Reading the article below, certain concerns come to mind:
Trust - I understand that the US doesn't really trust IRAN, or the current Afghanistan government led by Karzai, or even the intelligence and leadership elements of the Pakistani government.
However unless they plan to wipe out all 3 governments, or even one of them, the US should step back and look at what is the most important step to take:
1) Under Obama, I pray that we do not attempt to forcibly remove any leadership in any of those governments. We ought to have learned from Iraq and our past attempts at replacing governments. That would sink our reputation further in the mud.
2) With 'brute force' off the table (except in extreme situations where DEFENSE is called for), we should focus our efforts on diplomatic measures that may improve our INFLUENCE and OUR IMAGE in the Middle East and among the entire world.
3) By the statements given by those 3 government during this recent meeting, I sense that they want to take more ownership of the problem with as little military interference from the western world as possible. Then LET THEM. Don't just LEAVE it to them, but have them help formulate the plans to rebuild Afghanistan. The US, the UN, and all other world parties should offer assistance in those rebuilding efforts.
OUR GOAL is NOT to impress the leadership of IRAN, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, but to demonstrate to their people and to the world that we are here to help, not hurt. And that we do not have to dictate, we can listen and follow as well.
If these efforts succeed in improving Afghanistan's situation, everyone involved gets credit. Win-Win in that respect. Granted, it may establish trust of the people with those leaders, but our goal is not to undermine their leadership. Our goal should be to demonstrate we are world citizens, not a dominating force, so that we can refocus our efforts on our own country's ails.
We need an exit strategy. Allowing them to take ownership gives us an exit strategy to work from.
Let those leaders hang themselves with their own future mistakes. Do not wish it on them, but allow them to succeed or fail on their own grounds. The change we seek in the Middle East must come from within. We cannot force it upon their people. It will only backfire on us if we try to dominate like we did in Iraq.
The end does NOT justify the means.
Clinton should ease up on the tough talk with the Middle East. Our mentality should be to cooperate with the Middle East and focus on defense, not offense. We should be ready to defend if they choose to stab us in the back, but demonstrate we are willing to work together despite that possibility.
Let the bad guy be the bad guy. If we try to to assume they are evil without their actions to back it (just cause), we become the bad guy in the mindset of the world. That is what happened in Iraq.
As for terrorism and the "War on Terror":
Terrorism thrives where people are desperate and injustice thrives. Our goal must to assist in rebuilding Afghanistan to reduce that desperation. Basic needs must be met and the infrastructure to sustain living put in place.
Injustice is trickier to address. However by ultimately removing US and NATO forces, we will largely remove western countries from the pool of those 'causing the injustice' (civilian casualties, etc). In addition, checks and balances should be put in place, that give the common person a way to report injustice and seek assistance both internally (from their government) and externally (from other nations), especially if their government proves to be corrupt.
The focus on Bin Laden should be downplayed. The search can go on, however building alliances and improving the lives of others should be our priority. If he is the only one creating chaos and death, people will WANT to see him captured or dead. Then where will he hide? However if we chase him and in our path create more injustice, who would support us?
In time, he will be brought to justice or die off as a lost cause. We should move forward; Drop his name, thereby allowing his cause to become lost as well. Our own government has been the greatest marketing tool for their cause and their organization. Stop supporting them unintentionally.
==============================================
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090331/ap_on_re_eu/eu_afghan_conference
Uneasy rivals US, Iran meet at Afghan conferenceBy ARTHUR MAX and ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writers
THE HAGUE, Netherlands – Top U.S. diplomat Richard Holbrooke had a brief but cordial meeting with Iran's deputy foreign minister Tuesday at an international conference on Afghanistan, marking another modest step in unlocking 30 years of tense relations.
The meeting between Holbrooke, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, and Mehdi Akhundzadeh came on the sidelines of a meeting where Iran pledged to help the reconstruction of its neighbor but criticized U.S. plans to send in more troops.
Holbrooke's meeting "did not focus on anything substantive. It was cordial, it was unplanned and they agreed to stay in touch," Clinton told reporters as the day-long conference was winding down.
The gathering was being closely watched for signs that the U.S. and Iran can work together on a common problem after years of hostility. The two countries cooperated in 2001 and 2002 after U.S.-led forces ousted the Taliban government. But relations were frozen during the administration of George W. Bush, who referred to Iran as part of the "Axis of Evil."
Washington broke diplomatic ties with Tehran after the U.S. Embassy was overrun and diplomats taken hostage during the 1979 Islamic Revolution that brought to power a government of Islamic clerics.
Clinton said she also sent Iran a letter concerning three U.S. citizens unable to return to from Iran: Robert Levinson, Roxana Saberi, Esha Momeni. Their return would be a humanitarian gesture, the letter said, in a rare direct communication with Tehran.
The private meeting between the U.S. and Iranian officials was the first sign of cordiality at the conference. Although they sat at the same horseshoe-shaped table, neither Clinton nor Akhundzadeh made mention of the other in their speeches Tuesday.
The U.S. and Iran were among more than 80 countries summoned at the initiative of the United States to raise Afghanistan's profile on the international agenda. It comes days after Obama unveiled a revamped U.S. policy calling for another 17,000 troops, 4,000 military trainers for Afghan security forces, and hundreds of civilians to assist in Afghanistan's development.
The U.S. had been underscoring the importance of Iran's attendance as part of a regional effort to help Afghanistan.
"The range of countries and institutions that are represented here shows the universal recognition that what happens in Afghanistan matters to us all," Clinton told the gathering.
Iran highlighted its history of helping Afghanistan with cash and infrastructure development and with sheltering 3 million Afghan refugees at its own expense. It shares a 600-mile border with Afghanistan.
"Iran is fully prepared to participate in the projects aimed at combating drug trafficking and the plans in line with developing and reconstructing Afghanistan," Akhundzadeh said.
However, Iran was critical of the dispatch of more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, saying military expenses should be redirected to building Afghanistan's own forces.
"The presence of foreign forces has not improved things in the country, and it seems than an increase in the number of foreign forces will prove ineffective, too," Akhundzadeh said.
Clinton said one goal of the revised U.S. strategy was to strengthen Afghan security forces.
"Security is the essential first step. Without it, all else fails. Afghanistan's army and police will have to take the lead," she said, though they must be supported by the NATO-led international force. The U.S. contributes about half of the force's 70,000 troops.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Clinton said Afghanistan would welcome Taliban fighters who embrace peace, reject al-Qaida and pledge to abide by the Afghan constitution.
Clinton said most of the Taliban fighters have allied with anti-government forces "out of desperation" rather than commitment, in a country that has barely made inroads against poverty and lack of development.
"They should be offered an honorable form of reconciliation and reintegration into a peaceful society, if they are willing to abandon violence, break with al-Qaida, and support the constitution," Clinton said.
The United States is starting cautiously down a path in Afghanistan that proved helpful in Iraq, where former insurgents joined forces with U.S. troops and a U.S.-backed government.
Although the conference was devoted to Afghanistan, Clinton said it should also focus attention on the lawless border regions of Pakistan that provide a safe haven for the insurgents.
"Our partnership with democratic Pakistan is crucial. Together, we must give Pakistan the tools it needs to fight these extremists," Clinton said.
Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi, however, warned against interfering in his country.
A regional approach to Afghanistan must include "respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity and noninterference," he said.
Akhundzadeh, too, cautioned against losing sight of the conference's objectives of providing security and reconstruction for Afghanistan, "and refrain from any kind of deviation from this motto."
Karzai said any increase in military action against the insurgents must avoid further civilian casualties. He also pledged to heighten the campaign against the endemic corruption that riddles the Afghan bureaucracy, and against the narcotics trade that finances al-Qaida operations.
The Obama administration is less enthusiastic about Karzai than the Bush White House, and during her public remarks Clinton skipped what used to be a ritual praising of his courage and leadership. The two were meeting privately later.
"Corruption is a cancer, as dangerous to long-term success as the Taliban or al-Qaida," Clinton said in clear reference to charges of rampant graft and cronyism in Karzai's government. "A government that cannot deliver accountable services for its people is a terrorist's best recruiting tool."
Karzai also promised a free and fair vote when he stands for re-election later this year. Clinton pledged $40 million dollars and the European Union promised euro60 million ($79 million) to run and monitor the election.
Karzai also pointed out some of his government's achievements: more than doubling per capita income, the extension of health services through much of the country, the highest school attendance in history and the presence of women in universities "which was unthinkable a few years ago."
Anyone ever notice that it's more complex to save money than it is to spend it?
You want to save money to address medical needs and take advantage of tax breaks, you open an MSA account or obtain an HSA plan and put money into an account linked to it.
Retirement? IRAs, 401K plans, etc.
Education? 529 plans, etc.
Now what happens to that money you didin;t use in your medical account at the end of the year? In some cases you lose it, at the least, it can ONLY be used for that function - medical-related expenses. Sure, it's great to have a lot of money in your medical account, but you don't have a medical crisis, you have a need to get a better education or send your kids to college, but hardly any money in your education fund (because initially medical security came first in your list of priorities).
Why should we be penalized for trying to save money and take advantage of tax incentives?
Why can't we have a SINGLE savings account that handles that?
Simply pool our savings into a single account. Invest it however you prefer: 10% high risk stocks... 20% bonds, 40% mutual funds, 30% in an FDIC insured-no risk savings rate, etc.
Whatever fits their prefered savings strategy.
Taxation should then only be applied based on how that money is SPENT.
Spend it on tuition and books for college, tax it at the education discounted rate.
Spend it on a medical procedure or copay, etc. Tax it at the health-care discounted rate.
Spend it during your retirement, tax it according to the retirement rate.
Spend it on starting a new business, tax it at the business-rate.
Hell, assign each group a special card and/or code. Blue for health, yellow for education, red for retirement, etc.
The point is, make SAVINGS simple. Spending may be a bit more complex, but not much different than we already deal with. Empower our citizens by giving them the tools to become financially secure simply by saving their money.
The government should provide incentives for citizens to save, because stable families spend more. Period. The simplicity of the system, encourages savings. Spending your money is where the focus of how to tax it and greater complexity should remain.
Simply be making savings easier and allowing us to access ALL of our money, instead of what is in a certain type of account, gives us a greater advantage to become financially stable and less likely to fall victim to poverty, low education, homelessness, or simply being part of the problem instead of part of the solution.
Our nest egg should not be forced to exist among a plethora of different accounts that cannot be intermingled. That only helps the banker, not the consumer. Our focus should be on the consumer, the homeowner, the family-provider, the American citizen and how they can become stable in our economy first and foremost. Then we will see this economy grow like it never has before.
Just my 2 cents.
Geithner & Bernanke need to read these articles. I don't pass them on as a way to bash their efforts or criticize them. I feel the points made in these articles are worth evaluating:
Ben Bernanke Is Still Stuck in the 1930s
Posted Mar 16, 2009 03:47pmEDT
by John Carney
Amid growing concern about a populist backlash against banks and Wall Street, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke appeared on “60 Minutes” over the weekend to explain recent financial rescue efforts.
When asked about whether letting Lehman Brothers collapse last year was the right move, Bernanke replied: "There were many people who said, 'Let 'em fail.' You know, 'It's not a problem. The markets will take care of it.' And I think I knew better than that. And Lehman proved that you cannot let a large internationally active firm fail in the middle of a financial crisis. Now was it a mistake? It wasn't a mistake for the following reason: we didn't have the option, we didn't have the tools. All the Federal Reserve can do is make loans against collateral," Bernanke said. In other words, it wasn't my fault.
From The Business Insider, March 16, 2009:
Today's crisis isn't a replay of the problem in the 1930s, but last night's 60 minutes interview with Ben Bernanke made it clear that our central bankers don't understand the distinction. Bernanke's academic career was spent studying the policy responses to the Great Depression. His analysis suggests that the Fed made two errors:
· Central banks allowed the money supply contract sharply. "Price fell. Deflation. So monetary policy was, in fact, very contractionary. Very tight– during that period," he said last night.
· They permitted bank failures. "And then the second mistake they made was they let the banks fail. They didn’t make any strong effort to prevent the failure of thousands of banks."
The first point, about money supply, is a rather orthodox position that was popularized by the University of Chicago's Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz in their book "A Monetary History of the United States." They argued that in the 1930s, the country and the Federal Reserve were faced with a liquidity crisis in the banking sector. As banks failed, depositors panicked and bank runs began. This led to a cycle of bank failures.
"If the borrowers hadn't withdrawn cash, they [the banks] would have been in good shape. But the Fed just sat by and did nothing, so bank after bank failed. And that only motivated depositors to withdraw funds from banks that were not in distress," Schwartz explained in an interview with the Wall Street Journal several months ago.
Notice that there is a subtle--but extremely important--difference between Schwartz's analysis and Bernanke's. In Schwartz's view, healthy banks were failing due to a liquidity crisis. This could have been prevented by adding more liquidity. For Bernanke, even the failure of unhealthy banks should have been prevented. This is a serious departure from the historical precedent.
Bernanke's approach is premised on the idea that there will be a crisis if you don't rescue a failing firm. But there's no evidence for that. In fact, Bernanke's approach probably makes the problem worse. If bank runs were caused by an inability of depositors to distinguish between healthy and unhealthy firms, Bernanke's approach is actually creating this same confusion.
"The market knows when a firm isn't sound," Schwarts told William Cohan in a separate interview. "And if the Fed didn't behave as if every failing firm is too big to fail, then it would permit the exit of firms that weren't really viable and the market would recognise this as a just decision. It's not the job of the Fed to be intervening to help such firms. People are knowledgeable. They knew that there were troubles with Lehman."
"If they're going to go into the business of rescuing every failing firm," Schwartz said, "we won't have a capitalist system . . . People are responsible for the decisions they make. If they've made wrong decisions, lost money and don't have the funds to operate, well, it's time to leave the market. And that's what the Fed's responsibility is, not to shore up firms that have no reason to continue."
Way back in October we described this approach as fighting the last depression while ushering in the next one. Unfortunately and depressingly, it seems that Bernanke is immune to evidence or argument on this subject.
Fighting The Last Depression While Ushering In The Next One
John Carney
Oct. 16, 2008, 1:52 PM
So why isn't the bailout working? They say generals are always fighting the last war. Now Ben Bernanke, who was a financial historian before he became a World Saver, may be fighting the last depression. Unfortunately, our current economic crisis is not like the one we faced in the 1930s. It's almost its photographic negative. Policies designed to avert the last depression may actually be prolonging this crisis.
In the Great Depression, banks that were otherwise solvent, if not entirely healthy, were being brought down by panic driven bank runs and a lack of liquidity. That truly was a liquidity crisis. The Federal Reserve had it within its power to support the banks by adding liquidity but it refused to do so. Since then an academic consensus has developed around the theory that it would have been better for the Fed to take an active role in preventing the crash of solvent financial institutions.
Our problem is very different. As we've seen from the wreckage of Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch, many of our financial institutions are insolvent. They aren't healthy victims of bank runs. They are ailing institutions barely kept alive by frantic rounds of capital raising. The lessons of the Great Depression simply don't apply here. In fact, we're probably making things worse. Allowing insolvent institutions to fail and requiring worthless and worth less assets to be fully written down would provide transparency to the market. Instead, we're dedicated to the post-Lehman proposition of "Never Again." The various programs of our government continue to obscure asset pricing and conceal insolvency. This means that you can't trust the market to tell you which firms are failing.
Twisting the arms of bankers to lend to institutions that may be insolvent is a recipe for deepening the crisis. We've just been through a period of malinvestment--we spent too much borrowed money on junk. Borrowing more to spend on junk only digs us in deeper.
Bank lending won't get going again until trust in the markets can be restored. Fighting a Great Depression era problem probably won't help. More transparency, which means more write-downs and failures, is probably necessary if we're going to get through this. Unfortunately, we're still sailing in the opposite direction.
Memo to President-elect Barack Obama:
Congratulations on our shared victory!
We are proud to call you the 44th President of the United States of America! We acknowledge your words of caution as you begin to take on your new role in our government. However at the same time, it is important that you also acknowledge the concerns and voices of our global community. Understand that we chose you, not only to help bolster the American economy and address our internal woes, but also to change our tarnished image and foreign relations. Please be sure to assemble a strong cabinet for your administration that will help you maintain a good balance between our internal concerns and our external relations.
For example:
1) Guantanamo Bay - How can we close that prison down? We know the answer will not be easy, but it would send a BIG message to the world about the path of justice and peace we have chosen to take.
Some other global concerns, perspectives, and hopes:
Obama victory sparks cheers around the globeBy JOHN LEICESTER, Associated Press WriterNov 5th, 2008
PARIS – Barack Obama's election as America's first black president unleashed a renewed love for the United States after years of dwindling goodwill, and many said Wednesday that U.S. voters had blazed a trail that minorities elsewhere could follow.
People across Africa stayed up all night or woke before dawn to watch U.S. history being made, while the president of Kenya — where Obama's father was born — declared a public holiday.
In Indonesia, where Obama lived as child, hundreds of students at his former elementary school erupted in cheers when he was declared winner and poured into the courtyard where they hugged each other, danced in the rain and chanted "Obama! Obama!"
"Your victory has demonstrated that no person anywhere in the world should not dare to dream of wanting to change the world for a better place," South Africa's first black president, Nelson Mandela, said in a letter of congratulations to Obama.
Many expressed amazement and satisfaction that the United States could overcome centuries of racial strife and elect an African-American as president.
"This is the fall of the Berlin Wall times ten," Rama Yade, France's black junior minister for human rights, told French radio. "America is rebecoming a New World."
"On this morning, we all want to be American so we can take a bite of this dream unfolding before our eyes," she said.
In Britain, The Sun newspaper borrowed from Neil Armstrong's 1969 moon landing in describing Obama's election as "one giant leap for mankind."
Yet celebrations were often tempered by sobering concerns that Obama faces global challenges as momentous as the hopes his campaign inspired — wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the nuclear ambitions of Iran, the elusive hunt for peace in the Middle East and a global economy in turmoil.
The huge weight of responsibilities on Obama's shoulders was also a concern for some. French former Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin said Obama's biggest challenge would be managing a punishing agenda of various crises in the United States and the world. "He will need to fight on every front," he said.
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said he hoped the incoming administration will take steps to improve badly damaged U.S. ties with Russia. Tensions have been driven to a post-Cold War high by Moscow's war with U.S. ally Georgia.
"I stress that we have no problem with the American people, no inborn anti-Americanism. And we hope that our partners, the U.S. administration, will make a choice in favor of full-fledged relations with Russia," Medvedev said.
Europe, where Obama is overwhelmingly popular, is one region that looked eagerly to an Obama administration for a revival in warm relations after the Bush government's chilly rift with the continent over the Iraq war.
"At a time when we have to confront immense challenges together, your election raises great hopes in France, in Europe and in the rest of the world," French President Nicolas Sarkozy said in a congratulations letter to Obama.
Poland's Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski spoke of "a new America with a new credit of trust in the world."
Skepticism, however, was high in the Muslim world. The Bush administration alienated those in the Middle East by mistreating prisoners at its detention center for terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and inmates at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison — human rights violations also condemned worldwide.
Some Iraqis, who have suffered through five years of a war ignited by the United States and its allies, said they would believe positive change when they saw it.
"Obama's victory will do nothing for the Iraqi issue nor for the Palestinian issue," said Muneer Jamal, a Baghdad resident. "I think all the promises Obama made during the campaign will remain mere promises."
In Pakistan, a country vital to the U.S.-led war on the al-Qaida terrorist network and neighbor to Afghanistan, many hoped Obama would bring some respite from rising militant violence that many blame on Bush.
Still, Mohammed Arshad, a 28-year-old schoolteacher in the capital, Islamabad, doubted Obama's ability to change U.S. foreign policy dramatically.
"It is true that Bush gave America a very bad name. He has become a symbol of hate. But I don't think the change of face will suddenly make any big difference," he said.
Obama's victory was greeted with cheers across Latin America, a region that has shifted sharply to the left during the Bush years. From Mexico to Chile, leaders expressed hope for warmer relations based on mutual respect — a quality many felt has been missing from U.S. foreign policy.
Venezuela and Bolivia, which booted out the U.S. ambassadors after accusing the Bush administration of meddling in their internal politics, said they were ready to reestablish diplomatic relations, and Brazil's president was among several leaders urging Obama to be more flexible toward Cuba.
On the streets of Rio de Janeiro, people expressed a mixture of joy, disbelief, and hope for the future.
"It's the beginning of a different era," police officer Emmanuel Miranda said. "The United States is a country to dream about, and for us black Brazilians, it is even easier to do so now."
Many around the world found Obama's international roots — his father was Kenyan, and he lived four years in Indonesia as a child — compelling and attractive.
"What an inspiration. He is the first truly global U.S. president the world has ever had," said Pracha Kanjananont, a 29-year-old Thai sitting at a Starbuck's in Bangkok. "He had an Asian childhood, African parentage and has a Middle Eastern name. He is a truly global president."
While I am elated for the Democratic wins, 2 losses stand out in my mind:
Texas:
John Cornyn(R) vs Rick Noriega (D)
While not a close race (1 million votes difference), I am saddened to think John Cornyn (incumbent) won on the theme ("let's bring Texas common sense to Washington"). What does that mean exactly???
I live in Texas and saw many of his ads over and over, yet zero ads about Noriega. I voted for Noriega, though I didn't know much about him until I researched online. I truly wish more attention was drawn to his campaign.
Noriega has a strong military background (Lt. Colonel and served in Afghanistan) and has experience in the House since 1998. He is also a Harvard grad (John F. Kennedy School of Government) and offered a comprehensive plan to focus on the economic needs of struggling families.
It's too bad to see the incumbent keep his seat. Interestingly, John Cornyn had prior disagreements with John McCain where they got into a heated argument in public. Many of my neighbors are Republicans, however they are not happy that Cornyn remained in office either. It seems with some effort and better publicity, Rick could have ousted Cornyn. :(
Minnesota:
Norm Coleman (R) vs Al Franken (D)
Al lost by 571 votes!!! Ugh... so so close.
Perhaps Al got that far more on his celebrity status than on his policy, however with an election THAT close, it may have only taken a slighty more aggressive campaign to have put the Democrat in that seat. How unfortunate.
Still, we did 'good' this election!
To me, this election is not about experience, because frankly, where was "experience" when G.W. Bush was elected or any previous President. HOW DO YOU BECOME experienced in a way that preps you for President of the USA? As a CEO of a fortunate 500 company? Wait, wasn't Dick Cheney one of those? Hmmm... and what is HIS approval rating now?
And how is it they feel McCain is soo experienced and tested? Because he's been in congress for 20+ years and was a POW 40 years ago??? Are you kidding me?
Here's how I weight it out:
We have a choice between 2 people:
- McCain: Military brat that didn't really settle on what it was he wanted in life. Was pretty much a screw up, even while in the military; he focused more on partying than studying or improving his flying skills/knowledge (wow, kinda sounds like GW Bush). Bottom of his class and not a very good pilot. He says after having been a POW, he emerged a changed man, yet those close to him disagree on that window of time. In fact, he went back to some of the same behaviors that got him in trouble before he was a POW. And of course, there was the whole intramarital affair; Great example for the Christian base to identify with. Often described as one who operates like a true 'fighter pilot', because he trusts his instincts and gut feelings. Unfortunately, this did not serve him well during his 2008 campaign to become the Republican nominee. He nearly went bankrupt due to poor planning.
- Obama: May not have gone into the military, but he became focused on Political Science and Law throughout his college years until finally achieving a degree at Harvard Law School, top of his class. He had been involved in community organizing and dealing with the struggles of every-day Americans. He has been described as being very methodical and a good planner. A man who is skilled in problem solving and strategy. This became far more evident through his campaign to become the Democratic nominee and now the general election.
With the issues our country is facing, who do we want at the helm? Someone who shoots from the hip and acts on instincts, risking our future on someone who has proven to act erratically and hastily, jumping from one concept to another, hoping to find the right mix through trial and error? Especially one that has made so many public mistakes doing just that throughout his long career as a senator?
Or should we elect someone that has proven to study the information in advance, develop a strategy and exceute that strategy effectively? One that stays consistent with his message and doesn't change as the wind changes like McCain? One that doesn't have a similar background to GW Bush and actually plans ahead before he acts or speaks. One that has proven to have a natural ability to communicate with others?
I think the choice is clear: Obama.
The second half of this video mentions 2 dirty tricks being distributed to voters, especially minority voters, aimed at suppressing their votes. Based on their targets and content, it is clear they are coming from Republican supporters trying to disrupt Democratic votes:
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/index.php?cl=10472379
Trick #1:
A paper is being distributed around to minority communities, claiming to be coming from a black organization (that doesn't even exist). The instructions on the paper state that if you voted during the primaries, you cannot vote during the general election. The fact they are targeting black communities with these kind of lies, knowing that about 95% of black voters will support Obama, suggests that this is a Republican tactic to suppress votes.
Trick #2:
Another paper being distrubuted claims that Republican voters are required to vote on Tuesday, Nov 4th, while Democratic voters are required to vote on Wednesday, Nov 5th. Clearly, Nov 5th, is too late to vote, and therefore indicates a Republican tactic.
In both cases, sharing knowledge is the key to preventing these kind of tricks from having any kind of effect. Less informed Democratic voters are likely to fall victim to these tactics. Our goal should be to spread the truth and help new voters find the answers they need on when and how to vote.
We can only hope that more serious efforts to suppress voting do not enter into this election. We should be cognizant of these dirty tactics and take measures to foil their efforts.
By Greg Mitchell
Published: October 18, 2008 9:00 AM ET
NEW YORK The New York Times published today a lengthy profile of Cindy McCain, including material on some of her misstatements and former drug addiction. The McCain spokesman Michael Goldfarb has now labeled it "gutter journalism" and a "trash report" and released copies of what it says is an email and a Facebook message from a Times reporter allegedly "trolling" for information.
LINK:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003875515
McCain and his campaign are like mass marketers. Throw everything out there and see what sticks. Now they found something they think sticks, Joe the Plumber.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081020/ap_on_el_pr/mccain
However, here's the problem for McCain:
1) Is his choice to stand up for Joe the Plumber really gonna help him win new votes? Or is it just firing up his existing base? Again, he sells to his existing customers.. over and over.. cause it makes him feel good when he hears them roar, even if their words may border on threats to Obama.
2) McCain is trying to spin the recent criticism of Joe the Plumber onto the Obama camp. Wait a second, John. If I recall correctly, YOU mentioned his name 21 times during the debate. YOUR campaign forums pushed Joe the Plumber's story to the top of your agenda. YOU made him famous. Obama just answered his question. His campaign didn;t trash Joe. Obama cannot be blamed for Joe failing to get his license or failing to pay his own taxes. The news media dug deeper, initially to see if Joe was involved with the McCain camp before he met with Obama, and upon digging, they found facts that Joe is less then proud of. Yet instead of blaming yourselves for his new found fame, you want to spin it on Obama. How classic McCain - throw dirt, when it's already stuck to you. The REAL McCain.
3) Joe, stop complaining. Under Obama's plan, you will save more money than under McCain's plan. Instead of complaining, why not get your license or pay your taxes like the rest of us Americans. I'm sure you work hard Joe, but working hard doesn't make up for being irresponsible. Man up and handle your business.
4) No one is faulting Joe for asking a question. Obama not only took the time to answer his question face to face, he spent quite a bit of time with Joe, when others wanted to talk with him. Then Obama thanked Joe for his question and said it helped him prepare for the debate. So stop the BS that anyone faulted Joe for asking a question. The predicament Joe is in now, has nothing to do with Obama, but everything to do with Joe's failure and McCains opportunistic ambitions. Take responsibility for your own actions people.
Yet again, McCain is seeking the next big distraction. Joe the Plumber appears to be part of McCains last stand. It's interesting that he helps Joe become famous, then refuses to take responsibility for Joe's new found fame. Then, instead of advising him to get licensed and pay his taxes like the rest of Americans have to do, he helps Joe play the victim; All in the name of his Presidential ambitions. Your integrity is slipping fast, John McCain. It's truly a shame to see an American hero pander like this just to get into the White House.
Is this an example of McCain "lurching" or what?
http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Most-Emailed-Photos/ss/1756;_ylt=Ag_qSsUwEpzB2p2Ywly_PG8XO7gF
;-)
Other examples...
McCAIN: "Vouchers, where they are requested and where they are agreed to, are a good and workable system, and it's been proven."
THE FACTS: McCain's education plan proposes more private-school vouchers for only one jurisdiction: Washington, D.C. It's unclear whether the four-year-old Washington program is actually working. So far, the Education Department has found little if any difference in the test scores of kids who got vouchers to attend private school.
___
McCAIN: "We can eliminate our dependence on foreign oil by building 45 nuclear power plants right away."
THE FACTS: For nuclear power to lower oil dependency would require a massive shift to electric or hybrid-electric cars, with nuclear power providing the electricity. No new U.S. nuclear reactor has been built since the 1970s. Although 15 utilities have filed applications to build 24 new reactors, none is expected to be built before 2015 at the earliest. Turmoil in the credit markets could force cancellation of some of the projects now planned, much less spur construction of 45 new reactors, as reactor costs have soared to about $9 billion apiece.
____
McCAIN: Said of Obama's running mate Sen. Joe Biden: "He had this cockamamie idea of dividing Iraq into three countries."
THE FACTS: Biden actually proposed dividing Iraq into three semiautonomous regions, not separate countries. He was a prime sponsor of a nonbinding Senate resolution that called for Iraq to have federal regions under the control of Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis in a power-sharing agreement similar to the one that ended the 1990s war in Bosnia.
The US President has often been dubbed: Leader of the Free World.
While I never really cared for that phrase, I REALLY am offended by the concept that McCain and his sidekick Palin are becoming Leaders of an Angry Mob and allowing that anger and hate to brew at their own rallies.
This is an example of why out political system is broken. When a qualified person can run for the Presidency of the United States and has proven that he is respectable and qualified why does our society ALLOW the media and opposing parties to demonize them to the extent it breeds hate and fear?? Especially to the extent that anger, hatred, and death threats are openly displayed and nothing done to stop it?
This system is flawed. Fear and hate mongering has taken over. It is a dangerous path many in our country are beginning to take. Shame on McCain and Palin for fanning the flames of hate and fear just to try to make themselves look like a better option. This is a sad day for America. I am very dissapointed to hear this kind of hate brewing for an American that has demonstrated so much concern for the well-being of fellow Americans.
Our country is being DIVIDED ALONG DANGEROUS LINES for the ambitions of a political party. We are truly digressing as a nation. I can only hope that tragedy does not follow.
Panic attacks: Voters unload at GOP rallies:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14445.html
Message to the Obama Campaign:
During the final debate, have Obama smile more, joke more, and esp: BRUSH OFF MCCAIN"S ATTACKS!!!
For example, Obama could say something like this after a McCain atttack:
"While McCain is struggling to find solid ground over there, why don't we focus on the issues that matter most to Americans..."
"As the 'Straight-Talk Express' continues to derail over there, let's get back to the issues at hand..."
"Let me answer your question, while the Republican fact-twister tries to get untangled over there..."
In other words, Obama doesn't have to PROVE anything at this point; MCAIN HAS TO BEAR THE BURDEN OF PROOF.
Adress us Americans and leave McCain in the dust, wondering what he did wrong. Don't get stuck on his distracting methods.
When you take 50% (or more) of the allotted time given to answer our questions to address his false accusations, WE LOSE and he feels better. Don't give in to him. Brush him off, like the distraction-sucking mosquito that he is.
IMHO
I dunno... perhaps it's just the way it's framed or perhaps it's just her "maverick" personality.
But I get the impression that Sarah Palin may actually be HOPING John McCain kicks the bucket so she can take over if they win the election. Feisty? I dunno... maybe hungry and ambitious in a way we have yet to see...
But hey, she's a hockey mom, what harm could she possibly pose the US, right?
===========================================================
Palin questions McCain's concession of Michigan
By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 4 minutes ago
SAN ANTONIO - Sarah Palin questioned Republican presidential candidate John McCain's decision to abandon efforts to win Michigan, a campaign move she only learned about Friday morning when she read it in the newspapers.
In an interview with Fox News Channel Friday, the Alaska governor said she was disappointed that the McCain campaign decided to stop competing in Michigan. In an indication that the vice presidential candidate had not been part of the decision, she said she had "read that this morning and I fired off a quick e-mail" questioning the move.
"Todd and I, we'd be happy to get to Michigan and walk through those plants of the car manufacturers," Palin said, referring to her husband. "We'd be so happy to get to speak to the people in Michigan who are hurting because the economy is hurting."
Palin acknowledged the GOP ticket's lackluster poll ratings in the state, but said: "I want to get back to Michigan and I want to try."
Word of the McCain campaign's decision to move staff out of Michigan and stop advertising in the state broke around midday Thursday — the same day as Palin's vice presidential debate against Democrat Joe Biden. The campaign had decided Wednesday night that the $1 million a week it was spending in Michigan wasn't worth it with internal polls showing Democratic nominee Barack Obama approaching a double-digit lead.
On Friday, Palin sought to re-establish herself as an asset for Republican John McCain's struggling presidential candidacy, branding their Democratic rivals as liberals not ready to lead in a time of crisis.
Fresh off an upbeat debate performance, Palin told a ballroom full of $1,000 donors in Dallas that McCain advisers warned her that Biden was "a skilled debater."
"Now I know what they meant," she said. "He did his best to convince us that the two most liberal members of the Senate belong in the White House. But that was a tough sell, and especially in a time of crisis for our country."
The Alaska governor's fiesty tone came as she eased back into the campaign trail. She attended two fundraisers Friday in Texas and also meet privately with Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens to discuss energy policy. Pickens, once a major Republican Party donor, is sitting out this campaign to promote a plan to expand wind power.
As a governor of Alaska, Palin has dealt with a variety of oil and gas issues. She told the Dallas donors that as vice president, "one issue I will be leading is energy independence."
The campaign has planned a series of rallies for Palin in other battlegrounds. Among the stops scheduled for the days ahead are Colorado, Florida, North Carolina and Pennsylvania. She will also be in California this weekend for a fundraiser and rally.
Based on the schedule, the campaign appears to be relying on Palin to invigorate Republican voters in Colorado and North Carolina, states that have reliably voted Republican in past presidential elections. Obama leads in polls in Florida and Pennsylvania.
Palin is hitting the road after being sequestered for three days of debate preparation at McCain's Sedona, Ariz., compound and after interviews with ABC and CBS where she stumbled over foreign and domestic policy issues.
Palin told Fox News that she would spend more time speaking to reporters, a switch from the tightly managed media relations during the past month.
"I look forward to speaking to the media more and more every day and providing whatever access the media would want," Palin said.
Palin said she had been "annoyed" in her interviews with CBS News anchor Katie Couric and had been caught off guard when asked what newspapers and magazines she read and to name Supreme Court decisions she disagreed with — questions Palin appeared not to be able to answer.
Her responses, Palin said, were "an indication of being outside that Washington elite, outside of the media elite also."
But Palin held her own in the debate with Biden, displaying facility with some issues such as energy and comfort as an advocate for McCain and as a hard-hitting critic of Obama.
Later, in San Antonio, she let on that she was breathing a little easier now.
"Last night was fun, the debate," she told donors at the Marriott Rivercenter. "I was glad it was over when it ended."
McCain: Bearish on Debates: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/27/opinion/27collins.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Snippet:
"One thing we now know for sure. Electing John McCain would be God’s gift to the profession of journalism. A story a minute.
Imagine what would happen if a new beetle infested the Iowa corn crop during the first year of a McCain administration. On Monday, we spray. On Tuesday, we firebomb. On Wednesday, the president marches barefoot through the prairie in a show of support for Iowa farmers. On Thursday, the White House reveals that Wiley Flum, a postal worker from Willimantic, Conn., has been named the new beetle eradication czar. McCain says that Flum had shown “the instincts of a maverick reformer” in personally buying a box of roach motels and scattering them around the post office locker room. “I can’t wait to introduce Wiley to those beetles in Iowa,” the president adds.
On Friday, McCain announces he’s canceling the weekend until Congress makes the beetles go away.
Barack Obama would just round up a whole roomful of experts and come up with a plan. Yawn."
Grading the First Presidential Debate:http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1845106-1,00.html
The First Debate: The Past Vs. the Future:http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/27/the-first-debate-the-past-vs-the-future/
"Since then, Palin — through the McCain campaign — has accused lawmakers of manipulating the probe to be potentially damaging ahead of the November election. She said through her attorney, Thomas Van Flein, that she will cooperate only with a separate investigation by the Alaska State Personnel Board, which is conducted in secret and can take up to two years to complete its work."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080927/ap_on_el_pr/palin_troopergate;_ylt=Ah8PASeoPsy.gkwCQm3g.7gb.3QA
It's bad enough the President can claim examption while in office, but now a VP hopefull feels she can pick and choose when she can be exempt?
Watching these two examples of debate-watching parties, it seems to highlight the basic differences between the core supporters of the opposing parties: Ignorance and Fear-Mongering versus Intellectuals with Hope.
You watch and decide:
Democrat Debate-Watching Party: http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/index.php?cl=9921390
Republican Debate-Watching Party: http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/index.php?cl=9921661
"Socialistic tendencies and Marxist background" (?!?!?!)Are you kidding me?!... someone give him a button so that he is clearly marked.
Interesting perspective of Joshua Rosner, managing director of Graham Fisher & Co:
Paulson's 'Bottomless Pit'- Beware Law of Unintended Consequences:
http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/yftt_72614/Paulson's-'Bottomless-Pit'-Beware-Law-of-Unintended-Consequences
How to Build a Better Bailout:
http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/yftt_72452/How-to-Build-a-Better-Bailout
Govt.'s 11th-Hour Effort Won't Solve Economy's Woes:
http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/yftt_72221/Govt.'s-11th-Hour-Effort-Won't-Solve-Economy's-Woes-Rosner-Says
McCain takes biggest risk yet Ben Smith, Glenn Thrush Thu Sep 25, 10:39 PM ET
When John McCain announced Wednesday that he was suspending his campaign to tend to the nation’s economic crisis, a top aide said McCain wanted the presidential candidates and members of Congress to “lock themselves in a room for the next 100 hours” to achieve “consensus on something.”
Yet on Thursday afternoon, McCain swept into Washington, walked to his office with pal Joe Lieberman, said little at a contentious White House meeting, did a few TV interviews, sped off to his home and proclaimed, through a spokesperson, that he was “optimistic” about bringing House Republicans “on board.”
McCain’s high-wire intervention in the financial crisis is his latest showstopper move – and his riskiest. He might succeed, but the candidate’s penchant for the dramatic has also raised anew potentially damaging questions of his age, executive abilities and, most of all, his temperament.
"He has been pretty erratic – there's no other way to describe what we've seen out of this guy in the last week," an Obama aide said of McCain's conduct during the financial crisis.
Another Democratic official cited McCain's "erratic, all over the map response to the economic crisis."
Republican consultant Scott Reed dismissed such talk, saying the GOP’s candidate has remained consistent – as a maverick. “McCain isn’t doing anything than he hasn’t always done – he needed a game changer to get out of the shadow cast by being a Republican in an economic crisis,” he said.
McCain's aides dismiss attacks on the Arizona senator's temperament, saying that he’s simply being himself – and that he has confounded his critics by surviving two years of stressful campaigning without public signs of his legendary temper.
"Of course, we're aware of fact that the Obama campaign thinks that's a winning tactic," said a top McCain aide. "They've used language since the start of this campaign indicating they want to use temper as an issue."
But McCain's attempt to shift the argument from the economy to character has, perversely, given Democrats an opening to question his own fitness to lead. Spur-of-the-moment decisions – from his choice of a running mate he hardly knew to his request that the first debate be delayed – reflect an impetuousness he's tried to associate with Obama's youth, his critics say, while undercutting his argument that he's a cool, tested old hand capable of coping with presidential pressure.
"Throughout the course of this crisis, Sen. Obama has shown voters that he would be a steady hand at the wheel were he to be elected president at a time of crisis, and I don't know that voters would have gotten the same impression having seen John McCain over the course of this same week," said Obama spokesman Bill Burton.
Questions about McCain's temperament – some overt, some not — have long been a feature of his political career. He's gotten into profanity-laced shouting matches with fellow senators and other officials, and he jokes that nobody's ever suggested he should get a prize for congeniality.
In March, the Democratic National Committee labeled him "Senator Hothead," and circulated to reporters a quote from Mississippi Republican Sen. Thad Cochran, who said earlier this year that "the thought of [McCain's] being president sends a cold chill down my spine…. He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."
That line of attack, however, seemed to subside – until this financial crisis.
Nearly two weeks ago, as the crisis dominated the news, McCain claimed that the fundamentals of the economy were "strong,” then quickly corrected himself, saying the economy was "in crisis." This week, he defended his running mate, Sarah Palin's, suggestion that America risks another Great Depression.
After initially opposing the $85 billion bailout of insurance giant AIG, he backtracked and supported it.
Then he called for the firing of SEC Chairman Chris Cox, claiming he had "betrayed the public's trust" – only to later soften those comments and call him a "good man."
In an interview on "60 Minutes" last Sunday, McCain surprised fellow Republicans by saying he would replace Cox with New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat who has investigated Wall Street corruption.
Then came the big, roll-the-dice moves this week.
On Wednesday, McCain announcing he'd "suspend" his campaign to deal with the crisis and called for the postponement of the first presidential debate, scheduled to take plan in Oxford, Miss. Friday night.
The move was ridiculed by Congressional Democrats like Majority Leader Harry Reid, who called it an attempt to rescue not the economy but McCain's failed campaign.
Obama resisted calls to delay the debate.
"I think it is going to be part of the president's job to be able to deal with more than one thing at once," Obama told reporters on Wednesday.
It was part of the self-consciously cool and level tone Obama has maintained all week. The Democrat's campaign thinks voters will absorb the contrast.
Obama is "trying to make it look like a desperate measure – and to do it by using something people already believe about McCain's character," said one Democratic official. Obama is trying, he said to make McCain “look wacky."
But the attempt to draw a contrast with McCain's character may carry risk for the Democrat as well. McCain has been quick to invoke his service in Vietnam, and the ghosts of previous attacks on his stability, in response to any shots. Republicans could also use overt attacks on McCain's temper – something the Democrats have shied away from so far – as a cover to launch their own character-based attacks.
For now, though, McCain aides said they view not-so-subtle references to their candidate being "erratic" as mere bait to anger McCain so that he'll prove the allegation, perhaps in one of the three debates that may or may not begin Friday night.
US Presidential elections are becoming increasingly negative and as a result turning off voters.
Perhaps we should demand changes to the system that encourage less negative tactics that distract from the important issues?
What if we established an objective third party council or committee to basically referee the campaign process? Provide some way to establish better oversight and methods to penalize negative campaigns.
If you think about it, Presidential campaigns are little different from team sporting events in many respects, just less physcial contact.
What do you think? What would work and what wouldn't?
CLAIM: John McCain co-sponsored a bill to address Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
VERDICT: True
Chuck Hagel's Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform ActCosponsored by Sen Elizabeth Dole, Sen John McCain, Sen John Sununu
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190
==================================================
CLAIM: Democrats shot that bill down.
VERDICT: FALSE
1) It was never voted on. 2) Republicans had a majority in the 109th Congress.
Chuck Hagel's Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act
Status: Introduce Jan 26, 2005. NEVER voted onALL ACTIONS: 1/26/2005: Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S599-600) 1/26/2005: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. 7/28/2005: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN00190:@@@X
ALSO TAKE NOTE: January 3, 2005 to January 3, 2007, the 109th United States Congress had a REPUBLICAN majority:
SENATE: 55% Republican, 44% Democrat, 1% IndependentHOUSE: 53% Republican, 47% Democrat
Doesn't sound like the democrats blocked anything.
=================================================
CLAIM: Sen Obama "profited from this system of abuse and scandal."
VERDICT: Misleading.
"The New York Times has published a separate list looking at contributions from "directors, officers, and lobbyists for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac" for the 2008 campaign cycle. That list — using figures from the Federal Election Commission — shows McCain receiving $169,000, while Obama received only $16,000."
----------------------------------------------------------September 19, 2008Fact Check: Did Obama 'profit' from Fannie and Freddie?Posted: 10:16 AM ET
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/19/fact-check-did-obama-profit-from-fannie-and-freddie/#comments
Did Obama profit from Fannie and Freddie?
Statement:Amid "corruption at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac," Sen. Barack Obama "profited from this system of abuse and scandal. While Fannie and Freddie were working to keep Congress away from their house of cards, Senator Obama was taking their money. He got more, in fact, than any other member of Congress, except for the Democratic chairman of the committee that oversees them." —Sen. John McCain, at a campaign stop Friday, September 19, in Green Bay, Wisconsin.
What are the facts? Find out after the jump.
The Facts Federal law forbids candidates from receiving money directly from companies. The nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics tracks donations from employees of various companies. The center's list of contributions from Fannie and Freddie employees places Obama second. Ahead of him is Sen. Chris Dodd,
Democratic chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.
The total listed for Obama is $126,349 — a tiny fraction of the approximately $390 million his campaign has raised, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The list shows McCain has received a total of $21,550 from Fannie and Freddie employees. The list includes donations of at least $200 from those who receive paychecks from Fannie and Freddie. It also includes donations from political action committees — pooled contributions from employees. Obama decided early in his presidential run not to accept PAC contributions, but the Center for Responsive Politics' list includes all contributions for members of Congress dating back to 1989 — including Obama and McCain's Senate campaigns.
The New York Times has published a separate list looking at contributions from "directors, officers, and lobbyists for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac" for the 2008 campaign cycle. That list — using figures from the Federal Election Commission — shows McCain receiving $169,000, while Obama received only $16,000.
Explaining the difference, the Center for Responsive Politics said on its Web site that it does not include members of the board of directors because they could serve on boards of various companies. Their contributions are listed along with other employees of the companies they work for. And the center says lobbyists usually represent multiple clients as well, so their contributions are listed under their lobbying firms — except in-house lobbyists, who are included in the center's list.
The mortgage giants Fannie and Freddie became symbols of the nation's economic mess — and, to critics, of corporate greed — after the government recently took them over to bail them out, making donations linked to the company in any way potential political fodder.
VERDICT Partially true, but misleading. Donations don't come from companies. A list of employee contributions puts Obama second, but a different list including lobbyists and directors shows McCain getting more.
