Colin Powell knew he was hated -- in only the way The Left can hate -- within the Democrat Party. He was not only a "house nigg-r" -- a Republican -- who was nothing less than the Secretary of State who made the case for liberating the Iraqi people from the clutches of Saddam Hussein. It was this "Uncle Tom" who "lied us into war" and the leftists HATED him.
There is no one who doesn't recognize the hate and vindictiveness that so dominates today's Democrat party. This meant that, should the leftists take control of the government in two weeks and go through with what prominent leftist leaders in the Senate have promised would be "war crimes" prosecutions against fellow Americans (read: opposition party leaders), Powell might well be first on their list.
The purpose of these prosecutions, of course, would be to solidify the leftists' hold on government, to intimidate others from defending America in the future (remember, "war is not the answer") and, in the case of Powell, provide yet another public lesson to blacks who dare to not toe the leftist line of bitterness, entitlement and "oppression."
Powell recognized that, perhaps he could avoid the wrath of the leftist party if he came out in support of the leftist party. It was, in essence, a quid pro quo. Powell would help Obama win in exchange for "leniency."
Further evidence that this might well be the reason Obama is supporting a radical leftist when he has long claimed to be a Republican is that, in his appearance on "Meet the Press," Powell could not and did not offer a single policy of Obama's that he agrees with, nor did he speak at all of Obama's accomplishments. Instead he offered the usual arguments one hears from Obama "supporters," basically the Chris Matthews line that he "sends tingles up my legs" when he speaks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
74 comments:
Powell's Endorsement: Months in the Making
By Michael Duffy Monday, Oct. 20, 2008
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama on Sunday by employing the military doctrine that bears his name.
With a keen sense of timing, the 71-year-old retired general tried to bring maximum firepower and a strong grasp of the tactical landscape to bear on the campaign, leaning into the race after months of silence on his own timetable, with forces (in this case, words) he spent weeks and even months preparing.
Powell had been contemplating — and planning — his move for months. Though a declared Republican since his near run for the White House in 1996 and an occasional speaker at Republican events, Powell has never been blindly or even particularly partisan. He spent the year watching the race closely, issuing a quiet warning here or there in speeches and interviews when he saw the race (and more specifically, the GOP) go in directions he didn't like. Many of these little alarms went unnoticed, but they foretold a change in his preferences. In those moments, close observers knew, Powell was laying the predicate for a possible Democratic endorsement later in the year. As fall approached, Powell began to prepare his endorsement. He had long eyed late October as the best moment to strike, as he wanted to wait until the debates were over before offering his considered assessment.
During the past few weeks, Powell worked carefully on his statement. He had reason for care: Powell left the Bush Administration in early 2005 with critics on both sides of the ideological divide. Conservatives, who never fully trusted him to begin with, felt Powell was far too moderate to be George W. Bush's top diplomat. Liberals, meanwhile, were not ready to forgive his role in hyping the case against Saddam Hussein. After the 2004 election, Powell was hurried out the door by the White House in a fashion that his supporters found graceless.
Finally, Powell chose to make his statement on NBC's venerable show Meet the Press, where he could be guaranteed both a large audience and uninterrupted time to make the kind of remarks he had spent hours preparing.
Before endorsing Obama, Powell said he was dismayed by the direction and narrowing of the Republican Party in recent weeks, and that the U.S. needs a transformational leader to restore the country's reputation overseas. He was perhaps most powerful when he filleted the GOP for seeding anti-Muslim sentiment around the country when its many seconds suggest that Obama is not a Christian. Powell said Americans needed to keep a different image in their minds: that of an American Muslim mother of a Bronze Star–winning Army solider who died in Iraq resting her head on her son's gravestone at Arlington Cemetery. Speaking as a solider who rose from a raw recruit in the 1950s to the Army's top job 35 years later, Powell said, "We've got to stop polarizing ourselves in this way."
Powell tried to leave two impressions above all: that he believes Obama is ready to be Commander in Chief and that Sarah Palin, John McCain's running mate, is not. It probably didn't hurt that Powell appeared on Meet the Press the morning after Palin appeared on Saturday Night Live.
Powell will not campaign with Obama; nor is it likely that the campaign will use Powell's comments in television commercials. But then, they won't have to in the age of YouTube.
Powell informed neither candidate in advance about what he was going to say.
That, too, was in part to maintain the element of surprise — another bit of the old general's doctrine at work.
Racist to the Core: Rush Limbaugh on Colin Powell
By Geoffrey Dunn
October 20th, 2008
Limbaugh has an entire deck full of race cards.
[Election 2008]
The news that retired general and former Secretary of State Colin Powell had endorsed Barack Obama must have sent shivers up the spine of John McCain’s beleaguered campaign manager Rick Davis, who has crafted a two-week assault on Obama’s character and patriotism in the remaining days of the 2008 presidential election.
"Senator Obama has demonstrated the kind of calm, patient, intellectual, steady approach to problem-solving that I think we need in this country," said Powell, one of the most respected figures in recent U.S. history, and certainly in the Republican Party. "His election would electrify the world."
"I come to the conclusion that because of Obama’s ability to inspire," Powell added, "because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities—and you have to take that into account —as well as his substance—he has both style and substance. He has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president."
He also called Obama "a transformational figure."
But Powell’s endorsement of Obama has apparently driven conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh apoplectic, if not downright over the edge.
Almost immediately, the bombastic Limbaugh fired off an email that bristled with an overt racism. "Secretary Powell says his endorsement is not about race," Limbaugh wrote. "OK, fine. I am now researching his past endorsements to see if I can find all the inexperienced, very liberal, white candidates he has endorsed. I'll let you know what I come up with."
Say what? In fact, Powell never once mentioned race in his discussion. Never came close to referencing it. The only person who brought up race in the discussion is Rush Limbaugh. But then again, truth has never been his strong suit.
In fact, only last year, Powell had sent McCain the maximum $2,300 campaign contribution—at a time when Limbaugh was still bashing the Arizona Senator. Why would Limbaugh now suggest that Powell’s endorsement had only to do with race? His reasoning is as despicable as it is disingenuous. And the underlying weltanschauung that would prompt such questioning is downright chilling. It is racist to the core.
But playing the race card wasn’t enough for Limbaugh. He also played the betrayal card, too.
"I was also unaware of [Powell’s] dislike for John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia," Limbaugh noted, giving voice to Republican fears of losing a majority on the Supreme Court. "I guess he also regrets Reagan and Bush making him a four-star and secretary of state and appointing his son to head the FCC. Yes, let's hear it for transformational figures."
Limbaugh’s wrath and bitterness apparently know no bounds. Just ask John McCain. If ever there were a disloyal figure in American politics, it is Rush Limbaugh. In February he had this to say about McCain: "He's just playing the American card or the patriot card, the prisoner of war story or whatever, and that happens to appeal to some people… Senator McCain successfully targeted the weak, the mushy, the squishy, the Jell-Os, some of the left, the Drive-By Media…Here's the dirty little secret. The maverick is not a maverick… Maverick my rear end."
He also said that McCain had no political philosophy and that he was "an opponent of conservativism." Now that McCain has pandered to the conservative base of the Republican Party in recent months, Limbaugh is all over him like white on rice.
And Colin Powell—decorated American war hero—is a traitor.
To endorse Obama, Powell not only had to break with his party, he also had to break with McCain, a friend of 25 years, and like Powell, a decorated Vietnam War veteran. It could not have been an easy decision. But his reasoning was both tempered and well-thought out. And he expressed concerns over both the substance and tenor of the Republican campaign.
In both his prepared comments and his press conference afterwards, Powell even went so far as to question the appropriateness of the McCain-Palin camp linking Obama to ‘60s radical Bill Ayers. "Mr. McCain says that he's a ‘washed up terrorist,’ but then why do we keep talking about him?" Powell asked rhetorically. "And why do we have the robocalls going on around the country trying to suggest that because of this very, very limited relationship that Senator Obama has had with Mr. Ayers, somehow Mr. Obama is tainted. What they're trying to connect him to is some kind of terrorist feelings. And I think that's inappropriate….I think this goes too far, and I think it has made the McCain campaign look a little narrow. It's not what the American people are looking for."
Powell also had the audacity to attack Limbaugh’s conservative darling, Sarah Palin. "Now that we have had a chance to watch her for some seven weeks," Powell observed, "I don't believe she's ready to be president of the United States, which is the job of the vice president. And so that raised some question in my mind as to the judgment that Senator McCain made."
What does any of this reasoning have to do with race?
Not a damn thing. Limbaugh should be ashamed of himself—but he is obviously a man who knows no shame. This the same American icon who has called Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa "a shoeshine guy" and who was forced to resign from ESPN following his racist comments about Black quarterback Donovan McNabb. The same Limbaugh who told an African American caller to his talk show to "take that bone out of your nose and call me back."
So much for Limbaugh’s credibility on the issue of race.
What Powell’s endorsement will do is diffuse any efforts by the Republicans to drag Obama through the mud in the final days of the campaign. And it will help to shed a light on that truly disturbing wing of the Republican Party that insists on portraying Obama as a domestic terrorist and/or a Muslim radical.
"[Obama] is not a Muslim," Powell noted. "He's a Christian. He's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America."
But that is the America of Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin, and sadly, in the waning days of this election, also John McCain. It is a racist America, an intolerant America, a starkly divided America, and, I would argue, an un-patriotic America.
It has never been an America in which Colin Powell has felt comfortable. Indeed, Powell’s popularity over the past two decades has been extraordinary—ranging in the high 70’s to the low 80’s. His popularity transcends party politics and it transcends race. Indeed, he considered a run in the 2000 presidential election himself.
But Powell has never liked the flying-elbows of American politics. In the end, he decided to stay out of the fray. Until yesterday.
Powell struck a strong and powerful blow against the failed politics of his former Republican cronies. Was it a game changer? As Sarah Palin would say, "you betcha." If nothing else, the news cycle on the penultimate weekend of the campaign goes to Obama. He reached right over the aisle and plucked the most significant endorsement of the election.
And Rush Limbaugh? His response will be just another forgotten piece of garbage on the racist ash-heap of American history. In the waning days of this election, someone had better tell him to stay away from his medicine cabinet.
______________
Black Star News national affairs columnist Geoffrey Dunn, Ph. D., is an award-winning filmmaker and journalist. He is the former recipient of a both a John L. Senior Fellowship to the Cornell University Graduate School of Government and a National Newspaper Association Award for Investigative Journalism. His most recent film is Calypso Dreams.
Man, I'm glad we're so powerful now that all the war criminals are grovelling at our feet for preemptive absolution.
Or, maybe, Powell is like Buckley, Adelman and all the other high profile GOPs fleeing from the slobbering GOP crowds who refuse to vote for a CRAZY, HATE MONGERING lunatic with a total bimbo waiting in the wings.
But, hey buddy...this is your craziest piece yet...you continue to provide the sicko entertainment we use you for.
Cindy Sheehan, the peace-activist-mom who lost a son in Iraq and who gained national prominence by protesting outside of President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, says she has been the victim of "dirty tricks" in her campaign to dislodge House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in CA-08.
In her campaign blog earlier this week, Sheehan says that:
--Her hotel phone in Denver during the Democratic National Convention was "bugged."
--Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa personally intervened to stop her from speaking at a music festival.
--She was forced to file for a restraining order against a former volunteer who she says was sending threatening e-mails and who she now thinks was a "spy" for Nancy Pelosi.
--She was the victim of intentional vandalism when the tail lights of her RV were busted out.
--That one of her campaign interns was assaulted when she struggled against four men who walked into her office feigning that they wanted to register to vote but apparently intended to computer equipment instead.
--That she has been summoned to begin jury duty in San Francisco on the week of the Nov. 4 elections.
--That a recent round "robo calls" that she paid for began contacting voters at 10:30 p.m. on a recent weekend night instead of the early week night time slot she had scheduled.
Another guy worrying about prosecution?
BY LARRY HUNTER
I'm a lifelong Republican - a supply-side conservative. I worked in the Reagan White House. I was the chief economist at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for five years. In 1994, I helped write the Republican Contract with America. I served on Bob Dole's presidential campaign team and was chief economist for Jack Kemp's Empower America.
This November, I'm voting for Barack Obama.
When I first made this decision, many colleagues were shocked. How could I support a candidate with a domestic policy platform that's antithetical to almost everything I believe in?
The answer is simple: Unjustified war and unconstitutional abridgment of individual rights vs. ill-conceived tax and economic policies - this is the difference between venial and mortal sins.
Taxes, economic policy and health care reform matter, of course. But how we extract ourselves from the bloody boondoggle in Iraq, how we avoid getting into a war with Iran and how we preserve our individual rights while dealing with real foreign threats - these are of greater importance.
John McCain would continue the Bush administration's commitment to interventionism and constitutional overreach. Obama promises a humbler engagement with our allies, while promising retaliation against any enemy who dares attack us. That's what conservatism used to mean - and it's what George W. Bush promised as a candidate.
Besides, I suspect Obama is more free-market friendly than he lets on. He taught at the University of Chicago, a hotbed of right-of-center thought. His economic advisers, notably Austan Goolsbee, recognize that ordinary citizens stand to gain more from open markets than from government meddling. That's got to rub off.
But overall, based on his embrace of centrist advisers and policies, it seems likely that Obama will turn out to be in the mold of John Kennedy - who was fond of noting that "a rising tide lifts all boats." Over the last few decades, economic growth has made Americans at every income level better off. For all his borderline pessimistic rhetoric, Obama knows this. And I believe he is savvy enough to realize that the real threat to middle-class families and the poor - an economic undertow that drags everyone down - cannot be counteracted by an activist government.
These past eight years, we have spent over a trillion dollars on foreign soil - and lost countless lives - and done what I consider irreparable damage to our Constitution.
Hunter is the former staff director of the Congressional Joint Economic Committee and president of the Social Security Institute.
Analysis: Powell Obama endorsement aims at legacy
By MATTHEW LEE – 1 hour ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — Colin Powell's endorsement of Democrat Barack Obama may have seemed a shocking about-face for the longtime Republican, but the move was entirely in keeping with Powell's reputation as a shrewd political survivor intent on retouching a legacy tarnished by his early support of the Iraq war.
With no apparent desire for a Cabinet job, Powell's endorsement could be read as the defection of a respected elder GOP statesman and war hero once considered a potential presidential nominee and running mate for Republican John McCain. But Powell's decision is in keeping with his resume as a moderate consensus builder, shrewd bureaucrat and a man disenchanted with his party's move to the right.
His endorsement was rumored for months and would have made a splash no matter when he offered it. By waiting until long after the political parties had chosen their nominees and running mates, he avoided being seen as a spoiler or a jobseeker. But by backing Obama as the Democrat rises in the polls, and by criticizing McCain as he drops, Powell also risked appearing more interested in backing a winner — underscoring his finely tuned political antenna.
But his move was little surprise to those familiar with his record.
In four years as President Bush's first secretary of state, Powell was a loyal soldier but grew increasingly disillusioned by ideological battles inside the administration over North Korea, the Middle East and even seemingly tangential domestic policy issues outside his portfolio.
Powell presided over the creation of an unprecedented international coalition to fight terrorism after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States. It helped that Powell was an immensely respected figure abroad, with gravitas and a war record Bush lacked.
But 18 months later, Powell saw that unity collapse, along with America's image overseas, over the U.S.-led war in Iraq. Powell supported the war, albeit with reservations, and evangelized for it at the United Nations in a speech he came to regret.
Throwing his clout behind Obama, a fervent opponent of the war, could be read as an attempt to rehabilitate himself for that flawed claim at the U.N. on Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction.
"We, unfortunately, have left an impression with the world that is not a good one and the new president is going to have to fix the reputation that we've left with the rest of the world," he said when he endorsed Obama on Sunday.
Yet his public declaration of support for Obama contained no apology for Iraq beyond his regret at being misled along with others by faulty intelligence. And, he avoided criticism of any foreign policy issue in which he played a role as secretary of state.
He fought, and lost, for continuing the Clinton administration's talks with North Korea and for trying to restart the Middle East peace process. Bush in his second term has embraced both, but Powell mentioned neither in endorsing Obama, who favors them.
Instead, Powell spoke in general terms about improving America's dialogue with the world, offering apparent support for Obama's willingness to speak with foes, something Powell was himself denied the chance to do. "This is a time for outreach," he said.
But, in fact, Powell's "Meet the Press" endorsement was far less a renunciation of his foreign policy past than it was a repudiation of a Republican Party moving too far to the right for his tastes long before he left office in 2005.
Powell championed Bush's "compassionate conservative" candidacy in 2000, but on Sunday said: "I don't think it was as successful as it might have been and, as you see from the presidential approval ratings, the American people have found the administration wanting."
Strains between Powell and the president's more ideological senior aides and supporters became evident within months of his becoming secretary of state.
Social conservatives attacked him for promoting condom use, instead of concentrating on abstinence, during an MTV teen event early in the administration. Powell aides recall he threatened to make public the huge numbers of condoms the U.S. government distributes overseas unless the attacks stopped. When religious broadcaster Pat Robertson, one of Bush's most prominent conservative supporters, suggested blowing up the State Department with a nuclear weapon, an enraged Powell sent an angry protest letter to Robertson, telling him to back off.
And former aides say Powell had deep reservations about the impact of Bush's education policies, particularly because of his earlier, and now current, work with his wife, Alma, on America's Promise, a group devoted to improving the lives of youth, especially minorities.
Some see race as a primary reason for his endorsement of Obama, although Powell denies it and says if that had been his motivating factor, he would have made the announcement months earlier.
But, as the son of Jamaican immigrants who rose through the ranks of the military to become a general, the first black chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and the first black secretary of state, Powell has always put a high premium on minority inclusion.
Thus Obama's message of unity clearly resonated with Powell in much as the way the McCain campaign's recent tactics troubled him.
"We have got to stop polarizing ourselves in this way," Powell said, aligning himself with a candidate he believes will "electrify our country" and "electrify the world."
_ Matthew Lee covers the State Department
washingtonpost.com's Politics Blog
About This Blog | Meet Chris Cillizza |
Parsing the (Tracking) Poll: The Youth Vote
Thanks to the polling gods -- and by that we mean Jon Cohen and Jennifer Agiesta -- the Washington Post is conducting a daily tracking poll for the final two weeks (!) of the presidential race between Barack Obama and John McCain.
The first track showed Obama holding a 53 percent to 44 percent edge over McCain; you can find the newest data EVERY DAY at 5 p.m. ET on our polling blog -- Behind the Numbers. (Bookmark it!)
Here at The Fix we always aim to bring you behind the numbers (that phrase sounds familiar for some reason) and so, in the final two weeks of the campaign, we are bringing out an oldy but goody: Parsing the Polls!
Regular Fix readers are familiar with Parsing the Polls -- a feature where, over the last few years, we have scanned surveys for a key or overlooked nugget of data.
Every morning for the final 14 days of this most historic of modern campaigns, we will be parsing our very own tracking poll -- highlighting an important (or unusual) demographic groups, response or trend.
So make sure to check out The Fix every morning and Behind the Numbers every night for the latest and greatest news and analysis from the Post's tracking poll.
Let's parse the polls!
It's no secret that one of the pillars of Obama's political base is young people who, at least in the Democratic primaries, tuned in and turned out in ways not seen in modern political history.
But, the level to which Obama is relying on a heavy turnout among these young voters for his winning equation come Nov. 4 is less understood.
The Post tracking poll offers clear evidence of the import of this often undependable voting bloc on Obama's chances.
Among all 18-29 year olds, Obama holds a wide 64 percent to 33 percent edge over McCain; among white voters aged 18-29 Obama holds a narrower 51 percent to 46 percent margin.
Compare those numbers to Sen. John Kerry's (Mass.) showing among those same demographic groups four years ago and it become readily apparent how central these voters are to Obama's chances at winning.
Kerry won all voters aged 18-29 by a nine points -- 54 percent to 45 percent -- in 2004; among white voters in that demographic Kerry lost by a whopping 58 percent to 40 percent margin to President George W. Bush.
Obama's numbers are also stratospherically stronger than Kerry's among first-time voters -- most but not all of whom are in that under-30 demographic. Obama take nearly three-quarters (73 percent) of first-time voters while McCain enjoys the support of just 26 percent. Four years ago, the race was much closer as Kerry won first time voters by just seven points -- 53 percent to 46 percent -- over Bush.
Every four years, reporters write stories about how this election is the one where young people have their voices heard and emerge as a critical voting bloc. The tracking poll suggests that this time around they might actually be right.
Denver Post
nation and world briefs
McCain ties to Iran-Contra group examined
Denver Post Wire Report
Article Last Updated: 10/07/2008 07:56:27 PM MDT
WASHINGTON — Barack Obama has his William Ayers connection. Now John McCain may have an Iran- Contra connection. In the 1980s, McCain served on the advisory board to the U.S. chapter of an international group linked to ultra-right- wing death squads in Central America.
The U.S. Council for World Freedom also aided rebels trying to overthrow the leftist government of Nicaragua. That landed the group in the middle of the Iran-Contra affair and in legal trouble with the Internal Revenue Service, which revoked the charitable organization's tax exemption.
The council created by retired Army Maj. Gen. John Sing laub was the U.S. chapter of the World Anti-Communist League, an international organization linked to former Nazi collaborators and ultra-right- wing death squads in Central America.
McCain's tie to Singlaub's council is undergoing renewed scrutiny after his campaign criticized Obama for his link to Ayers, a former radical who engaged in violent acts 40 years ago.
In two interviews with The Associated Press in August and September, Singlaub said McCain became associated with the group in the early 1980s as McCain launched his political career. Singlaub said McCain was a supporter but not an active member.
McCain has said he resigned from the council in 1984 and asked in 1986 to have his name removed from the group's letterhead. Singlaub does not recall any McCain resignation in 1984 or May 1986. Nor does Joyce Downey, who oversaw the group's activities.
A news article and two documents tie McCain to the council in 1985, a year after he says he resigned. The group's IRS filing in 1985 lists McCain as a member of the council's advisory board.
On Tuesday, the McCain campaign addressed the resignation by saying the candidate disassociated himself from "one Arizona-based group when questions were raised about its activities."
Conservatives for Barack Obama are everywhere
Posted By: Daniel Hannan at Oct 21, 2008 at 20:08:00
Suddenly everyone's at it. When I came out as an Obamacon - a conservative who supports Barack Obama - I was a lonely scout, picking my way across the empty veldt. Now, the grasslands are thrumming with the hooves of a mighty herd of Tory wildebeest: Simon Burns, Richard Spring, Douglas Carswell, Iain Dale - and now Boris Johnson. And that's before we even get to the American conservatives.
No politician likes to alienate his natural constituency, and it was with regret that I made up my mind. But the vehemence of some of the comments posted on my blog - and the comment threads of Iain's diary and Boris's article tell a similar story - has hardened my resolve.
Let me spell it out one more time, before I drop the subject. The Republican Party - of which I remain a convinced supporter, and for whose Congressional candidates I would vote without hesitation - is best when it's for things: personal freedom, states' rights, respect for the constitution, tax cuts, patriotism. But what seems to be motivating McCain's supporters - or at least, those who haunt the blogs - is anger. Obama is a socialist! He pals about with terrorists! He's got a weird middle name! There's even a photograph of him in a turban somewhere!
I can't have been the only conservative who found himself agreeing, sadly, with Colin Powell's criticism of his own party's demeanour. Rush Limbaugh's immediate response to Powell's measured comments? That he was lying! That his support was all really about racial solidarity!
Not every McCain supporter is taking this line, of course. Most Republicans have simply reached the perfectly respectable view that, on balance, their candidate is preferable. Many of them shudder when they hear the attacks on Obama - just as many Democrats felt embarrassed by the vitriol sprayed at Sarah Palin. And McCain himself has been scupulously courteous and fair. But he, too, is becoming visibly exasperated with some of his voters.
Allow me, once more, to quote the admonitory maxim of Thomas Jefferson, the only politician whose bust adorns my office: "Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle". It is precisely because Obama seems to have taken that message to heart, forever going out of his way to say nice things about Right-wingers, that he is ahead in the polls.
I remain a Republican. I support that party more uncomplicatedly than I do my own. There is nothing I'd like more than for the GOP to rediscover the optimism that was so magnificently embodied in Ronald Reagan, the greatest president of the twentieth century. (Doesn't it tell you something, by the way, that Obama speaks more warmly of the Gipper than McCain does?) But the party is sliding away from that tradition. It is becoming, as in pre-Goldwater days, a party of crony capitalism and big federal government, of steel tariffs and federal rules on same-sex marriage, of budget increases and bank nationalisations.
Please, guys, remember the formula that once made you successful. America needs Republican leadership. So does the world.
Sarah Palin, Master of the Senate
By David Nather | October 21, 2008 2:54 PM
Sarah Palin has taken a lot of grief for the CNBC interview she gave, before she became John McCain’s running mate, in which she dismissed all of the vice presidential talk by asking, “What is it exactly that the VP does every day?”
It’s not a bad question, and one she might want to ask again.
Yesterday, Palin gave an interview to a local news station in Denver in which the anchor, reading a question submitted by a third grader, asked her what the vice president does. Her answer, in this video clip, suggests that she thinks the vice president runs the Senate:
“That’s a great question, Brandon. And a vice president has a really great job because not only are they there to support the president’s agenda, they’re like the team member, the teammate to that president, but also they’re in charge of the United State Senate. So if they want to, they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom. And it’s a great job, and I look forward to having that job.”
Talk about expanding the power of the vice presidency. Even Vice President Dick Cheney never claimed to be in charge of the Senate.
It’s hard to tell whether Palin just used a poor choice of words to describe what the vice president actually does in the Senate — presiding and breaking tie votes — or whether she really believes the vice president runs the place. Palin spokesman Taylor Griffin said she was referring to the vice president’s constitutional role as president of the Senate.
But it’s not as if the vice president is actively involved in the Senate, or even seen very often, except for the occasional tie vote or caucus meeting. And needless to say, Palin’s comments were a bit puzzling to Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, the man who actually sets the agenda for the Senate.
“Governor Palin needs to re-read — or perhaps read for the first time — the Constitution,” said Reid spokesman Jim Manley. “While the Vice President presides over the Senate, he or she is not “in charge of” it. Article I says, ‘The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.’ The Senate is part of a co-equal branch of the federal government.”
Worse yet for Palin, the clip was circulating on the same day that she was reminding a Reno audience of Joe Biden’s prediction that Barack Obama would be “tested” by an international crisis if he wins the presidency. Not only did Palin launch into an extended critique of Obama’s qualifications to be commander in chief — an issue on which she hasn’t exactly won the confidence of the public either — but she also took the opportunity to tease Biden: “I guess the looming crisis that most worries the Obama campaign right now is Joe Biden’s next speaking engagement.”
Judging from Palin’s performance in one interview after another, the Obama team can’t be any more worried than the McCain team.
evan, maybe after all you are a good comedian
Joe Biden wonders whether Barack Obama is qualified to be commander-in-chief.
"Mark my words," Biden warned Sunday at a Democratic fund-raiser. "It will not be six months [after the inauguration] before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy."
Then he added, "Watch. We're going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."
Now, here's where it gets scary.
Obama's "gonna need your help to use your influence within the community to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."
He's going to need help?
As chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) from 1995 to 2001, Barack Obama helped distribute $49.2 million to help improve Chicago’s public schools, a task for the CAC that two studies showed had little or no impact on improving public education.
Despite his work to improve Chicago’s public schools, the 2008 Democratic presidential nominee sends his two daughters to the University of Chicago’s Laboratory School, a prestigious private school in Chicago – and he opposes school vouchers, which would allow parents to send their kids to the school of their choice.
“We know well-designed public charter schools have a lot to offer, and I’ve actually helped pass legislation to expand them,” Obama told a gathering of the American Federation of Teachers in July. “What I do oppose is using public money for private school vouchers. We need to focus on fixing and improving our public schools, not throwing our hands up and walking away from them.”
Tuition for the Chicago Lab School where Obama’s daughters attend is $18,492 a year for grades 1-4, the grades Obama’s daughters attend. The tuition climbs to $20,286 a year for grades 5-8, and $21,480 a year for grades 9-12, according to the school’s Web site.
For advocates of school choice, the fact that Obama sends his own children to a private school is relevant to the school choice debate.
“That’s not unusual. Loads of people opposed to school choice send their own kids to private school,” said Dick Komer, senior litigation attorney for the Institute for Justice, which supports school vouchers.
I am actually worried about you now, Evan. PLEASE seek psychiatric assistance immediately!
When the Philadelphia Democratic Party's faithful gathered for their pre-election fundraiser last night, conversation among many anxious ward leaders kept coming back to the same question: Would Barack Obama come up with street money?
In the April primary, the presidential candidate spurned the Philadelphia tradition of distributing cash to ward leaders for Election Day operations, saying his campaign doesn't "pay for votes or pay for turnout."
Street money, typically between $100 and $300 per voting division, is used to pay expenses such as meals and transportation and sometimes pay election workers for their day's work.
Many thought Obama had changed his mind and would provide street money for the general election, but ward leaders said last night that they still hadn't heard of a commitment from the campaign.
"Honestly, they'd be crazy not to do it," said Lou Agre, leader of the 21st Ward in Roxborough and Manayunk. "We're the ones who can get those last five, six hundred people [in a ward] who haven't voted, and that's a big difference for the campaign."
City Democratic chairman U.S. Rep. Bob Brady said he's confident the Obama campaign will come up with the money.
But several ward leaders said Brady had told them he'd gotten no commitment from the Obama campaign, and Gov. Rendell said he didn't know what to expect.
"Who knows?" Rendell said when asked by a reporter. "I've recommended and Bob's recommended it, but we have no word, no word."
When he rose to address the crowd of several hundred at the sheet-metal workers union hall, Rendell led them in a bit of lobbying for the benefit of Obama's Pennsylvania political director, Kevin Washo, who was in attendance.
"The single most important thing you can do to get elected is to have street money!" Rendell shouted, adding, "There are people from the Obama campaign here, so let's all say it again. The most important thing you can do to get elected is have street money!"
Washo declined to address the subject when asked. Campaign spokesman Sean Smith declined to answer the question directly, saying only that Obama would "work to maximize turnout."
Sen. Barack Obama vows to “change the world.” For starters, he’s made an “historic commitment to education” for “every American child” that begins “from the moment they’re born to the day they graduate college.”
What are some of Obama’s extraordinary education plans? Embedding positive behavior in students and developing a data system to monitor them.
Let’s first look at Obama’s education track record. It’s his exalted 7-year stint to reform Chicago schools as chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) with “distinguished scholar” and unrepentant terrorist William Ayers that according to CAC’s records showed no academic achievement.
So far, Obama shows no sign of distress or contrition over CAC’s alarming outcome; nor has he explained why CAC funneled over U.S. $100 million to radical organizations in line with Ayer’s political ideology, including “to education programs built around the same extremist anti-American ideology preached by [Obama’s former pastor] Reverend Wright.” (National Review)
This ideological alliance was fomented during Ayer’s Weatherman days where cop killers were hailed as freedom fighters and radical cohorts were encouraged to recruit students, “bring the revolution home” and “kill your parents.”
Since Obama’s CAC days with Ayers, he’s set his sights higher. As Senator he can introduce legislation, amend existing laws, and tap into America’s U.S. $58 billion coffer, according to the U.S. Department of Education’s latest budget figures, to fund his policies--and he already has.
Under the “Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008,” championed by Sen. Ted Kennedy, two of Obama’s bills passed this summer. The Predominantly Black Institutions Act, S.1513, which provides “funding for institutions with large African American student populations” and the “Teaching Residency Program Act,” S.1574, that provides grants to establish “an innovative framework for prospective teachers to partner with accomplished mentor teachers.”
But because as the story goes, it’s a desperate distraction to focus on Obama’s past association with Bill Ayers or Rev. Wright and their possible influence in any of Obama’s policies, let’s instead look at his Senate education legislative record as a useful preview for students and parents to expect if they become law.
S. 114: The Innovation Districts for School Improvement Act. Obama’s bill authorizes resources for grants “to create innovation districts.” How innovation districts are quantified is unclear, but Obama’s bill tells us that “there are many pockets of innovation and success, where effective teachers… support their students, with additional support from community organizations, foundations, and nonprofits.” His bill funds these “innovation districts to implement systemic reforms in …teaching, assessment, school leadership, and administration.” Next in Obama’s “Mandatory Use of Funds” section, there is a “longitudinal data system” created to “monitor students” as they “move from grade to grade.” Obama’s data system will include “a unique student identifier” and a “teacher identifier” that matches “each student to each teacher…”
S. 2111: The Positive Behavior for Effective Schools Act amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to allow “educational agencies, and schools to increase implementation of… school-wide positive behavior supports.”
What’s “positive behavior support?” According to Obama’s bill, it’s “a systematic approach to embed proven practices for early intervening services, including a range of systemic and individualized strategies to reinforce desired behaviors and eliminate reinforcement for problem behaviors, in order to achieve important social outcomes…”
To fund Obama’s behavioral-social outcome embed program, Obama’s bill “re-designates” Title I taxpayer funds so educational agencies can “develop and implement coordinated, early intervening services (including school-wide positive behavior supports) for all students, including those who have not been identified as needing special education…” (Obama’s Revolutionary Positive Behavior for Effective Schools Act of 2007)
S. 1389: Climate Change Education Act. Obama’s bill develops “climate science kindergarten through grade 12 curriculum.” (Is Obama spiking Kindergarten Kool-Aid?) Possibly, this bill was inspired by Al Gore’s Oscar win for An Inconvenient Truth.
And finally S. 2066: “Back to School: Improving Standards for Nutrition and Physical Education in Schools Act,” which Obama introduced to address childhood obesity. Obama’s bill establishes something called, “the Nutrition Standards in Schools Task Force” and hands out grants prioritizing these grants for “programs for students from populations at high risk for sedentary activity, including racial and ethnic minority populations and low-income populations.” Possibly, Obama was influenced by President Bill Clinton and Gov. Mike Huckabee’s heavily publicized alliance for “a Healthier Generation” to combat childhood obesity in schools starting with soda machines for his bill.
Naturally, Obama, a rookie Senator, on the verge of becoming the President of the United States, seeks policy and governing guidance. But who would’ve prepared and guided Obama to formulate education laws embedding behavioral and social outcomes into students or conceive legislation that mandates a student-teacher monitoring data system? Bill Clinton or Bill Ayers? Ignoring Obama’s Marxist anti-American radical associations isn’t a desperate distraction; it’s a dangerous mistake that really could change the world.
I dont' think theirs any need to get fancy about this Powell thing...lets face it, wether its PC or not all n****rs stick together when the chip are down.
But I wouldn' put it passed the libcoms.........they'd like to have foreingers hang Bush at the world Court. but I don't think that's the reason.
evan, you need a high, very high, colonikkk.
I hear a lot of consernation on this sight. It is not necessary. There are two weeks or more left for G-d to do his work for Mrs. Palin. He will not let her lose so Mr. McCain will win also as he is her running mate and I think now soul mate. Mrs. Palin is destined to be G-ds representative on earth and must have the Presidency to work for his will so it will be done as in Heaven so on Earth as these end times are to be seen not to far away now. and the hour is late bu;t never to late for G-d.
Why do we have to have crude remaks Angie, about Mr. Sayet who works tirelesly for the community of G-d though that is not socialist. The colon remark is adolessent and the kkk thing is not called for as he may not like a black person for President but not for htat reason.
In the Bible they are not given equal status but we must ignore that here til Heaven is achieved to have peace then they will be hand maides and such though treated well like one would treat a belove pet as that is the final word on all matters.
OK...why are all these other Americans "selling out" on Palin/McCain...have they seen enough of the thug party at work?
In Pew Poll, Obama's Lead Widens: 52%-38%. "Obama’s gains notwithstanding, a widespread loss of confidence in McCain appears to be the most significant factor in the race at this point. Many more voters express doubts about McCain’s judgment than about Obama’s."
AP: Gov. Sarah Palin charged the state for her children to travel with her, including to events where they were not invited, and later amended expense reports to specify that they were on official business
Do Not Miss the Deeper Significance in the Endorsements of Powell & Buckley
By Richard Power
The endorsements of Colin Powell and Christopher Buckley are of profound importance. Although, I suggest, perhaps not for the reasons you might think.
There are many on the left and the right who will see these endorsements as hypocritical or self-serving.
But for me, they are of profound importance -- because they bring with them three great revelations --
First, if you ever doubted those of us who have warned you since 2000 that something was/is terribly wrong, I suggest that these endorsements offer the most damning proof of all. Both of these men have crossed a Rubicon of their own. They are not switching sides. As public figures, they are standing alone in the white heat. Yes, for Powell it was long overdue, and for Buckley, who was forced off the magazine his father founded, it is perhaps surprising that the moment ever came, but it did. It was the second time around for Powell, and this time he seized it. Neither of these men can go back -- at least not to the Republican Party as it is. They can only go back, like relief workers, after the great implosion, to clear away the rubble and lead the survivors to the hastily assembled tents. Why did they speak out? Why did they finally cross the Rubicon? Because they did not want to become our equivalent of the "good Germans" whose silence enabled the physical and mental brutality of the Nazi party to get out of control. Of course, they will not acknowledge this so openly, and if confronted with it they would likely reject the analogy out of hand, but you can see it in their eyes, you can hear it in their voice -- right, left, center -- this is the moment to make a stand. They choose not to stand with those yelling "Kill him!" and waving toy monkeys at the cameras. They choose not to stand with the Michelle Bachmans and yes, sadly, the John McCains, who are stirring up this brutishness.
Second, what I hear in both men's voices is a poignant and luminous loyalty. You might find that odd. After all, the knock on Powell is that it was his loyalty to Bush that made him stay on and not resign over the invasion and occupation of Iraq. But as I viewed Powell's Meet the Press appearance, and even more revealing, his curbside interview afterward, I realized that what motivated Powell then and now was not political loyalty or familial loyalty, it was loyalty to the military. His loyalty was to the military. That is why he stayed on to be devoured by the foolish desert adventure he could not prevent. He could not walk away because the military (which also fiercely opposed that foolish desert adventure) could not walk away. He did not stay out of loyalty to the political dynasty which he was attached to; he stayed out of loyalty to the military.
And Buckley? Viewing his appearance with CNN's vapid Howard Kurtz, I realized that Buckley took this stand out of loyalty as well -- loyalty to his own intelligence and intellectual integrity, and yes, loyalty to the intelligence and intellectual integrity of his father, as well as to the Conservative culture and philosophy largely shaped by his father; a culture and philosophy that has become as distant from the abomination that now dominates the right-wing as it was from the China of Mao or Russia of Stalin.
Third, viewing the principled stands of these two men, with whom I disagree on many issues, reflected something back to me that I am surprised to see, a loyalty to something deeper, something that does not belong to either side, but to all of us, and is at the center of what we are. I commend the political acumen of Obama. With it, he has created a space for this opening to occur. Perhaps, on the other side of this national political exorcism, we can establish once again a spectrum of left, right and center, within which each is grounded in integrity and common purpose. Perhaps there still is something that unites us, and calls us to something higher, at least at the moments of greatest peril -- "E Pluribus Unum." Perhaps.
Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.
It is what the Founders did
Entre Actes
And now, our Featured Attraction...
another munkigram...guffaw
Change!
Gettin' down w/Barack!
Baby got Barack!
So it would appear that we've moved into the overt racism portion of our program. You reap what you sow, I guess. Sow enough slander and discord among your fellow Americans, attract despicable racists. This site is an embarrassment to the human race.
Oh the overt racism part of the program... here ya go!
I dont' think theirs any need to get fancy about this Powell thing...lets face it, wether its PC or not all n****rs stick together when the chip are down.
Hmmm. Is it live, or is it Memorex?
Me and my homies say Barack be da bomb!
You McCainiacs are so mean!
You can't make a monkey out of a black man!
Well, it looks like we've hit the lowest common denominator of the GOP here.
Imagine how much this bimbothug will steal as VP...though she'll never top Cheney's record. I say we take that back after the election and send him to Gitmo with the other warmongers and profiteers...maybe the fear of that will make him come out for Obama:
AP: Gov. Sarah Palin charged the state for her children to travel with her, including to events where they were not invited, and later amended expense reports to specify that they were on official business.
The people have finally seen through the fake family values claims of the GOP. O has an astonishing 8 pt. lead on that issue!!
After dozens of high ranking,corrupt, GOP perverts and thieves being exposed weekly for several years, they've finally seen through the smoke.
Without that hook to catch the masses, they'll be left with only the greedy rich.
In the Ipsos/McClatchy poll, likely voters prefer Obama over McCain on taxes and family values by 8 points.
SAN FRANCISCO – An anti-war protester confronted former Bush administration aide Karl Rove while he spoke at a San Francisco mortgage bankers' meeting.
A statement by the group Code Pink identified the woman as 58-year-old Janine Boneparth, who tried to handcuff Rove in what she called a citizen's arrest for "treason."
Rove, who was speaking Tuesday at the Mortgage Bankers Association's annual convention, elbowed Boneparth away as she was escorted off the stage.
In total, five Code Pink members were removed from the hall during Rove's appearance. The organization says none of the five women were charged.
Character Counts...Haters Like Sayet Fail
NYT/CBS poll:
Mr. Obama’s favorability is the highest for a presidential candidate running for a first term in the last 28 years of Times/CBS polls. Mrs. Palin’s negative rating is the highest for a vice-presidential candidate as measured by The Times and CBS News. Even Dan Quayle, with whom Mrs. Palin is often compared because of her age and inexperience on the national scene, was not viewed as negatively in the 1988 campaign
RNC shells out $150K for Palin fashion
By: Jeanne Cummings
October 22, 2008 11:13 AM EST
The Republican National Committee has spent more than $150,000 to clothe and accessorize vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and her family since her surprise pick by John McCain in late August.
According to financial disclosure records, the accessorizing began in early September and included bills from Saks Fifth Avenue in St. Louis and New York for a combined $49,425.74.
The records also document a couple of big-time shopping trips to Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis, including one $75,062.63 spree in early September.
The RNC also spent $4,716.49 on hair and makeup through September after reporting no such costs in August.
The cash expenditures immediately raised questions among campaign finance experts about their legality under the Federal Election Commission's long-standing advisory opinions on using campaign cash to purchase items for personal use.
Politico asked the McCain campaign for comment, explicitly noting the $150,000 in expenses for department store shopping and makeup consultation that were incurred immediately after Palin’s announcement. Pre-September reports do not include similar costs.
Spokeswoman Maria Comella declined to answer specific questions about the expenditures, including whether it was necessary to spend that much and whether it amounted to one early investment in Palin or if shopping for the vice presidential nominee was ongoing.
“The campaign does not comment on strategic decisions regarding how financial resources available to the campaign are spent," she said.
But hours after the story was posted on Politico's website and legal issues were raised, the campaign issued a new statement.
"With all of the important issues facing the country right now, it’s remarkable that we’re spending time talking about pantsuits and blouses," said spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt. "It was always the intent that the clothing go to a charitable purpose after the campaign."
The business of primping and dressing on the campaign trail has become fraught with political risk in recent years as voters increasingly see an elite Washington out of touch with their values and lifestyles.
In 2000, Democrat Al Gore took heat for changing his clothing hues. And in 2006, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) was ribbed for two hair styling sessions that cost about $3,000.
Then, there was Democrat John Edwards’ $400 hair cuts in 2007 and Republican McCain’s $520 black leather Ferragamo shoes this year.
A review of similar records for the campaign of Democrat Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee turned up no similar spending.
But all the spending by other candidates pales in comparison to the GOP outlay for the Alaska governor whose expensive, designer outfits have been the topic of fashion pages and magazines.
What hasn’t been apparent is where the clothes came from – her closet back in Wasilla or from the campaign coffers in Washington.
The answer can be found inside the RNC’s September monthly financial disclosure report under “itemized coordinated expenditures.”
It’s a report that typically records expenses for direct mail, telephone calls and advertising. Those expenses do show up, but the report also has a new category of spending: “campaign accessories.”
September payments were also made to Barney’s New York ($789.72) and Bloomingdale’s New York ($5,102.71).
Macy’s in Minneapolis, another store fortunate enough to be situated in the Twin Cities that hosted last summer’s Republican National Convention, received three separate payments totaling $9,447.71.
The entries also show a few purchases at Pacifier, a top notch baby store, and Steiniauf & Stroller Inc., suggesting $295 was spent to accommodate the littlest Palin to join the campaign trail.
An additional $4,902.45 was spent in early September at Atelier, a high-class shopping destination for men.
No cavalry coming for McCain
By: Jonathan Martin
October 22, 2008 12:55 PM EST
For the GOP, the cavalry apparently isn’t coming.
Republicans attuned to conservative third-party efforts say that with less than two weeks to go until Election Day, the prospects for any 11th-hour, anti-Obama ad campaigns are highly unlikely.
Many in the party, including inside the McCain campaign, have held out hope that a deep-pocketed benefactor would emerge to bankroll ads in the campaign’s final days — spots that might, for example, resurrect the most incendiary clips from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
But thanks largely to lack of passion for McCain within the conservative base, diminished hopes that he can win and a sharp decline in the stock market that has badly pinched donors’ pockets, veteran Republican operatives say it appears almost certain that what could be the most damaging line of attack against the Democratic nominee will be left on the shelf.
“It’s Oct. 21, and if you can’t say it by Oct. 21, then chances are you’re not going to say anything,” said Chris LaCivita, the strategist behind the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in 2004. LaCivita has been working for a new conservative third-party group this year, the American Issues Project.
That group, known in the political community as AIP, was eyed by some in the GOP as a potential major player in taking on Obama. It spent nearly $3 million in key states in August on a tough ad tying the Illinois senator to '60s-era domestic terrorist William Ayers and promised additional spots in the fall campaign.
That never happened.
“Donors just weren’t willing to give the money,” explains LaCivita. “They were hurt badly in the market crash and they were always concerned about how McCain would react.”
The timing of the financial crisis couldn’t have been worse for Republicans. When Lehman Brothers went under on Sept. 15, McCain was tied or in the margin of error in national polls. But when his poll numbers fell along with the stock market, wealthy conservatives saw little reason to invest their shrunken holdings on what was far from a sure thing.
“Republican donors, at the end of day, aren’t stupid,” said another Republican familiar with third-party activities this cycle. “They’re not going to throw good money after bad.”
And it wasn’t just the economic bad news — McCain did little to help his own cause.
Two Republican sources involved in third-party groups said the Arizona senator’s second debate performance in early October, a pivotal moment in the campaign when he and running mate Sarah Palin had begun to ratchet up their attacks, was deflating to some donors.
These sources said that after McCain didn’t use the Nashville debate to aggressively go after Obama, one prominent conservative financier remarked: “I’m not going to bother investing anymore.”
And donors were always fearful they would be rebuked by their party’s notoriously unpredictable nominee if they underwrote a major effort.
“McCain never gave a real wink and said, ‘Go ahead, boys,’” explained one operative close to a third-party group this year.
Another GOP strategist lamented that McCain lacked a core group of rich friends who were willing to part with their money. Harold Simmons, a Dallas billionaire, underwrote the entire cost of the initial Ayers ad for AIP — but his investment wasn’t matched by other wealthy Republicans.
“In 2004, Bush had a cadre of donors who wanted to see him succeed,” said this source, citing “oil guys.”
“But McCain doesn’t have that, and this is where it really hurts.”
One of those oil guys was T. Boone Pickens. But Pickens, who played a major role in funding the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, sat out this race, preferring to spend his money promoting a massive clean energy campaign.
For most of the donor pool for a robust third-party effort, this cycle appears to have come down to dollars and cents. Many, like Las Vegas casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, saw their portfolios slide, reducing their interest greatly in practicing their political hobby on the side.
Adelson had been counted on as the chief benefactor of Freedom’s Watch, a group originally billed as the right-wing equivalent of MoveOn.org.
But sources say Adelson has pulled the plug on the group, and that it will only wind up spending $25 million to $30 million this cycle — a far cry from their original vision.
Freedom’s Watch had to greatly scale back its ambitions, never aired a single ad in the presidential race and has an uncertain future after the election.
In another contrast with 2004 and the Swift Boat Veterans, there was never money lined up in advance to fund a serious effort against Obama.
“You’ve got to have a sustained campaign,” said Greg Mueller, a conservative GOP strategist who did the PR for the Swift Boat operation, noting that it went up in late-July and stayed on the air. “On either side that never really materialized. Everybody was sort of nibbling around edges.”
Another operative close to third-party groups said part of the problem was what didn’t happen after AIP broadcast its Ayers ad in August.
The media coverage of the spot, which begin airing during the Democratic convention, was far less pointed than had been expected, depriving conservatives of the sort of echo effect they enjoyed against John F. Kerry in 2004.
“It’s about spurring the mainstream media to do the right thing,” said this source, meaning to drive both free replays of the ads and subsequent stories about the underlying charges being made. “The media did cover the fact that, hey, maybe John Kerry wasn’t completely honest about his service in Vietnam.”
But the Ayers ad got little pickup, overwhelmed by Obama’s stadium acceptance speech, McCain’s shocking selection of Sarah Palin and then the Republican convention.
“It’s like an initial stock offering. If it doesn’t make somewhat of a run, people aren’t as quick to invest in the next one.”
There will be some additional anti-Obama spots aired before Election Day. Mueller promised another wave of ads for clients targeting the Democrat on judicial issues and abortion.
And there remains the remote possibility that a wealthy Republican will emerge to put down some cash in the final days.
“Some guy could wake up and call me and say, ‘Here is $20 million,’” LaCivita said. “But I don’t see it happening.”
And in a matter of days, that won’t be possible.
An operative working for a third-party group said they were told by Denver stations — where candidates and outside groups are airing ads in competitive presidential, senatorial and congressional races — a week ago to get in their buys because there were not going to be slots available much longer.
“They said, ‘Get in your orders through the election,’” said this source.
“Time is drying up but not gone,” said Evan Tracey, who heads the ad-monitoring Campaign Media Analysis Group. “For ads to work, they need repetition, so if anyone is going to get involved, they either need a very strong (and unique) message or some kind of national footprint to have any impact.”
By law, campaigns are not allowed to coordinate with outside entities. But McCain aides don’t seem hopeful that help is on the way or interested in sending any signals.
“I have no idea what’s going on with third-party groups,” is all Rick Davis, McCain’s campaign manager, would say this week.
AP: Al Qaida Web site Endorses McCain
10.22.08 -- 9:07AM
By Josh Marshall
Most of us know this, but hearing it from them ...
Al-Qaida supporters suggested in a Web site message this week they would welcome a pre-election terror attack on the U.S. as a way to usher in a McCain presidency.
The message, posted Monday on the password-protected al-Hesbah Web site, said if al-Qaida wants to exhaust the United States militarily and economically, "impetuous" Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain is the better choice because he is more likely to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"This requires presence of an impetuous American leader such as McCain, who pledged to continue the war till the last American soldier," the message said. "Then, al-Qaida will have to support McCain in the coming elections so that he continues the failing march of his predecessor, Bush."
On Al-Qaeda Web Sites, Joy Over U.S. Crisis, Support for McCain
By Joby Warrick and Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, October 22, 2008; A13
Al-Qaeda is watching the U.S. stock market's downward slide with something akin to jubilation, with its leaders hailing the financial crisis as a vindication of its strategy of crippling America's economy through endless, costly foreign wars against Islamist insurgents.
And at least some of its supporters think Sen. John McCain is the presidential candidate best suited to continue that trend.
"Al-Qaeda will have to support McCain in the coming election," said a commentary posted Monday on the extremist Web site al-Hesbah, which is closely linked to the terrorist group. It said the Arizona Republican would continue the "failing march of his predecessor," President Bush.
The Web commentary was one of several posted by Taliban or al-Qaeda-allied groups in recent days that trumpeted the global financial crisis and predicted further decline for the United States and other Western powers. In language that was by turns mocking and ominous, the newest posting credited al-Qaeda with having lured Washington into a trap that had "exhausted its resources and bankrupted its economy." It further suggested that a terrorist strike might swing the election to McCain and guarantee an expansion of U.S. military commitments in the Islamic world.
"It will push the Americans deliberately to vote for McCain so that he takes revenge for them against al-Qaeda," said the posting, attributed to Muhammad Haafid, a longtime contributor to the password-protected site. "Al-Qaeda then will succeed in exhausting America."
It was unclear how closely the commentary reflected the views of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, who has not issued a public statement since the spring. Some terrorism experts said the support for McCain could be mere bluster by a group that may have more to fear from a McCain presidency. In any event, the comments summarized what has emerged as a consensus view on extremist sites, said Adam Raisman, a senior analyst for the Site Intelligence Group, which monitors Islamist Web pages. Site provided translations of the comments to The Washington Post.
"The idea in the jihadist forums is that McCain would be a faithful 'son of Bush' -- someone they see as a jingoist and a war hawk," Raisman said. "They think that, to succeed in a war of attrition, they need a leader in Washington like McCain."
Islamist militants have generally had less to say about Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois. Leaders of the Iranian-backed group Hezbollah expressed a favorable view of Obama during the primary campaign but later rejected the Democrat after he delivered speeches expressing support for Israel.
In an e-mail response, senior McCain foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann noted that al-Qaeda leaders have repeatedly said that America "did not have the stomach to fight them over the long haul," which the Arizona senator has pledged to do. "Whatever musings and bravado on radical websites the Washington Post chooses to quote, the fact remains that only John McCain has the experience, judgment and fortitude to lead a country at war," he said. The Obama campaign declined to comment on the Web postings.
Both the Bush administration and the two major presidential campaigns have rejected any suggestion that the economic downturn will undermine the country's fight against al-Qaeda. Obama and McCain have stepped gingerly around the issue of how they would adjust their priorities in a recession and have spoken of the importance of maintaining a strong defense. Both have advocated expanding the size of the U.S. military overall, but neither has explained in detail how to pay for it.
From shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, al-Qaeda attacks to last year, U.S. defense spending rose from 3 to 4 percent of gross domestic product, but it remains far below the 45-year average of 5.5 percent. The Pentagon's budget for fiscal 2009 is $527 billion, a figure that does not include Iraq and Afghanistan war costs, which have totaled more than $800 billion since 2001.
"History shows us that nations that are strong militarily over time have to have a strong economy," McCain said this month. He has said the United States must send more troops to Afghanistan while avoiding a withdrawal timetable from Iraq.
Obama has tied an Iraq withdrawal to increased forces in Afghanistan and the ability to fund domestic programs. The continued fight in Iraq "means we can't provide health care to people who need it," Obama said in his first debate with McCain.
"Nobody is talking about losing this war," Obama said of Iraq. "What we are talking about is recognizing that the next president has to have broader strategic vision."
It is not the first time al-Qaeda and its allies have weighed in on a Western election. Bin Laden released a video message Oct. 29, 2004, days before the U.S. presidential election, warning of plans for further attacks on U.S. targets. Some strategists for Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), the Democratic nominee, have said the timing of the message tipped the balance toward Bush, who defined himself as the anti-terrorism candidate.
The deadly train bombings in Spain that year were seen as an attempt by al-Qaeda to bring down then-Prime Minister José MarÃa Aznar, who had sent troops to Iraq. Aznar lost his reelection bid three days after the bombing.
Recent polls suggest that Iraq and terrorism are less important to most Americans than the economy. Still, terrorism experts have warned that al-Qaeda may indeed launch a major strike before the U.S. election or shortly afterward.
"The idea of testing a new president or hitting us when we're off-balance is enormously attractive to them," said Bruce Hoffman, a Georgetown University terrorism expert.
Obama Resoles His Shoes While Palin Spends $150K
by enamore22
Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 06:44:30 AM PDT
While Politico reports on the RNC spending $150,000 to 'accessorize' Palin and her family, I stumbled upon this picture of Senator Obama (along with a great collection of campaign trail photos from Callie Shell).
http://bagnewsnotes.typepad.com/bagnews/obama-shoes-400.jpg
He's got holes in the bottom of both his shoes from walking so much on the campaign trail. And as the caption explains, he's already resoled them once.
"Senator Obama was doing press interviews by telephone in a holding room between events. Sometime later as he was getting ready to begin his event, he asked me if I was photographing his shoes. When I said yes, he told me that he had already had them resoled once since he entered the race a year earlier. Providence, R.I., 3/1/2008."
So... who's more in touch with the average American again?
The house of Republican Senator Norm Coleman, who is being challenged by unfunny comedian Al Franken, had his house vandalized by spray paint last night. The spray paint read "U R A criminal resign or else"; "Scum," which is written three times; and "Psalm 2." The first and second examples are self-explanatory but third raises an issue. An excerpt from Plams 2 reads:
[quote]2The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
3Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
4He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the LORD shall have them in derision.
5Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
6Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
. . . .
9Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.
. . . .
11Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
12Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little.[/quote]
Coleman opposes the anointed one therefore his bands need to be broken asunder, he needs to be spoken unto with wrath, and vexed while the anointed one is set king upon the holy hill?
This seems a little literary for your average moonbat not to mention your average vandal and yet it apparently means something. I'd say the moonbats are looking for judgment day.
Notice in the piece about Powell two or three letters down, there's NOTHING about what the man has done or what he will do. NOTHING on policy, past or present. Only that he's "inspirational" (so was Hitler) and that he's "unifying" (so was Stalin), etc.
Let's face it, Powell sold out beause he's scared and I don't blame him. Leftists are vicious and seek to destroy people (look how they are trying to destroy Joe the Plumber for merely asking a question of The Anointed One -- something not allowed by Hitler or Stalin either). Powell knew that unless he "repented" and sold-out the good guys, the leftists would go after him with everything they've got for proving that in America ANYONE can make it. Since victimization is the selling point of the leftist (as they victimize their constituents and intentionally keep them poor) someone like Powell on the other side must be DESTROYED.
Yes, I believe you are right. Powell, a heroic soldier was frightened of those scary lefty guys who would certainly have "got him."
So, is that why Adelman went over the hill, too?
And, can we expect all the other chickenhawk war mongers to follow?
After all, they're certified cowards and not near as brave as Powell. Why haven't they followed him?
And, what about you? You're obviously a more insane and vicious liar than Powell...aren't you afraid?
Elections Home
Fox News Poll: Obama Leads McCain, 49% to 40%
Barack Obama has gained a nine point lead over his opponent John McCain, according to a FOX News poll released Wednesday.
FOXNews.com
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Less than two weeks before Election Day, Barack Obama leads John McCain 49 percent to 40 percent among likely voters, according to a FOX News poll released Wednesday.
Obama's advantage comes mainly from independents, and from the fact that more voters identify themselves as Democrats these days and almost all of them back their party's nominee.
Eighty-eight percent of Democrats support Obama, and 83 percent of Republicans back McCain. Independents break 44 percent to 35 percent in Obama's favor.
In addition to independents, white Catholics are another important swing voting group and they support Obama 50 percent to 39 percent. White Catholics have voted for the winner in each of the last four presidential elections.
New voters -- people who have registered to vote in the last two years -- back Obama by 51 percent to 40 percent.
According to a FOX News poll released Oct. 10, Obama was leading McCain by seven points (46 percent to 39 percent) among registered voters.
Obama is seen as the candidate who will bring the right kind of change to Washington, and more voters trust him to handle the major economic problems facing the country right now. By a double-digit margin voters think Obama 's tax plan would do more to improve their family's financial situation.
Turning to McCain's strengths, slightly more voters think the United States will be safer if he is president, and he is seen as the candidate more likely to reach across the aisle and work with the other party.
McCain's clearest advantage is on experience: A large 80 percent majority says McCain has the right experience to be president. Some 52 percent say Obama has the right experience and 45 percent disagree.
In a question aimed at a gut level assessment of the character and judgment of each candidate, voters split when asked who they would go to for advice if they had to make the toughest decision of their life: Obama 45 percent and McCain 41 percent.
Similarly, the results are divided -- Obama 47 percent and McCain 43 percent -- on the question of "which candidate do you trust more?"
On both of these measures, independent voters are almost evenly split between the two candidates -- they give a two-point edge to Obama on the toughest decision measure and a one-point edge to McCain on trust.
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell endorsed Obama on Sunday. Overall, 35 percent say Powell's endorsement makes them more likely to vote for Obama, 25 percent less likely and 37 percent no difference.
Among the highly sought-after group of independent voters the results are essentially the same, as 32 percent say the endorsement makes them more likely to vote for Obama, 22 percent less likely and 43 percent no difference.
Did Powell, a Republican, sway Republican voters with his endorsement? Fifteen percent say it makes them more likely to vote for Obama, 44 percent less likely and 40 percent no difference.
Opinion Dynamics Corp. conducted the national telephone poll of 900 likely voters for FOX News from October 20 to October 21. The poll has a 3-point error margin. "Likely voters" are registered voters who are considered more likely to vote in the November presidential election.
Among voters who say the economy is "extremely important" to their vote for president -- Obama has a 56 percent to 34 percent advantage, and by a 64 percent to 25 percent who say the same of health care.
McCain has a 47 percent - 41 percent edge among people who say terrorism is extremely important. Those saying appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court are extremely important in their decision back McCain 47 percent and Obama 45 percent.
Should Government Use Taxes to "Spread the Wealth"?
In a conversation with "Joe the plumber" about his tax plan, Obama said "when you spread the wealth around it's good for everybody." Americans are evenly divided on the idea: 45 percent think it is a good idea and 46 percent a bad idea to use some of the money government collects in taxes to "spread the wealth" to others who are less well off.
Most Democrats think spreading the wealth is a good idea (66 percent) and most Republicans think it is a bad idea (72 percent). Independents split 47 percent good idea and 41 percent bad.
Voters are much more decisive on freezing government spending to get the federal budget under control: 63 percent think that is a good idea and 29 percent a bad idea. McCain has said he will "freeze government spending on all but the most important programs," such as defense, veterans care and Social Security.
Three times as many voters think "cutting taxes" (60 percent) is more likely to stimulate the economy and get the country out of recession than think "increasing government spending on programs" will help the economy recover (20 percent).
Just over half of Americans expect the recession to be either mild (11 percent) or moderate (41 percent), while about one third (35 percent) think it will be a severe recession. Fewer than 1 in 10 voters think there will be an economic depression (9 percent).
This blogger, Sayet, is apparently a congenital liar on top of his other psychoses. He lies even when he knows he'll be caught...that is literally a form of abnormal psychology and a deeply troubled and twisted intellect.
Here is what Powell said in that statement about Obama:
And I've said to Mr. Obama, "You have to pass a test of, do you have enough experience, and do you bring the judgment to the table that would give us confidence that you would be a good president?"
And I've watched him over the past two years, frankly, and I've had this conversation with him. I have especially watched, over the last six or seven weeks, as both of them have really taken a final exam with respect to this economic crisis that we are in, and coming out of the conventions.
And I must say that I've gotten a good measure of both...
On the Obama side, I have watched Mr. Obama, and I watched him during this seven-week period. And he displayed a steadiness, an intellectual curiosity, a depth of knowledge and an approach to looking at problems like this and picking a vice president that, I think, is ready to be president on day one, and also, in not just jumping in and changing every day, but showing intellectual vigor.
I think that he has a definitive way of doing business that would serve us well. I also believe that, on the Republican side, over the last seven weeks, the approach of the Republican Party and Mr. McCain has become narrower and narrower.
Mr. Obama, at the same time, has given us a more inclusive, broader reach into the needs and aspirations of our people. He's crossing lines --ethnic lines, racial lines, generational lines. He's thinking about all villages have values, all towns have values, not just small towns have values.
...Which is the individual that serves the needs of the nation for the next period of time?
And I come to the conclusion that because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities -- and we have to take that into account -- as well as his substance. He has both style and substance. He has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president.
I think he is a transformational figure. He is a new generation coming into the world -- onto the world stage, onto the American stage, and for that reason, I'll be voting for Senator Barack Obama.
Obviously, Powell sees many positive and specific attributes in Obama and has stated them here quite eloquently.
Then, of course, there are all the negative aspects of what has become an extremist right wing party and there rabid followers.
It's pretty obvious which one REALLY frightens the old soldier...and it is not the party of Obama or the left.
10/22/2008
Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby Poll: And Then It Was Ten . . .
Obama 51.6%, McCain 42.0%
UTICA, New York – Democrat Barack Obama moved very close to a double–digit lead over Republican John McCain in the national horserace for President, continuing his slow push forward above the 50% mark, gaining 1.3 points in the last day.
Data from this poll is available here
McCain is slowly losing ground, having lost another 0.4 points in this latest report on the Reuters/C–SPAN/Zogby daily tracking poll.
Pollster John Zogby: “Three big days for Obama. Anything can happen, but time is running short for McCain. These numbers, if they hold, are blowout numbers. They fit the 1980 model with Reagan's victory over Carter -- but they are happening 12 days before Reagan blasted ahead. If Obama wins like this we can be talking not only victory but realignment: he leads by 27 points among Independents, 27 points among those who have already voted, 16 among newly registered voters, 31 among Hispanics, 93%-2% among African Americans, 16 among women, 27 among those 18-29, 5 among 30-49 year olds, 8 among 50-64s, 4 among those over 65, 25 among Moderates, and 12 among Catholics (which is better than Bill Clinton's 10-point victory among Catholics in 1996). He leads with men by 2 points, and is down among whites by only 6 points, down 2 in armed forces households, 3 among investors, and is tied among NASCAR fans.”
Here's a perfect example of how ignorant and backward the frightening GOP has become:
SCIENCE -- ANTI-STEM CELL AD COMPARES RESEARCH TO TUSKEGEE STUDY: Opponents of Michigan's Proposal 2 -- a measure legalizing embryonic stem cell research that will appear on the Nov. 4 ballot -- have released a new ad that a Detroit Free Press writer calls "shameless fear-mongering." The ads, "running in heavy rotation on television in the Detroit area," falsely claim stem cell research would be unregulated and compares it to the infamous Tuskegee study in which hundreds of African-American men were denied treatment for syphilis. The ad, paid for by Michigan Citizens Against Unrestricted Science and Experimentation, cites the "ugly past" of "unrestricted science," and claims Proposal 2 would allow "unregulated scientific experimentation on live human embryos." "The point is clear: to frighten minority communities into voting against Prop 2 by drawing a false connection with past abuse," Free Press' Stephen Henderson writes. The ad cites an out-of-context Free Press quote, even though the paper issued a ringing endorsement of Proposal 2 earlier this month.
We cannot afford these neandertals in the 21st century.
In the case of Mr. McCain, I found that he was a little unsure as to deal with the economic problems that we were having, and almost every day, there was a different approach to the problem.
And that concerned me. I got the -- sensing that he didn’t have a complete grasp of the economic problems that we had.
And I was also concerned at the selection of Governor Palin. She’s a very distinguished woman, and she’s to be admired. But at the same time, now that we have had a chance to watch her for some seven weeks, I don’t believe she’s ready to be president of the United States, which is the job of the vice president.
And so that raised some question in my mind as to the judgment that Senator McCain made.
On the Obama side, I have watched Mr. Obama, and I watched him during this seven-week period. And he displayed a steadiness, an intellectual curiosity, a depth of knowledge and an approach to looking at problems like this and picking a vice president that, I think, is ready to be president on day one, and also, in not just jumping in and changing every day, but showing intellectual vigor.
But I strongly believe that at this point in America’s history, we need a president that will not just continue -- even with a new face and with some changes and with some maverick aspects -- who will not just continue, basically, the policies that we have been following in recent years.
Pay attention, Evan, instead of throwing out your Hitler and Stalin ad hominem fallacy.
Sarah Palin's Flameout: $150,000, the Vice Presidency, Sinking Poll Numbers, and More
October 22, 2008 01:49 PM ET |
Robert Schlesinger
Years from now, Sarah Palin may be the perfect case study for a political shooting star.
First she was a rock star, someone happily capable of bringing life to a moribund McCain campaign—someone who could rev up the base and maybe pick off a few Hillary Clinton voters.
Then came the dark times—the Gibson interview, the Couric interview, Troopergate, the debate in which she breezily refused to actually answer the questions. The "Hockey Mom" charm wore off quickly as she grasped the vice presidential pit-bull role, bringing it to new levels of divisiveness with comments about "real America" that even she acknowledged were, ahem, unhelpful.
But the dark times are over. That brilliant flash you see? Sarah Palin flaming out. Or exploding. Or crashing and burning. It's been that kind of week for the Alaska governor.
Let's count the hits she's taken in the past 24 hours:
There's her $150,000 wardrobe. It's hard to run as Joan of Six Pack when your wardrobe alone almost qualifies for an Obama tax increase. (Even when you're a millionaire, anyway.)
Sarah Palin, constitutional scholar, resurfaced this week when she was asked about what her job would be as vice president. The veep, she said, is "in charge of" the U.S. Senate and "can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes." Umm. Shouldn't someone have explained to her by now what the vice president does? The vice breaks ties in the Senate. That's it. Being a Washington outsider is fine, but being a constitutional ignoramus is another matter entirely.
The AP reports today that Palin charged Alaska for her kids to travel with her, even when they weren't conducting official state business. Palin might have bilked the state? I'm shocked. (Hey—speaking of state rules, her new wardrobe qualifies as a gift, right? She'll have to declare it in her next ethics report per Alaska law, right?)
Then there's yesterday's Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, which showed that Palin's lack of qualifications to be president is voters' No. 1 concern regarding John McCain. She's an even bigger drag than is George W. Bush. Wow.
What will be Sarah Palin's next act? Does she have a future beyond darling of the base, assuming she and McCain lose? She can still salvage a level of plausibility, but the window is closing fast.
The spectre of socialism is now beginning to be viewed by REAL Americans as a very friendly ghost.
Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby Poll: Obama Increases Lead Over McCain In Possible “Blowout”
October 22nd, 2008
By JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
Pollster John Zogby reports that Democratic Presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama is now increasing his lead over Republican Sen. John McCain in what could be shaping up as what Zogby calls a “blowout.”
Zogby predicts this could be a politically-transformative landslide like Ronald Reagan’s.
Democrat Barack Obama moved very close to a double–digit lead over Republican John McCain in the national horserace for President, continuing his slow push forward above the 50% mark, gaining 1.3 points in the last day.
McCain is slowly losing ground, having lost another 0.4 points in this latest report on the Reuters/C–SPAN/Zogby daily tracking poll.
John Zogby then writes:
Three big days for Obama. Anything can happen, but time is running short for McCain. These numbers, if they hold, are blowout numbers.
They fit the 1980 model with Reagan’s victory over Carter — but they are happening 12 days before Reagan blasted ahead. If Obama wins like this we can be talking not only victory but realignment: he leads by 27 points among Independents, 27 points among those who have already voted, 16 among newly registered voters, 31 among Hispanics, 93%-2% among African Americans, 16 among women, 27 among those 18-29, 5 among 30-49 year olds, 8 among 50-64s, 4 among those over 65, 25 among Moderates, and 12 among Catholics (which is better than Bill Clinton’s 10-point victory among Catholics in 1996). He leads with men by 2 points, and is down among whites by only 6 points, down 2 in armed forces households, 3 among investors, and is tied among NASCAR fans.
Still, less than two weeks can be a lifetime in politics. But this and other polls suggest that the electorate is coming to some conclusions and it may be less about being zealously pro-Obama than deciding to vote using the Big Broom approach and sweep those who’ve been in charge of the federal government out of office, even if a new manager would be at the helm.
Plus there are these facts: McCain’s campaign has not made the case strong enough in recent weeks FOR John McCain, his policies and specific attributes but kept everything within an increasingly-negative framework of allegations that Obama is a socialist and perhaps even less than patriotic.
Obama's history.
chicagotribune.com
Workers quit over anti-Obama phone calls
By SCOTT BAUER
Associated Press Writer
2:48 PM CDT, October 22, 2008
MADISON, Wis.
Telemarketers in Wisconsin and West Virginia asked to make calls bashing Barack Obama and linking him to 1960s radical William Ayers quit their jobs rather than read the required script.
The calls were paid for by the McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee and are being placed in several states across the country.
In West Virginia, Fairmont State University student Chaylee Cole said she and a friend refused to call people and read a script last week that linked Obama to Ayers.
"I just didn't agree with it," Cole said Wednesday. "I didn't know it if was true and I wasn't going to call people and push this on them."
Cole, 18, said she and her friend Kelsey Stalnaker left work that day without getting paid. Cole said she quit the following day, on Friday. Stalnaker did not immediately return a message seeking comment.
The McCain campaign defended the Ayers call.
"At no point has anyone disputed any point in this phone call," said campaign spokeswoman Sarah Lenti. "Barack Obama has yet to answer the many questions the American people have about his connections to an unrepentant domestic terrorist. If the script is troubling, it is because many find Obama's associations and judgment very troubling."
Neither she nor Republican National Committee spokesman Chris Taylor would say how many states the call is being placed in. Democrats have reported receiving the call in battleground states across the country including Wisconsin, Ohio, Colorado, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Missouri.
Cole, a Democrat who said she will vote for Obama, felt the call crossed the line.
"Democrat or Republican, the candidates ought to be about what they can do best for our country and not slandering one's name," she said.
The call claims that "Barack Obama has worked closely with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, whose organization bombed the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, a judge's home and killed Americans. And Democrats will enact an extreme leftist agenda if they take control of Washington. Barack Obama and his Democratic allies lack the judgment to lead our country."
Obama has denounced Ayers' past violent activities and has said Ayers is not and has never been involved in the campaign.
Ayers was a founder of the Weather Underground, a group that claimed responsibility for a series of nonfatal bombings at the Pentagon and the Capitol to protest U.S. foreign policies during the Vietnam War era. Now a college professor in Chicago, Ayers' ties to Obama have been featured in Republican attacks in which Obama is accused of "palling around with terrorists."
Ayers and Obama also served together on a Chicago reform group and charity board and lived in the same neighborhood, although there is no evidence they were friends. Ayers also hosted a 1995 meet-and-greet event at his home when Obama was launching his first run for Illinois state Senate.
Obama has said he was 8 when Ayers "engaged in despicable acts with a radical domestic group."
That hasn't stopped Republicans from trying to use the connection to hurt Obama.
In North Carolina, the state Republican Party paid for a mailing that tied the two together.
Both the McCain and Obama campaigns are using phone calls to reach voters. The Wisconsin Democratic Party planned to start one on Wednesday that features a small business owner from Green Bay, Jeri Watermolen, claiming that she turned against McCain because of "sleazy" phone calls and mail.
In Wisconsin, some of the anti-Obama calls were being placed by workers at telemarketing firm Sitel in Madison. One of the callers there, Ted Zoromski of nearby Middleton, said that he quit his job rather than read the required script that attacked Obama and the Democratic Party.
Zoromski, 26, said when he was hired he was told the call he'd be making was more like a survey seeking people's opinions rather than a partisan attack, so he quit. Zoromski said he was a Democrat.
Sitel spokeswoman Christy Frazier did not immediately return a message seeking comment.
Cole, the West Virginia student, was working for 1.2.1 Direct Response, a Philadelphia-based company that advertises itself as providing advertising, marketing, publicity, fundraising and media coverage. Company spokesman Russell Andrews did not immediately return a message seeking comment.
Such is life!
Thick as a brick.
dddddGOP pulling ad support from Bachmann
By Paul Schmelzer 10/22/08 3:33 PM
Two weeks after shifting ad support from Erik Paulsen’s race in the 3rd Congressional District to do media buys in Michele Bachmann’s 6th district, the National Republican Congressional Committee is reportedly pulling its support for Bachmann entirely. Huffington Post’s Sam Stein says that two sources aware of Minnesota ad buys say the GOP is withdrawing its media buys.
“If true, it is a remarkable fall for a congresswoman who, until recently, seemed relatively safe in her predominantly conservative district,” he writes.
And, if true, it might free up media for challenger Elwin Tinklenberg, who has committed only $188,000 for advertising — out of more than $850,000 raised since comments by Bachmann on Friday’s edition of “Hardball.”
Update: Politico confirms — and adds that the NRCC is dropping advertising in Colorado and Florida districts as well. TPM offers independent confirmation.
Gobama's got nothin on John McCain
To What Extent Is It Racist to Vote
Against Barack Obama in November 2008?
A few questions (actually, quite a lot of 'em) to ask oneself…
http://no-pasaran.blogspot.com/2008/10/to-what-extent-is-it-racist-to-vote.html
Bush a Symbol of Injustice in America for Outspending Gore and Kerry! Obama? Ho-Hum…
http://no-pasaran.blogspot.com/2008/10/bush-symbol-of-injustice-in-america-for.html
The media and the left NEED you to be demoralized
http://no-pasaran.blogspot.com/2008/10/media-and-left-need-you-to-be.html
chicagotribune.com
McCain stonewalls on radical friend
Steve Chapman
October 23, 2008
The extremist McCain has befriended is G. Gordon Liddy, who got a 20-year prison sentence for multiple felonies in the Watergate scandal—including burglary, conspiracy and illegal wiretapping. Finally forced to acknowledge the connection in an interview last week by David Letterman, McCain ducked and dodged before replying, "He went to prison, he paid his debt, as people do. I'm not in any way embarrassed to know Gordon Liddy."
Liddy is not someone most of us would want to see visiting the Oval Office. Working for President Richard Nixon, he committed a raft of crimes to secure Nixon's re-election and punish his perceived enemies. He proposed to do still more—bomb the liberal Brookings Institution, kidnap anti-war activists and murder a couple of inconvenient people. But cooler heads prevailed.
Liddy held a fundraiser at his home for McCain's 1998 Senate re-election race. He agreed to speak at another McCain fundraiser in 2000.
He has given several large contributions to McCain, including $1,000 this year. He has hosted McCain on his radio show, where the Arizona senator gushed, "I'm proud of you."
... like Ayers, Liddy has never repented of his crimes, but takes pride in them.
His contempt for the law has not abated. After the 1993 raid in Waco, Texas, Liddy urged lethal violence against federal agents. "Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms," he told listeners. "Kill the sons of bitches." Only a year later did he amend his remarks to recommend that citizens not shoot unless they are shot at—which would have been a great comfort to any ATF agents gunned down in the meantime.
But don't take that as a sign that he has changed his ways. Liddy, who as a convicted felon is forbidden to possess a firearm, has bragged about keeping guns in his house and using them for target shooting. When I asked the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms what an ex-con could get for firing a gun, even at a target range, I was told it's a crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison.
For at least a decade, this unreformed criminal and enemy of democracy has been McCain's loyal friend, supporter and contributor. It may be a mystery just why the Republican nominee consorts with a lawless radical. But it's no mystery why he doesn't want to talk about it.
schapman@tribune.com
Copyright © 2008, Chicago Tribune
Gordon Smith Running Away From GOP
By Jay Allbritton
Oct 23rd 2008 12:32AM
Filed Under:eSenate, Featured Stories, 2008 Senate
While control of Congress certainly will not shift back to the Republicans, the sixty vote threshold in the Senate for breaking the perpetual Republican filibuster is within reach for the Democrats, although it is still a long reach.
One contest the Democrats probably have to win if they are to reach filibuster-proof status is the race between two-term incumbent Republican Gordon Smith and his Democratic challenger Jeff Merkley in Oregon, a state where Barack Obama holds a consistent and wide lead over John McCain in the polls.
The popularity of Obama in Oregon has not been lost on Smith. "Smith isn't just running away from President Bush in his bid for a third six-year term in the Senate," wrote AP writers Matthew Daly and Brad Cain, "he's practically leaping into the arms of Barack Obama and other Democrats." Smith recently spoke out against robocalls the McCain campaign are running across the country linking Barack Obama and Bill Ayers.Merkley hit back with a statement of his own:
Gordon Smith is a complete hypocrite. Just like John McCain, Gordon Smith and Karl Rove are using robocalls to attack Jeff Merkley. On top of that, Smith and the Oregon Republican Party are paying this company (FLS) thousands of dollars for undisclosed services. Smith should immediately fire this group of Bush-Rove hacks and demand that Freedom's Watch get out of Oregon.
Smith has stressed his bipartisan work with Obama and other Democrats including fellow Oregon Senator Ron Wyden, who endorsed Merkley. Daly pointed out that Smith did fight the Bush administration on "gay rights, Medicaid cuts, drilling in Alaska and most notably, the war in Iraq."
Merkley continues to maintain a consistent, though small, lead in recent polls.
A theme hovering over the contest is Smith's elitism versus Merkley's populism. Syndicated columnist David Sirota wrote, "If [John] Kerry looked like a professor at La Sorbonne, then Smith resembles a playboy at the Monte Carlo Casino." Over the last twelve years, Smith consistently voted with the Republican Party when it came to economic policies that favor the rich.
Merkley, Sirota points out, made his name cracking down on predatory lenders. He seems to have gained traction since opposing the recent $700 billion bailout of Wall Street, which Smith supported.
it's thrilling to have a liberal who scares the shit out of republicans!
Lee DanielsPosted October 23, 2008 11:50 AM (EST)
McCain and Palin: The Dead-End of GOP Politics
She -- ferociously ambitious and with an icy heart more durable than the frozen tundra beneath Alaska -- won't be embarrassed by the anger over her $150,000 fashion makeover. Or, we can be sure, let the extraordinary contribution she's made in a few short weeks to the well-deserved wrecking of her party's presidential hopes deter her from future pursuit of national office.
Instead, consider her enablers' actions as one more example of the GOP's long slide to the bottom -- its collapse into dead-end politics.
Perhaps some are puzzled at the idiocy of the McCain camp -- just when an economic crisis is exacting an alarming toll on Americans -- spending so outrageously to outfit someone they've been trying to sell as a "you betcha!" hockey Mom.
But, as Robin Givhan, the sharp Washington Post fashion writer, noted, this let-them-eat-cake behavior underscores the GOP's dynamic of "dissemblance" -- the difference between conservative rhetoric and the reality of conservative political behavior -- that's become more and more tawdry the past eight years.
Listing how that played out during the Bush years would require a booklet. And John McCain, in his brief moment atop the party whose base so dislikes him, has racked up his own impressive record of dissemblance, too.
That's why Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama Sunday was the more powerful.
Not just because Powell's high-level military and governmental experience and his considerable personal stature directly undermined key GOP arguments against Obama.
Nor just because of the compelling case he made that Obama is a "transformative figure" who would be "a successful president... an exceptional president."
It was the more powerful because Powell's words underscored John McCain's near-total dependence on negative campaigning - and the fact that dead-end politics now seems to be the only kind of politics the GOP can play. And his stand confirmed a marked repudiation of the Republican ticket's "culture wars" strategy by critical segments of voters, too.
The erosion of support for the McCain-Palin ticket during the past month has been charted in numerous polls. Taken collectively, they've found that "going negative" has backfired: the mud McCain and Palin have churned up has stuck, not to Obama, but to them.
For example, a New York Times/CBS News poll released this week found that 53 percent of those surveyed have a favorable impression of Obama, an increase of 10 percentage points since late September. That compares to 33 percent who say they do not.
By contrast, just 36 percent of voters polled view McCain favorably -- the same percent that did so in late September. But the percent of voters who now view McCain unfavorably has increased by 10 percentage points -- to 45 percent.
In other words, Obama's gain has been McCain's loss.
Not surprisingly, the growing gap stemmed from more voters losing confidence in McCain: 23 percent said their opinion of him had changed for the worse (only 12 percent said it had changed for the better).
The reasons that segment of voters gave for their negative assessment of McCain were, in order of importance: his attacks on Obama; his selection of Palin as his vice presidential choice; his performance in the debates with Obama, and his "erratic/unsteady" actions on the campaign trail.
Another poll, released this week by the Wall Street Journal and NBC News, also had Obama leading McCain by ten points. And, among other things, it, too, found that Sarah Palin was a major cause of voters turning from McCain.
That repudiation is what Colin Powell articulated in his appearance on Meet The Press.
Ever the diplomat, Powell spoke in measured terms about his "friend," John McCain. He said at one point, "it isn't easy for me to disappoint Senator McCain ... I regret that."
Nonetheless, he zeroed in on the most dramatic example of the GOP's worthlessness as a national party. That is the "demagoguery," in Powell's words, of the attempts of McCain and Palin and their surrogates to smear Obama as a "Muslim" and a "Socialist" who spends his time "palling around with terrorists."
This line of attack has infected their campaign with an unmistakable racist undertone; and - along with the ludicrous choice of Palin herself -- produced a shock wave of disgust that has even led several prominent conservative pundits to criticize both of them in strikingly harsh terms.
One can wonder why McCain and his advisers would resort to negative campaigning when the American electorate had already made clear they were fed up with the Republicans' bare-knuckled and cynical practice of politics -- when it overturned the GOP lock on the Congress in 2006 and put the Democrats in charge.
That McCain did return to that brutal, cynical approach indicates that, in this moment when multiple crises are tearing at the fabric of the society, he and the GOP are bereft of any ideas and any spirit worthy of the American people.
POWELL DIDN'T "SELL OUT," HE JUST CAME OUT OF THE CLOSET
See also here.
He was instrumental in getting Bush one to quit the first Iraq war before getting Saddam out, thereby making the second Gulf War inevitable. He's been an underminer (see above refs) for as long as he's been around. It's no surprise he's siding with O'Bunko.
Amerikkka's gonna Change...
Idiot still trying to tell us the second Iwreck war was necessary.
anonymoid idiot still telling us the second Iraq war wasn't necessary.
But, in the words of the chief WMD inspector, DAVID KAY, "Baghdad was actually becoming more dangerous in the last two years than even we realized. Saddam was not controlling the society any longer. In the marketplace of terrorism and of WMD, Iraq well could have been that supplier if the war had not intervened."
In other words, had we not stopped them, Iraq would have been a terrorist's bargain basement for death and destruction.
See also his full report which puts the lie to the Democrat bullspit that the war wasn't necessary.
That knowledge won't stop anonymoid liars from spewing their pigvomit, because they are either fools or deliberately trying to mislead us. Either way, they are dangerous, and must be shown to be dead wrong with the facts that they hope we don't know.
no doubt that other (or the same?) anonymouse wants us to believe that Zero-Bummer's Communist "ideals" are more suited to Americans than those of the Party of Lincoln. Well, Obama's ideas may be suited to Joe Stalin, but for Americans they are not!
LET'S SEE, WHO'S SIDE IS POWELL ON, AGAIN?
Post a Comment