Organizing for America | National Neighborhood Walk Team

National Neighborhood Walk Team

Neighbor to Neighbor users in battleground states who use the tool to walk their neighborhoods. Not using N2N yet? Go to http://my.barackobama.com/n2n

Page 1 of 2 | Next

Senate Finance Committee Approved Health Care Bill

By Richard Charman - Oct 20th, 2009 at 3:46 pm EDT

Also listed in: 6 groups

Dear Friends:

I have good news for you who have been fighting for a Health Care Reform Bill with a Strong Public Option.

Last week, the Senate Finance Committee voted 14 to 9 to approve its Health Reform Bill -- the fifth legislative committee to pass reform legislation, as reported today October 20, 2009, by the Washington Post at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/health-care-8-questions/index.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter “The Senate Finance Committee produced the least costly and most comprehensive of the pending reform bills and the legislation is expected to serve as the foundation for a final bill. It also is the only version of reform to have gained some GOP support, with the committee vote of Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (Maine). Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) will remain a key negotiator for the duration.House and Senate leaders are attempting to turn a patchwork of committee efforts into full-fledged bills. In the Senate, Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) is working with a small team in his office to meld the Finance Committee bill with the more narrow legislation approved by the Senate health committee. In the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is leading the effort to combine the work of three House committees. Once the mergers are complete, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office will determine how much each bill cost and they will move separately to the House and Senate floors, likely in early November.Assuming both measures are approved, the House and Senate will form a conference committee to combine the two bills for one final vote in their respective chambers. Then it's on to the White House for President Obama's signature. We have worked hard against big interests in Washington trying to spoil our congressional representatives and now are confident of enacting health-care reform this year.

The fight is far from over since some of our representatives still hesitating. They need to hear that their future aspirations and place in history depends on providing Health Care Insurance with Strong Public Option as the majority voted for on last November 4, 2008.

Thanks,

Richard Charman

(305)636-4400

www.net-tronics.com

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Rally at Senator Bill Nelson office for Support of Public Health Care

By Richard Charman - Jul 25th, 2009 at 12:52 pm EDT

Also listed in: 5 groups

<div align="justify">Today, July 23, 2009, supporters of Organizing For America (OFA), Democracy for America (DFA), MoveOn.Org and other allied organizations gathered in front the office of Senator Bill Nelson, in Coral Gables, to demand his support for a strong Public Health Care Option which will provide ALL American people with 1.- Affordable (low cost) Health Care. 2.- Freedom of choice in selecting whether to keep your private insurance or to enroll with government backed Public Insurance 3.- Quality of care and low cost generic medication that have the same properties and benefit of brand name, yet more expensive medications.

These are the 3 core principles that conform President Obama envisioned Health Care request for America.

What follows is a video of the event by Larry Thorson.

Check it out.......

Here, Richard Charman, founder of IAM4OBAMA, Neighbors of Allapattah in Miami; Senator Bill Nelson's Senior Staff and Regional Director, Laura I. Fatovic; Carlos Gonzalez, volunteer of Organizing For America and other supporters, smile to the camera.

Richard Charman presented his response in person to a letter of Senator Nelson dated July 13, 2009, in reply to a petition letter delivered by Richard Charman, on May 29, 2009, by request of MoveOn.Org.

In his letter of reply Senator Bill Nelson stated <b>"...I am working toward reforms that would make health insurance available to all Americans through an insurance exchange and would provide subsidies to those who cannot afford coverage.</b>

After reading the letter to the participants and stating that that position of Senator Nelson falls short of the 3 cores principles outlined by President Obama on his request to Congress for a Public Option, Richard Charman went inside the office accompanied by some of the participants and delivered his response to Laura Fatovic.

<b>After this Laura Fatovic stated, without elaborating, that Senator Bill Nelson is deeply committed to his constituency and that his position on this issue has changed since them.</b>

Senator Bill Nelson's Senior Staff, Laura I. Fatovic, Regional Director, listens patiently to the personal stories of the participants, backing their request, highlighting why is so important to pass a Public Health Care Option.

Another group voiced their concern.

Participants signed the petitions requesting Senator Bill Nelson to support a strong Public Health Care Option as soon as Dave Patlak, leader of MoveOn.Org, Miami Beach Council, made available the forms to them.

This is another view of the petition signing.

This picture shows an enthusiastic crowd voicing their demand for <b>Health Care Now! For us, The People, Public Option is not negotiable!</b>

We left the office confidents that Senator Bill Nelson will be on our side, in reference to strongly supporting a Public Health Care Option, as he has been in the past when he opposed the $700 Billions bailout to the bankers of Wall Street, as the follow video shows. </div>

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Please Pardon Paul Pantone

By Marianne - Jan 26th, 2009 at 1:50 pm EST

Also listed in: 9 groups

Please help Pardon inventor of the GEET Fuel Processor, Paul Pantone, wrongfully imprisoned and terribly mistreated in a facility in Utah for supposedly selling illegal stocks. This was obviously a sinister agenda at play.

We have to get this guy pardoned and his invention considered. Please pass it on:

A report from his son, and phone calll to Paul Pantone: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoLFt_cUa_0

Here's the actual invention: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlrxueyulPc

I've called the Justice Department requesting his case to be considered for pardon. The number there is 202-514-2000. You can also contact the White House at http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

Let's make some noise!! Read More »

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Happy New Year!

By Lydia from Durham, NC - Jan 1st, 2009 at 3:59 pm EST

Also listed in: 10 groups

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (1) | Report Objectionable Content

Banking and automotive sectors at different places

By Wes Ray - Nov 16th, 2008 at 8:55 pm EST

Also listed in: National Neighborhood Walk Team

If the bailout-eliciting picture of the banking sector was accurate, the whole world's financial system was in a make or break situation. They were all so bad off, so interconnected, and so critical to every other sector of any economy around the world that letting any key bank fail would have brough the entire house of cards down. Such is not th case with GM, Ford, and/or Chrysler. If one or more of them goes bankrupt, there will still be cars to sell and buy. Other than suppliers and dealers, other economic segments will survive. Sure, businesses within cities and regions heavily dependent on auto factories will suffer. On the other hand, we will all suffer if we through bad money after bad management.

These companies will not simply disappear. Chapter 11 bankruptcy will allow any number of them that commits to that serious, legally defined reorganization effort to make changes needed to surface as economically competitive. Honda, Toyota, and the like have factories operating in the US, so let's keep in mind that other companies compete in this tax and general economic environment. If the UAW wants to survive, they need to make agreements that help their corporate brothers orget into their competitors' shops to even the cost of auto manuafacturing throughout the lower 48.

I'm a pro-labor guy who worked four years as a union member and served as the VP of my local during that time. I recognize unions are like corporations, but with a philosophy of more uniform economic distribution of its profits. Among the things I hope the Obama/Biden administration accomplishes the stabilization of the right to organize. I just think te UAW and unions in general will be stronger and represent more people in more companies in more lines of business in the long-term if they bargain in a way that lets their members and those members' employers win.

In an age of short-term economic conditions, don't bargain for life-time benefits. Get money in employees' hands, get other monetary benefits and earned leave into contracts and be happy. Make employees or their unions responsible for retirement planning. Don't leave the money in he company's hands b/c you can't count on them to use it as they said they would, invest it wisely, or be ao8urnd to keep the plan going.

OK, I need to put my daughter to bed. I've said enough for the absence of readers any way.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Congratulations and I'm Sorry

By Marianne - Nov 4th, 2008 at 10:45 pm EST

Also listed in: 9 groups

Barack,

I can't imagine what you are going through right now. The world is rejoicing at their future. It seems like it's ensured by the numbers that are showing in your favor. Hope abounds and we're all huddled in suspense awaiting the results of this election.

Meanwhile you have been hit by an emotional ton of bricks. The excitement is so high right now, yet you were hit with such sad news yesterday as your dear Tut passed on from this world. It hit me pretty hard and I was so sad for you. But then I wasn't as close to the situation and I'm sure you've been making your peace with this possibility for the last couple months. I'm sure you must be as sad as the rest of us, but we're not as close to the situation as you are.

Either way, my thoughts are with you in this critical time and I feel for you right now. I think that I'm not alone in taking on the emotional pain of your loss, and in doing so, am hoping that we can lessen yours.

Dear Mr. President, congratulations and I'm sorry.

Marianne Dempsey

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Before you vote Yes on Prop 8

By Clay McClure - Nov 4th, 2008 at 3:10 am EST

Also listed in: "I Have a Dream" Team | National Neighborhood Walk Team

Dear voter,

I hope you will entertain my plea to vote NO on Proposition 8. Why do I oppose Prop 8? It's not just because I'm gay. It turns out there are several reasons.

Factual Errors

Prop 8 supporters claim that churches might be sued if they refuse to marry gay couples, but they are wrong. Churches are not obligated by any law to perform marriages, and are not required to offer equal access to church services. If a church decided not to perform same-sex, interracial, or interfaith marriages, that is their prerogative, and the only recourse would be to seek another church.

Prop 8 supporters claim that schools will have to teach gay marriage, but they are wrong. California schools are not required to teach children about marriage, gay or straight. Parents are free to teach their children what they wish:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIL7PUl24hE

Word games

Many argue that the only difference between gay marriage and civil unions is the name. If that is true, then the desire for a constitutional amendment to prevent a group of people from using a specific word seems more than a little absurd. If it is acceptable for same-sex couples to live together, engage in civil unions, adopt children, and raise a family, as I believe it is, then why is the focus of the amendment only on the use of the word "marriage?"

Prop 8 supporters might turn that question around and ask gay couples why the word "marriage" is so important to them. But it's not the word that we're worried about; it's the constitution we're worried about. This notion of "separate but equal" institutions reeks of the racial intolerance of the pre-civil rights era. We moved past that mode of discrimination forty years ago, and it is rather sad to see us headed back in that direction.

Government must not discriminate

The Declaration of Independence exhorts, "All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." Unfortunately, those words were no sooner written than they were forgotten. Slavery was legal and commonplace. Women, minorities, and the poor were denied the right to vote.

Throughout United States history, government measures to regulate social norms have failed. Beginning with slavery, then women's suffrage, then prohibition, then Jim Crow laws. The net effect is that the US constitution has gradually become more inclusive as the Enlightenment spirit marches on. The same pattern of gradual enlightenment exists in California:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oj-0xMrsyxE

The role of the constitution and supreme court in protecting the rights of the minority

You may know that our government is a constitutional republic, "in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law." In other words, our rule of law is designed to protect the minority, and all laws derive from the Constitution. When the California Supreme Court found the anti-gay marriage law to be unconstitutional, they were not being activist, they were merely doing their job in interpreting the California constitution. It is not so hard to believe that the constitution provides equal rights to all, yet the Prop 8 supporters want you to believe that the justices had legislated from the bench. But conservatives complain about judicial activism whenever they find the court's decision unpalatable, and this case was no different.

The sanctity of the Constitution

The United States Constitution serves as a model for all state constitutions. It has been amended 17 times in 220 years, and almost always in the direction of expanding the rights of the people. In only one case has the United States Constitution ever been amended to restrict personal rights: Prohibition. That amendment was later repealed. In the foundation of the oldest constitutional republic on Earth, there is simply no precedent for the use of a constitutional amendment to strip a group of people of their rights.

Family values

Supporters of anti-marriage laws frequently claim family values as a reason for their decision. But what, exactly, are the family values that marriage provides? Stability. Commitment. Longevity. Support. Love. Surely those are values that should not be limited to heterosexual couples. Anti-marriage activists frequently point to promiscuous, unstable homosexual relationships as reasons why gays are not fit for raising families. Yet it is these same activists who hypocritically seek to restrict from gays the one institution that would promote stable homosexual relationships: marriage. This kind of circular logic is quickly exposed as hypocritical nonsense.

The legacy you leave for your children

Finally, since the Proposition 8 supporters claim that they are protecting children, let's examine Prop 8's consequences for kids. First, consider the hypocrisy of the parents who produced this ridiculous video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlItG4raicA

Even as they claim they want to insulate kids from the allegedly harmful notion of same-sex marriage, these hypocrites forced the concept on their own children with these insipid lyrics: "a dad could be a woman and a mom could be a man." Needless to say, that's retarded.

Next, consider the message you'd be sending to your kids if you vote Yes: it's OK to discriminate. Learning these lessons from you, why would your children not grow up to think that interracial marriage should not be banned? Why should they think that women should be able to vote, or that separate-but-equal drinking fountains are morally reprehensible, if you have taught them that discrimination is acceptable?

Finally, consider how you would feel if one of your children grows up to be gay. The causes of homosexuality are not known, but with gays making up about 2.5% of Americans, it is well within the realm of possibility that one of your children might identify as gay. How would you feel about your gay son or your gay daughter? Would you love them any less because of their sexual orientation? Could you ever look them in the eye and tell them you voted to discriminate against them?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rfea8iEGNw

At the end of the day, whatever your view on homosexuality and gay marriage, you should realize that Proposition 8 has absolutely no impact on *your* marriage. Only you and your spouse can protect your marriage, and, if you love each other and are faithful, it needs no protection. Humans instinctively pair to raise families. They always have, and always will, regardless whether the state bestows the covenant of marriage upon all, some, or none. But as long as the state does bestow that covenant, it is our duty to follow in the footsteps of our forefathers to preserve the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all. I hope you can see why a vote for Proposition 8 is a vote against liberty, is unfair, and is wrong. I am not alone in this view:

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

I hope that you will vote NO on this flawed and unnecessary ballot measure, and will encourage your friends and family to follow suit.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Byrd Park Canvasses for Change events this weekend are cancelled

By Christopher Martin - Nov 1st, 2008 at 11:36 am EDT

Also listed in: 6 groups

When I checked Friday evening, my.BarackObama.com had pulled the plug on the Neighbor to Neighbor feature that printed walk lists. Without walk lists, we would be pretty much flying blind. Sorry for the short notice, but I had hoped the feature might be available again Saturday morning but it's not.

I wanted to provide a nearby event in the neighborhood this weekend people could go to. As it is, the closest canvass staging area at this point is 222 West Broad Street, Richmond, VA where shifts will be running all day Saturday and Sunday. Call the Richmond Obama HQ for more details. You can also find plenty of things to do in the closing days of the campaign at my.BarackObama.com/actioncenter.

Thanks to all the volunteers who participated in the Byrd Park Canvass for Change. Since it began as a weekly event in August, we've knocked on hundreds of doors and covered much of the area. Sorry we're ending, not with a bang, but a whimper, but thanks for your support.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Olbermann on Palin - Socialist, Fraud

By Marianne - Oct 29th, 2008 at 12:05 am EDT

Also listed in: 9 groups

Gotta love Keith Olbermann!

Please DIGG this. It's up to 114. We CAN push it over and get it out!!

http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Palin_Alaskans_Share_the_Wealth_Collectively_as_Socialists#

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

BREAKING: Palin brags that she "spreads the wealth" is a SOCIALIST and so is ALASKA- just 2 months ago!

By Marianne - Oct 28th, 2008 at 11:34 pm EDT

Also listed in: 9 groups

This hasn't been reported on yet, I don't know why. Open Mouth, Insert Foot, Palin! Please digg it and pass it on.

http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Palin_Alaskans_Share_the_Wealth_Collectively_as_Socialists#

From Keith Olbermann comments:

Sarah Palin said to a reporter 2 months ago:

"And Alaska - we're set up, unlike other states in the union, where it's collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs."
Who said that, Governor?

Who was the collectivist share-the-wealther, who was boasting to the reporter visiting from "The New Yorker Magazine, "of having been able to send a check for $1,200 to every man, woman and child in the state since, quote "Alaska is sometimes described as America's socialist state, because of its collective ownership of resources?”

Why, you said that, Governor! You're a share-the-wealth, collectivist, Almost-Socialist-Governor, Governor! Who also believes that income, property, inventory and investments, collectively belonging to everybody else, leads to a misuse of power, and government making decisions for us, turning countries into places where the people are not free.

Places like, Sarah Palin's America! Governor, all sorts of choice words apply here: hypocrite, double-talker, snake-oil seller, socialist. But let me stick with just one, with which to bid you goodbye. You, governor, are a fraud.

__________________
Marianne Dempsey
Umatilla, FL
352-978-6754

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (1) | Report Objectionable Content

We are getting closer to Election Day

By Kathy - Oct 25th, 2008 at 8:42 pm EDT

Also listed in: 9 groups

As we are getting closer to election day, I have noticed while out canvassing that the McCainians are even more vocal and seemingly upset. I think they can tell that their candidate will not win and they are frustrated. I wish I could talk to them and tell them that Obama is the right guy, the President we need, but these people do not want to hear anything. It doesn't upset me, I'm just wondering where do they live? I mean, are they here on this Earth with the rest of us? Can they not see that they are voting for the same they already have now if they vote for McPain....don't they see that McSame will not help them but rather big corporations? Over and over again I have asked my husband why these people can't see and he each time patiently explained that they don't want to see, they are probably racists, ignorant or just plain stupid. Just today I talked to a young man, 19 or 20 or so and he said he would probably vote for McCain, when I asked him why he only said he is a Republican. So I asked him if he liked the way things were right now and he said they were just fine. I asked him how he could believe them to be just fine when we all are close to a Depression, he just shrugged and said: "It's not so bad, those things happen..." I just turned around and walked away, realizing that one can not talk sense into somebody this ignorant. And then again, what did he have to worry, he was living with his parents....Also today I talked to a lady and she told me flat out that she was not going to vote for a terrorist....I only told her that Obama is not a terrorist and I walked away. I know there were many things I could have said but I thought it would be a waste of my time to try to talk to somebody who believes Obama is a terrorist because McCain told them to believe it. Al lMcPain can do is attack, because he HAS NO ISSUES....

Kathy

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (1) | Report Objectionable Content

Nobel Prize Laureate on Economics Endorses Obama

By Marianne - Oct 17th, 2008 at 9:33 am EDT

Also listed in: 9 groups

This may be the most important article on this election. This is the biggest news of the day. Please, yell it from the roof tops!!

This is from Paul Krugman himself, recent Nobel Prize winner on Economics.

New York Times
October 17, 2008
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Let’s Get Fiscal

By PAUL KRUGMAN

The Dow is surging! No, it’s plunging! No, it’s surging! No, it’s ...

Nevermind. While the manic-depressive stock market is dominating the headlines, the more important story is the grim news coming in about the real economy. It’s now clear that rescuing the banks is just the beginning: the nonfinancial economy is also in desperate need of help.

And to provide that help, we’re going to have to put some prejudices aside. It’s politically fashionable to rant against government spending and demand fiscal responsibility. But right now, increased government spending is just what the doctor ordered, and concerns about the budget deficit should be put on hold.
Before I get there, let’s talk about the economic situation.

Just this week, we learned that retail sales have fallen off a cliff, and so has industrial production. Unemployment claims are at steep-recession levels, and the Philadelphia Fed’s manufacturing index is falling at the fastest pace in almost 20 years. All signs point to an economic slump that will be nasty, brutish — and long.

How nasty? The unemployment rate is already above 6 percent (and broader measures of underemployment are in double digits). It’s now virtually certain that the unemployment rate will go above 7 percent, and quite possibly above 8 percent, making this the worst recession in a quarter-century.

And how long? It could be very long indeed.

Think about what happened in the last recession, which followed the bursting of the late-1990s technology bubble. On the surface, the policy response to that recession looks like a success story. Although there were widespread fears that the United States would experience a Japanese-style “lost decade,” that didn’t happen: the Federal Reserve was able to engineer a recovery from that recession by cutting interest rates.

But the truth is that we were looking Japanese for quite a while: the Fed had a hard time getting traction. Despite repeated interest rate cuts, which eventually brought the federal funds rate down to just 1 percent, the unemployment rate just kept on rising; it was more than two years before the job picture started to improve. And when a convincing recovery finally did come, it was only because Alan Greenspan had managed to replace the technology bubble with a housing bubble.

Now the housing bubble has burst in turn, leaving the financial landscape strewn with wreckage. Even if the ongoing efforts to rescue the banking system and unfreeze the credit markets work — and while it’s early days yet, the initial results have been disappointing — it’s hard to see housing making a comeback any time soon. And if there’s another bubble waiting to happen, it’s not obvious. So the Fed will find it even harder to get traction this time.
In other words, there’s not much Ben Bernanke can do for the economy. He can and should cut interest rates even more — but nobody expects this to do more than provide a slight economic boost.

On the other hand, there’s a lot the federal government can do for the economy. It can provide extended benefits to the unemployed, which will both help distressed families cope and put money in the hands of people likely to spend it. It can provide emergency aid to state and local governments, so that they aren’t forced into steep spending cuts that both degrade public services and destroy jobs. It can buy up mortgages (but not at face value, as John McCain has proposed) and restructure the terms to help families stay in their homes.

And this is also a good time to engage in some serious infrastructure spending, which the country badly needs in any case. The usual argument against public works as economic stimulus is that they take too long: by the time you get around to repairing that bridge and upgrading that rail line, the slump is over and the stimulus isn’t needed. Well, that argument has no force now, since the chances that this slump will be over anytime soon are virtually nil. So let’s get those projects rolling.

Will the next administration do what’s needed to deal with the economic slump? Not if Mr. McCain pulls off an upset. What we need right now is more government spending — but when Mr. McCain was asked in one of the debates how he would deal with the economic crisis, he answered: “Well, the first thing we have to do is get spending under control.”

If Barack Obama becomes president, he won’t have the same knee-jerk opposition to spending. But he will face a chorus of inside-the-Beltway types telling him that he has to be responsible, that the big deficits the government will run next year if it does the right thing are unacceptable.

He should ignore that chorus. The responsible thing, right now, is to give the economy the help it needs. Now is not the time to worry about the deficit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/opinion/17krugman.html

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

A Sense of History

By Jonna - Oct 14th, 2008 at 7:55 pm EDT

Also listed in: Hanover (NH 136) | National Neighborhood Walk Team | Upper Valley for Obama

I was very touched, today, reading Markos' suggestion on "Daily Kos" that we all take a moment to think about what we are about to experience. Given his two books on how to foster a populist movement, and the role of the netroots in its creation, Kos is the perfect spokeman to remind us to step back and appreciate what is about to happen.

Those of us who have been actively crusading in Obama's organization, footsoldiers in that plebian army, we know what is coming. Conservative pundits are beginning to feel the blast of solar energy from what they have too often derided as insignificant, "a few kids organizing other kids." We know better. We know that this is a movement from the bottom up that has energized and mobilized a populace like nothing before.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Ben Hill County a part of making history

By Theresa Davis - Oct 13th, 2008 at 10:17 pm EDT

Also listed in: GA Call Team | National Neighborhood Walk Team

Ben Hill County volunteers have really worked hard for the Campaign For Change. Alot of hours were put into voter registration, which helped 200-300 peolple become registered voters.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Florida Voter's choice for President According to CNN:

By Marianne - Oct 13th, 2008 at 12:36 am EDT

Also listed in: 9 groups

Obama - 49%
McCain - 46%
Unsure - 5%

We need those 5%!! If they go McCain, we'll lose Florida. Every vote counts.
Also, at the meeting Saturday, the campaign staff mentioned that if we only had 50 more voters per precinct in Florida, 2004, then Bush would NOT have been re-elected.

This is why I'm losing sleep over this %$&@!

If McCain is elected, he'd be the oldest president EVER to be sworn into office.
Then given his bouts with cancer or obvious slow reactive and sporadic mind, we might soon have Palin in the white house. Do we really want four more years of "us vs them" divisiveness and fear mongering and no leadership? Or should we sit down, work together, get things done, with a highly organized team of problem solvers focused on the task?

ENOUGH!!

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (2) | Report Objectionable Content

FactCheck.org : Obama and Ayers

By Marianne - Oct 11th, 2008 at 12:00 am EDT

Also listed in: 8 groups

Source: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/he_lied_about_bill_ayers.html

"He Lied" About Bill Ayers?

October 10, 2008

McCain cranks out some false and misleading attacks on Obama's connection to a 1960s radical.

Summary

In a TV ad, McCain says Obama "lied" about his association with William Ayers, a former bomb-setting, anti-war radical from the 1960s and '70s. We find McCain's claim to be groundless. New details have recently come to light, but nothing Obama said previously has been shown to be false.

In a Web ad and in repeated attacks from the stump, McCain describes the two as associates, and Palin claims they "pal around" together. But so far as is known, their relationship was never very close. An Obama spokesman says they last saw each other in a chance encounter on the street more than a year ago.

McCain says in an Internet ad that the two "ran a radical 'education' foundation" in Chicago. But the supposedly "radical" group was supported by a Republican governor and included on its board prominent local civic leaders, including one former Nixon administration official who has given $1,500 to McCain's campaign this year. Education Week says the group's work "reflected mainstream thinking" among school reformers. The group was the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, started by a $49 million grant from the Annenberg Foundation, which was established by the publisher Walter Annenberg, a prominent Republican whose widow, Leonore, is a contributor to the McCain campaign.

(FactCheck.org, which is nonpartisan, also receives funding from the Annenberg Foundation. But we are in no way connected to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which finished its work long before we came into being in late 2003.)

For full details, please read on to our Analysis section.
Analysis
Sen. John McCain has dialed up his attacks on Sen. Barack Obama's past association with former Weather Underground activist Bill Ayers. He released a 30-second TV spot Oct. 10 claiming Obama "lied" about Ayers. A day earlier he announced a 90-second Internet ad claiming that Obama and Ayers "ran a radical education foundation together" and suggesting Obama was being untruthful.

McCain-Palin Ad
"Ambition"

Announcer: Obama's blind ambition. When convenient, he worked with terrorist Bill Ayers. When discovered, he lied.

Obama. Blind ambition. Bad judgment.Congressional liberals fought for risky sub-prime loans.

Congressional liberals fought against more regulation. Then, the housing market collapsed costing you billions.

In crisis, we need leadership, not bad judgment.

McCain: I'm John McCain and I approve this message.

Groundless, False, Dubious

We find McCain's accusation that Obama "lied" to be groundless. It is true that recently released records show half a dozen or so more meetings between the two men than were previously known, but Obama never denied working with Ayers.

Other claims are seriously misleading. The education project described in the Web ad, far from being "radical," had the support of the Republican governor and was run by a board that included prominent local leaders, including one Republican who has donated $1,500 to McCain's campaign this year. The project is described by Education Week as reflecting "mainstream thinking" about school reform.

Despite the newly released records, there's still no evidence of a deep or strong "friendship" with Ayers, a former radical anti-war protester whose actions in the 1960s and '70s Obama has called "detestable" and "despicable."

Even the description of Ayers as a "terrorist" is a matter of interpretation. Setting off bombs can fairly be described as terrorism even when they are intended to cause only property damage, which is what Ayers has admitted doing in his youth. But for nearly three decades since, Ayers has lived the relatively quiet life of an educator. It would be correct to call him a "former terrorist," and an "unapologetic" one at that. But if McCain means the word "terrorist" to invoke images of 9/11, he's being misleading; Ayers is no Osama bin Laden now, and never was.

McCain-Palin Web Ad
"Ayers"

Announcer: Barack Obama and domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. Friends. They've worked together for years.

But Obama tries to hide it. Why?
Obama launched his political career in Ayers' living room. Ayers and Obama ran a radical "education" foundation, together.

They wrote the foundation's by-laws, together. Obama was the foundation's first chairman. Reports say they "distributed more than $100 million to ideological allies with no discernible improvement in education."

When their relationship became an issue, Obama just responded, "This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood."

That's it?

We know Bill Ayers ran the "violent left wing activist group" called Weather Underground. We know Ayers' wife was on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted list. We know they bombed the Capitol. The Pentagon. A judge's home.

We know Ayers said, "I don't regret setting bombs. .... I feel we didn't do enough." But Obama's friendship with terrorist Ayers isn't the issue.

The issue is Barack Obama's judgment and candor. When Obama just says, "This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood." Americans say, "Where's the truth, Barack?"

Barack Obama. Too risky for America.

McCain: I'm John McCain and I approve this message.

Who's Misleading?

McCain is not accurate when he says – as he does in the Web ad – "When their relationship became an issue, Obama just responded, 'This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood.' " McCain is using the same line in personal appearances, too. He said on Oct. 9 at a campaign rally in Waukesha, Wis.:

    McCain: Look, we don't care about an old washed-up terrorist and his wife, who still, at least on Sept. 11, 2001, said he still wanted to bomb more. ... The point is, Senator Obama said he was just a guy in the neighborhood. We need to know that's not true.

Obama never said Ayers was "just" a guy in the neighborhood. The quote is from a Democratic primary debate on April 16 in Philadelphia, and Obama actually was more forthcoming than McCain lets on. Obama specifically acknowledged working together with Ayers on a charitable board, and didn't deny getting some early political support from him. Here's the exchange:

    ABC News' George Stephanopoulos, April 16: An early organizing meeting for your state senate campaign was held at his house, and your campaign has said you are friendly. Can you explain that relationship for the voters, and explain to Democrats why it won't be a problem?

    Obama: George, but this is an example of what I'm talking about.

    This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.

    And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense, George.

Sen. Hillary Clinton then said, "I also believe that Senator Obama served on a board with Mr. Ayers for a period of time, the Woods Foundation," and predicted that "this is an issue that certainly Republicans will be raising."

Obama responded, "President Clinton pardoned or commuted the sentences of two members of the Weather Underground, which I think is a slightly more significant act than me ... serving on a board with somebody for actions that he did 40 years ago."

We wrote back then that Clinton had gone too far by suggesting that "people died" as a result of Ayers' actions. And nothing Obama said then has since been shown to be false. It is true that he did not bring up his work with Ayers on a second project, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, where Obama was board chairman and Ayers was an early organizer, and where the two were together for half a dozen or so meetings. But neither Clinton nor Stephanopoulos asked him about that project. McCain could fairly accuse Obama of not volunteering the information, but it is false to claim he "lied."

"Pal Around"

The first to begin using the new line of attack against Obama was McCain's running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin, after a lengthy article appeared Oct. 3 in the New York Times about Obama and Ayers:

    Palin, Oct. 5: Our opponents see America as imperfect enough to pal around with terrorists who would bomb their own country.

She's repeated the charge again and again at different campaign stops since then, citing the Times. What the Times article actually says, however, is this: "[T]he two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers." The Times says its review of documents and interviews with key players "suggest" that Obama "has played down his contacts with Ayers," but describes their paths as having crossed "sporadically" since their first meeting in 1995.

And far from palling around with Ayers, the two haven't spoken by phone or exchanged e-mail messages since Obama came to the Senate in January 2005, according to an Obama spokesman. He said the two last saw each other more than a year ago, when they accidentally met on the street in their Hyde Park neighborhood.

Obama addressed Palin's claim on Oct. 8, when questioned by ABC News' Charlie Gibson:

    Obama, Oct. 8: This is a guy who engaged in some despicable acts 40 years ago when I was eight years old. By the time I met him, 10 or 15 years ago, he was a college professor of education at the University of Illinois. ... And the notion that somehow he has been involved in my campaign, that he is an adviser of mine, that ... I've 'palled around with a terrorist', all these statements are made simply to try to score cheap political points.

Stormy Weather, Underground

Bill Ayers' notoriety dates from the radical, anti-Vietnam War group he helped to start in 1969, splintering off from the activist Students for a Democratic Society. The members of the new group, the Weather Underground, favored shows of violence to further their cause. On March 6, 1970, though, three of them blew themselves up in a Greenwich Village townhouse during a bomb-making session gone badly awry. Ayers and his fellow Weathermen, as they were called, soon dropped out of sight.

Barack Obama, who was born Aug. 4, 1961, was 8 years old at the time.

The Weather Underground continued setting off bombs, including one in a men's lavatory in the Capitol building in 1971 and another in a women's restroom in the Pentagon in 1972. Nobody was killed, due to evacuation warnings the Weathermen sent out in advance.

After the Vietnam War ended, the group's activities petered out. In 1980 Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, another member, surfaced and turned themselves in to police. Because of illegal federal wiretaps, pending charges against Ayers for allegedly inciting a riot and conspiring to bomb government sites had been dropped. Dohrn pleaded guilty to separate charges of aggravated battery and jumping bail; she was fined $1,500 and given three years' probation. Ayers and Dohrn, who had had two children together while in hiding, married in 1982.

Several other Weather Underground alums, including Kathy Boudin, along with some members of a group calling itself the Black Liberation Army, were involved in a bungled 1981 robbery of a Brinks truck in Nanuet, N.Y., in which a security guard and two policemen were killed. Ayers and Dohrn have never been publicly tied to the incident, which took place after they had turned themselves in. Dohrn was jailed for seven months for refusing to provide a handwriting sample to the grand jury investigating it.

Dohrn is now a clinical associate professor of law at Northwestern University School of Law in Chicago. Ayers is a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Locally, Ayers' radical past hasn't been much of an issue. Chicago Sun-Times columnist Lynn Sweet wrote last spring that it "was no big deal, or any deal, to any local political reporters or to the editorial boards of the Sun-Times or [Chicago] Tribune." Ayers was named a Chicago citizen of the year in 1997 for his efforts in the field of education.

In Chicago, Ayers is seen less as a "terrorist" and more as a prodigal son of the local establishment. His father was a prominent corporate executive and civic leader. Thomas G. Ayers was president and chief executive of Commonwealth Edison, the electric utility that lights Chicago and northern Illinois. There is a residence hall named for him at Northwestern University, where he was a trustee for 30 years. Bill's brother John Ayers, according to Education Week, headed a school-reform group called the Leadership for Quality Education, which represented business leaders’ interest in schools. John is now a senior associate of the Chicago-based National Association of Charter School Authorizers.

Despite the fairly mainstream life he lives now, though, Bill Ayers' image took a hit with an article that appeared in the New York Times on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001. Ayers was quoted in the lead paragraph as saying, ''I don't regret setting bombs'' and "I feel we didn't do enough." The interview had been conducted earlier, in connection with the publication of Ayers' memoir of his years as a fugitive. But when the quotes appeared on the same day thousands died at the World Trade Center and elsewhere, they enraged his critics.

Ayers called the story a deliberate distortion of his views. In a response on his blog, Ayers wrote:

    Ayers: My memoir is from start to finish a condemnation of terrorism, of the indiscriminate murder of human beings, whether driven by fanaticism or official policy. ...
    I said I had a thousand regrets, but no regrets for opposing the war with every ounce of my strength.

That's hardly an apology, referring as it does to the U.S. role in the Vietnam War as "terrorism." Ayers has maintained a public silence since then, refusing all requests for interviews.

Even so, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley had kind words for him recently:

    Daley (New York Times, Oct. 3, 2008): He’s done a lot of good in this city and nationally. ... This is 2008. People make mistakes. You judge a person by his whole life.

FactCheck.org and the “Annenberg Challenge”

Contrary to suggestions we've seen in some conservative blogs, there is no connection between the Chicago Annenberg Challenge and FactCheck.org, save for the fact that both received funding from the Annenberg Foundation. The foundation supports a wide variety of charitable causes – a total of 5,200 grants during its first 15 years of operation. It was founded in 1989 by Walter H. Annenberg, a newspaper and magazine publisher who died in 2002.

FactCheck.org is funded by, and is a project of, the Annenberg Public Policy Center, which was established by the Annenberg Foundation with a $20 million endowment in 1993. The Annenberg Foundation also made additional grants to support our work. We also receive funding from the Flora Family Foundation to help support our educational offshoot, FactCheckED.org. We receive no other outside funding.

FactCheck.org came into being in late 2003. Director Brooks Jackson states: "Our mission is to be as neutral and nonpartisan as humanly possible. Annenberg supports that, and nobody at the Annenberg Foundation has ever tried to influence anything we've written."

For the record, the Annenberg Foundation's president and chairman is Leonore Annenberg, the founder's widow. Public records show she's given $2,300 to the McCain campaign, which announced on Oct. 8, that she has endorsed him for president.
We Have Contact!

According to an Obama spokesman, the two men first met in 1995, when Obama was tapped to chair the board of the newly formed Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Ayers had been instrumental in creating the organization, which was to dispense grants for projects that would improve Chicago's schools.

The Challenge was one of 18 projects supported by a $500 million grant announced at a White House ceremony Dec. 18, 1993, by the Annenberg Foundation, founded four years earlier by Philadelphia publisher Walter Annenberg. It was the largest single gift ever made to public education in America. The Chicago project received a $49.2 million grant in 1995, and officials administering the grant funds at Brown University announced at the time that the Chicago proposal was developed through discussions among “a broad-based coalition of local school council members, teachers, principals, school reform groups, union representatives and central office staff” convened by three educators – one of whom was Ayers. Mayor Richard M. Daley, a Democrat, and Gov. Jim Edgar, a Republican, took part in a ceremony announcing the grant.

There are other connections between Obama and Ayers: The same year the two men met through the Annenberg Challenge, Ayers hosted a meet-and-greet coffee for Obama, who was running for state Senate and who lived three blocks away from him. Obama and Ayers also were on the board of an antipoverty charity, the Woods Fund of Chicago, where their service overlapped from 2000 to 2002. And Ayers contributed $200 to Obama's campaign for the Illinois state Senate on March 2, 2001.

In addition, Obama told the Chicago Tribune in 1997 that a book Ayers wrote about the juvenile court system was "a searing and timely account." This is sometimes billed by Obama's critics as a "book review." Actually, a reporter simply asked three Chicagoans for a sentence about whatever they were reading at the time.

The Annenberg Challenge connection has drawn the most attention recently, though, mainly because of articles written by Stanley Kurtz, a conservative contributor to the National Review, the publication founded by the late William F. Buckley. Kurtz first suggested on Aug. 18 that there was a "cover-up in the making" when he was unable to gain access to 132 boxes of project records housed at the University of Illinois. Records were released nine days later, along with all records held by the Annenberg Foundation itself.

The Chicago Tribune, after examining the records, said they showed Ayers and Obama "attended board meetings, retreats and at least one news conference together as the education program got under way." It also said Obama and Ayers "continued to attend meetings together during the 1995-2001 operation of the program." The story played on page 2. According to the New York Times, the documents show the two attended just six board meetings together, Obama as chairman and Ayers to inform the board on grantees and other issues. (In a press release, the McCain campaign puts the number of meetings at seven, five of them in 1995, one in 1996 and one in 1997.) Ayers was an "ex officio" member of the board for the first year of the project.

United Press International summed up the reaction to the contents of the group's archives with a story headlined "No 'smoking gun' in Obama relationship":

    UPI, Aug. 27: Reporters reviewing records in Chicago have so far found nothing startling in documents linking Sen. Barack Obama to 1960s radical William Ayers.

Where news reporters found little of note, though, Kurtz – the conservative writer who initially suggested a "cover-up" – cast it differently. After combing through the Annenberg records, he published an article in the opinion pages of The Wall Street Journal saying he found that Obama and Ayers acted as "partners" and together "poured more than $100 million into the hands of community organizers and radical education activists." He said money went to groups that "focused more on political consciousness, Afrocentricity and bilingualism than traditional education."

A "Radical" Foundation? Hardly.

What Kurtz – and McCain in his Web ad – considers "radical," other observers see differently, however. Veteran education reporter Dakarai I. Aarons, writing in Education Week, says the Chicago Annenberg Challenge actually "reflected mainstream thinking among education reformers" and had bipartisan support:

    Education Week (Oct. 8): The context for the Chicago proposal to the Annenberg Foundation was the 1988 decentralization of the city’s public schools by the Republican-controlled Illinois legislature, a response to frustration over years of teachers’ strikes, low achievement, and bureaucratic failure. ... The proposal was backed by letters of support to the Annenberg Foundation from Illinois Gov. Jim Edgar, a Republican, local education school deans, the superintendent of the Chicago public schools, and the heads of local foundations.

Among the mainstream Chicago luminaries on Obama's board was Arnold R. Weber, a former president of Northwestern University, who in 1971 was appointed by Republican President Richard Nixon as executive director of the Cost of Living Council and who later was tapped by Republican President Ronald Reagan to serve on an emergency labor board. More recently, Weber has given $1,500 to John McCain's presidential campaign this year.

Others on Obama's supposedly "radical" board included Stanley Ikenberry, a former president of the University of Illinois system; Ray Romero, a vice president of Ameritech; Susan Crown, a philanthropist; Handy Lindsey, the president of the Field Foundation of Illinois; and Wanda White, the executive director of the Community Workshop for Economic Development.

Kurtz originally claimed that Ayers somehow was responsible for installing Obama as head of the board, speculating in his "cover-up" article that Obama "almost certainly received the job at the behest of Bill Ayers." But after days of poring over the records, he failed to produce any evidence of that in his Wall Street Journal article. To the contrary, Ayers was not involved in the choice, according to Deborah Leff, then president of the Joyce Foundation. She told the Times, and confirmed to FactCheck.org, that she recommended Obama for the position to Patricia Graham of the Spencer Foundation. Graham told us that she asked Obama if he'd become chairman; he accepted, provided Graham would be vice-chair.

The bipartisan board of directors, which did not include Ayers, elected Obama chairman, and he served in that capacity from 1995 to 1999, awarding grants for projects and raising matching funds. Ayers headed up a separate arm of the group, working with grant recipients. According to another board member, Ayers "was not significantly involved with the challenge after Obama was appointed." One possible reason had little to do with Obama himself, but instead was related to cautions about conflicts of interest; the group was funding some of Ayers' own alternative school projects.

In any case, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge failed to bring about improvement in students' test scores, classroom behavior or social competence. An independent consortium of educators concluded in 2003 that “Annenberg schools did not achieve an overall effect on student outcomes” compared with schools that received no support from the project. Education Week quoted some project supporters as saying it succeeded in raising interest in helping failing schools.

Conclusion

Voters may differ in how they see Ayers, or how they see Obama’s interactions with him. We’re making no judgment calls on those matters. What we object to are the McCain-Palin campaign’s attempts to sway voters – in ads and on the stump – with false and misleading statements about the relationship, which was never very close. Obama never “lied” about this, just as he never bragged about it. The foundation they both worked with was hardly “radical.” And Ayers is more than a former "terrorist," he’s also a well-known figure in the field of education.

– by Viveca Novak and Brooks Jackson

Sources

Fleishman, Joel L. The Foundation: A Great American Secret. Public Affairs Books, New York, 2007.

Shane, Scott. "Obama and ’60s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths," The New York Times, 3 Oct. 2008.

Kurtz, Stanley. "Chicago Annenberg Challenge Shutdown? A cover-up in the making?" National Review Online, 18 Aug. 2008.

Kurtz, Stanley. "Obama and Ayers Pushed Radicalism on Schools." The Wall Street Journal, 23 Sept. 2008.

Smith, Dinitia. "No Regrets for a Love of Explosives." The New York Times, 11 Sept. 2001.

Chira, Susan. "At Home With: Bernadine Dohrn; Same Passion, New Tactics." The New York Times, 18 Nov. 1993.

"Mark My Word." Chicago Tribune, 21 Dec. 1997.

Sweet, Lynn. "Obama's Ayers connection never bugged anyone." Chicago Sun-Times, 18 April 2008.

Smylie, Mark A. and Stacy A. Wenzel. "The Chicago Annenberg Challenge: Successes, Failures and Lessons for the Future." Consortium on Chicago School Research, Aug. 2003.

United Press International. "No 'smoking gun' in Obama relationship," 27 Aug 2008.

Cohen, Jodi S. and Gibson, Ray. "Rush on to get files linking Obama to 1960s radical; UIC library releases Annenberg records." Chicago Tribune, 27 Aug 2008.

Cockburn, Alexander. "Playing the Race Card." Las Vegas Review Journal, 2 March 2008.

Escherich, Katie and Lauren Sher. "Obama: McCain Scoring 'Cheap Political Points.'" abcnews.go.com, 8 Oct. 2008.

Aarons, Dakarai I. "Chicago Annenberg Challenge in Spotlight." Education Week, 9 Oct. 2008.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Troopergate Report: Palin Abused Power

By Marianne - Oct 10th, 2008 at 11:07 pm EDT

Also listed in: 9 groups

Troopergate Report: Palin Abused Power Unanimous, But Contentious, Vote to Release the Report to the Public By JUSTIN ROOD and JESSICA RUTHERFORD

Oct. 10, 2008—

Click Here for the Investigative Homepage.

Gov. Sarah Palin abused her power when she fired her public safety commissioner this July, a state investigation has concluded.

The Alaska legislature voted today to release the 263-page report on the "Troopergate" scandal, a state kerfuffle which has come to haunt Palin's vice presidential bid. The scandal centered around her firing of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan. Monegan and others believed Palin fired him because he refused to take action against Mike Wooten, a state trooper under him who had been involved in a messy divorce with Palin's sister, Molly.

The investigator, Stephen Branchflower, found that Monegan's refusal to fire Wooten "was not the sole reason" but was "likely a contributing factor" to his firing.

Branchflower also said Palin's attorney general failed to provide him with e-mails of Palin's that he had requested as part of the probe.

The report found that Palin let the family grudge influence her decision-making, even if it was not the sole reason Monegan was dismissed. "I feel vindicated," Monegan told the Associated Press. "It sounds like they've validated my belief and opinions. And that tells me I'm not totally out in left field."

Meg Stapleton, the spokeswoman for the McCain-Palin campaign, said in a statement tonight: "The report [...] illustrates what we've known all along: this was a partisan-led inquiry run by Obama supporters and the Palins were completely justified in their concern regarding Trooper Wooten, given his violent and rogue behavior. Lacking evidence to support the original Monegan allegation, the Legislative Council seriously overreached, making a tortured argument to find fault without basis in law or fact."

It was not immediately clear whether legislators would seek punishment or censure for Palin as a result of the probe's findings.

"To me, that's the smaller issue of all this," said Democratic Rep. Les Gara, who has been an outspoken critic of Palin's. Any action against the governor would properly come from the state personnel board, said Gara.

That panel is currently conducting its own Troopergate probe --- at Palin's prompting. The governor has held, since September, that the personnel board was the proper body to investigate her.

The report's release brought a palpable sense of relief from some legislators, who had been besieged for weeks by reporters from the national media, and a driven effort by the McCain-Palin campaign and its allies to discredit their probe and those involved in it.

"What I would like more than anything is an apology," said Gara. "An apology from the McCain campaign to the people they attacked to try to stop this investigation."

Palin violated the state Ethics Act, Branchflower found.

"The evidence supports the conclusion that Gov. Palin, at the least, engaged in 'official action' by her inaction, if not her active participation or assistance to her husband, in attempting to get Trooper Wooten fired [and there is evidence of her active participation]," Branchflower concluded.

"[Palin] knowingly ... permitted [husband] Todd Palin to use the governor's office and the resources of the governor's office ... in an effort to find some way to get Trooper Wooten fired."

In an interview with ABC News' Charlie Gibson in September, Palin denied her concern over Wooten had any connection to Monegan's firing.

"[Wooten] is still a trooper," Palin said during the interview. "Commissioner Monegan was replaced because he wasn't reaching the goals that our cabinet members were to reach, find efficiencies, put new vision, new energy into all of our departments."

The McCain-Palin campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

But Palin attorney Thomas Van Flein told the Associated Press, "In order to violate the ethics law, there has to be some personal gain, usually financial. Mr. Branchflower has failed to identify any financial gain."

The statute says "any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that (public) trust."

The 14-member, Republican-dominated Legislative Council met in closed session this morning with Branchflower. After seven hours of exhaustive review, the legislators voted unanimously to release the report to the public.

"I'm going to vote to release it, but it's not a vote in total agreement," said Republican Sen. Gary Stevens.

"There's not a consensus for the conclusion," said Republican Rep. Bill Stoltze. He said he expected there would be "robust and vigorous intellectual debate on that in other corners."

Stoltze said he had received hundreds of e-mails from all over the country, calling for the public release of the report. The state added extra servers to handle the traffic expected when the report is posted electronically to the legislature's Web site.

The Legislative Council voted unanimously to initiate the investigation in late July, shortly after Palin fired Monegan. The probe was to determine whether she fired Monegan because he refused to take action against a state trooper who had been through a messy divorce from Palin's sister.

Palin denied wrongdoing and initially voiced support for the investigation. But after she joined the national Republican ticket, she and her supporters said the legislature had no right to investigate her, and accused legislators involved in the probe of supporting Democratic Sen. Barack Obama's presidential bid.

A lawsuit to stop the probe, which echoed many of the campaign's charges, was thrown out yesterday by the state Supreme Court.

In her statement, Stapleton said, "The governor is looking forward to cooperating with the personnel board and continuing her conversation with the American people regarding the important issues facing the country."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

var s_account = "wdgnewabcnews,wdgasec";

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (2) | Report Objectionable Content

volunteer

By Marla - Oct 8th, 2008 at 9:54 pm EDT

Also listed in: 5 groups

It is happening everywhere you go. I for one have seen it on a daily basis. From car rider line at the elementary school, you see the bumper stickers, my neighbors stop by asking how I got my sign, I speak on the phone to a former undecided voter that is now voting for the first time democratic. Never in a million years did I see me doing this. I was content being a mom, wife, health care worker. My younger sister in Wisconsin told me to get involved, I am happy I have. The best advice is to never forget what is at stake, respect voters thoughts and to have fun.

I have invited all of the supporters to volunteer. Every friend that volunteered never realized how much fun it would be, it is truly an amazing time. By volunteering, you are energized and you realize you are helping Barack Obama win. Neighbor to Neighbor is where I began in this campaign. Like many others, I have never been in a campaign before. It was a rewarding time to realize that my neighbors have the same concerns as my family and I have even met a few that I would never of met before. I now go canvassing on the weekends with the local office, do phone calls during the week. Prior to the deadline I did voter registration. Tomorrow, one of those registrants turns 18. In her first election, she will vote for Barack Obama. When a supporter says to me on the phone or in person, I do not have time, I reply one hour a week is enough. 5 doors, could be 5 more votes. Just think if 10 people knock on 5 different doors, 2 voters inside each door, they swing half of the voters to vote Obama/Biden, that equals 50 voters for Obama. It is that easy and rewarding. It does not take long for you to realize you are not alone. I am fired up and ready to go...I hope you will volunteer soon to get fired up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Powerful Video - Zoe Kravitz - We are the Ones

By Marianne - Oct 8th, 2008 at 8:16 pm EDT

Also listed in: 9 groups

For all of those who have worked their tails off to get Obama elected, for those who are talking about him, wearing his button, posting that sign, wearing that t-shirt, or just VOTING for him!!

Grab a tissue. It's powerful!!
Be sure to watch both videos!

http://www.dipdive.com/dip-politics/wato/

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Two more articles written by Republicans, endorsing Obama

By Marianne - Oct 7th, 2008 at 3:18 pm EDT

Also listed in: 9 groups

I sent the previous one to a client friend in Colorado. He said, "Funny thing, since you sent that article this morning I've been sent 2 other editorials by Republicans endorsing Obama. All mention the same thing: the party isn't what it used to be."

Here are the ones he referred to:

Colorado Biz magazine: http://www.cobizmag.com/articles.asp?id=2372

Internet Retailer: http://www.internetretailer.com/article.asp?id=27946

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Page 1 of 2 | Next

Posts

Content on blogs in My.BarackObama represents the opinions of community members and in no way should be interpreted as endorsed or approved by the campaign.