taxing battle for his party's nomination than Barack Obama did. He has had time to rest up. Get mentally fit. Study his notes and come out swinging once he had a clear target. And what have we witnessed thus far? What kind of shape will John McCain be in come September or October, after weeks of stress and pounding from his adversary, who seems right now to be indefatigable?

McCain's ideas are too old, not the Senator himself. McCain's view of this country, his view of the world, are too old. There may be a seventy-two year old Republican Senator/ war hero who has most or all of what it takes to lead this country out of these difficult times. John McCain is not that man. "

The Truth About PUMA

Dena, St. Thomas — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 13:13:15 EDT

Thanks to jpenning and John P for sending this:

jpenning@berkeley.edu wrote:

PUMA was not founded by Hillary supporters, but is actually a Nixon-style
dirty tricks operation founded by a Republican. Blogger Amanda Marcotte
from the blog Pandagon did the basic research on this, and she discovered
that the creator of PUMA is a woman named Darragh C. Murphy, who is listed
in Federal Election Commission records as a donor to John McCain but has
never donated to Hillary Clinton.

Here's the link:

http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/pumas_are_swiftboats_darragh_murphy/

Writer Rick Perlstein, the author of the "must read" book Nixonland, has
another good blog post that places PUMA in the historical context of how
Nixon used illicit dirty tricks to create disunity among Democratic
candidate:

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/pumafinks

In addition, another clue is that the acronym PUMA is suspiciously like
the word "cougar," a derogatory slang term for an older woman who sexually
preys on younger men.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cougar

The nature of acronym makes me think that PUMA comes from the same brand
of mean-spirited, frat-boy humor of Republican operatives that gave us the
anti-Hillary organization, Citizens United Not Timid.

PUMA is just a device cooked up by Republican dirty tricksters to destroy
the unity developing around Obama. Don't be fooled!

Sincerely,

Jon P.

McCain Can't Add--Earmarks Savings?

Dena, St. Thomas — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 01:30:39 EDT

Check this out:

McCain's Fantasy War on Earmarks

Portland, OR, May 12, 2008.

"I can eliminate $100 billion of wasteful and earmark spending immediately--35 billion in big spending bills in the last two years, and another 65 billion that has already been made a permanent part of the budget."
--John McCain, NPR All Things Considered, April 23, 2008.

John McCain boasts that he can save $100 billion a year "immediately" by eliminating the so-called earmarks that legislators attach to spending bills to finance pet projects, usually in their home state. But he has refused to say exactly which projects he would cut, and his estimates of the amount of money that is being spent on earmarks have been challenged by independent experts.

The Facts

The Arizona senator is promising to balance the budget by the end of his first term, while simultaneously extending the George W. Bush tax cuts, introducing billions of dollars of new tax cuts of his own, and remaining in Iraq as long as is necessary to stabilize that country. Asked how this miracle will be accomplished, McCain told George Stephanopoulos of ABC News This Week on April 20 that he could come up with $100 billion "tomorrow" by vetoing pork-barrel spending bills.

Here's $100 billion right here for you, George. Two years in a row, the last two years, the president of the United States has signed into law two big spending, pork barrel-laden bills with $35 billion (in earmarks). In the years before that, $65 billion. You do away with those, there's $100 billion right before you look at any agency.

Pouff! $100 billion in taxpayer money! Saved! Just like that! With a flick of the presidential veto pen!

There are a number of problems with this magical budgetary balancing act. First of all, the suspiciously round $100 billion figure is largely a figment of the McCain campaign's imagination. I have not been able to find a single independent budget expert to vouch for it. McCain's economics adviser, Doug Holtz-Eakin, will not say how the campaign arrived at the figure, other than that it is an extrapolation from various studies, including a 2006 study by the Congressional Research Service available here.

The CRS study breaks down earmarks by different government departments, without giving a global figure. According to Scott Lilly, a former Democratic appropriations staffer now with the Center for American Progress Action Fund, the CRS study identifies a total of $52 billion in earmarks for a single year. However, much of this money is tied to items such as foreign aid to countries like Israel, Egypt, and Jordan, that McCain says he will not touch.

By most definitions of the term, the amount of money spent on earmarks is much lower than the CRS study. The Office for Management and the Budget came up with a figure for $16.9 billion in the 2008 appropriation bills. Taxpayers for Commonsense, an independent watchdog group that focuses on wasteful spending, identified $18.3 billion worth of earmarks in the 2008 bills, a 23 per cent cut from a record $23.6 billion set in 2005.

How much of this $18.3 billion could be eliminated is a "difficult question that we have not yet figured out," said Taxpayers for Commonsense vice-president Steve Ellis. The figure includes such items as $4 billion for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which could not be eliminated without halting hundreds of construction projects around the country. Another big chunk goes to military construction, including housing for servicemen and their families, which McCain has also promised not to touch.

Bruce Riedl, a budget analyst with the Heritage Foundation, says it might be possible to eliminate roughly half the expenditure on earmarks every year, i.e. around $9 billion, using the Taxpayers for Commonsense figures. He identified $5 billion in Community Development Block Grant funds, most of which goes to local governments, as a prime target for cuts. Even if earmarks were eliminated altogether, many other expenditures would have to be shifted to other parts of the budget.

Like other analysts, Riedl was mystified by McCain's argument that previous year's earmarks automatically become a "permanent part of the budget." "I don't understand how they come up with that," he told me.

Excluding those programs McCain has promised to preserve, the draconian slashing of earmark expenditures might save around $10 billion a year. But that is still a long way from the $100 billion in savings that McCain says that he can identify "immediately."

The McCain camp now says that the senator never meant to suggest that his proposed $100 billion in savings would all come from earmarks. Holtz-Eakin told me that McCain had simply promised to cut overall spending by around $100 billion. Some of these savings will come from earmarks, some from other parts of the budget. He declined to identify which specific projects would be cut.

Asked whether McCain had misspoke or whether he had been misunderstood in his focus on eliminating earmarks, Holtz-Eakin replied: "a bit of both."

The Pinocchio Test

McCain's talk about eliminating $100 billion a year in earmarks is largely fantasy. His advisers are now promoting a more realistic plan of eliminating $100 billion in overall spending. But it is difficult to take even that promise very seriously given the fact that the senator refuses to identify exactly which projects he will be cut. To use a phrase coined by George H.W. Bush, this is "voodoo economics," based more on wishful thinking than on hard data or carefully considered policy proposals.

(About our rating scale.)

Posted on May 23, 2008 at 6:00 AM ET | Category: 4 Pinocchios, Candidate Watch, Economy, John McCain
Share This: Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This | What Are These Links?

It's All In Our Heads!

Dena, St. Thomas — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 01:20:05 EDT

So, McCain, who has admitted he doesn't know much about the economy, has Phil Gramm as his leader and Gramm says we are only in "mental recession" and we are a nation of whiners. Tell that to the folks who can't pay the mortgage (sorry company, I'm having a mental recession, don't foreclose), who can't find a job, who can't find a decent paying job, whose job has been shipped overseas. Suppose these "whiners" are bitter? I'd be bitter about McCain thinking he can run this nation. Give me a break!

Read all about it: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/07/10/mccain_economic_adviser_calls.html

Rep. Jackson blasts Rev. Jackson on Obama

Dena, St. Thomas — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:46:29 EDT

The generational divide is well illustrated in the conflict between Rev. Jesse Jackson and his son, Rep. Jackson. I believe the representative has the right idea. Jonathan Weisman reports for the Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/09/AR2008070902259.html. Here's an exerpt:

"Reverend Jackson is my dad and I'll always love him," he said. "He should know how hard that I've worked for the last year and a half as a national co-chair of Barack Obama's presidential campaign. So I thoroughly reject and repudiate his ugly rhetoric. He should keep hope alive and any personal attacks and insults to himself."

It is not clear whether the flare-up will hurt or help Obama. The senator from Illinois continues to struggle to put behind him the inflammatory sermons of his former longtime pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. But even conservatives were saying yesterday that a fight with Jackson could help Obama win over white working-class voters who tended to side with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) in their drawn-out primary fight.

At his news conference, Jackson insisted he is "all with" Obama when he speaks to black audiences and talks about faith-based social services. But, he added, "black America and urban America also need a structure, and beyond a faith-based policy, which is important, a government-based policy."

Obama's campaign was tight-lipped about the incident, issuing only a statement. "As someone who grew up without a father in the home, Senator Obama has spoken and written for many years about the issue of parental responsibility, including the importance of fathers participating in their children's lives," Obama spokesman Bill Burton wrote. "He also discusses our responsibility as a society to provide jobs, justice, and opportunity for all. He will continue to speak out about our responsibilities to ourselves and each other, and he of course accepts Reverend Jackson's apology."

Double-Talk Express

Dena, St. Thomas — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:34:50 EDT

Just when I was concerned about the press on FISA for Obama, McCain blew it for himself. Thanks to author, Jed Lewison, http://www.jedreport.com/2008/07/recapping-the-d.html.

Wed Jul 9, 6:57 PM PacificRecapping the day

So this should have been a pretty good day for McCain, what with the FISA vote going down and some Democrats angry at the way Barack voted. But if you actually look at what happened, it's been one of McCain's worst days in a long time, one in which I think he offered up plenty of material that should help cement his growing reputation both as a double-talker and and as a typical out-of-touch Republican.

On FISA, the McCain campaign couldn't agree which way to attack Obama. McCain blasted Obama for opposing telecom immunity, the campaign blasted Obama for supporting immunity.

McCain didn't even bother to vote on FISA.

He skipped the Medicare vote too. Even Ted Kennedy made that one.

McCain got hammered for saying Social Security is "an absolute disgrace." And then he promised to target Social Security in his deficit cutting plan.

His campaign told the National Review that he had flip-flopped on cap-and-trade, but told Marc Ambinder that his position was unchanged.

McCain personally attacked Obama for opposing a "terrorist" designation for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, but the attack wasn't true, as he should have learned one month ago when FactCheck.org debunked the exact same attack.

It turns out that McCain himself skipped the very same vote on the Revolutionary Guard that he attacks Obama for skipping

Speaking of Iran, McCain made another bad joke about Iran -- this time joking about killing Iranians by exporting cigarettes. That could be funny if Bill Maher said it, but not a presidential contender who has joked about "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran." (Good news for McCain: AP covered it up.)

Jesse Jackson attacked Barack Obama and Bill O'Reilly played it up -- giving Obama a Sistah Souljah moment and the higher ground all in one. (Update: dnA isn't to keen on this take, and I think he might be right.)

And finally, the same group that seems to be illegally coordinating with the McCain campaign on media placements has done it again, this time in Michigan.

Obama on Iran's Missle Testing

Dena, St. Thomas — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 20:20:34 EDT

The Huffington Post reports the following. You may not find much on network TV about Obama's position, so here is the whole thing, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/09/obamas-iran-tv-show-tour_n_111606.html:

"Obama called Iran a "grave threat" on ABC's Good Morning America and suggested sanctions and diplomacy instead of "over the top rhetoric."

On CBS' Early Show he said, "We've been combining bellicose rhetoric with not very effective action. And that's one of the things I'd like to change when I'm president." He also defended himself on Iraq, saying, "I have been entirely consistent that we are going to end this war when I'm president."

During the primary, McCain said Obama's willingness to engage in diplomacy showed his "inexperience and reckless judgment." Bill Kristol recently said on Fox News that Bush might bomb Iran if he "thinks Obama is going to win."

UPDATE: The McCain and Obama campaigns have released statements on the Iran missile test:

From McCain:

"Iran's most recent missile tests demonstrate again the dangers it poses to its neighbors and to the wider region, especially Israel. Ballistic missile testing coupled with Iran's continued refusal to cease its nuclear activities should unite the international community in efforts to counter Iran's dangerous ambitions. Iran's missile tests also demonstrate the need for effective missile defense now and in the future, and this includes missile defense in Europe as is planned with the Czech Republic and Poland. Working with our European and regional allies is the best way to meet the threat posed by Iran, not unilateral concessions that undermine multilateral diplomacy."

From Obama:

"These missile tests demonstrate once again that we need to change our policy to deal aggressively with the threat posed by the Iranian regime. Through its nuclear program, missile capability, meddling in Iraq, support for terrorism, and threats against Israel, Iran now poses the greatest strategic challenge to the United States in the region in a generation. Now is the time to work with our friends and allies, and to pursue direct and aggressive diplomacy with the Iranian regime backed by tougher unilateral and multilateral sanctions. It's time to offer the Iranians a clear choice between increased costs for continuing their troubling behavior, and concrete incentives that would come if they change course.

"As these tests have reaffirmed, the threat from Iran's nuclear program is real and it is grave. As President, I will do everything in my power to eliminate that threat, and that must begin with direct, aggressive, and sustained diplomacy."

Iran--McCain not to be Trusted

Dena, St. Thomas — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 19:59:46 EDT

Bob Cesca in a Huffington Post article http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/killing-iranian-civilians_b_111696.html says of McCain, "If he doesn't have the judgment to discern between appropriate, tasteful jokes and indiscriminate, Tourette's outbursts then why should anyone trust him to be the commander-in-chief of the world's most powerful military?"

Cesca continues:

"Meanwhile, Senator Obama's various remarks, as witnessed during the recent frenzy about the senator's Iraq policy, are parsed, masticated and purple-nurpled by everyone with a very serious haircut. I can only imagine the breathless, hyperkinetic why-oh-why-oh-why reactions from the commentariat had Senator Obama -- or worse, Reverend Wright -- said such a thing about Iran, especially on a day when we've learned that Iran has successfully tested long-rage missiles. But naturally, the Democratic candidate is always the experimental group and never the control group.

Even still, the question being presently discussed on the cable news shows is, Which candidate is better suited to confront the issue of Iran? Is it the candidate who has pledged aggressive diplomacy? Of course not. Aggressive diplomacy never works -- too girlish and effete... except during the Cuban Missile Crisis and the entire American-Soviet Cold War when aggressive diplomacy worked and when a shooting war would have escalated into Armageddon. Nope, the presidential candidate who the pundit-bots have canonized as the man best suited to balance upon the razor's edge between war and peace happens to be the fidgety lunatic suffering from involuntary giggle fits and who just last night joked about killing Iranian civilians with, of all things, weaponized cancer. Very serious! And people allow this crazy person to operate a propane grill?

Speaking of crazy people, President Bush's inappropriate smirking while discussing serious affairs has been an on-going yard stick with which to measure his utter lack of sanity. But I submit to you that Senator McCain is far worse. Irrespective of how awful the content of this so-called joke happened to be, the fact the he has repeatedly blurted out such ridiculousness (see also "bomb-bomb-Iran" and, well, you know, calling his wife the c-word) ought to raise serious doubt about both his mental capacity as well as his morality -- his sense of right and wrong.

Because even the most gifted comedians know where to draw the line, and when they do "go there" they do so with precision and extreme care. Not everyone is George Carlin or Bill Hicks or David Cross or Louis CK. But the notion that Senator McCain believes that he possesses not just similar comedic skills but, more importantly, similar moral latitude makes him patently unqualified to be president. After eight years of a president who laughs whilst talking about Iraq casualties, we don't need another fool, fraud or doof who's incapable of seeing the threshold between where dignity ends and crazy begins."

Iraq Wants us Out

Dena, St. Thomas — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 19:52:07 EDT

John Soltz in the Huffington Post writes, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-soltz/the-flip-flopper-on-iraq_b_111551.html

"Late yesterday, [July 7] Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki said it's time for the US to leave, or set a timetable to leave.

There you have it. The Iraqis are basically telling the US that they endorse Obama's policy -- they want us to set a timetable to bring the troops home. John McCain in 2004 said we'd respect such a request, telling the Council on Foreign Relations:

Well, if that scenario evolves than I think it's obvious that we would have to leave because -- if it was an elected government of Iraq, and we've been asked to leave other places in the world. If it were an extremist government then I think we would have other challenges, but I don't see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people.

I just checked the McCain campaign website, and so far, he hasn't announced today that he will respect the sovereign government of Iraq, and adjust his Iraq policy to include a timeline for bringing troops home."

New FISA Passed

Dena, St. Thomas — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 19:28:51 EDT

According to the New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/washington/10fisa.html?_r=1&8au&emc=au&oref=slogin, Eric Lichtbrau reports "The final bill includes a reaffirmation that the surveillance law is the “exclusive” means of conducting intelligence wiretaps — a provision that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats insisted would prevent Mr. Bush or any future president from evading court scrutiny in the way that the N.S.A. program did.

The measure will also require reviews by the inspectors general from several agencies to determine how the program was operated. Democrats said that the reviews should provide accountability that had been missing from the debate over the wiretaps."

As for the immunity provision, what is a company to do, whether a mom-pop phone company or one of the big ones, when ordered by the government to wiretap? While many Obama supporters are not happy he voted for this bill, we need to keep our eye on the bigger picture--electing Obama because we agree with him on most issues and let him take the lead in amending this bill after he gets into office.

McCain Violates Free Speech Rights

Dena, St. Thomas — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 03:12:37 EDT

McCain's campaign reminds me of the Nixon days when dissidents were turned away. This is shameful.

"DENVER, Colo.-On orders from Senator John McCain's security detail, Denver police escorted a 61-year-old woman away who was waiting in line to attend a so-called town hall meeting with McCain that was billed as open to the public.

Carol Kreck, who works as a librarian in Denver, held a homemade sign reading "McCain = Bush." On orders from McCain's security detail, police cited her for trespassing and escorted her to the sidewalk. She was told if she returned she would be arrested.

"And all I did was carry a sign that said McCain = Bush," Kreck said. "And for everyone who voted for Bush, I don't see why it's offensive to say McCain = Bush."

This episode by McCain's Secret Service appears to be a rerun of McCain's 2005 town hall in Denver with President Bush in which the Secret Service had three Denver citizens removed from an "open" event where McCain was campaigning with Pres. Bush for his plan to privatize social security."

For the rest of the story, http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/al/Cqyh

Obama is Defining Himself

Dena, St. Thomas — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 05:34:07 EDT

Hitting issues head-on, leading, Obama is doing the right things out of integrity. How refreshing. David Ignatius in the Washington Post writes "Obama: Strength Out of Weakness" and the article is as masterful as Obama's appoach to telling the unvarnished truth:

During the July 4th week, Barack Obama did something that's becoming characteristic of his campaign: He took an issue on which he appeared to be vulnerable -- in this case the cluster of themes lumped together as "patriotism" -- and by going on the offensive in a powerful speech, he subtly changed the terms of the debate.

Obama delivered his patriotism address last Monday in Independence, Mo. (extra points for the campaign scheduler). This might have been the usual cliche-filled verbal waving of the flag, the sort of empty summer exercise that makes American politics so predictable. Such a speech would have reinforced the sense that Obama was on the defensive -- that he was doing the rhetorical equivalent of kissing babies and eating corn on the cob in an attempt to placate skeptical voters.

But Obama doesn't try to please everyone in these situations. When he decides he's in trouble (and that sometimes takes him awhile), he goes to the heart of the matter -- into territory that a more cautious and traditional politician would avoid. Knowing that millions of people have seen images on the Internet questioning whether he and his wife, Michelle, love their country, he went at the issue head-on.

"The question of who is -- or is not -- a patriot all too often poisons our political debates," he said. Then he laid down his marker: "I will never question the patriotism of others in this campaign. And I will not stand idly by when I hear others question mine." He went on to paint a picture of his own American story, with personal vignettes that would have done Ronald Reagan proud.

You could almost hear the cheers from a generation of Democrats who have been savaged for their supposed lack of patriotism. They tried so desperately to wrap themselves in the flag -- think of poor Michael Dukakis sitting idiotically in that tank in the helmet too big for his head, or the absurdity of John Kerry defending his war record against a Republican who didn't serve in Vietnam. And here was Obama, not on his back foot but leaning forward pugnaciously and saying: Nobody questions my patriotism! Enough!

The patriotism speech reminded me of Obama's celebrated March 18 address in Philadelphia on race in America. That came at a time when the Obama camp was reeling because of his long association with his pastor, Jeremiah Wright. The Internet was boiling with footage of Wright railing against the U.S. government, and you could imagine that the Obama campaign might go under -- pulled down, as if by a dead hand reaching out from a crypt.

But Obama stepped up to that demon. He didn't duck the race issue, or sugarcoat it with happy talk, but went right at it, in a way that made you think that he could actually solve the problem. "I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas," he said, weaving a narrative that explained who he was -- and how he had come to sit in Wright's church -- without apologizing.

The speech produced intense debate, but it lanced the boil. When Wright later made more nasty comments at the National Press Club, Obama had a new chance to distance himself, and the issue began to recede. Jeremiah Wright no longer defines Obama.

What's impressive about Obama are his political instincts and his toughness. Yes, the man gives a great speech, but that's not why he defeated Hillary Clinton and is leading John McCain in the polls. He has a superbly disciplined campaign organization that has remained intact and confident, while McCain keeps switching strategists. Obama has mastered Internet politics by building an intense core of support and then letting the spontaneous process of social networking do the rest. David Plouffe, his campaign manager, understands that a modern campaign is an emergent, self-organizing phenomenon.

But Obama's strategists and handlers wouldn't make a dime's worth of difference if the candidate himself didn't have the gift we saw last week. Take your greatest weakness -- the thing people whisper about you by the water cooler -- and address it directly, without apologies or sweet talk. That's Obama's approach, and in a country where people increasingly seem to regard politicians as professional liars, no wonder people find it refreshing.

The writer is co-host ofPostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues. His e-mail address isdavidignatius@washpost.com.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/04/AR2008070402087.html

Obama Consistent on Ending War

Dena, St. Thomas — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 09:26:56 EDT

Obama insists no change in Iraq plan

"WASHINGTON (AFP) — Democratic White House hopeful Barack Obama insisted Thursday he had not changed his plan to order immediate troop withdrawals from Iraq, despite earlier saying he might refine his policies.

Obama's attempts to clarify his Iraq policy, before a looming visit to the war zone, drew a triumphant response from the campaign of Republican presumptive nominee John McCain, a staunch supporter of the current war effort.

Obama held two press conferences within hours in North Dakota, in an attempt to dispel reports that he was softening his proposal to get all combat troops home within 16 months, in the light of recent security gains.

"I have seen no information that contradicts the notion that we can bring our troops out safely at a pace of one to two brigades per month," Obama said.

"This is the same position that I had four months ago, it's the same position that I had eight months ago. It's the same position that I had 12 months ago."

"My first day in office, I will bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in, and I will give them a new mission, and that is to end this war.

"Responsibly, deliberately, but decisively."

Obama also accused reporters of buying spin from McCain.

"I think what's happened is that the McCain campaign primed the pump with the press to suggest that somehow we were changing our policy, when we hadn't."

But, in an earlier meeting with reporters, Obama said he may "refine" his policies after consultations with generals on a planned trip to Iraq this month, details of which have not been announced for security reasons.

Obama, who based his primary campaign on vehement opposition to the Iraq war, said he would conduct a "thorough assessment" of his policies after the trip, his first to Iraq for two years.

The McCain camp, in a statement from spokesman Brian Rogers, crowed that Obama had, in fact changed his position, and accepted that the current troop surge effort was a success.

"We would like to congratulate him for accepting John McCain's principled stand on this critical national security issue," Rogers said.

"If he had visited Iraq sooner or actually had a one-on-one meeting with General Petraeus, he would have changed his position long ago."

The Republican National Committee meanwhile claimed Obama's remarks represented the latest in a string of policy reversals since Obama defeated rival Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination.

"There appears to be no issue that Barack Obama is not willing to reverse himself on for the sake of political expedience," said RNC spokesman Alex Conant.

The Democrat's double attempt to explain his Iraq policy came a day after the McCain campaign cranked up the pressure on the war.

"What sounded sensible, perhaps to some, a year ago ... is disingenuous to the American people, and again, it ignores the realities on the ground," McCain ally and Republican lawmaker Eric Cantor told reporters on Wednesday.

"I don't think there is any question that Barack Obama should change his plan in Iraq," Cantor said.

Last week, Obama appeared to give himself more room for maneuver on Iraq policy, after spending months during the primary campaign vowing to end the war in 2009 if elected.

In his first joint public campaign event with Clinton in New Hampshire on Friday, Obama called for a "gradual, responsible withdrawal from Iraq," a formulation offering more latitude than the stated policy on his website which calls for all combat brigades to be pulled out of Iraq "within 16 months."

In May, McCain laid out a timeline to bring most US combat troops home from Iraq by 2013 -- or when he hopes to be starting his second term in the White House.

Democrats are arguing McCain is ready for a "100-year" commitment to Iraq." http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jslgj-f-MOhMk3yQEuL7MW_XoYeQ

McCain Flip-Flop Fodder--send to Republican friends

Dena, St. Thomas — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 09:20:19 EDT

This past week, the McCain Campaign has instructed its right-wing hit men to attack Senator Obama's character by trying to paint him as a flip-flopper. Before "Mr. Straight-Talk" whips himself into a moral frenzy about sticking with positions, he needs to examine a few of his own "principled" flip-flops listed below:

HAMAS & TALKING TO TERRORISTS
THEN: In a May 2008 opinion piece published in the Washington Post, former State Department official James Rubin revealed that in a 2006 interview, McCain responded to a question on whether U.S. diplomats should be working with the Hamas government in Gaza with, "sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another." (Washington Post, 5/16/2008)
NOW: In the 2008 campaign, McCain has cast Senator Obama as being the endorsed candidate of Hamas and willing to negotiate with Iran. He told CNN, "[...] it's also fact that a spokesperson from Hamas said that he approves of Obama's candidacy." (CNN, 5/9/2008)
IMMIGRATION
THEN: In 2007, McCain introduced and voted for legislation which included increased border security and a pathway to legal citizenship. (The Library of Congress, 5/12/2005)
THEN: During a presidential primary debate in January 2008, McCain was asked if he would vote for his own immigration bill if it came to the Senate floor again. He replied, "No, I would not, because we know what the situation is today. The people want the border secured first." (CNN, 1/31/08)
NOW: In June 2008, McCain told the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials he would resurrect a bipartisan immigration bill, which he helped shape, which would include a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants who are already in the country. He said, "It would be my top priority yesterday, today and tomorrow." (Politico, 6/28/2008)
OFFSHORE DRILLING
THEN: During the 2000 Presidential campaign, McCain favored the moratorium on offshore drilling, promising to "never lose sight of the fundamental principle that federal land management decisions affecting local communities must be made in cooperation with the Americans who call those communities home." (Sustainable Energy Coalition, 1/18/2000)
NOW: In June 2008, McCain called for an end to these federal bans, saying, "It is time [...] to lift these restrictions and to put our own reserves to use." (CNN, 6/17/2008)
RELIGIOUS RIGHT
THEN: Campaigning for the presidency in 2000, McCain described Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell as "agents of intolerance", saying, "I don't pander to them, because I don't ascribe to their failed philosophy that money is our message." (CNN, 2/28/2000)
NOW: In 2008, McCain delivered the Commencement speech at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University and supported this decision, saying, "the 'Christian right' has a major role to play in the Republican Party." (NBC's Meet the Press, 3/5/200)
REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS
THEN: Running for president in 1999, McCain was opposed to repealing Roe v. Wade. He said, "Certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations." (San Francisco Chronicle, 6/19/2008)
NOW: McCain's website says, "John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench." Additionally, on several occasions, McCain has said himself, "I do not support Roe v. Wade. It should be overturned." (MSNBC, 2/18/2007)
SOCIAL SECURITY
THEN: Stumping for President Bush in New Hampshire in 2004, McCain responded to a participant's question saying, "Without privatization, I don't see how you can possibly, over time, make sure that young Americans are able to receive Social Security benefits." (C-SPAN, 11/18/2004)
NOW: In 2008, McCain answered a participant's question at a town hall event in New Hampshire, saying, "I'm not for, quote, privatizing Social Security. I never have been. I never will be." (CNN, 6/12/2008)
TAX CUTS
THEN: In 2001, McCain opposed and voted against Bush's tax cuts, saying, "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle class Americans who most need tax relief." (The New York Times, 3/3/2008)
THEN: McCain opposed Bush's additional tax cuts in 2003, because he argued the cost of the Iraq War was not yet known. (The New York Times, 3/3/2008)
NOW: In 2006, McCain voted to make these tax cuts permanent. In a 2008 presidential debate, he said, "We need to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, which I voted for twice to do so." (CNN, 1/30/2008)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/art-levine/after-clark-flap-can-obam_b_110791.html

Canadian Court Sides with US Military Deserter

Dena, St. Thomas — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 09:04:50 EDT

"OTTAWA -- A Canadian court has sided for the first time with a military deserter who fled to Canada seeking refugee status, ruling yesterday that the U.S. soldier witnessed enough human rights abuses during a stint in Iraq that he could qualify for asylum.

The decision also marked the first time that the Federal Court, which has heard a handful of cases involving deserters, concluded that military action against civilians in Iraq violates the 1949 Geneva Conventions, an international prohibition against humiliating and degrading treatment."

http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=5064d0cb-9d76-4189-a5ca-b9e9a68fd926&k=34548

Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff Agrees with Obama

Dena, St. Thomas — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 08:57:06 EDT

"Upon his return from a visit to Israel and Europe, the nation’s highest ranking military officer warned Wednesday that a military strike on Iran would be a very bad idea.

“This is a very unstable part of the world, and I don't need it to be more unstable,” said the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael Mullen." for the entire article, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25515357/

PUMAS are SWIFTBOATS

Dena, St. Thomas — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 00:55:28 EDT

I just emailed the followng article to Mr. Murphy at pumpapac@gmail.com to tell him he has been fiound out. He's a McCain man impersonating as a Hillary supporter. Read all about it: http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/pumas_are_swiftboats_darragh_murphy/

Obama's Asian-American Sister Reaches Out

Dena, St. Thomas — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 16:12:18 EDT

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/01/obamas-sister-his-surroga_n_110171.html

Here's the gist:

"Soetoro-Ng's appearances give voters a chance to get to know Obama as a person, not just an elected official. Her stories illustrate the development of his character, from his days as a teenager who loved basketball and bodysurfing and didn't always get the strongest grades, to his growing sense of civic duty in the summers she spent with him in Chicago.

But she also has a political role to play. She plans to spend her summer vacation _ she is a teacher at an all-girls' school in Hawaii _ introducing her brother to crowds such as this one.

"We are ready for a more complex construction of identity as a country," she said, dismissing the possibility some voters might find it hard to relate to Obama's multiethnic background and foreign experience.

"Maybe not everybody is as mixed or as hybrid as he is. But he gets Kansas, because we have Kansas," she said, referring to their mother's background. "He gets the Midwest. He gets the south side of Chicago."

And he "has a lot of affection for Asian cultures, in all of their various forms," she said.

That cultural variety is among the reasons Asian-American and Pacific Islander voters have gotten less attention than other ethnic groups from the media _ or even from the Obama campaign _ during the primary season.

Asian-American voters represent about 5 percent of the population, or about 15.4 million people, but their communities are scattered around the country and harbor deep cultural and geopolitical differences that bleed into their voting behavior and ensure that many remain independent, harder to court.

"I'm not surprised we haven't had as much attention as Latinos and African-Americans," said Kamisugi. "We're underdeveloped and under-recognized" as voters.

In 2004, 56 percent of Asian-Americans voted for Democrat John Kerry and 44 percent for President Bush, according to exit poll data.

"It's not an easily definable vote," said Tony Quinn, a California political analyst. "You can't talk about it as a voting bloc _ it's not."

Asians make up one-fourth of the foreign-born population in the United States; many are first-generation immigrants. That presents a challenge to politicians, said Gautam Dutta, executive director of the Asian American Action Fund,a political action committee whose goal is to increase Asian-American political participation.

"You can't have a one-size-fits-all approach," Dutta said.

This may explain why an event billed as the community's first National Presidential Town Hall, which drew about 2,000 Asian-American and Pacific Islander leaders, elected officials and voters in May got less attention from candidates who appeared and spoke before Hispanic and black civic organizations.

Hillary Rodham Clinton made a video appearance, Obama took questions over the phone. There was no response from Republican John McCain's campaign.

But some analysts argue that because Asian-Americans are just emerging as a political community engaging them now will pay off.

Census numbers show their growing importance. The Asian-American population grew 3 percent between 2004 and 2005 _ more than another other group. And the Census projects the population will grow 213 percent by 2050, to 33.4 million.

In some key states, their weight is already considerable. Besides Hawaii, where Asian-Americans are 57.5 percent of the population, and California, where they're 13.5 percent, Asians are 7.7 percent of New Jersey and Washington, and 7.2 percent of New York.

In some races, even a comparatively small group can cast the key votes. In Virginia's 2006 Senate contest, Republican George Allen referred to an Indian-American as a "macaca" and the resulting outrage among Asians helped propel Democrat Jim Webb's come-from-behind victory. Webb won by 7,231 votes.

"Parties are hesitant to invest in communities where party loyalty is not fixed," said David Lee, who teaches political science at San Francisco State University, and heads the Chinese-American Voters Education Committee. "But if you don't spend the money, if you don't invest in Asian voters, why should they be loyal?"

Soetoro-Ng, and her husband, Konrad Ng, a professor at the University of Hawaii, are already doing some of that work.

Ng blogs on the Obama campaign's Web site, and Soetoro-Ng plans to continue to take time from her teaching throughout the fall to make phone calls to house parties, appear on radio broadcasts and perform other outreach for her brother.

"My brother is very interested in reaching out to communities," including Asian-Americans and Pacific Islanders, she said. "You're going to see a lot of new reaching out. It will be more deliberate."

Good Advice on Winning over Republican Friends

Dena, St. Thomas — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 00:54:14 EDT

How to Market Obama to Your Republican Friends by Press to Digitate Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:12:19 AM PDT

As a [now formerly] lifelong Republican, a [Goldwater] Conservative, and a former GOP activist, operative and professional campaign manager, now ardently supporting Sen. Barack Obama, I feel that I have the proper perspective from which to advise this audience on how to "sell" Obama to your Republican friends, relatives, and business associates.

There is a large reservoir of discontent among Republicans who are dissatisfied with John McCain as the GOP nominee. As the recent 25% votes against him in the now uncontested primaries indicate, this dissention is far deeper and more persistent than it will be among Clinton Democrats, when the dust settles in August. These votes, and those of other Republicans now disenchanted are ripe for the picking this fall - IF you know how to make the case to these people.

Below the fold I'll try to give several viable talking points which should hold you in good stead with most any Republican you come across, talking politics with between now and the election...

Press to Digitate's diary :: ::

In general, Republican voters dont have the same priorities as Democrats. The reasons YOU support Sen. Obama are most likely NOT the factors on which your Republican associates will make their voting decisions. Dont assume that your 'hot button' issues are necessarily even important to them, nor belittle the priorities they bring to the voting booth.

First, to most Republicans, the cornerstone Democratic issues of "Health Care", "Education", and "Jobs" just dont even register in the top five issues on which they will base their vote. Arguing that Obama will best handle such subjects wont win their vote even if they believe you that he is best on these issues. Moreover, Republicans will generally have less confidence in the government to deliver health care, and more confidence in private schools to deliver education than you will. Dont argue these issues, arguments just harden attitudes; save your breath - just dont go there. You want their actual VOTE, not their nodding agreement on some arcane philosophical issue.

Second, resist the urge to "Bush Bash". While many (even Most) Republicans are no longer enamored with the President, that doesnt mean they are sympathetic with everyone wanting to dump on him, either. They may feel President Bush to have been well intentioned, though blundering; they may have felt events got out of his control, they may even blame the Democratic Congress for his apparent failings. Again, DONT GO THERE. Its not a fight worth having. You dont win VOTES by fighting with people, you win by leading them to the better alternative - from their vantage point, not yours. George W. Bush is not on this ballot, and neither is his Vice President running to succeed him. That "Bush Third Term" drivel just wont cut it in winning Republican votes. Fortunately, with Obama as our candidate, we can make a better, more substantive case than that.

Third, the only really serious, pervasively damaging charge the GOP will make against Obama is the tried-and-true tactic of painting him as a traditional "tax-and-spend-liberal-democrat, squishy-on-national-defense", in the mold of John Kerry, Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, etc. To most Republicans, that's the killer - if they believe it. All other charges and acusations, no matter how scurrilous, are secondary and incidental to that one. If they buy the 'tax-and-spend-liberal' label, they'll believe all the muddier garbage gossip; if they reject that charge as bogus, they'll most likely reject any other labels that may be pinned on him as 'not credible' either. EVEN IF you, in your heart-of-hearts believe we need more taxes and spending, and you pray to your humanistic wiccan goddess every night (j/k) that Obama will bring these things, for the sake of the Polar Bears, keep those wishes to yourself!!! To obtain an Obama VOTE, you are appealing to your Republican friend's existing sensibilities, rather than trying to change them.

You may not agree with the following policy conclusions which led me to cross over for the first time in my life, and vote for Sen. Obama in Virginia's open primary, but THEY DID. And these same issues will resonate with other Republicans in voting booths across the country this fall...

1. TAXES. As a member of the Illinois State Senate, Sen. Obama was cosponsor of a bill which ultimately passed, creating the largest tax cut in state history. Since the start of his presidential campaign, he has consistently favored a broad-based middle class tax cut. By contrast, Sen. McCain "voted against tax cuts before he voted for them", and has no real credibility on this issue among conservatives. McCain was very critical of the Bush tax cuts, which most Republicans believe gave us years of prosperity - until very recently. Obama can thus be taken more seriously than McCain as a President who will cut taxes, rather than raise them.

2. SPENDING. Most Republicans' biggest gripe with their own party - by far - is its failure to control the bureaucracy and reign in runaway federal spending and deficits. It is useful to mention that while the last five (5) Republican Presidents promised fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets, all of them grew discretionary civilian spending by tremendous amounts, and ran up ever larger deficits. Meanwhile, only Pres. Bill Clinton balanced the federal budget, and produced four years of surpluses, with the same forecast long into the indefinite future. A big problem with the federal budget is that almost nobody knows where all the money is going; its easy to add earmarks and pork barrel spending and special interest giveaways when the people back home cant tell the difference. Sen. Barack Obama's major legislative accomplishment in the Senate, the The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 has been to bring transparency to federal spending. Send your Republican friends to http://www.federalspending.gov which his legislation created, a veritable "Google of the Federal Budget", where anyone can research every dollar to see where their tax money is actually going. The whole Federal Rathole is now online, for the first time ever, inviting scrutiny from whoever has the patience to slog through it all. You dont have to be a CPA to realize that this does more in the long run to control wasteful federal spending than all the speeches Bush, Bush, Reagan, Ford, and Nixon ever gave on the subject, put together.

3. BIG GOVERNMENT. In his North Carolina victory speech, among other things, Sen. Obama uttered the words "We dont need Big Government". Whether you agree with that or not, remind your Republican friends that Pres. Bill Clinton's National Performance Review reduced the federal civilian workforce by 250,000 positions (ones they will consider, rightly or wrongly, to be useless tax-sucking bureaucrats). This makes the last Democratic administration the only presidency since Eisenhower's to leave office with a smaller federal workforce that he started with - again, Bush, Bush, Reagan, Ford, and Nixon notwithstanding. But, the real stones Obama brings to the table on this issue are his formative years on the south side of Chicago, doing meaningful community social work through voluntary, faith-based, non-governmental community organizations, rather than government bureaucracies. Yes, We CAN - rehabilitate the homeless, educate the illiterate, provide day care for single moms, dry out alcoholics, and clean junkies off the dope without buidling perpetual bureaucracies - Obama himself has proven that, through social entrepreneurship. By contrast, John McCain has never drawn a day's pay that didnt come from the public trough, courtesy of your tax dollars (getting fabulously rich by marrying an heiress or taking money under the table from special interests he did favors for doesnt count as 'earning money in the productive sector').

4. PERSONAL LIBERTY. Barry Goldwater must be rolling over in his grave over what debasements of the U.S. Constitution the Bush Administration has gotten itself into, and which the man who took his seat in the U.S. Senate, John McCain now ardently defends. Warrantless domestic wiretapping, warrantless searches and seizures, arresting U.S. citizens without probable cause, holding them without trial, etc., etc....No REAL conservative believes these things are legitimate perrogatives of the federal government. There are innumerable horror stories you can research and recount of how the GOP has sat idly by while our cherished Constitutional protections have been ignored, abrogated, and turned into a joke. The last thing real conservatives want is the Orwellian Police State we're presently heading for. Grassroots Republicans dont necessarily trust the feds any more than you do. Thats a case you can make - and make stick - with them.

5. NATIONAL SECURITY. To the rejoinder, "yes, but its worked, we havent been attacked since 9/11", you must add: "BUT, we havent foreclosed the threat by taking out al Queada, either". The National Security argument is like the Tax-and-Spend one, it doesnt matter where you stand on "bombing al Queada back to the stone age" - the fact remains that your Republican friends will vote for the candidate they perceive to be most in tune with that idea, period. McCain vocally disagrees with the successful CIA program to take out al Queada leadership when located in northwest Pakistan, without alerting the local tribal authorities and Pakistani Intelligence, who have always warned off our targets in the past. Sen. Obama, by contrast, opposes giving al Queada sanctuary in Pakistan, and ardently supports this initiative. When McCain attacked Obama as niave for "wanting to bomb an ally", the very next day the CIA took out the #3 leader in al Queada with just such a raid, with a missile fired from a Predator drone. Coddling Pakistan's corrupt dictator for these eight years hasnt made us safer, and John McCain's simplistic continuation of this weak policy is just being Soft on Terrorism, no way around it. Also, its worth noting that whatever other implications it may have for John McCain's Character, Psyche, or Mental Makeup, having a plane shot out from under you and spending six years behind bars does not automatically qualify anyone as a "national security expert"; that notion is just ludicrous on the face of it.

6. OPPORTUNITY. While John McCain's four-star Admiral father ensured him a prized appointment to the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis, his performance - 894th out of 899 cadets in his class - does not attest to diligent effort, whereas Barack Obama (from a broken home, on food stamps) won competitive academic scholarships to Harvard, which he proved himself worthy of by graduating Magna Cum Laude ("With Highest Honors"). Its been a long time since any politicians of either party could talk convincingly about "The American Dream", but Barack Obama can, because he lived it. Without handouts, family patronage, or inheritence, he pulled himself up by his bootstraps from the Chicago ghetto through his own hard work, enterprise, and initiative to become President of the Harvard Law Review, one of the most prestigious scholarly legal journals in the country. Which President is more likely to make a difference in the lives of people, and motivate them with initiative to best achieve their individual God-given potential?

Those are the issues that real, hard-core Republicans think about when they vote for a president. Talk TO them - not past them with vague, touchy-feely bleeding heart nonsense they wont understand or agree with - and you might very likely ring up another VOTE for Barack Obama this fall. Getting your friends VOTE is all that matters, not winning their hearts to any grander philosophical cause; that just wont happen, so forget it. Make common cause between your GOP acquaintences and Sen. Obama, even if its on points you, yourself, disagree with. THAT'S HOW YOU WILL WIN THIS ELECTION FOR OBAMA.

Once you wash that "tax-and-spend liberal, squishy-on-national-security" label away, none of the other, lesser acusations the Karl Roves and Rush Limbaughs of this world can make against Obama will stick, either. All other things thus being equal, the younger, more intelligent, more dynamic, less "Washington Establishment", less 'tainted-by-special-interest-money' candidate should prevail. Even among Republicans..." http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/18/03541/2524

Who's Going to Get Rich in Iraq?

Dena, St. Thomas — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 00:46:10 EDT

New York Times exposes US official involvement in oil contracts for US companies. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/world/middleeast/30contract.html?ex=1372564800&en=4e1885aac7eca3eb&ei=5124&partner=digg&exprod=digg Here's an excerpt:

"The new oil contracts have also become a significant political issue in the United States.

Three Democratic senators, led by Charles E. Schumer of New York, sent a letter to the State Department last week asking that the deals be delayed until after the Iraqi Parliament passes a hydrocarbons law outlining the distribution of oil revenues and regulatory matters. They contend the contracts could deepen political tensions in Iraq and endanger American soldiers.

Criticism like that has prompted objections by the Bush administration and the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, who say the deals are purely commercial matters. Ms. Rice, speaking on Fox News this month, said: “The United States government has stayed out of the matter of awarding the Iraq oil contracts. It’s a private sector matter.”

Advisers from the State, Commerce, Energy and Interior Departments are assigned to work with the Iraqi Oil Ministry, according to the senior diplomat. In addition, the United States Agency for International Development has a contract for Management Systems International, a Washington consulting firm, to advise the oil and other ministries. The agency’s program is called Tatweer, the Arabic word for development.

“The legal department of the Ministry of Oil passed us a draft of the contract,” Samir Abid, a Canadian of Iraqi origin who is an employee of the Tatweer program, said in a telephone interview. “They passed it to us and asked for our comments because we were mentoring them.”

He added: “It was an exercise in deciding how best to do these contracts. I don’t know if they used our comments or not.”

In a statement, the agency said its advisers had reviewed the oil company contracts, known as technical support agreements: “At the request of the Ministry of Oil, the Tatweer Energy Team has done a review of the format, structure and clarity of language of blank draft contracts.”

The statement said the team did not have access to confidential information from the oil companies.

Consultants said the advice was necessary because the Oil Ministry, like other sectors of the Iraqi government, has experienced an exodus of qualified employees and lacks lawyers schooled in drawing up contracts.

A supervisor with the Tatweer program, who was not authorized to speak publicly and declined to be quoted by name, said that ministry officials, many of them near retirement, needed help.

The American government lawyers provided specific advice, the State Department official said, like: “These are the clauses you may want. You will need a clause on arbitration. You will need this clause to make this work.'"

I Knew It Too: It was Oil, All Along

Dena, St. Thomas — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 00:37:24 EDT

It Was Oil, All AlongSubmitted by davidswanson on Fri, 2008-06-27 22:28.

Media

By Bill Moyers and Michael Winship, www.consortiumnews.com

"Oh, no, they told us, Iraq isn't a war about oil. That's cynical and simplistic, they said. It's about terror and al Qaeda and toppling a dictator and spreading democracy and protecting ourselves from weapons of mass destruction.

But one by one, these concocted rationales went up in smoke, fire and ashes. And now the bottom line turns out to be....the bottom line. It is about oil.

Alan Greenspan said so last fall. The former chairman of the Federal Reserve, safely out of office, confessed in his memoir, “…Everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.”

He elaborated in an interview with the Washington Post's Bob Woodward, "If Saddam Hussein had been head of Iraq and there was no oil under those sands, our response to him would not have been as strong as it was in the first Gulf War."

Remember, also, that soon after the invasion, Donald Rumsfeld’s deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, told the press that war was our only strategic choice.

“We had virtually no economic options with Iraq,” he explained, “because the country floats on a sea of oil.”

Shades of Daniel Plainview, the monstrous petroleum tycoon in the movie “There Will Be Blood.” Half-mad, he exclaims, "There's a whole ocean of oil under our feet!" then adds, "No one can get at it except for me!"

No wonder American troops only guarded the Ministries of Oil and the Interior in Baghdad, even as looters pillaged museums of their priceless antiquities. They were making sure no one could get at the oil except... guess who?

Here’s a recent headline in The New York Times: "Deals with Iraq Are Set to Bring Oil Giants Back."

Read on: "Four western companies are in the final stages of negotiations this month on contracts that will return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power."

There you have it. After a long exile, Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP are back in Iraq. And on the wings of no-bid contracts – that's right, sweetheart deals like those given Halliburton, KBR, Blackwater. The kind of deals you get only if you have friends in high places.

And these war profiteers have friends in very high places.

Let’s go back a few years to the 1990s, when private citizen Dick Cheney was running Halliburton, the big energy service company.

That’s when he told the oil industry that, “By 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from? While many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies.”

Fast forward to Cheney’s first heady days in the White House. The oil industry and other energy conglomerates have been handed backdoor keys to the White House, and their CEOs and lobbyists were trooping in and out for meetings with their old pal, now Vice President Cheney.
The meetings are secret, conducted under tight security, but as we reported five years ago, among the documents that turned up from some of those meetings were maps of oil fields in Iraq – and a list of companies who wanted access to them.

The conservative group Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club filed suit to try to find out who attended the meetings and what was discussed, but the White House fought all the way to the Supreme Court to keep the press and public from learning the whole truth.

Think about it. These secret meetings took place six months before 9/11, two years before Bush and Cheney invaded Iraq. We still don’t know what they were about.

What we know is that this is the oil industry that’s enjoying swollen profits these days.

It would be laughable if it weren’t so painful to remember that their erstwhile cheerleader for invading Iraq – the press mogul Rupert Murdoch – once said that a successful war there would bring us $20 a barrel of oil.

The last time we looked, it was more than $140 a barrel. Where are you, Rupert, when the facts need checking and the predictions are revisited?

At a congressional hearing this week, James Hansen, the NASA climate scientist who exactly twenty years ago alerted Congress and the world to the dangers of global warming, compared the chief executives of Big Oil to the tobacco moguls who denied that nicotine is addictive or that there's a link between smoking and cancer.

Hansen, who the administration has tried again and again to silence, said these barons of black gold should be tried for committing crimes against humanity and nature in opposing efforts to deal with global warming.

Perhaps those sweetheart deals in Iraq should be added to his proposed indictments. They have been purchased at a very high price.

Four thousand American soldiers dead, tens of thousands permanently wounded for life, hundreds of thousands of dead and crippled Iraqis plus five million displaced, and a cost that will mount into trillions of dollars.

The political analyst Kevin Phillips says America has become little more than an "energy protection force," doing anything to gain access to expensive fuel without regard to the lives of others or the earth itself.

One thinks again of Daniel Plainview in “There Will Be Blood.” His lust for oil came at the price of his son and his soul.

Bill Moyers is managing editor and Michael Winship is senior writer of the weekly public affairs program Bill Moyers Journal, which airs Friday night on PBS. Check local airtimes or comment at The Moyers Blog at www.pbs.org/moyers." http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/34407

Excuse me--McCain fought the GI bill Bush is Crediting to Hiim!

Dena, St. Thomas — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 00:31:05 EDT

"President George W, Bush wasn't exactly a friend to the efforts put forth by Senators Jim Webb (D-VA) and John Warner (R-VA) as they worked to secure bipartisan, veto-proof support for an updated U.S. G.I. Bill, which would provide our veterans with enhanced educational opportunities. But Bush is stuck with the bill now, so naturally, he went in front of the press and deemed himself pleased with its passage.

It didn't escape our attention though, that as Bush acknowledged the House and Senate members who came together to support the bill, he slipped in the name of one who labored to obstruct the bill -- Senator John McCain. Instead of being rightly excluded from the list of thanks, McCain was given the same credit as those who had steered the passage of the bill from day one. Surely, though, John McCain will correct the President, because STRAIGHT TALK, RIGHT?" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/30/bush-wrongly-credits-mcca_n_110024.html

Email Attacks from Nowhere

Dena, St. Thomas — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 17:13:56 EDT

Send this to everyone who is sending you hate emails about Obama, and make sure everyone they copied gets it, too. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/27/AR2008062703781.html?sid=ST2008062703939&pos=

An Attack That Came Out of the EtherScholar Looks for First Link in E-Mail Chain About Obama

An excerpt of this four-page article:

How Rumors Are Born

Allen was ideally suited to embark on such a difficult hunt. She boasts two doctorates, one in classics from Cambridge University and the other in government from Harvard University, and won a $500,000 MacArthur "genius" award at the age of 29. Last year she joined the faculty of the institute, the only African American and one of a handful of women at the elite research center, where she works alongside groundbreaking physicists, mathematicians and social scientists. They don't have to teach, and they face no quotas on what they publish. Their only mandate is to work in the tradition of Einstein, wrestling with the most vexing problems in the universe.

While Allen was already an expert on the mechanics of politics, she fast began to learn the mechanics of the Internet. She discovered, for instance, that the recipe for launching a chain e-mail attack is not as simple as typing it up and hitting the send button to a long list of recipients. It takes effort to seed a chain mail that spreads as widely as the Obama missive, explained Jeff Bedser, president of the Internet Crimes Group, a company that helps corporations battle such broadsides. "Lighting that fire, getting something to have momentum, takes work," he said.

For this kind of chain-mail message to gain traction, it must be plausible, and it has to resonate, said Eric Dezenhall, a public relations specialist who once worked in the Reagan White House. Obama was vulnerable, Dezenhall said, because of his unusual name, his childhood in Indonesia, a foreign-born father, and his sudden arrival on the national stage without a fully fleshed-out biography. "All of these things gave it merchandising legs," Dezenhall said.

CONTINUED 1 2 3 4 Next

Obama going Abroad

Dena, St. Thomas — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 23:46:51 EDT

Western Europe, the Middle East, later Iraq as part of a congressional delegation.

"McCain on numerous occasions has said he has more international experience than Obama, and the Obama travel abroad is in part intended to show that he is comfortable meeting with foreign officials. International polls show also that Obama is far more popular than McCain and that is also likely to be on display as he travels

In a statement Obama explained the reasoning behind the itinerary.

"Israel is a strong and close friend of the United States, and is confronting grave threats from Gaza to Tehran," the statement said. "Jordan has been a close partner in the peace process and a host of other issues of common concern. France, Germany, and the United Kingdom are key anchors of the transatlantic alliance and have contributed to the mission in Afghanistan, and I look forward to discussing how we can strengthen our partnership in the years to come."

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/election2008/story/42561.html and http://www.mcclatchydc.com/election2008/story/42566.html

Flip-flops or Honing Positions?

Dena, St. Thomas — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 22:55:01 EDT

In the sound-bite world, a well-honed position doesn't always fit. During the course of a campaign, circumstances in the country and in the world can change to such an extent that honing positions on issues, or appearing to change them, makes sense. I would not want a president who stuck to a sound-bite positions, such as bring our troops home within X months, regardless of the consequences months later when he took office. I would take the position as his focus and expect him to do the right thing, given all the circumstance, when the time came to act. I hope the voters do more than listen to sound bites.

Here's an article questioning Obama's alleged flip-flops: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/42361.html. It asks the question in the headline:

Is Obama turning out to be just another politician?

My answer is NO!

Immigration Reform

Dena, St. Thomas — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 22:40:36 EDT

Mc Cain and Obama on immigration reform. Whole story at http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/42577.html

"Obama, too, spoke first of a need for border security, along with establishing penalties for employers who exploit illegal immigrants and establishing a way to bring "the 12 million who are here illegally out of the shadows ... and put them on a pathway to citizenship."

The two campaigns sparred over the details after the speeches: McCain's camp accused Obama of voting for "poison pill" amendments designed to kill the immigration deal; Obama's camp noted that McCain had thanked Obama in 2006 for his work on immigration reform.

Recent polls show Obama with an edge over McCain among Hispanic voters, though he performed poorly in some Hispanic quarters against Democratic rival Hillary Clinton. Obama and Clinton met Thursday night with about 40 of Clinton's top Hispanic advisers, just hours after Clinton urged a NALEO crowd to embrace Obama's candidacy. The response Saturday was boisterous, with the audience chanting his name as he took the stage.

But Republicans have made gains among Hispanics in recent election cycles, and McCain's presence at the conference impressed several in the crowd. He and most of his GOP rivals had skipped NALEO's conference during the primaries.

"McCain had the guts to show up," said Esteban Ferreiro of Miami, a Republican and NALEO member who said the "Republican perception" of the group is that it leans Democratic. "He's saying, 'I'm here, this is who I am and I know your vote is important.'"

2-Year Federal Freeze on New Solar Plant Construction!

Dena, St. Thomas — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 23:32:16 EDT

Citing environmental concerns, US freezes new solar plant constructionEoin O'Carroll | 06.27.08

The New York Times reports that the Bureau of Land Management has placed a two-year moratorium on new solar projects on public land, saying that it needs to study their environmental impact.

The decision, reached late last month, could threaten the nation’s fledgling solar industry, which may be forced to turn to more expensive private land on which to construct plants. In recent years, many solar companies have been seeking leases on federal land, the Times reports:

Much of the 119 million surface acres of federally administered land in the West is ideal for solar energy, particularly in Arizona, Nevada and Southern California, where sunlight drenches vast, flat desert tracts.
Galvanized by the national demand for clean energy development, solar companies have filed more than 130 proposals with the Bureau of Land Management since 2005. They center on the companies’ desires to lease public land to build solar plants and then sell the energy to utilities.
According to the bureau, the applications, which cover more than one million acres, are for projects that have the potential to power more than 20 million homes.

According to the bureau, the environmental impact study will require investigating how plant construction and transmission lines will affect vegetation and wildlife, as well as water use.

Cameron Scott, a blogger for the San Francisco Chronicle, writes that he appreciates the government’s caution, noting that such ecological prudence would have been useful before the country jumped into the ethanol business, but that he sees something of a double standard:

[T]he government rarely proceeds with caution when it comes to public lands. In the last couple years, the Bush administration has proposed allowing commerce, roads, off-road vehicles, and concealed weapons on public lands, and has eagerly embraced drilling for oil and natural gas. If fossil fuels warrant endangering these lands, then surely solar power does, too.
Is the Bush administration really so set against decreasing our dependence on fossil fuels that it would fabricate concern for the environment in order to block alternative energy projects? It would appear so.

The Economist notes that the solar industry is now facing a double-whammy, thanks to Congress’s failure to renew a solar tax-credit:

Congress has been dithering over extending a valuable investment tax credit for solar-energy projects, which solar advocates say is critical to the future of their industry but which is due to expire at the end of the year. The latest attempt failed in the Senate earlier this month: prospects for a deal before November’s presidential and congressional elections now look dim. Uncertainty has led some investors to delay or abandon projects in the past few months. Rhone Resch, the president of the Solar Energy Industries Association, said if the tax credits are allowed to expire at the end of the year, “it will result in the loss of billions of dollars in new investments in solar.”

Some environmentalists support the moratorium. Both the Times and the Economist note that one spokesman for The Wilderness Society, which focuses on conserving federally administered land, has praised the decision.

But others have said that it stalls the development of an important alternative energy just when it is needed most. In a statement (hat tip to Climate Progress), Nevada Sen. Harry Reid (D) slammed the decision:

This notice of intent is the wrong signal to send to solar power developers, and to Nevadans and Westerners who need and want clean, affordable sun-powered electricity soon. While the BLM’s proposed delay won’t affect developers with existing applications, it could discourage or slow new development to a crawl.
http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2008/06/27/citing-environmental-concerns-us-freezes-new-solar-plant-construction/

When Racists say "arrogant," They Mean "uppity"

Dena, St. Thomas — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:22:51 EDT

"And is there anything more arrogant, Mr. Rove, than ignoring the international community, the United Nations, weapons inspectors on the ground, very facts themselves, to invade a nation because you and a small cadre believe it's the right thing to do? Is there anything more arrogant than the belief that after such an invasion we as the occupying nation will be welcomed as liberators? Is there anything more arrogant than slapping on a flight suit, playing like you're the one landing on a carrier deck, making nice for the cameras before that infamous banner while tens of thousands of troops are left behind to fight, and four thousand (and counting) are left to die? Arrogant? It's nothing but hubris for the neocons to believe they can win the election on that one." For the entire article, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-ridley/when-rove-calls-obama-arr_b_109639.html

Don't Nit Pick Obama's Evolving Positions: Get Him Elected

Dena, St. Thomas — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:12:27 EDT

Jason Rosenbaum expresses a view which I believe is realistic and worthwhile about the changes only Obama can bring about. We all won't get what we want. Circumstances will present themselves which require modifications of positions. Let's not get all hyped over that.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jason-rosenbaum/the-obama-problem_b_109567.html

"In the last week, Barack Obama has handed progressives a string of stinging rebukes. First, he all but capitulated on the issue of retroactive immunity for lawbreaking telecom companies by endorsing the FISA "compromise." Next came his disagreement with the Supreme Court ruling that the death penalty shouldn't be imposed for rape. And then his flip on the heels of the Supreme Court ruling allowing the sale of handguns in DC.

It's been a hell of a week.

So, what are progressives to do? As has been evident for some time now, Obama is only loosely affected by progressive pressure. While he has moved left on some important issues, overall he has bigger constituencies to please, and he will do what he wants.

In the short term, there's probably not much we can do, as Mike Lux explains:

For me, being able to hold a politician accountable is having the real power to actually have a negative impact on something they really care about, namely getting elected and passing legislation they want to pass (although there might be a few other smaller things some politicians might care about). Unless you have the ability and willingness to mess with a politician in a serious way on either of those things, I don't think you can hold them accountable. I don't think saying bad things about them holds them accountable, I don't think holding a protest holds them accountable, I don't think starting a petition holds them accountable- unless it is affecting their ability to win an election or pass legislation.

...
But the only way to hold a Presidential candidate in the general election accountable once the general election season comes around is to work for their defeat or otherwise endanger their victory. For most of us, given the alternative of four more years of deadlocked government and a stubborn, hyper-aggressive President McCain, that is not an acceptable option. I see occasional commenters writing about not lifting a finger to help Obama now that he's screwed us on FISA or other issues, but I don't think very many of us in the progressive movement are there. Am I bummed, am I pissed that Obama and most of our Democratic leaders caved in on FISA? Absolutely, and there's nothing wrong with saying so. But am I going to "hold Obama accountable" for this action? Well, no, frankly. I don't think there's a way to do that without doing something far worse. It's the nature of the American political system: winner take all, no instant runoffs, no fusion voting (except in a few states). In the months before a Presidential general election, I can't think of another alternative re the Presidential race other than doing everything I can do to help Obama win.

The harsh reality is, Barack Obama can and will tack towards the center on issues that are important to progressives during the general election. We can argue until we're blue in the face that this is not a smart thing to do, and by extension, that the country is ready for real progressive leadership, but Obama will do what he wants to do. Unless we are willing to actively work against him, we have no leverage.

I am not willing to actively work against him. I'm not willing to call on people to pull their money and their volunteer hours either. But two can play at Obama's game.

To me, Obama's methods are obvious. He is selling out a constituency without leverage (progressives) to burnish his centrist image, which he believes will bring him more votes in November. Obama is practicing, as BooMan puts it, "raw political calculation." Well, guess what; I can do that, too!

I will work to elect Obama because, a la "Crashing The Gate," he is the candidate who will most likely bring about the change I want. But I realize that this raw political calculation is only a marriage of convenience. As soon as Obama is elected, I become his critic, looking to move him left.

I will use Mike Lux's second option for true accountability, and my opposition to centrist statements or legislation coming from an Obama administration will be very real. Progressives have shown they can work together to help pass or scuttle a bill. That power will be used against any and all Obama legislation that charts a triangulated path for this country as opposed to the right one.

And in the meantime, I will also work to rid Congress of conservative, Blue and Bush Dog Democrats, and build up long-term progressive infrastructure, building a progressive Congress to pressure President Obama.

I do not believe for one second that Obama or the Democratic party will necessarily bring all the change we need. No party stands for my bedrock principles all the time, principles like the rule of law, the balance of powers, the Constitution, civil liberties, opportunity for all, security through freedom, reduced corporate power, and responsible governance. Politicians will sell me out to get elected when they can get away with it, and I will sell them out to uphold these principles when I can get away with it.

As long as we don't stoop so low as to rationalize a candidate's political calculations, progressives can retain their authority while still supporting a center/center-left candidate.

But once Obama is elected, it's war. As I've said before, November is just the beginning."

Unity in Unity Today

Dena, St. Thomas — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:55:54 EDT

"If you like the direction the country is going, then vote for Senator McCain, but if you think we need a new course, a new agenda, vote for Barack Obama," Mrs. Clinton told the crowd. "To anyone who voted for me and is now considering not voting or voting for Senator McCain, I strongly urge you to reconsider."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/28/us/politics/28unity.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&8au=&oref=slogin&emc=au&adxnnlx=1214598903-uGMaoTqRfV28pamfrr/07g

Obama Will Not Ask Us Small Donors to pay Clinton Debt

Dena, St. Thomas — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:03:20 EDT

"NO SMALL DONORS

But Obama will not ask his grass-roots list of 1.5 million donors to kick in on the Clinton debt.

"Small donors, you know, who were writing $5 or $10, or $15, $25 checks, first of all, their budgets are tighter," Obama said. "I'm not going to be individually contacting $15 donors, because frankly, it probably wouldn't be that effective in terms of making a big dent in Senator Clinton's debt."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080627/pl_nm/usa_politics_dc_3

Supreme Court 5-4 Strikes Down "Millionaire's" Amendment

Dena, St. Thomas — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:36:06 EDT

Supreme Court strikes down 'millionaire's amendment'By Michael Doyle | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — Wealthy political candidates caught a break Thursday as the Supreme Court struck down a campaign finance rule that benefits their opponents.

By 5-4, the court ruled that Congress went too far when it loosened fundraising restraints for politicians facing millionaires who invest in their own campaigns. The court's majority declared that the campaign-finance double standard violated First Amendment free-speech guarantees.

"The argument that a candidate's speech may be restricted in order to level electoral opportunity has ominous implications because it would permit Congress to arrogate the voters' authority to evaluate the strength of candidates competing for office," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/42264.html

Feinstein Responds to One of our Members and the President of the Senate

Dena, St. Thomas — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:14:49 EDT

Response
"I write this in response to your communication indicating your concerns on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) now before the Senate. This bill has passed the House of Representatives.

This legislation contains multiple sections, including one that deals specifically with liability for telecommunications companies. However, the primary intent to this new bill is to modernize our intelligence gathering capacity. The technology and communications industries have seen vast changes in the past thirty years since FISA was first written in 1978. This has changed the way surveillance is conducted, and the original law cannot adequately address these procedures. This is precisely why FISA needs to be modernized.

It is important to understand the consequences if the Senate does not pass this bill. We would either have to extend the temporary surveillance bill passed last August - which should not happen - or allow surveillance on certain foreign targets to expire which would lay the Nation bare and decrease our ability to identify and protect against terrorist threats. Neither of these options is acceptable.

I strongly believe that this bill is substantially better than the version the Senate passed in February 2008, which I opposed. It is also a major improvement from the Protect America Act that passed in August 2007, which had few privacy protections and w as never intended to be a permanent solution. This bill:

oIncludes provisions I authored that make clear that FISA is the exclusive (or only) authority for conducting surveillance inside the United States. This is crucial as it requires that all future Presidents must act only within the law. FISA would be the only legal authority for conducting surveillance on Americans for intelligence purposes, and only legislation that specifically provides wiretapping authority in the future would be an exception to FISA.

oRequires the government to obtain a warrant before surveillance can begin. This applies to all Americans - anywhere in the world. The Protect America Act allowed surveillance for up to six months before getting a warrant. This bill ends all warrantless surveillance of U.S. persons. In this sense it is precedent setting.

oBans reverse targeting, which was a concern under the Protect America Act. Reverse targeting would allow the government to collect the contents of telephone calls and e-mails of an American by conducting surveillance on the people with whom they communicate. This is prohibited in this bill.

oRequires that the government implement procedures approved by the Court for minimization. If an American's communication is incidentally caught up in electronic surveillance while the Government is targeting someone else, minimization protects that person's private information. This has been a hallmark of FISA for 30 years, bu t court review and approval of minimization procedures was not included in the Protect America Act. It is here.

oRequires the government to receive a warrant to conduct surveillance on an American outside of the United States. This means that Americans' privacy rights are protected everywhere around the world. A court warrant has never been required outside the United States before; this would be the strongest protection ever.

I understand your concern regarding Title II of this bill, which creates a process that may result in immunity for telecommunications companies that are alleged to have provided assistance to the Government. I agree that this is not the best approach to the current legal challenges to these companies. Earlier this year, I authored an amendment that would require court review of the legality of these companies' alleged actions. Under my proposal, cases against the companies would only be dismissed if the Court found that they acted legally. I continue to believe this is the right approach. I have joined as a co-sponsor on an amendment which accomplishes this, and will vote for it when it is able to come to the floor.

There may be amendments offered to the FISA legislation to strip or modify the telecom immunity provisions. Know that I will support any that I believe improve the current bill.

Bottom line: this FISA legislation, while not perfect, would bring intelligence activities back under U.S. law. It provides significant improvement in oversight and accountability of our intelligenc e collection programs while still giving the intelligence community the tools needed to keep our Nation safe. And, it provides the strongest privacy protections to U.S. persons in history.

In conclusion, I have served on the Intelligence Committee for seven years and I take the responsibility extremely seriously. If there is no bill, our Nation goes bare in mid-August, unless the Protect America Act, which does not offer, even remotely, the privacy protections for U.S. persons that are included in this bill, is extended. Additionally, the President - any President - cannot enact a program outside of this law in the future.

I hope this helps you understand my concerns. Attached to this letter, you will find my statement on the Senate floor from June 25, 2008."

Statement of Senator Dianne Feinstein
FISA Amendments Act of 2008
June 25, 2008

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I begin my remarks by thanking the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Senator Rockefeller, and the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Senator Bond, the House Speaker, and the House leadership for their distinguished work on this piece of legislation. This has not been easy. It is certainly not without controversy. T here are some major challenges to work through.
I want to begin by putting my remarks, at least, in context.
There is no more important requirement for national security than obtaining accurate, actionable intelligence. At the same time, there have to be strong safeguards in place to ensure that the Government does not infringe on Americans' constitutional righ ts.
Yet if Congress does not act and pass this bill, as it was passed overwhelmingly in the House, both of these goals, I believe, are in jeopardy. Here is why. If this bill does not pass, our Nation would likely be forced to either extend the Protect America Act or leave the Nation bare until a new bill can be written. Neither of these are good options.
As I w ill describe, the Protect America Act does not adequately protect Americans' constitutional rights. It was written to be a temporary measure for 6 months, and it expired on February 5.
What many people do not understand is that surveillance conducted under the Protect America Act will cease by the middle of August. It will be impossible to write a new bill, to get it past both Houses, to have it signed by the President in time to meet this deadline.
If that bill expires without this Congress passing new legislation, we will be unable to conduct electronic surveillance on a large number of foreign targets. In other words, our intelligence apparatus will be laid bare and the Nation will go into greater jeopardy. I truly believe that.
The FISA legislation of 1978 cannot accommodate this number of targets. It is simply inadequate for this new task due to changes in technology and the communications industry. That is precisely why FISA needs to be modernized.
So taking no action means we will be opening ourselves, in my view, to the possibility of major attack. This is unacceptable.
So as I see it, our choice is a clear one: We either pass this legislation or we extend the Protect America Act. For me, this legislation is much the better option.
This bill, in some respects, improves even on the base bill, the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It provides clear protections for U.S. persons both at home and abroad. It ensures that the Government cannot conduct electronic surveillance on an American anywhere in the world without a warrant. No legislation has done that up to this point.
I think the improvements in this bill over the Protect America Act and the 1978 legislation are important to understand, and I wish to list a few.
First, prior court review. This bill ensures that there will be no more warrantless surveillance. Now, why do I say this? Under the Protect America Act--which is expiring, but we are still collecting surveillance under it for now--the intelligence community was authorized to conduct electronic surveillance for a period of 4 months before submitting an application for a warrant to the FISA Court. Surveillance could actually proceed for 6 months before there was a warrant.
Under this bill, the Government must submit an application and receive a warrant from the FISA Court before surveillance begins. No more warrantless surveillance. This is, in fact, a major point.
In emergency cases, there can be a short period of collection--up to 7 days--as the application is prepared. There has been a provision for emergency cases under FISA for some 30 years now. So that is prior court review for a U.S. person anywhere in the world if content is collected.
Meaningful court review. This bill strengthens court review. Under the Protect America Act, the Government submitted to the FISA Court its determination that procedures were in place to ensure that only people outside the United States would be targeted. The court could only reject an application for a warrant if it found that determination to be ``clearly erroneous.'' This bill returns to the traditional FISA standard, empowering the court to decide whether the Government's determination is ``reasonable.'' This is a higher standard of review, so the court review under this bill is meaningful.
Next, minimization. These first two improvements ensure that the Government will only be targeting people outside the country. That is good, but it is not enough. There is always the possibility of someone outside the country talking to a U.S. person inside the country. The bill addresses this with a process known as minimization.
In 1978, Congress said that the Government could do surveillance on U.S. persons under a court warrant, but required the Government to minimize the amount of informati on on those Americans who get included in the intelligence reporting. In practice, this actually means that the National Security Agency only includes information about a U.S. person that is strictly necessary to convey the intelligence. Most of the time, the person's name is not included in the report. That is the minimization process.
If an American's communication is incidentally caught up in electronic surveillance while the Government is ta rgeting someone else, minimization protects that person's private information.
Now, the Protect America Act did not provide for court review over this minimization process at all. But this bill requires the court in advance to approve the Government's minimization procedures prior to commencing with any minimization program. That is good. That is the third improvement.
Fourth, reverse targeting. There is an explicit ban on reverse targeting. Now, what is reverse targeting? That is the concern that the National Security Agency could get around the warrant requirement. If the NSA wanted to get my communications but did not want to go to the FISA Court, they might try to figure out who I am talking with and collect the content of their calls to get to me. This bill says you cannot do that. You cannot reverse target. It is prohibited. This was a concern with the Protect America Act, and it is fixed in this bill.
Those are four reasons--good reasons. Here is a fifth: U.S. person privacy outside the United States. This bill does more than Congress has ever done before to protect Americans' privacy regardless of where they are, anywhere in the world. Under this bill, the executive branch will be required to obtain a warrant any time it seeks to direct surveillance at a < span XSSCleaned="font-size: 11pt; ">U.S. person anywhere in the world. So any U.S. person anywhere in the world is protected by the requirement that a warrant must be received from theForeign Intelligence Surveillance Court before electronic surveillance can begin.
Previously, FISA only covered people inside the United States. The Protect America Act did the same thing.
Now, also under this bill, there will be reviews of surveillance authorities by the Director of National Intelligence, the Attorney General, the heads of all relevant agencies, and the inspectors general of all relevant agencies on a regular basis, and the FISA Court and the Congress will receive the results of those reviews.
So there will be regular reporting from the professionals in the arena on how this bill is being followed through on--how electronic surveillance is being carried out worldwide. The Intelligence and Judiciary Committees will receive those reports. That, too, is important.
Also, under this bill, there will be a retrospective review of the President's Terrorist Surveillance Program. That is the program that has stirred the furor. The bill requires an unclassified report on the facts of the program, including its limits, the legal justifications, and the role played by the FISA Court and any private actors involved. This will provide needed accountability.
In summary, all intelligence collection under the Terrorist Surveillance Program will be brought under court review and court orders.
Everything I have described brings this administration back under the law. There is no more Terrorist Surveillance Program. There is only court-approved, Congressionally reviewed collection.
But what is to keep this administration or any other administration from going around the law again? The answer is one word, and it is called exclusivity.
It means that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is the only, the exclusive, means for conducting electronic surveillance inside the United States for foreign intelligence purposes.
The exclusivity language in this bill is identical in substance to the amendment I offered in February, which received 57 votes in this Senate. It is section 102 of this bill.
This language reiterates what FISA said in 1978, and it goes further. Here is what this bill says:
Never again will a President be able to say that his authority--or her authority, one day, I hope--as Commander in Chief can be used to violate a law duly enacted by Congress.
Never again can an Executive say that a law passed to do one thing--such as use military force against our enemies--also overrides a ban on warrantless surveillance. The administration has said that the resolution to authorize the use of military force gave this President the right to go around FISA.
Never again can the Government go to private companies for their assistance in conducting surveillance that violates the law.
Now, this administration has a very broad view of Executive authority. Quite simply, it believes that when it comes to these matters, the President is above the law. I reject that notion in the strongest terms.
I think it is important to review the recent history with this administration to demonstrate why FISA exclusivity is so important.
At the very beginning of the Terrorist Surveillance Program, John Yoo, at the Office of Legal Counsel, wrote in a legal opinion that:
.... [u]nless Congress made a clear statement in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that it sought to restrict presidential authority to conduct warrantless searches in the national security area--which it has not--then the statute must be construed to avoid [such] a reading.
That was the argument. I believe it is wrong. Congress wrote FISA in 1978 precisely in the field of national security; there are other, separate laws that govern wiretapping in the crimi nal context. In fact, the Department of Justice has repudiated Yoo's notion.
But if the Department admitted that FISA did apply, it found another excuse not to take the Terrorist Surveillance Program to the FISA Court.
The Department of Justice developed a new, convoluted argument that Congress had authorized the President to go around FISA by passing the authorization to use military force against al-Qaida and the Taliban.
This is as flimsy as the last argument.
There is nothing in the AUMF that talks about el ectronic surveillance or FISA, and I know of not one Member who believed we were suspending FISA when we authorized the President to go to war.
But that is another argument we lay to rest with this bill. Here is how we do it. We say in the language in this bill that FISA is exclusive. Now, here is the major part: Only a specific statutory grant of authority in future legislation can provide authority to the Chief Executive to conduct surveillance without a FISA warrant.
So we go a step further in exclusivity. We cover what Yoo was trying to argue and what others might argue on behalf of a Chief Executive in the future, by closing the loophole and saying: You need specific statutory authority by the Congress of the United States to go outside the law and the Constitution.
The final argument the Preside nt has made is that even if FISA was intended to apply, and even if the AUMF didn't override FISA's procedures, he still had the authority as Commander in Chief to disregard the law.
Now, I have spoken on the floor before about how the President believes he is above the law and the Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company v. Sawyer case. In that case, Justice Jackson described how the President's power is at the ``lowest ebb'' when he is acting in contravention to the will of the Congress.
This bill, again, makes it clear that the will of Congress is that there will be no electronic surveillance inside the United States without a warrant, and it makes clear that any electronic surveillance that is conducted outside of FISA or outside of another express statutory authorization for surveillance is a criminal act. It is criminalized. This is the strongest statement of exclusivity in history.
The reason I am describing all this is to build a case of legislative intent in case this is ever litigated, and I suspect it may well be.
So, finally, I wish to read into the Record the comments on exclusivity from a June 19, 2008, letter that Attorney General Mukasey and Director of National Intelligence McConnell wrote to the Congress. The letter recognizes that the exclusivity provision in this bill "goes beyond the exclusive means provision that was passed as part of FISA [in 1978]."
So they essentially admit we are taking exclusivity to a new high. Nevertheless, they acknowledge that the provision in this bill "would not restrict the authority of the government to conduct necessary surveillance for intelligence and law enforcement purposes in a way that would harm national security."
I said in February I could not support a bill w ithout exclusivity. This is what keeps history from repeating itself and another President from going outside the law. I believe that with this language we will prevent it from ever happening again.
Now, a comment on title II of the bill, which is the telecom immunity section. This bill also creates a legal process that may--and, in fact, is likely to--result in immunity for telecommunications companies that are alleged to have provided assistance to the Government.
I have spent a great deal of time reviewing this matter. I have read the legal opinions written by the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice. I have read the written requests to telecommunications companies. I have spoken to officials inside and outside the Government, including several meetings with the companies alleged to have participated in the program.
The companies were told after 9/11 that their assistance was needed to protect against further terrorist acts. This actually happened within weeks of 9/11. I think we can all understand and re member what the situation was in the 3 weeks following 9/11.
The companies were told the surveillance program was authorized and that it was legal, and they were prevented from doing their due diligence in reviewing the Government's request. In fact, very few people in these companies--these big telecoms--are actually cleared to receive this information and discuss it. So that creates a very limited universe of people who can do their due diligence within the confines of a given telecommunications company.
For the record, let me also address what I have heard some of my colleagues say. At the beginning of the Terrorist Surveillance Program, only four Senators were briefed. The Intelligence Committee was not, other than the Chairman and Vice Chairman.
I am one who believes it is right for the public and the private sector to support the Government at a time of need. When it is a matter of national security, it is all the more important.
I think the lion's share of the fault rests with the administration, not with the companies.
It was the administration who refused to go to the FISA Court to seek warrants. They could have gone to the FISA Court to seek these warrants on a program basis, and they have done so subsequently.
It was the administration who withheld this surveillance program from the vast majority of Members of Congress, and it was the administration who developed the legal theories to explain why it could, in fact, go around the law.
So I am pleased this bill includes independent reviews of the administration's actions to be conducted by the inspectors general of the relevant departments.
All of that said, when the legislation was before the Senate in February, I stated my belief that immunity should only be provided if the defendant companies acted legally, or if they acted in good faith with a reasonable belief that their actions were legal. That is what the law calls for.
I moved an amendment to require the court to review the written requests to companies to see whether they met the terms of the law. That law requires that a specific person send a certification in writing to a telecommunications company. That certification is required to state that no court order is required for the surveillance, that all statutory requirements have been met, and that the assistance is required by the Government.
Unfortunately, my ame ndment was not adopted, but I continue to believe it is the appropriate standard.
Now, the pending legislation does not assess whether the request made by the Government was, in fact, legal, nor whether the companies had a good-faith and objective belief that the requests were legal. What this bill does provide is a limited measure of court review. It is not as robust as my amendment would have provided, but it does provide an opportunity for the plaintiffs to be heard in court, and it provides an opportunity for the court to review these request documents.
I believe the court should not grant immunity without looking into the legality of the companies' actions. So if there is an amendment that does support this, I would intend to vote for it.
But I believe the Record should be clear in noting that if this bill does become law, in my view, it does not mean the Congress has passed judgment on whether any companies' act ions were or were not legal. Rather, it should be interpreted as Congress recognizing the circumstances under which the companies were acting and the reality that we desperately need the voluntary assistance of the private sector to keep the Nation secure . . . ."

Transgendered Need Legislative Support

Dena, St. Thomas — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 09:59:46 EDT

Congress hears from transgenders about job discriminationBy Rob Hotakainen | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — After getting hired as a national security analyst with the Library of Congress, David Schroer took his new boss out to lunch to share some news: On his first day of work, he planned to show up as Diane.

The next day the job offer was withdrawn, and Schroer says it was a clear case of discrimination.

"In 24 hours, I had gone from a welcome addition to the staff to someone who was 'not a good fit' because I was a woman," Schroer told a House subcommittee Thursday. "Hero to zero in 24 hours."

Schroer took center stage Thursday as Congress made history with its first hearing on discrimination against transgender employees.

The hearing came after Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California was picketed last year after House leaders removed transgender employees from a jobs discrimination bill that offered protections to gays, lesbians and bisexuals. Supporters of the legislation want the House to reverse that decision next year.

Sabrina Marcus Taraboletti, a transgender woman and a former aerospace engineer who worked at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, told the panel that she was fired six weeks after announcing that she would be changing her sex from male to female.

"After 20 years of service, I received no severance pay, nor was I allowed to collect unemployment," she said.

Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights in San Francisco and one of the winning attorneys in California's landmark gay marriage case, called it "a truly historic day," and said it felt overwhelming to tell his story to Congress. Minter, 47, grew up in rural Texas and moved to San Francisco in 1993. Twelve years ago, he transitioned from female to male. Since puberty, he said, he had a sense of being trapped in the wrong body.

"It's an intensely miserable experience," Minter said in an interview. "It's such a profound sense that your physicality is wrong. It's excruciating. I felt like constantly I was not myself."

But after receiving hormone therapy and undergoing an operation, he said he felt like his body "was getting the right juice," giving him incredible relief.

Democratic Rep. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, who's openly gay, told the House Subcommittee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions that hate crimes against transgender Americans "are tragically common." She said transgenders face constant discrimination "in the mundane tasks of the everyday," such as finding housing, applying for credit or even seeing a doctor.

Democratic Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, who's also openly gay, had a plea on their behalf. "Can't you help them?" he asked panel members.

Opposing the legislation, Glen Lavy, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, said it would be a mistake to define gender identity or gender expression as a protected class. He said that objections to "the concept of transgender" are based on religious beliefs and that forcing the idea as a valid concept "is like forcing an Orthodox Jew to eat pork." And he said that employers would have difficulty enforcing dress codes and assuring privacy.

"With gender identity being totally subjective, who could challenge any male who says he wants to use a woman's restroom?" Lavy asked.

Rep. John Kline of Minnesota, the top-ranking Republican on the committee, questioned whether Congress needs to get involved at all.

"We have numerous federal and state laws and employer policies already on the books that help prevent discriminatory practices," he said. "Do we need yet another federal law?"

In 38 states, witnesses said, transgender employees can be fired for any reason. After Minnesota passed the nation's first law banning such workplace discrimination in 1993, the District of Columbia and 11 states — California, Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington — followed suit."

McClatchy Newspapers 2008 http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/42306.html

Interesting Read on "The Rich and the Rest of Us"

Dena, St. Thomas — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:30:54 EDT

http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/06/24/elizabeth-individual-market/

Elizabeth Edwards says McCain's Health Plan Discriminates Against Women

Dena, St. Thomas — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:19:16 EDT

"David Lazarus, in Sunday’s Los Angeles Times, brought us a fresh reminder of the challenges posed by preexisting conditions by raising a new one – being a woman.

Senator John McCain’s health plan is based on the idea that everyone should be on their own to buy their health insurance on the individual market. And it’s an approach fundamentally at odds with the point of health insurance: that we share risks. People with preexisting conditions, like McCain and myself, would pay much more for health insurance under his health plan, if we could get coverage at all.

Insurance companies have all sorts of characteristics they look at in order to increase premiums, such as preexisting conditions, occupation, age, and residence. But I hadn’t realized that the McCain plan would enable insurers to “rate-up” my insurance bill for not only my status as a breast cancer patient, but also my gender.

The ability to become pregnant has long been understood as an excuse to charge women more for health insurance (because, of course, men have nothing to do with that particular health condition). But what makes the Lazarus column interesting is that he tells us that insurers are charging women higher premiums even if pregnancy benefits are excluded. Blue Shield of California (Blue Shield) is now charging woman more in the individual market because:

“Our egghead actuaries crunched the numbers based on all the data we have about healthcare,” explained Tom Epstein, a Blue Shield spokesman. “This is what they found.”
That women get sicker than men?
“It’s all about the statistics,” Epstein said.

That doesn’t really inspire a sense of fairness. Doctors recommend that women have mammograms and other preventative screenings. Is Blue Shield really trying to discourage health screenings? Do they think that women are more accident prone? Whatever their reasoning, one thing is clear – they don’t want to enroll too many women:

“We don’t want to get a disproportionate share of high-risk people,” added Epstein.

As Lazarus noted, “by ‘high risk people,’ what he means is ‘women.’”

Blue Shield, a not-for-profit company, says they are just following the trend of for-profit insurers in California (at least two competitors already adjust premiums based on gender). Blue Shield exists in a competitive market that rewards insurers for doing the wrong things. In that sense, it isn’t fair to pick on Blue Shield in particular, especially since Blue Shield’s CEO speaks constructively on health reform.

The point is that the insurers have given us just another example about how the individual market is fundamentally broken. Embracing it as the solution to our health crisis – as the McCain plan proposes to – will only make matters worse." http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/06/24/elizabeth-individual-market/

"Rove-Reversal: Jewish Dems Attack McCain's 'Strength' on Iran"

Dena, St. Thomas — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:11:57 EDT

"Several of Congress' most prominent Jewish members are set to go after John McCain on an issue of perceived strength: his proclaimed "toughness" in dealing with Iran.

On Thursday, Sens. Frank Lautenberg and Ben Cardin, alongside more than half-a-dozen members of the House of Representatives and the National Jewish Democratic Council, will host a press conference highlighting a vote McCain made that helped corporations like Halliburton continue doing business with sanctioned countries like Iran.

The vote, McCain's critics argue, demonstrates a strand of political hypocrisy -- on the campaign trail, the Senator has repeatedly called for divestment from Iran -- and pokes holes in his attacks on Barack Obama.

"John McCain has been arguing that he is Mr. Tough Guy on Iran," said Ira Forman, Executive Director of the NJDC. "At the AIPAC conference he talked about how he would introduce stronger sanctions and boycott measures. He's also saying Obama is naïve and can't be trusted to deal with the Iranians. But when it came to deciding to be tough on Iran or supporting Halliburton, he stuck with Halliburton. It is easy to talk the talk but it is not so easy to walk the walk."

In July 2005, Sen. Lautenberg introduced an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill that would have closed a loophole allowing U.S. corporations to do business with terrorist-sponsoring nations by setting up foreign shell companies. The measure had broad support as it became evident that several major companies, including Halliburton, had taken advantage of the system. Frank Gaffney, the neoconservative columnist, opined that the situation was an "affront to the letter and spirit of the law."

But when the provision came to the floor, the vote split almost entirely down party line. Only two GOP Senators supported the amendment and neither had the last name McCain.

Soon thereafter, a less-stringent amendment was passed, roughly reinstating the legal status quo. As a Democratic aide noted, "it allowed Republicans to cover themselves on the issue." The Center for Security Policy wrote:

"The [GOP version] would seek to penalize individuals or entities who evade [International Emergency Economic Powers Act] sanctions - if they are "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." This is merely a restatement of existing regulations. The problem with this formulation is that, in the process of purportedly closing one loophole, it would appear to create new ones... If the Senate is serious about truly closing this loophole, it must adopt the Lautenberg Amendment."

Now, three years later, Lautenberg, Cardin, the NJDC and others are trying to extract a political price from McCain for not supporting their legislation. And, as some Jewish politics observers suggested, there could be political room to operate.

"The bottom line is this," said Mark Mellman, President & CEO of The Mellman Group. "There is an obviously grave concern in the American Jewish community about a nuclear Iran. This is a leadership that has pledged to wipe out Israel and is developing the means to do that. And so there is grave concern within the Jewish community but also outside the Jewish community."

It is a Rovian effort -- going after an opponent's perceived strength. After all, McCain has made the concept "getting tough" on hostile regimes a central thrust of his foreign policy. During a speech at AIPAC he spoke directly about the benefits of cutting off Iran's financial pipelines.

"As more people, businesses, pension funds and financial institutions across the world divest from companies doing business with Iran, the radical elite who run that country will become even more unpopular than they are already," he said.

And the Senator has often backed his rhetoric with action. In 1992, McCain coauthored the Iran-Iraq Arms Non-Proliferation Act, which prohibited the transferring for weapons or technology to those two countries. More recently, he has championed the Lieberman-Kyl amendment, which designated the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. In fact, in 2006, McCain tried to have Iran banned from participating in the World Cup soccer tournament.

All this Forman acknowledged. But he added, "when you are the guy who says 'I am tough, I will be the one who will extend sanctions against Iran, and my opponent is weak' -- when you run your campaign in the Jewish community around this point, you are particularly vulnerable when you didn't do what you said you will."

As demonstrated by the Lautenberg amendment, McCain's resume isn't entirely without weak points. This list include his campaign staff, which currently includes Charlie Black, whose firm was paid $60,000 to lobby on behalf of the Chinese oil conglomerate doing business in Iran; and Carly Fiorina, who as CEO saw her company Hewlett-Packard trade with the Iranians."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/26/rove-reversal-jewish-dems_n_109306.html

Evangelical Ministers for Obama, Against Dobson

Dena, St. Thomas — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:58:30 EDT

Read what many evangelical ministers are saying in opposition to Dobson and see Dobson's allegations against what Obama has said. http://www.jamesdobsondoesntspeakforme.com/

Finally a Full Federal Elections Commission

Dena, St. Thomas — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:39:13 EDT

Senate adds 5 to election panel after months of standoffBy Rob Hotakainen | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — Ending a monthslong stalemate, the Senate voted Tuesday to fill five vacancies on the Federal Election Commission, putting the nation's election watchdog back in business.

"I'm pleased we can finally come together," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, shortly before the Senate approved the nominations on a unanimous vote. With the White House and Senate at loggerheads over who should fill the vacancies, Reid said: "There's been no FEC."

That's been a source of frustration for the Democratic National Committee, which went to federal court Tuesday to demand an investigation into the campaign finances of Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain. The DNC wants the FEC to rule on whether the presumptive Republican presidential nominee illegally withdrew from the federal financing system.

In ordinary times, the FEC would answer that question, but these have not been ordinary times. The FEC has had only two commissioners since December, too few to conduct any official business. It takes four affirmative votes to conduct audits, pursue litigation or make regulatory changes.

Some say it has been like having a World Series without an umpire.

Republicans accused the Senate's Democratic leaders of dragging their feet on voting on FEC nominees. On Friday, Reid wouldn't allow a vote when Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky urged the Senate to consider the issue immediately.

"There always seems to be a snag, and the snags always seem to be on the other side," McConnell said. After Tuesday night's vote, he said that filling the vacancies was "long overdue," adding: "I'm glad that Democratic obstruction on the nominees is over."

The nominations passed the Senate Rules Committee in May. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the chairwoman of the committee, said it was "unconscionable that in the middle of a presidential election year, with campaign committees spending millions of dollars, that we don't have our federal election watchdog in place."

The DNC sued the FEC on Tuesday in federal court in Washington, saying that the agency had failed to act on the McCain complaint, which the committee filed earlier this year. The DNC alleges that McCain agreed to abide by spending limits during the primary, then put up matching funds that he expected to receive as collateral for a loan to keep his faltering campaign going. After getting the loan, McCain told the FEC that he wouldn't honor his agreement, according to the DNC.

The Republican National Committee disputes that version of events, saying that McCain never received any primary matching funds and therefore isn't subject to the primary campaign spending limit. And the RNC says that no entitlements to public funds were used to secure a loan.

McConnell suggested that Senate Democrats wanted to delay a vote on the FEC nominees until the DNC filed "yet another frivolous lawsuit." He accused the Democrats of using "shenanigans, which I don't think we ought to export from the campaign to the Senate."

Reid said he'd held up a vote Friday because he was waiting for an unnamed senator to have "one more conversation with one of the nominees." He told McConnell that Democrats were ready to approve the nominees before Memorial Day but that Republicans objected at the time.

"We can do a lot of finger-pointing," Reid said.

McClatchy Newspapers 2008 http://www.mcclatchydc.com/104/story/42077.html

So Much for National Security

Dena, St. Thomas — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:32:19 EDT

Army flayed over 21-year-old's $298 million arms dealBy Lesley Clark | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — Military officials came under withering attack Tuesday in Congress from both Democrats and Republicans, who expressed anger and astonishment that a 21-year-old Miami Beach man with a spot on a State Department "watch list" and a history of failing to deliver on military contracts was awarded a $298 million deal to provides arms to allied forces in Afghanistan.

A congressional investigation found that Efraim Diveroli — who's now 22 — was granted the contract even though he, his company, AEY, and a supplier he worked with were on a State Department watch list for suspicious international arms dealers, said Rep. Henry Waxman, the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

The California Democrat said that the awarding of the contract revealed a "fundamentally flawed system," noting that Defense Department officials had overlooked AEY's "long record of failed and dubious performance." That record, as compiled by the committee, included delivering damaged helmets to Iraq, falsely blaming a hurricane in Miami for failing to deliver 10,000 pistols to Iraq's security forces and delivering the wrong model of laser pointer and rifle attachments to the U.S Embassy in Colombia.

"It appears that anyone — no matter how inexperienced or unqualified — can win a lucrative federal contract worth hundreds of millions of dollars," Waxman said, adding that it was "hard to imagine a less-qualified company than AEY."

Defense officials acknowledged shortcomings in the contracting process and vowed changes, though they were unable to tell the panel whether AEY still has business in Iraq.

"I will have to get back to you on whether they're still performing," Jeffrey Parsons, the executive director of the Army Contracting Command, told Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-Mass., who said he'd seen crates of supplies with ties to AEY on a recent trip to Iraq.

Military contracting officials said the review of AEY's past performance didn't raise any red flags because the company's previous contracts were too small to require mandatory reporting.

Parsons said AEY had failed to tell the military that it had several contracts that were "terminated for cause" before it was awarded the $298 million contract in January 2007. He said the Army was changing its policies to require that all canceled contracts — regardless of the amounts — be reported.

"In my opinion while there certainly is room for improvement . . . this case is more about a contractor who failed to properly represent his company ... rather than a faulty contracting process," Parsons said. But he acknowledged, "It was not a good decision."

Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia, the ranking Republican on the panel, criticized the "failure to root out AEY sooner" but said "there is little indication the United States routinely purchases ammunition for vintage Soviet weapons from 22-year-old arms dealers."

Military officials said they didn't know that the State Department had flagged Diveroli and the company because contracting officers weren't required to review the watch list. Parsons said he didn't know whether the list was available to outside agencies.

Stephen Mull, the acting assistant secretary of state at the bureau of political military affairs, said the agency had shared the information with other agencies upon request. According to Mull, AEY was placed on the watch list in January 2005. Diveroli was listed in 2006, with an entry noting "there appear to be several suspicious characteristics of this company, including the fact that Diveroli is only 21 years old and has brokered or completed several multimillion-dollar deals involving fully and semi-automatic assault rifles. Future license applications involving Diveroli and/or his company should be very carefully scrutinized."

Waxman said Diveroli was invited to testify before the committee but declined through an attorney, citing his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself. Noting that Diveroli was indicted in Miami last week on charges of defrauding the U.S. government, Waxman said, "His Fifth Amendment concerns would appear to be well-founded."

Authorities contend that Diveroli and three employees conspired to defraud the federal government by selling it more than $10 million worth of Chinese-made machine-gun rounds, telling U.S. officials that the ammunition was from Albania.

Diveroli's attorney has called the government indictment flawed.

The committee contends that the senior U.S. diplomat in Albania tried to cover up the Chinese origins of the ammunition, which AEY shipped to Afghanistan.

A spokesman for the State Department, Tom Casey, said at a briefing Tuesday that the agency's inspector general had been asked "to go and look at these charges and conduct a thorough, fair and transparent investigation of these allegations."

McClatchy Newspapers 2008 http://www.mcclatchydc.com/100/story/42081.html

Justice Department Scandal

Dena, St. Thomas — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:27:49 EDT

IG report: Justice Dept. wrongly considered politics in hiring http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/42022.html

CEO of Overstock.com Responds to Complaint I Sent About Sponsoring FOX News

Dena, St. Thomas — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 13:59:54 EDT

Please log on to read the CEO's letter and respond http://www.deepcapture.com/political-pressure-on-overstock/#comment-3046

I wrote the following comment:

You wrote, “There was one exception: when Rush made fun of Michael J. Fox, we yanked our advertising.” So, I don’t understand why you would not stop advertising on FOX News for the Rush-type lies they broadcast.

Michelle and Barack on Cover of Us Weekly

Dena, St. Thomas — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 10:15:28 EDT

Check it out, buy a copy, and thank MSNBC.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25333875/