First of all, Curry’s benching is TOTALLY WARRANTED. Fact is, I have always maintained that Curry’s potential has no limitations except for the ones he has placed on himself, mainly his work ethic, in which case he has been negligent, to say the least.
I have been watching this kid since High School. Arguably, he has the best touch, moves, and natural ability around the basket, than any other Big Man in the league.
7’ guys of his caliber are a dying breed, take a look around. That being said, I have been railing for years saying that his conditioning, or lack thereof, has prohibited him from taking his game to the next level.
He was on the cusp of becoming an All-Star. When he was passed up, his beef did have merit, however, instead of going hard during the off season, coming into camp ala Bynum, and proving the pundits wrong, he comes to camp in relatively the same shape, or worse…
He did have the burglary incident to deal with that summer, but overcoming adversity is the Hallmark of Champions, and the mainstream eats it up like forbidden comfort food. It would have legitimized his argument, and made him one of the most marketable players in NBA history. He is a good guy off the court after all.
The Knicks organization should have had elite Nutritionists, and Physical trainers, like the Suns/Nuggets and many other teams, make up training regimens specific to each individual players most pressing area of need. Crawford’s strength, Curry’s stamina/conditioning, etc. But ultimately, Curry is solely responsible for his body, his benching status, and his fall from grace as the cornerstone of the franchise.
Meanwhile, the player for whom he was snubbed (Dwight Howard), came into camp looking, freakishly, in better condition than he was the previous season, and had Patrick Ewing to help him hone his game. Adding insult to injury, this guy was already built like an NBA Adonis.
The Knicks definitely should have hired Patrick Sr. to work with Eddy long time ago, and retain the rights to Patrick Jr. now, by any means necessary. $400K is a drop in the bucket, compared to potential future dividends this kid could bring.
Curry not elevating his game, was the true albatross, single handedly weighing down the teams ability to improve far more than Marbury’s bad attitude. His lack of conditioning, and Marbury’s mutiny, coupled with the Anucha Browne suit, created a cancerous atmosphere, and inevitably, lead to ultimate failure.
We know how N.Y. is, if they came out like world beaters, the stories still would have been sports page fodder, but the mainstream would have reduced them to a small footnote. By no means am I attempting to absolve Thomas, the facts are the facts, and he was judged by a jury of his peers. I’m just pointing out how fickle we ALL can be when our beloved team is a WINNER.
As for Marbury, does he have a reputation of being a malcontent? Asolutely!
Is D'Antoni being purposely vindictive with the benching, truly giving players likely to be on the team in the future “prime time evaluations” (they were playing the Heat after all), or, was he testing Marbury's temperament to confirm whether or not the troublesome guard has truly made an about face?..... That, I do not know, and I don’t think any of us do. But I sure do hope the latter is the case.
If Marbury can remain stoic, observe what the coach wants him to do, stays ready to execute the coaches will, and EXECUTES the game plan with efficiency, when he is finally called upon, he may finally have the opportunity he has professed to have since he donned the Knick uniform, which is, WIN IN N.Y.
If he has truly bought into the concept of TEAM before me, effectively runs the offense, which I believe he is supremely equipped to do, it will display a tremendous amount of discipline, composure, but most of all maturity. And that’s what the Knicks need the most right now, a true “LEADER” on the floor, and team defense.
This could resurrect his career, whether or not the Knicks retain his services next year, albeit, winning would make it virtually impossible to part ways with him. After all, Lebron could always use an All-Star caliber point guard, right?
No matter how much we may disagree with his methods, D’Antoni has won consistently in Phoenix, he was Asst. coach on the Gold medal Olympic team this summer, and he has been constantly evaluating this team all summer. We must give him an opportunity to implement his strategy, and voice our criticisms in a respectful manner.
NO ONE can pretend to know the make up this team better than D’Antoni and his staff, with the exception of Thomas. Although it’s early, he has already demonstrated the ability to make better use of their skills using a completely different philosophy.
With all my reservations, I must give him the benefit of the doubt, and HOLD THE IRE, at least for now. But hey, if you don’t have thick skin, don’t get on the stage in N.Y., right? Just ask Joe Torre……..
More@: http://blaqops.blogspot.com/
Friday, October 31, 2008
Thursday, October 30, 2008
PARDON (PART II)
Check out the demands the Iraqi Gov't, which we liberated, is making on U.S. now!!!! Good thing we are spending $10Billion a month securing their freedom, huh?
I'm sure an agreement will be reached soon, but the demands, alone, are ludicrous considering how much GI blood, and Tax payer loot that has been SACRIFICED.
IRAQ SEEKS PACT LIMITS
BAGHDAD - Iraq wants a security agreement with the United States to include a clear ban on American troops using Iraqi territory to attack Iraq's neighbors, a government spokesman said yesterday, three days after a dramatic US raid on Syria.
Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the proposed amendment was among several forwarded to Washington, where President Bush said negotiators were analyzing them. "We obviously want to be helpful and constructive without undermining basic principles," Bush said.
Al-Dabbagh said the Iraqis want the right to declare the agreement null and void if the United States unilaterally attacks one of Iraq's neighbors.
US troops launched a daring daylight attack Sunday a few miles into Syrian territory, killing senior al Qaeda figure Abu Ghadiyah.
Al-Dabbagh said other amendments sought by the Iraqis include a clear definition of "duty" when cases arise involving crimes committed by American troops off base.
These GIs would be tried under Iraqi jurisdiction. The Iraqis also want to inspect all US military shipments entering or leaving Iraq. The agreement must be approved by the end of the year, or the US military would have to suspend all operations in Iraq.
The GALL, however we never should have been there in the first place. It's obvious they are quite capable of securing their own land.
I'm sure an agreement will be reached soon, but the demands, alone, are ludicrous considering how much GI blood, and Tax payer loot that has been SACRIFICED.
IRAQ SEEKS PACT LIMITS
BAGHDAD - Iraq wants a security agreement with the United States to include a clear ban on American troops using Iraqi territory to attack Iraq's neighbors, a government spokesman said yesterday, three days after a dramatic US raid on Syria.
Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the proposed amendment was among several forwarded to Washington, where President Bush said negotiators were analyzing them. "We obviously want to be helpful and constructive without undermining basic principles," Bush said.
Al-Dabbagh said the Iraqis want the right to declare the agreement null and void if the United States unilaterally attacks one of Iraq's neighbors.
US troops launched a daring daylight attack Sunday a few miles into Syrian territory, killing senior al Qaeda figure Abu Ghadiyah.
Al-Dabbagh said other amendments sought by the Iraqis include a clear definition of "duty" when cases arise involving crimes committed by American troops off base.
These GIs would be tried under Iraqi jurisdiction. The Iraqis also want to inspect all US military shipments entering or leaving Iraq. The agreement must be approved by the end of the year, or the US military would have to suspend all operations in Iraq.
The GALL, however we never should have been there in the first place. It's obvious they are quite capable of securing their own land.
PARDON
WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The preemptive doctrine lives on........
They rail about a whole host of irrelevant crap, but stuff like this go under the radar. He's attempting to skirt accountability, BEFORE THE FACT!
This is unprecedented... I'm not even going to write anything else. Just watch the video and judge for yourself..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RwoFcLgxA0
They rail about a whole host of irrelevant crap, but stuff like this go under the radar. He's attempting to skirt accountability, BEFORE THE FACT!
This is unprecedented... I'm not even going to write anything else. Just watch the video and judge for yourself..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RwoFcLgxA0
CAUTIOUS OPTIMISM........
I am cautiously optimistic about this season, but I must reiterate, the Ewing Jr. decision was a terrible call, they must retain the rights to sign him in the future.
Secondly, the decision not to play Marbury last night was a horrendous call. Granted he has been a disruptive presence in the past, but this off season he busted his tail to get in the best shape he has been in, in years. He said all the right things publicly, put TEAM first, and sparkled in the preseason distributing the ball. With respect to Duhon, Marbury's assists (per minutes played) were off the charts.
To unveil the unproven Gallinari who only played 1 Summer League game, and call on Collins, resulting in Marbury getting the second DNP of his career, displayed extremely bad judgement, in my opinion.
Who knows, perhaps the call was a mandate handed down directly from Walsh, perhaps D'Antoni is testing Marbury to see if he will revert back to sulking in a demonstrative fashion, and immaturely voicing his grievances with the club publicly. If that is the case, it may be a good way to evaluate whether or not Marbury's new attitude is for real, but if you truly want to part ways with him, the best thing you could do is showcase his talent (for a few minutes at the least) in order to peak interest from other ball clubs.
Time will tell...... D'Antoni deserves the opportunity to implement his directive, without being second guessed by every pundit/fan with an opinion, but to me, I would never bench, arguably, the best weapon in my arsenal unless he gives me a good reason to take such action.
Secondly, the decision not to play Marbury last night was a horrendous call. Granted he has been a disruptive presence in the past, but this off season he busted his tail to get in the best shape he has been in, in years. He said all the right things publicly, put TEAM first, and sparkled in the preseason distributing the ball. With respect to Duhon, Marbury's assists (per minutes played) were off the charts.
To unveil the unproven Gallinari who only played 1 Summer League game, and call on Collins, resulting in Marbury getting the second DNP of his career, displayed extremely bad judgement, in my opinion.
Who knows, perhaps the call was a mandate handed down directly from Walsh, perhaps D'Antoni is testing Marbury to see if he will revert back to sulking in a demonstrative fashion, and immaturely voicing his grievances with the club publicly. If that is the case, it may be a good way to evaluate whether or not Marbury's new attitude is for real, but if you truly want to part ways with him, the best thing you could do is showcase his talent (for a few minutes at the least) in order to peak interest from other ball clubs.
Time will tell...... D'Antoni deserves the opportunity to implement his directive, without being second guessed by every pundit/fan with an opinion, but to me, I would never bench, arguably, the best weapon in my arsenal unless he gives me a good reason to take such action.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
A SOBERING PERSPECTIVE.......
With exactly a week left in the most important national election, in a long time (my lifetime at least), if I see the media focus on one more misguided, aloof, bigoted, racist, narrow minded, dumbed down voter who says, “I’m voting for the Obama because, I hope he will be the Nations first Black President”, I am going to lose my mind!!!!!!!
To be brutally honest, I have just as much contempt for those idiots, as the Nazi @$$#*!$ who were arrested yesterday. They were obviously reckless, and stupid, but I am more concerned with those who may have more sophisticated and clandestine plots on their agenda, in an effort to derail progress. I pray to GOD it NEVER happens….
Although I’m concerned, I am not afraid for Obama’s safety, nor should he be. There will be no progress without sacrifice. Any time you try to do something good, HATERS, without a doubt, will always try to cut you down. That reality, unfortunately, comes with the territory, but you should NEVER let it deter you from completing/pursuing the task at hand.….
To vote for someone on the premise of race, to me, is an overt admission of IGNORANCE. Early in the primary campaign, I was torn between Sen. Clinton, and Sen. Obama.
To be brutally honest, I have just as much contempt for those idiots, as the Nazi @$$#*!$ who were arrested yesterday. They were obviously reckless, and stupid, but I am more concerned with those who may have more sophisticated and clandestine plots on their agenda, in an effort to derail progress. I pray to GOD it NEVER happens….
Although I’m concerned, I am not afraid for Obama’s safety, nor should he be. There will be no progress without sacrifice. Any time you try to do something good, HATERS, without a doubt, will always try to cut you down. That reality, unfortunately, comes with the territory, but you should NEVER let it deter you from completing/pursuing the task at hand.….
To vote for someone on the premise of race, to me, is an overt admission of IGNORANCE. Early in the primary campaign, I was torn between Sen. Clinton, and Sen. Obama.
Although their policy stances mirror each other greatly, as the race progressed, I gravitated towards Sen. Obama based on his debating skills, his ability to remain above the fray, and stay on message, no matter how ugly or contentious the competition got.
No disrespect to Sen. Clinton, but I also felt Sen. Obama was the least polarizing candidate, he represented the best opportunity to break from the “old” Washington politics as usual ideology, and invoke REAL change, NOW!!!
Sen. Obama is intelligent, articulate, an excellent communicator, he has surrounded himself with competent advisors, he is cool calm&collective, and I am convinced, he has a firm grasp on the “Issues” that need to be addressed, in order to move the Nation forward.
No disrespect to Sen. Clinton, but I also felt Sen. Obama was the least polarizing candidate, he represented the best opportunity to break from the “old” Washington politics as usual ideology, and invoke REAL change, NOW!!!
Sen. Obama is intelligent, articulate, an excellent communicator, he has surrounded himself with competent advisors, he is cool calm&collective, and I am convinced, he has a firm grasp on the “Issues” that need to be addressed, in order to move the Nation forward.
The fact that he is the first Black candidate in our Nations history is a proud moment for all intelligent/forward thinking people, not to mention people of color, and icing on the cake as far as I’m concerned, but that’s NOT the reason I am, or, WE should, vote for him.
I do believe we are on the cusp of a great moment in history. Dr. King dreamed of the day we could judge ALL PEOPLE “not based on the color of their skin, but on the content of their character.” I truly hope Nov 4th is an indicator that dream is finally coming to fruition.
In my estimation, anyone who votes on the premise of race is no better than the racist idiots spewing rhetoric (Pro-Black Militant/ Socialist/ Communist), the baseless character assassinations against his background (middle name Hussein/ Muslim/ Elitist), or those who try to mislead the public into believing we will be in “eminent danger”, should he be victorious. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and in my opinion, those types of voters are IGNORANT COWARDS, who should have their voting privileges REVOKED, permanently!!! (Good thing we live in a Democracy, right? LOL)
I am a pessimist by experience, but deep down inside, I am an eternal optimist. Although this world will never be Utopian, “Life” naturally, will always present adverse and challenging situations to us all. Rising to meet those challenges however, in an intellectual, measured, and responsible manner, is HUMANITY at its best. I yearn for the day when “civilization”, for the most part, epitomizes the definition of the word, and we can move forward in unison, as the “HUMAN RACE.
Memo to the idiots: Get informed, and make an educated choice Nov 4th, based primarily, on your “best” interests, and the interests of your family, your community, this Nation as a whole, and the WORLD in general……. We all share this planet, like it or not.
I am a firm believer that absolute power corrupts absolutely, but in this instance, a filibuster proof Washington is almost necessary in order to right the wrongs of the past 8 years. Believe me, if the Democrats are successful, and if Obama and/or Congress abuses this power, I will be just as vocally critical of their performance as I have been of the current administration.
As I am an Independent, first and foremost, I am optimistic that in future elections the RNC will realize the error in their ways, and select representatives based on their intellectual capacity, experience, and the interests of ALL Americans, in order to restore the checks and balances that we need to keep misguided representatives who may get inebriated by power over the next 4 years, from going astray and running amok with the political process, after order has been restored.
Once the race is over, the new President will have to focus and work much harder than recent predecessors. Both the DNC&RNC will need to focus on grooming future candidates in all branches of Government, whether they are White, Black, Latino, Asian, male, or female.
If Obama succeeds in implementing the CHANGE he has based his platform on, I believe the Nation will benefit from a multitude of opportunities/wealth, and if it comes to fruition, a great responsibility will accompany that progress. We will be ill served if we squander those opportunities, or go backwards, again. By no means can we let that happen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That being said, I will try to refrain from sending you guys anything else political in nature up through Nov 4th, but something tells me I won’t be able to keep my promise, LOL. If you agree please forward this blog to your less enlightened friends, family, and associates. Hope all is well everyone….
Barack the vote Nov 4th!!!!!
That being said, I will try to refrain from sending you guys anything else political in nature up through Nov 4th, but something tells me I won’t be able to keep my promise, LOL. If you agree please forward this blog to your less enlightened friends, family, and associates. Hope all is well everyone….
Barack the vote Nov 4th!!!!!
Friday, October 24, 2008
FOUND HIM!!! - Bush "You guys may be back next year, but not me"
It's unfathomable that this guy still has the gall to think statements like this are funny, or even appropriate, in the midst of the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression, and, 2 WARS, that he PREEMPTIVELY STARTED, the next President will inherit, and have to clean up. UNBELIEVABLE!!
We didn't need to engage in 2 WARS... As I said, at the time, all we NEEDED to do was send in our Special Forces to find those responsible for the atrocities of 9/11, and KILL them all, as we are currently doing now with "surprise attacks/care packages/drones" being sent to kill suspected Al Queda operatives.
This course of action would have saved the American public billions, not to mention the thousands of lives (American, Iraqi, Afghan, etc), that would have been salvaged as well.
Just in case there was any doubt left that this is, unequivocally, the WORST, now LAME DUCK, President EVER, cut and paste the link below to see for yourself.....
"You guys may be back next year, but not me (HEHEHEHEHE)". THANK GOD!!!!!!!!
Albeit, this was said in jest, at the Stanley Cup White House ceremony, but the sad part is, the joke is on all of U.S.
********** http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032553/#scroll_video ********************* (takes a little work, go to "where's Bush" video link once you get to the site)
*******PLUS*********
I must admit, the article below is a surprising, yet refreshing admonition from a Post columnist. The McCain campaign has abandoned all of his Maverick qualities, in his desperation for VICTORY. Socialism is NOT the answer, but that's NOT what Obama is proposing.
Funny thing is, the McCain campaign has effectively disillusioned the uninformed into believing Obama will truncate "the American Dream" by taxing them, in order to promote his "Social Agenda" and give away hard earned "Regular Joe's" tax dollars to those who pay No taxes at all... Which is an absolute farce, to say the least?
Increased disposable income for middle class Americans will boost the economy, businesses, and ultimately, the tax coffers, tremendously. Maybe then, we could start paying down the National Debt, which the sitting President was implicit in bloating with his preemptive War policies (Bush Doctrine), unbalanced budgets, and the recent Wall Street bailout. Not to mention the Nation's infrastructure is desperately in need of repair, we're falling behind the rest of the world in education/production/economy, and the cost of living continues to spiral out of control... Who do we think is going to pay for all of this, our great great grandchildren??????
God forbid a "Regular Joe" making $250++ would have to pay a little more, in order to secure his own, and the Nation's as a whole, well being. Go figure.........
MCCAIN'S 'SOCIALIST' FALLACY
Comments: 37Read Comments Leave a Comment
Last updated: 4:54 amOctober 24, 2008
Posted: 4:29 amOctober 24, 2008
ONCE the McCain campaign said Barack Obama was a terrorist sympathizer, we should've have known "socialist" was next.
Ever since Obama told "Joe the Plumber" that we should "spread the wealth," John McCain and Sarah Palin have taken to blasting Obama's tax plan as a socialist plot. Socialism involves collective ownership of the means of economic production and similar institutional "sharing of the wealth." Nothing Obama has proposed comes close to that. (Instead, the Bush administration is virtually nationalizing the banks.)
What McCain calls socialism is actually just old-fashioned progressive taxation - taxing the wealthy at higher rates than the poor. It underlies most of US tax policy - so mainstream that one of its biggest defendershas been . . . John McCain. Debating in Michigan during the 2000 primaries, McCain warned: "There's a growing gap between the haves and have-nots in America, and that gap is growing, and it's unfortunately divided up along ethnic lines."
That same year, McCain said on "Meet the Press": "Many studies have indicated that . . . the people who need . . . the relief most are working middle-income Americans and that's what I want to give to them." In an ad, he promised: "There's one big difference between me and the others - I won't take every last dime of the surplus and spend it on tax cuts that mostly benefit the wealthy."Socialist!
In fact, McCain is such a socialist that he voted against the 2001 Bush tax cuts, complaining that they unfairly favored the rich "at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief." The McCain campaign has also bizarrely begun calling Obama's tax credits "welfare."
For example, Obama's refundable tax credit for mortgage payments originally went to everyone, even if they didn't work. Responding to the "welfare" charge, Obama has added a work requirement - so now retirees won't benefit from the tax credit. Thanks, Sen. McCain.
It also looks like McCain is pushing a little "welfare" of his own: The centerpiece of his health care plan is a $5,000 tax credit to families. This goes to people regardless of their employment status. Socialist! Sure, the credit just replaces today's break for employer-provided insurance - but it does potentially go to people who don't pay income tax. Why isn't that socialism?
Conservatives are also calling Obama's health-care plan "socialized medicine." Yet Henry Aaron, a top health-policy expert at nonpartisan Brookings Institution, laughed at this characterization. He calls Obama's plan "exceedingly moderate," noting that it builds incrementally on existing insurance programs. It won't tell private insurers what benefits they must cover beyond a basic package.
In fact, liberal New York Times columnist Paul Krugman attacked Obama's plan as overly modest (compared to Hillary Clinton's) several times during the primaries. Unlike places like Britian, which doeshave socialized medicine, Obama wouldn't put doctors to work for the government.
If you like your current policy, you could keep it. If Obama's plan is "socialist" because it means a bit more government involvement in health care, than America already has socialized medicine for the elderly (Medicare) and the poor (Medicaid). Maybe all this is why the "socialist" attack doesn't seem to be working.
In the most recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, Obama led on "better on taxes" 48-34. A month earlier, McCain was ahead 41-37. Could the taunt of "communist" be far behind?
kirstenpowers@aol.com
We didn't need to engage in 2 WARS... As I said, at the time, all we NEEDED to do was send in our Special Forces to find those responsible for the atrocities of 9/11, and KILL them all, as we are currently doing now with "surprise attacks/care packages/drones" being sent to kill suspected Al Queda operatives.
This course of action would have saved the American public billions, not to mention the thousands of lives (American, Iraqi, Afghan, etc), that would have been salvaged as well.
Just in case there was any doubt left that this is, unequivocally, the WORST, now LAME DUCK, President EVER, cut and paste the link below to see for yourself.....
"You guys may be back next year, but not me (HEHEHEHEHE)". THANK GOD!!!!!!!!
Albeit, this was said in jest, at the Stanley Cup White House ceremony, but the sad part is, the joke is on all of U.S.
********** http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032553/#scroll_video ********************* (takes a little work, go to "where's Bush" video link once you get to the site)
*******PLUS*********
I must admit, the article below is a surprising, yet refreshing admonition from a Post columnist. The McCain campaign has abandoned all of his Maverick qualities, in his desperation for VICTORY. Socialism is NOT the answer, but that's NOT what Obama is proposing.
Funny thing is, the McCain campaign has effectively disillusioned the uninformed into believing Obama will truncate "the American Dream" by taxing them, in order to promote his "Social Agenda" and give away hard earned "Regular Joe's" tax dollars to those who pay No taxes at all... Which is an absolute farce, to say the least?
Increased disposable income for middle class Americans will boost the economy, businesses, and ultimately, the tax coffers, tremendously. Maybe then, we could start paying down the National Debt, which the sitting President was implicit in bloating with his preemptive War policies (Bush Doctrine), unbalanced budgets, and the recent Wall Street bailout. Not to mention the Nation's infrastructure is desperately in need of repair, we're falling behind the rest of the world in education/production/economy, and the cost of living continues to spiral out of control... Who do we think is going to pay for all of this, our great great grandchildren??????
God forbid a "Regular Joe" making $250++ would have to pay a little more, in order to secure his own, and the Nation's as a whole, well being. Go figure.........
MCCAIN'S 'SOCIALIST' FALLACY
Comments: 37Read Comments Leave a Comment
Last updated: 4:54 amOctober 24, 2008
Posted: 4:29 amOctober 24, 2008
ONCE the McCain campaign said Barack Obama was a terrorist sympathizer, we should've have known "socialist" was next.
Ever since Obama told "Joe the Plumber" that we should "spread the wealth," John McCain and Sarah Palin have taken to blasting Obama's tax plan as a socialist plot. Socialism involves collective ownership of the means of economic production and similar institutional "sharing of the wealth." Nothing Obama has proposed comes close to that. (Instead, the Bush administration is virtually nationalizing the banks.)
What McCain calls socialism is actually just old-fashioned progressive taxation - taxing the wealthy at higher rates than the poor. It underlies most of US tax policy - so mainstream that one of its biggest defendershas been . . . John McCain. Debating in Michigan during the 2000 primaries, McCain warned: "There's a growing gap between the haves and have-nots in America, and that gap is growing, and it's unfortunately divided up along ethnic lines."
That same year, McCain said on "Meet the Press": "Many studies have indicated that . . . the people who need . . . the relief most are working middle-income Americans and that's what I want to give to them." In an ad, he promised: "There's one big difference between me and the others - I won't take every last dime of the surplus and spend it on tax cuts that mostly benefit the wealthy."Socialist!
In fact, McCain is such a socialist that he voted against the 2001 Bush tax cuts, complaining that they unfairly favored the rich "at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief." The McCain campaign has also bizarrely begun calling Obama's tax credits "welfare."
For example, Obama's refundable tax credit for mortgage payments originally went to everyone, even if they didn't work. Responding to the "welfare" charge, Obama has added a work requirement - so now retirees won't benefit from the tax credit. Thanks, Sen. McCain.
It also looks like McCain is pushing a little "welfare" of his own: The centerpiece of his health care plan is a $5,000 tax credit to families. This goes to people regardless of their employment status. Socialist! Sure, the credit just replaces today's break for employer-provided insurance - but it does potentially go to people who don't pay income tax. Why isn't that socialism?
Conservatives are also calling Obama's health-care plan "socialized medicine." Yet Henry Aaron, a top health-policy expert at nonpartisan Brookings Institution, laughed at this characterization. He calls Obama's plan "exceedingly moderate," noting that it builds incrementally on existing insurance programs. It won't tell private insurers what benefits they must cover beyond a basic package.
In fact, liberal New York Times columnist Paul Krugman attacked Obama's plan as overly modest (compared to Hillary Clinton's) several times during the primaries. Unlike places like Britian, which doeshave socialized medicine, Obama wouldn't put doctors to work for the government.
If you like your current policy, you could keep it. If Obama's plan is "socialist" because it means a bit more government involvement in health care, than America already has socialized medicine for the elderly (Medicare) and the poor (Medicaid). Maybe all this is why the "socialist" attack doesn't seem to be working.
In the most recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, Obama led on "better on taxes" 48-34. A month earlier, McCain was ahead 41-37. Could the taunt of "communist" be far behind?
kirstenpowers@aol.com
Thursday, October 23, 2008
ABSOLUTELY DESPICABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This ad is slanderous, and irresponsible. By no means is the following a characterization of EVERYONE voting for McCain, but I believe, the blatant, racist, and fear mongering tactics resonates with the most biased and narrow minded members of the American electorate, and reflects the tone of the McCain campaign, in a NUTSHELL……….
This is it!!!!!!! I have had it with the McCain campaign. Out of sheer desperation for victory, his campaign is resorting to even more despicable tactics than his predecessor, whom he is desperately trying to distance himself from NOW, in light of W's tremendous unpopularity (lowest approval rating for a sitting President EVER). Has anyone even seen him lately????? I was in the building on 9/11, and by the grace of God, I escaped unscathed. To insinuate that an Obama victory would put the Nation in DANGER, and circulating the ad below, with the picture of an aircraft at an airport (see RNC mailer below), is offensive to me personally, and, a crass attempt to regain/hold on to the lead in crucial swing states, and is truly reprehensible, to say the least. This only shows how desperate they want to WIN, and his campaign has successfully outdone the Bush campaign in the area of CLASS, or, lack thereof (re: Bush campaign attacks on Sen. McCain's bi-racial daughter out of wedlock false + being brainwashed by the Vietcong, also false) from the previous election. It is a cowardly act. Although the Senator's service to his country is NOT debatable, his state of desperation has disintegrated any remaining respect I had for him, and, destroys his claim of being "above partisan politics".
The mere insinuation that we will be “weaker” because Obama is open to dialogue, instead of continuing the preemptive “Bush Doctrine” policy, is just more right wing FEAR MONGERING.
As FDR was quoted, “We have nothing to fear, but fear itself”.
Theodore Roosevelt said, “To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or, that we are to stand by the President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American Public”.
Abraham Lincoln protested that “The Mexican-American war, as an unnecessary and unconstitutional war of conquest, designed to add more slave states to the union”. He was right, of course. It was a direct precursor to our Civil War.
True times have changed, but intelligent and forward thinking has no expiration date, and is NEVER, a sign of weakness. On the contrary, it demonstrates the highest levels of character, courage, bravery, and integrity.
The GOP’s stubbornness, and isolation of power ideology, has bankrupted their political stock, and has virtually bankrupted the Nation financially, as well.
If Sen. Obama is not elected the 44th President of the United States, it will be because they have succeeded in pandering to the ideologies that further DIVIDE ALL AMERICANS. That would, potentially, set back progress another decade, and it would truly be a travesty, of monumental proportions.
Even his own campaign advisors suggested that if “McCain keeps talking about the Economy, he will lose”. What does that tell you? To me, it suggests that he has NOTHING else to talk about, PERIOD!!!! And, his position on issues that matter to Americans the most, is lacking, baseless, misleading, and, NOT in the interests of most of U.S.
This ad is slanderous, and irresponsible. By no means is the following a characterization of EVERYONE voting for McCain, but I believe, the blatant, racist, and fear mongering tactics resonates with the most biased and narrow minded members of the American electorate, and reflects the tone of the McCain campaign, in a NUTSHELL………. BARACK THE VOTE NOV 4TH!!!!!!
More @: http://blaqops.blogspot.com/
The mere insinuation that we will be “weaker” because Obama is open to dialogue, instead of continuing the preemptive “Bush Doctrine” policy, is just more right wing FEAR MONGERING.
As FDR was quoted, “We have nothing to fear, but fear itself”.
Theodore Roosevelt said, “To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or, that we are to stand by the President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American Public”.
Abraham Lincoln protested that “The Mexican-American war, as an unnecessary and unconstitutional war of conquest, designed to add more slave states to the union”. He was right, of course. It was a direct precursor to our Civil War.
True times have changed, but intelligent and forward thinking has no expiration date, and is NEVER, a sign of weakness. On the contrary, it demonstrates the highest levels of character, courage, bravery, and integrity.
The GOP’s stubbornness, and isolation of power ideology, has bankrupted their political stock, and has virtually bankrupted the Nation financially, as well.
If Sen. Obama is not elected the 44th President of the United States, it will be because they have succeeded in pandering to the ideologies that further DIVIDE ALL AMERICANS. That would, potentially, set back progress another decade, and it would truly be a travesty, of monumental proportions.
Even his own campaign advisors suggested that if “McCain keeps talking about the Economy, he will lose”. What does that tell you? To me, it suggests that he has NOTHING else to talk about, PERIOD!!!! And, his position on issues that matter to Americans the most, is lacking, baseless, misleading, and, NOT in the interests of most of U.S.
This ad is slanderous, and irresponsible. By no means is the following a characterization of EVERYONE voting for McCain, but I believe, the blatant, racist, and fear mongering tactics resonates with the most biased and narrow minded members of the American electorate, and reflects the tone of the McCain campaign, in a NUTSHELL………. BARACK THE VOTE NOV 4TH!!!!!!
More @: http://blaqops.blogspot.com/
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK.... PUN INTENDED
They say the media is having a love fest with Obama, but this Palin revelation is not getting as much traction as Ayers, or Rev. Wright. This is fair game, especially after she made the claim Sen. Obama has been "pallin" around with terrorists (plural!!!!), but again, O let's the liberal media, and voters do the fact checking, as he continues to take the high road. That's just one reason he is my choice for the next President of the U.S.A.
Another thing.... I guess what they say is true. If you have an ounce of Negro in you, you're a still a N!&&@!. Because the Sen represents both extremes in terms of race (White Western Woman + Black African Man, from Africa) , he was raised by his maternal (white) grandparents, but routinely he is classified only as the AA candidate..... It's okay, we'll take him.
Why can't he be like Tiger Woods, Calabasian (or whatever), NO, because they want to slander him, and blacken him up as much as possible. All that is missing from the McCain campaign thus far is tar and feathers, but the Socialist label has been getting major traction, so I guess the tar is on hold for now.
If he wins the Presidency, and does a good job, I'm sure the revisionists will take tha t opportunity to write about his lineage to famous Caucasians, and his mixed heritage, then they'll probably recreate his image as well, as Christ's image was revised several times throughout history, to the point where he now resembles a caucasian European.
I don't know if he'll be successful, but I know, instinctively, this man is head above shoulders more intelligent than his opponents, and not just because he is an Ivy League graduate, that graduated at the top of his class. I know, based on his policy, that his goal is to create a better quality of life for Americans, but specifically, the Middle Class (majority of US).
He represents the entire Human race, race wise. A comparison to Sarah Palin is slanderous, intellectually, she isn't even in the same stratosphere. Funny thing is, the conservatives have many believing Obama will take away the American dream... Hello!!!!! Your dreams are currently being outsourced to Latin America, India, China, and any other country that offers cheap labor, while big business continues to receive BILLIONS in tax breaks to "create jobs/wealth". Not to mention the bankers squandering over 2 trillion of "OUR" retirement portfolios down the drain. But, check to see how many jobs were lost this year alone in the U.S.
While the foreign economies are on the rise, our economy is flailing. Now were actually borrowing money from "s ocialist" China to pay our debt, and, pay for Middle Eastern "Terrorists" oil, while our deficit soars. WOW!!!!
VideoOlbermann: It's Palin doing the pallin' - Countdown with Keith Olbermann- msnbc.com
Transcript excerpts: And of course, Governor, those same dopes, and we media morons, we are not smart enough to ask about that pesky Alaskan Independence Party, and why you recorded a speech for its convention last March, and why your husband remained a registered member of it until 2002, even though it was founded by a man named Joe Vogler who wanted Alaska to secede from the United States. The way the South seceded, precipitating the Civil War.
The same Joe Vogler who once said:
"The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government, and I won't be bur ied under their damn flag.”
And who also said:
"I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions.”
Your opponent's guy Ayers wound up on a volunteer anti-poverty committee in Chicago. But your guy Vogler wound up founding a group that wanted to rip one of the stars off the American flag! But I'm assuming you've been "palling around” with your husband. But, gee willikers, Governor, you know what's best.
You're not one of these Washington insiders who would notice that though that's a straight line connecting you, your husband, and this Alaskan secessionist, you're*standing under a banner with the campaign slogan "Country First” and if somebody out there puts two and two together they might just ask, "which Country dja mean? The Country of Alaska?”
Another thing.... I guess what they say is true. If you have an ounce of Negro in you, you're a still a N!&&@!. Because the Sen represents both extremes in terms of race (White Western Woman + Black African Man, from Africa) , he was raised by his maternal (white) grandparents, but routinely he is classified only as the AA candidate..... It's okay, we'll take him.
Why can't he be like Tiger Woods, Calabasian (or whatever), NO, because they want to slander him, and blacken him up as much as possible. All that is missing from the McCain campaign thus far is tar and feathers, but the Socialist label has been getting major traction, so I guess the tar is on hold for now.
If he wins the Presidency, and does a good job, I'm sure the revisionists will take tha t opportunity to write about his lineage to famous Caucasians, and his mixed heritage, then they'll probably recreate his image as well, as Christ's image was revised several times throughout history, to the point where he now resembles a caucasian European.
I don't know if he'll be successful, but I know, instinctively, this man is head above shoulders more intelligent than his opponents, and not just because he is an Ivy League graduate, that graduated at the top of his class. I know, based on his policy, that his goal is to create a better quality of life for Americans, but specifically, the Middle Class (majority of US).
He represents the entire Human race, race wise. A comparison to Sarah Palin is slanderous, intellectually, she isn't even in the same stratosphere. Funny thing is, the conservatives have many believing Obama will take away the American dream... Hello!!!!! Your dreams are currently being outsourced to Latin America, India, China, and any other country that offers cheap labor, while big business continues to receive BILLIONS in tax breaks to "create jobs/wealth". Not to mention the bankers squandering over 2 trillion of "OUR" retirement portfolios down the drain. But, check to see how many jobs were lost this year alone in the U.S.
While the foreign economies are on the rise, our economy is flailing. Now were actually borrowing money from "s ocialist" China to pay our debt, and, pay for Middle Eastern "Terrorists" oil, while our deficit soars. WOW!!!!
VideoOlbermann: It's Palin doing the pallin' - Countdown with Keith Olbermann- msnbc.com
Transcript excerpts: And of course, Governor, those same dopes, and we media morons, we are not smart enough to ask about that pesky Alaskan Independence Party, and why you recorded a speech for its convention last March, and why your husband remained a registered member of it until 2002, even though it was founded by a man named Joe Vogler who wanted Alaska to secede from the United States. The way the South seceded, precipitating the Civil War.
The same Joe Vogler who once said:
"The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government, and I won't be bur ied under their damn flag.”
And who also said:
"I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions.”
Your opponent's guy Ayers wound up on a volunteer anti-poverty committee in Chicago. But your guy Vogler wound up founding a group that wanted to rip one of the stars off the American flag! But I'm assuming you've been "palling around” with your husband. But, gee willikers, Governor, you know what's best.
You're not one of these Washington insiders who would notice that though that's a straight line connecting you, your husband, and this Alaskan secessionist, you're*standing under a banner with the campaign slogan "Country First” and if somebody out there puts two and two together they might just ask, "which Country dja mean? The Country of Alaska?”
Thursday, October 16, 2008
JOE THE PLUMBER? R U KIDDING ME!!!!!!!
I finally have a grievance with Sen. Barack Obama. Although, I applaud his performance, and commend him for remaining unflappable during the entire campaign, I believe he has not thoroughly defended himself personally, or his policies, when McCain goes on the offensive. I’m not saying he needs to go “Nuclear”, but retort a little more forcefully, and lay out the differences in policy, more CLEARLY.
I know Sen. Obama is attempting to be “graceful”, since he is currently leading in the polls, but with Election Day less than a month away, and, since it was the FINAL debate, I feel as though it was a missed opportunity to deliver the proverbial, KNOCK OUT PUNCH, to the opposition, particularly with the “Redistribution of Wealth” accusation.
When Sen. McCain referenced “Joe the Plumber” as his example on how he is going to fight for the Middle Class, my blood began to boil, and I almost lost it. Why didn’t Sen. Obama use this as an opportunity to clarify more effectively, how OUT OF TOUCH Sen. McCain is with the plight of the Middle Class, which consists of a MAJORITY OF AMERICANS?
Sen. Obama reiterated that McCain has voted in line with the Bush administration in regards to the economy, over 90% of the time, but he should have used the “Joe the Plumber” example to blow McCain’s theory/policy completely out of the water.
First of all, I don’t know about you, but I don’t know too many Middle Class “Joe ANYTHINGS” earning 250K+ annually. If Sally the secretary, Ben the bus driver, Chris the cop, Tim the teacher, and Craig the carpenter, don’t have enough disposable income to consume goods and services, after barely being able to take care of their primary cost of living expenses, even if Joe the plumber benefits in the short term from a tax freeze, his business (many businesses for that matter) will continue to fail in the long term.
Wall Street is a glaring example of that fact, and the Bush administration’s failed “Trickle Down” economic policies are directly implicit, in the demise of our markets.
Our economy sustained growth throughout the Bush years, but with jobs being outsourced at a break neck pace, the cost of living (gas/housing/food/etc) spiraling out of control, the Trillion$+ war, the nearly Trillion$ Wall Street bail out, although a small minority may have profited enormously during this period, a majority of Americans have been inundated by the financial squeeze, finding it increasingly difficult to sustain a moderate quality of life.
The current economic catastrophe is indicative of this troubling trend.
Jobs were NOT CREATED during this period, a staggering number of jobs were actually LOST. As a result, our institutions are FAILING, retail sales are DECLINING, COSTS continue to $$$RISE out of control. and investment portfolios have been DECIMATED, which will result in further JOB LOSSES, PROFITS/REVENUE will continue to DECLINE, decreased TAX REVENUES, ENTITLEMENT cut backs, further INFRASTRUCTURE NEGLECT, and an ever increasing NATIONAL DEBT$$$$, for U.S. ALL, without end, if responsible action is not taken NOW!!!!
WASTEFUL spending should be cut across the board, and we need to preserve the American way of life, but not at the expense of vital services, quality of life, education, and our collective futures. We don’t need BIG GOV’T, but we do need ACCOUNTABILITY, OVERSIGHT, & TRANSPARENCY. Socialism is not the answer, but we’re all inherently responsible for the well being of our Nation, similar to when we call up our young men and women to sacrifice their lives in combat, but the difference here is, this is only money, which is material, and can always be replaced.
We should take heed from the history of past civilizations. Greed begets more GREED, and absolute power CORRUPTS, ABSOLUTELY, EVERY TIME!!!!!! Big business does NOT deserve, and should NOT continue to receive Billions in tax breaks, if they are not creating jobs/wealth for the ENTIRE American constituency, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike.
If we don’t make a significant reinvestment in America, by putting an emphasis Education/Healthcare/Entitlement programs, Border Security, and, initiating dialogue with “rogue” Nations, this deficiency in leadership is far more detrimental to our National Security than misleading quotes about “palling around with terrorists (Ayers a 60’s radical)” or Rev. Wright (insignificant)!!!!
Ensuring a majority of Americans remain gainfully employed, and able to consume goods and services without flinching with every $$dollar$$ spent, is a good thing. By keeping the Middle Class strong, businesses are ensuring their own viability, and ability to generate revenue over the LONG TERM.
So what if they pay a slight increase in taxes now. As a single middle class American, I get absolutely no tax relief year after year, why are the rich complaining about an increase? If the end result enables businesses to remain profitable for the foreseeable future, what exactly is the drawback??? Besides, how are we going to BEGIN to put a dent in the National Debt, if people can’t consume and profits are disappearing?
Sen. Obama, I implore you. Make the case to the American public, in a clear concise manner, utilizing “layman” terms, since a great many of your critics accuse you of being “professorial” (intelligent), “slick” (smooth/calm) and too “charismatic” (likeable), as if those traits have ever been characterized as deficiencies in the past. But we don’t have to go there.
Lay out the differences in black and white, and emphasize why our entire economy needs a correction NOW, and how a progressive tax policy will benefit ALL AMERICANS in the long run, THEN……. let the chips fall where they may.
BLOG SITES: http://blaqops.blogspot.com/
www.myspace.com/reciprok8
www.thisis50.com/profile/BLAQOPS23
Yours truly,
Blaq Ops
I know Sen. Obama is attempting to be “graceful”, since he is currently leading in the polls, but with Election Day less than a month away, and, since it was the FINAL debate, I feel as though it was a missed opportunity to deliver the proverbial, KNOCK OUT PUNCH, to the opposition, particularly with the “Redistribution of Wealth” accusation.
When Sen. McCain referenced “Joe the Plumber” as his example on how he is going to fight for the Middle Class, my blood began to boil, and I almost lost it. Why didn’t Sen. Obama use this as an opportunity to clarify more effectively, how OUT OF TOUCH Sen. McCain is with the plight of the Middle Class, which consists of a MAJORITY OF AMERICANS?
Sen. Obama reiterated that McCain has voted in line with the Bush administration in regards to the economy, over 90% of the time, but he should have used the “Joe the Plumber” example to blow McCain’s theory/policy completely out of the water.
First of all, I don’t know about you, but I don’t know too many Middle Class “Joe ANYTHINGS” earning 250K+ annually. If Sally the secretary, Ben the bus driver, Chris the cop, Tim the teacher, and Craig the carpenter, don’t have enough disposable income to consume goods and services, after barely being able to take care of their primary cost of living expenses, even if Joe the plumber benefits in the short term from a tax freeze, his business (many businesses for that matter) will continue to fail in the long term.
Wall Street is a glaring example of that fact, and the Bush administration’s failed “Trickle Down” economic policies are directly implicit, in the demise of our markets.
Our economy sustained growth throughout the Bush years, but with jobs being outsourced at a break neck pace, the cost of living (gas/housing/food/etc) spiraling out of control, the Trillion$+ war, the nearly Trillion$ Wall Street bail out, although a small minority may have profited enormously during this period, a majority of Americans have been inundated by the financial squeeze, finding it increasingly difficult to sustain a moderate quality of life.
The current economic catastrophe is indicative of this troubling trend.
Jobs were NOT CREATED during this period, a staggering number of jobs were actually LOST. As a result, our institutions are FAILING, retail sales are DECLINING, COSTS continue to $$$RISE out of control. and investment portfolios have been DECIMATED, which will result in further JOB LOSSES, PROFITS/REVENUE will continue to DECLINE, decreased TAX REVENUES, ENTITLEMENT cut backs, further INFRASTRUCTURE NEGLECT, and an ever increasing NATIONAL DEBT$$$$, for U.S. ALL, without end, if responsible action is not taken NOW!!!!
WASTEFUL spending should be cut across the board, and we need to preserve the American way of life, but not at the expense of vital services, quality of life, education, and our collective futures. We don’t need BIG GOV’T, but we do need ACCOUNTABILITY, OVERSIGHT, & TRANSPARENCY. Socialism is not the answer, but we’re all inherently responsible for the well being of our Nation, similar to when we call up our young men and women to sacrifice their lives in combat, but the difference here is, this is only money, which is material, and can always be replaced.
We should take heed from the history of past civilizations. Greed begets more GREED, and absolute power CORRUPTS, ABSOLUTELY, EVERY TIME!!!!!! Big business does NOT deserve, and should NOT continue to receive Billions in tax breaks, if they are not creating jobs/wealth for the ENTIRE American constituency, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike.
If we don’t make a significant reinvestment in America, by putting an emphasis Education/Healthcare/Entitlement programs, Border Security, and, initiating dialogue with “rogue” Nations, this deficiency in leadership is far more detrimental to our National Security than misleading quotes about “palling around with terrorists (Ayers a 60’s radical)” or Rev. Wright (insignificant)!!!!
Ensuring a majority of Americans remain gainfully employed, and able to consume goods and services without flinching with every $$dollar$$ spent, is a good thing. By keeping the Middle Class strong, businesses are ensuring their own viability, and ability to generate revenue over the LONG TERM.
So what if they pay a slight increase in taxes now. As a single middle class American, I get absolutely no tax relief year after year, why are the rich complaining about an increase? If the end result enables businesses to remain profitable for the foreseeable future, what exactly is the drawback??? Besides, how are we going to BEGIN to put a dent in the National Debt, if people can’t consume and profits are disappearing?
Sen. Obama, I implore you. Make the case to the American public, in a clear concise manner, utilizing “layman” terms, since a great many of your critics accuse you of being “professorial” (intelligent), “slick” (smooth/calm) and too “charismatic” (likeable), as if those traits have ever been characterized as deficiencies in the past. But we don’t have to go there.
Lay out the differences in black and white, and emphasize why our entire economy needs a correction NOW, and how a progressive tax policy will benefit ALL AMERICANS in the long run, THEN……. let the chips fall where they may.
BLOG SITES: http://blaqops.blogspot.com/
www.myspace.com/reciprok8
www.thisis50.com/profile/BLAQOPS23
Yours truly,
Blaq Ops
Friday, October 10, 2008
SEEDS OF DOUBT
** From today's NY Post.
The three articles in question are:
1. SkinColor "Advantage"
2. ACORN
3. The POWER of RUMORS
1. Who knew Obama's skin color would wind up being an advantage with 3 weeks left in the campaign?
Democratic voters of ANY RACE, better not drink the Kool Aid, and start getting overconfident, or, complacent. We are going to need every single vote come Nov. 4th, believe that!!!!!
With all the other stuff going on right now, the GOP base is working itself into a frenzy, and they will be coming out in droves Nov 4th. Exercise your Constitutional right, and cast your vote Nov. 4th, REGARDLESS of what the polls are "projecting".
SKIN COLOR NETS O MORE VOTES: POLL
By CARL CAMPANILE
Posted: 4:00 amOctober 10, 2008
Barack Obama's race may help his bid for the presidency more than it will hurt, a survey released yesterday suggests.
The Gallup Poll found that 9 percent of voters said they're more likely to cast a ballot for Obama, the first black major-party nominee for president, because of his race, while only 6 percent said they're less likely.
"These data, taken at face value, show that, if anything, his race could be a net plus," said Gallup's Frank Newport.
Surveying voter attitudes on race is tricky because some white respondents may not want to admit racial bias, known as the "Bradley Effect."
It refers to Tom Bradley, the popular black Los Angeles mayor who in 1982 ran for California governor. He lost to George Deukmejian even though all pre-election polls had him comfortably ahead.
2. Apparently, ACORN employees have registered voters multiple times, but unless they are re-registering voters in multiple districts, with different information, the duplicate registrations are more of a nuisance to the election board officials who have to verify the forms, than a potential for FRAUD.
This seed of doubt was planted strategically, in order to question the validity of an Obama victory, whether the race is close, or a landslide. Besides, why would anyone directly affiliated with the Obama campaign, who truly hopes to give him an honest chance of winning, especially given the recent history of voter fraud in past elections, be stupid enough to submit multiple applications with the same penmanship?
I have no proof, but common sense tells me, this particular gaffe was committed by a saboteur,or an extremely ignorant/$greedy INDIVIDUAL. Either way, the seed of doubt has been planted, and sometimes, insinuation is more powerful/damaging than the truth
3. If my previous statement seemed like pro Obama rhetoric, just take a look at how a recent poll characterized the power of rumors. Through personal experience, or by example, we're all familiar with the devastating effects rumors can have.
Now imagine those rumors being repeated over and over again. Especially to a base that already resents the target of those rumors personally, the subjects party affiliation, and/or, readily inclined to accept baseless rhetoric from their party leaders/pundits/special interests/media/etc, as FACT, without a shred of evidence.
Be vigilant ppl!!! In these troubling times, you must continue to pay attention because they want to DISTRACT you from the real issues. I'm certain the revisionist are preparing to recreate/rewrite history, as we speak. Don't SLEEP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1 VOTER, 72 REGISTRATIONS
'ACORN PAID ME IN CASH & CIGS'
Comments: 272
Read Comments
Leave a Comment
By JEANE MacINTOSH Post Correspondent
"PAWNS IN 'FRAUD':
Freddie Johnson, yesterday in Cleveland, and Lateala Goins told of filling out voter registrations multiple times in the ACORN scandal revealed by The Post yesterday
PAWNS IN 'FRAUD': Freddie Johnson, yesterday in Cleveland, and Lateala Goins told of filling out voter registrations multiple times in the ACORN scandal revealed by The Post yesterday.
Last updated: 9:10 amOctober 10, 2008 Posted: 4:00 amOctober 10, 2008
CLEVELAND - A man at the center of a voter-registration scandal told The Post yesterday he was given cash and cigarettes by aggressive ACORN activists in exchange for registering an astonishing 72 times, in apparent violation of Ohio laws.
"Sometimes, they come up and bribe me with a cigarette, or they'll give me a dollar to sign up," said Freddie Johnson, 19, who filled out 72 separate voter-registration cards over an 18-month period at the behest of the left-leaning Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.
"The ACORN people are everywhere, looking to sign people up. I tell them I am already registered. The girl said, 'You are?' I say, 'Yup,' and then they say, 'Can you just sign up again?' " he said.
Johnson used the same information on all of his registration cards, and officials say they usually catch and toss out duplicate registrations. But the practice sparks fear that some multiple registrants could provide different information and vote more than once by absentee ballot.
ACORN is under investigation in Ohio and at least eight other states - including Missouri, where the FBI said it's planning to look into potential voter fraud - for over-the-top efforts to get as many names as possible on the voter rolls regardless of whether a person is registered or eligible.
It's even under investigation in Bridgeport, Conn., for allegedly registering a 7-year-old girl to vote, according to the State Elections Enforcement Commission.
Meanwhile, a federal judge yesterday ordered Ohio's Secretary of State to verify the identity of newly registered voters by matching them with other government documents. The order was in response to a Republican lawsuit unrelated to the ACORN probe in Cuyahoga County, in which at least three people, including Johnson, have been subpoenaed.
Bribing citizens with gifts, property or anything of value is a fourth-degree felony in Ohio, punishable by up to 18 months in prison. And it's a fifth-degree felony - punishable by 12 months in jail - for a person to pay "compensation on a fee-per-registration" system when signing up someone to vote.
Johnson, who works at a cellphone kiosk in downtown Cleveland, said he was a sitting duck for the signature hunters, but was always happy to help them out in exchange for a smoke or a little scratch. He'd collected 10 to 20 cigarettes and anywhere from $10 to $15, he said.
The Cleveland voting probe, first reported by The Post yesterday, also focused on Lateala Goins, who said she put her name on multiple voter registrations. She guessed ACORN canvassers then put fake addresses on them. "You can tell them you're registered as many times as you want - they do not care," she said.
ACORN spokesman Kris Harsh said the group does not tolerate its workers paying people to sign the voter-registration cards.
ACORN's political wing has endorsed Barack Obama for president, but Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for the Obama campaign in Ohio, said ACORN has no role in its get-out-the-vote drive.
During the primary season, however, the Obama camp paid another group, Citizen Service Inc., $832,598 for various political services, according to Federal Elections Commission filings. That group and ACORN share the same board of directors.
In Wisconsin yesterday, John McCain blasted ACORN.
"No one should be corrupting the most precious right we have, that is the right to vote," he said.
It's a right Johnson will exercise. "Yeah, I've registered enough - I might as well vote."
jeane.macintosh@nypost.com
RUMOR HAS IT FOLKS BELIEVE RUMORS
Comments: 13
Read Comments
Leave a Comment
By CHARLES HURT
Posted: 4:00 amOctober 10, 2008
Barack Obama, a Muslim who refuses to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, is the antichrist, just in time for the Apocalypse.
John McCain, senile from having been brainwashed while a prisoner of war in Vietnam, fathered a black love child.
A new poll found that many voters have heard those and other false rumors - and think a lot of their fellow Americans actually believe them.
More than a third have heard McCain was brainwashed. And 46 percent of those say it's "somewhat likely" some believe it.
Nearly 90 percent have heard that Obama's a closet Muslim, 57 percent that he doesn't recite the pledge, and 24 percent that he's the antichrist.
The Scripps Howard News Service/Ohio University poll phoned 1,015 adults last month.
More @: http://www.myspace.com/reciprok8
The three articles in question are:
1. SkinColor "Advantage"
2. ACORN
3. The POWER of RUMORS
1. Who knew Obama's skin color would wind up being an advantage with 3 weeks left in the campaign?
Democratic voters of ANY RACE, better not drink the Kool Aid, and start getting overconfident, or, complacent. We are going to need every single vote come Nov. 4th, believe that!!!!!
With all the other stuff going on right now, the GOP base is working itself into a frenzy, and they will be coming out in droves Nov 4th. Exercise your Constitutional right, and cast your vote Nov. 4th, REGARDLESS of what the polls are "projecting".
SKIN COLOR NETS O MORE VOTES: POLL
By CARL CAMPANILE
Posted: 4:00 amOctober 10, 2008
Barack Obama's race may help his bid for the presidency more than it will hurt, a survey released yesterday suggests.
The Gallup Poll found that 9 percent of voters said they're more likely to cast a ballot for Obama, the first black major-party nominee for president, because of his race, while only 6 percent said they're less likely.
"These data, taken at face value, show that, if anything, his race could be a net plus," said Gallup's Frank Newport.
Surveying voter attitudes on race is tricky because some white respondents may not want to admit racial bias, known as the "Bradley Effect."
It refers to Tom Bradley, the popular black Los Angeles mayor who in 1982 ran for California governor. He lost to George Deukmejian even though all pre-election polls had him comfortably ahead.
2. Apparently, ACORN employees have registered voters multiple times, but unless they are re-registering voters in multiple districts, with different information, the duplicate registrations are more of a nuisance to the election board officials who have to verify the forms, than a potential for FRAUD.
This seed of doubt was planted strategically, in order to question the validity of an Obama victory, whether the race is close, or a landslide. Besides, why would anyone directly affiliated with the Obama campaign, who truly hopes to give him an honest chance of winning, especially given the recent history of voter fraud in past elections, be stupid enough to submit multiple applications with the same penmanship?
I have no proof, but common sense tells me, this particular gaffe was committed by a saboteur,or an extremely ignorant/$greedy INDIVIDUAL. Either way, the seed of doubt has been planted, and sometimes, insinuation is more powerful/damaging than the truth
3. If my previous statement seemed like pro Obama rhetoric, just take a look at how a recent poll characterized the power of rumors. Through personal experience, or by example, we're all familiar with the devastating effects rumors can have.
Now imagine those rumors being repeated over and over again. Especially to a base that already resents the target of those rumors personally, the subjects party affiliation, and/or, readily inclined to accept baseless rhetoric from their party leaders/pundits/special interests/media/etc, as FACT, without a shred of evidence.
Be vigilant ppl!!! In these troubling times, you must continue to pay attention because they want to DISTRACT you from the real issues. I'm certain the revisionist are preparing to recreate/rewrite history, as we speak. Don't SLEEP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1 VOTER, 72 REGISTRATIONS
'ACORN PAID ME IN CASH & CIGS'
Comments: 272
Read Comments
Leave a Comment
By JEANE MacINTOSH Post Correspondent
"PAWNS IN 'FRAUD':
Freddie Johnson, yesterday in Cleveland, and Lateala Goins told of filling out voter registrations multiple times in the ACORN scandal revealed by The Post yesterday
PAWNS IN 'FRAUD': Freddie Johnson, yesterday in Cleveland, and Lateala Goins told of filling out voter registrations multiple times in the ACORN scandal revealed by The Post yesterday.
Last updated: 9:10 amOctober 10, 2008 Posted: 4:00 amOctober 10, 2008
CLEVELAND - A man at the center of a voter-registration scandal told The Post yesterday he was given cash and cigarettes by aggressive ACORN activists in exchange for registering an astonishing 72 times, in apparent violation of Ohio laws.
"Sometimes, they come up and bribe me with a cigarette, or they'll give me a dollar to sign up," said Freddie Johnson, 19, who filled out 72 separate voter-registration cards over an 18-month period at the behest of the left-leaning Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.
"The ACORN people are everywhere, looking to sign people up. I tell them I am already registered. The girl said, 'You are?' I say, 'Yup,' and then they say, 'Can you just sign up again?' " he said.
Johnson used the same information on all of his registration cards, and officials say they usually catch and toss out duplicate registrations. But the practice sparks fear that some multiple registrants could provide different information and vote more than once by absentee ballot.
ACORN is under investigation in Ohio and at least eight other states - including Missouri, where the FBI said it's planning to look into potential voter fraud - for over-the-top efforts to get as many names as possible on the voter rolls regardless of whether a person is registered or eligible.
It's even under investigation in Bridgeport, Conn., for allegedly registering a 7-year-old girl to vote, according to the State Elections Enforcement Commission.
Meanwhile, a federal judge yesterday ordered Ohio's Secretary of State to verify the identity of newly registered voters by matching them with other government documents. The order was in response to a Republican lawsuit unrelated to the ACORN probe in Cuyahoga County, in which at least three people, including Johnson, have been subpoenaed.
Bribing citizens with gifts, property or anything of value is a fourth-degree felony in Ohio, punishable by up to 18 months in prison. And it's a fifth-degree felony - punishable by 12 months in jail - for a person to pay "compensation on a fee-per-registration" system when signing up someone to vote.
Johnson, who works at a cellphone kiosk in downtown Cleveland, said he was a sitting duck for the signature hunters, but was always happy to help them out in exchange for a smoke or a little scratch. He'd collected 10 to 20 cigarettes and anywhere from $10 to $15, he said.
The Cleveland voting probe, first reported by The Post yesterday, also focused on Lateala Goins, who said she put her name on multiple voter registrations. She guessed ACORN canvassers then put fake addresses on them. "You can tell them you're registered as many times as you want - they do not care," she said.
ACORN spokesman Kris Harsh said the group does not tolerate its workers paying people to sign the voter-registration cards.
ACORN's political wing has endorsed Barack Obama for president, but Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for the Obama campaign in Ohio, said ACORN has no role in its get-out-the-vote drive.
During the primary season, however, the Obama camp paid another group, Citizen Service Inc., $832,598 for various political services, according to Federal Elections Commission filings. That group and ACORN share the same board of directors.
In Wisconsin yesterday, John McCain blasted ACORN.
"No one should be corrupting the most precious right we have, that is the right to vote," he said.
It's a right Johnson will exercise. "Yeah, I've registered enough - I might as well vote."
jeane.macintosh@nypost.com
RUMOR HAS IT FOLKS BELIEVE RUMORS
Comments: 13
Read Comments
Leave a Comment
By CHARLES HURT
Posted: 4:00 amOctober 10, 2008
Barack Obama, a Muslim who refuses to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, is the antichrist, just in time for the Apocalypse.
John McCain, senile from having been brainwashed while a prisoner of war in Vietnam, fathered a black love child.
A new poll found that many voters have heard those and other false rumors - and think a lot of their fellow Americans actually believe them.
More than a third have heard McCain was brainwashed. And 46 percent of those say it's "somewhat likely" some believe it.
Nearly 90 percent have heard that Obama's a closet Muslim, 57 percent that he doesn't recite the pledge, and 24 percent that he's the antichrist.
The Scripps Howard News Service/Ohio University poll phoned 1,015 adults last month.
More @: http://www.myspace.com/reciprok8
Thursday, October 9, 2008
DESPERATION
Desperate times call for desperate (Racist) measures. Faced with the adversity of sagging poll numbers due to the Economic meltdown, it appears the "High Road" has given way to the "heels on, gloves off approach". Meaning: The Palin/McCain ticket will say anything to get the Party's GOONS riled up, in an effort to WIN.
They have maintained their criticism of Obama was not based on race, but apparently that trump card was held close to the vest, until NOW.
When members of the crowd shout "off with his head", "terrorist", or "Kill him", not one rebuttal, or call for cooler heads to prevail, is offered from the podium. Matter of fact, I believe they revel in the rhetoric, and hope the wave spreads across America like a cancer in the final weeks leading up to the campaign.
If you need any more evidence the past two (Bush now McCain) GOP Presidential campaigns are substance over style, and more of the same, you're obviously set in your ways and there is nothing Obama can say or do to change your mind.
McCain should know better, the Bush campaign effectively used the same "SWIFT BOAT" tactics to desecrate his record, and annihilate him in the last election. Just ask yourself, what place does this type of racially charged/misleading rhetoric have in a political campaign, and most importantly, HOW THE HELL IS IT GOING TO BENEFIT "U.S."????
Check out the link below to watch footage of how some of their supporters think, and what their dislike of Obama is based on.
Virtually NONE of their grievances are based on the ISSUES. Isn't that what this election IS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT?? Not according to their supporters... It's about keeping a Liberal Extremist, Black Nationalist, Terror befriending, unknown commodity, with the middle name Hussein, from getting into the highest elected office in the world, and jeopardizing America's safety/freedom/ and way of life (WHATEVER), BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY!!!!!!!
The "Elitist" tag was derived based on the audacity of a highly educated Black man, aspiring/believing that he can actually become President of the United States.
We all knew the racists secretly harbored these prejudices, but now that Obama has a slim lead, I am afraid we're only seeing the beginning of what has subliminally existed in our society for years.
If nothing else, at least this event has finally brought this discussion to the forefront. Now we should have an honest discussion about it, as well. (Don't hold your breath).
Fact is, if we don't stop exporting jobs, participating in unjust wars, selling off our assets/institutions to foreign investors for the sake of bottom line profits, and letting the Rich continue to loot the Nation of it's wealth, no amount of saber rattling, racist rants, or empty rhetoric, will ever bring U.S. back to prominence, or keep us SAFE! Our financial markets will continue to falter, and we'll be right back where we are now, in the not so distant future.
MORE @: http://blaqops.blogspot.com/
“And more from yesterday's McCain rally in Pennsylvania. No, these are not isolated incidents:”
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/10/09/taunting-prospects/?icid=100214839x1210881252x1200694500
Taunting Prospects
By David Knowles
Oct 9th 2008 8:24AM
Filed Under:eRepublicans, Barack Obama, John McCain, Featured Stories, Sarah Palin
As Tommy Christopher has been chronicling this week, a trend has emerged on the campaign trail. Specifically, it has been in evidence most frequently--but not exclusively-- at the rallies of Sarah Palin and John McCain. The pattern springs forth in the form of a taunt, usually shouted and received with cheers or a sly wink. In the past week alone, McCain/Palin supporters have released their pent-up anger at Barack Obama with cries of "terrorist!" "treason!" "kill him!" and "off with his head!" -- among others.
Truly, the basest of instincts seems to have been unleashed (like a pack of pit bulls) at these events. The question before us is whether McCain himself bears any responsibility for the uptick in the impassioned outbursts. If he does not, as some will argue, then they can be put down to the excitement of the pep rally. Words are not deeds, after all. And, let's face it, we can all get a little carried away when it comes to politics.
On the other hand, some might counter that the timing of this sudden flurry of verbal assaults is no coincidence. Indeed, it comes at the very moment when the McCain's campaign itself promised more negativity. This=2 0view holds that McCain and Palin are playing more of a call-and-response game with their audience.
Whatever the cause, this issue is now front and center in the campaign. There's no doubt that hotter rhetoric excites the partisan base. In fact, the hotter it is, the more excited they get. Such taunts infuriate and worry the opposition, and they positively disgust independent voters. Still, the controversy remains. Do we have a simple case of lax crowd control? Or is the pattern reflective of a mob following marching orders?
ABC News weighs in today with, "Is Negative Rhetoric a Li cense to Taunt?":
As the rhetoric at Palin rallies has ratcheted up, so too has the language of supporters in the crowds coming to see her.
The Washington Post's Dana Milbank described a recent Palin rally in Florida:
Palin's routine attacks on the media have begun to spill into ugliness. In Clearwater, arriving reporters were greeted with shouts and taunts by the crowd of about 3,000. Palin then went on to blame Katie Couric's questions for her "less-than-successful interview with kinda mainstream media." At that, Palin supporters turned on reporters in the press area, waving their thunder sticks and shouting abuse. Others hurled obscenities at a cameraa crew. One Palin supporter shouted a racial epithet at an African American sound man for a network and told him to "Sit down, boy."
The LA Times contemplates which anger came first, the crowd's or McCain's, in with "McCain campaign ratchets up t he rhetoric":
Egged on by a surly crowd, John McCain and Sarah Palin delivered a stark condemnation of Barack Obama's policies and character Wednesday, casting him as an unreliable choice for president.
The edgy tone of the rally here [in Bethlehem, PA.] was set before the duo arrived onstage, when local Republican official William Platt warmed up the audience by twice referring to the Democratic nominee as "Barack Hussein Obama."
On "The Early Show" yesterday, Joe Biden called the McCain campaign's repeated invocation of William Ayers, "mildly dangerous."
Some see a direct correlation between flagging poll numbers and the surge of negativity, such as Salon's Alex Koppleman:
As it's be come increasingly clear that the McCain campaign is in serious trouble, they've been shifting from the issues and trying to stoke voters' fears and prejudices about Barack Obama. This turn toward the negative has been ugly, but the invective the attacks are whipping up among the faithful at Republican rallies is far uglier.
Patrick Ruffini, on the other hand, thinks that McCain's only real mistake in all of this was not going this negative earlier:
The Ayers stuff will be useful in solid ifying the base and getting Obama's unfavorables to 40. But it's not a game changer. A casualty of McCain's months-long delay in going on offense is that he's had to debut his harshest material in October rather than road-testing it over the summer. In this sense, throwing the kitchen sink now looks desperate and reactive, even thought it was probably inevitable. Still, it would have been far better had McCain given his campaign license to launch these attacks at a time and place of its choosing, rather than having events force his hand.
Cindy McCain has also gotten into the act of warming up the crowd, and recently called Obama's effort, "the dirtiest campaign in American history."
So, we'd like to hear what you think. Clearly, no politician can control what his or her supporters blurt out during a campaign rally. But should John McCain stop and acknowledge these instances in an attempt to restore civility? Or is he, in part, the main instigator in their proliferation this month?
They have maintained their criticism of Obama was not based on race, but apparently that trump card was held close to the vest, until NOW.
When members of the crowd shout "off with his head", "terrorist", or "Kill him", not one rebuttal, or call for cooler heads to prevail, is offered from the podium. Matter of fact, I believe they revel in the rhetoric, and hope the wave spreads across America like a cancer in the final weeks leading up to the campaign.
If you need any more evidence the past two (Bush now McCain) GOP Presidential campaigns are substance over style, and more of the same, you're obviously set in your ways and there is nothing Obama can say or do to change your mind.
McCain should know better, the Bush campaign effectively used the same "SWIFT BOAT" tactics to desecrate his record, and annihilate him in the last election. Just ask yourself, what place does this type of racially charged/misleading rhetoric have in a political campaign, and most importantly, HOW THE HELL IS IT GOING TO BENEFIT "U.S."????
Check out the link below to watch footage of how some of their supporters think, and what their dislike of Obama is based on.
Virtually NONE of their grievances are based on the ISSUES. Isn't that what this election IS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT?? Not according to their supporters... It's about keeping a Liberal Extremist, Black Nationalist, Terror befriending, unknown commodity, with the middle name Hussein, from getting into the highest elected office in the world, and jeopardizing America's safety/freedom/ and way of life (WHATEVER), BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY!!!!!!!
The "Elitist" tag was derived based on the audacity of a highly educated Black man, aspiring/believing that he can actually become President of the United States.
We all knew the racists secretly harbored these prejudices, but now that Obama has a slim lead, I am afraid we're only seeing the beginning of what has subliminally existed in our society for years.
If nothing else, at least this event has finally brought this discussion to the forefront. Now we should have an honest discussion about it, as well. (Don't hold your breath).
Fact is, if we don't stop exporting jobs, participating in unjust wars, selling off our assets/institutions to foreign investors for the sake of bottom line profits, and letting the Rich continue to loot the Nation of it's wealth, no amount of saber rattling, racist rants, or empty rhetoric, will ever bring U.S. back to prominence, or keep us SAFE! Our financial markets will continue to falter, and we'll be right back where we are now, in the not so distant future.
MORE @: http://blaqops.blogspot.com/
“And more from yesterday's McCain rally in Pennsylvania. No, these are not isolated incidents:”
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/10/09/taunting-prospects/?icid=100214839x1210881252x1200694500
Taunting Prospects
By David Knowles
Oct 9th 2008 8:24AM
Filed Under:eRepublicans, Barack Obama, John McCain, Featured Stories, Sarah Palin
As Tommy Christopher has been chronicling this week, a trend has emerged on the campaign trail. Specifically, it has been in evidence most frequently--but not exclusively-- at the rallies of Sarah Palin and John McCain. The pattern springs forth in the form of a taunt, usually shouted and received with cheers or a sly wink. In the past week alone, McCain/Palin supporters have released their pent-up anger at Barack Obama with cries of "terrorist!" "treason!" "kill him!" and "off with his head!" -- among others.
Truly, the basest of instincts seems to have been unleashed (like a pack of pit bulls) at these events. The question before us is whether McCain himself bears any responsibility for the uptick in the impassioned outbursts. If he does not, as some will argue, then they can be put down to the excitement of the pep rally. Words are not deeds, after all. And, let's face it, we can all get a little carried away when it comes to politics.
On the other hand, some might counter that the timing of this sudden flurry of verbal assaults is no coincidence. Indeed, it comes at the very moment when the McCain's campaign itself promised more negativity. This=2 0view holds that McCain and Palin are playing more of a call-and-response game with their audience.
Whatever the cause, this issue is now front and center in the campaign. There's no doubt that hotter rhetoric excites the partisan base. In fact, the hotter it is, the more excited they get. Such taunts infuriate and worry the opposition, and they positively disgust independent voters. Still, the controversy remains. Do we have a simple case of lax crowd control? Or is the pattern reflective of a mob following marching orders?
ABC News weighs in today with, "Is Negative Rhetoric a Li cense to Taunt?":
As the rhetoric at Palin rallies has ratcheted up, so too has the language of supporters in the crowds coming to see her.
The Washington Post's Dana Milbank described a recent Palin rally in Florida:
Palin's routine attacks on the media have begun to spill into ugliness. In Clearwater, arriving reporters were greeted with shouts and taunts by the crowd of about 3,000. Palin then went on to blame Katie Couric's questions for her "less-than-successful interview with kinda mainstream media." At that, Palin supporters turned on reporters in the press area, waving their thunder sticks and shouting abuse. Others hurled obscenities at a cameraa crew. One Palin supporter shouted a racial epithet at an African American sound man for a network and told him to "Sit down, boy."
The LA Times contemplates which anger came first, the crowd's or McCain's, in with "McCain campaign ratchets up t he rhetoric":
Egged on by a surly crowd, John McCain and Sarah Palin delivered a stark condemnation of Barack Obama's policies and character Wednesday, casting him as an unreliable choice for president.
The edgy tone of the rally here [in Bethlehem, PA.] was set before the duo arrived onstage, when local Republican official William Platt warmed up the audience by twice referring to the Democratic nominee as "Barack Hussein Obama."
On "The Early Show" yesterday, Joe Biden called the McCain campaign's repeated invocation of William Ayers, "mildly dangerous."
Some see a direct correlation between flagging poll numbers and the surge of negativity, such as Salon's Alex Koppleman:
As it's be come increasingly clear that the McCain campaign is in serious trouble, they've been shifting from the issues and trying to stoke voters' fears and prejudices about Barack Obama. This turn toward the negative has been ugly, but the invective the attacks are whipping up among the faithful at Republican rallies is far uglier.
Patrick Ruffini, on the other hand, thinks that McCain's only real mistake in all of this was not going this negative earlier:
The Ayers stuff will be useful in solid ifying the base and getting Obama's unfavorables to 40. But it's not a game changer. A casualty of McCain's months-long delay in going on offense is that he's had to debut his harshest material in October rather than road-testing it over the summer. In this sense, throwing the kitchen sink now looks desperate and reactive, even thought it was probably inevitable. Still, it would have been far better had McCain given his campaign license to launch these attacks at a time and place of its choosing, rather than having events force his hand.
Cindy McCain has also gotten into the act of warming up the crowd, and recently called Obama's effort, "the dirtiest campaign in American history."
So, we'd like to hear what you think. Clearly, no politician can control what his or her supporters blurt out during a campaign rally. But should John McCain stop and acknowledge these instances in an attempt to restore civility? Or is he, in part, the main instigator in their proliferation this month?
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
WHEN !$# HITS THE FAN
Again, they only thing they are attempting to "Change" is the narrative. Now, Obama is seething with"black rage". Since when???????????
Funny thing is, when this campaign started, Obama wasn't black enough. Now that a loss seems inevitable, forget the Economy talk, let's bring back the Rev. Wright issue, accuse him of "pallin around with terrorists", and correlate his candidacy with the motives of Black extremists/militants.
In light of the continuing war in Iraq, our flailing economy, and job losses ad nauseam; if this isn't a clear sign the GOP, once again, is stooping to a new LOW, specifically when faced with adversity/defeat, in order to hijack yet ANOTHER election, the American public is more naive than the Europeans think we are, and, more racist than "some of us" are willing to admit. PERIOD!!!!
So much for the high ground, and the "Straight talk Express". I only hope Obama rises above the fray, and refrain from engaging in ANY further personal attack responses to either of them.
They got "Sarracuda" out there saying all types of wreckless &#!+, hoping Obama will bite and retaliate against her (personally). Then they could turn the talking points to Sexism. That's soooo unecessary.
The entire world is beginning to see her candidacy for what it is, a TOTAL SHAM!! A desperate/pathetic attempt to energize the base, and detract women/independent voters.
Truthfully, all "we" need is for Obama to continue addressing the issues, detailing how his policies differ from his opponent, and how those policies will help the majority of us who have been forgotten by the current administration, should he be victorious in a few weeks.
Anti-Obama Book Author Held in Kenya By TOM ODULA,
APposted: 56 MINUTES AGO
NAIROBI, Kenya (Oct. 7) - The American author of a best-selling book attacking Barack Obama is being detained in Kenya because he does not have a work permit, a senior immigration official said Tuesday.Jerome Corsi, who wrote "The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality," was being held at immigration headquarters in Nairobi after police picked him up from his hotel Tuesday, said Carlos Maluta, a senior immigration official in charge of investigations.
AP
Jerome Corsi, the American author of an anti-Obama book, was detained in Kenya Tuesday because he didn't have a work permit."We still haven't decided what to do with him," Maluta told The Associated Press.A call to a Corsi aide in the U.S. rang unanswered Tuesday.
Maluta said Corsi did not have a temporary work permit needed to conduct business in Kenya. Corsi had been scheduled to launch his book Tuesday in Kenya, where the Democratic U.S. presidential candidate is wildly popular.Obama's late father, whom he barely knew, was a Kenyan economist and the candidate is considered by many Kenyans as a native son. Minibuses are emblazoned with his picture and vendors sell T-shirts bearing his image.
Obama was born in Hawaii, where he spent most of his childhood raised by his mother, a white American from Kansas.An article in Kenya's oldest newspaper, The Standard, described Corsi's book as "a smear crusade."
Corsi's book claims the Illinois senator is a dangerous, radical candidate for president and includes innuendoes and false rumors — that he was raised a Muslim, attended a radical, black church and is secretly seething with "black rage."
Obama is a Christian who attended Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, and his campaign picks apart the book's claims on the Obama campaign's rumor-fighting Web site, FightTheSmears.com.
According to a statement announcing Corsi's visit, he arrived last week at the invitation of Christian missionaries concerned about the rise of Islam. Corsi was planning to file daily dispatches all week, the statement said.Obama's Kenyan uncle, Said Obama, said he was unaware of Corsi's detention.
Associated Press writer Elizabeth A. Kennedy contributed to this report.Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. Active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
Funny thing is, when this campaign started, Obama wasn't black enough. Now that a loss seems inevitable, forget the Economy talk, let's bring back the Rev. Wright issue, accuse him of "pallin around with terrorists", and correlate his candidacy with the motives of Black extremists/militants.
In light of the continuing war in Iraq, our flailing economy, and job losses ad nauseam; if this isn't a clear sign the GOP, once again, is stooping to a new LOW, specifically when faced with adversity/defeat, in order to hijack yet ANOTHER election, the American public is more naive than the Europeans think we are, and, more racist than "some of us" are willing to admit. PERIOD!!!!
So much for the high ground, and the "Straight talk Express". I only hope Obama rises above the fray, and refrain from engaging in ANY further personal attack responses to either of them.
They got "Sarracuda" out there saying all types of wreckless &#!+, hoping Obama will bite and retaliate against her (personally). Then they could turn the talking points to Sexism. That's soooo unecessary.
The entire world is beginning to see her candidacy for what it is, a TOTAL SHAM!! A desperate/pathetic attempt to energize the base, and detract women/independent voters.
Truthfully, all "we" need is for Obama to continue addressing the issues, detailing how his policies differ from his opponent, and how those policies will help the majority of us who have been forgotten by the current administration, should he be victorious in a few weeks.
Anti-Obama Book Author Held in Kenya By TOM ODULA,
APposted: 56 MINUTES AGO
NAIROBI, Kenya (Oct. 7) - The American author of a best-selling book attacking Barack Obama is being detained in Kenya because he does not have a work permit, a senior immigration official said Tuesday.Jerome Corsi, who wrote "The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality," was being held at immigration headquarters in Nairobi after police picked him up from his hotel Tuesday, said Carlos Maluta, a senior immigration official in charge of investigations.
AP
Jerome Corsi, the American author of an anti-Obama book, was detained in Kenya Tuesday because he didn't have a work permit."We still haven't decided what to do with him," Maluta told The Associated Press.A call to a Corsi aide in the U.S. rang unanswered Tuesday.
Maluta said Corsi did not have a temporary work permit needed to conduct business in Kenya. Corsi had been scheduled to launch his book Tuesday in Kenya, where the Democratic U.S. presidential candidate is wildly popular.Obama's late father, whom he barely knew, was a Kenyan economist and the candidate is considered by many Kenyans as a native son. Minibuses are emblazoned with his picture and vendors sell T-shirts bearing his image.
Obama was born in Hawaii, where he spent most of his childhood raised by his mother, a white American from Kansas.An article in Kenya's oldest newspaper, The Standard, described Corsi's book as "a smear crusade."
Corsi's book claims the Illinois senator is a dangerous, radical candidate for president and includes innuendoes and false rumors — that he was raised a Muslim, attended a radical, black church and is secretly seething with "black rage."
Obama is a Christian who attended Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, and his campaign picks apart the book's claims on the Obama campaign's rumor-fighting Web site, FightTheSmears.com.
According to a statement announcing Corsi's visit, he arrived last week at the invitation of Christian missionaries concerned about the rise of Islam. Corsi was planning to file daily dispatches all week, the statement said.Obama's Kenyan uncle, Said Obama, said he was unaware of Corsi's detention.
Associated Press writer Elizabeth A. Kennedy contributed to this report.Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. Active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
Friday, October 3, 2008
THE FACTS.... STAY FOCUSED, MAN!!!!!!!!
Sorry guys, but I couldn't help myself. You had to know that debate would strike a nerve. I will admit, she stayed on message, but it was the equivalent of an "actor" reciting lines they memorized/wrote down/read off of a Blackberry, in preparation for a performance.
I will admit, she held her own, but she did so simply because the bar was set so low, and she didn't have a major gaffe(the way EVERYONE thought she would), her performance was rated a "success", on the surface. But, those of us paying attention know better. Her knowledge of the facts is lacking, her vision for America doesn't address it's most pressing needs (The Economy/ Jobs/ Infrastructure/ Alternative Energy/ Healthcare/ Education/ & THE MIDDLE CLASS). I don't know about you, but for me, that's just not good enough!!!
They say, forget the facts, or her relative naivety of national issues. That's all irrelevant, Palin doesn't need to get bogged down with details, she "connects" to the average American, and she has energized the GOP base. Basically style over substance is adequate for "their" candidate ONLY.
Funny, a couple of weeks before he chose Palin as his running mate, didn't McCain characterize Obama's whole candidacy of being similar to HOLLYWOOD celebrity infatuation, inexperienced, and inadequate when it comes to having what it takes to be commander in chief?
Apparently, a dip in the polls, has the ability to spin your whole ideology in a nano second. It appears that Palin's "maverick" quality is the basis of her candidacy, coupled with her "qualifications as Gov of Alaska", plus the fact that she is a "Washington outsider", however, based on the FACTS, it is evident that she isn't very far off from the norm.
She is willing to say what they "think" the American people want to hear, and distort the record when it is advantageous to their position, IN ORDER TO WIN!!!!
When they spoke about Obama's "social agenda" ambitions, with "trillions in new spending", who do you think Obama's spending policies are designed to help?? That's right, approx 80%-95% (based on several independent analysts), of the American population.
Translation: Ordinary Joe six Packs, and majority of the nation that has been feeling the brunt of this administrations failed policies WAYYYY before they were even willing to admit there was a problem with Economy. Basically, the social agenda pertains to you, me, and almost everyone you know within six degrees of separation.
Remember McCain's out of touch remark about a week before the market nearly collapsed, "the fundamentals of the economy are strong". Yeah, if your RICH!!!!!!!! It took the possibility of a total collapse, for them (G. Bush too) to acknowledge, and make an effort to do "something" about the crisis. And, I didn't hear the mavericks railing against all of the pork added to the ratified bill for all of the "special interests" = Big Business. McCain/Palin, better yet, a Palin/McCainticket WILL BE A CONTINUATIONof the last 8 years of FAILED leadership, or simply put, just more of the same. And I don't care how much LIPSTICK you use to mask their agenda, it's still does not take away from the fact their party does not fight for the "regular Joe". It's just more swine politics.
Take a look below at the contradictions, and SPIN, for yourself, and YOU DECIDE.....MORE @: http://blaqops.blogspot.com/http://www.myspace.com/reciprok8http://www.thisis50.com/profile/BLAQOPS23
Fact Check: Did Obama vote 94 times for higher taxes?
Posted: 09:36 PM ET
The Statement: At a debate Thursday, Oct. 2 in St. Louis, Missouri, Republican vice presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin charged Democrat Sen. Barack Obama of supporting higher taxes.
"Barack had 94 opportunities to side on the people's side and reduce taxes, and 94 times he voted to increase taxes or not support a tax reduction — 94 times."
Get the facts!The Facts: The effort to convince voters that Sen. Barack Obama would support higher taxes is a central part of Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign. McCain and the Republican National Committee have repeatedly cited 94 alleged votes by Obama to bolster their argument.
Factcheck.org, a non-partisan project of the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center, pieced through records to determine just what these 94 instances were. Key findings: –23 were against proposed tax cuts. — 7 were "for measures that would have lowered taxes for many, while raising them on a relative few, either corporations or affluent individuals."
– 11 were to increase taxes on people making more than $1 million a year, to help fund programs such as Head Start, school nutrition, or veterans' health care.
– 53 were votes on budget resolutions or amendments that "could not have resulted by themselves in raising taxes," though many "were clear statements of approval for increased taxes"
The total also includes multiple votes on the same measures. Annenberg says a close look at the record reveals that Obama has "voted consistently to restore higher tax rates on upper income taxpayers but not on middle- or low-income workers."
The Verdict: Misleading.Palin's summary ignores the fact that some of the votes were for measures to lower taxes for many Americans, while increasing them for a much smaller number of taxpayers ($250k+ INCOME).The total also includes multiple votes on the same measures and budget votes that would notdirectly lead to higher taxes. Filed under: Fact Check • Vice presidential debate
TRANSCRIPTS
IFILL: Governor?
PALIN: I do take issue with some of the principle there with that redistribution of wealth principle that seems to be espoused by you.(Meaning they intend on continuing the failed Trickle Down economic policies of the current administration). But when you talk about Barack's plan to tax increase affecting only those making $250,000 a year or more, you're forgetting millions of small businesses that are going to fit into that category.
So they're going to be the ones paying higher taxes thus resulting in fewer jobs being created and less productivity.Now you said recently that higher taxes or asking for higher taxes or paying higher taxes is patriotic. In the middle class of America which is where Todd and I have been all of our lives, that's not patriotic. Patriotic is saying, government, you know, you're not always the solution.
In fact, too often you're the problem so, government, lessen the tax burden and on our families and get out of the way and let the private sector and our families grow and thrive and prosper. An increased tax formula that Barack Obama is proposing in addition to nearly a trillion dollars in new spending that he's proposing is the backwards way of trying to grow our economy.
BIDEN: Gwen, I don't know where to start. We don't call a redistribution in my neighborhood Scranton, Claymont, Wilmington, the places I grew up, to give the fair to say that not giving Exxon Mobil another $4 billion tax cut this year as John calls for and giving it to middle class people to be able to pay to get their kids to college, we don't call that redistribution. We call that fairness number one. Number two fact, 95 percent of the small businesses in America, their owners make less than $250,000 a year. They would not get one single solitary penny increase in taxes, those small businesses. ((((BRAVO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!))))))))
The Statement:Gov. Sarah Palin said at the Oct. 2 vice presidential debate that Sen. Barack Obama "would be willing to meet with" Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "without preconditions being met first."Get the facts!The Facts:Palin stated an assertion made repeatedly by Republican running mate Sen. John McCain. Sen. Joe Biden said at the debate "it is simply not true" that Obama said he would "sit down" with Ahmadinejad.
Obama has talked about meeting with Iranian leaders if necessary, but not Ahmadinejad specifically.Obama addressed the issue in a July 23, 2007, Democratic debate, when candidates were asked if they would be "willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?"
"I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous," Obama answered.The Obama-Biden Web site at present calls for "tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. "
"Ahmadinejad is not the most powerful person in Iran. He may not be the right person to talk to. But I reserve the right, as president of the United States to meet with anybody at a time and place of my choosing if I think it's going to keep America safe," Obama said at the Sept. 26 debate.
Verdict: Misleading. While Obama has said he wouldn't rule out meeting with any foreign leader, he never specifically said he'd meet with the Iranian president.
The Statement:Sen. Joe Biden said at the Oct. 2 vice presidential debate that "our commanding general in Afghanistan said the surge principle in Iraq will not work in Afghanistan."Get the facts!
The Facts:Gov. Sarah Palin, who lauded the successes of the "surge strategy" in Iraq, asserted in the debate that "the surge principles, not the exact strategy, but the surge principles that have worked in Iraq need to be implemented in Afghanistan.
"But Sen. Joe Biden disagreed, saying "our commanding general in Afghanistan said the surge principle in Iraq will not work in Afghanistan. … He said we need more troops. We need government-building. We need to spend more money on the infrastructure in Afghanistan.
"Gen. David McKiernan, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, was quoted on Oct. 2 in The Washington Post as saying that "no Iraq-style 'surge' of forces will end the conflict" in Afghanistan, even though more U.S. troops are needed to take on a growing insurgency.
"Afghanistan is not Iraq," McKiernan said in Washington on Oct. 1. He also said "the word I don't use for Afghanistan is 'surge.' " He called for a "sustained commitment" leading to a political and not just a military solution.
He said Afghanistan is a "far more complex environment than I ever found in Iraq." The newspaper paraphrased him as citing the country's "unique challenges" — "the mountainous terrain, rural population, poverty, illiteracy, 400 major tribal networks and history of civil war.
"The Verdict: True.
Filed under: Fact Check
October 2, 2008Fact Check: Is it true Obama 'still can't admit the surge works'?
Posted: 11:04 PM ET
The Statement: During the vice-presidential debate in St. Louis on Thursday, Oct. 2, Republican nominee Gov. Sarah Palin criticized Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama's opposition to the military "surge" in Iraq and said, "The surge worked.
Barack Obama still can't admit the surge works.
"Get the facts!
The Facts:In a January 10, 2007, speech, President Bush announced plans to increase the number of troops in Iraq by about 20,000 in an effort to quell violence throughout the country and especially in Baghdad.
By spring 2008, as the number of deaths and other violence in Iraq began to drop, Bush and other supporters — including Republican presidential nominee John McCain — were hailing the "surge" as a success and giving it much of the credit for the improvements.
In Congress, Obama was one of many lawmakers who spoke against the plan. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse," he said in a response to Bush's speech.
On at least some occasions, Obama — who has campaigned on a promise to end the war in Iraq — said he wasn't questioning the ability of U.S. troops, but the long-term political impact the surge would have.
"Even those who support the escalation have acknowledged that 20,000, 30,000, even 40,000 more troops placed temporarily in places like Baghdad are not going to make a long-term difference," he said in a March 19, 2007, interview on CNN's "Larry King Live.
"But in a September 4 interview this year, Obama said the military surge "succeeded beyond our wildest dreams," while adding that goals laid out by Bush, including turning over control of all Iraqi provinces to that nation's security forces, have not been achieved.
"There's an underlying problem with what we've done," Obama said. "We have reduced the violence, but the Iraqis still haven't taken responsibility."McCain himself has quoted Obama's "succeeded beyond our wildest dreams" remark.
At the first presidential debate on Friday, Sept. 26, McCain attacked Obama's stance on the surge but added, "Senator Obama said the surge could not work, said it would increase sectarian violence, said it was doomed to failure … recently on a television program, he said it exceeded our wildest expectations."
The Verdict: False. Obama has said the surge "succeeded beyond our wildest dreams" from a military perspective.Filed under: Fact Check • Vice presidential debate
*** NO MENTION OF THE FACT, THAT WE SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN IN IRAQ IN THE FIRST PLACE, AT ALL!!!!!!A TRILLION DOLLARS DAMN NEAR, YET, THEY ONLY WANT TO PUT EMPHASIS ON THE FACT THE "SURGE" IS WORKING. AT WHAT COST TO THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER, AND OUR FLAILING ECONOMY??
Fact Check: Did Obama vote to cut funds for troops?
Posted: 10:25 PM ET
Get the facts!
The Statement:At an Oct. 2 debate in St. Louis, Missouri, Republican vice presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin was talking about support for U.S. troops overseas.
"I know that the other ticket opposed this surge — in fact, even opposed funding our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Barack Obama voted against fundingtroops after promising that he would not do so," she said.
Get the facts!
The Facts:On May 24, 2007, Obama was one of 14 senators who voted against a war-spending plan that would have provided emergency funds for American troops overseas. He, like many Democrats, was pushing for an end to the war in Iraq, and the legislation included no provisions for that. "We must fund our troops," Obama said that day in a news release.
"But we owe them something more. We owe them aclear, prudent plan to relieve them of the burden of policing someone else's civil war."
Republican nominee Sen. John McCain, and Obama's running mate Sen. Joe Biden, voted in favor of that resolution.Obama had supported, and voted for, an earlier version of the bill that would have provided the money for the troops but established a timeline for Bush to begin bringing them home.
Biden also voted for that version of the plan.McCain was one of three senators who did not vote that day — but he urged Bush to veto it after it passed 51-46 on April 26, 2007. "I look forward to the president's prompt veto of this misguided bill," McCain said in a written statement. Bush did veto the measure on May 1, 2007, leading to the secondvote.
Verdict:Misleading. Obama supported a different version of the troop-funding plan — one that McCain spoke against. **** Which implemented a "set" timeline for getting the #@!! out of Iraq, responsibly, within a specific time period.
****Filed under: Fact Check • Vice presidential debate
Fact Check: Is Obama proposing $860 billion+ in new spending?
Posted: 02:15 PM ET
The statement:At a campaign stop Monday in Columbus, Ohio, Sen. John McCain said Sen. Barack Obama "has proposed more than $860 billion in new spending."
Get the facts!
The Facts:The McCain campaign is basing this figure on its own tally of how much money all of the new programs Obama has vowed to fund would ultimately cost. The total does not look at how much money Obama would save through cutbacks in other parts of his spending plan.
It's important to note that McCain did not say "additional" spending.Brian Rogers of the McCain campaign sent CNN the campaign's tally of "new spending" by Obama. It lists more than 40 plans or programs that Obama has discussed creating or funding at a higher level, along with figures for how much each would cost.
Some of those figures come from what Obama or his campaign has said; others come from estimates by the Congressional Budget Office or other agencies. The list says if Obama could enact all his proposals, "taxpayers would be faced with financing $898.472 billion in new spending over one White House term."Jason Furman, the Obama campaign's economic adviser, called McCain's assertion "totally ludicrous." He said the McCain campaign is "exaggerating our spending increases" while ignoring spending cuts.
The Obama campaign does not have its own figure for how much "new spending" Obama is proposing, Furman said, because it "doesn't conceptually make sense." If someone is spending $10 a week on apples, then switches to spending $10 a week on oranges, "it wouldn't make sense to say how much extra you are spending on oranges — you're just changing what you're spending on," he said.
The most detailed analysis of McCain's and Obama's budget plans comes from the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. The group's president, Maya MacGuineas (pronounced "McGuiness"), called McCain's statement "a misleading figure taken out of context."The committee has looked at how much spending Obama and McCain are proposing and how much they say they'll save.
The candidates have been more specific about spending than saving, but the committee gave them leeway, assuming that the savings they promise could actually happen, MacGuineas said. The committee's figures include the candidates' tax plans as well, because both include spending changes as part of their tax plans, she said.The committee found that both candidates' fiscal policies call for spending a lot more than they bring in.
By 2013, Obama's policies would add $286 billion to that year's deficit, while McCain's policies would add $211 billion, MacGuineas said.The committee has not totaled only "new spending" for either Obama or McCain.Verdict:
Misleading.The figure McCain gave is based on his campaign's tally of the costs of numerous programs Obama has discussed, but ignores the savings from other policy changes Obama is calling for.
Filed under: Barack Obama • Fact Check • John McCain • taxes
The Statement: At a campaign rally Monday, September 29, in Denver, Colorado, Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama once again charged his Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, with being a supporter of deregulating financial markets that have since collapsed.
"He's fought against common-sense regulations for decades … and he said in a recent interview that he thought deregulation has actually helped grow our economy. Senator, what economy are you talking about?"
Obama said.
Watch: McCain, GOP have failed economic philosophy, Obama saysGet the facts!
The Facts: During his time in the senate, McCain has been a champion of government deregulation — some of which is being blamed for the Wall Street meltdown. Since the recent crisis, though, he has supported a plan for the government to take on the debt of failing financial institutions.
During a September 21 interview on CBS's "60 Minutes," McCain was asked if he regretted a 1999 vote for deregulating Wall Street. "
No — I think the deregulation was probably helpful to the growth of our economy," McCain said.In footage of a speech aired during that interview, though, McCain voices support for government now stepping in. "I'm not saying this isn't going to be messy and I'm not saying it isn't going to be expensive," he said, "but we have to stop the bleeding."
The Verdict: True — although McCain has supported more government oversight of Wall Street as part of the bailout plan.
Filed under: Barack Obama • Fact Check • John McCain
Fact Check:Obama supports sex education for kindergartners?Posted: 12:00 PM ETThe Statement
In a recent interview on CNN's "American Morning," Sen. Joe Biden, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, challenged ads from the campaign of Republican Sen. John McCain, declaring, "They are saying Barack Obama supported sex education for kindergartners when all he said was we're trying to — we should teach our kids how to avoid predators. It's very misleading."
Is the ad's sex-education claim true?Get the facts!The FactsIn a television ad titled "Education," released on September 10 and posted on McCain's Web site, the narrator says Obama has a weak record on education and that his "one accomplishment" as a state legislator in Illinois was "legislation to teach comprehensive sex education to kindergartners."
The adcontinues: "Learning about sex before learning to read?"The ad is a reference to a 2003 sex-education-in-schools measure in the Illinois state Senate. Obama was not a sponsor of the bill, but as chairman of a Senate committee he voted in favor of sending it to the full Senate. The full Senate never voted on the bill.The legislation was an update to existing sex education standards.
It called for "medically accurate" and "age and developmentally appropriate" information in classes teaching various aspects of sex education from kindergarten through high school. It did not spell out specific class content. It also said no student could be required to take or participate in sex education classes if parents objected.One part of the legislation called for teaching children "how to say no to unwanted sexual advances."
Obama's campaign has said the passage referred to teaching very young children how to recognize and report inappropriate touching or unwanted advances.During the 2004 Senate campaign, Republican Alan Keyes tried to use the legislation against Obama, and Obama responded that he was not supporting teaching explicit sex education to children in kindergarten.
According to the Chicago Daily Herald, Obama told a group of college students: "Nobody's suggesting that kindergartners are going to be getting information about sex in the way that we think about it. If they ask a teacher 'Where do babies come from?' — that providing information, that the fact is that it's not a stork, is probably not an unhealthy thing. Although again, that's going to be determined on a case-by-case basis by local communities and local school boards."
The Verdict: True, but incomplete. The 2003 legislation encouraged "age-appropriate"teaching.Obama, chairman of the committee that advanced it, has said its focus for young children was on protecting them from predators. *** THE SPIN ON THIS ONE WAS A WRECKLESS STATEMENT, AT BEST****
Fact Check: Did Obama refuse to support bailout bill?
Posted: 01:30 PM ET
Sen. McCain said Sen. Obama never supported the bailout bill.The Statement:After a House of Representatives vote on a financial bailout failed, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, an aide to Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, said Democratic rival Sen. Barack Obama never voiced support for the plan. "Barack Obama failed to lead, phoned it in, attacked John McCain and refused to even say if he supported the final bill," Holtz-Eakin, McCain's senior financial adviser, said in a written statement.
Get the facts!
The Facts
In the lead-up to the September 29 vote, which failed after 133 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted against it, both Obama and McCain were measured in their comments about the bill.
Obama, however, appeared to come very close to an endorsement of it Sunday, September 28, on CBS's "Face the Nation": "My inclination is to support it because I think Main Street is now at stake," Obama said.
The same day, McCain seemed to voice qualified support for the bailout. "This is something that all of us will swallow hard and go forward with," he said on ABC's "This Week."
"The option of doing nothing is simply not an acceptable option."Both Obama and McCain outlined details they'd like to see Congress add and ultimately said changes that were made to the plan made them more comfortable supporting it. On September 24, the two issued a joint statement, saying "(t)he plan that has been submitted to Congress by the Bush administration is flawed, but the effort to protect the American economy must not fail."
Both McCain and Obama traveled to Washington to meet with President Bush and congressional leaders, both were in contact by phone and in person with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and both called for bipartisan action on the plan.
The Verdict: Misleading.Obama and McCain made similar comments expressing qualified supportfor the bailout prior to the House vote.
Filed under: Barack Obama • Fact Check • John McCain
Fact Check: Did Obama help take power from lobbyists?
Posted: 03:47 PM ETSen.
Obama spoke in Reno, Nevada Tuesday.The Statement: Sen. Barack Obama, speaking at campaign event on September 30 in Reno, Nevada, said he would make health care and financial reforms. "And I will take power away from the corporate lobbyists who think they can stand in the way of these reforms" he said. "I've done it in Illinois, I've done it in Washington and I will do it again as president."Get the facts!The Facts: Obama last year voted for the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 in the U.S. Senate.
The legislation increases waiting periods for ex-lawmakers to become lobbyists, requires donation disclosures, prohibits lawmakers from receiving gifts from lobbyists, and places limits or bans on air travel provided by lobbyists. The bill first passed in the Senate 96 to 2 on January 18, 2007. It passed in the House 411 to 8 on July 31, and a final version passed in the Senate by an 83 to 14 vote on August 2. President Bush signed it into law on September 14, 2007.
Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen, a nonprofit consumer advocacy group, told CNN that Obama pushed hard for this and other ethics-reform legislation. Obama's Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, initially voted for the measure, but opposed what he regarded as a weakened final product. An NPR report said he complained about "gutted" earmark reform provisions.
As a state senator, Obama was key in crafting and drafting the Illinois Gift Ban, passed overwhelmingly and signed into law in 1998, said Cynthia Canary, director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform. The law includes stiff disclosure rules, permits only nominal gifts from lobbyists and bans the personal use of campaign contributions, she said.
The Verdict:True. Obama has supported and helped shape legislation cracking down on all lobbyists.
Filed under: Barack Obama
• Fact Check
Fact Check: Do Obama and Biden oppose 'clean coal?'
Posted: 03:52 PM
ETA freight train carries coal in Colorado, the site of the recent Democratic convention and a state that is also the focus of a recent radio ad by the McCain-Palin campaign.
The Statement: In a set of radio ads aired Tuesday, September 30 in several battleground states, Republican Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign says Democratic opponent Sen. Barack Obama and his running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, are against "clean coal" technology.
In "Clean Coal Colorado" a narrator says, "Obama-Biden and their liberal allies oppose clean coal. Listen to Joe Biden — 'No coal plants here in America.' 'We're not supporting clean coal.'"Get the facts!The Facts: The ad quotes an amateur video posted on the Web site YouTube, in which Biden is greeting supporters at a September 17 campaign event in Maumee, Ohio. A woman approaches him and says, "Wind and solar are flourishing here in Ohio, so why are you supporting clean coal?" Biden's immediate response is, "We're not supporting clean coal."
His comments that followed seem unclear. He goes on to suggest Obama-Biden supports improving technology to make burning coal more environmentally friendly — although he does say the "no coal plants" line the ad quotes."China's going to burn 300 years worth of bad coal unless we figure out how to clean their coal up … ," he said. "No coal plants here in America. Build them if they're going to build them over there.
Make them clean because they're killing you."Biden's off-the-cuff comments quoted in the ads seem at odds not only with the Obama campaign's stated policy on coal, but his own stated policy. On its Web site, the Obama campaign's energy plan includes a push to "develop and deploy clean-coal technology."
"Obama's Department of Energy will enter into public-private partnerships to develop five 'first-of-a-kind' commercial scale coal-fired plants with clean carbon capture and sequestration technology," it says.
In a campaign speech Wednesday, October 1, in La Crosse, Wisconsin, Obama again highlighted plans to pursue clean-coal technology.On his Senate Web site, Biden calls for spending $5 billion on energy research that would include "technologies that will allow us to use coal cleanly."
Both Obama and Biden have supported several pieces of legislation that would fund research of "clean coal" technology — which, if successfully developed, would trap dangerous carbon emissions from the coal-burning process.
The Verdict: Misleading. The partial Biden quotes that the ads use are accurate, but leave out the full context of his comments. The Obama campaign supports "clean coal" technology and building plants using the new technology.
Filed under: Barack Obama • Fact Check • Joe BidenTRANSCRIPTS
IFILL: Senator?
BIDEN: The charge is absolutely not true. Barack Obama did not vote to raise taxes. The vote she's referring to, John McCain voted the exact same way. It was a budget procedural vote. John McCain voted the same way. It did not raise taxes. Number two, using the standard that the governor uses, John McCain voted 477 times to raise taxes.
It's a bogus standard it but if you notice, Gwen, the governor did not answer the question about deregulation, did not answer the question of defending John McCain about not going along with the deregulation, letting Wall Street run wild. He did support deregulation almost across the board. That's why we got into so much trouble.
IFILL: Would you like to have an opportunity to answer that before we move on?
PALIN: I'm still on the tax thing because I want to correct you on that again. And I want to let you know what I did as a mayor and as a governor. And I may not answer the questions that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I'm going to talk straight to the American people and let them know my track record also.
As mayor, every year I was in office I did reduce taxes. I eliminated personal property taxes and eliminated small business inventory taxes and as governor we suspended our state fuel tax.
We did all of those things knowing that that is how our economy would be heated up. Now, as for John McCain's adherence to rules and regulations and pushing for even harder and tougher regulations, that is another thing that he is known for though. Look at the tobacco industry. Look at campaign finance reform.
****** READING FROM A SCRIPT AGAIN..... PURE THEATRICS.. NICE FOR SOUNDBITE APPEAL THOUGH, HUH?
2008PALIN: Say it ain't so, Joe, there you go again pointing backwards again. You preferenced your whole comment with the Bush administration.
Now doggone it, let's look ahead and tell Americans what we have to plan to do for them in the future. You mentioned education and I'm glad you did. I know education you are passionate about with your wife being a teacher for 30 years, and god bless her. Her reward is in heaven, right? (Inappropriate!!!!!!!)
1980 REGAN:
Debate #2
Held just a week before the election, the debate received much attention.
Reagan had all the best lines. To Carter's attack that he would cut Medicare, he quipped, "There you go again." And in his closing remarks, Reagan asked, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?"
***********************************I'm done...................... for now!!!!!!!! HAVE A WONDERFUL WEEKEND, EVERYONE.....
I will admit, she held her own, but she did so simply because the bar was set so low, and she didn't have a major gaffe(the way EVERYONE thought she would), her performance was rated a "success", on the surface. But, those of us paying attention know better. Her knowledge of the facts is lacking, her vision for America doesn't address it's most pressing needs (The Economy/ Jobs/ Infrastructure/ Alternative Energy/ Healthcare/ Education/ & THE MIDDLE CLASS). I don't know about you, but for me, that's just not good enough!!!
They say, forget the facts, or her relative naivety of national issues. That's all irrelevant, Palin doesn't need to get bogged down with details, she "connects" to the average American, and she has energized the GOP base. Basically style over substance is adequate for "their" candidate ONLY.
Funny, a couple of weeks before he chose Palin as his running mate, didn't McCain characterize Obama's whole candidacy of being similar to HOLLYWOOD celebrity infatuation, inexperienced, and inadequate when it comes to having what it takes to be commander in chief?
Apparently, a dip in the polls, has the ability to spin your whole ideology in a nano second. It appears that Palin's "maverick" quality is the basis of her candidacy, coupled with her "qualifications as Gov of Alaska", plus the fact that she is a "Washington outsider", however, based on the FACTS, it is evident that she isn't very far off from the norm.
She is willing to say what they "think" the American people want to hear, and distort the record when it is advantageous to their position, IN ORDER TO WIN!!!!
When they spoke about Obama's "social agenda" ambitions, with "trillions in new spending", who do you think Obama's spending policies are designed to help?? That's right, approx 80%-95% (based on several independent analysts), of the American population.
Translation: Ordinary Joe six Packs, and majority of the nation that has been feeling the brunt of this administrations failed policies WAYYYY before they were even willing to admit there was a problem with Economy. Basically, the social agenda pertains to you, me, and almost everyone you know within six degrees of separation.
Remember McCain's out of touch remark about a week before the market nearly collapsed, "the fundamentals of the economy are strong". Yeah, if your RICH!!!!!!!! It took the possibility of a total collapse, for them (G. Bush too) to acknowledge, and make an effort to do "something" about the crisis. And, I didn't hear the mavericks railing against all of the pork added to the ratified bill for all of the "special interests" = Big Business. McCain/Palin, better yet, a Palin/McCainticket WILL BE A CONTINUATIONof the last 8 years of FAILED leadership, or simply put, just more of the same. And I don't care how much LIPSTICK you use to mask their agenda, it's still does not take away from the fact their party does not fight for the "regular Joe". It's just more swine politics.
Take a look below at the contradictions, and SPIN, for yourself, and YOU DECIDE.....MORE @: http://blaqops.blogspot.com/http://www.myspace.com/reciprok8http://www.thisis50.com/profile/BLAQOPS23
Fact Check: Did Obama vote 94 times for higher taxes?
Posted: 09:36 PM ET
The Statement: At a debate Thursday, Oct. 2 in St. Louis, Missouri, Republican vice presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin charged Democrat Sen. Barack Obama of supporting higher taxes.
"Barack had 94 opportunities to side on the people's side and reduce taxes, and 94 times he voted to increase taxes or not support a tax reduction — 94 times."
Get the facts!The Facts: The effort to convince voters that Sen. Barack Obama would support higher taxes is a central part of Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign. McCain and the Republican National Committee have repeatedly cited 94 alleged votes by Obama to bolster their argument.
Factcheck.org, a non-partisan project of the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center, pieced through records to determine just what these 94 instances were. Key findings: –23 were against proposed tax cuts. — 7 were "for measures that would have lowered taxes for many, while raising them on a relative few, either corporations or affluent individuals."
– 11 were to increase taxes on people making more than $1 million a year, to help fund programs such as Head Start, school nutrition, or veterans' health care.
– 53 were votes on budget resolutions or amendments that "could not have resulted by themselves in raising taxes," though many "were clear statements of approval for increased taxes"
The total also includes multiple votes on the same measures. Annenberg says a close look at the record reveals that Obama has "voted consistently to restore higher tax rates on upper income taxpayers but not on middle- or low-income workers."
The Verdict: Misleading.Palin's summary ignores the fact that some of the votes were for measures to lower taxes for many Americans, while increasing them for a much smaller number of taxpayers ($250k+ INCOME).The total also includes multiple votes on the same measures and budget votes that would notdirectly lead to higher taxes. Filed under: Fact Check • Vice presidential debate
TRANSCRIPTS
IFILL: Governor?
PALIN: I do take issue with some of the principle there with that redistribution of wealth principle that seems to be espoused by you.(Meaning they intend on continuing the failed Trickle Down economic policies of the current administration). But when you talk about Barack's plan to tax increase affecting only those making $250,000 a year or more, you're forgetting millions of small businesses that are going to fit into that category.
So they're going to be the ones paying higher taxes thus resulting in fewer jobs being created and less productivity.Now you said recently that higher taxes or asking for higher taxes or paying higher taxes is patriotic. In the middle class of America which is where Todd and I have been all of our lives, that's not patriotic. Patriotic is saying, government, you know, you're not always the solution.
In fact, too often you're the problem so, government, lessen the tax burden and on our families and get out of the way and let the private sector and our families grow and thrive and prosper. An increased tax formula that Barack Obama is proposing in addition to nearly a trillion dollars in new spending that he's proposing is the backwards way of trying to grow our economy.
BIDEN: Gwen, I don't know where to start. We don't call a redistribution in my neighborhood Scranton, Claymont, Wilmington, the places I grew up, to give the fair to say that not giving Exxon Mobil another $4 billion tax cut this year as John calls for and giving it to middle class people to be able to pay to get their kids to college, we don't call that redistribution. We call that fairness number one. Number two fact, 95 percent of the small businesses in America, their owners make less than $250,000 a year. They would not get one single solitary penny increase in taxes, those small businesses. ((((BRAVO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!))))))))
The Statement:Gov. Sarah Palin said at the Oct. 2 vice presidential debate that Sen. Barack Obama "would be willing to meet with" Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "without preconditions being met first."Get the facts!The Facts:Palin stated an assertion made repeatedly by Republican running mate Sen. John McCain. Sen. Joe Biden said at the debate "it is simply not true" that Obama said he would "sit down" with Ahmadinejad.
Obama has talked about meeting with Iranian leaders if necessary, but not Ahmadinejad specifically.Obama addressed the issue in a July 23, 2007, Democratic debate, when candidates were asked if they would be "willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?"
"I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous," Obama answered.The Obama-Biden Web site at present calls for "tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. "
"Ahmadinejad is not the most powerful person in Iran. He may not be the right person to talk to. But I reserve the right, as president of the United States to meet with anybody at a time and place of my choosing if I think it's going to keep America safe," Obama said at the Sept. 26 debate.
Verdict: Misleading. While Obama has said he wouldn't rule out meeting with any foreign leader, he never specifically said he'd meet with the Iranian president.
The Statement:Sen. Joe Biden said at the Oct. 2 vice presidential debate that "our commanding general in Afghanistan said the surge principle in Iraq will not work in Afghanistan."Get the facts!
The Facts:Gov. Sarah Palin, who lauded the successes of the "surge strategy" in Iraq, asserted in the debate that "the surge principles, not the exact strategy, but the surge principles that have worked in Iraq need to be implemented in Afghanistan.
"But Sen. Joe Biden disagreed, saying "our commanding general in Afghanistan said the surge principle in Iraq will not work in Afghanistan. … He said we need more troops. We need government-building. We need to spend more money on the infrastructure in Afghanistan.
"Gen. David McKiernan, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, was quoted on Oct. 2 in The Washington Post as saying that "no Iraq-style 'surge' of forces will end the conflict" in Afghanistan, even though more U.S. troops are needed to take on a growing insurgency.
"Afghanistan is not Iraq," McKiernan said in Washington on Oct. 1. He also said "the word I don't use for Afghanistan is 'surge.' " He called for a "sustained commitment" leading to a political and not just a military solution.
He said Afghanistan is a "far more complex environment than I ever found in Iraq." The newspaper paraphrased him as citing the country's "unique challenges" — "the mountainous terrain, rural population, poverty, illiteracy, 400 major tribal networks and history of civil war.
"The Verdict: True.
Filed under: Fact Check
October 2, 2008Fact Check: Is it true Obama 'still can't admit the surge works'?
Posted: 11:04 PM ET
The Statement: During the vice-presidential debate in St. Louis on Thursday, Oct. 2, Republican nominee Gov. Sarah Palin criticized Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama's opposition to the military "surge" in Iraq and said, "The surge worked.
Barack Obama still can't admit the surge works.
"Get the facts!
The Facts:In a January 10, 2007, speech, President Bush announced plans to increase the number of troops in Iraq by about 20,000 in an effort to quell violence throughout the country and especially in Baghdad.
By spring 2008, as the number of deaths and other violence in Iraq began to drop, Bush and other supporters — including Republican presidential nominee John McCain — were hailing the "surge" as a success and giving it much of the credit for the improvements.
In Congress, Obama was one of many lawmakers who spoke against the plan. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse," he said in a response to Bush's speech.
On at least some occasions, Obama — who has campaigned on a promise to end the war in Iraq — said he wasn't questioning the ability of U.S. troops, but the long-term political impact the surge would have.
"Even those who support the escalation have acknowledged that 20,000, 30,000, even 40,000 more troops placed temporarily in places like Baghdad are not going to make a long-term difference," he said in a March 19, 2007, interview on CNN's "Larry King Live.
"But in a September 4 interview this year, Obama said the military surge "succeeded beyond our wildest dreams," while adding that goals laid out by Bush, including turning over control of all Iraqi provinces to that nation's security forces, have not been achieved.
"There's an underlying problem with what we've done," Obama said. "We have reduced the violence, but the Iraqis still haven't taken responsibility."McCain himself has quoted Obama's "succeeded beyond our wildest dreams" remark.
At the first presidential debate on Friday, Sept. 26, McCain attacked Obama's stance on the surge but added, "Senator Obama said the surge could not work, said it would increase sectarian violence, said it was doomed to failure … recently on a television program, he said it exceeded our wildest expectations."
The Verdict: False. Obama has said the surge "succeeded beyond our wildest dreams" from a military perspective.Filed under: Fact Check • Vice presidential debate
*** NO MENTION OF THE FACT, THAT WE SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN IN IRAQ IN THE FIRST PLACE, AT ALL!!!!!!A TRILLION DOLLARS DAMN NEAR, YET, THEY ONLY WANT TO PUT EMPHASIS ON THE FACT THE "SURGE" IS WORKING. AT WHAT COST TO THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER, AND OUR FLAILING ECONOMY??
Fact Check: Did Obama vote to cut funds for troops?
Posted: 10:25 PM ET
Get the facts!
The Statement:At an Oct. 2 debate in St. Louis, Missouri, Republican vice presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin was talking about support for U.S. troops overseas.
"I know that the other ticket opposed this surge — in fact, even opposed funding our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Barack Obama voted against fundingtroops after promising that he would not do so," she said.
Get the facts!
The Facts:On May 24, 2007, Obama was one of 14 senators who voted against a war-spending plan that would have provided emergency funds for American troops overseas. He, like many Democrats, was pushing for an end to the war in Iraq, and the legislation included no provisions for that. "We must fund our troops," Obama said that day in a news release.
"But we owe them something more. We owe them aclear, prudent plan to relieve them of the burden of policing someone else's civil war."
Republican nominee Sen. John McCain, and Obama's running mate Sen. Joe Biden, voted in favor of that resolution.Obama had supported, and voted for, an earlier version of the bill that would have provided the money for the troops but established a timeline for Bush to begin bringing them home.
Biden also voted for that version of the plan.McCain was one of three senators who did not vote that day — but he urged Bush to veto it after it passed 51-46 on April 26, 2007. "I look forward to the president's prompt veto of this misguided bill," McCain said in a written statement. Bush did veto the measure on May 1, 2007, leading to the secondvote.
Verdict:Misleading. Obama supported a different version of the troop-funding plan — one that McCain spoke against. **** Which implemented a "set" timeline for getting the #@!! out of Iraq, responsibly, within a specific time period.
****Filed under: Fact Check • Vice presidential debate
Fact Check: Is Obama proposing $860 billion+ in new spending?
Posted: 02:15 PM ET
The statement:At a campaign stop Monday in Columbus, Ohio, Sen. John McCain said Sen. Barack Obama "has proposed more than $860 billion in new spending."
Get the facts!
The Facts:The McCain campaign is basing this figure on its own tally of how much money all of the new programs Obama has vowed to fund would ultimately cost. The total does not look at how much money Obama would save through cutbacks in other parts of his spending plan.
It's important to note that McCain did not say "additional" spending.Brian Rogers of the McCain campaign sent CNN the campaign's tally of "new spending" by Obama. It lists more than 40 plans or programs that Obama has discussed creating or funding at a higher level, along with figures for how much each would cost.
Some of those figures come from what Obama or his campaign has said; others come from estimates by the Congressional Budget Office or other agencies. The list says if Obama could enact all his proposals, "taxpayers would be faced with financing $898.472 billion in new spending over one White House term."Jason Furman, the Obama campaign's economic adviser, called McCain's assertion "totally ludicrous." He said the McCain campaign is "exaggerating our spending increases" while ignoring spending cuts.
The Obama campaign does not have its own figure for how much "new spending" Obama is proposing, Furman said, because it "doesn't conceptually make sense." If someone is spending $10 a week on apples, then switches to spending $10 a week on oranges, "it wouldn't make sense to say how much extra you are spending on oranges — you're just changing what you're spending on," he said.
The most detailed analysis of McCain's and Obama's budget plans comes from the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. The group's president, Maya MacGuineas (pronounced "McGuiness"), called McCain's statement "a misleading figure taken out of context."The committee has looked at how much spending Obama and McCain are proposing and how much they say they'll save.
The candidates have been more specific about spending than saving, but the committee gave them leeway, assuming that the savings they promise could actually happen, MacGuineas said. The committee's figures include the candidates' tax plans as well, because both include spending changes as part of their tax plans, she said.The committee found that both candidates' fiscal policies call for spending a lot more than they bring in.
By 2013, Obama's policies would add $286 billion to that year's deficit, while McCain's policies would add $211 billion, MacGuineas said.The committee has not totaled only "new spending" for either Obama or McCain.Verdict:
Misleading.The figure McCain gave is based on his campaign's tally of the costs of numerous programs Obama has discussed, but ignores the savings from other policy changes Obama is calling for.
Filed under: Barack Obama • Fact Check • John McCain • taxes
The Statement: At a campaign rally Monday, September 29, in Denver, Colorado, Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama once again charged his Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, with being a supporter of deregulating financial markets that have since collapsed.
"He's fought against common-sense regulations for decades … and he said in a recent interview that he thought deregulation has actually helped grow our economy. Senator, what economy are you talking about?"
Obama said.
Watch: McCain, GOP have failed economic philosophy, Obama saysGet the facts!
The Facts: During his time in the senate, McCain has been a champion of government deregulation — some of which is being blamed for the Wall Street meltdown. Since the recent crisis, though, he has supported a plan for the government to take on the debt of failing financial institutions.
During a September 21 interview on CBS's "60 Minutes," McCain was asked if he regretted a 1999 vote for deregulating Wall Street. "
No — I think the deregulation was probably helpful to the growth of our economy," McCain said.In footage of a speech aired during that interview, though, McCain voices support for government now stepping in. "I'm not saying this isn't going to be messy and I'm not saying it isn't going to be expensive," he said, "but we have to stop the bleeding."
The Verdict: True — although McCain has supported more government oversight of Wall Street as part of the bailout plan.
Filed under: Barack Obama • Fact Check • John McCain
Fact Check:Obama supports sex education for kindergartners?Posted: 12:00 PM ETThe Statement
In a recent interview on CNN's "American Morning," Sen. Joe Biden, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, challenged ads from the campaign of Republican Sen. John McCain, declaring, "They are saying Barack Obama supported sex education for kindergartners when all he said was we're trying to — we should teach our kids how to avoid predators. It's very misleading."
Is the ad's sex-education claim true?Get the facts!The FactsIn a television ad titled "Education," released on September 10 and posted on McCain's Web site, the narrator says Obama has a weak record on education and that his "one accomplishment" as a state legislator in Illinois was "legislation to teach comprehensive sex education to kindergartners."
The adcontinues: "Learning about sex before learning to read?"The ad is a reference to a 2003 sex-education-in-schools measure in the Illinois state Senate. Obama was not a sponsor of the bill, but as chairman of a Senate committee he voted in favor of sending it to the full Senate. The full Senate never voted on the bill.The legislation was an update to existing sex education standards.
It called for "medically accurate" and "age and developmentally appropriate" information in classes teaching various aspects of sex education from kindergarten through high school. It did not spell out specific class content. It also said no student could be required to take or participate in sex education classes if parents objected.One part of the legislation called for teaching children "how to say no to unwanted sexual advances."
Obama's campaign has said the passage referred to teaching very young children how to recognize and report inappropriate touching or unwanted advances.During the 2004 Senate campaign, Republican Alan Keyes tried to use the legislation against Obama, and Obama responded that he was not supporting teaching explicit sex education to children in kindergarten.
According to the Chicago Daily Herald, Obama told a group of college students: "Nobody's suggesting that kindergartners are going to be getting information about sex in the way that we think about it. If they ask a teacher 'Where do babies come from?' — that providing information, that the fact is that it's not a stork, is probably not an unhealthy thing. Although again, that's going to be determined on a case-by-case basis by local communities and local school boards."
The Verdict: True, but incomplete. The 2003 legislation encouraged "age-appropriate"teaching.Obama, chairman of the committee that advanced it, has said its focus for young children was on protecting them from predators. *** THE SPIN ON THIS ONE WAS A WRECKLESS STATEMENT, AT BEST****
Fact Check: Did Obama refuse to support bailout bill?
Posted: 01:30 PM ET
Sen. McCain said Sen. Obama never supported the bailout bill.The Statement:After a House of Representatives vote on a financial bailout failed, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, an aide to Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, said Democratic rival Sen. Barack Obama never voiced support for the plan. "Barack Obama failed to lead, phoned it in, attacked John McCain and refused to even say if he supported the final bill," Holtz-Eakin, McCain's senior financial adviser, said in a written statement.
Get the facts!
The Facts
In the lead-up to the September 29 vote, which failed after 133 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted against it, both Obama and McCain were measured in their comments about the bill.
Obama, however, appeared to come very close to an endorsement of it Sunday, September 28, on CBS's "Face the Nation": "My inclination is to support it because I think Main Street is now at stake," Obama said.
The same day, McCain seemed to voice qualified support for the bailout. "This is something that all of us will swallow hard and go forward with," he said on ABC's "This Week."
"The option of doing nothing is simply not an acceptable option."Both Obama and McCain outlined details they'd like to see Congress add and ultimately said changes that were made to the plan made them more comfortable supporting it. On September 24, the two issued a joint statement, saying "(t)he plan that has been submitted to Congress by the Bush administration is flawed, but the effort to protect the American economy must not fail."
Both McCain and Obama traveled to Washington to meet with President Bush and congressional leaders, both were in contact by phone and in person with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and both called for bipartisan action on the plan.
The Verdict: Misleading.Obama and McCain made similar comments expressing qualified supportfor the bailout prior to the House vote.
Filed under: Barack Obama • Fact Check • John McCain
Fact Check: Did Obama help take power from lobbyists?
Posted: 03:47 PM ETSen.
Obama spoke in Reno, Nevada Tuesday.The Statement: Sen. Barack Obama, speaking at campaign event on September 30 in Reno, Nevada, said he would make health care and financial reforms. "And I will take power away from the corporate lobbyists who think they can stand in the way of these reforms" he said. "I've done it in Illinois, I've done it in Washington and I will do it again as president."Get the facts!The Facts: Obama last year voted for the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 in the U.S. Senate.
The legislation increases waiting periods for ex-lawmakers to become lobbyists, requires donation disclosures, prohibits lawmakers from receiving gifts from lobbyists, and places limits or bans on air travel provided by lobbyists. The bill first passed in the Senate 96 to 2 on January 18, 2007. It passed in the House 411 to 8 on July 31, and a final version passed in the Senate by an 83 to 14 vote on August 2. President Bush signed it into law on September 14, 2007.
Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen, a nonprofit consumer advocacy group, told CNN that Obama pushed hard for this and other ethics-reform legislation. Obama's Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, initially voted for the measure, but opposed what he regarded as a weakened final product. An NPR report said he complained about "gutted" earmark reform provisions.
As a state senator, Obama was key in crafting and drafting the Illinois Gift Ban, passed overwhelmingly and signed into law in 1998, said Cynthia Canary, director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform. The law includes stiff disclosure rules, permits only nominal gifts from lobbyists and bans the personal use of campaign contributions, she said.
The Verdict:True. Obama has supported and helped shape legislation cracking down on all lobbyists.
Filed under: Barack Obama
• Fact Check
Fact Check: Do Obama and Biden oppose 'clean coal?'
Posted: 03:52 PM
ETA freight train carries coal in Colorado, the site of the recent Democratic convention and a state that is also the focus of a recent radio ad by the McCain-Palin campaign.
The Statement: In a set of radio ads aired Tuesday, September 30 in several battleground states, Republican Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign says Democratic opponent Sen. Barack Obama and his running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, are against "clean coal" technology.
In "Clean Coal Colorado" a narrator says, "Obama-Biden and their liberal allies oppose clean coal. Listen to Joe Biden — 'No coal plants here in America.' 'We're not supporting clean coal.'"Get the facts!The Facts: The ad quotes an amateur video posted on the Web site YouTube, in which Biden is greeting supporters at a September 17 campaign event in Maumee, Ohio. A woman approaches him and says, "Wind and solar are flourishing here in Ohio, so why are you supporting clean coal?" Biden's immediate response is, "We're not supporting clean coal."
His comments that followed seem unclear. He goes on to suggest Obama-Biden supports improving technology to make burning coal more environmentally friendly — although he does say the "no coal plants" line the ad quotes."China's going to burn 300 years worth of bad coal unless we figure out how to clean their coal up … ," he said. "No coal plants here in America. Build them if they're going to build them over there.
Make them clean because they're killing you."Biden's off-the-cuff comments quoted in the ads seem at odds not only with the Obama campaign's stated policy on coal, but his own stated policy. On its Web site, the Obama campaign's energy plan includes a push to "develop and deploy clean-coal technology."
"Obama's Department of Energy will enter into public-private partnerships to develop five 'first-of-a-kind' commercial scale coal-fired plants with clean carbon capture and sequestration technology," it says.
In a campaign speech Wednesday, October 1, in La Crosse, Wisconsin, Obama again highlighted plans to pursue clean-coal technology.On his Senate Web site, Biden calls for spending $5 billion on energy research that would include "technologies that will allow us to use coal cleanly."
Both Obama and Biden have supported several pieces of legislation that would fund research of "clean coal" technology — which, if successfully developed, would trap dangerous carbon emissions from the coal-burning process.
The Verdict: Misleading. The partial Biden quotes that the ads use are accurate, but leave out the full context of his comments. The Obama campaign supports "clean coal" technology and building plants using the new technology.
Filed under: Barack Obama • Fact Check • Joe BidenTRANSCRIPTS
IFILL: Senator?
BIDEN: The charge is absolutely not true. Barack Obama did not vote to raise taxes. The vote she's referring to, John McCain voted the exact same way. It was a budget procedural vote. John McCain voted the same way. It did not raise taxes. Number two, using the standard that the governor uses, John McCain voted 477 times to raise taxes.
It's a bogus standard it but if you notice, Gwen, the governor did not answer the question about deregulation, did not answer the question of defending John McCain about not going along with the deregulation, letting Wall Street run wild. He did support deregulation almost across the board. That's why we got into so much trouble.
IFILL: Would you like to have an opportunity to answer that before we move on?
PALIN: I'm still on the tax thing because I want to correct you on that again. And I want to let you know what I did as a mayor and as a governor. And I may not answer the questions that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I'm going to talk straight to the American people and let them know my track record also.
As mayor, every year I was in office I did reduce taxes. I eliminated personal property taxes and eliminated small business inventory taxes and as governor we suspended our state fuel tax.
We did all of those things knowing that that is how our economy would be heated up. Now, as for John McCain's adherence to rules and regulations and pushing for even harder and tougher regulations, that is another thing that he is known for though. Look at the tobacco industry. Look at campaign finance reform.
****** READING FROM A SCRIPT AGAIN..... PURE THEATRICS.. NICE FOR SOUNDBITE APPEAL THOUGH, HUH?
2008PALIN: Say it ain't so, Joe, there you go again pointing backwards again. You preferenced your whole comment with the Bush administration.
Now doggone it, let's look ahead and tell Americans what we have to plan to do for them in the future. You mentioned education and I'm glad you did. I know education you are passionate about with your wife being a teacher for 30 years, and god bless her. Her reward is in heaven, right? (Inappropriate!!!!!!!)
1980 REGAN:
Debate #2
Held just a week before the election, the debate received much attention.
Reagan had all the best lines. To Carter's attack that he would cut Medicare, he quipped, "There you go again." And in his closing remarks, Reagan asked, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?"
***********************************I'm done...................... for now!!!!!!!! HAVE A WONDERFUL WEEKEND, EVERYONE.....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
