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.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
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.....
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
STUMBLING... BUMBLING... CRUMBLING?? WE'LL SEE SOON.....
I commend Palin for her courage, and determination, and I know you cannot take a "few" of her comments out of context and run with it. However, her stumbles are continuous, and these were compiled from several interviews.
Just imagine if the "other" candidate was not Ivy League educated (Top of Class), unprepared, unfamiliar with National issues, and provided these types of vague, naive, and dim-witted responses to straight forward questions??
Keep paying attention people, election day is near, and if Obama is victorious, it will only be the beginning, of a long and tedious effort, to bring this Nation back to prominence, and stabilize our economy.
Palin Dismisses Media, Appeals to 'Joe Six-Pack'
October 01, 2008 7:58 AM
ABC News' Imtiyaz Delawala Reports: Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin dismissed the media's coverage of her candidacy, saying she'll represent the
"Joe Six-Pack American" as vice president, and that she and her family understand the challenges facing middle-class Americans under the current financial crisis.
In a radio interview with conservative blogger and columnist Hugh Hewitt,
Palin says she’s not concerned by criticisms of her performance in recent network interviews with ABC's Charles Gibson and CBS' Katie Couric, which many -- including some former conservative supporters -- have said showed her unprepared to be vice president.
Palin: "Oh, I think they're just not used to someone coming in from the outside saying you know what? It's time that normal Joe six-pack American is finally represented in the position of vice presidency, and I think that that's kind of taken some people off guard, and they’re out of sorts, and they’re ticked off about it," Palin told Hewitt.
***********************************************************************
Couric: Gov. Palin, almost every expert says it will take about 10 years for domestic drilling to have an impact on consumers. So isn't the notion of "drill, baby, drill" a little misleading to people who think this will automatically lower their gas prices, and quickly?
Palin: And it's why we should have started 10 years ago tapping into domestic supplies that America is so rich in. Alaska has billions of barrels of oil and hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of clean, green natural gas onshore and off-shore. Should have started doing it 10 years ago, but better late than never. It's gotta be an all-of-the-above approach to energy independence.
Couric: Gov. Palin, I know you'd like to see drilling take place in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. And Sen. McCain, you oppose this. You call it, quote: "one of the most pristine and beautiful parts of the world."
McCain: Uh huh.
Couric: Who's right?
McCain: Did you expect two mavericks to agree on - (laughter) to agree on everything? Look, I …we just have, we'll be talking more and more about this issue. We do agree on the off-shore drilling and other means of limiting our dependence on foreign oil. But for us to agree on everything would make us, I think, a little boring. You can … say a lot about us, but we're anything but boring.
Montero: No, but we expect you to be on the same page. NO again, you're not boring, you're SCARY AS HELL & HILARIOUS at the same time.
Palin has brought plenty of energy to the campaign, attracting huge, enthusiastic crowds, like one at Capital University.
Her trademark feistiness is on display as she delivers a punchy sound bite about her rival, Joe Biden.
"I'm looking forward to meeting him, too. I've never met him before. But I've been hearing about his Senate speeches since I was in, like, second grade," she said at a campaign rally.
Couric: You have a 72-year-old running mate - is that kind of a risky thing to say, insinuating that Joe Biden's been around a while?
Palin: Oh no, it's nothing negative at all. He's got a lot of experience and just stating the fact there, that we've been hearing his speeches for all these years. So he's got a tremendous amount of experience and, you know, I'm the new energy, the new face, the new ideas and he's got the experience.
** MINDLESS RHETORIC ***
Couric: And when it comes to establishing your worldview, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this to stay informed and to understand the world?
Palin: I've read most of them, again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media.
Couric: What, specifically?
Palin: Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me all these years.
Couric: Can you name a few?
Palin: I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news, too. Alaska isn't a foreign country, where it's kind of suggested, "Wow, how could you keep in touch with what the rest of Washington, D.C., may be thinking when you live up there in Alaska?" Believe me, Alaska is like a microcosm of America.
Then it's off to the bus where Palin sits down for a wide-ranging interview.
Couric: What's your position on global warming? Do you believe it's man-made or not?
Palin: Well, we're the only Arctic state, of course, Alaska. So we feel the impacts more than any other state, up there with the changes in climates. And certainly, it is apparent. We have erosion issues. And we have melting sea ice, of course. So, what I've done up there is form a sub-cabinet to focus solely on climate change. Understanding that it is real. And …
Couric: Is it man-made, though in your view?
Palin: You know there are - there are man's activities that can be contributed to the issues that we're dealing with now, these impacts. I'm not going to solely blame all of man's activities on changes in climate. Because the world's weather patterns are cyclical. And over history we have seen change there. But kind of doesn't matter at this point, as we debate what caused it. The point is: it's real; we need to do something about it.
Montero: WRONG ANSWER AGAIN - WE NEED TO DEVELOP ALTERNATIVE ENERGY NOW!!! THE TECHNOLOGY IS HERE, WE NEED TO SUSPEND THE ENERGY COMPANY'S TAX BREAKS AND LOOPHOLES UNTIL THEY START ADAPTING THE NEW TECHNOLOGY, PERIOD!!!! ***
Couric: If a 15-year-old is raped by her father, do you believe it should be illegal for her to get an abortion, and why?
Palin: I am pro-life. And I'm unapologetic in my position that I am pro-life. And I understand there are good people on both sides of the abortion debate. In fact, good people in my own family have differing views on abortion, and when it should be allowed. Do I respect people's opinions on this. Now, I would counsel to choose life. I would also like to see a culture of life in this country. But I would also like to take it one step further. Not just saying I am pro-life and I want fewer and fewer abortions in this country, but I want them, those women who find themselves in circumstances that are absolutely less than ideal, for them to be supported, and adoptions made easier.
Couric: But ideally, you think it should be illegal for a girl who was raped or the victim of incest to get an abortion?
Palin: I'm saying that, personally, I would counsel the person to choose life, despite horrific, horrific circumstances that this person would find themselves in. And, um, if you're asking, though, kind of foundationally here, should anyone end up in jail for having an … abortion, absolutely not. That's nothing I would ever support.
Couric: Some people have credited the morning-after pill for decreasing the number of abortions. How do you feel about the morning-after pill?
Palin: Well, I am all for contraception. And I am all for preventative measures that are legal and save, and should be taken, but Katie, again, I am one to believe that life starts at the moment of conception. And I would like to see …
Couric: And so you don't believe in the morning-after pill?
Palin: ... I would like to see fewer and fewer abortions in this world. And again, I haven't spoken with anyone who disagrees with my position on that.
Couric: I'm sorry, I just want to ask you again. Do you not support or do you condone or condemn the morning-after pill.
Palin: Personally, and this isn't McCain-Palin policy …
Couric: No, that's OK, I'm just asking you.
Palin: But personally, I would not choose to participate in that kind of contraception.
Montero: AGAIN, NO ONE CARES WHETHER OR NOT SHE WOULD USE IT. THE QUESTION WAS DO YOU CONDONE OR CONDEMN THE MORNING AFTER PILL. ****
Couric: Do you believe evolution should be taught as an accepted scientific principle or as one of several theories?
Palin: Oh, I think it should be taught as an accepted principle. And, as you know, I say that also as the daughter of a school teacher, a science teacher, who has really instilled in me a respect for science. It should be taught in our schools. And I won't deny that I see the hand of God in this beautiful creation that is Earth. But that is not part of the state policy or a local curriculum in a school district. Science should be taught it science class.
Montero: EUREKA, THERE IS HOPE FOR THE WORLD. SHE FINALLY HAS MANAGED TO ARTICULATE A COHERENT RESPONSE TO A SIMPLE QUESTION ***
The governor told us though she's not a member of any church, she visits a couple of them regularly when she's home. She took issue with news reports that one of them, The Wasilla Bible Church, sponsored a conference where gays could be made straight through prayer.
Palin: Well, it matters though, Katie, when the media gets it wrong. It frustrates Americans who are just trying to get the facts and … be able to make up their mind on, about a person's values. So it does matter.
But what you're talking about, I think, value here, what my position is on homosexuality and you can pray it away, because I think that was the title that was listed on that bulletin. And you know, I don't know what prayers are worthy of being prayed. I don't know what's prayers are going to be asked and answered. But as for homosexuality, I am not going to judge Americans and the decisions that they make in their adult personal relationships. I have one of my absolute best friends for the last 30 years happens to be gay, and I love her dearly. And she is not my "gay friend," she is one of my best friends, who happens to have made a choice that isn't a choice that I have made. But I am not going to judge people.
People may judge her after Thursday's debate, where she'll be unfiltered and unedited - something reporters complain the campaign has resisted.
Palin: The campaign knows that I am an open book. My record is out there and my life is out there.
Just imagine if the "other" candidate was not Ivy League educated (Top of Class), unprepared, unfamiliar with National issues, and provided these types of vague, naive, and dim-witted responses to straight forward questions??
Keep paying attention people, election day is near, and if Obama is victorious, it will only be the beginning, of a long and tedious effort, to bring this Nation back to prominence, and stabilize our economy.
Palin Dismisses Media, Appeals to 'Joe Six-Pack'
October 01, 2008 7:58 AM
ABC News' Imtiyaz Delawala Reports: Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin dismissed the media's coverage of her candidacy, saying she'll represent the
"Joe Six-Pack American" as vice president, and that she and her family understand the challenges facing middle-class Americans under the current financial crisis.
In a radio interview with conservative blogger and columnist Hugh Hewitt,
Palin says she’s not concerned by criticisms of her performance in recent network interviews with ABC's Charles Gibson and CBS' Katie Couric, which many -- including some former conservative supporters -- have said showed her unprepared to be vice president.
Palin: "Oh, I think they're just not used to someone coming in from the outside saying you know what? It's time that normal Joe six-pack American is finally represented in the position of vice presidency, and I think that that's kind of taken some people off guard, and they’re out of sorts, and they’re ticked off about it," Palin told Hewitt.
***********************************************************************
Couric: Gov. Palin, almost every expert says it will take about 10 years for domestic drilling to have an impact on consumers. So isn't the notion of "drill, baby, drill" a little misleading to people who think this will automatically lower their gas prices, and quickly?
Palin: And it's why we should have started 10 years ago tapping into domestic supplies that America is so rich in. Alaska has billions of barrels of oil and hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of clean, green natural gas onshore and off-shore. Should have started doing it 10 years ago, but better late than never. It's gotta be an all-of-the-above approach to energy independence.
Couric: Gov. Palin, I know you'd like to see drilling take place in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. And Sen. McCain, you oppose this. You call it, quote: "one of the most pristine and beautiful parts of the world."
McCain: Uh huh.
Couric: Who's right?
McCain: Did you expect two mavericks to agree on - (laughter) to agree on everything? Look, I …we just have, we'll be talking more and more about this issue. We do agree on the off-shore drilling and other means of limiting our dependence on foreign oil. But for us to agree on everything would make us, I think, a little boring. You can … say a lot about us, but we're anything but boring.
Montero: No, but we expect you to be on the same page. NO again, you're not boring, you're SCARY AS HELL & HILARIOUS at the same time.
Palin has brought plenty of energy to the campaign, attracting huge, enthusiastic crowds, like one at Capital University.
Her trademark feistiness is on display as she delivers a punchy sound bite about her rival, Joe Biden.
"I'm looking forward to meeting him, too. I've never met him before. But I've been hearing about his Senate speeches since I was in, like, second grade," she said at a campaign rally.
Couric: You have a 72-year-old running mate - is that kind of a risky thing to say, insinuating that Joe Biden's been around a while?
Palin: Oh no, it's nothing negative at all. He's got a lot of experience and just stating the fact there, that we've been hearing his speeches for all these years. So he's got a tremendous amount of experience and, you know, I'm the new energy, the new face, the new ideas and he's got the experience.
** MINDLESS RHETORIC ***
Couric: And when it comes to establishing your worldview, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this to stay informed and to understand the world?
Palin: I've read most of them, again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media.
Couric: What, specifically?
Palin: Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me all these years.
Couric: Can you name a few?
Palin: I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news, too. Alaska isn't a foreign country, where it's kind of suggested, "Wow, how could you keep in touch with what the rest of Washington, D.C., may be thinking when you live up there in Alaska?" Believe me, Alaska is like a microcosm of America.
Then it's off to the bus where Palin sits down for a wide-ranging interview.
Couric: What's your position on global warming? Do you believe it's man-made or not?
Palin: Well, we're the only Arctic state, of course, Alaska. So we feel the impacts more than any other state, up there with the changes in climates. And certainly, it is apparent. We have erosion issues. And we have melting sea ice, of course. So, what I've done up there is form a sub-cabinet to focus solely on climate change. Understanding that it is real. And …
Couric: Is it man-made, though in your view?
Palin: You know there are - there are man's activities that can be contributed to the issues that we're dealing with now, these impacts. I'm not going to solely blame all of man's activities on changes in climate. Because the world's weather patterns are cyclical. And over history we have seen change there. But kind of doesn't matter at this point, as we debate what caused it. The point is: it's real; we need to do something about it.
Montero: WRONG ANSWER AGAIN - WE NEED TO DEVELOP ALTERNATIVE ENERGY NOW!!! THE TECHNOLOGY IS HERE, WE NEED TO SUSPEND THE ENERGY COMPANY'S TAX BREAKS AND LOOPHOLES UNTIL THEY START ADAPTING THE NEW TECHNOLOGY, PERIOD!!!! ***
Couric: If a 15-year-old is raped by her father, do you believe it should be illegal for her to get an abortion, and why?
Palin: I am pro-life. And I'm unapologetic in my position that I am pro-life. And I understand there are good people on both sides of the abortion debate. In fact, good people in my own family have differing views on abortion, and when it should be allowed. Do I respect people's opinions on this. Now, I would counsel to choose life. I would also like to see a culture of life in this country. But I would also like to take it one step further. Not just saying I am pro-life and I want fewer and fewer abortions in this country, but I want them, those women who find themselves in circumstances that are absolutely less than ideal, for them to be supported, and adoptions made easier.
Couric: But ideally, you think it should be illegal for a girl who was raped or the victim of incest to get an abortion?
Palin: I'm saying that, personally, I would counsel the person to choose life, despite horrific, horrific circumstances that this person would find themselves in. And, um, if you're asking, though, kind of foundationally here, should anyone end up in jail for having an … abortion, absolutely not. That's nothing I would ever support.
Couric: Some people have credited the morning-after pill for decreasing the number of abortions. How do you feel about the morning-after pill?
Palin: Well, I am all for contraception. And I am all for preventative measures that are legal and save, and should be taken, but Katie, again, I am one to believe that life starts at the moment of conception. And I would like to see …
Couric: And so you don't believe in the morning-after pill?
Palin: ... I would like to see fewer and fewer abortions in this world. And again, I haven't spoken with anyone who disagrees with my position on that.
Couric: I'm sorry, I just want to ask you again. Do you not support or do you condone or condemn the morning-after pill.
Palin: Personally, and this isn't McCain-Palin policy …
Couric: No, that's OK, I'm just asking you.
Palin: But personally, I would not choose to participate in that kind of contraception.
Montero: AGAIN, NO ONE CARES WHETHER OR NOT SHE WOULD USE IT. THE QUESTION WAS DO YOU CONDONE OR CONDEMN THE MORNING AFTER PILL. ****
Couric: Do you believe evolution should be taught as an accepted scientific principle or as one of several theories?
Palin: Oh, I think it should be taught as an accepted principle. And, as you know, I say that also as the daughter of a school teacher, a science teacher, who has really instilled in me a respect for science. It should be taught in our schools. And I won't deny that I see the hand of God in this beautiful creation that is Earth. But that is not part of the state policy or a local curriculum in a school district. Science should be taught it science class.
Montero: EUREKA, THERE IS HOPE FOR THE WORLD. SHE FINALLY HAS MANAGED TO ARTICULATE A COHERENT RESPONSE TO A SIMPLE QUESTION ***
The governor told us though she's not a member of any church, she visits a couple of them regularly when she's home. She took issue with news reports that one of them, The Wasilla Bible Church, sponsored a conference where gays could be made straight through prayer.
Palin: Well, it matters though, Katie, when the media gets it wrong. It frustrates Americans who are just trying to get the facts and … be able to make up their mind on, about a person's values. So it does matter.
But what you're talking about, I think, value here, what my position is on homosexuality and you can pray it away, because I think that was the title that was listed on that bulletin. And you know, I don't know what prayers are worthy of being prayed. I don't know what's prayers are going to be asked and answered. But as for homosexuality, I am not going to judge Americans and the decisions that they make in their adult personal relationships. I have one of my absolute best friends for the last 30 years happens to be gay, and I love her dearly. And she is not my "gay friend," she is one of my best friends, who happens to have made a choice that isn't a choice that I have made. But I am not going to judge people.
People may judge her after Thursday's debate, where she'll be unfiltered and unedited - something reporters complain the campaign has resisted.
Palin: The campaign knows that I am an open book. My record is out there and my life is out there.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
POLITICAL FOOTBALL
Don't get caught up in the "bailing out Wall Street" hype. As I said before, unfortunately, we all must assume some responsibility for this crisis. If for no other reason, but because "we" all were inadvertently implicit.
Once we elect these officials into office, we disconnect from the political process. Honestly, a majority of us find the political spectrum boring, until something sensational happens, and believe me; the politicians took notice a long time ago.
Had the nation spoke out, and inundated members of the House, and Senate, when lax regulation was being signed into law, we could very well have prevented this calamity.
If you listen to the media spin, you would swear both parties revolted against this bill for the same reasons. Fact is, the Senate majority, Paulson and the White House came together to try to stop the bleeding, and begin the healing process.
Now here's where the politics come in.
At first, The White House and Paulson wanted:
1. A blank check, with limited oversight, and no guarantees.
At first, The Democrats wanted:
1. Guarantees the taxpayer would be protected, in the event profits were made.
2. Strict regulation, and oversight.
3. Consumer protectionism. Which would allow judges to arbitrate the loan terms of individuals on the brink of bankruptcy.
4. A market correction. Which would bring the value of these assets down to their realistic values.
5. A cap on Executive compensation.
The revolting Republicans still want:
1. To let private investors obtain the bad assets (most likely at a discounted price), then repackage and place those assets back on the market, at their current valuation. In the hope of letting the market correct itself.
2. Limited Gov't funding, intervention, and oversight.
3. No cap on Executive compensation.
*** There are more talking points, but I wanted to point out the issues that speak to a majority of Americans ***
Faced with possibility of a crisis, the Senate majority, the White House, Paulson, and members from both sides of the aisle, ratified the bill, and made concessions, in order to stabilize our markets sooner, rather than later.
Herein lies the reason for the stalemate. The negotiating parties made concessions, because they wanted a version of the bill they believed would receive bi-partisan support. Both parties made sacrifices in the hopes of starting the healing process.
The bill is not perfect, but it would have set the wheels in motion. But, revolting members from both parties are adamant about their positions, and refuse to budge.
Basically, the consumer protectionism provisions were scaled down, to appease the Republicans, and the Executive compensation limits were added to appease the Democrats. As before, it gets more complicated, but this is the basis for the revolt people.
You could look up the bill yourself, but basically, the Republicans want to limit control on big business, claiming free market enterprise principles. The Democrats feel the best way to get it done, is by giving some of us who qualify, the opportunity to restructure our loans, and keep them to term.
Now you can argue principles all day. I strongly believe in the free market enterprise, but I do believe the middle class needs to be protected from greed.
In my area, property values have been grossly inflated. Some properties have nearly triple in value, in about as many years, before the market got tight. This was a result of the markets run amok.
It's almost like economic cleansing has been waged in some neighborhoods. Once the prices started getting out of control, people were coerced into taking loans they could not afford, with the hopes of renting out units in order to make their mortgage payments, or more refinancing down the road.
I am familiar with both situations, because I briefly worked for a mortgage company who targeted middle/low income applicants, utilizing predatory methods. I also briefly entertained the thought of purchasing a home, but by that time the median home prices had clearly jumped out of my range, but although I came to grips and abandoned thoughts of pursuing the "dream" for now, I was also aggressively targeted by the real estate agents, and they tried to get me to buy using the same deceptive practices.
Although I had the presence of mind to resist, I could see how many people were lured into this fatal financial decision. They made it seem so easy. They said things like, "the Gov't backed loans were easy to get", and "median home prices would continue to boom".
Now, you could take the position of "I don't want to bail out Wall Street", but the fact of the matter is, we all WILL BE AFFECTED BY THIS MESS.
I happen to side with the Democrats. Although I do not believe in "socialism", "corporate socialism", or any form thereof, I don't think a little regulation, oversight, accountability, and a taxpayer guarantee is necessarily a bad thing.
We all know that absolute power corrupts, and that's exactly what allowed this travesty to occur. Everybody was getting in on the frenzy, but as people were being laid off, companies were outsourcing, and everybody had their hand in the pot, the disposable incomes of Middle Class Americans were decreasing or stagnant, at best, the cost of living continued to spiral out of control, oil prices caused more trauma, we started importing more, and producing less, and we are engaged in a War.
All of these factors are direct contributors to our markets demise. But now is not time for finger pointing. I hope Congress could look past their political affiliations, and get some form of the bill passed quickly, but not without regulation, oversight, CEO compensation limits, and some form of a guarantee for the taxpayer.
In my opinion, the Republicans are protecting big business, and although businesses need incentives in order to create jobs, it's obvious that wasn't happening.
If you could increase the spending capacity of a majority of Americans, and greatly reduce the number of future foreclosures, the market will rebound. Trickle up is pretty much guaranteed. If not, a lot of us will continue to suffer.
A great many of us will take hits with our incomes, investment portfolios, jobs, etc, but the Wealthy will not lose.
When you write your elected officials in protest of the bail out, learn the facts, think about how this affects you, and argue your positions first.
A robust Middle Class, will always keep their pockets fat anyway. We have to give Trickle Up economics a shot. The financial industries that survive will see their money come back, with INTEREST.
Once we elect these officials into office, we disconnect from the political process. Honestly, a majority of us find the political spectrum boring, until something sensational happens, and believe me; the politicians took notice a long time ago.
Had the nation spoke out, and inundated members of the House, and Senate, when lax regulation was being signed into law, we could very well have prevented this calamity.
If you listen to the media spin, you would swear both parties revolted against this bill for the same reasons. Fact is, the Senate majority, Paulson and the White House came together to try to stop the bleeding, and begin the healing process.
Now here's where the politics come in.
At first, The White House and Paulson wanted:
1. A blank check, with limited oversight, and no guarantees.
At first, The Democrats wanted:
1. Guarantees the taxpayer would be protected, in the event profits were made.
2. Strict regulation, and oversight.
3. Consumer protectionism. Which would allow judges to arbitrate the loan terms of individuals on the brink of bankruptcy.
4. A market correction. Which would bring the value of these assets down to their realistic values.
5. A cap on Executive compensation.
The revolting Republicans still want:
1. To let private investors obtain the bad assets (most likely at a discounted price), then repackage and place those assets back on the market, at their current valuation. In the hope of letting the market correct itself.
2. Limited Gov't funding, intervention, and oversight.
3. No cap on Executive compensation.
*** There are more talking points, but I wanted to point out the issues that speak to a majority of Americans ***
Faced with possibility of a crisis, the Senate majority, the White House, Paulson, and members from both sides of the aisle, ratified the bill, and made concessions, in order to stabilize our markets sooner, rather than later.
Herein lies the reason for the stalemate. The negotiating parties made concessions, because they wanted a version of the bill they believed would receive bi-partisan support. Both parties made sacrifices in the hopes of starting the healing process.
The bill is not perfect, but it would have set the wheels in motion. But, revolting members from both parties are adamant about their positions, and refuse to budge.
Basically, the consumer protectionism provisions were scaled down, to appease the Republicans, and the Executive compensation limits were added to appease the Democrats. As before, it gets more complicated, but this is the basis for the revolt people.
You could look up the bill yourself, but basically, the Republicans want to limit control on big business, claiming free market enterprise principles. The Democrats feel the best way to get it done, is by giving some of us who qualify, the opportunity to restructure our loans, and keep them to term.
Now you can argue principles all day. I strongly believe in the free market enterprise, but I do believe the middle class needs to be protected from greed.
In my area, property values have been grossly inflated. Some properties have nearly triple in value, in about as many years, before the market got tight. This was a result of the markets run amok.
It's almost like economic cleansing has been waged in some neighborhoods. Once the prices started getting out of control, people were coerced into taking loans they could not afford, with the hopes of renting out units in order to make their mortgage payments, or more refinancing down the road.
I am familiar with both situations, because I briefly worked for a mortgage company who targeted middle/low income applicants, utilizing predatory methods. I also briefly entertained the thought of purchasing a home, but by that time the median home prices had clearly jumped out of my range, but although I came to grips and abandoned thoughts of pursuing the "dream" for now, I was also aggressively targeted by the real estate agents, and they tried to get me to buy using the same deceptive practices.
Although I had the presence of mind to resist, I could see how many people were lured into this fatal financial decision. They made it seem so easy. They said things like, "the Gov't backed loans were easy to get", and "median home prices would continue to boom".
Now, you could take the position of "I don't want to bail out Wall Street", but the fact of the matter is, we all WILL BE AFFECTED BY THIS MESS.
I happen to side with the Democrats. Although I do not believe in "socialism", "corporate socialism", or any form thereof, I don't think a little regulation, oversight, accountability, and a taxpayer guarantee is necessarily a bad thing.
We all know that absolute power corrupts, and that's exactly what allowed this travesty to occur. Everybody was getting in on the frenzy, but as people were being laid off, companies were outsourcing, and everybody had their hand in the pot, the disposable incomes of Middle Class Americans were decreasing or stagnant, at best, the cost of living continued to spiral out of control, oil prices caused more trauma, we started importing more, and producing less, and we are engaged in a War.
All of these factors are direct contributors to our markets demise. But now is not time for finger pointing. I hope Congress could look past their political affiliations, and get some form of the bill passed quickly, but not without regulation, oversight, CEO compensation limits, and some form of a guarantee for the taxpayer.
In my opinion, the Republicans are protecting big business, and although businesses need incentives in order to create jobs, it's obvious that wasn't happening.
If you could increase the spending capacity of a majority of Americans, and greatly reduce the number of future foreclosures, the market will rebound. Trickle up is pretty much guaranteed. If not, a lot of us will continue to suffer.
A great many of us will take hits with our incomes, investment portfolios, jobs, etc, but the Wealthy will not lose.
When you write your elected officials in protest of the bail out, learn the facts, think about how this affects you, and argue your positions first.
A robust Middle Class, will always keep their pockets fat anyway. We have to give Trickle Up economics a shot. The financial industries that survive will see their money come back, with INTEREST.
REAL TALK
This is Exactly what I have been talking about. They have the little people feeling as though "we would be saving the fat cats", or "bailing out millionaires"..... No, we're saving ourselves.!!!!!!!!
The fat cats have engorged their bank accounts over the past 8 years of Bush. Some CEO's left with golden parachutes. Some rich people moved their money to safer investments (energy/oil/precious stones+metals) and left the financial institutions in tatters.
Your little money, job, and investments are in danger, but believe me, their loot is "SECURED", and they will gladly sit on the sidelines while the markets go up in flames. Once the market hits rock bottom, all of the retirement accounts go bankrupt, real estate assets continue to lose value, and all the little people get squeezed out of the game, they will come back in and buy up everything for pennies on the dollar. And when the markets rebound, their investments will jump a hundred fold, and you'll have to buy your way back into their game, starting all over from scratch.
This will affect us all, but mainly, the Middle & Poor classes. The truly Rich could care less, they never lose anyway.Don't buy into the hype, we need a responsible bill, that will hold the financial industry accountable, enforce regulation, have independent oversight, limit CEO payouts, and, will guarantee the tax payers a return on their investment, before they start eating the profits again.
All four of the past Presidents in office, have used Social Security to shore up the economy, or balance the budget. We're spending about a trillion dollars on Iraq. Why can't we use some taxpayer dollars to save ourselves??? It only makes $en$e.....
Cramer on BloggingStocks: This defeat hurts us all
Posted Sep 30th 2008 9:15AM by Jim CramerFiled under: Market matters, Citigroup Inc. (C), Bank of America (BAC), Federal Natl Mtge (FNM), Amer Intl Group (AIG), Wachovia Corp (WB), Cramer on BloggingStocks, Financial Crisis
TheStreet.com's Jim Cramer says the rejected bill was about rescuing credit markets, not rescuing Wall Street. So what if the plan would have benefited some fat cats? Everything's always going to benefit fat cats. That's how things work, unless you want a Leninist or Maoist society.
What people needed to care about were the 90 million families who own stocks and the millions of people who are about to get kicked out of their homes who had a hope to be able to refinance with someone from the government rather than a collection agency.
You want bailout? Fannie(NYSE: FNM) (Cramer's Take) and Freddie(NYSE: FRE) (Cramer's Take) were bailed out. AIG(NYSE: AIG) (Cramer's Take) was bailed out. Those directly helped some of the wealthiest people and nations in the world. The AIG bailout could cause the U.S. government hundreds of billions of dollars, because of credit default swaps. Those were bailouts.
This package was about stopping home price depreciation before it hit 40%, 50%, 60%. It was about the private sector being able to buy failed banks, not the public sector, which is what will now have to happen.****
**** I believe we will wind up using taxpayer money to bail out the markets because when they reconvene, if the Republicans are still playing hardball, the Democrats are going to ratify the bill, and put back all of the consumer protectionisms, in order to get the rest of the Democratic party on board, then put the pressure on the White House to pass it. It would be more political theatre, but if it works, it would benefit Middle class Americans tremendously. ********
I can see how people might think, wait a second, now we can just let the FDIC handle it. The depositors get their money, and the fat cats who work at the banks get lost. But the good banks needed a place to be able to put their bad loans so they can free up capital and lend again, and now we don't have a place for it. That, again, was what this bill was about. Without it, who is to say that Bank of America (NYSE: BAC) (Cramer's Take) makes it if housing keeps going down in price? What makes people think that Citigroup(NYSE: C) (Cramer's Take) doesn't go down, now that it has to pay not just for Wachovia's (NYSE: WB) (Cramer's Take) deposits but for its debt?
I am furious about all of this, because of all the boneheaded things I have seen Congress do, the giveaways for the farmers, the foreign aid to Iraq and so many other places, the hundreds of billions spent for weapons systems that the generals and admirals don't even want and the money spent on FNM and FRE and AIG, this was the one plan that might have been a real win for the American people. And now it is gone. Disgraceful. And trillions will now be lost in the credit markets, the stock market and in housing net worth.
Maybe the purists and puritansbelieve that this is right. But for everyone who has ever saved a dime and worked hard and invested in a home or a stock, this is a disaster of unimaginable proportions that it will take as long as the Great Depression did for us to get over.
The fat cats have engorged their bank accounts over the past 8 years of Bush. Some CEO's left with golden parachutes. Some rich people moved their money to safer investments (energy/oil/precious stones+metals) and left the financial institutions in tatters.
Your little money, job, and investments are in danger, but believe me, their loot is "SECURED", and they will gladly sit on the sidelines while the markets go up in flames. Once the market hits rock bottom, all of the retirement accounts go bankrupt, real estate assets continue to lose value, and all the little people get squeezed out of the game, they will come back in and buy up everything for pennies on the dollar. And when the markets rebound, their investments will jump a hundred fold, and you'll have to buy your way back into their game, starting all over from scratch.
This will affect us all, but mainly, the Middle & Poor classes. The truly Rich could care less, they never lose anyway.Don't buy into the hype, we need a responsible bill, that will hold the financial industry accountable, enforce regulation, have independent oversight, limit CEO payouts, and, will guarantee the tax payers a return on their investment, before they start eating the profits again.
All four of the past Presidents in office, have used Social Security to shore up the economy, or balance the budget. We're spending about a trillion dollars on Iraq. Why can't we use some taxpayer dollars to save ourselves??? It only makes $en$e.....
Cramer on BloggingStocks: This defeat hurts us all
Posted Sep 30th 2008 9:15AM by Jim CramerFiled under: Market matters, Citigroup Inc. (C), Bank of America (BAC), Federal Natl Mtge (FNM), Amer Intl Group (AIG), Wachovia Corp (WB), Cramer on BloggingStocks, Financial Crisis
TheStreet.com's Jim Cramer says the rejected bill was about rescuing credit markets, not rescuing Wall Street. So what if the plan would have benefited some fat cats? Everything's always going to benefit fat cats. That's how things work, unless you want a Leninist or Maoist society.
What people needed to care about were the 90 million families who own stocks and the millions of people who are about to get kicked out of their homes who had a hope to be able to refinance with someone from the government rather than a collection agency.
You want bailout? Fannie(NYSE: FNM) (Cramer's Take) and Freddie(NYSE: FRE) (Cramer's Take) were bailed out. AIG(NYSE: AIG) (Cramer's Take) was bailed out. Those directly helped some of the wealthiest people and nations in the world. The AIG bailout could cause the U.S. government hundreds of billions of dollars, because of credit default swaps. Those were bailouts.
This package was about stopping home price depreciation before it hit 40%, 50%, 60%. It was about the private sector being able to buy failed banks, not the public sector, which is what will now have to happen.****
**** I believe we will wind up using taxpayer money to bail out the markets because when they reconvene, if the Republicans are still playing hardball, the Democrats are going to ratify the bill, and put back all of the consumer protectionisms, in order to get the rest of the Democratic party on board, then put the pressure on the White House to pass it. It would be more political theatre, but if it works, it would benefit Middle class Americans tremendously. ********
I can see how people might think, wait a second, now we can just let the FDIC handle it. The depositors get their money, and the fat cats who work at the banks get lost. But the good banks needed a place to be able to put their bad loans so they can free up capital and lend again, and now we don't have a place for it. That, again, was what this bill was about. Without it, who is to say that Bank of America (NYSE: BAC) (Cramer's Take) makes it if housing keeps going down in price? What makes people think that Citigroup(NYSE: C) (Cramer's Take) doesn't go down, now that it has to pay not just for Wachovia's (NYSE: WB) (Cramer's Take) deposits but for its debt?
I am furious about all of this, because of all the boneheaded things I have seen Congress do, the giveaways for the farmers, the foreign aid to Iraq and so many other places, the hundreds of billions spent for weapons systems that the generals and admirals don't even want and the money spent on FNM and FRE and AIG, this was the one plan that might have been a real win for the American people. And now it is gone. Disgraceful. And trillions will now be lost in the credit markets, the stock market and in housing net worth.
Maybe the purists and puritansbelieve that this is right. But for everyone who has ever saved a dime and worked hard and invested in a home or a stock, this is a disaster of unimaginable proportions that it will take as long as the Great Depression did for us to get over.
Monday, September 29, 2008
THE HATER DIATRIBE
Hater/ By Maya Angelou
A hater is someone who is jealous and envious and spends all their
time trying to make you look small so they can look tall.
They are very negative people to say the least. Nothing is ever
good enough!
When you make your mark, you will always attract some haters...
That's why you have to be careful with whom you share your
blessings and your dreams, because some folk can't handle seeing
you blessed...
It's dangerous to be like somebody else... If God wanted you to be
like somebody else, He would have given you what He gave them! Right?
You never know what people have gone through to get what they
have...
The problem I have with haters is that they see my glory, but they
don't know my story...
If the grass looks greener on the other side of the fence, you
can rest assured that the water bill is higher there too!
We've all got some haters among us!
Some people envy you because you can:
a) Have a relationship with God
b) Light up a room when you walk in
c) Start your own business
d) Tell a man / woman to hit the curb
(if he / she isn't about the right thing)
e) Raise your children without both parents being
in the home
Haters can't stand to see you happy.
Haters will never want to see you succeed.
Most of our haters are people who are supposed to be
on our side.
How do you handle your undercover haters?
You can handle these haters by:
1. Knowing who you are & who your true friends are
*(VERY IMPORTANT!!)
2. Having a purpose to your life: Purpose does not
mean having a job. You can have a job and still be
unfulfilled.
A purpose is having a clear sense of what God has called you to be.
Your purpose is not defined by what others think about you.
3. By remembering what you have is by divine
prerogative and not human manipulation.
Fulfill your dreams! You only have one life to live...when its your
time to leave this earth, you 'want' to be able to say, 'I've lived my
life and fulfilled 'my' dreams,... Now I'm ready to go HOME!
When God gives you favor, you can tell your haters, 'Don't look at
me...Look at Who is in charge of me...'
Pass this to all of your family & friends who you know are
not hating on you including the person who sent it to you.
If you don't get it back, maybe you called somebody out!
Don't worry about it, it's not your problem, it's theirs..
Just pray for them, that their life can be as fulfilled as
yours! Watch out for Haters...BUT most of all don't become
a HATER!
'A woman's heart should be so hidden in Christ that a man
should have to seek Him first to find her.'
Maya Angelou
A hater is someone who is jealous and envious and spends all their
time trying to make you look small so they can look tall.
They are very negative people to say the least. Nothing is ever
good enough!
When you make your mark, you will always attract some haters...
That's why you have to be careful with whom you share your
blessings and your dreams, because some folk can't handle seeing
you blessed...
It's dangerous to be like somebody else... If God wanted you to be
like somebody else, He would have given you what He gave them! Right?
You never know what people have gone through to get what they
have...
The problem I have with haters is that they see my glory, but they
don't know my story...
If the grass looks greener on the other side of the fence, you
can rest assured that the water bill is higher there too!
We've all got some haters among us!
Some people envy you because you can:
a) Have a relationship with God
b) Light up a room when you walk in
c) Start your own business
d) Tell a man / woman to hit the curb
(if he / she isn't about the right thing)
e) Raise your children without both parents being
in the home
Haters can't stand to see you happy.
Haters will never want to see you succeed.
Most of our haters are people who are supposed to be
on our side.
How do you handle your undercover haters?
You can handle these haters by:
1. Knowing who you are & who your true friends are
*(VERY IMPORTANT!!)
2. Having a purpose to your life: Purpose does not
mean having a job. You can have a job and still be
unfulfilled.
A purpose is having a clear sense of what God has called you to be.
Your purpose is not defined by what others think about you.
3. By remembering what you have is by divine
prerogative and not human manipulation.
Fulfill your dreams! You only have one life to live...when its your
time to leave this earth, you 'want' to be able to say, 'I've lived my
life and fulfilled 'my' dreams,... Now I'm ready to go HOME!
When God gives you favor, you can tell your haters, 'Don't look at
me...Look at Who is in charge of me...'
Pass this to all of your family & friends who you know are
not hating on you including the person who sent it to you.
If you don't get it back, maybe you called somebody out!
Don't worry about it, it's not your problem, it's theirs..
Just pray for them, that their life can be as fulfilled as
yours! Watch out for Haters...BUT most of all don't become
a HATER!
'A woman's heart should be so hidden in Christ that a man
should have to seek Him first to find her.'
Maya Angelou
TRANSPARENCY
Greetings All,
Apparently, Palin's bomb of an interview (again) last week finally has the GOP nervously walking on eggshells. Even many GOP political analysts are now questioning her intelligence, qualifications, and McCain's health, in regards to the potential of his demise and her becoming the Commander in Chief.
I thank GOD, intelligent people, on both sides of the aisle, are beginning to ask the right questions, and stop being swept away by the campaign rhetoric/sensationalism/distractions, this party has mastered, in order to sway the popular/uninformed vote.
They were running on the "Experience" platform, but in order to drum up enthusiasm for his ticket, he picked a "pretty" face with ultra conservative values, and adopted the "Change" slogan, hoping the Clinton supporters and independents would support her blindly, because she is a woman, and she represents "small town America".. Whatever!!! Her policies sure don't represent the Middle Class, at all.
They keep saying an Obama/Biden ticket will raise taxes on "everyone". Although that is not makeup of his current tax plan, in light of the unprovoked war (well over $1 trillion), the current President got us into, the Economic meltdown ($700 billion+++), infrastructure (billions), our public school system (billions), the out of control Healthcare industry(billions), Social Security (billions), and reduced tax revenue all around (trillion $ deficit), just who is going to pay for all of this? Our great great great grandchildren????
Chris Rock said it best, "John McCain has no right to be making decisions for the future, when he is not going to be here". All jokes aside, his policies are "fundamentally wrong" for a majority of Americans. We're not going to be able to DRILL our way into Energy Independence.
Free trade is good in theory, but as with the Financial markets, there must be fairness, and oversight. We must begin agressively developing alternative energy, and we BETTER start putting Americans back to work NOW!!!!! The "Made in America" slogan has virtually gone by the wayside. That's the main factor causing our economic demise, and I seen it coming a mile away. Fact is, we all are going to bear the brunt of the excessive greed on Wall Street, and Main Street's naivety, but going forward, we must ensure the middle class is given the tools it needs to once again, bring this nations commerce back to good standings.
Exactly what kind of judgement did McCain demonstrate when he, picked Palin as his running mate, and when he called for a "suspension of his campaign" in order to weigh in on an "Economic" matter, to which he has contributed absolutely "NO SUBSTANTIVE INPUT", and, is an admitted novice!!! It was political grandstanding at it's best, but America is starting to take notice. Again, THANK GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
By: Blaq Ops Visit My Blogs @: http://www.myspace.com/reciprok8
http://blaqops.blogspot.com/
SEE 4 URSELF Couric's Palin interview.......http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/09/25/more-nonsensical-palin/
McCain Under FireByDavid KnowlesSep 29th 2008 9:39AM Filed Under:eJohn McCain, Featured Stories, 2008 President, Polls, Sarah Palin
Nearly every poll conducted in the wake of our nation's financial meltdown has been bad news for John McCain. His numbers began to drop early last week, when news of the $700 billion bailout started to sink in. Clearly, McCain's week-old pronouncementthat "the fundamentals of our economy are strong," wasn't meshing with the facts. If, as McCain's financial adviser, Phil Gramm insists, this recession is all in our heads, then why do the taxpayers need to pay nearly a trillion dollars in therapy bills?
When McCain's pollsters let their man know of the ominous trend, the Arizona Senator did what he does best, he hastily formed an ill-advised plan to save the day. As with his last-minuteselection of Sarah Palin, McCain figured a shake-up was in order. Something big and bold, to shock and awe the nation. So, he stepped to the mic and told America he was "suspending his campaign." He declared that the first presidential debate should be postponed. It was a calculated, high-stakes gamble. And for a nano-second, some observers thought he'd made a brilliantmove. He's doing his job, they declared. Hooray! But by the time McCain arrived in DC, the infusion of presidential politics effectively squashed whatever momentum Congress had built up. McCain, the brave leader, sat silently for 40-minutesin the big meeting with Obama, their fellow legislators and all the president's men, only mumbling a non-committal line or two toward the end of the dismal session. Tail between his legs, McCain did show for Friday's debate in Mississippi. Though the bailout deal lay in tatters, McCain must have realized he was doing more harm than good, so, once again, he put country first got on a plane, and ditched the rescue effort that he'd portrayed as more important that a silly old debate.
If you read the commentary at places like the National Review, you might be inclined to think McCain won the debate. If you read the findings of virtually every reputable polling institution in the country, you'll find otherwise. In short, McCain's "suspension bridge to nowhere," as Frank Rich put it, was as big a backfire with independent voters as his choice of Palin as a running mate. It shows a self-possessed man who is apt to make rash decisions, and those characteristics are scaring conservatives as well as liberals. So what will McCain's new gambit be?
Many right wing commentatorsare calling for McCain to take the muzzle off of Sarah Palin (maybe Campbell Brown was right!). In fact, to hear them tell it there's only one way McCain can save his presidential aspirations: Let her go wild on stage with Biden. Red meat, red meat. U-S-A! U-S-A! That's right, McCain's political future now rests in the hands of the woman who conducted this interview.
Indeed, many fans of Obama were also upset that he didn't attack McCain more viciously. With all due respect to my friends on the left and the right, this kind of behavior won't play well with independents. They know we're in a fix. They're not looking for a cage match, they want calm, reasoned leadership. And that's the underlying reason McCain has plummetedin the polls.
Here's a test. The word "hothead," which candidate does that describe, McCain or Obama? To borrow George Will's phrase, "It is not Barack Obama." In a time of uncertainty, when the country wants to be reassured, the last thing people want is an unpredictable guy who is clearly making it up as he goes along.
The ironic closure to this news cycle? The story that McCain and his campaign are in deep with the gambling industry. No, that's not a metaphor this time.
Apparently, Palin's bomb of an interview (again) last week finally has the GOP nervously walking on eggshells. Even many GOP political analysts are now questioning her intelligence, qualifications, and McCain's health, in regards to the potential of his demise and her becoming the Commander in Chief.
I thank GOD, intelligent people, on both sides of the aisle, are beginning to ask the right questions, and stop being swept away by the campaign rhetoric/sensationalism/distractions, this party has mastered, in order to sway the popular/uninformed vote.
They were running on the "Experience" platform, but in order to drum up enthusiasm for his ticket, he picked a "pretty" face with ultra conservative values, and adopted the "Change" slogan, hoping the Clinton supporters and independents would support her blindly, because she is a woman, and she represents "small town America".. Whatever!!! Her policies sure don't represent the Middle Class, at all.
They keep saying an Obama/Biden ticket will raise taxes on "everyone". Although that is not makeup of his current tax plan, in light of the unprovoked war (well over $1 trillion), the current President got us into, the Economic meltdown ($700 billion+++), infrastructure (billions), our public school system (billions), the out of control Healthcare industry(billions), Social Security (billions), and reduced tax revenue all around (trillion $ deficit), just who is going to pay for all of this? Our great great great grandchildren????
Chris Rock said it best, "John McCain has no right to be making decisions for the future, when he is not going to be here". All jokes aside, his policies are "fundamentally wrong" for a majority of Americans. We're not going to be able to DRILL our way into Energy Independence.
Free trade is good in theory, but as with the Financial markets, there must be fairness, and oversight. We must begin agressively developing alternative energy, and we BETTER start putting Americans back to work NOW!!!!! The "Made in America" slogan has virtually gone by the wayside. That's the main factor causing our economic demise, and I seen it coming a mile away. Fact is, we all are going to bear the brunt of the excessive greed on Wall Street, and Main Street's naivety, but going forward, we must ensure the middle class is given the tools it needs to once again, bring this nations commerce back to good standings.
Exactly what kind of judgement did McCain demonstrate when he, picked Palin as his running mate, and when he called for a "suspension of his campaign" in order to weigh in on an "Economic" matter, to which he has contributed absolutely "NO SUBSTANTIVE INPUT", and, is an admitted novice!!! It was political grandstanding at it's best, but America is starting to take notice. Again, THANK GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
By: Blaq Ops Visit My Blogs @: http://www.myspace.com/reciprok8
http://blaqops.blogspot.com/
SEE 4 URSELF Couric's Palin interview.......http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/09/25/more-nonsensical-palin/
McCain Under FireByDavid KnowlesSep 29th 2008 9:39AM Filed Under:eJohn McCain, Featured Stories, 2008 President, Polls, Sarah Palin
Nearly every poll conducted in the wake of our nation's financial meltdown has been bad news for John McCain. His numbers began to drop early last week, when news of the $700 billion bailout started to sink in. Clearly, McCain's week-old pronouncementthat "the fundamentals of our economy are strong," wasn't meshing with the facts. If, as McCain's financial adviser, Phil Gramm insists, this recession is all in our heads, then why do the taxpayers need to pay nearly a trillion dollars in therapy bills?
When McCain's pollsters let their man know of the ominous trend, the Arizona Senator did what he does best, he hastily formed an ill-advised plan to save the day. As with his last-minuteselection of Sarah Palin, McCain figured a shake-up was in order. Something big and bold, to shock and awe the nation. So, he stepped to the mic and told America he was "suspending his campaign." He declared that the first presidential debate should be postponed. It was a calculated, high-stakes gamble. And for a nano-second, some observers thought he'd made a brilliantmove. He's doing his job, they declared. Hooray! But by the time McCain arrived in DC, the infusion of presidential politics effectively squashed whatever momentum Congress had built up. McCain, the brave leader, sat silently for 40-minutesin the big meeting with Obama, their fellow legislators and all the president's men, only mumbling a non-committal line or two toward the end of the dismal session. Tail between his legs, McCain did show for Friday's debate in Mississippi. Though the bailout deal lay in tatters, McCain must have realized he was doing more harm than good, so, once again, he put country first got on a plane, and ditched the rescue effort that he'd portrayed as more important that a silly old debate.
If you read the commentary at places like the National Review, you might be inclined to think McCain won the debate. If you read the findings of virtually every reputable polling institution in the country, you'll find otherwise. In short, McCain's "suspension bridge to nowhere," as Frank Rich put it, was as big a backfire with independent voters as his choice of Palin as a running mate. It shows a self-possessed man who is apt to make rash decisions, and those characteristics are scaring conservatives as well as liberals. So what will McCain's new gambit be?
Many right wing commentatorsare calling for McCain to take the muzzle off of Sarah Palin (maybe Campbell Brown was right!). In fact, to hear them tell it there's only one way McCain can save his presidential aspirations: Let her go wild on stage with Biden. Red meat, red meat. U-S-A! U-S-A! That's right, McCain's political future now rests in the hands of the woman who conducted this interview.
Indeed, many fans of Obama were also upset that he didn't attack McCain more viciously. With all due respect to my friends on the left and the right, this kind of behavior won't play well with independents. They know we're in a fix. They're not looking for a cage match, they want calm, reasoned leadership. And that's the underlying reason McCain has plummetedin the polls.
Here's a test. The word "hothead," which candidate does that describe, McCain or Obama? To borrow George Will's phrase, "It is not Barack Obama." In a time of uncertainty, when the country wants to be reassured, the last thing people want is an unpredictable guy who is clearly making it up as he goes along.
The ironic closure to this news cycle? The story that McCain and his campaign are in deep with the gambling industry. No, that's not a metaphor this time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
