Posts with the tag NYT

I'll Take Mine Black, Thanks

Henry M — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 12:25:27 EDT

Tea Parties Forever
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: April 12, 2009
This is a column about Republicans — and I’m not sure I should even be writing it.
Today’s G.O.P. is, after all, very much a minority party. It retains some limited ability to obstruct the Democrats, but has no ability to make or even significantly shape policy.Beyond that, Republicans have become embarrassing to watch. And it doesn’t feel right to make fun of crazy people.
Better, perhaps, to focus on the real policy debates, which are all among Democrats.But here’s the thing: the G.O.P. looked as crazy 10 or 15 years ago as it does now. That didn’t stop Republicans from taking control of both Congress and the White House. And they could return to power if the Democrats stumble. So it behooves us to look closely at the state of what is, after all, one of our nation’s two great political parties. One way to get a good sense of the current state of the G.O.P., and also to see how little has really changed, is to look at the “tea parties” that have been held in a number of places already, and will be held across the country on Wednesday.
These parties — antitaxation demonstrations that are supposed to evoke the memory of the Boston Tea Party and the American Revolution — have been the subject of considerable mockery, and rightly so. But everything that critics mock about these parties has long been standard practice within the Republican Party. Thus, President Obama is being called a “socialist” who seeks to destroy capitalism. Why? Because he wants to raise the tax rate on the highest-income Americans back to, um, about 10 percentage points less than it was for most of the Reagan administration. Bizarre.But the charge of socialism is being thrown around only because “liberal” doesn’t seem to carry the punch it used to. And if you go back just a few years, you find top Republican figures making equally bizarre claims about what liberals were up to. Remember when Karl Rove declared that liberals wanted to offer “therapy and understanding” to the 9/11 terrorists?
Then there are the claims made at some recent tea-party events that Mr. Obama wasn’t born in America, which follow on earlier claims that he is a secret Muslim. Crazy stuff — but nowhere near as crazy as the claims, during the last Democratic administration, that the Clintons were murderers, claims that were supported by a campaign of innuendo on the part of big-league conservative media outlets and figures, especially Rush Limbaugh.
Speaking of Mr. Limbaugh: the most impressive thing about his role right now is the fealty he is able to demand from the rest of the right. The abject apologies he has extracted from Republican politicians who briefly dared to criticize him have been right out of Stalinist show trials. But while it’s new to have a talk-radio host in that role, ferocious party discipline has been the norm since the 1990s, when Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, became known as “The Hammer” in part because of the way he took political retribution on opponents.
Going back to those tea parties, Mr. DeLay, a fierce opponent of the theory of evolution — he famously suggested that the teaching of evolution led to the Columbine school massacre — also foreshadowed the denunciations of evolution that have emerged at some of the parties.
Last but not least: it turns out that the tea parties don’t represent a spontaneous outpouring of public sentiment. They’re AstroTurf (fake grass roots) events, manufactured by the usual suspects. In particular, a key role is being played by FreedomWorks, an organization run by Richard Armey, the former House majority leader, and supported by the usual group of right-wing billionaires. And the parties are, of course, being promoted heavily by Fox News.
But that’s nothing new, and AstroTurf has worked well for Republicans in the past. The most notable example was the “spontaneous” riot back in 2000 — actually orchestrated by G.O.P. strategists — that shut down the presidential vote recount in Florida’s Miami-Dade County.
So what’s the implication of the fact that Republicans are refusing to grow up, the fact that they are still behaving the same way they did when history seemed to be on their side? I’d say that it’s good for Democrats, at least in the short run — but it’s bad for the country.
For now, the Obama administration gains a substantial advantage from the fact that it has no credible opposition, especially on economic policy, where the Republicans seem particularly clueless.
But as I said, the G.O.P. remains one of America’s great parties, and events could still put that party back in power. We can only hope that Republicans have moved on by the time that happens.

Henry M

Mumbai, the NYT's revisionism, and lessons not learned

John Lewis-Dickerson, Atlanta — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 12:33:14 EST

Mumbai, the NYT's revisionism, and lessons not learned

by Glenn Greenwald @ salon.com

The New York Times Editorial Page, today, on poor U.S./Latin American relations:

[T]he Bush administration did enormous damage to American credibility throughout much of the region when it blessed what turned out to be a failed coup against Mr. Chávez.

Indeed it did. But what the Times fails to mention, and is apparently eager to erase, is that "the Bush administration" was far from alone in blessing that coup attempt:

The New York Times Editorial Page, April 13, 2002 -- one day after the coup:

With yesterday's resignation of President Hugo Chávez, Venezuelan democracy is no longer threatened by a would-be dictator. Mr. Chávez, a ruinous demagogue, stepped down after the military intervened and handed power to a respected business leader, Pedro Carmona...........
ENTIRE ARTICLE- http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/11/28/nyt/index.html

McAcorn

Henry M — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 16:22:01 EDT

Any number of respected news outlets have done a decent job of correcting the MC Caine's assertion during the last debate that "We need to know the full extent of Senator Obama's relationship with Acorn, who is now on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy. The same front outfit organization that your campaign gave $832,000 for "lighting and site selection." So all of these things need to be examined, of course. " You can read all about Acorn in the New York Times, for instance: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/opinion/17fri1.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=acorn%202006&st=cse&oref=slogin , which concludes:

But for all of the McCain campaign’s manufactured fury about vote theft (and similar claims from the Republican Party over the years) there is virtually no evidence — anywhere in the country, going back many elections — of people showing up at the polls and voting when they are not entitled to.
Meanwhile, Republicans aren’t saying anything about another more serious voter-registration scandal: the fact that about one-third of eligible voters are not registered. The racial gaps are significant and particularly disturbing. According to a study by Project Vote, a voting-rights group, in 2006, 71 percent of eligible whites were registered, compared with 61 percent of blacks, 54 percent of Latinos and 49 percent of Asian-Americans.
Much of the blame for this lies with overly restrictive registration rules. Earlier this year, the League of Women Voters halted its registration drive in Florida after the state imposed onerous new requirements.
The answer is for government to do a better job of registering people to vote. That way there would be less need to rely on private registration drives, largely being conducted by well-meaning private organizations that use low-paid workers. Federal and state governments should do their own large-scale registration drives staffed by experienced election officials. Even better, Congress and the states should adopt election-day registration, which would make such drives unnecessary.
The real threats to the fabric of democracy are the unreasonable barriers that stand in the way of eligible voters casting ballots.

All well and good, but has McCain forgotten, and why isn't the mainstream media reporting, that in 2006, McCain wasn't afraid of voter registration efforts and organizations and supported Acorn?

McCain To ACORN: You Are 'What Makes America Special'

Marc Ambinder digs up a pretty damning video, given McCain's current line of attack on Barack Obama. In 2006, McCain told members of ACORN, UNITE HERE, SEIU, and PAW that they were "what makes America special."
As Ambinder says:
McCain had no trouble fraternizing with ACORN in 2006 when their political interests coincided with his. Now, his campaign is writing e-mails in his name bashing ACORN as a tool of the Obama machine.
Ben Smith also posted a picture of McCain at the same rally. Here's the video Ambinder posted: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ9wy2MI1NI

If you liked this message, then please have a look at my blog, http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/henrymu and support and contribute to the campaign (it’s not over until the polls close): http://tinyurl.com/henrym4obamafundraising

Henry M

ACTION ALERT: New York City, This Wednesday 9/24 - 10:30am

Joshua from New York, NY — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 23:08:27 EDT

Come out and join our Pinocchio Posse to greet John McCain and Sarah Palin at the New York Waldorf-Astoria as they attempt to restore their flagging credibility by hobnobbing with foreign leaders and fellow liar Henry Kissinger. The Posse will gather at 10:30am on Wednesday in front of the Waldof. Look for noses and noise as the Posse takes on McCain/Palin Pinocchio Politics in person!

For more information go to http://www.pinocchiopolitics.org/

Palin and McCain, lies and distortion.

Michael Oakes — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 15:53:13 EDT

Here's Newsweek's fact check on the convention speeches:http://www.newsweek.com/id/157206?tid=relatedclHi,This is a response to an e-mail forwarde by a family member, purpoting to show a NYT article by Mareen Dowd showing Obama was funded by Saudi's and Iranian's. It was a smear of course. I want to thank you for engaging in this discussion. I'm learning a lot. Here's the real scoop.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/barackobama/a/obama_funds.htm

Comments: New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd did not write this article. Not only does it not appear on her list of published columns, she has also denied being its author. "The line about it being the 'most shocking revelation,' I don't think I've ever said those words, except in a satire," Dowd said in a statement to the Huffington Post. "Also, it is about money, which I never write about."

Beyond that, the text is riddled with errors and falsehoods. I found no record of anyone in the Obama campaign stating that the average individual contribution amounts to between $10 and $25 (in fact, the stated average is around $100). Nor have there been any public revelations (apart from the unsupported allegations in this anonymous email) to the effect that "security people" (whoever they might be) have raised alarms about contributions flowing into the campaign from overseas. Obama's website states that no donations are accepted from foreign nationals, and all online contributors are required to certify that they are U.S. citizens.

This is in line with federal laws stipulating that foreigners may not contribute to U.S. political campaigns and prohibiting finance committees from "knowingly soliciting, accepting or receiving" such funds.

Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

Where to begin? For starters, the average Obama contribution has been around $100, not $15. The campaign, by law, must disclose all donors who have given over $200. And, most obviously, a review of the paper of record shows that Dowd's column on June 29 was not on Obama fundraising but rather Hillary Clinton supporters.

Dowd herself found the email an exercise in absurdity, not to mention -- quite possibly -- the first time she's been indirectly involved in a smear campaign.

"The line about it being the 'most shocking revelation,' I don't think I've ever said those words, except in a satire. Also, it is about money, which I never write about," she told the Huffington Post. "Sometime you try and protest things you hear about, but sometimes it's just not worth it... It is hard to track down and control these things, and anyone who reads my column knows that this wasn't me. I got to the second line and I knew it wasn't me."

The Obama campaign, as is now its practice, addressed the fake Dowd column in a post today on its website, Fight the Smears. But sometimes it's worth noting just how outrageous and offensive -- both to Obama and the public's intelligence -- these attacks can be.

Smear campaigns have been a big part of politics for some time. Unfortunately, Right Wing Republican's have taken it to new heights with the combined power of the internet, the media, and the Government. I've found it difficult to cut through, but luckily the Democrats are trying, having learned from the past. It is sad that whole groups of American's have to be engaged in exposing wild lies and distortions instead of discussing real issues, but here's a link to Sen. Obama's official site. I find the pages on the issues and policies much more interesting, http://www.barackobama.com/issues/, but if you are one likely to be swayed by smears, this may help you separate the wheat from the chaff. There is an update specifically on the "Fake Maureen Dowd Column" (I couldn't open it but hopefully you can. I gather it was a fabrication) Apparently, e-mails full of lies are par for the course. I hope you can turn some of the indignation you feel towards Sen. Obama when you read these scurrilous smears and rumors, into righteous indignation toward those who spread them and subvert our democracy with propaganda worthy of Goebbels. After all, they are the same ones who smeared presidential candidates and Vietnam Vets Al Gore and John Kerry, and oh yes, John McCain. (Remember the "McCain fathered a child with a black women" lie sent out during the 2000 Republican primary in the south?)http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fightthesmearshomeandhttp://factcheck.barackobama.com/

Well, we're sure you were moved greatly by the speeches at the GOP convention. So was I. I can see clearly the appeal. After the last 8 years, even other Republican's look good. These ones have served their country, or have children who have or will, and I honor that. They would bring unique life experiences to the White House, including Mrs. McCain.

Unfortunately, they would also bring much of the same failed policies concerning our economy, taxes, energy, the war in Iraq, war with Iran, education and the environment. So take some of Gov. Palin's own advice and don't be swayed by what she herself belittles a "pretty speeches". Especially ones that focus so little on issues and policy. Especially ones, like hers, largely written by Bush speech writers and filled with the same old lies, distortions, and divisive rhetoric. Her main point seemed to be, trust me, I'm an good, honest, family person who will bring Christian integrity to the office. How could she then, in her first real address to the American people, lie about her own record, and Sen. Obama's? I was astounded that she repeated the sound bite, "I told Congress "thanks but no thanks" for the "bridge to nowhere", and said if we're going to build a bridge, we'll pay for it ourselves." Big cheers; isn't she gutsy, honest, and a reformer? The facts are that only two years ago, she ran for Governor on the slogan, "Build the Bridge", and as Tom Brokow reported, only suspended the project when Congress said the state would have to pick up the tab! And of course her unprecedented actions as Mayor to hire a Washington lobbyist and get her small town $25 million in Federal earmarks. Sen. McCain again emphasized that he would veto earmarks, and "Call out the names of those who sponsor them, and make them famous!" It seems he should start by calling out the name Sarah Palin. Though McCain is ten times the man Bush was, his policies are nearly identical. Unfortunately the lessons he learned from the suffering of war seem to be that you must keep fighting every war, no matter how ill conceived, hopeless, endless, costly, immoral and bloody. Not every patriot can support our country giving so much of our resources to military contractors for immoral wars and the endless occupation of an oil rich nation. Not every patriot supports passing a bankrupt government on to the next generation, which McCain sais he cares so much about. Not every patriot thinks it is honorable to never mention the 1.2 million Iraqi lives we've taken; the innocent civilian children, women, elderly we've killed, imprisoned, tortured and raped. While his own suffering was on display, he showed no compassion for the innocent victims of a war built on lies. And despite the image created by his well crafted and heart felt speech, his reputation and record are full of true examples of his hot headed temperament, unstatesmanlike comments, shoot from the hip decisions, and poor judgment. From opposing the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday, to supporting George Bush against fellow decorated Vietnam Vet, Sen. Kerry, to peddling his influence as a Senator as one of the notorious Keating 5, to supporting this misguided war in Iraq from its ignominious inception through today, to clearly indicating his militaristic world view with statements like, "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.", 'We may have to stay in Iraq 100, 1000, even 10,000 years." And, "There will be many more wars for us to fight." It has been said, you can't work for peace while preparing for war. I know the macho, jingoistic slogan of coming from a position of strength. But does not power corrupt. Much of the world has seen America as a bully, an imperialist, militaristic, murderers, and a Great Satan. They don't feel this way because we fought a revolution for human freedom, because we fought each other for liberation, because we fought fascism in WW ll, because we fought totalitarian communist regimes, or even because we fight the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. The human heart knows when a fight is just. The world and history revile us when we use our power unnecessarily, un-wisely, callously. When we hypocritically speak of keeping the world safe for democracy, and prop up dictators. When we get bogged down in foreign Civil wars and proxy wars that lead us to commit atrocities and near genocide on civilian populations: like the millions killed in Vietnam, Korea, South America, and Iraq. All these mis-adventures, John McCain supported, and still supports. These failed, militaristic policies have not only reeked untold misery on humanity, they have stained our flag with innocent blood and hurt our countries standing in the world. Peace through war has never worked. The best examples of peaceful change for human kind are non-violent; Jesus, Buddha, Schweitzer, Gandhi, Mother Theresa, Dr. King, the Dalai Lama. Barak Obama has demonstrated, certainly not the pacifism of a saint, but at least the wisdom and judgment of a statesman to know when and where, and who, and why to fight. This is the leadership our country needs now. This is the hope the people of the world now anticipate: an America that inspires, instead of dominates them. This is change that Sen. McCain, this wounded warrior from a military lineage, simply cannot muster. As John Adams said, "I practice war so my children can practice politics, and my grandchildren can practice music."But getting away from those personality/judgment/temperament considerations, it is his policies and platform that should concern us all most. Here is a link to Sen. Obama's detailed policies. This is the nuts and bolts of what he means by change.http://www.barackobama.com/issues/On the economy, precious little was said. Maybe that's because as McCain himself said, "The economy's not my strong point." Palin let herself be used as a mouthpiece to dissemble Sen. Obama's tax plan. "How are the fisherman, and the teacher, and the truck driver going to be helped by Sen. Obama's increased tax burden?", she went on and on. Well, they'll be helped because their tax burden would go down, and Bush's record tax cuts to the wealthiest people and corporations in the country would be eliminated, moving more of the burden back to those who can most afford it. McCain supported Bush's tax plan and unbridled military spending, and plans to continue it. The plan which in 8 years has taken America from the largest surplus in history, to the greatest debtor on earth. What's patriotic about that? McCain pledges to continue the greatest redistribution of wealth to the top in our nation's history, while millions of families are fighting for their homes. He'll do little to address the 45 million uninsured Americans. How's that fighting for his fellow American's, for the average Joe? He and Gov. Palin have an out dated oil centered energy policy that will lead us away from a sustainable future, be a disaster for our environment, and have virtually no impact on our energy needs. That means it's going to leave us in the same boat, still dependent on foreign oil for 97% of our demand. They give only lip service to the renewable alternatives that should be the center of a sustainable energy policy. They seem unable to reconcile the concepts of energy independence, sustainable economic development, environment, and Global Climate Change. They emphasize only the evils of foreign oil, and ignore the incontrovertible evidence and dire consequences of Global Warming, and the need to break our addiction to oil, period. This energy policy out oils Bush/Cheney. Sen. Obama has set a goal of energy independence in 10 years, with a focus on building a clean economy. Hardly "doing nothing", he has a detailed plan, widely supported by experts.And that's the problem with the Republican platform and policies for years. Rhetoric about small government, and unlimited spending. Acting like good old boys, reformers, and Hokey mom's, while taking millions from Political Action Committees, and Big Oil. Evoking FDR, Truman, and Kennedy, while dismantling the social safety net they strived to create: Social Security, Public Schools, worker protections, the right to organize, universal health care. Perpetuating tax breaks for the wealthiest, while driving millions into poverty. Crying out for de-regulation, even as we bail out Wall Street and Banks gone under due to de-regulation. Where's the change there?Showing no understanding that protecting our Environment is an economic, human health, and ethical necessity. No sense that clean water and air, healthy food and land, flourishing forests and diverse communities of life, are the birth right of every child. Stuck in the outdated and false dichotomy of ecology vs. economy. Still blind to what many big businesses and governments alike can see; that pollution equals waste, that green means efficient, that those nations and companies leading the way to sustainable development will win in the Global economy. With so much talk about leaving the world a better place, Palin and McCain literally smirk at someone trying to "Save the planet." No change there either.John McCain certainly fought for our country. Gov. Palin may be sincere in her convictions. On almost every issue important to our nation's future, they proudly proclaim that they are ready to lead, but in the wrong direction. They will perpetuate the hold on power and the failed policies of a Republican Party rank with corruption. Their policies have and continue to do great harm to the country we all love. From the unnecessary loss of innocent lives in an immoral war, to an unlevel playing field where the rich get richer and the poor get shafted, to the hypocrisy of calling for Change in Washington, while employing the same old partisan attacks, lies, and smears. Saying you've taken on Big Oil, when you are sponsored by them. The cynical choreography of having someone else make the false attacks and smears, while the candidate assumes an air of statesmanship. This is exactly the Bush/Cheney/Rove model. So, what else is new? The question is, will we fall for it yet again. The other major theme of all the speeches was the Sen. Obama has no accomplishments. Gov. Palin said "Here's a man whose never passed a single piece of legislation or even a reform." Here's a sample of Sen. Obama's record; you decide if Gov. Palin and the Republican's were "Talking straight":March 08, 2008Fact Check on Story that Minimizes Obama's Senate Accomplishments

REALITY: Obama Has Passed Several Important Laws In The Senate, Including Legislation To Prevent Terrorists From Obtaining WMDs, Increasing U.S. Investment In Alternative Energy, And Improving Services For Our Troops And Veterans

ETHICS/TRANSPARENCY

Obama Was A Key Player In Assembling And Passing The 2007 Ethics Reform Law, Which Curbed The Influence Of Lobbyists And Was Described As The "Most Sweeping Since Watergate." In the first week of the 110th Congress, Obama joined with Senator Feingold to introduce a "Gold Standard" ethics package. Many of the Obama/Feingold bill's most important provisions were included in the final ethics reform package passed by the Senate in late January: a full ban on gifts and meals from lobbyists including those paid by the firms that employ lobbyists; an end to subsidized travel on corporate jets; full disclosure of who's sponsoring earmarks and for what purpose; additional restrictions to close the revolving door between public service and lobbying to ensure that public service isn't all about lining up a high-paying lobbying job; and requiring lobbyists to disclose the contributions that they "bundle" - that is, collect or arrange - for members of Congress, candidates, and party committees. The Washington Post wrote in an editorial that "...Mr. Reid, along with Sens. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.), deserves credit for assembling and passing this package." In September 2007, the AP reported, "President Bush signed a bill Friday that will require lawmakers to disclose more about their efforts to fund pet projects and raise money from lobbyists, a measure that backers call the biggest ethics reform in decades...Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. who had pushed for the bundling provisions..." [S. 230, 110th Congress; S.1, Became Public Law 109-110-81, 9/14/07; AP, 9/15/07; Washington Post, Editorial, 1/21/07]

Obama Passed A Bill Creating A "Google-like" Database For The Public To Search Details About Federal Funding Awards. In 2006, Obama was an original cosponsor of a bill to create a "Google-like" database of information on federal spending. The bill requires the OMB by January 1, 2008, to make available to the public a searchable, free website that includes the (1) amount; (2) transaction type; (3) funding agency; (4) North American Industry Classification System code or Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number; (5) program source; (6) an award title descriptive of the purpose of each funding action; (7) the name and location of the recipient and the primary location of performance; and (8) a unique identifier of the recipient and any parent entity. The site must allow users to conduct separate searches that distinguish between awards that are grants, sub-grants, loans, cooperative agreements, and other forms of financial assistance and awards that are contracts, subcontracts, purchase orders, task orders, and delivery orders. [S. 2590, Passed by Unanimous Consent, 9/7/06; Became PL 109-282, 9/26/06] SEE THE DATABASE HERE

Obama Passed Into Law Legislation Requiring Lobbyists To Disclose Their Bundling Activity, Making Him Unpopular Even Among Other Democrats. Obama sponsored an amendment to require lobbyists to disclose the candidates, leadership PACs, or political parties for whom they collect or arrange contributions, and the aggregate amount of the contributions collected or arranged. The amendment was passed by unanimous consent and attached to the Senate ethics bill, which was signed into law on September 15, 2007. The New York Times wrote, "The disclosure idea's lead sponsor, Senator Barack Obama... 'has not been the most popular person in our caucus in the last couple of weeks,' said a Democratic aide involved in deliberations over the bill." [S. Amdt. 41 to S. 1, S. Amdt. 3, Submitted 1/11/07, Agreed to By Unanimous Consent, 1/18/07; S. 1, Signed into Law 9/14/07; New York Times, 1/20/07; CQ, 9/15/07]

FOREIGN POLICY

Obama Passed Law Requiring Comprehensive Nuclear Threat Reduction Strategy To Secure Weapons And Usable Nuclear Material. "Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) and Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) announced that a provision authored by Obama and Senator Hagel (R-NE) in the Senate and advanced by Schiff in the House requiring a comprehensive nuclear threat reduction plan passed as part of the omnibus appropriations bill. This provision requires the President to submit to Congress a comprehensive plan for ensuring that all nuclear weapons and weapons-usable material at vulnerable sites around the world are secure by 2012 from the threats that terrorists have shown they can pose. The Senate passed the omnibus appropriations bill last night and the House approved the same bill today. It will now be sent to the President to be signed into law…The Comprehensive Nuclear Threat Reduction provision requires the President to develop a strategy that will: ensure that all nuclear weapons and weapons-usable material at vulnerable sites around the world are secure by 2012 against the threats that terrorists have shown they can pose; ensure adequate accounting and security for such materials on an ongoing basis thereafter; include a plan for expanding the financial support and other assistance provided by other countries, particularly Russia, the European Union and its member states, China and Japan, for the purposes of securing nuclear weapons and weapons-usable material worldwide; and outline the progress in and impediments to securing an agreement from all countries that possess nuclear weapons or weapons-usable material on a set of global nuclear security standards, consistent with their obligation to comply with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540." [Obama Press Release, 12/20/07]

Obama Passed Legislation To Keep Weapons Of Mass Destruction Out Of The Hands Of Terrorists. In 2006, Obama was an original co-sponsor of legislation to expand U.S. cooperation to destroy conventional weapons. It also expands the State Department's ability to detect and interdict weapons and materials of mass destruction. The legislation was included in an appropriations bill that was later signed into law by the president. [Congress, S. 2566, Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 456, 5/25/06; Provisions included in H.R. 6060/P.L. 109-706]

Obama Passed Law to Promote Relief, Security, and Democracy in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In 2005, Obama sponsored the Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act of 2006. The bill would set forth specified U.S. political, social, civil, and economic policy objectives (policy objectives) with respect to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and obligated a specified minimum amount of foreign assistance funding for FY2006-FY2007. [S.2125, 12/16/05, Become Public Law No: 109-456, 12/22/06]

HEALTH CARE

Obama Passed An Amendment Into Law That Pressured The EPA to Comply With New Lead-Paint Regulations After Seven Years of Delay. In 2005, Obama passed an amendment, which became law, to the FY 2006 Department of Interior Appropriations Act prohibiting the use of funds in the bill to delay or contravene implementation of an existing but unmet statutory requirement passed by Congress in 1992 that the EPA rewrite regulations on dispersal of lead paint by home remodeling contractors by October 1996. As of July 2005, the regulations still had not been written. Weeks after Obama’s amendment passed the Senate, Obama received commitments in writing and during a Senate hearing that the EPA would comply with the law. According to an Obama press release, "In 1992, Congress required the EPA to write regulations relating to the dispersal of lead paint by contractors during home remodeling by October, 1996. As of July 2005, these regulations still have not been written. In April, Administrator Johnson stated that to address the problem of lead paint poisoning, the EPA ‘will determine what additional steps may be necessary, including regulation’ despite the fact that the 1992 law does not say the regulations are optional." [SA 1061 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent, 6/28/05, Obama Press Release, 7/25/05; H.R. 2361, Became Public Law No: 109-54, 8/2/05]

EPA Finally Published Nine-Years-Overdue Proposal For Lead Paint Regulations Four Months After Obama Passed Legislation And Held Up EPA Nominations. Building Products wrote, "The EPA recently published long-overdue proposed regulations that affect contractors working on older houses that contain lead-based paints. The regulations, if adopted, would require that contractors be trained in lead-safe work practices and be certified by the EPA. The rules also would impose protective standards for those working on houses with lead paint. In 1992, Congress directed the EPA to write regulations that would limit lead paint pollution during home remodeling by October 1996. By last summer, with no sign of the new regulations, U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-III., introduced more legislation designed to encourage the EPA to publish the rules. When that didn't work, Obama announced in the fall that he would block the appointment of every nominee to top EPA jobs until the agency produced the new rules. The EPA finally announced the proposed regulations Dec. 29, 2005." [Building Products, March-April, 2006]

Obama Passed A Law Requiring The Defense Secretary To Report On The Pentagon's Efforts To Prepare For Military And Civilian Personnel For A Possible Influenza Outbreak. In 2006, Obama sponsored an amendment to the FY 2006 Defense Authorization Act that required the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress on the Pentagon's efforts to prepare for pandemic influenza, including pandemic avian influenza, including status on the procurement of vaccines, public health containment measures that could be implemented on military bases and other facilities; surge capacity for the provision of medical care during pandemics; surveillance efforts domestically and internationally and how such efforts are integrated with other ongoing surveillance systems; the integration of pandemic and response planning with those of other Federal departments; collaboration (as appropriate) with international entities engaged in pandemic preparedness and response. [SA 1453 as modified agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent, 11/18/05; S. 1042/H.R. 1815, Became Public Law No: 109-163]

Obama Passed Legislation Providing $25 Million In Funding For Avian Flu Research And Containment Efforts By U.S. Agencies In South East Asia. "The amendment calls for greater investment in our preparedness efforts by providing more than $3 billion to build a stockpile of antiviral drugs and necessary medical supplies...Obama first introduced legislation in April requiring the United States to stockpile antiviral drugs...In May, Obama worked with a bipartisan group of Senators to appropriate the $25 million called for in the Foreign Assistance Act authorization bill. This money is currently being used by U.S. agencies in South East Asia to combat and contain possible outbreaks of avian flu." [Obama Press Release, 1/12/07]

ENERGY

Obama Passed Legislation Creating A Tax Credit For The Installation Of E-85 Fuel Pumps. In 2005, Obama introduced legislation that provided a tax credit for up to 50% of the cost of installing an E-85 pump. Obama passed the tax credit as an amendment to the 2005 transportation bill. The amendment was not included in the final version of the bill but was signed into law as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The AP reported, "Under the provision, gas stations would get a tax credit to install equipment accommodating E-85 - an ethanol-based fuel alternative that its promoters say is up to 50 cents cheaper per gallon than unleaded gasoline. The credit would cover 30 percent of the installation costs at a given station up to $30,000...Freshman Sen. Barack Obama introduced the tax-credit measure in the Senate in the spring, and it was co-sponsored by Illinois' other Democratic senator, Dick Durbin. Obama also worked for the credit's inclusion in the energy bill as one of the conferees preparing the Senate-House conference committee report..." [AP, 7/27/05; H.R. 6, Became Public Law No: 109-58; S. 918, 109th Congress; SA 670 agreed to, 5/12/05; H.R. 6, Became Public Law No: 109-58; S. 918, Referred to the Committee On Environment and Public Works]

Obama Passed An Amendment Into Law To Fund Research For Hybrid/Flex Fuel Vehicles. In 2005, Obama sponsored an amendment, which was signed into law, to the Energy Policy Act that established an applied research program to improve technologies for the commercialization of a combination hybrid/flexible fuel vehicle; or a plug-in hybrid/flexible fuel vehicle. The program would provide grants with preference to proposals that achieve the greatest reduction in miles per gallon of petroleum fuel consumption, achieve not less than 250 miles per gallon of petroleum fuel consumption and have the greatest potential of commercialization to the general public within 5 years. [SA 851 to HR 6, Passed by Unanimous Consent, 6/23/05; H.R. 6, Became Public Law No: 109-58]

EDUCATION

Obama Passed Legislation Into Law Making Black Colleges Eligible For $15 Million In Federal Funding. In 2007, Obama introduced legislation that would make a predominantly black institution eligible for federal grant money. The legislation was written into the "The bill would define a PBI as a college of at least 1,000 undergraduates in which Blacks represent 40 percent or more of the student body. At least half of all undergraduates also must be low-income or first-generation students. The legislation would provide a minimum grant of $250,000. Jackson, another NAFEO board member, says Medgar Evers could find immediate uses for the funding." [S. 1513, Referred to HELP Committee, 5/24/07; H.R. 2669, Became Public Law, 9/7/07; Diverse Issues In Higher Education, 6/29/07]

Obama Passed Into Law An Amendment Establishing A Grant Program To Support Summer Curricula That Emphasize Math And Problem Solving. In 2007, Obama sponsored an amendment, which became law, to the America Competes Act that established a competitive state grant program to support summer learning opportunities with curricula that emphasize mathematics and problem solving. [S.Amdts. 924, Agreed to by unanimous consent, 4/25/07; S. 761, Incorporated into H.R. 2272, which became P.L. 110-289, 8/9/07]

MILITARY ISSUES/VETERANS

Obama Passed An Amendment, Which Became Law, Preventing The VA From Conducting A Review Of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Cases Aimed At Reducing Benefits. In 2005, Obama was an original cosponsor of an amendment that became law preventing the VA from conducting a review of cases, without first providing Congress with a complete report regarding the implementation of such review. In November 2005, the VA announced that it was abandoning its planned review. "Obama had several generations of veterans in mind, he suggested, when he joined fellow Democrats Richard Durbin (Ill.), Patty Murray (Wash.) and Daniel Akaka (Hawai'i) Sept. 22 on a successful amendment to block the Department of Veterans Affairs from reviewing case files of 72,000 veterans rated 100-percent disabled by post-traumatic stress disorder…VA officials believe some PTSD claims have been decided for veterans without proper documentation. They announced their massive review only after the VA inspector general studied 2,100 randomly selected cases of PTSD disability awards and found that 25 percent lacked documents to verify that a traumatic, service-connected incident occurred…But the Senate's amendment would bar the VA from conducting its case review until it justifies the program to Congress." [SA 1864 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote, 9/22/05; Became Public Law No: 109-114; Military Update, 10/3/05]

Obama Passed Legislation, Which Became Law, Improving And Increasing Services For Homeless Veterans. In 2006, Congress passed a Veterans Affairs Committee bill which included several provisions originating in Obama's SAVE Act (S. 1180) and Homes for Heroes Act (S. 3475). "The legislation...includes a number of proposals from legislation Senator Obama had previously introduced (S.1180, the SAVE Act and S.3475 the Homes for Heroes Act) to expand and improve services for homeless veterans. The bill permanently authorizes and increases funding to $130 million per year for a competitive grant program to provide homeless services to veterans. It greatly increases a successful program to provide rental vouchers to homeless veterans. The legislation extends programs to providing treatment for veterans with mental illnesses and other special needs. And it permanently extends VA's ability to transfer property it owns to homeless shelters." [S. 3421/P.L. 109-461; S. 1180, 109th Congress; S. 3475, 109th Congress; Obama Press Release, 6/26/06]

Obama Passed Legislation Extending Tax Credits For Military Families By Allowing Service Members Deployed In War Zones To Apply Non-Taxable Combat Pay To The EITC. In 2006, Congress passed legislation based on a proposal sponsored by Obama, Kerry, and Pryor that extended tax credits for military families by allowing service members deployed to war zones to apply their non-taxable combat pay toward the Earned Income Tax Credit. The amendment was introduced during debate on the Senate’s 2006 tax reconciliation bill, ruled out of order, but later included in the Gulf Opportunity Zone Act, which passed both chambers and became law on December 22, 2005. [H.R. 4440, Became P.L. 109-135, 12/22/05; SA 2616, 109th Congress]

Obama Passed An Amendment, Which Became Law, To Require The VA To Conduct A Campaign To Inform Disabled Vets Of Disparities In Compensation And Explaining Their Rights To Seek Review. In 2005, Obama was an original cosponsor on an amendment requiring the VA to conduct a campaign to inform veterans in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Connecticut, Ohio and New Jersey about their right to seek a review of their past claims. Specifically, the legislation required the VA to send letters to all veterans currently receiving disability who live in six states with a past history of below-average disability compensation, informing them of the past disparity, and explaining how to request a review of past claims and ratings and how to submit new claims. The VA was also required to inform all other veterans whose past claims may have been properly denied of this disparity by other means such as broadcast of print advertising. States whose average annual disability compensation payment was less than $7,300 qualified as below average. In 2003, Illinois veterans received an average of $6,802. The amendment became law on November 30, 2005. [S. Amdt. 1865, Passed by Voice Vote, 9/22/05, to H.R.2528, Signed by the President and Became Public Law No: 109-114 on 11/30/05]

HOMELAND SECURITY/DISASTER RESPONSE

Obama Passed A Law Initiating A Long Overdue Investigation Into FEMA Failures And Response To Trailers Contaminated By Formaldehyde. “U.S. Senators Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Claire McCaskill (D-MO) and Barack Obama (D-IL) lauded Congress’ passage of their proposal to launch an investigation into reports that housing trailers contaminated with formaldehyde were provided to Hurricane Katrina victims. This provision, which is contained in the Omnibus Appropriations package soon to be signed into law, will initiate a long overdue investigation into why the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) failed to prevent the contamination or investigate the allegations.” [Obama Press Release, 12/21/07; H.R. 2764, Became Public Law No: 110-161]

Obama Passed Legislation Prohibiting DHS From Entering Into Open-Ended, No-Bid Contracts For Emergency Response Activities. "Legislation authored by U.S. Senators Barack Obama (D-IL) and Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK) that will stop the abuse of no-bid contracting in the aftermath of a disaster was included in the final Department of Homeland Security funding bill likely to pass the Senate today. After Senate passage, the bill will go to the President's desk to be signed into law...After Hurricane Katrina, the Federal Emergency Management Agency used emergency authority to enter into open-ended, no-bid contracts. What was meant to be temporary stop-gap authority ballooned into wasteful contracts that lasted many months and wasted significant federal resources. Obama and Coburn legislation will stop this practice by restricting the use of emergency contracting authority only to urgent needs in the immediate response to emergencies...On three separate occasions, Obama and Coburn have passed legislation in the Senate that would end no-bid contracting with Gulf Coast reconstruction funds. Legislation that would have specifically prohibited no-bid contracts with Gulf Coast reconstruction was stripped from a previously passed funding bill." [Obama Press Release, 9/29/06]

Obama Passed An Amendment Into Law Creating A National Family Locator System. In 2006, Obama passed an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2007 Homeland Security Appropriations Act that required the Department of Homeland Security to create a centralized family locator system through which family members can contact their lost loved ones during disasters. The amendment, which was signed into law as part of the final version of the bill, was based on legislation Obama introduced immediately after Hurricane Katrina. [SA 4573 as modified agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent, 7/13/06; H.R. 5441, Became Public Law No: 109-295; S. 1630, 109th Congress, Referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs]

WORKING FAMILIES

Obama And Hatch Passed Legislation To Protect Individuals' Rights To Continue Donating To Charities And Religious Organizations During Bankruptcy. In 2006, Obama was an original cosponsor of a bill that protected individuals' rights to continue donating to charities and religious organizations during bankruptcy proceedings. The Hatch-Obama bill responded to a court ruling that above-medium income debtors in Chapter 13 bankruptcy could not deduct charitable contributions, including religious contributions, from their payment plans. The ruling was based on an interpretation of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA). Hatch and Obama authored S. 4044 to ensure that all individuals in bankruptcy, no matter their income, would be able to continue giving to charity and their church. The bill passed the senate by unanimous consent and was signed by the president. [S. 4044, Signed 12/20/06, Became Public Law No. 109-439]

REALITY: BAMA "STEPPED FORWARD" AND STRENGTHENED THE CASE FOR HIS PRESIDENCY BY LEADING ON ETHICS REFORM

Washington Post: Obama Deserved Credit For Assembling And Passing "Strongest Ethics Legislation To Emerge From Congress Yet." The Washington Post wrote in an editorial, "The final package is the strongest ethics legislation to emerge from Congress yet...Mr. Reid, along with Sens. Russell Feingold (D--Wis.) and Barack Obama (D--Ill.), deserves credit for assembling and passing this package." [Washington Post, Editorial, 1/20/07]

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid: Obama Stepped Forward, Did a Wonderful Job. "And finally, Senator Obama. I chose personally Senator Obama last year to work on ethics and lobbying reform, and he's done a wonderful job. He's stepped forward. He's been a leader with Senator Feingold...And I admire and respect his stalwartness in moving forward on this." [Press Conference Transcript, Federal News Service, 1/18/07]

Madison Capital Times: Obama's Work On Ethics Legislation Strengthens Case For Presidency Candidacy. In an editorial, the Madison Capital Times wrote of Obama and Feingold, "The two senators are sponsoring groundbreaking ethics legislation that they say will improve upon Senate Bill 2349, the lobbying disclosure and ethics measure that the Senate passed in March 2006. 'Our goal,' say Feingold and Obama, 'is to restore the public's faith that Congress places its interest ahead of special interests.' The bottom line is that this is a real reform. No one will be surprised that Feingold's name is associated with this effort. But the fact that Obama is so willing to be a part of it will only strengthen the case for consideration of his potential presidential candidacy." [Madison Capital Times, 1/12/07]

Dayton Daily News: Obama Ethics Amendments Got Reform Bill "Watered Up." The Dayton Daily News wrote in an editorial, "Indeed, the bill goes further than Democrats even promised during the campaign. This was one of those rare occasions when a reform bill is introduced, then, rather than get watered down, gets watered up. This fact has been widely attributed to the work of Sens. Barack Obama, D--Ill., and Russ Feingold, D--Wis. They proposed reforms that the other senators -- while reportedly not happy about -- decided they couldn't oppose in the current political environment." [Dayton Daily News, Editorial, 1/24/07]

Obama Was Named Democrats' Point Person on Ethics. Under the headline "Obama is Democrats' point man on ethics," the Chicago Tribune wrote, "As Democrats attempt to capitalize on the perceived ethical shortcomings of Republican congressmen and staffers, party leaders have tapped Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) to be their point man to carry the message of ethics reform during the midterm election year. Obama begins his assignment Wednesday when he joins Democrats at the Library of Congress to unveil proposals intended to limit the influence of Washington lobbyists on politics and policy. The task is the most visible--and potentially partisan--role Obama has taken as he begins his second year in office." [Chicago Tribune, 1/18/06]

REALITY: OBAMA ALSO PASSED SWEEPING ETHICS LEGISLATION IN ILLINOIS

Obama Passed Illinois State Gift Ban Act "Heralded As the Most Sweeping Good--Government Legislation in Decades." In 1998, Obama passed the Illinois Gift Ban, which prohibited legislators, state officers and employees, and judges from soliciting or receiving gifts from a person or entity with interests affected by government. The Chicago Tribune called it wrote, "an ethics and campaign finance package heralded as the most sweeping good--government legislation in decades." The law also required greater campaign finance disclosure and limited the uses for which raised money could be spent. [HB672, 3R P 52--4--1, 5/22/98; PA 90--0737, 8/12/98; Chicago Tribune, 8/13/98; Chicago Independent Bulletin, 6/4/98]

Illinois Campaign for Political Reform: Sponsors Of Ethics Legislation "To Be Strongly Commended" For "Bipartisan," "Landmark Legislation." The leaders of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform wrote, "The Illinois Campaign for Political Reform applauds the Illinois legislature for passing the bipartisan campaign finance and ethics package...the bill's sponsors, state Sens. Kirk Dillard (R--Hinsdale) and Barack Obama (D--Chicago), and state Reps. Gary Hannig (D--Litchfield) and Jack Kubik (R--La Grange Park), made campaign finance reform in Illinois a reality by forging areas of common ground. With the support of legislative leaders, both parties and houses moved beyond their differences to pass this landmark legislation. All are to be strongly commended." [Chicago Tribune, 6/20/98]

Ethics Reforms Championed By Obama "Revolutionized" Illinois Politics. The New York Times reported, "The disclosure requirement 'revolutionized Illinois's system,' said Cindi Canary, executive director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform. By giving journalists immediate access to a database of expenditures and contributions, it transformed political reporting. It also, she said, 'put Senator Obama on a launching pad and put the mantle of ethics legislator on his crown.'" [New York Times, 7/30/07]

Mendell Called Ethics Reform Obama's "First Major Legislative Accomplishment;" The Bill Did Not Sit Well With Some Of His Colleagues. In From Promise To Power, Mendell wrote, "His first major legislative accomplishment was shepherding a piece of campaign finance reform in May 1998. The measure prohibited lawmakers from soliciting campaign funds while on state property and from accepting gifts from state contractors, lobbyists or other interests...The bill was not a watershed event anywhere but Illinois. It essentially listed Illinois, a state with a deep history of illicit, pay--to--play politics, into the modern world when it came to ethics restrictions. The bill gave Obama a legislative success, but his public criticism of Springfield's old school politics did not sit well with some of his colleagues who already considered the Ivy League lawyer overly pious." [From Promise To Power, 124]

REALITY: OBAMA EXPANDED HEALTH CARE IN ILLINOIS

Obama Passed Bipartisan Legislation That Expanded Health Care Coverage To 154,000 Residents, Including 70,000 Children. As a state senator, Barack Obama sponsored and helped pass legislation that expanded and made permanent Illinois' KidCare program by raising eligibility from 185% to 200% of the federal poverty level. The legislation provided coverage for an additional 20,000 children and 65,000 more Illinois adults in the first year, and by 2007 had expanded health care to 70,000 kids and 84,000 adults. In its endorsement for his Senate race, the State Journal--Register wrote, "Obama brings similar common--sense views to improving health care in America -- for example, as a state senator he championed the successful KidCare program that assists thousands of children of the working poor." The bill was sponsored in the state House by Sandra Pihos, a Republican and passed 42--13. [93rd GA, SB 130, 3R P 42--13--2; Signed into law 6/30/03, PA 93--0063; Chicago Daily Herald, 7/2/03; Blagojevich release, 1/9/07; Blagojevich release, 4/13/07; Kaiser family report, 5/07; State Journal--Register, 10/29/04]

Obama Passed Health Care Justice Act; IL's Largest Health Care Coalition Applauded Obama's Leadership In Passing the Bill. In 2004, Obama was chief sponsor of bill creating the Health Care Justice Act, providing that the State of Illinois shall implement a health care access plan that provides uniform benefits for all Illinois residents by establishing a Bipartisan Commission that is required to submit a report to form the basis for the health care access plan to: "1) Provides access to a full range of preventive, acute and long--term health care services; 2) Maintains and improves the quality of health care services offered to IL residents; 3) Provides portability of coverage regardless of employment status; 4) Provides core benefits for all IL residents; 4) Encourages regional and local consumer participation; 5) Contains cost--containment measures." The Journal Register wrote the bill was "amended to make full access to health care a goal instead of a policy and to strongly encourage, instead of require, the state to implement a health--care access plan." The bill passed. When the bill was funded in 2005, Jim Duffett, executive director of Campaign for Better Health Care, the largest health care coalition in Illinois, said, "We applaud the leadership of Governor Blagojevich, state Rep. William Delgado and former state Sen. Barack Obama, who were the chief sponsors of this act." [93rd GA, HB 2268, 5/19/04, 3R P; 31--26--1, 6/24/04, Sent to the Governor; Lexington Herald Leader, 1/18/07; State Journal--Register (Springfield, IL), 6/15/04; Campaign for Better Health Care release, 7/31/05]

REALITY: Obama Began Calling For A Phased Withdrawal From Iraq In November 2005

11/22/05: Obama Called for A Phased Withdrawal From Iraq, A Commitment To Having No U.S. Bases In Iraq Within a Decade. "First and foremost, after the December 15 elections and during the course of next year, we need to focus our attention on how reduce the U.S. military footprint in Iraq. Notice that I say 'reduce,' and not 'fully withdraw.' This course of action will help to focus our efforts on a more effective counter-insurgency strategy and take steam out of the insurgency...Second, we need not a time-table, in the sense of a precise date for U.S. troop pull-outs, but a time-frame for such a phased withdrawal. More specifically, we need to be very clear about key issues, such as bases and the level of troops in Iraq. We need to say that there will be no bases in Iraq a decade from now and the United States armed forces cannot stand-up and support an Iraqi government in perpetuity - pushing the Iraqis to take ownership over the situation and placing pressure on various factions to reach the broad based political settlement that is so essential to defeating the insurgency." [Obama Speech, 11/22/05]

12/8/05: Obama Said He Supported A Phased Withdrawal To Avoid Security Vacuum; Said War In Iraq To Blame For Terrorist Problems. Obama favors starting 'a phased withdrawal process' of troops next year. The process would be based on what happens with the elections, he said. 'What we're engaged in is a difficult balancing act here…Having gone in, how do we step back but ensure that there's not such a vacuum that either chaos occurs or jihadists take over critical areas that can make huge problems elsewhere? The irony, of course, is that there really wasn't a terrorist problem before we went in. There is now.'" [State Journal-Register, 12/8/05]

1/8/06: Obama Said It Was Important To Start Phasing Down Troops. The Sun-Times wrote, "Obama said 'if we don't see significant political progress' over the next six months or so, 'we can pour money and troops in here until the cows come home but we are not going to be successful.' It is important, Obama said, 'to start phasing down the troops' and 'to give the Iraqis more ownership.'" [Chicago Sun-Times, 1/8/06]

4/13/06: Obama Said U.S. Should Start Phasing Down U.S. Troop Presence In Iraq By The End Of The Year. At a town hall meeting, Obama said, "'If I continue to see what seems to be the case right now--an inability and unwillingness on the part of the various factions to want to live together--we can't be in a position where we're in the middle of a civil war...If we're not seeing a government that is actually committed to working together, then I don't see how our presence there can be helpful,' Obama said. Even if a new government is formed, Obama said, by the end of the year 'our job as the police and army of Iraq should be complete. We will have done our task and we should start phasing down our troops.'" [Chicago Tribune, 4/13/06]

REALITY: Press on significance Of Obama’s Ethics Reform Legislation

Obama Was A Key Player In Assembling And Passing The 2007 Ethics Reform Law, Which Curbed The Influence Of Lobbyists And Was Described As The "Most Sweeping Since Watergate." In the first week of the 110th Congress, Obama joined with Senator Feingold to introduce a "Gold Standard" ethics package. Many of the Obama/Feingold bill's most important provisions were included in the final ethics reform package passed by the Senate in late January: a full ban on gifts and meals from lobbyists including those paid by the firms that employ lobbyists; an end to subsidized travel on corporate jets; full disclosure of who's sponsoring earmarks and for what purpose; additional restrictions to close the revolving door between public service and lobbying to ensure that public service isn't all about lining up a high-paying lobbying job; and requiring lobbyists to disclose the contributions that they "bundle" - that is, collect or arrange - for members of Congress, candidates, and party committees. The Washington Post wrote in an editorial that "...Mr. Reid, along with Sens. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.), deserves credit for assembling and passing this package." In September 2007, the AP reported, "President Bush signed a bill Friday that will require lawmakers to disclose more about their efforts to fund pet projects and raise money from lobbyists, a measure that backers call the biggest ethics reform in decades...Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. had pushed for the bundling provisions..." [S. 230, 110th Congress; S.1, Became Public Law 109-110-81, 9/14/07; AP, 9/15/07; Washington Post, Editorial, 1/21/07]

NYT: 2007 Ethics Reform Bill "Quickly Sent A Ripple Of Fear Through K Street" And Was "Already Changing The Culture Of Washington" Before It Was Signed Into Law, Beginning With "More Dutch Treats And Fewer Steak Dinners." "The new law has quickly sent a ripple of fear through K Street...Stanley Brand, a longtime Washington defense lawyer who usually represents Democrats, said the law was a sea change. ''It should send shivers down lobbyists' spines,'' Mr. Brand said. ‘It is a minefield now...President Bush has not said whether he would sign the bill, but it is already changing the culture of Capitol Hill in myriad ways, beginning with more Dutch treats and fewer steak dinners...One lobbyist, who would speak only anonymously to avoid attracting the attention of prosecutors or rivals, said he had started sending himself date-stamped e-mail to create a record of every phone conversation he had with a lawmaker. Then he stopped making campaign contributions...For lobbyists -- who live at the nexus of contributions and favors -- it is an alarming trend. ''They might as well just pull up the paddy wagon outside the Capital Grille,'' one lobbyist said, referring to a clubby steakhouse near the Capitol that is a well-known K Street hangout. [New York Times, 8/7/07]

Good Government Groups: Ethics Reform "Shouldn't Be Belittled." The good-government groups that criticized Mrs. Clinton took issue with her comments about the ethics reform bill. While she voted for it, she has suggested that the legislation was not a landmark change and that Mr. Obama was hardly alone in championing it. Fred Wertheimer, president and chief executive of Democracy 21, which promotes campaign finance reform, said the bill contained some of ''the most important and comprehensive ethics and lobbying reforms since the Watergate era.'' Meredith McGehee, policy director of the Campaign Legal Center, said: ''I think it should be seen as the decent, credible and substantial legislation that it was. It shouldn't be belittled.'' [New York Times, 1/15/08]

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid: Obama Stepped Forward, Did a Wonderful Job. Senator Reid said, "And finally, Senator Obama. I chose personally Senator Obama last year to work on ethics and lobbying reform, and he's done a wonderful job. He's stepped forward. He's been a leader with Senator Feingold...And I admire and respect his stalwartness in moving forward on this." [Press Conference Transcript, Federal News Service, 1/18/07]

Washington Post Said Obama Deserved Credit For "Strongest Ethics Legislation...Yet." The Washington Post wrote in an editorial, "The final package is the strongest ethics legislation to emerge from Congress yet...Mr. Reid, along with Sens. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.), deserves credit for assembling and passing this package." [Washington Post, Editorial, 1/20/07]

Chicago Tribune: Obama and Feingold Pressured the Senate Into Adopting Tougher Ethics Reforms. "After Democratic and Republican leaders introduced their bipartisan working version of an ethics plan, pressure from Obama and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) inspired them to open the measure up for some tougher restrictions." [Chicago Tribune, 1/19/07]

Dayton Daily News: Obama Ethics Amendments Got Reform Bill Improved Instead of Watered Down. The Dayton Daily News wrote in an editorial, "Indeed, the bill goes further than Democrats even promised during the campaign. This was one of those rare occasions when a reform bill is introduced, then, rather than get watered down, gets watered up. This fact has been widely attributed to the work of Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Russ Feingold, D-Wis. They proposed reforms that the other senators - while reportedly not happy about - decided they couldn't oppose in the current political environment." [Dayton Daily News, Editorial, 1/24/07]

REALITY: Significance Of Obama’s “Google For Government” Bill, Which Was A Landmark Effort In Bringing Transparency To Federal Spending And Was Passed Against Strong Opposition

Providence Journal: Coburn And Obama “Deserve Credit For Fighting Doggedly For This Legislation.” “What a great idea: Create a searchable online data base of federal grants and contracts, identifying the members of Congress behind the spending, so that citizens, even on their home computers, can easily determine where, how and why the government is spending their money. A bill to do just that, sponsored by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., with the bipartisan support of such heavy hitters as Republican Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., Democratic Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and John McCain, R-Ariz., has passed the Senate and may soon become law…For a time it looked dicey. In an impressive display of the arrogance of power, two of Congress's most egregious kings of pork - Sens. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska., and Robert Byrd, D-W.Va. - secretly put a hold on the legislation. After citizens groups smoked out this betrayal of the public, Byrd and Stevens backed off…That may be why liberal Democrats have joined with conservatives on the bill. It presents an opportunity to break the deathgrip of incumbency. Coburn and the co-sponsor, Sen. Barak Obama, D-Ill., deserve credit for fighting doggedly for this legislation.” [Providence Journal Editorial, 9/20/06]

The Google For Government Bill Was A “Fine Accomplishment” And “Passed Largely Because Of The Bipartisan Leadership Of Tom Coburn, R-Okla And Barack Obama, D-Ill” “The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act is a fine accomplishment. It will create an earmark database that the public can easily access on the Internet. The bill passed largely because of the bipartisan leadership of senators Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and Barack Obama, D-Ill.” [Chattanooga Times Free Press, 10/15/06]

REALITY: Falsely Implied That Obama Has Not Been Committed To Immigration Reform, And Neglected To Mention The Key Role He Played In Major Debates

Gannett: “Low-Ranking Obama Front-And-Center On Immigration.” In an article entitled, “Low Ranking Obama Front-And-Center On Immigration, Gannett News Service reported, “When the president sat down with eight senators to strategize about immigration last week, the group represented the Senate's elite on the issue. Among them were the top Democratic and Republican leaders, those from border states, two Hispanics and those with a history of involvement with immigration legislation. And then, there was Sen. Barack Obama, Illinois' junior senator, who ranks 98 out of 100 in seniority in the Senate. He is not on the Senate's Judiciary Committee where immigration legislation originated and the state he represents is closer to the Canadian border than the deserts of Mexico…Alejandro Lugo, an associate professor of anthropology at the University of Illinois who studies border issues, says Obama's recognition of a border control problem coupled with a practical solution will play well if people are paying attention.” [Gannett News Service, 5/1/06]

Kennedy And McCain, Authors Of Immigration Reform Bill, Thanked Obama As One Of Small Bipartisan Group Of Senators Who “Stood Together To Make This Legislation Possible.” McCain said, “After several weeks of extensive debate and consideration of numerous and complicated amendments, the Senate is about to move to final passage on S. 2611, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act…I also commend the Senate Leadership on both sides of the aisle for their efforts to ensure that the Senate addressed this important issue and gave us more than adequate time for a thorough debate. This is a proud moment for the United States Senate, as we have conducted good work and returned to orderly traditions of the legislative process as envisioned by our founding fathers…And of course, I commend Senator Kennedy, who is perhaps the leading expert on this difficult issue…I also want to thank Senators Brownback, Lieberman, Graham, Salazar, Martinez, Obama, and Dewine for their shared commitment to this issue, and working to ensure this bill moved successfully intact through the legislative process.” In a speech on the Senate floor, Kennedy said, “I thank those of our bipartisan group who stood together to make this legislation possible--Senator Graham, Senator Salazar, Senator Martinez, Senator Hagel, Senator Durbin, Senator Lieberman, Senator Brownback, Senator Obama, and Senator DeWine.” [McCain Press Release, 5/25/06; Congressional Record, 5/26/06]

Illinois Coalition For Immigrants And Refugee Rights Praised Obama For Leadership In Moving Congress Towards New Immigration Laws. “Fred Tsao, policy director for the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, praised U.S. Senators Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.) for their leadership in moving toward new immigration laws on Capitol Hill. But ‘we must demand similar leadership from the president and the speaker of the House,’ he said. ‘We need real comprehensive immigration reform that will allow the undocumented to gain legal status, bring families together, respect hard work and help students realize their dreams.’” [Chicago Sun-Times, 4/24/06]

Obama Passed Amendments To The Senate’s 2006 Immigration Bill That Would Have Established An Employment Verification System And Protected American Workers From Losing Jobs To Guest Workers. In 2006, Obama passed an amendment t

Is History Siding With Obama’s Economic Plan?

Chesco Bill — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 09:55:29 EDT

August 31, 2008
Economic View

Is History Siding With Obama's Economic Plan?
By ALAN S. BLINDER

CLEARLY, there are major differences between the economic policies of Senators Barack Obama and John McCain. Mr. McCain wants more tax cuts for the rich; Mr. Obama wants tax cuts for the poor and middle class. The two men also disagree on health care, energy and many other topics.

Such differences are hardly surprising. Democrats and Republicans have followed different approaches to the economy for as long as there have been Democrats and Republicans. Longer, actually. Remember Hamilton versus Jefferson?

Many Americans know that there are characteristic policy differences between the two parties. But few are aware of two important facts about the post-World War II era, both of which are brilliantly delineated in a new book, "Unequal Democracy," by Larry M. Bartels, a professor of political science at Princeton. Understanding them might help voters see what could be at stake, economically speaking, in November.

I call the first fact the Great Partisan Growth Divide. Simply put, the United States economy has grown faster, on average, under Democratic presidents than under Republicans.

The stark contrast between the whiz-bang Clinton years and the dreary Bush years is familiar because it is so recent. But while it is extreme, it is not atypical. Data for the whole period from 1948 to 2007, during which Republicans occupied the White House for 34 years and Democrats for 26, show average annual growth of real gross national product of 1.64 percent per capita under Republican presidents versus 2.78 percent under Democrats.

That 1.14-point difference, if maintained for eight years, would yield 9.33 percent more income per person, which is a lot more than almost anyone can expect from a tax cut.

Get the Corsi book put on the FICTION list

Maka — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 12:21:17 EDT

Can I just say how very sickened I am at the way the US media is pretending Jerome Corsi is anything other than a lying GOP operative firmly in John McCain's pocket?

I also can't get over the fact that The New York Times is allowing Corsi's book to be listed as Non-fiction on their bestseller list when it's filled with outright lies, mischaracterizations, and shameful inaccuracies. If James Frey couldn't get away with it, why is Jerome Corsi getting away with it?

I don't think this book should be considered non-fiction when it's filled with lies! If enough people write to The New York Times though, maybe we can get that changed. Get ObamaNation moved to the FICTION list.

What I'm writing, and New York Times contact info after the cut...

Don't Excuse McSame

Henry M — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 14:14:46 EDT

The New York Times takes on McCain, the man: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/06/opinion/06dowd.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

But Don’t pity McSame: http://tinyurl.com/mrmcsame

Henry

http://tinyurl.com/kcufmus

HOW OBAMA BECAME ACTING PRESIDENT or Why Republicans/McCain Switched To More SWIFTBOAT Ads and Tactics This Week

Nevada County For Obama-Curtis Walker — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 12:41:22 EDT

This New York Times Op-Ed (is more like the loudest most accurate TRUTH) published today must be made required reading for not only Obama supporters, but every Republican in the USA.

Please do whatever necessary to post this story everywhere and make it become viral by email (share it and ask everyone you send it to to share it with everyone they know.

HOW OBAMA BECAME ACTING PRESIDENT--By Frank Rich-NYT

July 27, 2008
OP-ED COLUMNIST
How Obama Became Acting President

By FRANK RICH
IT almost seems like a gag worthy of “Borat”: A smooth-talking rookie senator with an exotic name passes himself off as the incumbent American president to credulous foreigners. But to dismiss Barack Obama’s magical mystery tour through old Europe and two war zones as a media-made fairy tale would be to underestimate the ingenious politics of the moment. History was on the march well before Mr. Obama boarded his plane, and his trip was perfectly timed to reap the whirlwind.

He never would have been treated as a president-in-waiting by heads of state or network talking heads if all he offered were charisma, slick rhetoric and stunning visuals. What drew them instead was the raw power Mr. Obama has amassed: the power to start shaping events and the power to move markets, including TV ratings. (Even “Access Hollywood” mustered a 20 percent audience jump by hosting the Obama family.) Power begets more power, absolutely.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

Now take FIVE minutes of your day and share far and wide! Thanks a bunch for all you do.

NYT Op-Ed column

Denise from Medford — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 11:30:16 EDT

Good Morning!

Check out Maureen Dowd's clever column in the NYT today about Senator Obama as she compares the challenges he faces to the Labors of Hercules:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/20/opinion/20dowd.html?th&emc=th

End Right-Wing Stupidity in the White House

Henry M — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:24:33 EDT

Young, smart and left-of-centercenter/medium-rare Obama beats old, not exceptionally bright, right-wing/overdone McSame.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/opinion/10collins.html?em&ex=1216008000&en=9b84851132386e0d&ei=5087%0A
I know, I know. You’re upset. You think the guy you fell in love with last spring is spending the summer flip-flopping his way to the right. Drifting to the center. Going all moderate on you. So you’re withholding the love. Also possibly the money.
<snip>
It’s that he hates stupidity. “I don’t oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war,” he said in 2002 in his big speech against the invasion of Iraq. He did not, you will notice, say he was against unilateral military action or pre-emptive attacks or nation-building. He was antidumb.
Most of the things Obama’s taken heat for saying this summer fall into these two familiar patterns — attempts to find a rational common ground on controversial issues and dumb-avoidance.
On the common-ground front, he’s called for giving more federal money to religious groups that run social programs, but only if the services they offer are secular. People can have guns for hunting and protection, but we should crack down on unscrupulous gun sellers. Putting some restrictions on the government’s ability to wiretap is better than nothing, even though he would rather have gone further.
Dumb-avoidance would include his opposing the gas-tax holiday, backtracking on the anti-Nafta pandering he did during the primary and acknowledging that if one is planning to go all the way to Iraq to talk to the generals, one should actually pay attention to what the generals say.

Pass it on!

Henry M

Please contribute to Obama if you can: http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/4gddt

Maureen Dowd spoof spreads

Dave McLane — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 00:01:25 EDT

As I reported in a previous post ThomasMoore has posted as spoof claiming the Maureen Dowd of the New York Times has written an article saying that some of the millions of $$$ that Obama has received from Internet fund raising efforts comes from overseas... China and the Middle East, to be exact. The spoof has now spread to http://forums.pelicanparts.com/showthread.php?p-4037456 Details in Extended Post

Maureen Dowd spoof smears Obama

Dave McLane — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 00:23:37 EDT

The smear is basically this: "It appears that some of the millions of $$$ that Obama has received from Internet fund raising efforts comes from overseas... China and the Middle East, to be exact. Why would donors in those countries contribute to an election campaign for President of USA?"

Here are the details:

ThomasMoore commented on my article "Unite for Change: Prescott, Arizona" on www.azcentral.com (The same article is also on www.barackobama.com .) and said:

========== ThomasMoore Comment ==========
It's not a secret any more, Dave, about where the millions of dollars are coming from that Obama has been receiving, so much that he went back on his promise to accept the spending limits of public campaign financing.

The millions are not from small donations of $25 to $100, as Obama has claimed. It's been traced to banks in Saudi Arabia and other Middle East countries, as well as a bank in China. The many small donations come from only a few credit-card accounts.

Wealthy foreigners, including the radical Islamic Wahabi sect that supports Osama bin Ladin, are attempting to provide millions of dollars for television ads to influence the U. S. Presidential election.

Don't take my word; read NYT columnist Maureen Dowd, who's about as liberal as anyone who works for that newspaper. Click on this link:

http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/ThomasMoore/26838
========== ThomasMoore Comment ==========

When you check out that link, it's not to the New York Times but to ThomasMoore's blog which doesn't provide a link to an original article by Maureen Dowd and I was unable to find such an article on the NYT or elsewhere.

The operative line is "I wonder if we WILL see this article in the Arizona Republic tomorrow? (the www.azcentral.com is the Arizona Republic's website).

I've sent a report to www.azcentral.com and to Marueen Dowd but no reply.

David Brooks Writes Today in NYT Op Ed

Dena, St. Thomas — Tue, 06 May 2008 11:47:46 EDT

"Obama still possesses his talent for homeostasis, the ability to return to emotional balance and calm, even amid hysteria. His astounding composure has come across as weakness in the midst of combat with Clinton, but it’s also at the core of his promise to change politics. He vows to calm hatred and heal division.

This contrast between combat and composure defines the Democratic race. The implicit Clinton argument is that politics is an inherently nasty business. Human nature, as she said Sunday, means that progress comes only through conquest. You’d better elect a leader who can intimidate. You’d better elect someone who has given herself permission to be brutal.

Obama’s campaign grows out of the longstanding reform tradition. His implicit argument is that politics doesn’t have to be this way. Dishonesty and brutality aren’t inevitable; they’re what gets in the way. Obama’s friend and supporter Cass Sunstein described the Obama ideal in The New Republic: “Obama believes that real change usually requires consensus, learning and accommodation.”

That’s regarded as naïve drivel in parts of Camp Clinton.

Campaign issues come and go, but this is a thread running through the race. One believes in the raw assertion of power, the other the power of communication.

They are imperfect messengers for their creeds. Clinton rails against “Wall Street money-grubbers,” but her policies are often drawn from the Wall Street wing of the party. Obama talks about postpartisan compromise in the abstract, but rarely in the particular.

Still, amid the storms of the presidency, their basic worldviews would shape their presidencies. Obama is instinctively a conversationalist and community-mobilizer. Clinton, as she says, will fight and fight. If elected, she’ll have the power to take the Hobbesian struggle she perceives, and turn it into remorseless reality. "

Dumb as We Wanna Be: The McCain-Clinton Energy Proposal

LindaC — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:35:44 EDT

NY Times Op-Ed Columnist

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: April 30, 2008

The McCain-Clinton energy proposal is a reminder that the biggest energy crisis we have in our country today is the energy to be serious. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/opinion/30friedman.html?ex=1367

NYT: Bush Made Permanent

Chesco Bill — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:24:29 EDT

Bush Made Permanent
April 28, 2008
By PAUL KRUGMAN
As the designated political heir of a deeply unpopular president -- according to Gallup, President Bush has the highest disapproval rating recorded in 70 years of polling -- John McCain should have little hope of winning in November. In fact, however, current polls show him roughly tied with either Democrat.

In part this may reflect the Democrats' problems. For the most part, however, it probably reflects the perception, eagerly propagated by Mr. McCain's many admirers in the news media, that he's very different from Mr. Bush -- a responsible guy, a straight talker.

But is this perception at all true? During the 2000 campaign people said much the same thing about Mr. Bush; those of us who looked hard at his policy proposals, especially on taxes, saw the shape of things to come.

And a look at what Mr. McCain says about taxes shows the same combination of irresponsibility and double-talk that, back in 2000, foreshadowed the character of the Bush administration.

Protest to the NYT

frstan — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 06:12:17 EDT

Submitted comment to NYT political Blog for today. The New York Times is accorded the title "The Newspaper of Record for the United States" -- an accolade which is well deserved. And yet you permit a Republican operative -- Todd Harris-- to misquote Michelle Obama in a serious matter and in a very serious way. She did NOT say she was "proud of her country for the first time in her lifetime." She said she was "really [=very, intensely] proud" of her country "for the first time in her adult lifetime." And that, I submit, differs strongly in both denotation and connotation. I realize full well that HRC seems willing to destroy the Democratic Party with the help of "Russ Limbaugh" Republicans in her desperate effort to win at any cost. My question is: Is the New York Times willing to destroy its own editorial record of achievement to pursue the same goal?

Clinton’s Veterans Test Obama’s Rookies: Go Texas Volunteers!!!!!

Denise from Medford — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 16:06:25 EST

From today's NYTimes article, 'In Texas, Clinton’s Veterans Test Obama’s Rookies":

" Type 'Texans for Obama' into a search engine, for example, and one of the top results is a volunteer blog with hundreds of entries stretching back almost a year. Doing the same with “Texans for Hillary” or “Texans for Clinton” brings up texansforhillary.com, which has no content, and texas4hillary.com, a blog with entries going back only to Feb. 10."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/03/us/politics/03texas.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

***Texas, Ya'll Rock!!!***

NYTimes Op-Ed Column re: Tuesday's Primaries: "A Nominee? Or A Debacle?"

Denise from Medford — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:38:27 EST

"When does a dandy fight become an ugly brawl?For the Democrats, perhaps on Tuesday. If Barack Obama wins in either Texas or Ohio, the race for the nomination will effectively be over. At that point the Clintons, if they have any regard for the fortunes of the party, will be duty-bound to graciously fold their tents and try to rally their supporters behind a candidate who will be stepping into a firestorm of hostility from the other side. If Hillary Clinton wins both Texas and Ohio, the Democrats will need a trainload of aspirin and a shrink."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/01/opinion/01herbert.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

How Much Can Obama Raise?

Julie Hensley — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 20:50:55 EST

Ok... so the Clinton camp is exulting over raising $34 million in February which is a HECK of a figure given that the record was Kerry's $44 million in March, after he was declared the nominee.

So, what do you think the Obama supporters managed to do? After all, WE KNEW Obama's campaign was flush and apparently the driving force for the fundraising by the Hillary camp was the news that she'd loaned her campaign $5 million.

Well the figures aren't all in (February isn't quite over..) so you still have time to help Barack beat Hillary in her fundraising... how much do you think we need to raise to do that?

Find out here....

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/author/mluo/

Abandon all hope, ye who enter here! (NYT on HRC)

Adoyo — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 14:05:16 EST

Frank Rich juxtaposes the two Democratic candidates in a refreshingly no-nonsense assessment of what their campaigns can really tell us about them and what we should expect.

The Audacity of Hopelessness
By FRANK RICH

Published: February 24, 2008

WHEN people one day look back at the remarkable implosion of the Hillary Clinton campaign, they may notice that it both began and ended in the long dark shadow of Iraq.Barry Blitt

It’s not just that her candidacy’s central premise — the priceless value of “experience” — was fatally poisoned from the start by her still ill-explained vote to authorize the fiasco. Senator Clinton then compounded that 2002 misjudgment by pursuing a 2008 campaign strategy that uncannily mimicked the disastrous Bush Iraq war plan. After promising a cakewalk to the nomination — “It will be me,” Mrs. Clinton told Katie Couric in November — she was routed by an insurgency.

The Clinton camp was certain that its moneyed arsenal of political shock-and-awe would take out Barack Hussein Obama in a flash. The race would “be over by Feb. 5,” Mrs. Clinton assured George Stephanopoulos just before New Year’s. But once the Obama forces outwitted her, leaving her mission unaccomplished on Super Tuesday, there was no contingency plan. She had neither the boots on the ground nor the money to recoup.

That’s why she has been losing battle after battle by double digits in every corner of the country ever since. And no matter how much bad stuff happened, she kept to the Bush playbook, stubbornly clinging to her own Rumsfeld, her chief strategist, Mark Penn. Like his prototype, Mr. Penn is bigger on loyalty and arrogance than strategic brilliance. But he’s actually not even all that loyal. Mr. Penn, whose operation has billed several million dollars in fees to the Clinton campaign so far, has never given up his day job as chief executive of the public relations behemoth Burson-Marsteller. His top client there, Microsoft, is simultaneously engaged in a demanding campaign of its own to acquire Yahoo.

Clinton fans don’t see their standard-bearer’s troubles this way. In their view, their highly substantive candidate was unfairly undone by a lightweight showboat who got a free ride from an often misogynist press and from naïve young people who lap up messianic language as if it were Jim Jones’s Kool-Aid. Or as Mrs. Clinton frames it, Senator Obama is all about empty words while she is all about action and hard work.

But it’s the Clinton strategists, not the Obama voters, who drank the Kool-Aid. The Obama campaign is not a vaporous cult; it’s a lean and mean political machine that gets the job done. The Clinton camp has been the slacker in this race, more words than action, and its candidate’s message, for all its purported high-mindedness, was and is self-immolating.

The gap in hard work between the two campaigns was clear well before Feb. 5. Mrs. Clinton threw as much as $25 million at the Iowa caucuses without ever matching Mr. Obama’s organizational strength. In South Carolina, where last fall she was up 20 percentage points in the polls, she relied on top-down endorsements and the patina of inevitability, while the Obama campaign built a landslide-winning organization from scratch at the grass roots. In Kansas, three paid Obama organizers had the field to themselves for three months; ultimately Obama staff members outnumbered Clinton staff members there 18 to 3.

In the last battleground, Wisconsin, the Clinton campaign was six days behind Mr. Obama in putting up ads and had only four campaign offices to his 11. Even as Mrs. Clinton clings to her latest firewall — the March 4 contests — she is still being outhustled. Last week she told reporters that she “had no idea” that the Texas primary system was “so bizarre” (it’s a primary-caucus hybrid), adding that she had “people trying to understand it as we speak.” Perhaps her people can borrow the road map from Obama’s people. In Vermont, another March 4 contest, The Burlington Free Press reported that there were four Obama offices and no Clinton offices as of five days ago. For what will no doubt be the next firewall after March 4, Pennsylvania on April 22, the Clinton campaign is sufficiently disorganized that it couldn’t file a complete slate of delegates by even an extended ballot deadline.

This is the candidate who keeps telling us she’s so competent that she’ll be ready to govern from Day 1. Mrs. Clinton may be right that Mr. Obama has a thin résumé, but her disheveled campaign keeps reminding us that the biggest item on her thicker résumé is the health care task force that was as botched as her presidential bid.

Given that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama offer marginally different policy prescriptions — laid out in voluminous detail by both, by the way, on their Web sites — it’s not clear what her added-value message is. The “experience” mantra has been compromised not only by her failure on the signal issue of Iraq but also by the deadening lingua franca of her particular experience, Washingtonese. No matter what the problem, she keeps rolling out another commission to solve it: a commission for infrastructure, a Financial Product Safety Commission, a Corporate Subsidy Commission, a Katrina/Rita Commission and, to deal with drought, a water summit.

As for countering what she sees as the empty Obama brand of hope, she offers only a chilly void: Abandon hope all ye who enter here. This must be the first presidential candidate in history to devote so much energy to preaching against optimism, against inspiring language and — talk about bizarre — against democracy itself. No sooner does Mrs. Clinton lose a state than her campaign belittles its voters as unrepresentative of the country.

Bill Clinton knocked states that hold caucuses instead of primaries because “they disproportionately favor upper-income voters” who “don’t really need a president but feel like they need a change.” After the Potomac primary wipeout, Mr. Penn declared that Mr. Obama hadn’t won in “any of the significant states” outside of his home state of Illinois. This might come as news to Virginia, Maryland, Washington and Iowa, among the other insignificant sites of Obama victories. The blogger Markos Moulitsas Zúniga has hilariously labeled this Penn spin the “insult 40 states” strategy.

The insults continued on Tuesday night when a surrogate preceding Mrs. Clinton onstage at an Ohio rally, Tom Buffenbarger of the machinists’ union, derided Obama supporters as “latte-drinking, Prius-driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust-fund babies.” Even as he ranted, exit polls in Wisconsin were showing that Mr. Obama had in fact won that day among voters with the least education and the lowest incomes. Less than 24 hours later, Mr. Obama received the endorsement of the latte-drinking Teamsters.

If the press were as prejudiced against Mrs. Clinton as her campaign constantly whines, debate moderators would have pushed for the Clinton tax returns and the full list of Clinton foundation donors to be made public with the same vigor it devoted to Mr. Obama’s “plagiarism.” And it would have showered her with the same ridicule that Rudy Giuliani received in his endgame. With 11 straight losses in nominating contests, Mrs. Clinton has now nearly doubled the Giuliani losing streak (six) by the time he reached his Florida graveyard. But we gamely pay lip service to the illusion that she can erect one more firewall.

The other persistent gripe among some Clinton supporters is that a hard-working older woman has been unjustly usurped by a cool young guy intrinsically favored by a sexist culture. Slate posted a devilish video mash-up of the classic 1999 movie “Election”: Mrs. Clinton is reduced to a stand-in for Tracy Flick, the diligent candidate for high school president played by Reese Witherspoon, and Mr. Obama is implicitly cast as the mindless jock who upsets her by dint of his sheer, unearned popularity.

There is undoubtedly some truth to this, however demeaning it may be to both candidates, but in reality, the more consequential ur-text for the Clinton 2008 campaign may be another Hollywood classic, the Katharine Hepburn-Spencer Tracy “Pat and Mike” of 1952. In that movie, the proto-feminist Hepburn plays a professional athlete who loses a tennis or golf championship every time her self-regarding fiancé turns up in the crowd, pulling her focus and undermining her confidence with his grandstanding presence.

In the 2008 real-life remake of “Pat and Mike,” it’s not the fiancé, of course, but the husband who has sabotaged the heroine. The single biggest factor in Hillary Clinton’s collapse is less sexism in general than one man in particular — the man who began the campaign as her biggest political asset. The moment Bill Clinton started trash-talking about Mr. Obama and raising the specter of a co-presidency, even to the point of giving his own televised speech ahead of his wife’s on the night she lost South Carolina, her candidacy started spiraling downward.

What’s next? Despite Mrs. Clinton’s valedictory tone at Thursday’s debate, there remains the fear in some quarters that whether through sleights of hand involving superdelegates or bogus delegates from Michigan or Florida, the Clintons might yet game or even steal the nomination. I’m starting to wonder. An operation that has waged political war as incompetently as the Bush administration waged war in Iraq is unlikely to suddenly become smart enough to pull off that duplicitous a “victory.” Besides, after spending $1,200 on Dunkin’ Donuts in January alone, this campaign simply may not have the cash on hand to mount a surge.

NYT Examines Obama's Path to Victory

Grand Moff Joseph — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 10:28:40 EST

With the votes and the momentum now at his back, the NYT takes a good look at a possible (probable?) path to outright victory for Senator Obama in this primary race.

Healthcare - The Cooper Concerns, nice article from David Brooks from NYT

Obama for President — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 09:13:04 EST

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/opinion/05brooks.html?hp

The Cooper Concerns function getSharePasskey() { return 'ex=1359954000&en=adb5cc5a1e91c2b6&ei=5124';} function getShareURL() { return encodeURIComponent('http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/opinion/05brooks.html'); } function getShareHeadline() { return encodeURIComponent('The Cooper Concerns'); } function getShareDescription() { return encodeURIComponent('There are certain moments when Hillary Clinton's dark side emerges and threatens to undue the good she is trying to achieve.'); } function getShareKeywords() { return encodeURIComponent('Health Insurance and Managed Care,United States Politics and Government,Hillary Rodham Clinton,Bill Clinton,Jim Cooper'); } function getShareSection() { return encodeURIComponent('opinion'); } function getShareSectionDisplay() { return encodeURIComponent('Op-Ed Contributor'); } function getShareSubSection() { return encodeURIComponent(''); } function getShareByline() { return encodeURIComponent('By DAVID BROOKS'); } function getSharePubdate() { return encodeURIComponent('February 5, 2008'); } By DAVID BROOKS Published: February 5, 2008

I’m not a Hillary-hater. She’s been an outstanding senator. She hung tough on Iraq through the dark days of 2005. In this campaign, she has soldiered on bravely even though she has most of the elected Democrats, news media and the educated class rooting against her.

Skip to next paragraph

David Brooks

Go to Columnist Page »

But there are certain moments when her dark side emerges and threatens to undo the good she is trying to achieve. Her campaign tactics before the South Carolina primary were one such moment. Another, deeper in her past, involved Jim Cooper, a Democratic congressman from Tennessee.

Cooper is one of the most thoughtful, cordial and well-prepared members of the House. In 1992, he came up with a health care reform plan that would go on to attract wide, bipartisan support. A later version had 58 co-sponsors in the House — 26 Republicans and 32 Democrats. It was sponsored in the Senate by Democrat John Breaux and embraced by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, among others.

But unlike the plan Hillary Clinton came up with then, the Cooper plan did not include employer mandates to force universal coverage.

On June 15, 1993, Cooper met with Clinton to discuss their differences. Clinton was “ice cold” at the meeting, Cooper recalls. “It was the coldest reception of my life. I was excoriated.”

Cooper told her that she was getting pulled too far to the left. He warned that her plan would never get through Congress. Clinton’s response, Cooper now says, was: “We’ll crush you. You’ll wish you never mentioned this to me.”

In the weeks and months following that meeting, the Clinton administration reached out to Cooper. As David Broder and Haynes Johnson wrote in “The System,” their history of the health care reform effort, President Bill Clinton invited Cooper to go jogging and play golf. Others in the Clinton White House thought Cooper was right on the merits, and privately let him know.

But Hillary Clinton set up a war room to oppose Cooper, who was planning to run for the Senate in 1994. As the Broder and Johnson book makes clear, Clinton and her aides believed Cooper was pursuing his own political agenda. They accused him of crafting his plan in order to raise money from the insurance and hospital industries. They said he was in league with the for-profit hospitals to crush competitors and monopolize the industry. They did this despite the fact that Cooper’s centrist health care approach was entirely consistent with his overall philosophy.

At one meeting in the West Wing, a source told Broder and Johnson, Clinton “kind of got this evil look and said, ‘We’ve got to do something about this Cooper bill. We’ve got to kill it before it goes any further.’ ”

Clinton denounced the Cooper plan as “dangerous and threatening.” Deputies were dispatched to Tennessee to attack his plan. Senator Jay Rockefeller said that Cooper is “a real fraud. I hope he doesn’t make it to this place.” According to Newsweek, Clinton brought an aide with a video camera to a meeting with senators and asked the senators to denounce Cooper on the spot.

The Clinton effort backfired. It temporarily raised his profile back home. Her health care reform failed, too. She says she’s learned the lessons from that failure, but she remains icy toward Cooper. Her health care memos, including a three-page memo drafted in preparation for her meeting with Cooper, have not been made public by the National Archives.

Moreover, the debate Clinton is having with Barack Obama echoes the debate she had with Cooper 15 years ago. The issue, once again, is over whether to use government to coerce people into getting coverage. The Clintonites argue that without coercion, there will be free-riders on the system.

They’ve got a point. But there are serious health care economists on both sides of the issue. And in the heat of battle, Clinton has turned the debate between universal coverage and universal access into a sort of philosophical holy grail, with a party of righteousness and a party of error. She’s imposed Manichaean categories on a technical issue, just as she did a decade and half ago. And she’s done it even though she hasn’t answered legitimate questions about how she would enforce her universal coverage mandate.

Cooper, who, not surprisingly, supports Barack Obama, believes that Clinton hasn’t changed. “Hillary’s approach is so absolutist, draconian and intolerant, it means a replay of 1993.”

He argues that her more coercive approach would once again be a political death knell. No Republican will support it. Red state Democrats will face impossible pressures at home. It’s smarter to begin by offering people affordable access to coverage and evolve from there.

Cooper is, of course, a man who has been burned in the past. But it is legitimate to wonder if adults can really change all that much. A defter politician would have reached out to Cooper and made an attempt to address the concerns he represents.

Elites behaving badly

Michael Weiksner — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 03:00:30 EST

I apologize for starting off a tad negative, but I was disappointed by Obama's response to the whole Geffen thing. Geffen behaved badly, and shame on Dowd and NYT for publishing his comments. Clinton's reply was too strong. But those things are outside Obama's control. Obama's response is presumbably within his control.

Obama has rightfully asked to raise the bar on political discourse. So, why didn't Obama privately ask Geffen to apologize? And if Geffen refuses to apologize, why is Obama not willing to call him out on it?

I look forward to contributing some cheers and other pure support, but as a true supporter, I also plan to contribute costructive criticism. I hope that the campaign staff and other supporters appreciate this. It's going to be a long and grueling campaign, and we all have to live and learn if we are going to succeed.