Friday, October 31, 2008
FROM BLOG: DOUG ROSS@JOURNAL: TWO OBAMA QUOTES FROM KHALIDI TAPE!!!!!!!!
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
RED ALERT Tip: Two quotes from the Obama-Khalidi videotape
You know the videotape that shows Barack Obama toasting PLO terrorist Rashid Khalidi? The one that the Los Angeles Times refuses to release?
"The Los Angeles Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it," said the newspaper's editor, Russ Stanton...
How frickin' stupid do they think we are? Someone gave the Times a videotape so it wouldn't be released? And they can't publish a transcript?
I guess that's the kind of executive talent the newspaper business is attracting these days.
However, I received a tip from a person who has provided useful, accurate and unique data from LA before (e.g., "All six of CNN's 'undecided voters' were Democratic operatives"). Take it for what it's worth, but I believe this person is on target.
Saw a clip from the tape. Reason we can't release it is because statements Obama said to rile audience up during toast. He congratulates Khalidi for his work saying "Israel has no God-given right to occupy Palestine" plus there's been "genocide against the Palestinian people by Israelis."
It would be really controversial if it got out. Tha's why they will not even let a transcript get out.
Yep, I guess that would do it.
RED ALERT Tip: Two quotes from the Obama-Khalidi videotape
You know the videotape that shows Barack Obama toasting PLO terrorist Rashid Khalidi? The one that the Los Angeles Times refuses to release?
"The Los Angeles Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it," said the newspaper's editor, Russ Stanton...
How frickin' stupid do they think we are? Someone gave the Times a videotape so it wouldn't be released? And they can't publish a transcript?
I guess that's the kind of executive talent the newspaper business is attracting these days.
However, I received a tip from a person who has provided useful, accurate and unique data from LA before (e.g., "All six of CNN's 'undecided voters' were Democratic operatives"). Take it for what it's worth, but I believe this person is on target.
Saw a clip from the tape. Reason we can't release it is because statements Obama said to rile audience up during toast. He congratulates Khalidi for his work saying "Israel has no God-given right to occupy Palestine" plus there's been "genocide against the Palestinian people by Israelis."
It would be really controversial if it got out. Tha's why they will not even let a transcript get out.
Yep, I guess that would do it.
GOOD IDEA, JOHN AND SARAH!!! OBAMA WILL CHEAT. ALWAYS DOES!!!
For Immediate Release
October 31, 2008 Contact: Press Office
703-650-5550
McCain-Palin Campagin Launches Honest and Open Election Hotline
ARLINGTON, VA -- Today, the McCain-Palin campaign launched the Honest and Open Election hotline to help citizens learn the location of their polling place, as well as report any instances of irregularities at the polls, including voter fraud, intimidation, violence and electioneering. The hotline can be accessed via phone at: 866-976-VOTE.
"With November 4th quickly approaching, our Honest and Open Election hotline will serve as an informative guide for all Americans participating in the electoral process," said McCain-Palin National Political Director Mike DuHaime. "The hotline will allow us to learn about and take steps toward remedying any voter irregularities at polling places across the country. While we are hopeful that Election Day will be free of any wrongdoing, allies of the Democrat Party, such as ACORN, have shown a willingness to commit fraud in both this election cycle and in 2004. Given the tightness of the polls, all examples of fraud must be addressed to preserve the integrity of the election."
In 2004, multiple forms of voter fraud occurred, including voter intimidation, fraudulent registrations, multiple ballots cast and votes bought for money. Already during the 2008 election cycle, a dead woman in Missouri cast an absentee ballot, individuals were arrested for voting twice in Florida and people in Ohio registered and voted on the same day.
###
October 31, 2008 Contact: Press Office
703-650-5550
McCain-Palin Campagin Launches Honest and Open Election Hotline
ARLINGTON, VA -- Today, the McCain-Palin campaign launched the Honest and Open Election hotline to help citizens learn the location of their polling place, as well as report any instances of irregularities at the polls, including voter fraud, intimidation, violence and electioneering. The hotline can be accessed via phone at: 866-976-VOTE.
"With November 4th quickly approaching, our Honest and Open Election hotline will serve as an informative guide for all Americans participating in the electoral process," said McCain-Palin National Political Director Mike DuHaime. "The hotline will allow us to learn about and take steps toward remedying any voter irregularities at polling places across the country. While we are hopeful that Election Day will be free of any wrongdoing, allies of the Democrat Party, such as ACORN, have shown a willingness to commit fraud in both this election cycle and in 2004. Given the tightness of the polls, all examples of fraud must be addressed to preserve the integrity of the election."
In 2004, multiple forms of voter fraud occurred, including voter intimidation, fraudulent registrations, multiple ballots cast and votes bought for money. Already during the 2008 election cycle, a dead woman in Missouri cast an absentee ballot, individuals were arrested for voting twice in Florida and people in Ohio registered and voted on the same day.
###
ABC WRITES MISLEADING ARTICLE ON SARAH AND THEN BACKTRACKS!!!
Over the past week, the McCain campaign has been battling back against reports of tension and dissension between John McCain -- and his close circle of advisers -- and Sarah Palin. Those reports reached a new level of inflammation on Wednesday when excerpts from Palin's appearance on ABC's Good Morning America were released by ABC News as a preview.
In its article, teasing the Thursday morning sit down between Palin and Elizabeth Vargas, ABC News took specific pains to paint certain remarks by Palin as indicative of her shifting attention to her own post-2008 ambitions. However, based upon the actual interview, as well as changes made to the preview article overnight, it's clear that ABC News presented Palin's statements in a false and misleading manner.
In ABC News' preview article, penned by Russell Goldman, Palin is definitively painted as looking ahead to a future run for President in 2012, with one comment specifically contextualized to appear as if she'd given up on the McCain campaign. Originally titled "Palin Has an Eye on 2012," and given the subhed "Palin says she didn't run for 'naught' and plans to stay in national politics," the lede of the article is as follows:
Gov. Sarah Palin suggested that if the Republican ticket is defeated on Tuesday she expects to be a player in the next election four years from now, saying "I'm not doing this for naught."
In an interview with ABC News's Elizabeth Vargas, the Republican vice-presidential nominee was asked about 2012, whether she was discouraged by the daily attacks on the campaign trail, and would instead pack it in and return to her home state of Alaska.
"I think that, if I were to give up and wave a white flag of surrender against some of the political shots that we've taken, that would bring this whole & [sic] I'm not doing this for naught," Palin said.
Palin said she believed in the current GOP ticket and that she was "thinking that it's going to go our way on Tuesday, Nov. 4. I truly believe that the wisdom of the people will be revealed on that day," she said."
To read this, you'd imagine that Palin had put aside any hope of winning the 2008 election, and the "doing this for naught" was a resentful shot at a campaign that didn't live up to her ambitions or expectations. You'd also imagine that she eventually got around to offering a statement in support of the current effort to win the election.
But in fact, this is not how any of the interview transpired. Palin actually offered her opinion that the election is "going to go [their] way" right at the outset of the interview. And her "doing this for naught" statement was given in response to a question about "sexism on the campaign trail."
Here is the beginning of the Vargas/Palin interview, verbatim:
ELIZABETH VARGAS: If it doesn't go your way on Tuesday ... 2012?
GOV SARAH PALIN: I'm just ... thinkin' that it's gonna go our way on Tuesday, November 4. I truly believe that the wisdom of ... of the people will be revealed on that day. As they enter that voting booth, they will understand the stark contrast between the two tickets. ...
VARGAS: But the point being that you haven't been so bruised by some of the double standard, the sexism on the campaign trail, to say, "I've had it. I'm going back to Alaska."
PALIN: Absolutely not. I think that, if I were to give up and wave a white flag of surrender against some of the political shots that we've taken, that ... that would ... bring this whole ... I'm not doin' this for naught.
It's plainly evident that the contentions presented in ABC's original preview of the interview just aren't borne out by the interview itself. The subject of Palin's future in politics doesn't come up in the interview again.
At some point, ABC must have decided that they were being misleading, because between then and now, their preview article changed entirely. With a new headline ("Sarah Palin: 'Not Doing This For Naught') and a new subhed that reads, "John McCain's Vice Presidential Running Mate Remains Focused on Election Day Win," the new story plays it straight, presenting a Palin who's focused on the task at hand:
Down in the polls but certainly not out, Gov. Sarah Palin remains in the fight as the campaign enters its final week.
In an interview with ABC News' Elizabeth Vargas, the Republican vice-presidential nominee was asked about 2012, whether she was discouraged by the daily attacks on the campaign trail, and would instead pack it in and return to her home state of Alaska.
"I think that, if I were to give up and wave a white flag of surrender against some of the political shots that we've taken, that would bring this whole ... I'm not doing this for naught," Palin said.
Palin said she believed in the current GOP ticket and that she was "thinking that it's going to go our way on Tuesday, Nov. 4. I truly believe that the wisdom of the people will be revealed on that day," she said.
This new preview presents Palin's statements in a truer context. However, the problem is that everyone who reported out Palin's remarks operated from the first, misleading article, and perpetuated the idea that Palin had gone on GMA and thrown the 2008 election campaign under the bus to save herself for a 2012 run.
Overnight, Palin adviser Tucker Eskew spoke at length to the traveling press corps about the ABC piece:
ABC News made a mistake. They've admitted that mistake, but unfortunately, they have compounded that and so have other news organizations. Tonight, I would like to discuss that series of mistakes and what I think it says as we go into the final stretch of this campaign. For those of you who have reported on it you know that earlier today ABC reported on an interview the Governor had with Elizabeth Vargas. In that interview Gov. Palin was asked, right at the very end, about her intentions for 2012. She deflected those intentions and answered the question that she was planning to win.
Deflecting isn't probably the right word. She rejected that contention. She was asked in a follow up question whether she was discouraged-and I'm paraphrasing- discouraged by the attacks on her whether she wanted to just go back to Alaska. At which point she said I'm not going to wave the white flag of surrender and I'm not doing this for naught. She had talked extensively in this interview about what her reasons what motivated her in this campaign as a governor, a candidate, a mother and a woman.
ABCNews.com proceeded to write a terrifically misleading headline that confused-it's a much better word that conflated-her answers to those two separate questions. Some of you have written about that. Some of you have written in grave error about that. Some of you I will grant may not know the extent of ABC News' mistake. That mistake was then compounded. I think it was compounded by some of the other coverage and if you will bear with me I'll get to that in a minute. But unfortunately ABC News ran an 'update'--they called it--to this initial story, which didn't correct the error. They ran another update that actually compounded their already compounded error. And I am told tonight, they are finally running a fourth version of this story with the line 'corrected version' to your news organizations. Some of you may have seen that. I have not yet seen that fourth version. I've seen the other three and looked very carefully at them.
If I may take a moment and talk about that--that initial article. It went on at great length to discuss the favorite narrative of a rogue candidate. In each of its so-called updated or corrected versions, paragraph after paragraph remains in this story outlining her rogue behavior. So that remains in the story even at this point. So there's a mistake--a mistake apologized for, I will grant, very professionally apologized for, and yet, which has been compounded repeatedly tonight. And then compounded by some of your reporting and by other news organizations' reporting, or yet let's say, not yet reported corrections. In the case of CNN, jumped on it immediately, many of you probably saw it, right there on your screens in front of you. They then took what we said to them directly as a correction of an error, in fact a statement of fact, and held a roundtable discussing our pushback against the original story, having a long debate about what Palin really meant about her intentions for 2012. I cite this as just an example in this fast-moving environment. And it's going to get just faster moving as we hurdle toward the finish line together--you and I and my colleagues.
And I think it bares a moment's reflection, more than a little criticism, and some correcting of the record. So among the news organizations tonight which have written about Palin's 2012 plans are Reuters, the Associated Press, CBS News, the Associated Press I may have mentioned, the Boston Globe, Phoon Rei (sp?), a number of reporters not with us, the L.A. Times, did I mention the Washington Post?
Eskew went on to laud ABC for their "professionalism" in seeking to "apologize" to the campaign and their desire to "make right." By all indications, Eskew was just as angry, if not moreso, at all of the organizations that ran with ABC's story than at ABC itself.
Nonetheless, as evidenced in the actual Palin interview, and demonstrated by the wholesale changes made to their preview article after its first iteration blasted across the world, ABC is perfectly cognizant of their error. Like Eskew, I'm similarly inclined to not ascribe any motives, here. At worst, ABC was probably just working to extend the Sarah Palin Goin' Rogue narrative that has been reported out correctly and well. But if you're looking for an occasion where the McCain campaign is correct to complain about their treatment in the press, this is a bona fide example.
In its article, teasing the Thursday morning sit down between Palin and Elizabeth Vargas, ABC News took specific pains to paint certain remarks by Palin as indicative of her shifting attention to her own post-2008 ambitions. However, based upon the actual interview, as well as changes made to the preview article overnight, it's clear that ABC News presented Palin's statements in a false and misleading manner.
In ABC News' preview article, penned by Russell Goldman, Palin is definitively painted as looking ahead to a future run for President in 2012, with one comment specifically contextualized to appear as if she'd given up on the McCain campaign. Originally titled "Palin Has an Eye on 2012," and given the subhed "Palin says she didn't run for 'naught' and plans to stay in national politics," the lede of the article is as follows:
Gov. Sarah Palin suggested that if the Republican ticket is defeated on Tuesday she expects to be a player in the next election four years from now, saying "I'm not doing this for naught."
In an interview with ABC News's Elizabeth Vargas, the Republican vice-presidential nominee was asked about 2012, whether she was discouraged by the daily attacks on the campaign trail, and would instead pack it in and return to her home state of Alaska.
"I think that, if I were to give up and wave a white flag of surrender against some of the political shots that we've taken, that would bring this whole & [sic] I'm not doing this for naught," Palin said.
Palin said she believed in the current GOP ticket and that she was "thinking that it's going to go our way on Tuesday, Nov. 4. I truly believe that the wisdom of the people will be revealed on that day," she said."
To read this, you'd imagine that Palin had put aside any hope of winning the 2008 election, and the "doing this for naught" was a resentful shot at a campaign that didn't live up to her ambitions or expectations. You'd also imagine that she eventually got around to offering a statement in support of the current effort to win the election.
But in fact, this is not how any of the interview transpired. Palin actually offered her opinion that the election is "going to go [their] way" right at the outset of the interview. And her "doing this for naught" statement was given in response to a question about "sexism on the campaign trail."
Here is the beginning of the Vargas/Palin interview, verbatim:
ELIZABETH VARGAS: If it doesn't go your way on Tuesday ... 2012?
GOV SARAH PALIN: I'm just ... thinkin' that it's gonna go our way on Tuesday, November 4. I truly believe that the wisdom of ... of the people will be revealed on that day. As they enter that voting booth, they will understand the stark contrast between the two tickets. ...
VARGAS: But the point being that you haven't been so bruised by some of the double standard, the sexism on the campaign trail, to say, "I've had it. I'm going back to Alaska."
PALIN: Absolutely not. I think that, if I were to give up and wave a white flag of surrender against some of the political shots that we've taken, that ... that would ... bring this whole ... I'm not doin' this for naught.
It's plainly evident that the contentions presented in ABC's original preview of the interview just aren't borne out by the interview itself. The subject of Palin's future in politics doesn't come up in the interview again.
At some point, ABC must have decided that they were being misleading, because between then and now, their preview article changed entirely. With a new headline ("Sarah Palin: 'Not Doing This For Naught') and a new subhed that reads, "John McCain's Vice Presidential Running Mate Remains Focused on Election Day Win," the new story plays it straight, presenting a Palin who's focused on the task at hand:
Down in the polls but certainly not out, Gov. Sarah Palin remains in the fight as the campaign enters its final week.
In an interview with ABC News' Elizabeth Vargas, the Republican vice-presidential nominee was asked about 2012, whether she was discouraged by the daily attacks on the campaign trail, and would instead pack it in and return to her home state of Alaska.
"I think that, if I were to give up and wave a white flag of surrender against some of the political shots that we've taken, that would bring this whole ... I'm not doing this for naught," Palin said.
Palin said she believed in the current GOP ticket and that she was "thinking that it's going to go our way on Tuesday, Nov. 4. I truly believe that the wisdom of the people will be revealed on that day," she said.
This new preview presents Palin's statements in a truer context. However, the problem is that everyone who reported out Palin's remarks operated from the first, misleading article, and perpetuated the idea that Palin had gone on GMA and thrown the 2008 election campaign under the bus to save herself for a 2012 run.
Overnight, Palin adviser Tucker Eskew spoke at length to the traveling press corps about the ABC piece:
ABC News made a mistake. They've admitted that mistake, but unfortunately, they have compounded that and so have other news organizations. Tonight, I would like to discuss that series of mistakes and what I think it says as we go into the final stretch of this campaign. For those of you who have reported on it you know that earlier today ABC reported on an interview the Governor had with Elizabeth Vargas. In that interview Gov. Palin was asked, right at the very end, about her intentions for 2012. She deflected those intentions and answered the question that she was planning to win.
Deflecting isn't probably the right word. She rejected that contention. She was asked in a follow up question whether she was discouraged-and I'm paraphrasing- discouraged by the attacks on her whether she wanted to just go back to Alaska. At which point she said I'm not going to wave the white flag of surrender and I'm not doing this for naught. She had talked extensively in this interview about what her reasons what motivated her in this campaign as a governor, a candidate, a mother and a woman.
ABCNews.com proceeded to write a terrifically misleading headline that confused-it's a much better word that conflated-her answers to those two separate questions. Some of you have written about that. Some of you have written in grave error about that. Some of you I will grant may not know the extent of ABC News' mistake. That mistake was then compounded. I think it was compounded by some of the other coverage and if you will bear with me I'll get to that in a minute. But unfortunately ABC News ran an 'update'--they called it--to this initial story, which didn't correct the error. They ran another update that actually compounded their already compounded error. And I am told tonight, they are finally running a fourth version of this story with the line 'corrected version' to your news organizations. Some of you may have seen that. I have not yet seen that fourth version. I've seen the other three and looked very carefully at them.
If I may take a moment and talk about that--that initial article. It went on at great length to discuss the favorite narrative of a rogue candidate. In each of its so-called updated or corrected versions, paragraph after paragraph remains in this story outlining her rogue behavior. So that remains in the story even at this point. So there's a mistake--a mistake apologized for, I will grant, very professionally apologized for, and yet, which has been compounded repeatedly tonight. And then compounded by some of your reporting and by other news organizations' reporting, or yet let's say, not yet reported corrections. In the case of CNN, jumped on it immediately, many of you probably saw it, right there on your screens in front of you. They then took what we said to them directly as a correction of an error, in fact a statement of fact, and held a roundtable discussing our pushback against the original story, having a long debate about what Palin really meant about her intentions for 2012. I cite this as just an example in this fast-moving environment. And it's going to get just faster moving as we hurdle toward the finish line together--you and I and my colleagues.
And I think it bares a moment's reflection, more than a little criticism, and some correcting of the record. So among the news organizations tonight which have written about Palin's 2012 plans are Reuters, the Associated Press, CBS News, the Associated Press I may have mentioned, the Boston Globe, Phoon Rei (sp?), a number of reporters not with us, the L.A. Times, did I mention the Washington Post?
Eskew went on to laud ABC for their "professionalism" in seeking to "apologize" to the campaign and their desire to "make right." By all indications, Eskew was just as angry, if not moreso, at all of the organizations that ran with ABC's story than at ABC itself.
Nonetheless, as evidenced in the actual Palin interview, and demonstrated by the wholesale changes made to their preview article after its first iteration blasted across the world, ABC is perfectly cognizant of their error. Like Eskew, I'm similarly inclined to not ascribe any motives, here. At worst, ABC was probably just working to extend the Sarah Palin Goin' Rogue narrative that has been reported out correctly and well. But if you're looking for an occasion where the McCain campaign is correct to complain about their treatment in the press, this is a bona fide example.
SARAH'S NOT GOING TO LET US WOMEN DOWN!!!!
Sarah Palin 'Not Going to Let Women Down'
John McCain's Running Mate Says the Media Have Misrepresented Her Message to Women
By MARK MOONEY
Oct. 30, 2008
Sarah Palin says she doesn't know why most women don't support her candidacy or why others believe she is unqualified to be vice president, but she says that makes her determined to keep fighting.
The GOP vice presidential candidate addresses the media's perception of her.
With just five days to go before Election Day, Palin sat down with "20/20" co-anchor Elizabeth Vargas for an exclusive interview.
Despite polls that show she and Sen. John McCain trail the Democratic team of Sens. Barack Obama and Joe Biden -- and reports of tension between her and McCain -- Palin remains outwardly upbeat.
She told Vargas she is "thinking that it's going to go our way Tuesday, Nov. 4. I truly believe that the wisdom of the people will be revealed that day."
Asked about 2012, and whether she was discouraged by the daily attacks on the campaign trail and would instead pack it in and return to her home state of Alaska, she said:
"I think that if I were to give up and wave a white flag of surrender against some of the political shots that we've taken, that would bring this whole … I'm not doing this for naught," Palin said.
The woman who depicted herself as a pitbull with lipstick during her speech at the Republican National Convention claimed that much of the media's and her opponents' treatment of her had been sexist.
Particularly hurtful, she said, were vulgar T-shirts worn by detractors at several events.
"I was disappointed that my kids had to see that," Palin told Vargas. She said her 14-year-old daughter saw a man wearing one of the shirts that was "pretty appalling."
"And she said, 'Mom, how can that guy say that about you? He's never even met you,'" Palin said.
She said questions about her wardrobe and whether she could be vice president and raise a family at the same time were questions never asked of male candidates.
Palin shrugged it off and said the "double standard" made her more determined to "work that much harder for the women in America to show them that that final, hard-as-glass ceiling must be broken."
When asked why women aren't rallying to her, Palin said, "I don't look at polls, so I would not be able to answer that.
"But you have to consider that there has been the constant barrage, a kind of spin on the my record or my positions," Palin said. "Perhaps it would change someone's perception."
Undaunted, she vowed, "I'm not going to let the women of America down,"
Palin was equally at a loss to explain why people, including several prominent Republicans, such as former Secretary of State Colin Powell, claim she is unqualified to be vice president.
"I don't know," she said. "But there have been many underestimated persons who've been elected to office, and have really been then, provided the opportunity to prove the pundits wrong."
Palin was unapologetic about her attacks on Obama and his relationship to 1960s radical Bill Ayers, and Wednesday she linked Obama to Rashid Khalidi, a Columbia University professor and former PLO associate. Palin has also accused the Democrat of promoting socialism.
Vargas asked Palin if she continued to refer to Obama's relationships in order to suggest he was "un-American," an historically loaded term.
Palin said she was not calling Obama "un-American" but was calling attention to his record.
"[I'm] not calling him un-American. There is nothing wrong, though, with calling someone out on their record, their associations," she said. "The association issue here, it's not mean-spirited. It's not negative campaigning. It's important and fair to the electorate."
John McCain's Running Mate Says the Media Have Misrepresented Her Message to Women
By MARK MOONEY
Oct. 30, 2008
Sarah Palin says she doesn't know why most women don't support her candidacy or why others believe she is unqualified to be vice president, but she says that makes her determined to keep fighting.
The GOP vice presidential candidate addresses the media's perception of her.
With just five days to go before Election Day, Palin sat down with "20/20" co-anchor Elizabeth Vargas for an exclusive interview.
Despite polls that show she and Sen. John McCain trail the Democratic team of Sens. Barack Obama and Joe Biden -- and reports of tension between her and McCain -- Palin remains outwardly upbeat.
She told Vargas she is "thinking that it's going to go our way Tuesday, Nov. 4. I truly believe that the wisdom of the people will be revealed that day."
Asked about 2012, and whether she was discouraged by the daily attacks on the campaign trail and would instead pack it in and return to her home state of Alaska, she said:
"I think that if I were to give up and wave a white flag of surrender against some of the political shots that we've taken, that would bring this whole … I'm not doing this for naught," Palin said.
The woman who depicted herself as a pitbull with lipstick during her speech at the Republican National Convention claimed that much of the media's and her opponents' treatment of her had been sexist.
Particularly hurtful, she said, were vulgar T-shirts worn by detractors at several events.
"I was disappointed that my kids had to see that," Palin told Vargas. She said her 14-year-old daughter saw a man wearing one of the shirts that was "pretty appalling."
"And she said, 'Mom, how can that guy say that about you? He's never even met you,'" Palin said.
She said questions about her wardrobe and whether she could be vice president and raise a family at the same time were questions never asked of male candidates.
Palin shrugged it off and said the "double standard" made her more determined to "work that much harder for the women in America to show them that that final, hard-as-glass ceiling must be broken."
When asked why women aren't rallying to her, Palin said, "I don't look at polls, so I would not be able to answer that.
"But you have to consider that there has been the constant barrage, a kind of spin on the my record or my positions," Palin said. "Perhaps it would change someone's perception."
Undaunted, she vowed, "I'm not going to let the women of America down,"
Palin was equally at a loss to explain why people, including several prominent Republicans, such as former Secretary of State Colin Powell, claim she is unqualified to be vice president.
"I don't know," she said. "But there have been many underestimated persons who've been elected to office, and have really been then, provided the opportunity to prove the pundits wrong."
Palin was unapologetic about her attacks on Obama and his relationship to 1960s radical Bill Ayers, and Wednesday she linked Obama to Rashid Khalidi, a Columbia University professor and former PLO associate. Palin has also accused the Democrat of promoting socialism.
Vargas asked Palin if she continued to refer to Obama's relationships in order to suggest he was "un-American," an historically loaded term.
Palin said she was not calling Obama "un-American" but was calling attention to his record.
"[I'm] not calling him un-American. There is nothing wrong, though, with calling someone out on their record, their associations," she said. "The association issue here, it's not mean-spirited. It's not negative campaigning. It's important and fair to the electorate."
OBAMA STAFFER "COMES CLEAN" ABOUT HIS DIRTY TACTICS!!!!
When it comes to what will happen in the upcoming election, the national and state polls have created such chaos, that most pundits simply don’t know what to say nor what to expect. Nonetheless, they have such an interest in declaring Obama the winner, that even when they have been forced to claim that the race will be close, they will never admit defeat until it actually happens.
So, for the sake of clarification, and to somewhat underscore what I have been telling my readers for months, I will print the following letter, apparently posted by a current Barack Obama staff member, on a few PUMA sites. The letter is fascinating, because it spells out the internal dynamics of the Obama campaign and it proves once and for all (assuming it is legitimate) that the entire aim of skewing the polls is to discourage many of you into staying at home and/or not voting for McCain.
Here is the full text:
After a long and careful consideration of all the implications and possible consequences of my actions today, I have decided to go through with this in the hope that our country can indeed be guided into the right direction. First, a little personal background… I am a female grad student in my 20’s, and a registered Democrat. During the primaries, I was a campaign worker for the Clinton candidacy. I believed in her and still do, staying all the way to the bitter end. And believe me, it was bitter. The snippets you’ve heard from various media outlets only grazed the surface. There was no love between the Clinton and Obama campaigns, and these feelings extended all the way to the top. Hillary was no dope though, and knew that any endorsement of Obama must appear to be a full-fledged one. She did this out of political survival. As a part of his overall effort to extend an olive branch to the Clinton camp and her supporters, Obama took on a few Hillary staff members into his campaign. I was one such worker. Though I was still bitterly loyal to Hillary, I still held out hope that he would choose her as VP. In fact, there was a consensus among us transplants that in the end, he HAD to choose her. It was the only logical choice. I also was committed to the Democratic cause and without much of a second thought, transferred my allegiance to Senator Obama.
I’m going to let you in on a few secrets here, and this is not because I enjoy the gossip or the attention directed my way. I’m doing this because I doubt much of you know the true weaknesses of Obama. Another reason for my doing this is that I am lost faith in this campaign, and feel that this choice has been forced on many people in this country. Put simply, you are being manipulated. That was and is our job – to manipulate you (the electorate) and the media (we already had them months ago). Our goal is to create chaos with the other side, not hope. I’ve come to the realization (as the campaign already has) that if this comes to the issues, Barack Obama doesn’t have a chance. His only chance is to foster disorganization, chaos, despair, and a sense of inevitability among the Republicans. It has worked up until now. Joe the Plumber has put the focus on the issues again, and this scares us more than anything. Being in a position to know these things, I will rate what the Obama campaign already knows are their weak links from the most important on down.
1 – Hillary voters. Internal polling suggests that at best, we are taking 70-75% of these voters. Other estimates are as low as 60% in some areas – particularly Ohio and western PA. My biggest problem with this campaign’s strategy was the decision NOT to offer Hillary the VP slot. She was ready and able to take this on, and would have campaigned enthusiastically for it. This selection would have also brought virtually all of her supporters into the fold, and the Obama campaign knew it. Though I have no way of knowing this for certain, and I do admit that I am relying on internal gossip, Senator Obama actually went against the advice of his top advisors. They wanted him to choose her, but the only significant opposition to this within the campaign came from Barack and Michelle Obama. In short, he let personal feelings take precedence over what was the most logical thing to do. Biden, by the way, has been a disaster inside the campaign. Everyone cringes whenever he gives an interview, and he creates so many headaches as the campaign has to stay on their toes in order to disseminate information and spin whatever it was he was trying to say.
2 – Sarah Palin. Don’t believe what the media is telling you about how horrible a choice she was. Again, our internal polling suggest that though she has had a minimal impact on pulling disaffected Hillary Democrats to McCain, she has done wonders in mobilizing the base for McCain. Another thing – we were completely taken by surprise with her pick. In my capacity in the research department, I looked into the backgrounds of Leiberman, Romney, Pawlenty and Ridge, and prepared briefs. I don’t mind bragging that we had pretty good stuff on all of them. With Leiberman, the plan was to paint him as an erratic old-timer who didn’t have a clue as to what he was doing (pretty much a clone of McCain). In Romney, we had him pegged as an evil capitalist who cut jobs. Pawlenty was going to get the “Quayle treatment”, or more precisely: a pretty face, with no valid experience. Tom Ridge was going to be used to provide a direct link from McCain to Bush. As you can see, we were quite enamored of all of them. Then the unexpected happened – Sarah Palin. We had no clue as to how to handle her, and bungled it from the start. Though through our misinformation networks, we have successfully taken some of the shine off. But let there be no doubt. She remains a major obstacle. She has singlehanded solidified “soft” Republican support, mobilized the McCain ground game, and has even had some appeal to independents and Hillary voters. This is what our internal polling confirms.
3 – Obama’s radical connections. Standards operating procedure has been to cry “racism” whenever one of these has been brought up. We even have a detailed strategy ready to go should McCain ever bring Rev. Wright up. Though by themselves they are of minimal worth, taken together, Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Father Pfelger, and now, Rashid Khalili, are exactly what the campaign does not need. The more focus on them, the more this election becomes a referendum on Obama. The campaign strategy from the very beginning was to make this election a referendum on Bush. Strategists have been banging their head on how successfully McCain has distanced himself from Bush. This has worked, and right now the tide is in his favor. People are taking a new look at Barack Obama, and our experience when this happens tells us this is not good news at all. When they take a look at him, one or more of these names are bound to be brought up. McCain has wisely not harped on this in recent weeks and let voters decide for themselves. This was a trap we set for him, and he never fully took the bait. Senator Obama openly dared him to bring up Ayers. This was not due to machismo on the part of Obama, but actually due to campaign strategy. Though McCain’s reference to Ayers fell flat in the last debate, people in the Obama campaign were actually disappointed that he didn’t follow through on it more and getting into it. Our focus groups found this out: When McCain brings these connections up, voters are turned off to him. They’d rather take this into consideration themselves, and when this happens, our numbers begin to tank.
4 – The Bradley Effect. Don’t believe these polls for a second. I just went over our numbers and found that we have next to no chance in the following states: Missouri, Indiana, North Carolina, Florida, New Hampshire and Nevada. Ohio leans heavily to McCain, but is too close to call it for him. Virginia, Pennsylvania, Colorado, New Mexico and Iowa are the true “toss up states”. The only two of these the campaign feels “confident” in are Iowa and New Mexico. The reason for such polling discrepancy is the Bradley Effect, and this is a subject of much discussion in the campaign. In general, we tend to take a -10 point percentage in allowing for this, and are not comfortable until the polls give us a spread well over this mark. This is why we are still campaigning in Virginia and Pennsylvania! This is why Ohio is such a desperate hope for us! What truly bothers this campaign is the fact that some pollsters get up to an 80% “refuse to respond” result. You can’t possibly include these into the polls. The truth is, people are afraid to let people know who they are voting for. The vast majority of these respondents are McCain supporters. Obama is the “hip” choice, and we all know it.
As part of my research duties, I scour right wing blogs and websites to get somewhat of a “feel” as to what is being talked about on the other side. Much of it is nonsense, but there are some exceptions which give the campaign jitters. A spirited campaign has been made to infiltrate many pro-Hillary sites and discredit them. A more disorganized, but genuine effort has also been made to sow doubts among the unapologetically right wing sites such as redstate.com. Don’t you guys get it? This has been the Obama campaign’s sole strategy from the very beginning! The only way he wins is over a dispirited, disorganized, and demobilized opposition. This is how it has been for all of his campaigns. What surprises me is that everyone has fallen for it. You may point to the polls as proof of the inevitability of all of this. If so, you have fallen for the oldest trick in the book. How did we skew these polls, you might ask? It all starts with the media “buzz” which has been generated over the campaign. Many stories are generated on the powerful Obama ground game, and how many new voters were registered. None of this happens by coincidence. It is all part of the poll-skewing process. This makes pollsters change their mixes to reflect these new voters and tilt the mix more towards Democratic voters. What is not mentioned or reported on is not the “under-reported cell phone users or young voters” we hear so much about. What is underreported is you.
I changed my somewhat positive opinion of this campaign during the unfair and sexist campaign against Sarah Palin. I will never agree with her on the issues and will probably never vote for her, but I am embarrassed of what has happened. I can’t ignore our own hand in all of this. What I do know is that I will not be voting for Obama this time around. Treat that as you will.
Does this mean that the election is “in the bag” for McCain? No. What it means is that the Mainstream Media and the Obama campaign are trying hard to win, no matter what. And your “depression” or “discouragement” is exactly what they are seeking. For this reason, remember to FIGHT and get out people to vote on November 4th. Make sure that everyone who wants to vote McCain gets out there, make sure that the electorate knows the evil that this man wants to unleash on our Country, and do it EVERYDAY until the election.
So, for the sake of clarification, and to somewhat underscore what I have been telling my readers for months, I will print the following letter, apparently posted by a current Barack Obama staff member, on a few PUMA sites. The letter is fascinating, because it spells out the internal dynamics of the Obama campaign and it proves once and for all (assuming it is legitimate) that the entire aim of skewing the polls is to discourage many of you into staying at home and/or not voting for McCain.
Here is the full text:
After a long and careful consideration of all the implications and possible consequences of my actions today, I have decided to go through with this in the hope that our country can indeed be guided into the right direction. First, a little personal background… I am a female grad student in my 20’s, and a registered Democrat. During the primaries, I was a campaign worker for the Clinton candidacy. I believed in her and still do, staying all the way to the bitter end. And believe me, it was bitter. The snippets you’ve heard from various media outlets only grazed the surface. There was no love between the Clinton and Obama campaigns, and these feelings extended all the way to the top. Hillary was no dope though, and knew that any endorsement of Obama must appear to be a full-fledged one. She did this out of political survival. As a part of his overall effort to extend an olive branch to the Clinton camp and her supporters, Obama took on a few Hillary staff members into his campaign. I was one such worker. Though I was still bitterly loyal to Hillary, I still held out hope that he would choose her as VP. In fact, there was a consensus among us transplants that in the end, he HAD to choose her. It was the only logical choice. I also was committed to the Democratic cause and without much of a second thought, transferred my allegiance to Senator Obama.
I’m going to let you in on a few secrets here, and this is not because I enjoy the gossip or the attention directed my way. I’m doing this because I doubt much of you know the true weaknesses of Obama. Another reason for my doing this is that I am lost faith in this campaign, and feel that this choice has been forced on many people in this country. Put simply, you are being manipulated. That was and is our job – to manipulate you (the electorate) and the media (we already had them months ago). Our goal is to create chaos with the other side, not hope. I’ve come to the realization (as the campaign already has) that if this comes to the issues, Barack Obama doesn’t have a chance. His only chance is to foster disorganization, chaos, despair, and a sense of inevitability among the Republicans. It has worked up until now. Joe the Plumber has put the focus on the issues again, and this scares us more than anything. Being in a position to know these things, I will rate what the Obama campaign already knows are their weak links from the most important on down.
1 – Hillary voters. Internal polling suggests that at best, we are taking 70-75% of these voters. Other estimates are as low as 60% in some areas – particularly Ohio and western PA. My biggest problem with this campaign’s strategy was the decision NOT to offer Hillary the VP slot. She was ready and able to take this on, and would have campaigned enthusiastically for it. This selection would have also brought virtually all of her supporters into the fold, and the Obama campaign knew it. Though I have no way of knowing this for certain, and I do admit that I am relying on internal gossip, Senator Obama actually went against the advice of his top advisors. They wanted him to choose her, but the only significant opposition to this within the campaign came from Barack and Michelle Obama. In short, he let personal feelings take precedence over what was the most logical thing to do. Biden, by the way, has been a disaster inside the campaign. Everyone cringes whenever he gives an interview, and he creates so many headaches as the campaign has to stay on their toes in order to disseminate information and spin whatever it was he was trying to say.
2 – Sarah Palin. Don’t believe what the media is telling you about how horrible a choice she was. Again, our internal polling suggest that though she has had a minimal impact on pulling disaffected Hillary Democrats to McCain, she has done wonders in mobilizing the base for McCain. Another thing – we were completely taken by surprise with her pick. In my capacity in the research department, I looked into the backgrounds of Leiberman, Romney, Pawlenty and Ridge, and prepared briefs. I don’t mind bragging that we had pretty good stuff on all of them. With Leiberman, the plan was to paint him as an erratic old-timer who didn’t have a clue as to what he was doing (pretty much a clone of McCain). In Romney, we had him pegged as an evil capitalist who cut jobs. Pawlenty was going to get the “Quayle treatment”, or more precisely: a pretty face, with no valid experience. Tom Ridge was going to be used to provide a direct link from McCain to Bush. As you can see, we were quite enamored of all of them. Then the unexpected happened – Sarah Palin. We had no clue as to how to handle her, and bungled it from the start. Though through our misinformation networks, we have successfully taken some of the shine off. But let there be no doubt. She remains a major obstacle. She has singlehanded solidified “soft” Republican support, mobilized the McCain ground game, and has even had some appeal to independents and Hillary voters. This is what our internal polling confirms.
3 – Obama’s radical connections. Standards operating procedure has been to cry “racism” whenever one of these has been brought up. We even have a detailed strategy ready to go should McCain ever bring Rev. Wright up. Though by themselves they are of minimal worth, taken together, Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Father Pfelger, and now, Rashid Khalili, are exactly what the campaign does not need. The more focus on them, the more this election becomes a referendum on Obama. The campaign strategy from the very beginning was to make this election a referendum on Bush. Strategists have been banging their head on how successfully McCain has distanced himself from Bush. This has worked, and right now the tide is in his favor. People are taking a new look at Barack Obama, and our experience when this happens tells us this is not good news at all. When they take a look at him, one or more of these names are bound to be brought up. McCain has wisely not harped on this in recent weeks and let voters decide for themselves. This was a trap we set for him, and he never fully took the bait. Senator Obama openly dared him to bring up Ayers. This was not due to machismo on the part of Obama, but actually due to campaign strategy. Though McCain’s reference to Ayers fell flat in the last debate, people in the Obama campaign were actually disappointed that he didn’t follow through on it more and getting into it. Our focus groups found this out: When McCain brings these connections up, voters are turned off to him. They’d rather take this into consideration themselves, and when this happens, our numbers begin to tank.
4 – The Bradley Effect. Don’t believe these polls for a second. I just went over our numbers and found that we have next to no chance in the following states: Missouri, Indiana, North Carolina, Florida, New Hampshire and Nevada. Ohio leans heavily to McCain, but is too close to call it for him. Virginia, Pennsylvania, Colorado, New Mexico and Iowa are the true “toss up states”. The only two of these the campaign feels “confident” in are Iowa and New Mexico. The reason for such polling discrepancy is the Bradley Effect, and this is a subject of much discussion in the campaign. In general, we tend to take a -10 point percentage in allowing for this, and are not comfortable until the polls give us a spread well over this mark. This is why we are still campaigning in Virginia and Pennsylvania! This is why Ohio is such a desperate hope for us! What truly bothers this campaign is the fact that some pollsters get up to an 80% “refuse to respond” result. You can’t possibly include these into the polls. The truth is, people are afraid to let people know who they are voting for. The vast majority of these respondents are McCain supporters. Obama is the “hip” choice, and we all know it.
As part of my research duties, I scour right wing blogs and websites to get somewhat of a “feel” as to what is being talked about on the other side. Much of it is nonsense, but there are some exceptions which give the campaign jitters. A spirited campaign has been made to infiltrate many pro-Hillary sites and discredit them. A more disorganized, but genuine effort has also been made to sow doubts among the unapologetically right wing sites such as redstate.com. Don’t you guys get it? This has been the Obama campaign’s sole strategy from the very beginning! The only way he wins is over a dispirited, disorganized, and demobilized opposition. This is how it has been for all of his campaigns. What surprises me is that everyone has fallen for it. You may point to the polls as proof of the inevitability of all of this. If so, you have fallen for the oldest trick in the book. How did we skew these polls, you might ask? It all starts with the media “buzz” which has been generated over the campaign. Many stories are generated on the powerful Obama ground game, and how many new voters were registered. None of this happens by coincidence. It is all part of the poll-skewing process. This makes pollsters change their mixes to reflect these new voters and tilt the mix more towards Democratic voters. What is not mentioned or reported on is not the “under-reported cell phone users or young voters” we hear so much about. What is underreported is you.
I changed my somewhat positive opinion of this campaign during the unfair and sexist campaign against Sarah Palin. I will never agree with her on the issues and will probably never vote for her, but I am embarrassed of what has happened. I can’t ignore our own hand in all of this. What I do know is that I will not be voting for Obama this time around. Treat that as you will.
Does this mean that the election is “in the bag” for McCain? No. What it means is that the Mainstream Media and the Obama campaign are trying hard to win, no matter what. And your “depression” or “discouragement” is exactly what they are seeking. For this reason, remember to FIGHT and get out people to vote on November 4th. Make sure that everyone who wants to vote McCain gets out there, make sure that the electorate knows the evil that this man wants to unleash on our Country, and do it EVERYDAY until the election.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
HILLARY'S WOMEN CALL OBAMA A SEXIST!!!!
Former Hillary (Now McCain) Supporters Say New Obama Ad Featuring Palin Winking Is Sexist
October 29, 2008 (ABC NEWS)
They don't like the new Obama ad, these women.
Feminist quotes courtesy of the McCain campaign.
Shelly Mandell, president of Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization for Women: "I am outraged by the new ad put out by Barack Obama. It is sexist and demeaning to women. These tactics started with Hillary Clinton and continue, growing even more disgusting with Gov. Palin. I was a Hillstar for Hillary and an avid supporter. Trashing two women clearly in a sexist manner in one election is an outrage and must be identified and stopped. There must be consequences. Let female Obama supporters take a good look at this and still believe their candidate supports women's rights and women's dignity."
Prameela Bartholomeusz, DNC Platform Committee Member: "I am once again stunned at the personal and sexist attacks by the Obama campaign against Gov. Palin. This latest ad is sexist and offensive. The Gov. of Alaska has been managing and balancing a budget of $10 billion; I think she knows a bit about economics. Sen. Obama never spoke up against sexism during the primary season, and is not speaking out against misogyny during this phase of the election season -- he is contributing to it. I have no confidence that Sen. Obama will fight for women's issues if elected. This sets women back decades."
Stephanie Bressler, Ph.D, Hillary Clinton supporter, University of Scranton women and politics professor: "It's a sexist example of reducing a woman to an object - a wink - and denying her a voice. Her lips are actually moving, but she's not allowed to be heard."
Amy Siskind, ambassador for Hillary: "When Senator Hillary Clinton was demeaned and degraded during the Presidential Primary, many of us of, myself included, vowed 'never again'. The treatment of Governor Palin by both the main stream media, and now the Obama Campaign, shows that the misogyny fest is alive and well in our country. There has been a complete and utter smear job of our fellow citizen, Sarah Palin, who is only trying to serve her country.
October 29, 2008 (ABC NEWS)
They don't like the new Obama ad, these women.
Feminist quotes courtesy of the McCain campaign.
Shelly Mandell, president of Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization for Women: "I am outraged by the new ad put out by Barack Obama. It is sexist and demeaning to women. These tactics started with Hillary Clinton and continue, growing even more disgusting with Gov. Palin. I was a Hillstar for Hillary and an avid supporter. Trashing two women clearly in a sexist manner in one election is an outrage and must be identified and stopped. There must be consequences. Let female Obama supporters take a good look at this and still believe their candidate supports women's rights and women's dignity."
Prameela Bartholomeusz, DNC Platform Committee Member: "I am once again stunned at the personal and sexist attacks by the Obama campaign against Gov. Palin. This latest ad is sexist and offensive. The Gov. of Alaska has been managing and balancing a budget of $10 billion; I think she knows a bit about economics. Sen. Obama never spoke up against sexism during the primary season, and is not speaking out against misogyny during this phase of the election season -- he is contributing to it. I have no confidence that Sen. Obama will fight for women's issues if elected. This sets women back decades."
Stephanie Bressler, Ph.D, Hillary Clinton supporter, University of Scranton women and politics professor: "It's a sexist example of reducing a woman to an object - a wink - and denying her a voice. Her lips are actually moving, but she's not allowed to be heard."
Amy Siskind, ambassador for Hillary: "When Senator Hillary Clinton was demeaned and degraded during the Presidential Primary, many of us of, myself included, vowed 'never again'. The treatment of Governor Palin by both the main stream media, and now the Obama Campaign, shows that the misogyny fest is alive and well in our country. There has been a complete and utter smear job of our fellow citizen, Sarah Palin, who is only trying to serve her country.
LAWMAKERS SAY AP REPORT ON NATURAL GAS PIPELINE UNFAIR TO GOVERNOR!!!
Democrats join defense of Palin, natural gas pipeline
Lawmakers say report by Associated Press was unfair to governor
By Pat Forgey | Juneau Empire
Alaska legislators are criticizing a story on Gov. Sarah Palin by The Associated Press that challenged Palin's top accomplishment as governor - jump-starting progress on a natural gas pipeline.
"I thought it was a pretty shoddy reporting job, honestly," said Sen. Bill Wielechowski, D-Anchorage, among many Democrats and supporters of Barack Obama who are coming to Palin's defense.
The story, written by AP reporters Justin Pritchard and Garance Burke, concluded that the Alaska Legislature used a flawed process when it chose TransCanada Corp. to develop a pipeline to bring Alaska's gas to the U.S. Midwest, and blamed Palin for the decision.
The Legislature and Palin sought to make sure the pipeline was operated as an independent pipeline, whether it was owned by one of the state's major oil and gas lease holders or an independent company.
The AP reporters called that process "flawed" and linked it to an alleged conflict of interest by a Palin administration staff member.
The AP reporters said Palin had been warned, including twice by Vice President Dick Cheney, to bring in the oil producers to the pipeline project. On Alaska's North Slope, Exxon Mobil Corp., BP and ConocoPhillips Co. produce the bulk of the state's oil and hold most of its discovered gas reserves.
The Legislature nearly unanimously established rules that required an independently operated pipeline, but allowed the producers to submit their own bid under terms resembling an independent pipeline.
The AP reporters said seeking an independent pipeline ultimately favored TransCanada and excluded the producers, which was why the process was flawed.
Sen. Gene Therriault, R-North Pole, Senate minority leader, called the story "way off base."
"We just wanted the attributes of an independently operated pipeline company, one that would protect the interests of Alaska," he said.
The Legislature spent much of the summer in special session, considering and rejecting those arguments, Therriault and Wielechowski said.
"The producers having complete control of the oil pipeline has cost the state of Alaska billions of dollars over the years; that's a fact. We've had less exploration and less drilling on the North Slope because the smaller independents have been squeezed out and because they can't pay exorbitant tariffs," Wielechowski said.
The AP story quoted only two legislators, Senate President Lyda Green, R-Wasilla, and Sen. Bert Stedman, R-Sitka, both in the minority who voted against the TransCanada deal.
Juneau Rep. Beth Kerttula said AP reporter Burke talked with her, but didn't include her defense of Palin.
"I don't believe Gov. Palin should become vice president, but I don't think this story was fair and accurate," she said.
Wielechowski called it a "hit piece" on Palin's record on the gas pipeline.
The story said the oil companies were unhappy that Palin did not support their request for 45-year tax and royalty freezes but didn't say that Palin and most legislators think that is not allowed under the Alaska Constitution.
The AP reporters also claimed the head of Palin's gas pipeline team, Deputy Commissioner Marty Rutherford of the Department of Natural Resources, may have had a conflict of interest. Under the label "ties that bind" they reported that Rutherford had in 2003 left government service to briefly work for a lobbying firm, Jade North, that later handled the TransCanada application. She soon returned to state employment.
The AP story said that was something "the Palin administration didn't tell legislators."
Therriault and others disputed that, and said that was well known to legislators.
"Marty Rutherford's limited involvement with Jade North was discussed in committee," he said.
Kerttula said that not only was Rutherford's past employment well known, it was years ago and did not amount to a conflict of interest.
"I'm really unhappy about it," she said. "It made me feel kind of sick to my stomach to see Marty Rutherford get accused" of a conflict of interest.
Juneau Sen. Kim Elton, a strong supporter of Barack Obama, questioned why the AP blamed Palin for actions that he and the majority of legislators supported.
"It wasn't something that hadn't been carefully discussed and vetted," he said.
The AP reporters, he said, apparently "parachuted in here" and jumped to a conclusion without adequate research.
Therriault said he was surprised to hear allegations that TransCanada was favored. Earlier there had been allegations that Mid-American Energy Holdings, a company owned by Warren Buffet, was favored to win the contract.
"During the debate there were lots of assertions that this was written for Mid-American," he said.
Alaska-based AP reporters who could have filled in gaps in the story seem not to have been consulted. Requests for comment from AP were either not responded to or referred to a corporate communications officer in New York who was unavailable.
The story has had wide circulation nationally and internationally. In Alaska it has run in the Fairbanks News-Miner and the Juneau Empire, the state's second and third largest papers, though not in the Anchorage Daily News, the state's largest paper.
Lawmakers say report by Associated Press was unfair to governor
By Pat Forgey | Juneau Empire
Alaska legislators are criticizing a story on Gov. Sarah Palin by The Associated Press that challenged Palin's top accomplishment as governor - jump-starting progress on a natural gas pipeline.
"I thought it was a pretty shoddy reporting job, honestly," said Sen. Bill Wielechowski, D-Anchorage, among many Democrats and supporters of Barack Obama who are coming to Palin's defense.
The story, written by AP reporters Justin Pritchard and Garance Burke, concluded that the Alaska Legislature used a flawed process when it chose TransCanada Corp. to develop a pipeline to bring Alaska's gas to the U.S. Midwest, and blamed Palin for the decision.
The Legislature and Palin sought to make sure the pipeline was operated as an independent pipeline, whether it was owned by one of the state's major oil and gas lease holders or an independent company.
The AP reporters called that process "flawed" and linked it to an alleged conflict of interest by a Palin administration staff member.
The AP reporters said Palin had been warned, including twice by Vice President Dick Cheney, to bring in the oil producers to the pipeline project. On Alaska's North Slope, Exxon Mobil Corp., BP and ConocoPhillips Co. produce the bulk of the state's oil and hold most of its discovered gas reserves.
The Legislature nearly unanimously established rules that required an independently operated pipeline, but allowed the producers to submit their own bid under terms resembling an independent pipeline.
The AP reporters said seeking an independent pipeline ultimately favored TransCanada and excluded the producers, which was why the process was flawed.
Sen. Gene Therriault, R-North Pole, Senate minority leader, called the story "way off base."
"We just wanted the attributes of an independently operated pipeline company, one that would protect the interests of Alaska," he said.
The Legislature spent much of the summer in special session, considering and rejecting those arguments, Therriault and Wielechowski said.
"The producers having complete control of the oil pipeline has cost the state of Alaska billions of dollars over the years; that's a fact. We've had less exploration and less drilling on the North Slope because the smaller independents have been squeezed out and because they can't pay exorbitant tariffs," Wielechowski said.
The AP story quoted only two legislators, Senate President Lyda Green, R-Wasilla, and Sen. Bert Stedman, R-Sitka, both in the minority who voted against the TransCanada deal.
Juneau Rep. Beth Kerttula said AP reporter Burke talked with her, but didn't include her defense of Palin.
"I don't believe Gov. Palin should become vice president, but I don't think this story was fair and accurate," she said.
Wielechowski called it a "hit piece" on Palin's record on the gas pipeline.
The story said the oil companies were unhappy that Palin did not support their request for 45-year tax and royalty freezes but didn't say that Palin and most legislators think that is not allowed under the Alaska Constitution.
The AP reporters also claimed the head of Palin's gas pipeline team, Deputy Commissioner Marty Rutherford of the Department of Natural Resources, may have had a conflict of interest. Under the label "ties that bind" they reported that Rutherford had in 2003 left government service to briefly work for a lobbying firm, Jade North, that later handled the TransCanada application. She soon returned to state employment.
The AP story said that was something "the Palin administration didn't tell legislators."
Therriault and others disputed that, and said that was well known to legislators.
"Marty Rutherford's limited involvement with Jade North was discussed in committee," he said.
Kerttula said that not only was Rutherford's past employment well known, it was years ago and did not amount to a conflict of interest.
"I'm really unhappy about it," she said. "It made me feel kind of sick to my stomach to see Marty Rutherford get accused" of a conflict of interest.
Juneau Sen. Kim Elton, a strong supporter of Barack Obama, questioned why the AP blamed Palin for actions that he and the majority of legislators supported.
"It wasn't something that hadn't been carefully discussed and vetted," he said.
The AP reporters, he said, apparently "parachuted in here" and jumped to a conclusion without adequate research.
Therriault said he was surprised to hear allegations that TransCanada was favored. Earlier there had been allegations that Mid-American Energy Holdings, a company owned by Warren Buffet, was favored to win the contract.
"During the debate there were lots of assertions that this was written for Mid-American," he said.
Alaska-based AP reporters who could have filled in gaps in the story seem not to have been consulted. Requests for comment from AP were either not responded to or referred to a corporate communications officer in New York who was unavailable.
The story has had wide circulation nationally and internationally. In Alaska it has run in the Fairbanks News-Miner and the Juneau Empire, the state's second and third largest papers, though not in the Anchorage Daily News, the state's largest paper.
THE SARAH PALIN RORSCHACH TEST????!!!!
The Sarah Palin Rorschach Test
Whether one loves or hates the Alaskan governor reveals how they view conservatism and politics. [Also, from Roger L. Simon: "Obama: The Candidate as Rorschach Test."]
October 30, 2008 - by Jennifer Rubin
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
It is an all encompassing endeavor for conservative pundits these days. No, not covering the election, but bashing or bolstering Sarah Palin.
She’s a cancer on the Republican Party! No, she the future star! She’s a know-nothing, anti-intellectual or she has a brilliant analytical mind. Take your pick.
There are, of course, observers who take a position somewhere in between. Some express concern about her qualifications, but remain optimistic about her future and recognize her progress as a candidate. Others think the GOP must move to the center and don’t see her as the person to lead that mission. But the loudest voices are the most extreme in their opinions. As with many fights in the punditocracy, the strongest language is often directed at the opposing camp. And the voices are certainly loud.
It is hard at times to discern the defining characteristics of each camp. It’s not inside vs. outside the Beltway. After all Fred Barnes is as “inside” as David Brooks, yet they are on opposite sides of the Palin war. Nor is it simply ideology. Heather Mac Donald, stalwart conservative on immigration and other topics, squared off against equally conservative Laura Ingraham recently on Palin. (The former was anti-Palin, the latter pro-Palin.)
One dividing line is religion. Religious conservatives have embraced her, while adamant secularists such as Christopher Hitchens consider her a despicable figure. But, again, this seems an imprecise line of demarcation. There are social conservatives in both camps and some of Palin’s biggest boosters aren’t social conservatives.
Sure, there’s a strong suspicion that many in the anti-Palin camp are posturing to ingratiate themselves with the Washington cocktail set. (One defender of Palin recently said to me of Palin opponents: “They want to be above the respectability bar, not below it.”) But I will accept for sake of argument that most advocates on both sides are sincere. And I’ll ignore for a moment that a number of Palin skeptics may have another candidate already in mind for 2012. So what’s the real difference between the sides?
I think it breaks down into “Players” and “Kibitzers.”
Whether one loves or hates the Alaskan governor reveals how they view conservatism and politics. [Also, from Roger L. Simon: "Obama: The Candidate as Rorschach Test."]
October 30, 2008 - by Jennifer Rubin
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
It is an all encompassing endeavor for conservative pundits these days. No, not covering the election, but bashing or bolstering Sarah Palin.
She’s a cancer on the Republican Party! No, she the future star! She’s a know-nothing, anti-intellectual or she has a brilliant analytical mind. Take your pick.
There are, of course, observers who take a position somewhere in between. Some express concern about her qualifications, but remain optimistic about her future and recognize her progress as a candidate. Others think the GOP must move to the center and don’t see her as the person to lead that mission. But the loudest voices are the most extreme in their opinions. As with many fights in the punditocracy, the strongest language is often directed at the opposing camp. And the voices are certainly loud.
It is hard at times to discern the defining characteristics of each camp. It’s not inside vs. outside the Beltway. After all Fred Barnes is as “inside” as David Brooks, yet they are on opposite sides of the Palin war. Nor is it simply ideology. Heather Mac Donald, stalwart conservative on immigration and other topics, squared off against equally conservative Laura Ingraham recently on Palin. (The former was anti-Palin, the latter pro-Palin.)
One dividing line is religion. Religious conservatives have embraced her, while adamant secularists such as Christopher Hitchens consider her a despicable figure. But, again, this seems an imprecise line of demarcation. There are social conservatives in both camps and some of Palin’s biggest boosters aren’t social conservatives.
Sure, there’s a strong suspicion that many in the anti-Palin camp are posturing to ingratiate themselves with the Washington cocktail set. (One defender of Palin recently said to me of Palin opponents: “They want to be above the respectability bar, not below it.”) But I will accept for sake of argument that most advocates on both sides are sincere. And I’ll ignore for a moment that a number of Palin skeptics may have another candidate already in mind for 2012. So what’s the real difference between the sides?
I think it breaks down into “Players” and “Kibitzers.”
THE OBAMA TAPE!!! RELEASE IT, DAMN IT!!!!
THE OBAMA TAPE
THE NEW YORK POST
October 30, 2008
The Los Angeles Times is standing on what it calls journalistic integrity - a promise made to its source - in refusing to release a 2003 videotape of Barack Obama fulsomely praising a Palestinian apologist for armed "resistance" against Israel.
Pardon our skepticism.
The paper, which has endorsed Obama, said it obtained the tape from "a confidential source" who demanded "that we not release it."
But what of the public's right to know?
Does anyone seriously believe that, as John McCain said yesterday, "if there was a tape with me and Sarah Palin and some neo-Nazi . . . you think that that tape wouldn't be made public?"
In its defense, the paper says that it published "a detailed account" of the videotape back in April.
True enough - although the paper also won't release a full transcript.
The tape shows Obama, then an Illinois legislator, speaking at a dinner hosted by Arab-Americans for Rashid Khalidi, a Palestinian activist and professor who was headed for Columbia University.
Who is Khalidi, and why should Americans be concerned about Obama's relationship with him? See Gabriel Schoenfeld's profile of the activist-scholar on the opposite page.
On the tape, Obama says his many dinners with Khalidi have been "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases," and adds: "For that reason, I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation."
Such words aren't likely to reassure supporters of Israel - indeed, as the Times itself reported, it explains why Palestinian partisans believe that Obama "is . . . receptive to their cause."
The Obama campaign yesterday insisted that its candidate "has been clear that Rashid Khalidi is not an adviser to him or his campaign and that he does not share Khalidi's views."
But when did that become "clear"?
Shouldn't responsible journalists be asking that question?
And shouldn't LA Times owner Sam Zell be demanding that his underlings make the tape public?
Yes, he should!
Meanwhile, the founders of The Politico report that "Obama will win the votes of 80 percent or more of the journalists covering the election."
And journalists wonder why Americans don't trust the media.
THE NEW YORK POST
October 30, 2008
The Los Angeles Times is standing on what it calls journalistic integrity - a promise made to its source - in refusing to release a 2003 videotape of Barack Obama fulsomely praising a Palestinian apologist for armed "resistance" against Israel.
Pardon our skepticism.
The paper, which has endorsed Obama, said it obtained the tape from "a confidential source" who demanded "that we not release it."
But what of the public's right to know?
Does anyone seriously believe that, as John McCain said yesterday, "if there was a tape with me and Sarah Palin and some neo-Nazi . . . you think that that tape wouldn't be made public?"
In its defense, the paper says that it published "a detailed account" of the videotape back in April.
True enough - although the paper also won't release a full transcript.
The tape shows Obama, then an Illinois legislator, speaking at a dinner hosted by Arab-Americans for Rashid Khalidi, a Palestinian activist and professor who was headed for Columbia University.
Who is Khalidi, and why should Americans be concerned about Obama's relationship with him? See Gabriel Schoenfeld's profile of the activist-scholar on the opposite page.
On the tape, Obama says his many dinners with Khalidi have been "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases," and adds: "For that reason, I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation."
Such words aren't likely to reassure supporters of Israel - indeed, as the Times itself reported, it explains why Palestinian partisans believe that Obama "is . . . receptive to their cause."
The Obama campaign yesterday insisted that its candidate "has been clear that Rashid Khalidi is not an adviser to him or his campaign and that he does not share Khalidi's views."
But when did that become "clear"?
Shouldn't responsible journalists be asking that question?
And shouldn't LA Times owner Sam Zell be demanding that his underlings make the tape public?
Yes, he should!
Meanwhile, the founders of The Politico report that "Obama will win the votes of 80 percent or more of the journalists covering the election."
And journalists wonder why Americans don't trust the media.
JUST WORDS: OBAMA'S MISLEADING INFOMERCIAL!!!!
For Immediate Release
October 30, 2008 Contact: Press Office
Just Words: Barack Obama's Misleading Infomercial
ARLINGTON, VA -- Last night, Barack Obama's infomercial offered the American people a nicely packaged product of misleading information. Check out the facts below:
JUST WORDS #1: Barack Obama Decries Record Deficits But Admits He Has No Interest In Reducing The Deficit
Barack Obama: "We were running a record deficit and our national debt had never been higher." (Obama For America, "American Stories And American Solutions" Ad, 10/29/08)
· Barack Obama: "I Do Not Make A Promise That We Can Reduce [The Budget Deficit] By 2013." "'I do not make a promise that we can reduce it by 2013 because I think it is important for us to make some critical investments right now in America's families,' Obama told reporters this week when asked if he'd match McCain's pledge." (Nedra Pickler, "Analysis: Obama Won't Try For McCain's Budget Goal," The Associated Press, 7/8/08)
· Chicago Tribune: Barack Obama Has "No Interest In Eliminating Deficit Spending." "Since winning the nomination, Obama reportedly has been moving toward the middle of the political spectrum. But on the budget, he still sounds left of center, with no interest in eliminating deficit spending." (Editorial, "Failure Of Nerve," Chicago Tribune, 7/8/08)
· The Associated Press: Barack Obama Not "Even Trying" To Balance The Budget And "Frankly Says He's Not Sure He'd Bring It Down At All In Four Years." "Barack Obama says John McCain's plan to balance the budget doesn't add up. Easy for him to say: It's not a goal he's even trying to reach. Not only does Obama say he won't eliminate the deficit in his first term, as McCain aims to do, he frankly says he's not sure he'd bring it down at all in four years, considering his own spending plans." (Nedra Pickler, "Analysis: Obama Won't Try For McCain's Budget Goal," The Associated Press, 7/8/08)
JUST WORDS #2: Barack Obama Talks About Leadership In The Financial Crisis But When The Crisis First Began, He Refused To Lead
Barack Obama: "But then a little over a month ago, the bottom fell out. What happened in the financial markets was the final verdict on eight years of failed policies. And we're now going through the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. A few weeks ago, we passed a financial rescue plan. It's a step in the right direction ... and as president, I'll ensure that you, the taxpayers, are paid back first. But we also need a rescue plan for the middle class ... starting with what we can do right now that will have an immediate effect." (Obama For America, "American Stories And American Solutions" Ad, 10/29/08)
· The Washington Times: "Obama Mum On Market Crisis." "Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama opted Friday not to divulge details of his recovery plan for the financial crisis after a morning meeting with his top economic advisers -- fearing it would stir Wall Street jitters." (S.A. Miller, "Obama Mum On Market Crisis," The Washington Times, 9/20/08)
· Barack Obama Did Not Make Calls To Round Up Votes For The Economic Recovery Package. ABC's JOHN BERMAN: "The McCain campaign has been hammering Obama suggesting he did not take a leading role in the financial negotiations." SEN. MCCAIN: "At first, he didn't want to get involved. Then, he was monitoring the situation." BERMAN: "Indeed, Obama aides say he did not make any calls to help round up votes." (ABC's "Good Morning America," 9/30/08)
· Barack Obama "Hinted That Had He Known Earlier The Deal Was Going Down To Defeat He Would Have Worked The Phones Even Harder." "Obama also hinted that had he known earlier the deal was going down to defeat he would have worked the phones even harder, especially given that some of those who voted no, were some of his early supporters." (Lee Cowan, "Obama Places No Blame, But..." MSNBC's "First Read" Blog, http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com, Posted 9/30/08)
· Fox News' Major Garrett Reported That Barack Obama Would Not Take A Position On Whether Or Not He Supported Or Opposed The Government Rescue Of AIG. GARRETT: "On the biggest financial issue of the day, Barack Obama would not say if he supported or opposed the government-backed rescue of insurance giant AIG." BARACK OBAMA: "We don't know all the details of the arrangement with AIG and the Federal Reserve must ensure that plans protect the families that count on insurance." GARRETT: "Obama also wants taxpayers protected but executives and shareholders exposed but on the central question to intervene or not, Obama sidestepped. Advisers said lack of details forced caution. The larger political truth: advisors believe anxiety alone is enough to lift Obama in the polls. That is why on the trail, Obama doesn't talk about specifics of the moment but the nation's overall direction." (Fox News' "The Special Report," 9/17/08)
JUST WORDS #3: Barack Obama Says He'll Cut Taxes For Those Making Less Than $200,00 But Yesterday It Was Either $250,000 Or $150,000
Barack Obama: "As president, here's what I'll do: Cut taxes for every working family making less than $200,000 a year." (Obama For America, "American Stories And American Solutions" Ad, 10/29/08)
· In July 2008, Barack Obama Said: "If You Make $250,000 A Year Or Less, We Will Not Raise Your Taxes. We Will Cut Your Taxes." (Barack Obama, Remarks, Powder Springs, GA, 7/8/08)
· Joe Biden: "Spreading the wealth was not--he was talking about is all of the tax breaks have gone to the very, very wealthy. For example you have right now, this year, under the old tax policy that was just -- that was put in by George Bush, people making an average 1.4 million a year, good people, decent people, patriotic -- they're going to get an $87 billion tax break. What we're saying is that $87 billion tax break doesn't need to go to people making an average of 1.4 million, it should go like it used to. It should go to middle class people -- people making under $150,000 a year." (Joe Biden, Interview With WNEP Scranton, 10/27/08)
· Obama-Biden Campaign Aides Said That Those Making Between $150,000 And $250,000 Will Actually Not See A Tax Increase Or A Tax Cut. "Biden aides say his comments were actually consistent with Obama's tax plan -- people under $150,000 get a cut, and people making up to $250,000 stay the same." (Mark Murray and Mike Memoli, "$150,000 Vs. $250,000," MSNBC's "First Read" Blog, http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com, Posted 10/28/08)
JUST WORDS #4: Barack Obama Says That His Business Tax Plan Will Create Jobs Here But His Running-Mate Disagrees
Barack Obama: "Give businesses a tax credit for every new employee that they hire right here in the U.S. over the next two years ... and eliminate tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas." (Obama For America, "American Stories And American Solutions" Ad, 10/29/08)
· The Washington Post: Barack Obama's Plan On Business Taxes "Would Make It Even Harder" For Corporations To Compete And Will Hurt Workers In The United States. "Barack Obama says that he would 'end tax breaks for corporations that ship jobs overseas' and blasts John McCain for refusing to condemn such loopholes. But the offshoring issue is more complicated than Mr. Obama's rhetoric suggests. ... Mr. Obama's proposal would change the provision in which U.S.-based companies don't have to pay taxes on their earnings abroad until that income is 'repatriated' -- brought back into the United States, for example as dividend payments. ... Mr. Obama's suggested fix would make it even harder for them to compete abroad -- ultimately hurting workers and others here." (Editorial, "The Export Of Jobs," The Washington Post, 8/17/08)
· The Wall Street Journal Said Barack Obama's Proposal Penalizes Most American Companies That Have Subsidiaries Abroad With "A Big Tax Increase." "Under Mr. Obama's plan, 'patriot employers' qualify for a 1% tax credit on their profits. To finance this tax break, American companies with subsidiaries abroad would have to pay the U.S. corporate tax on profits earned abroad, rather than the corporate tax of the host country where they are earned. Since the U.S. corporate tax rate is 35%, while most of the world has a lower rate, this amounts to a big tax increase on earnings owned abroad." (Editorial, "Obama's 'Patriot' Act," The Wall Street Journal, 2/27/08)
· Joe Biden Acknowledged That Eliminating Tax Breaks For Corporations Won't Keep Jobs Here; That America Has To Make It "More Attractive" For Corporations To Operate Here. Biden: "I agree with everything that was said here. But the bottom line here is that eliminating the tax breaks is not going to keep jobs here in America. We've got to make it more attractive to have jobs here in America and for corporations to be here. You've got to take the burden off the corporations with a health care system that's universal, so we're not at a competitive disadvantage." (Sen. Joe Biden, Democrat Presidential Candidates Debate, Howard University, Washington, DC, 6/28/07)
JUST WORDS #5: Barack Obama Says He Will Help Small Businesses Even As He Proposes Higher Taxes That Will Kill Small Businesses
Barack Obama: "And just like after 9-11, we'll provide low-cost loans to help small businesses pay their workers and keep their doors open." (Obama For America, "American Stories And American Solutions" Ad, 10/29/08)
· Obama-Biden Has Called For Higher Income Taxes, Social Security Taxes, Capital Gains And Dividend Taxes, And Corporate Taxes, As Well As "Massive New Domestic Spending." "Obama's transformation, if you go by his campaign so far, would mean higher income taxes, higher Social Security taxes, higher investment taxes, higher corporate taxes, massive new domestic spending, and a healthcare plan that perhaps could be the next step to a full-scale, single-payer system. Is that what most Americans want, someone who will fulfill a Democratic policy wish list?" (James Pethokoukis, "Barack Hussein Reagan? Ronald Wilson Obama?" U.S. News & World Report's "Capital Commerce" Blog, 2/12/08)
· Obama-Biden Will Increase Capital Gains And Dividend Taxes. Obama Economic Advisors Jason Furman and Austan Goolsbee: "The top capital-gains rate for families making more than $250,000 would return to 20% ... The tax rate on dividends would also be 20% for families making more than $250,000, rather than returning to the ordinary income rate." (Jason Furman and Austan Goolsbee, Op-Ed, "The Obama Tax Plan," The Wall Street Journal, 8/14/08)
· Tax Policy Center: Obama-Biden Would Raise Taxes On One Out Of Every Three Senior Households. "Even though Senator Obama's plan eliminates individual income taxes for seniors with incomes less than $50,000, his plan would raise taxes for almost 10 million senior households, over a third of the total (not shown in table). On average, seniors would face a tax increase of about 2 percent of income." (Burman et al., "A Preliminary Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans," The Tax Policy Center, 6/11/08)
· Obama-Biden Would Raise Income Taxes. Obama: "[I] would roll back the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000." (Sen. Barack Obama, CNN Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Manchester, NH, 6/3/07)
· U.S. Department Of Treasury: Small Business Owners "Are Frequently Subject To The Highest Individual Income Tax Rates." ("Topics Related To The President's Tax Relief," U.S. Department Of Treasury, http://www.ustreas.gov, May 2008)
· Obama-Biden Would Raise Social Security Taxes. "Obama's proposal ... would impose social security taxes on income above $250,000 per year. He would continue to exempt income between $102,000 and $250,000 from social security taxes." (Teddy Davis, Sunlen Miller, and Gregory Wallace, "Obama Kisses Billions Goodbye," ABC News' "Political Radar" Blog, blogs.abcnews.com, 6/18/08)
JUST WORDS #6: Barack Obama Talks About Pension Security While Democrats In Congress Propose Rules To Eliminate 401(K)s
Barack Obama: "You earned your pension. You earned it. It wasn't a gift. You gave up wages so that money could be set aside for your retirement. Time and time again, what we're seeing is companies who owe their workers retirements, pensions shedding those obligations. When you make a commitment to workers at a company, those aren't idle promises. Those are promises that should have the force of law." (Obama For America, "American Stories And American Solutions" Ad, 10/29/08)
· The Wall Street Journal: "Lawmakers Have Been Suggesting They May Look At Policy Changes To 401(k)s . In Coming Months." "In the past 12 months, more than a half-trillion dollars have 'evaporated' from 401(k) plans as a result of turmoil in the financial markets, said U.S. Rep. George Miller, chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee. ... Lawmakers have been suggesting they may look at policy changes to 401(k)s -- the tax-advantaged plans that are the most widely used retirement vehicle -- in coming months. Miller made it clear he sees flaws in the 401(k) model. About $3 trillion is invested in the plans, the majority of it placed in equity mutual funds that track the stock market. Miller said the 401(k) approach is a policy 'not well devised' for changes in the market. He said the plans were meant to be savings vehicles, not primary retirement plans." (Jennifer Levitz, "Amid Deep Los ses, Congress Examines 401(k)s," The Wall Street Journal's "Washington Wire," 10/7/08)
· Among The Changes To The 401(K) System That Were Proposed At A Recent Congressional Hearing, "Chief Among Them Was Eliminating $80 Billion In Tax Savings For Higher-Income People Enrolled In 401(K) Retirement Savings Plans." "A wide range of sweeping changes to the 401(k) system were proposed Tuesday at a hearing on how the market crisis has devastated retirement savings plans. Chief among them was eliminating $80 billion in tax savings for higher-income people enrolled in 401(k) retirement savings plans. This was suggested by the chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor. 'With respect to the 401(k), it appears to be a plan that is not really well-devised for the changes in the market,' Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., said. 'We've invested $80 billion into subsidizing this activity,' he said, referring to tax breaks allowed for 401(k) contributions and savings. With savings rates going down, 'what do we have to start to thi nk about in Congress of whether or not we want to continue and invest that $80 billion for a policy that is not generating what we ... say it should?' Mr. Miller said." (Sara Hansard, "Congress Mulls Major 401(k) Changes," Investment News, 10/7/08)
· At An October 2008 Hearing, Education And Labor Committee Chairman Rep. George Miller (D-CA) Asked: "What Do We Have To Start To Think About In Congress Of Whether or Not We Want To Continue And Invest That $80 Billion For A Policy That's Not Generating What We Now Say It Should?" "But I think the key point raised by Dr. Ghilarducci, and Mr. Orszag I'm going to direct this to you, is that we've invested $80 billion a year into subsidizing this activity, which originally I thought was sort of a savings plan. And now its' become a retirement plan. I don't know when it changed, but now everybody is told that that's their retirement supplement. And again, it appears that while we've lamented all the time the savings rate isn't going up for the investment of this $80 billion, in fact, it's probably going down or appears to have been on a downward trend for a number of years. What's the policy? I mean, what do we have to start to think about in Congress of whether or not we want to continue and invest that $80 billion for a policy that's not generating what we now say it should?" (U.S. House Committee On Education And Labor, Hearing, 10/7/08)
· Rep. Miller: "I Think What We Are Seeing Is That After 25 Years Of 401K Plans That They Are A Big Failure In Terms Of Providing An Adequate Retirement For Middle Class Americans." (Jeff Mitchell, "Miller Says Government Must Next Turn Its Attention To Propping Up Sagging 401K And Pension Plans," PolitickerCA.com, 10/8/08)
JUST WORDS #7: Barack Obama Says The American People Aren't "Looking For A Handout" But Proposes A New Welfare System
Barack Obama: "Americans -- they don't expect government to solve all their problems. They're not looking for a handout. If they're able and willing to work, they should be able to find a job that pays a living wage. They should be able to retire with some dignity and some respect." (Obama For America, "American Stories And American Solutions" Ad, 10/29/08)
· The Wall Street Journal Calls Obama's Numerous Refundable Tax Credits "Tens Of Billions Of Dollars In Government Handouts." "For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase 'tax credit.'" (Editorial, "Obama's 95% Illusion," The Wall Street Journal, 10/13/08)
· New York Post: "[O]bama's 'Tax Cuts' Really Amount To A Sizable Expansion Of Welfare." "In truth, as The Wall Street Journal detailed yesterday, nearly all of those 'cuts' actually come in the form of 'refundable tax credits,' by which the government in effect writes a check to those who meet certain criteria - even if they don't pay taxes in the first place. In other words, Obama's 'tax cuts' really amount to a sizable expansion of welfare. That leaves American taxpayers to foot the bill - both directly, and through the lost economic opportunity that's sure to follow Obama's promised tax hikes on income, dividends and capital gains." (Editorial, "Ready, Set ... Spend!" New York Post, 10/14/08)
· Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: "[T]he One-Third Of All American Working Families Who Pay No Income Taxes Now Will Receive A Government Check Under The Obama Plan. And That Number Could Rise To About 44 Percent Under Obama's Proposal." "The 'tax-cut plan' of Democrat presidential nominee Barack Obama is anything but. In fact, it's nothing more than another liberaled-up wealth-transference program that, in the 'old days,' was known as welfare. ... Just as troubling, however, is this little factoid: Even the one-third of all American working families who pay no income taxes now will receive a government check under the Obama plan. And that number could rise to about 44 percent under Obama's proposal." (Editorial, "Obama's Tax Cut: New Welfare Deal," Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 10/14/08)
JUST WORDS #8: Barack Obama Says His $150 Billion Fund Will Lead To Energy Independence But "There's No Guarantee That The Research Will Result In Less Oil Being Imported"
Barack Obama: "As president, I'll use companies like McKinstry as a model for the nation. I'll invest $15 billion dollars a year in energy efficiency and renewable sources of energy -- like wind, solar and bio-fuels -- creating five million clean energy jobs over the next decade -- jobs that pay well and can never be outsourced." (Obama For America, "American Stories And American Solutions" Ad, 10/29/08)
· FactCheck.Org: "On closer examination, his proposal is to spend $150 billion over the coming decade on energy research. Ten years doesn't sound all that 'fast' to us, and there's no guarantee that the research will result in less oil being imported. ... We do object to implying that a decade-long program, which in all probability could not even begin until sometime in late 2009, is a 'fast track' to anything." (FactCheck.Org, "Straining A Point," www.factcheck.org, 7/17/08)
JUST WORDS #9: Barack Obama Says We Need To Tap The Very Same Domestic Sources Of Energy He Opposes Tapping
Barack Obama: "And to further reduce our demand for foreign oil, I'll tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology and expand domestic production of oil." (Obama For America, "American Stories And American Solutions" Ad, 10/29/08)
· Barack Obama Opposes Offshore Drilling. OBAMA: "This is not real. I know it's tempting. The polls say the majority of Americans think that's one of the ways we're going to solve this problem, but it's not real." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Campaign Event, Springfield, MO, 7/30/08)
· Joe Biden Said That He And Barack Obama Don't Support Clean Coal And Believe In "No Coal Plants Here In America." PERSON: "Senator, Senator, wind and solar are flourishing here in Ohio, so why are you supporting clean coal?" BIDEN: "Say ... I didn't hear what you said." PERSON: "Wind and solar are flourishing here in Ohio, so why are you supporting clean coal?" BIDEN: "We're not supporting 'clean coal.' Guess what. China's building two every week. Two dirty coal plants. And it's polluting the United States. It's causing people to die." PERSON: "So will you support wind and solar?" BIDEN: "Absolutely. Before anybody did. The first guy to introduce a global warming bill was me, 22 years ago. The first guy to support solar energy was me, 26 years ago. It came out of Delaware. But guess what. China is gonna burn three hundred years of bad coal unless we figure out how to clean their coal up. Because it's going to ruin your lungs and t here's nothing we can do about it. No coal plants here in America. Build them, if they're going to build them over there make 'em clean because they're killing you." (Joe Biden, Remarks, Maumee, OH, 9/17/08)
JUST WORDS #10: Barack Obama Says His Spending Proposals Are All Paid For But According To Independent Sources, Barack Obama Can Not Account For All His New Spending
Barack Obama: "That's why, for my energy plan, my economic plan and the other proposals you'll hear tonight, I've offered spending cuts above and beyond their cost. I'll also go through the federal budget, line by line, eliminating programs that don't work ... and making the ones we do need work better and cost less." (Obama For America, "American Stories And American Solutions" Ad, 10/29/08)
· ABC News: Barack Obama Can Not "Pay For Every Dime" Of New Spending He Has Proposed. "Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said during Friday's presidential debate that he would 'pay for every dime' of his spending. But according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, 'without substantial cuts in government spending' Obama's plan -- and McCain's, too --'would substantially increase the national debt over the next ten years.' The Tax Policy Center has estimated that Obama's proposed tax policies would increase the debt by $3.5 trillion over ten years." ("Fact Check: 'Pay for Every Dime'? Not Quite," ABC News' "Political Radar" Blog, http://blogs.abcnews.com, Posted 9/26/08)
· PolitiFact Discredits Barack Obama's Claim That His Proposals Are Paid For; Says His Rhetoric Is "Disingenuous." "Until he fleshes out his economic plan considerably more, it's disingenuous to go around claiming his proposals are 'paid for.' And that claim is even more suspect considering that his proposals would leave a larger deficit than would the tax laws currently on the books. We find his claim to be Barely True." ("'Paid For' Without Real Money," St. Petersburg Times' "PolitiFact.com," www.politifact.com, 6/16/08)
· Los Angeles Times: Barack Obama "Has Not Identified New Revenue Sources Or Spending Cuts To Pay For Some Of" His Proposals. "The Obama campaign responds that tax cuts, once enacted, are usually renewed and do not expire. Therefore, they say, Obama can legitimately claim to be recouping money for other purposes by scaling back the tax cuts. Obama has not identified new revenue sources or spending cuts to pay for some of what he wants to do." (Peter Nicholas, "Adding Up The Cost Of Obama's Agenda," Los Angeles Times, 7/8/08)
JUST WORDS #11: Barack Obama Talks About Reforming Education But He Has No Record
Barack Obama: "Now is not the time for small plans - now is the time to finally meet our moral obligation - to provide every child a world class education. I'll invest in early childhood education. I'll recruit an army of new teachers, and pay them higher salaries, and give them more support. And in exchange I'll ask for higher standards and more accountability." (Obama For America, "American Stories And American Solutions" Ad, 10/29/08)
· "In His Eight Years In The State Senate And Two Years In The U.S. Senate, Mr. Obama Hasn't Made A Significant Mark On Education Policy." ("Obama's Annenberg Stint Informs White House Bid," Education Week, 3/7/07)
· The Washington Post: Barack Obama "Elusive" On School Accountability. "Mr. Obama, as the New York Times' David Brooks recently observed, has promised dozens of crowd-pleasing programs but has been elusive on such thorny issues as teacher tenure and school accountability." (Editorial, "Focus On School Reform," The Washington Post, 7/7/08)
· Chicago Tribune's Steve Chapman: "Obama Is The Staunch Defender Of The Existing Public School Monopoly." "On the subject of elementary and secondary education, the two seem to have gotten their roles completely mixed up. Obama is the staunch defender of the existing public school monopoly, and he's allergic to anything that subverts it. John McCain, on the other hand, went before the NAACP last week to argue for something new and daring." (Steve Chapman, Op-Ed, "Change: A Matter Of Convenience," Chicago Tribune, 7/20/08)
JUST WORDS #12: Barack Obama Says His Health Care Plan Will Save Families $2,500 But There Is "Zero Credible Evidence" For That
Barack Obama: "That's why my health care plan includes improving information technology, requires coverage for preventive care and pre-existing conditions ... and lowers health care costs for the typical family by $2,500 dollars a year. And you can keep your same coverage and your same doctor." (Obama For America, "American Stories And American Solutions" Ad, 10/29/08)
· Barack Obama's Pledge To Lower Health Care Premiums By $2,500 In His First Term "Is A Matter Of Considerable Dispute" Among Experts. "In speech after speech, Senator Barack Obama has pledged that he will lower the country's health care costs enough to 'bring down premiums by $2,500 for the typical family.' Moreover, Mr. Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, has promised that his health plan will be in place 'by the end of my first term as president of the United States.' Whether Mr. Obama can deliver is a matter of considerable dispute among health analysts and economists." (Kevin Sack, "Obstacles For Obama In Meeting Health Care Goal," The New York Times, 7/23/08)
· A Health Policy Professor At The University Of North Carolina-Chapel Hill Said The Savings In The Obama Plan Are "Wishful Thinking." "Jonathan B. Oberlander, who teaches health policy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, called it wishful thinking. 'Do they have the potential to generate significant savings in the long run?' Dr. Oberlander asked. 'Yes. Do I believe they will produce substantial savings in the short run that can be used to finance Obama's plan? No.'" (Kevin Sack, "Obstacles For Obama In Meeting Health Care Goal," The New York Times, 7/23/08)
· M.I.T.'s Jonathan Gruber Said That There Is "Zero Credible Evidence" That The Obama Plan Will Save The Average Family On The Costs Of Insurance Premiums. "Experts also are skeptical of both [Obama and Clinton's] claims that their plans will reduce the cost of insurance for the typical family by $2,000 or more. 'I know zero credible evidence to support that conclusion,' says M.I.T's Jonathan Gruber." (Factcheck.org Website, www.factcheck.org, Accessed 6/9/08)
· Factcheck.Org: Barack Obama's Claim That His Plan Will Cut Insurance Premium Costs By $2,500 Is "A Bit Of Misleading Math." "That's a bit of misleading math. It assumes individual Americans will share in all of the savings for the health care system, which includes insurance companies, the government and health care providers. Obama claims families will save $2,500 under his plan, but they won't see at least some of those savings directly in the form of lower premiums. And they may not see them indirectly either." (Factcheck.Org, www.factcheck.org, Accessed 6/16/08)
JUST WORDS #13: Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) Says Barack Obama Was A Clear Leader In The Illinois State Legislature But He Voted "Present" Nearly 130 Times
Senator Dick Durbin: "Here's a person who as a state legislator was a clear leader in Springfield on so many important issues that really made a difference. Came to Washington, had an impact as soon as he arrived." (Obama For America, "American Stories And American Solutions" Ad, 10/29/08)
· Barack Obama Voted "Present" Nearly 130 Times When He Was A State Senator. "In the end, Mr. Obama chose neither to vote for nor against the bill. He voted "present," effectively sidestepping the issue, an option he invoked nearly 130 times as a state senator." (Raymond Hernandez And Christopher Drew, "It's Not Just 'Ayes' And 'Nays': Obama's Votes In Illinois Echo," The New York Times, 12/20/07)
· Hillary Clinton: Barack Obama's State Senate "Present Votes" Demonstrated An Unwillingness To "Draw A Lot Of Political Heat." CLINTON: "And, you know, this is kind of like the 'present' vote thing, because the Chicago Tribune, his hometown paper, said that all those 'present' votes was taking a pass. It was for political reasons. Well, when you come up with a universal health care plan and you don't have any wiggle room left, you know that you're going to draw a lot of political heat." (Sen. Hillary Clinton, CNN Democrat Presidential Debate, Myrtle Beach, SC, 1/21/08)
JUST WORDS #14: Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) Says Barack Obama Went Up Against His Own Party But The Ethics Bill Was Hardly A Test Of Party Loyalty
Senator Claire McCaskill: "He's changed the rules in Washington. Gone are the free gifts from lobbyist, gone are the fancy airplane rides for nothing. He did that. Now, it wasn't easy. He had to work across party lines. More importantly, he had to fight senior members of the Senate who liked it just fine the way it was." (Obama For America, "American Stories And American Solutions" Ad, 10/29/08)
· Joining 82 Other Senators, Barack Obama Voted For The 2007 Lobbying And Ethics Reform Legislation. "Reid, D-Nev., motion to concur in the House amendment to the bill that would overhaul congressional lobbying and ethics rules for members and their staffs and require the disclosure of 'bundled' campaign contributions that exceed $15,000 in a six-month period. Former senators would have to wait two years before becoming lobbyists." (S. 1, CQ Vote #294: Motion Agreed To 83-14: R 34-14; D 47-0; I 2-0, 8/2/07, Obama Voted Yea)
· FactCheck.org: Ethics Bill "Hardly A Test Of Party Loyalty." "Worth noting, also, is that Obama gave his supposed collaboration with McCain as an example of how he had worked 'against party loyalty ... for the good of America,' in the words used by Warren in his question. In fact, the measure that became law was sponsored by Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid and a bipartisan list of 16 others. ... But in the end the bill was hardly a test of party loyalty." ("Saddleback Bloggers," FactCheck.org, 8/18/08)
· The Wall Street Journal's John Fund: "On A Relatively Minor Ethics Bill," Barack Obama Declined To Work With John McCain In Favor Of "Signing Onto The Democratic Leadership's Ethics Bill." "Mr. McCain said he had 'a long list' and provided specifics from global warming to runaway spending under a Republican Congress. Barack Obama offered only one answer: 'Well, I'll give you an example that in fact I worked with John McCain on," Mr. Obama said, 'and that was the issue of campaign ethics reform and finance reform.' ... While it's true he briefly teamed up with Mr. McCain on rewriting a Congressional ethics bill, their alliance didn't last long. Back in February 2006, Mr. Obama wrote to Mr. McCain that he was declining to join a bipartisan task force and was instead signing onto the Democratic leadership's ethics bill. Mr. McCain responded with a harsh note accusing Mr. Obama of retreating into 'self-interested partisan posturing.' ... In the end, both men found a way to kiss and make up, and both found reasons to oppose the final ethics bill. But Mr. Obama is now the one citing work on a relatively minor ethics bill as an example of his unself-interested pursuit of the national good. The actual history isn't so clear and draws an unfortunate contrast with Mr. McCain's well-known independence from party orthodoxy. A shortage of examples of him breaking with his party's line remains one of Mr. Obama's big vulnerabilities." (John Fund, Op-Ed, "Obama's Self-Profile In Courage," The Wall Street Journal's "Political Dairy," 8/18/08)
JUST WORDS #15: Senator Joe Biden Says Barack Obama Reached Across And Led On An Effort That Was Hardly A Test Of Leadership
Barack Obama: "He came in, not only reached out, but reached across the aisle to Dick Lugar, one of the leading guys in America for the past 20 years on arms control, to keep loose nukes out of the hands of terrorists." (Obama For America, "American Stories And American Solutions" Ad, 10/29/08)
· Barack Obama Co-Sponsored Legislation To Authorize "The President To Establish A Program To Provide Assistance To Friendly Foreign Countries For Proliferation Detection And Interdiction Activities And For Developing Complementary Capabilities (Program)" That Was Incorporated Into Another Bill That Passed By Unanimous Consent. (S. 2566, Introduced 4/6/06)
· The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder: "Working with Dick Lugar on loose nukes was a good thing, and an example of Obama's willingness to write legislation [with] Republicans, but it didn't piss off liberals. (Who's in favor of looser nukes?)" (Marc Ambinder, "Obama's Bipartisanship," The Atlantic, 6/26/08)
JUST WORDS #16: Barack Obama Says He Will Expand The Military But An Adviser He Is Selling Access To Is Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) Who Proposes Cutting Defense Spending By 25%
Barack Obama: "As president, I will rebuild our military to meet 21st century challenges." (Obama For America, "American Stories And American Solutions" Ad, 10/29/08)
· U.S. Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) Proposed A 25 Percent Cut In Military Spending To Fund A New Stimulus Package. "After the November election, Democrats will push for a second economic stimulus package that includes money for the states' stalled infrastructure projects, along with help paying for healthcare expenses, food stamps and extended unemployment benefits, U.S. Rep. Barney Frank said Thursday. In a meeting with the editorial board of The Standard-Times, Rep. Frank, D-Mass., also called for a 25 percent cut in military spending, saying the Pentagon has to start choosing from its many weapons programs, and that upper-income taxpayers are going to see an increase in what they are asked to pay." (Steve Urbon, "Frank Envisions Post-Election Stimulus From Democrats," Standard-Times, 10/24/08)
· Barack Obama's Campaign Offered Up A Reception With Rep. Barney Frank To Donors For $1,000. "Aides to Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) scheduled pricey luncheons, roundtables, readings, V.I.P. receptions, dinners and policy dinners with campaign officials and advisers, offering donors a taste of his potential administration. ... An e-mailed October 'national schedule of upcoming events across the country for Obama/Biden' was provided to Politico by one of the recipients. Among the offerings: ... --Reception in Palm Springs, Calif., with Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee -- $1,000 or $250." (Mike Allen, "Obama Donors Get Access To Top Advisers," Politico, http://dyn.politico.com, 10/ 29/08)
JUST WORDS #17: Barack Obama Says He Wants Tough Diplomacy With Iran But Would Meet With Ahmadinejad Without Precondition
Barack Obama: "I will renew the tough, direct diplomacy that can prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and curb Russian aggression." (Obama For America, "American Stories And American Solutions" Ad, 10/29/08)
· Barack Obama Would Unconditionally Meet With The Leaders Of State Sponsors Of Terror "Without Precondition" Like Ahmadinejad. QUESTION: "[W]ould you 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?"... OBAMA: "I would." (CNN/YouTube Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Charleston, SC, 7/23/07)
· The Wall Street Journal: Barack Obama's Foreign Policy "Could Strengthen Mr. Ahmadinejad." "Middle East experts said Obama's strategy holds potential pitfalls. In Iran, they said, Sen. Obama could strengthen Mr. Ahmadinejad if as U.S. president he moves too quickly to hold direct talks with Tehran's leader." (Jay Solomon, "Obama's Foreign-Policy Pledge Sparks Criticism from Rivals," Wall Street Journal, 3/26/08)
· The Washington Post: European Officials "Increasingly Concerned That Sen. Barack Obama's Campaign Pledge To Begin Direct Talks ... Could Potentially Rupture U.S. Relations With Key European Allies." (Glenn Kessler, "Europe Fears Obama Might Undercut Progress With Iran," The Washington Post, 6/22/08)
JUST WORDS #18: Barack Obama Says He Will Focus On Afghanistan But He Did Not Focus On Afghanistan When In The United States Senate
Barack Obama: "And I will refocus our efforts on finishing the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan." (Obama For America, "American Stories And American Solutions" Ad, 10/29/08)
· Barack Obama Has Served As Chairman Of The Subcommittee On European Affairs From 2007 -- 2008. (U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Website, www.senate.gov, Accessed 2/15/08)
· As Chairman Of The Subcommittee On European Affairs, Barack Obama Could Have Held Hearings On The Role Of NATO In Afghanistan. "[A]mbassador John Ritch, who served for two decades as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's senior staffer on European affairs and East-West relations...[P]oints out that as subcommittee chair, Obama could have examined a wide variety of urgent matters, from the role of NATO in Afghanistan and Iraq to European energy policy and European responses to climate change..." (Joe Conason, "Obama's European Problem," www.salon.com, 12/29/07)
· Barack Obama: "I became Chairman of this committee at the beginning of this campaign, at the beginning of 2007. So it is true that we haven't had oversight hearings on Afghanistan." (MSNBC Democratic Presidential Debate, 2/27/08)
· Hillary Clinton Criticized Barack Obama For Not Holding Hearings As European Affairs Subcommittee Chairman. Sen. Clinton: "But I also have heard Senator Obama refer continually to Afghanistan, and he references being on the Foreign Relations Committee. He chairs the Subcommittee on Europe. It has jurisdiction over NATO. NATO is critical to our mission in Afghanistan. He's held not one substantive hearing to do oversight, to figure out what we can do to actually have a stronger presence with NATO in Afghanistan." (Sen. Clinton, NBC Democrat Presidential Debate, Cleveland, OH, 2/26/08)
JUST WORDS #19: Governor Bill Richardson (D-NM) Says Barack Obama -- Who Has An Extreme Partisan Record -- Could Bring Bipartisanship To Washington
Governor Bill Richardson: "That he's a man that can heal this country, that can bring bipartisanship." (Obama For America, "American Stories And American Solutions" Ad, 10/29/08)
· The Associated Press: "None" Of Barack Obama's Touted Bipartisan Efforts Paced Him "At Odds With The Leaders Of His Own Party Or Gave Significant Offense To Outside Interest Groups With Democrats." (David Espo, "Bipartisanship Marks McCain's Senate Tenure," Associated Press, 7/2/08)
· NPR's Juan Williams: Barack Obama "Doesn't Have The Record" Of Bipartisanship That John McCain Has. NPR'S JUAN WILLIAMS: "You think about everything from campaign finance to immigration and on, and there's John McCain working across party lines. Senator Obama doesn't have a record. Now, he can make the claim and he can hold himself up as pure and trying to reach to a new generation of post partisan politics, but he has to do so largely based on rhetoric and wishful thinking because he doesn't have the record." (Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume," 5/7/08)
· The Washington Post's Richard Cohen: "There Is Scant Evidence The Illinois Senator Takes Positions That Challenge His Base Or Otherwise Threaten Him Politically." (Richard Cohen, Op-Ed, "McCain's Core Advantage," The Washington Post, 6/24/08)
· Politico's Jonathan Martin: "He's Pretty Much A Conventional Liberal On The Issues And Has Few Examples Of Breaking With His Own Party, So How Does Obama Try To Pull Off Being 'Post-Partisan?'" (Jonathan Martin, "Obama's Third Way: It's All In The Tone," Politico, 6/30/08)
· Rep. Dan Boren (D-OK): "His Record Does Not Reflect Working In A Bipartisan Fashion." "Boren, the lone Democrat in Oklahoma's congressional delegate, said that while Obama has talked about working with Republicans, 'unfortunately, his record does not reflect working in a bipartisan fashion.'" (Tim Talley, "Okla. Dem Calls Obama Liberal, Declines To Endorse," The Associated Press, 6/10/08)
· "The Record Shows Obama To Be A Fairly Doctrinaire Liberal Democrat..." (Editorial, "Obama's Rhetoric Soars, But What Does His Record Suggest?" USA Today, 1/28/08)
· In 2007, Obama Voted With The Democrat Party 97 Percent Of The Time. (Congressional Quarterly Website, www.cq.com, Accessed 3/3/08)
October 30, 2008 Contact: Press Office
Just Words: Barack Obama's Misleading Infomercial
ARLINGTON, VA -- Last night, Barack Obama's infomercial offered the American people a nicely packaged product of misleading information. Check out the facts below:
JUST WORDS #1: Barack Obama Decries Record Deficits But Admits He Has No Interest In Reducing The Deficit
Barack Obama: "We were running a record deficit and our national debt had never been higher." (Obama For America, "American Stories And American Solutions" Ad, 10/29/08)
· Barack Obama: "I Do Not Make A Promise That We Can Reduce [The Budget Deficit] By 2013." "'I do not make a promise that we can reduce it by 2013 because I think it is important for us to make some critical investments right now in America's families,' Obama told reporters this week when asked if he'd match McCain's pledge." (Nedra Pickler, "Analysis: Obama Won't Try For McCain's Budget Goal," The Associated Press, 7/8/08)
· Chicago Tribune: Barack Obama Has "No Interest In Eliminating Deficit Spending." "Since winning the nomination, Obama reportedly has been moving toward the middle of the political spectrum. But on the budget, he still sounds left of center, with no interest in eliminating deficit spending." (Editorial, "Failure Of Nerve," Chicago Tribune, 7/8/08)
· The Associated Press: Barack Obama Not "Even Trying" To Balance The Budget And "Frankly Says He's Not Sure He'd Bring It Down At All In Four Years." "Barack Obama says John McCain's plan to balance the budget doesn't add up. Easy for him to say: It's not a goal he's even trying to reach. Not only does Obama say he won't eliminate the deficit in his first term, as McCain aims to do, he frankly says he's not sure he'd bring it down at all in four years, considering his own spending plans." (Nedra Pickler, "Analysis: Obama Won't Try For McCain's Budget Goal," The Associated Press, 7/8/08)
JUST WORDS #2: Barack Obama Talks About Leadership In The Financial Crisis But When The Crisis First Began, He Refused To Lead
Barack Obama: "But then a little over a month ago, the bottom fell out. What happened in the financial markets was the final verdict on eight years of failed policies. And we're now going through the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. A few weeks ago, we passed a financial rescue plan. It's a step in the right direction ... and as president, I'll ensure that you, the taxpayers, are paid back first. But we also need a rescue plan for the middle class ... starting with what we can do right now that will have an immediate effect." (Obama For America, "American Stories And American Solutions" Ad, 10/29/08)
· The Washington Times: "Obama Mum On Market Crisis." "Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama opted Friday not to divulge details of his recovery plan for the financial crisis after a morning meeting with his top economic advisers -- fearing it would stir Wall Street jitters." (S.A. Miller, "Obama Mum On Market Crisis," The Washington Times, 9/20/08)
· Barack Obama Did Not Make Calls To Round Up Votes For The Economic Recovery Package. ABC's JOHN BERMAN: "The McCain campaign has been hammering Obama suggesting he did not take a leading role in the financial negotiations." SEN. MCCAIN: "At first, he didn't want to get involved. Then, he was monitoring the situation." BERMAN: "Indeed, Obama aides say he did not make any calls to help round up votes." (ABC's "Good Morning America," 9/30/08)
· Barack Obama "Hinted That Had He Known Earlier The Deal Was Going Down To Defeat He Would Have Worked The Phones Even Harder." "Obama also hinted that had he known earlier the deal was going down to defeat he would have worked the phones even harder, especially given that some of those who voted no, were some of his early supporters." (Lee Cowan, "Obama Places No Blame, But..." MSNBC's "First Read" Blog, http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com, Posted 9/30/08)
· Fox News' Major Garrett Reported That Barack Obama Would Not Take A Position On Whether Or Not He Supported Or Opposed The Government Rescue Of AIG. GARRETT: "On the biggest financial issue of the day, Barack Obama would not say if he supported or opposed the government-backed rescue of insurance giant AIG." BARACK OBAMA: "We don't know all the details of the arrangement with AIG and the Federal Reserve must ensure that plans protect the families that count on insurance." GARRETT: "Obama also wants taxpayers protected but executives and shareholders exposed but on the central question to intervene or not, Obama sidestepped. Advisers said lack of details forced caution. The larger political truth: advisors believe anxiety alone is enough to lift Obama in the polls. That is why on the trail, Obama doesn't talk about specifics of the moment but the nation's overall direction." (Fox News' "The Special Report," 9/17/08)
JUST WORDS #3: Barack Obama Says He'll Cut Taxes For Those Making Less Than $200,00 But Yesterday It Was Either $250,000 Or $150,000
Barack Obama: "As president, here's what I'll do: Cut taxes for every working family making less than $200,000 a year." (Obama For America, "American Stories And American Solutions" Ad, 10/29/08)
· In July 2008, Barack Obama Said: "If You Make $250,000 A Year Or Less, We Will Not Raise Your Taxes. We Will Cut Your Taxes." (Barack Obama, Remarks, Powder Springs, GA, 7/8/08)
· Joe Biden: "Spreading the wealth was not--he was talking about is all of the tax breaks have gone to the very, very wealthy. For example you have right now, this year, under the old tax policy that was just -- that was put in by George Bush, people making an average 1.4 million a year, good people, decent people, patriotic -- they're going to get an $87 billion tax break. What we're saying is that $87 billion tax break doesn't need to go to people making an average of 1.4 million, it should go like it used to. It should go to middle class people -- people making under $150,000 a year." (Joe Biden, Interview With WNEP Scranton, 10/27/08)
· Obama-Biden Campaign Aides Said That Those Making Between $150,000 And $250,000 Will Actually Not See A Tax Increase Or A Tax Cut. "Biden aides say his comments were actually consistent with Obama's tax plan -- people under $150,000 get a cut, and people making up to $250,000 stay the same." (Mark Murray and Mike Memoli, "$150,000 Vs. $250,000," MSNBC's "First Read" Blog, http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com, Posted 10/28/08)
JUST WORDS #4: Barack Obama Says That His Business Tax Plan Will Create Jobs Here But His Running-Mate Disagrees
Barack Obama: "Give businesses a tax credit for every new employee that they hire right here in the U.S. over the next two years ... and eliminate tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas." (Obama For America, "American Stories And American Solutions" Ad, 10/29/08)
· The Washington Post: Barack Obama's Plan On Business Taxes "Would Make It Even Harder" For Corporations To Compete And Will Hurt Workers In The United States. "Barack Obama says that he would 'end tax breaks for corporations that ship jobs overseas' and blasts John McCain for refusing to condemn such loopholes. But the offshoring issue is more complicated than Mr. Obama's rhetoric suggests. ... Mr. Obama's proposal would change the provision in which U.S.-based companies don't have to pay taxes on their earnings abroad until that income is 'repatriated' -- brought back into the United States, for example as dividend payments. ... Mr. Obama's suggested fix would make it even harder for them to compete abroad -- ultimately hurting workers and others here." (Editorial, "The Export Of Jobs," The Washington Post, 8/17/08)
· The Wall Street Journal Said Barack Obama's Proposal Penalizes Most American Companies That Have Subsidiaries Abroad With "A Big Tax Increase." "Under Mr. Obama's plan, 'patriot employers' qualify for a 1% tax credit on their profits. To finance this tax break, American companies with subsidiaries abroad would have to pay the U.S. corporate tax on profits earned abroad, rather than the corporate tax of the host country where they are earned. Since the U.S. corporate tax rate is 35%, while most of the world has a lower rate, this amounts to a big tax increase on earnings owned abroad." (Editorial, "Obama's 'Patriot' Act," The Wall Street Journal, 2/27/08)
· Joe Biden Acknowledged That Eliminating Tax Breaks For Corporations Won't Keep Jobs Here; That America Has To Make It "More Attractive" For Corporations To Operate Here. Biden: "I agree with everything that was said here. But the bottom line here is that eliminating the tax breaks is not going to keep jobs here in America. We've got to make it more attractive to have jobs here in America and for corporations to be here. You've got to take the burden off the corporations with a health care system that's universal, so we're not at a competitive disadvantage." (Sen. Joe Biden, Democrat Presidential Candidates Debate, Howard University, Washington, DC, 6/28/07)
JUST WORDS #5: Barack Obama Says He Will Help Small Businesses Even As He Proposes Higher Taxes That Will Kill Small Businesses
Barack Obama: "And just like after 9-11, we'll provide low-cost loans to help small businesses pay their workers and keep their doors open." (Obama For America, "American Stories And American Solutions" Ad, 10/29/08)
· Obama-Biden Has Called For Higher Income Taxes, Social Security Taxes, Capital Gains And Dividend Taxes, And Corporate Taxes, As Well As "Massive New Domestic Spending." "Obama's transformation, if you go by his campaign so far, would mean higher income taxes, higher Social Security taxes, higher investment taxes, higher corporate taxes, massive new domestic spending, and a healthcare plan that perhaps could be the next step to a full-scale, single-payer system. Is that what most Americans want, someone who will fulfill a Democratic policy wish list?" (James Pethokoukis, "Barack Hussein Reagan? Ronald Wilson Obama?" U.S. News & World Report's "Capital Commerce" Blog, 2/12/08)
· Obama-Biden Will Increase Capital Gains And Dividend Taxes. Obama Economic Advisors Jason Furman and Austan Goolsbee: "The top capital-gains rate for families making more than $250,000 would return to 20% ... The tax rate on dividends would also be 20% for families making more than $250,000, rather than returning to the ordinary income rate." (Jason Furman and Austan Goolsbee, Op-Ed, "The Obama Tax Plan," The Wall Street Journal, 8/14/08)
· Tax Policy Center: Obama-Biden Would Raise Taxes On One Out Of Every Three Senior Households. "Even though Senator Obama's plan eliminates individual income taxes for seniors with incomes less than $50,000, his plan would raise taxes for almost 10 million senior households, over a third of the total (not shown in table). On average, seniors would face a tax increase of about 2 percent of income." (Burman et al., "A Preliminary Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans," The Tax Policy Center, 6/11/08)
· Obama-Biden Would Raise Income Taxes. Obama: "[I] would roll back the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000." (Sen. Barack Obama, CNN Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Manchester, NH, 6/3/07)
· U.S. Department Of Treasury: Small Business Owners "Are Frequently Subject To The Highest Individual Income Tax Rates." ("Topics Related To The President's Tax Relief," U.S. Department Of Treasury, http://www.ustreas.gov, May 2008)
· Obama-Biden Would Raise Social Security Taxes. "Obama's proposal ... would impose social security taxes on income above $250,000 per year. He would continue to exempt income between $102,000 and $250,000 from social security taxes." (Teddy Davis, Sunlen Miller, and Gregory Wallace, "Obama Kisses Billions Goodbye," ABC News' "Political Radar" Blog, blogs.abcnews.com, 6/18/08)
JUST WORDS #6: Barack Obama Talks About Pension Security While Democrats In Congress Propose Rules To Eliminate 401(K)s
Barack Obama: "You earned your pension. You earned it. It wasn't a gift. You gave up wages so that money could be set aside for your retirement. Time and time again, what we're seeing is companies who owe their workers retirements, pensions shedding those obligations. When you make a commitment to workers at a company, those aren't idle promises. Those are promises that should have the force of law." (Obama For America, "American Stories And American Solutions" Ad, 10/29/08)
· The Wall Street Journal: "Lawmakers Have Been Suggesting They May Look At Policy Changes To 401(k)s . In Coming Months." "In the past 12 months, more than a half-trillion dollars have 'evaporated' from 401(k) plans as a result of turmoil in the financial markets, said U.S. Rep. George Miller, chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee. ... Lawmakers have been suggesting they may look at policy changes to 401(k)s -- the tax-advantaged plans that are the most widely used retirement vehicle -- in coming months. Miller made it clear he sees flaws in the 401(k) model. About $3 trillion is invested in the plans, the majority of it placed in equity mutual funds that track the stock market. Miller said the 401(k) approach is a policy 'not well devised' for changes in the market. He said the plans were meant to be savings vehicles, not primary retirement plans." (Jennifer Levitz, "Amid Deep Los ses, Congress Examines 401(k)s," The Wall Street Journal's "Washington Wire," 10/7/08)
· Among The Changes To The 401(K) System That Were Proposed At A Recent Congressional Hearing, "Chief Among Them Was Eliminating $80 Billion In Tax Savings For Higher-Income People Enrolled In 401(K) Retirement Savings Plans." "A wide range of sweeping changes to the 401(k) system were proposed Tuesday at a hearing on how the market crisis has devastated retirement savings plans. Chief among them was eliminating $80 billion in tax savings for higher-income people enrolled in 401(k) retirement savings plans. This was suggested by the chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor. 'With respect to the 401(k), it appears to be a plan that is not really well-devised for the changes in the market,' Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., said. 'We've invested $80 billion into subsidizing this activity,' he said, referring to tax breaks allowed for 401(k) contributions and savings. With savings rates going down, 'what do we have to start to thi nk about in Congress of whether or not we want to continue and invest that $80 billion for a policy that is not generating what we ... say it should?' Mr. Miller said." (Sara Hansard, "Congress Mulls Major 401(k) Changes," Investment News, 10/7/08)
· At An October 2008 Hearing, Education And Labor Committee Chairman Rep. George Miller (D-CA) Asked: "What Do We Have To Start To Think About In Congress Of Whether or Not We Want To Continue And Invest That $80 Billion For A Policy That's Not Generating What We Now Say It Should?" "But I think the key point raised by Dr. Ghilarducci, and Mr. Orszag I'm going to direct this to you, is that we've invested $80 billion a year into subsidizing this activity, which originally I thought was sort of a savings plan. And now its' become a retirement plan. I don't know when it changed, but now everybody is told that that's their retirement supplement. And again, it appears that while we've lamented all the time the savings rate isn't going up for the investment of this $80 billion, in fact, it's probably going down or appears to have been on a downward trend for a number of years. What's the policy? I mean, what do we have to start to think about in Congress of whether or not we want to continue and invest that $80 billion for a policy that's not generating what we now say it should?" (U.S. House Committee On Education And Labor, Hearing, 10/7/08)
· Rep. Miller: "I Think What We Are Seeing Is That After 25 Years Of 401K Plans That They Are A Big Failure In Terms Of Providing An Adequate Retirement For Middle Class Americans." (Jeff Mitchell, "Miller Says Government Must Next Turn Its Attention To Propping Up Sagging 401K And Pension Plans," PolitickerCA.com, 10/8/08)
JUST WORDS #7: Barack Obama Says The American People Aren't "Looking For A Handout" But Proposes A New Welfare System
Barack Obama: "Americans -- they don't expect government to solve all their problems. They're not looking for a handout. If they're able and willing to work, they should be able to find a job that pays a living wage. They should be able to retire with some dignity and some respect." (Obama For America, "American Stories And American Solutions" Ad, 10/29/08)
· The Wall Street Journal Calls Obama's Numerous Refundable Tax Credits "Tens Of Billions Of Dollars In Government Handouts." "For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase 'tax credit.'" (Editorial, "Obama's 95% Illusion," The Wall Street Journal, 10/13/08)
· New York Post: "[O]bama's 'Tax Cuts' Really Amount To A Sizable Expansion Of Welfare." "In truth, as The Wall Street Journal detailed yesterday, nearly all of those 'cuts' actually come in the form of 'refundable tax credits,' by which the government in effect writes a check to those who meet certain criteria - even if they don't pay taxes in the first place. In other words, Obama's 'tax cuts' really amount to a sizable expansion of welfare. That leaves American taxpayers to foot the bill - both directly, and through the lost economic opportunity that's sure to follow Obama's promised tax hikes on income, dividends and capital gains." (Editorial, "Ready, Set ... Spend!" New York Post, 10/14/08)
· Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: "[T]he One-Third Of All American Working Families Who Pay No Income Taxes Now Will Receive A Government Check Under The Obama Plan. And That Number Could Rise To About 44 Percent Under Obama's Proposal." "The 'tax-cut plan' of Democrat presidential nominee Barack Obama is anything but. In fact, it's nothing more than another liberaled-up wealth-transference program that, in the 'old days,' was known as welfare. ... Just as troubling, however, is this little factoid: Even the one-third of all American working families who pay no income taxes now will receive a government check under the Obama plan. And that number could rise to about 44 percent under Obama's proposal." (Editorial, "Obama's Tax Cut: New Welfare Deal," Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 10/14/08)
JUST WORDS #8: Barack Obama Says His $150 Billion Fund Will Lead To Energy Independence But "There's No Guarantee That The Research Will Result In Less Oil Being Imported"
Barack Obama: "As president, I'll use companies like McKinstry as a model for the nation. I'll invest $15 billion dollars a year in energy efficiency and renewable sources of energy -- like wind, solar and bio-fuels -- creating five million clean energy jobs over the next decade -- jobs that pay well and can never be outsourced." (Obama For America, "American Stories And American Solutions" Ad, 10/29/08)
· FactCheck.Org: "On closer examination, his proposal is to spend $150 billion over the coming decade on energy research. Ten years doesn't sound all that 'fast' to us, and there's no guarantee that the research will result in less oil being imported. ... We do object to implying that a decade-long program, which in all probability could not even begin until sometime in late 2009, is a 'fast track' to anything." (FactCheck.Org, "Straining A Point," www.factcheck.org, 7/17/08)
JUST WORDS #9: Barack Obama Says We Need To Tap The Very Same Domestic Sources Of Energy He Opposes Tapping
Barack Obama: "And to further reduce our demand for foreign oil, I'll tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology and expand domestic production of oil." (Obama For America, "American Stories And American Solutions" Ad, 10/29/08)
· Barack Obama Opposes Offshore Drilling. OBAMA: "This is not real. I know it's tempting. The polls say the majority of Americans think that's one of the ways we're going to solve this problem, but it's not real." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Campaign Event, Springfield, MO, 7/30/08)
· Joe Biden Said That He And Barack Obama Don't Support Clean Coal And Believe In "No Coal Plants Here In America." PERSON: "Senator, Senator, wind and solar are flourishing here in Ohio, so why are you supporting clean coal?" BIDEN: "Say ... I didn't hear what you said." PERSON: "Wind and solar are flourishing here in Ohio, so why are you supporting clean coal?" BIDEN: "We're not supporting 'clean coal.' Guess what. China's building two every week. Two dirty coal plants. And it's polluting the United States. It's causing people to die." PERSON: "So will you support wind and solar?" BIDEN: "Absolutely. Before anybody did. The first guy to introduce a global warming bill was me, 22 years ago. The first guy to support solar energy was me, 26 years ago. It came out of Delaware. But guess what. China is gonna burn three hundred years of bad coal unless we figure out how to clean their coal up. Because it's going to ruin your lungs and t here's nothing we can do about it. No coal plants here in America. Build them, if they're going to build them over there make 'em clean because they're killing you." (Joe Biden, Remarks, Maumee, OH, 9/17/08)
JUST WORDS #10: Barack Obama Says His Spending Proposals Are All Paid For But According To Independent Sources, Barack Obama Can Not Account For All His New Spending
Barack Obama: "That's why, for my energy plan, my economic plan and the other proposals you'll hear tonight, I've offered spending cuts above and beyond their cost. I'll also go through the federal budget, line by line, eliminating programs that don't work ... and making the ones we do need work better and cost less." (Obama For America, "American Stories And American Solutions" Ad, 10/29/08)
· ABC News: Barack Obama Can Not "Pay For Every Dime" Of New Spending He Has Proposed. "Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said during Friday's presidential debate that he would 'pay for every dime' of his spending. But according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, 'without substantial cuts in government spending' Obama's plan -- and McCain's, too --'would substantially increase the national debt over the next ten years.' The Tax Policy Center has estimated that Obama's proposed tax policies would increase the debt by $3.5 trillion over ten years." ("Fact Check: 'Pay for Every Dime'? Not Quite," ABC News' "Political Radar" Blog, http://blogs.abcnews.com, Posted 9/26/08)
· PolitiFact Discredits Barack Obama's Claim That His Proposals Are Paid For; Says His Rhetoric Is "Disingenuous." "Until he fleshes out his economic plan considerably more, it's disingenuous to go around claiming his proposals are 'paid for.' And that claim is even more suspect considering that his proposals would leave a larger deficit than would the tax laws currently on the books. We find his claim to be Barely True." ("'Paid For' Without Real Money," St. Petersburg Times' "PolitiFact.com," www.politifact.com, 6/16/08)
· Los Angeles Times: Barack Obama "Has Not Identified New Revenue Sources Or Spending Cuts To Pay For Some Of" His Proposals. "The Obama campaign responds that tax cuts, once enacted, are usually renewed and do not expire. Therefore, they say, Obama can legitimately claim to be recouping money for other purposes by scaling back the tax cuts. Obama has not identified new revenue sources or spending cuts to pay for some of what he wants to do." (Peter Nicholas, "Adding Up The Cost Of Obama's Agenda," Los Angeles Times, 7/8/08)
JUST WORDS #11: Barack Obama Talks About Reforming Education But He Has No Record
Barack Obama: "Now is not the time for small plans - now is the time to finally meet our moral obligation - to provide every child a world class education. I'll invest in early childhood education. I'll recruit an army of new teachers, and pay them higher salaries, and give them more support. And in exchange I'll ask for higher standards and more accountability." (Obama For America, "American Stories And American Solutions" Ad, 10/29/08)
· "In His Eight Years In The State Senate And Two Years In The U.S. Senate, Mr. Obama Hasn't Made A Significant Mark On Education Policy." ("Obama's Annenberg Stint Informs White House Bid," Education Week, 3/7/07)
· The Washington Post: Barack Obama "Elusive" On School Accountability. "Mr. Obama, as the New York Times' David Brooks recently observed, has promised dozens of crowd-pleasing programs but has been elusive on such thorny issues as teacher tenure and school accountability." (Editorial, "Focus On School Reform," The Washington Post, 7/7/08)
· Chicago Tribune's Steve Chapman: "Obama Is The Staunch Defender Of The Existing Public School Monopoly." "On the subject of elementary and secondary education, the two seem to have gotten their roles completely mixed up. Obama is the staunch defender of the existing public school monopoly, and he's allergic to anything that subverts it. John McCain, on the other hand, went before the NAACP last week to argue for something new and daring." (Steve Chapman, Op-Ed, "Change: A Matter Of Convenience," Chicago Tribune, 7/20/08)
JUST WORDS #12: Barack Obama Says His Health Care Plan Will Save Families $2,500 But There Is "Zero Credible Evidence" For That
Barack Obama: "That's why my health care plan includes improving information technology, requires coverage for preventive care and pre-existing conditions ... and lowers health care costs for the typical family by $2,500 dollars a year. And you can keep your same coverage and your same doctor." (Obama For America, "American Stories And American Solutions" Ad, 10/29/08)
· Barack Obama's Pledge To Lower Health Care Premiums By $2,500 In His First Term "Is A Matter Of Considerable Dispute" Among Experts. "In speech after speech, Senator Barack Obama has pledged that he will lower the country's health care costs enough to 'bring down premiums by $2,500 for the typical family.' Moreover, Mr. Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, has promised that his health plan will be in place 'by the end of my first term as president of the United States.' Whether Mr. Obama can deliver is a matter of considerable dispute among health analysts and economists." (Kevin Sack, "Obstacles For Obama In Meeting Health Care Goal," The New York Times, 7/23/08)
· A Health Policy Professor At The University Of North Carolina-Chapel Hill Said The Savings In The Obama Plan Are "Wishful Thinking." "Jonathan B. Oberlander, who teaches health policy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, called it wishful thinking. 'Do they have the potential to generate significant savings in the long run?' Dr. Oberlander asked. 'Yes. Do I believe they will produce substantial savings in the short run that can be used to finance Obama's plan? No.'" (Kevin Sack, "Obstacles For Obama In Meeting Health Care Goal," The New York Times, 7/23/08)
· M.I.T.'s Jonathan Gruber Said That There Is "Zero Credible Evidence" That The Obama Plan Will Save The Average Family On The Costs Of Insurance Premiums. "Experts also are skeptical of both [Obama and Clinton's] claims that their plans will reduce the cost of insurance for the typical family by $2,000 or more. 'I know zero credible evidence to support that conclusion,' says M.I.T's Jonathan Gruber." (Factcheck.org Website, www.factcheck.org, Accessed 6/9/08)
· Factcheck.Org: Barack Obama's Claim That His Plan Will Cut Insurance Premium Costs By $2,500 Is "A Bit Of Misleading Math." "That's a bit of misleading math. It assumes individual Americans will share in all of the savings for the health care system, which includes insurance companies, the government and health care providers. Obama claims families will save $2,500 under his plan, but they won't see at least some of those savings directly in the form of lower premiums. And they may not see them indirectly either." (Factcheck.Org, www.factcheck.org, Accessed 6/16/08)
JUST WORDS #13: Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) Says Barack Obama Was A Clear Leader In The Illinois State Legislature But He Voted "Present" Nearly 130 Times
Senator Dick Durbin: "Here's a person who as a state legislator was a clear leader in Springfield on so many important issues that really made a difference. Came to Washington, had an impact as soon as he arrived." (Obama For America, "American Stories And American Solutions" Ad, 10/29/08)
· Barack Obama Voted "Present" Nearly 130 Times When He Was A State Senator. "In the end, Mr. Obama chose neither to vote for nor against the bill. He voted "present," effectively sidestepping the issue, an option he invoked nearly 130 times as a state senator." (Raymond Hernandez And Christopher Drew, "It's Not Just 'Ayes' And 'Nays': Obama's Votes In Illinois Echo," The New York Times, 12/20/07)
· Hillary Clinton: Barack Obama's State Senate "Present Votes" Demonstrated An Unwillingness To "Draw A Lot Of Political Heat." CLINTON: "And, you know, this is kind of like the 'present' vote thing, because the Chicago Tribune, his hometown paper, said that all those 'present' votes was taking a pass. It was for political reasons. Well, when you come up with a universal health care plan and you don't have any wiggle room left, you know that you're going to draw a lot of political heat." (Sen. Hillary Clinton, CNN Democrat Presidential Debate, Myrtle Beach, SC, 1/21/08)
JUST WORDS #14: Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) Says Barack Obama Went Up Against His Own Party But The Ethics Bill Was Hardly A Test Of Party Loyalty
Senator Claire McCaskill: "He's changed the rules in Washington. Gone are the free gifts from lobbyist, gone are the fancy airplane rides for nothing. He did that. Now, it wasn't easy. He had to work across party lines. More importantly, he had to fight senior members of the Senate who liked it just fine the way it was." (Obama For America, "American Stories And American Solutions" Ad, 10/29/08)
· Joining 82 Other Senators, Barack Obama Voted For The 2007 Lobbying And Ethics Reform Legislation. "Reid, D-Nev., motion to concur in the House amendment to the bill that would overhaul congressional lobbying and ethics rules for members and their staffs and require the disclosure of 'bundled' campaign contributions that exceed $15,000 in a six-month period. Former senators would have to wait two years before becoming lobbyists." (S. 1, CQ Vote #294: Motion Agreed To 83-14: R 34-14; D 47-0; I 2-0, 8/2/07, Obama Voted Yea)
· FactCheck.org: Ethics Bill "Hardly A Test Of Party Loyalty." "Worth noting, also, is that Obama gave his supposed collaboration with McCain as an example of how he had worked 'against party loyalty ... for the good of America,' in the words used by Warren in his question. In fact, the measure that became law was sponsored by Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid and a bipartisan list of 16 others. ... But in the end the bill was hardly a test of party loyalty." ("Saddleback Bloggers," FactCheck.org, 8/18/08)
· The Wall Street Journal's John Fund: "On A Relatively Minor Ethics Bill," Barack Obama Declined To Work With John McCain In Favor Of "Signing Onto The Democratic Leadership's Ethics Bill." "Mr. McCain said he had 'a long list' and provided specifics from global warming to runaway spending under a Republican Congress. Barack Obama offered only one answer: 'Well, I'll give you an example that in fact I worked with John McCain on," Mr. Obama said, 'and that was the issue of campaign ethics reform and finance reform.' ... While it's true he briefly teamed up with Mr. McCain on rewriting a Congressional ethics bill, their alliance didn't last long. Back in February 2006, Mr. Obama wrote to Mr. McCain that he was declining to join a bipartisan task force and was instead signing onto the Democratic leadership's ethics bill. Mr. McCain responded with a harsh note accusing Mr. Obama of retreating into 'self-interested partisan posturing.' ... In the end, both men found a way to kiss and make up, and both found reasons to oppose the final ethics bill. But Mr. Obama is now the one citing work on a relatively minor ethics bill as an example of his unself-interested pursuit of the national good. The actual history isn't so clear and draws an unfortunate contrast with Mr. McCain's well-known independence from party orthodoxy. A shortage of examples of him breaking with his party's line remains one of Mr. Obama's big vulnerabilities." (John Fund, Op-Ed, "Obama's Self-Profile In Courage," The Wall Street Journal's "Political Dairy," 8/18/08)
JUST WORDS #15: Senator Joe Biden Says Barack Obama Reached Across And Led On An Effort That Was Hardly A Test Of Leadership
Barack Obama: "He came in, not only reached out, but reached across the aisle to Dick Lugar, one of the leading guys in America for the past 20 years on arms control, to keep loose nukes out of the hands of terrorists." (Obama For America, "American Stories And American Solutions" Ad, 10/29/08)
· Barack Obama Co-Sponsored Legislation To Authorize "The President To Establish A Program To Provide Assistance To Friendly Foreign Countries For Proliferation Detection And Interdiction Activities And For Developing Complementary Capabilities (Program)" That Was Incorporated Into Another Bill That Passed By Unanimous Consent. (S. 2566, Introduced 4/6/06)
· The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder: "Working with Dick Lugar on loose nukes was a good thing, and an example of Obama's willingness to write legislation [with] Republicans, but it didn't piss off liberals. (Who's in favor of looser nukes?)" (Marc Ambinder, "Obama's Bipartisanship," The Atlantic, 6/26/08)
JUST WORDS #16: Barack Obama Says He Will Expand The Military But An Adviser He Is Selling Access To Is Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) Who Proposes Cutting Defense Spending By 25%
Barack Obama: "As president, I will rebuild our military to meet 21st century challenges." (Obama For America, "American Stories And American Solutions" Ad, 10/29/08)
· U.S. Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) Proposed A 25 Percent Cut In Military Spending To Fund A New Stimulus Package. "After the November election, Democrats will push for a second economic stimulus package that includes money for the states' stalled infrastructure projects, along with help paying for healthcare expenses, food stamps and extended unemployment benefits, U.S. Rep. Barney Frank said Thursday. In a meeting with the editorial board of The Standard-Times, Rep. Frank, D-Mass., also called for a 25 percent cut in military spending, saying the Pentagon has to start choosing from its many weapons programs, and that upper-income taxpayers are going to see an increase in what they are asked to pay." (Steve Urbon, "Frank Envisions Post-Election Stimulus From Democrats," Standard-Times, 10/24/08)
· Barack Obama's Campaign Offered Up A Reception With Rep. Barney Frank To Donors For $1,000. "Aides to Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) scheduled pricey luncheons, roundtables, readings, V.I.P. receptions, dinners and policy dinners with campaign officials and advisers, offering donors a taste of his potential administration. ... An e-mailed October 'national schedule of upcoming events across the country for Obama/Biden' was provided to Politico by one of the recipients. Among the offerings: ... --Reception in Palm Springs, Calif., with Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee -- $1,000 or $250." (Mike Allen, "Obama Donors Get Access To Top Advisers," Politico, http://dyn.politico.com, 10/ 29/08)
JUST WORDS #17: Barack Obama Says He Wants Tough Diplomacy With Iran But Would Meet With Ahmadinejad Without Precondition
Barack Obama: "I will renew the tough, direct diplomacy that can prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and curb Russian aggression." (Obama For America, "American Stories And American Solutions" Ad, 10/29/08)
· Barack Obama Would Unconditionally Meet With The Leaders Of State Sponsors Of Terror "Without Precondition" Like Ahmadinejad. QUESTION: "[W]ould you 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?"... OBAMA: "I would." (CNN/YouTube Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Charleston, SC, 7/23/07)
· The Wall Street Journal: Barack Obama's Foreign Policy "Could Strengthen Mr. Ahmadinejad." "Middle East experts said Obama's strategy holds potential pitfalls. In Iran, they said, Sen. Obama could strengthen Mr. Ahmadinejad if as U.S. president he moves too quickly to hold direct talks with Tehran's leader." (Jay Solomon, "Obama's Foreign-Policy Pledge Sparks Criticism from Rivals," Wall Street Journal, 3/26/08)
· The Washington Post: European Officials "Increasingly Concerned That Sen. Barack Obama's Campaign Pledge To Begin Direct Talks ... Could Potentially Rupture U.S. Relations With Key European Allies." (Glenn Kessler, "Europe Fears Obama Might Undercut Progress With Iran," The Washington Post, 6/22/08)
JUST WORDS #18: Barack Obama Says He Will Focus On Afghanistan But He Did Not Focus On Afghanistan When In The United States Senate
Barack Obama: "And I will refocus our efforts on finishing the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan." (Obama For America, "American Stories And American Solutions" Ad, 10/29/08)
· Barack Obama Has Served As Chairman Of The Subcommittee On European Affairs From 2007 -- 2008. (U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Website, www.senate.gov, Accessed 2/15/08)
· As Chairman Of The Subcommittee On European Affairs, Barack Obama Could Have Held Hearings On The Role Of NATO In Afghanistan. "[A]mbassador John Ritch, who served for two decades as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's senior staffer on European affairs and East-West relations...[P]oints out that as subcommittee chair, Obama could have examined a wide variety of urgent matters, from the role of NATO in Afghanistan and Iraq to European energy policy and European responses to climate change..." (Joe Conason, "Obama's European Problem," www.salon.com, 12/29/07)
· Barack Obama: "I became Chairman of this committee at the beginning of this campaign, at the beginning of 2007. So it is true that we haven't had oversight hearings on Afghanistan." (MSNBC Democratic Presidential Debate, 2/27/08)
· Hillary Clinton Criticized Barack Obama For Not Holding Hearings As European Affairs Subcommittee Chairman. Sen. Clinton: "But I also have heard Senator Obama refer continually to Afghanistan, and he references being on the Foreign Relations Committee. He chairs the Subcommittee on Europe. It has jurisdiction over NATO. NATO is critical to our mission in Afghanistan. He's held not one substantive hearing to do oversight, to figure out what we can do to actually have a stronger presence with NATO in Afghanistan." (Sen. Clinton, NBC Democrat Presidential Debate, Cleveland, OH, 2/26/08)
JUST WORDS #19: Governor Bill Richardson (D-NM) Says Barack Obama -- Who Has An Extreme Partisan Record -- Could Bring Bipartisanship To Washington
Governor Bill Richardson: "That he's a man that can heal this country, that can bring bipartisanship." (Obama For America, "American Stories And American Solutions" Ad, 10/29/08)
· The Associated Press: "None" Of Barack Obama's Touted Bipartisan Efforts Paced Him "At Odds With The Leaders Of His Own Party Or Gave Significant Offense To Outside Interest Groups With Democrats." (David Espo, "Bipartisanship Marks McCain's Senate Tenure," Associated Press, 7/2/08)
· NPR's Juan Williams: Barack Obama "Doesn't Have The Record" Of Bipartisanship That John McCain Has. NPR'S JUAN WILLIAMS: "You think about everything from campaign finance to immigration and on, and there's John McCain working across party lines. Senator Obama doesn't have a record. Now, he can make the claim and he can hold himself up as pure and trying to reach to a new generation of post partisan politics, but he has to do so largely based on rhetoric and wishful thinking because he doesn't have the record." (Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume," 5/7/08)
· The Washington Post's Richard Cohen: "There Is Scant Evidence The Illinois Senator Takes Positions That Challenge His Base Or Otherwise Threaten Him Politically." (Richard Cohen, Op-Ed, "McCain's Core Advantage," The Washington Post, 6/24/08)
· Politico's Jonathan Martin: "He's Pretty Much A Conventional Liberal On The Issues And Has Few Examples Of Breaking With His Own Party, So How Does Obama Try To Pull Off Being 'Post-Partisan?'" (Jonathan Martin, "Obama's Third Way: It's All In The Tone," Politico, 6/30/08)
· Rep. Dan Boren (D-OK): "His Record Does Not Reflect Working In A Bipartisan Fashion." "Boren, the lone Democrat in Oklahoma's congressional delegate, said that while Obama has talked about working with Republicans, 'unfortunately, his record does not reflect working in a bipartisan fashion.'" (Tim Talley, "Okla. Dem Calls Obama Liberal, Declines To Endorse," The Associated Press, 6/10/08)
· "The Record Shows Obama To Be A Fairly Doctrinaire Liberal Democrat..." (Editorial, "Obama's Rhetoric Soars, But What Does His Record Suggest?" USA Today, 1/28/08)
· In 2007, Obama Voted With The Democrat Party 97 Percent Of The Time. (Congressional Quarterly Website, www.cq.com, Accessed 3/3/08)
OBAMA AND ACORN = VOTER FRAUD!!!!!
For Immediate Release
October 29, 2008 Contact: Press Office
Statement on Former ACORN Affliliate Employee's Testimony in Court Linking Obama Campaign Directly to ACORN Activity
ARLINGTON, VA -- Today, McCain-Palin 2008 campaign manager Rick Davis released the following statement in response to the testimony given by a former employee of an ACORN affiliate in a Pennsylvania court of law:
"Today's testimony by a former employee of an ACORN affiliate proves Barack Obama is guilty of lying to the American people about his relationship with ACORN. At the last presidential debate, in front of sixty million people, Barack Obama said his campaign was not involved' with ACORN. We now know that Barack Obama's campaign was working hand-in-glove with an organization reportedly under investigation by the F.B.I. and in more than a dozen states. In addition to funneling $832,000 to ACORN for get-out-the-vote efforts, the Obama campaign and ACORN have been sharing donor lists, encouraging maxed-out Obama donors to contribute to this unethical organization."
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Today, A Former Employee Of ACORN's Sister Organization Testified That A "Donor List" From Barack Obama's Campaign Was Provided In Late 2007 For Fundraising Efforts. "A former staffer for an affiliate of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now testified today that the organization was provided a donor list' from the presidential campaign of Barack Obama in late 2007 for fundraising efforts. Anita Moncrief, a former Washington, D.C. staffer for Project Vote, which she described as a sister organization of ACORN, said her supervisor told her the list of campaign contributors came from the Obama campaign. Moncrief said she has a copy of a development plan' that outlines how Obama contributors who had maxed out' under federal contribution limits would be targeted to give to Project Vote, and that it was her job to identify such contributors. Moncrief testified that ACORN and Project Vote were virtually identical ." (Brad Bumsted, "Former ACORN Staffer Testifies," Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 10/29/08)
During A Presidential Debate, Barack Obama Said He Was Not Involved With ACORN. BARACK OBAMA: "Now, with respect to ACORN, ACORN is a community organization. Apparently what they've done is they were paying people to go out and register folks, and apparently some of the people who were out there didn't really register people, they just filled out a bunch of names. It had nothing to do with us. We were not involved. The only involvement I've had with ACORN was I represented them alongside the U.S. Justice Department in making Illinois implement a motor voter law that helped people get registered at DMVs." (Senator Barack Obama, 2008 Presidential Debate, Hempstead, NY 10/15/08)
Barack Obama Started Working With ACORN In 1992. "What's more, Obama worked as executive directo r of ACORN's voter-registration arm, Project Vote, in 1992." (Editorial, "Is ACORN Stealing The Election?" Investor's Business Daily http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=308358130652174 , 10/8/08)
Barack Obama Represented ACORN In A Lawsuit. "The latest wave of ACORN investigations has provided Republicans with both an opening to assail an old foe, and a new line of criticism to use against the Democratic presidential nominee, who represented ACORN in a lawsuit in the 1990s." (Alexander Burns, "ACORN Gives GOP New Line Of Attack," Politico http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008 /14492.html , 10/11/08)
Barack Obama Trained ACORN Staff. "At the time, Talbot worked at the social action group ACORN and initially considered Obama a competitor. But she became so impressed with his work that she invited him to help train her staff." (Letta Tayler and Keith Herbert, "Obama Forged Path As Chicago Community Organizer," Los Angeles Times http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usobam025598601mar02,1,6933215,full.story , 3/2/08)
When Barack Obama Was On The Board Of Directors Of The Woods Fund, ACORN Received $190,000 Of Grants From The Organization. (Donors Forum Website,http://ifs.donorsforum.org , Accessed 6/10/08)
Barack Obama's Campaign "Paid More Than $800,000" To An ACORN Affiliate For Get-Out-The Vote Efforts. "U.S. Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign paid more than $800,000 to an offshoot of the liberal Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now for services the Democrat's campaign says it mistakenly misrepresented in federal reports." (David M. Brown, "Obama To Amend Report On $800,000 In Spending," Pittsburgh Tribune Review, 8/22/08)
ACORN's Political Action Committee Endorsed Barack Obama. "ACORN's Political Action Committee, ACORN Votes, announced Feb. 21 that it had endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for President." (ACORN, "ACORN's Political Action Committee Endorses Obama," Press Release Acorn.org , 2/21/08)
October 29, 2008 Contact: Press Office
Statement on Former ACORN Affliliate Employee's Testimony in Court Linking Obama Campaign Directly to ACORN Activity
ARLINGTON, VA -- Today, McCain-Palin 2008 campaign manager Rick Davis released the following statement in response to the testimony given by a former employee of an ACORN affiliate in a Pennsylvania court of law:
"Today's testimony by a former employee of an ACORN affiliate proves Barack Obama is guilty of lying to the American people about his relationship with ACORN. At the last presidential debate, in front of sixty million people, Barack Obama said his campaign was not involved' with ACORN. We now know that Barack Obama's campaign was working hand-in-glove with an organization reportedly under investigation by the F.B.I. and in more than a dozen states. In addition to funneling $832,000 to ACORN for get-out-the-vote efforts, the Obama campaign and ACORN have been sharing donor lists, encouraging maxed-out Obama donors to contribute to this unethical organization."
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Today, A Former Employee Of ACORN's Sister Organization Testified That A "Donor List" From Barack Obama's Campaign Was Provided In Late 2007 For Fundraising Efforts. "A former staffer for an affiliate of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now testified today that the organization was provided a donor list' from the presidential campaign of Barack Obama in late 2007 for fundraising efforts. Anita Moncrief, a former Washington, D.C. staffer for Project Vote, which she described as a sister organization of ACORN, said her supervisor told her the list of campaign contributors came from the Obama campaign. Moncrief said she has a copy of a development plan' that outlines how Obama contributors who had maxed out' under federal contribution limits would be targeted to give to Project Vote, and that it was her job to identify such contributors. Moncrief testified that ACORN and Project Vote were virtually identical ." (Brad Bumsted, "Former ACORN Staffer Testifies," Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 10/29/08)
During A Presidential Debate, Barack Obama Said He Was Not Involved With ACORN. BARACK OBAMA: "Now, with respect to ACORN, ACORN is a community organization. Apparently what they've done is they were paying people to go out and register folks, and apparently some of the people who were out there didn't really register people, they just filled out a bunch of names. It had nothing to do with us. We were not involved. The only involvement I've had with ACORN was I represented them alongside the U.S. Justice Department in making Illinois implement a motor voter law that helped people get registered at DMVs." (Senator Barack Obama, 2008 Presidential Debate, Hempstead, NY 10/15/08)
Barack Obama Started Working With ACORN In 1992. "What's more, Obama worked as executive directo r of ACORN's voter-registration arm, Project Vote, in 1992." (Editorial, "Is ACORN Stealing The Election?" Investor's Business Daily http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=308358130652174 , 10/8/08)
Barack Obama Represented ACORN In A Lawsuit. "The latest wave of ACORN investigations has provided Republicans with both an opening to assail an old foe, and a new line of criticism to use against the Democratic presidential nominee, who represented ACORN in a lawsuit in the 1990s." (Alexander Burns, "ACORN Gives GOP New Line Of Attack," Politico http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008 /14492.html , 10/11/08)
Barack Obama Trained ACORN Staff. "At the time, Talbot worked at the social action group ACORN and initially considered Obama a competitor. But she became so impressed with his work that she invited him to help train her staff." (Letta Tayler and Keith Herbert, "Obama Forged Path As Chicago Community Organizer," Los Angeles Times http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usobam025598601mar02,1,6933215,full.story , 3/2/08)
When Barack Obama Was On The Board Of Directors Of The Woods Fund, ACORN Received $190,000 Of Grants From The Organization. (Donors Forum Website,http://ifs.donorsforum.org , Accessed 6/10/08)
Barack Obama's Campaign "Paid More Than $800,000" To An ACORN Affiliate For Get-Out-The Vote Efforts. "U.S. Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign paid more than $800,000 to an offshoot of the liberal Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now for services the Democrat's campaign says it mistakenly misrepresented in federal reports." (David M. Brown, "Obama To Amend Report On $800,000 In Spending," Pittsburgh Tribune Review, 8/22/08)
ACORN's Political Action Committee Endorsed Barack Obama. "ACORN's Political Action Committee, ACORN Votes, announced Feb. 21 that it had endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for President." (ACORN, "ACORN's Political Action Committee Endorses Obama," Press Release Acorn.org , 2/21/08)
SARAH AND TODD'S PARENTS CAMPAIGN FOR HER AND MC CAIN!!!
For Immediate Release
October 30, 2008 Contact: Press Office
702-466-2998
McCain-Palin Campaign Announces the "Meet the Parents" Tour
HENDERSON, NV -- John McCain and Sarah Palin's presidential campaign welcomes Governor Palin's parents, Chuck and Sally Heath, brother Chuck Heath Jr. and Todd Palin's parents Jim and Faye Palin to Southern Nevada on Thursday, October 30th. The Heaths and Palins will visit the McCain-Palin Regional Headquarters, where they will greet volunteers and go canvassing a local neighborhood.
HENDERSON, NEVADA
"Meet the Parents Tour" Event #1
WHO: Chuck Heath, Sally Heath and Chuck Heath Jr., Governor Sarah Palin's Parents and Brother
Jim Palin and Faye Palin, Todd Palin's Parents
WHAT: Headquarters Visit and Door-to-Door
WHEN: Thursday, October 30, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. PDT
WHERE: McCain-Palin Regional Headquarters
8935 South Pecos Road, Suite 22A
Henderson, NV 89074
"Meet the Parents Tour" Event #2
WHO: Chuck Heath, Sally Heath and Chuck Heath Jr., Governor Sarah Palin's Parents and Brother
Jim Palin and Faye Palin, Todd Palin's Parents
WHAT: "Meet the Parents" Night
WHEN: Thursday, October 30, 2008 at 6:00 p.m. PDT
WHERE: McCain-Palin Regional Headquarters
8935 South Pecos Road, Suite 22A
Henderson, NV 89074
###
October 30, 2008 Contact: Press Office
702-466-2998
McCain-Palin Campaign Announces the "Meet the Parents" Tour
HENDERSON, NV -- John McCain and Sarah Palin's presidential campaign welcomes Governor Palin's parents, Chuck and Sally Heath, brother Chuck Heath Jr. and Todd Palin's parents Jim and Faye Palin to Southern Nevada on Thursday, October 30th. The Heaths and Palins will visit the McCain-Palin Regional Headquarters, where they will greet volunteers and go canvassing a local neighborhood.
HENDERSON, NEVADA
"Meet the Parents Tour" Event #1
WHO: Chuck Heath, Sally Heath and Chuck Heath Jr., Governor Sarah Palin's Parents and Brother
Jim Palin and Faye Palin, Todd Palin's Parents
WHAT: Headquarters Visit and Door-to-Door
WHEN: Thursday, October 30, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. PDT
WHERE: McCain-Palin Regional Headquarters
8935 South Pecos Road, Suite 22A
Henderson, NV 89074
"Meet the Parents Tour" Event #2
WHO: Chuck Heath, Sally Heath and Chuck Heath Jr., Governor Sarah Palin's Parents and Brother
Jim Palin and Faye Palin, Todd Palin's Parents
WHAT: "Meet the Parents" Night
WHEN: Thursday, October 30, 2008 at 6:00 p.m. PDT
WHERE: McCain-Palin Regional Headquarters
8935 South Pecos Road, Suite 22A
Henderson, NV 89074
###
PATRICIA HEATON VISITS MCAIN/PALIN OFFICE IN VEGAS!!!
For Immediate Release
October 30, 2008 Contact: Press Office
702-466-2998
McCain-Palin Campaign Welcomes Patricia Heaton to Las Vegas
HENDERSON, NV -- John McCain and Sarah Palin's presidential campaign welcomes Patricia Heaton to Las Vegas on Thursday, October 30th. Heaton, an actress best known for her work on Everybody Loves Raymond, will visit the Summerlin Victory Office.
PATRICIA HEATON OFFICE VISIT
WHO: Patricia Heaton
WHAT: Headquarters Visit
WHEN: Thursday, October 30, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. PDT
WHERE: Summerlin Victory Center
8510 West Lake Mead Boulevard
Las Vegas, NV 89128
###
October 30, 2008 Contact: Press Office
702-466-2998
McCain-Palin Campaign Welcomes Patricia Heaton to Las Vegas
HENDERSON, NV -- John McCain and Sarah Palin's presidential campaign welcomes Patricia Heaton to Las Vegas on Thursday, October 30th. Heaton, an actress best known for her work on Everybody Loves Raymond, will visit the Summerlin Victory Office.
PATRICIA HEATON OFFICE VISIT
WHO: Patricia Heaton
WHAT: Headquarters Visit
WHEN: Thursday, October 30, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. PDT
WHERE: Summerlin Victory Center
8510 West Lake Mead Boulevard
Las Vegas, NV 89128
###
HILLARY SUPPORTERS FED UP WITH OBAMA'S SEXISM AND MISOGNY!!!
For Immediate Release
October 30, 2008 Contact: Press Office
703-650-5550
Hillary Clinton Supporters And Women For McCain Leadership React To Barack Obama's Attack Ad "His Choice"
ARLINGTON, VA -- McCain-Palin 2008 today released the following statements from former Hillary Clinton supporters and Women for McCain leadership in reaction to Barack Obama's sexist attack ad "His Choice":
VIRGINIA
Judy Black, National Co-Chair, Women for McCain: "Enough is enough! Senator Obama has stooped to a new low in his constant attacks on Governor Palin with his new ad titled, 'His Choice.' Barack Obama's choice has been to attack, demean and ridicule women, first Sen. Clinton and now Gov. Palin. American women do not need any more of Obama's sexist choices or attacks. John McCain made the choice to put a strong leader with a proven record forward as his running mate. As a woman, I am outraged by the over-the-top treatment of Gov. Palin and I urge all women to reject the double standard put forward by a man who was just a state senator in Illinois three years ago by voting McCain-Palin this Tuesday."
Patty Denton, Washington County Republican Chairwoman: "We, as a country, should be past the days in which women were treated as inferior. Women are the backbone of this country. It's disappointing for Senator Obama, who has proclaimed change' as his mantra, to disregard the monumental progress women have made in this country. Governor Palin is an exceptional leader and has fought on the side of all Americans, regardless of race or gender. These types of ads show that the Obama campaign is willing to do anything to score a few political cheap shots at the expense of women. On November 4th, women will go to the polls and demand respect for themselves and their daughters from the type of negative attacks perpetrated by Senator Obama."
MISSOURI
Representative Jo Ann Emerson: "With more executive experience than Barack Obama and Joe Biden combined, Governor Sarah Palin holds her own on the national scene and embodies the values that Americans want in those who will lead our country. This ad is just one more example of the constant attacks from the Obama-Biden campaign. With each attack, they attempt to dismiss the intelligent, qualified, and experienced woman who will soon become our next Vice-President of the United States."
Sharon Barnes, Missouri State Chair Women for McCain: "These attacks on Governor Sarah Palin show the desperation of the Democratic Party to try to stem the overwhelming support for the maverick Republican team of John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin - a team dedicated to bringing about the right kind of change for the people of this country. The voters of this great nation will not be fooled. Gov. Palin is a proven leader and serious reformer with experience in economics, defense and foreign policy that the Democratic candidate for president can only wish he had."
CALIFORNIA
Shelly Mandell, President of Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization for Women: "I am outraged by the new ad put out by Barack Obama. It is sexist and demeaning to women. These tactics started with Hillary Clinton and continue, growing even more disgusting with Gov. Palin. I was a Hillstar for Hillary and an avid supporter. Trashing two women clearly in a sexist manner in one election is an outrage and must be identified and stopped. There must be consequences. Let female Obama supporters take a good look at this and still believe their candidate supports women's rights and women's dignity."
Prameela Bartholomeusz, DNC Platform Committee Member: "I am once again stunned at the personal and sexist attacks by the Obama campaign against Gov. Palin. This latest ad is sexist and offensive. The Gov. of Alaska has been managing and balancing a budget of $10 billion; I think she knows a bit about economics. Sen. Obama never spoke up against sexism during the primary season, and is not speaking out against misogyny during this phase of the election season -- he is contributing to it. I have no confidence that Sen. Obama will fight for women's issues if elected. This sets women back decades."
PENNSYLVANIA
Christine J. Toretti, PA Women For McCain Co-Chair, PA National Committeewoman: "Vice presidential running mate, Sarah Palin, is an experienced public servant. As governor of Alaska and as mayor of Wasilla she proved to be an effective leader and businesswoman. Senator Obama's baseless attack on Governor Palin is preposterous. God forbid a leader is not only competent, but beautiful and wears a skirt!"
Bernie Comfort, Pennsylvania Women for McCain State Chair: "Senator Obama's ad simply mocks Governor Palin. The real truth is Gov. Palin has experience dealing with the economy as an executive running the state of Alaska and as a business owner. She is the experienced leader we need to lead this country with John McCain."
Stephanie Bressler, Ph.D, Hillary Clinton supporter, University of Scranton women and politics professor: "It's a sexist example of reducing a woman to an object - a wink - and denying her a voice. Her lips are actually moving, but she's not allowed to be heard."
OHIO
Barbara Rosier-Tryon, Member of the Warren Republican Women's Club: "This is yet another sexist cheap shot on Gov. Palin's image from the Obama-Biden campaign. Sarah Palin's record of reform and experience as governor of Alaska and commander of the state's National Guard is more distinguished than Barack Obama's one and only term in the U.S. Senate."
NORTH CAROLINA
Martha Jenkins, North Carolina Women for McCain State Chairman: "Barack Obama chose Joe Biden to make up for his own lack of foreign policy expertise. He has absolutely no reason to criticize McCain's pick of Palin. Gov. Palin is infinitely more qualified than Barack Obama. In running this ad, Obama is acknowledging that Gov. Palin is an effective and a positive part of John McCain's candidacy; otherwise, why focus on her at all? Barack Obama is using this ad to divert attention from the fact that the American public is realizing that Obama is just as radical as his associates, and that he lacks the experience and judgment to be President of the United States."
FLORIDA
Albert Chang, Regional Director of Citizens for McCain, a group that includes Democrats and Independents: "We look forward to winning Tampa and the surrounding counties for McCain-Palin. This ad is a distracting personal attack on an experienced executive and the voters of Florida will see through it. This campaign will remain focused on issues impacting the everyday lives of Floridians and Americans."
Mary Calderon, Tampa, former Senator Clinton supporter: "I'm disappointed that Senator Obama has resorted to personal attacks at this point in the campaign. Would any male candidate for vice president of the United States be afforded similar treatment by the Obama campaign? I would say not."
INDIANA
Judy Singleton, Indiana Women for McCain Co-Chair: "Obama seems to have a problem with strong, smart women. Ask Hillary. Running an ad like this is an affront to talented women everywhere. To imply that Gov. Palin doesn't understand economics because she's pretty and winks is ridiculous. As a governor, she's proved she understands the economy better than Barack Obama, who hasn't completed his first term in the Senate, does. All one has to do is look at her record of leadership on economic development and then look at his."
NEW YORK
Amy Siskind, Ambassador for Hillary: "When Senator Hillary Clinton was demeaned and degraded during the Presidential Primary, many of us of, myself included, vowed 'never again'. The treatment of Governor Palin by both the main stream media, and now the Obama Campaign, shows that the misogyny fest is alive and well in our country. There has been a complete and utter smear job of our fellow citizen, Sarah Palin, who is only trying to serve her country."
October 30, 2008 Contact: Press Office
703-650-5550
Hillary Clinton Supporters And Women For McCain Leadership React To Barack Obama's Attack Ad "His Choice"
ARLINGTON, VA -- McCain-Palin 2008 today released the following statements from former Hillary Clinton supporters and Women for McCain leadership in reaction to Barack Obama's sexist attack ad "His Choice":
VIRGINIA
Judy Black, National Co-Chair, Women for McCain: "Enough is enough! Senator Obama has stooped to a new low in his constant attacks on Governor Palin with his new ad titled, 'His Choice.' Barack Obama's choice has been to attack, demean and ridicule women, first Sen. Clinton and now Gov. Palin. American women do not need any more of Obama's sexist choices or attacks. John McCain made the choice to put a strong leader with a proven record forward as his running mate. As a woman, I am outraged by the over-the-top treatment of Gov. Palin and I urge all women to reject the double standard put forward by a man who was just a state senator in Illinois three years ago by voting McCain-Palin this Tuesday."
Patty Denton, Washington County Republican Chairwoman: "We, as a country, should be past the days in which women were treated as inferior. Women are the backbone of this country. It's disappointing for Senator Obama, who has proclaimed change' as his mantra, to disregard the monumental progress women have made in this country. Governor Palin is an exceptional leader and has fought on the side of all Americans, regardless of race or gender. These types of ads show that the Obama campaign is willing to do anything to score a few political cheap shots at the expense of women. On November 4th, women will go to the polls and demand respect for themselves and their daughters from the type of negative attacks perpetrated by Senator Obama."
MISSOURI
Representative Jo Ann Emerson: "With more executive experience than Barack Obama and Joe Biden combined, Governor Sarah Palin holds her own on the national scene and embodies the values that Americans want in those who will lead our country. This ad is just one more example of the constant attacks from the Obama-Biden campaign. With each attack, they attempt to dismiss the intelligent, qualified, and experienced woman who will soon become our next Vice-President of the United States."
Sharon Barnes, Missouri State Chair Women for McCain: "These attacks on Governor Sarah Palin show the desperation of the Democratic Party to try to stem the overwhelming support for the maverick Republican team of John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin - a team dedicated to bringing about the right kind of change for the people of this country. The voters of this great nation will not be fooled. Gov. Palin is a proven leader and serious reformer with experience in economics, defense and foreign policy that the Democratic candidate for president can only wish he had."
CALIFORNIA
Shelly Mandell, President of Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization for Women: "I am outraged by the new ad put out by Barack Obama. It is sexist and demeaning to women. These tactics started with Hillary Clinton and continue, growing even more disgusting with Gov. Palin. I was a Hillstar for Hillary and an avid supporter. Trashing two women clearly in a sexist manner in one election is an outrage and must be identified and stopped. There must be consequences. Let female Obama supporters take a good look at this and still believe their candidate supports women's rights and women's dignity."
Prameela Bartholomeusz, DNC Platform Committee Member: "I am once again stunned at the personal and sexist attacks by the Obama campaign against Gov. Palin. This latest ad is sexist and offensive. The Gov. of Alaska has been managing and balancing a budget of $10 billion; I think she knows a bit about economics. Sen. Obama never spoke up against sexism during the primary season, and is not speaking out against misogyny during this phase of the election season -- he is contributing to it. I have no confidence that Sen. Obama will fight for women's issues if elected. This sets women back decades."
PENNSYLVANIA
Christine J. Toretti, PA Women For McCain Co-Chair, PA National Committeewoman: "Vice presidential running mate, Sarah Palin, is an experienced public servant. As governor of Alaska and as mayor of Wasilla she proved to be an effective leader and businesswoman. Senator Obama's baseless attack on Governor Palin is preposterous. God forbid a leader is not only competent, but beautiful and wears a skirt!"
Bernie Comfort, Pennsylvania Women for McCain State Chair: "Senator Obama's ad simply mocks Governor Palin. The real truth is Gov. Palin has experience dealing with the economy as an executive running the state of Alaska and as a business owner. She is the experienced leader we need to lead this country with John McCain."
Stephanie Bressler, Ph.D, Hillary Clinton supporter, University of Scranton women and politics professor: "It's a sexist example of reducing a woman to an object - a wink - and denying her a voice. Her lips are actually moving, but she's not allowed to be heard."
OHIO
Barbara Rosier-Tryon, Member of the Warren Republican Women's Club: "This is yet another sexist cheap shot on Gov. Palin's image from the Obama-Biden campaign. Sarah Palin's record of reform and experience as governor of Alaska and commander of the state's National Guard is more distinguished than Barack Obama's one and only term in the U.S. Senate."
NORTH CAROLINA
Martha Jenkins, North Carolina Women for McCain State Chairman: "Barack Obama chose Joe Biden to make up for his own lack of foreign policy expertise. He has absolutely no reason to criticize McCain's pick of Palin. Gov. Palin is infinitely more qualified than Barack Obama. In running this ad, Obama is acknowledging that Gov. Palin is an effective and a positive part of John McCain's candidacy; otherwise, why focus on her at all? Barack Obama is using this ad to divert attention from the fact that the American public is realizing that Obama is just as radical as his associates, and that he lacks the experience and judgment to be President of the United States."
FLORIDA
Albert Chang, Regional Director of Citizens for McCain, a group that includes Democrats and Independents: "We look forward to winning Tampa and the surrounding counties for McCain-Palin. This ad is a distracting personal attack on an experienced executive and the voters of Florida will see through it. This campaign will remain focused on issues impacting the everyday lives of Floridians and Americans."
Mary Calderon, Tampa, former Senator Clinton supporter: "I'm disappointed that Senator Obama has resorted to personal attacks at this point in the campaign. Would any male candidate for vice president of the United States be afforded similar treatment by the Obama campaign? I would say not."
INDIANA
Judy Singleton, Indiana Women for McCain Co-Chair: "Obama seems to have a problem with strong, smart women. Ask Hillary. Running an ad like this is an affront to talented women everywhere. To imply that Gov. Palin doesn't understand economics because she's pretty and winks is ridiculous. As a governor, she's proved she understands the economy better than Barack Obama, who hasn't completed his first term in the Senate, does. All one has to do is look at her record of leadership on economic development and then look at his."
NEW YORK
Amy Siskind, Ambassador for Hillary: "When Senator Hillary Clinton was demeaned and degraded during the Presidential Primary, many of us of, myself included, vowed 'never again'. The treatment of Governor Palin by both the main stream media, and now the Obama Campaign, shows that the misogyny fest is alive and well in our country. There has been a complete and utter smear job of our fellow citizen, Sarah Palin, who is only trying to serve her country."
ACORN WHISTLEBLOWER TESTIFIES IN COURT!!! OBAMA'S TIES ARE EXTENSIVE. COMPARES ACORN TO THE "MOB"!!!!
An Acorn Whistleblower Testifies in Court
The group's ties to Obama are extensive.
By JOHN FUND
Acorn, the liberal "community organizing" group that claims it will deploy 15,000 get-out-the-vote workers on Election Day, can't stay out of the news.
The FBI is investigating its voter registration efforts in several states, amid allegations that almost a third of the 1.3 million cards it turned in are invalid. And yesterday, a former employee of Acorn testified in a Pennsylvania state court that the group's quality-control efforts were "minimal or nonexistent" and largely window dressing. Anita MonCrief also says that Acorn was given lists of potential donors by several Democratic presidential campaigns, including that of Barack Obama, to troll for contributions.
The Obama campaign denies it "has any ties" to Acorn, but Mr. Obama's ties are extensive. In 1992 he headed a registration effort for Project Vote, an Acorn partner at the time. He did so well that he was made a top trainer for Acorn's Chicago conferences. In 1995, he represented Acorn in a key case upholding the constitutionality of the new Motor Voter Act -- the first law passed by the Clinton administration -- which created the mandated, nationwide postcard voter registration system that Acorn workers are using to flood election offices with bogus registrations.
Ms. MonCrief testified that in November 2007 Project Vote development director Karyn Gillette told her she had direct contact with the Obama campaign and had obtained their donor lists. Ms. MonCrief also testified she was given a spreadsheet to use in cultivating Obama donors who had maxed out on donations to the candidate, but who could contribute to voter registration efforts. Project Vote calls the allegation "absolutely false."
She says that when she had trouble with what appeared to be duplicate names on the list, Ms. Gillette told her she would talk with the Obama campaign and get a better version. Ms. MonCrief has given me copies of the donor lists she says were obtained from other Democratic campaigns, as well as the 2004 DNC donor lists.
In her testimony, Ms. MonCrief says she was upset by Acorn's "Muscle for Money" program, which she said intimidated businesses Acorn opposed into paying "protection" money in the form of grants. Acorn's Brian Kettering says the group only wants to change corporate behavior: "Acorn is proud of its corporate campaigns to stop abuses of working families."
Ms. MonCrief, 29, never expected to testify in a case brought by the state's Republican Party seeking the local Acorn affiliate's voter registration lists. An idealistic graduate of the University of Alabama, she joined Project Vote in 2005 because she thought it was empowering poor people. A strategic consultant for Acorn and a development associate with its Project Vote voter registration affiliate, Ms. MonCrief sat in on policy-making meetings with the national staff. She was fired early this year over personal expenses she had put on the group's credit card.
She says she became disillusioned because she saw that Acorn was run as the personal fiefdom of Wade Rathke, who founded the group in 1970 and ran it until he stepped down to take over its international operations this summer. Mr. Rathke's departure as head of Acorn came after revelations he'd employed his brother Dale for a decade while keeping from almost all of Acorn's board members the fact that Dale had embezzled over $1 million from the group a decade ago. (The embezzlement was confirmed to me by an Acorn official.)
"Anyone who questioned what was going on was viewed as the enemy," Ms. MonCrief told me. "Just like the mob, no one leaves Acorn happily." She believes the organization does some good but hopes its current leadership is replaced. She may not be alone.
Last August two of Acorn's eight dissident board members, Marcel Reed and Karen Inman, filed suit demanding access to financial records of Citizens Consulting Inc., the umbrella group through which most of Acorn's money flows. Ms. Inman told a news conference this month Mr. Rathke still exercises power over CCI and Acorn against the board's wishes. Bertha Lewis, the interim head of Acorn, told me Mr. Rathke has no ties to Acorn and that the dissident board members were "obsessed" and "confused."
According to public records, the IRS filed three tax liens totaling almost $1 million against Acorn this spring. Also this spring, CCI was paid $832,000 by the Obama campaign for get-out-the-vote efforts in key primary states. In filings with the Federal Election Commission, the Obama campaign listed the payments as "staging, sound, lighting," only correcting the filings after the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review revealed their true nature.
"Acorn needs a full forensic audit," Ms. MonCrief says, though she doesn't think that's likely. "Everyone wants to paper things over until later," she says. "But it may be too late to reform Acorn then." She strongly supports Barack Obama and hopes his allies can be helpful in cleaning up the group "after the heat of the election is gone."
Acorn's Mr. Kettering says the GOP lawsuit "is designed to suppress legitimate voters," and he says Ms. MonCrief isn't credible, given that she was fired for cause. Ms. MonCrief admits that she left after she began paying back some $3,000 in personal expenses she charged on an Acorn credit card. "I was very sorry, and I was paying it back," she says, but "suddenly Acorn decided that . . . I had to go. Since then I have gotten warnings to 'back off' from people at Acorn."
Acorn insists it operates with strict quality controls, turning in, as required by law, all registration forms "even if the name on them was Donald Duck," as Wade Rathke told me two years ago. Acorn whistleblowers tell a different story.
"There's no quality control on purpose, no checks and balances," says Nate Toler, who worked until 2006 as the head organizer of an Acorn campaign against Wal-Mart in California. And Ms. MonCrief says it is longstanding practice to blame bogus registrations on lower-level employees who then often face criminal charges, a practice she says Acorn internally calls "throwing folks under the bus."
Gregory Hall, a former Acorn employee, says he was told on his very first day in 2006 to engage in deceptive fund-raising tactics. Mr. Hall has founded a group called Speaking Truth to Power to push for a full airing of Acorn's problems "so the group can heal itself from within."
To date, Mr. Obama has declined to criticize Acorn, telling reporters this month he is happy with his own get-out-the-vote efforts and that "we don't need Acorn's help." That may be true. But there is no denying his ties with Acorn helped turbocharge his political career.
Mr. Fund is a columnist for WSJ.com.
The group's ties to Obama are extensive.
By JOHN FUND
Acorn, the liberal "community organizing" group that claims it will deploy 15,000 get-out-the-vote workers on Election Day, can't stay out of the news.
The FBI is investigating its voter registration efforts in several states, amid allegations that almost a third of the 1.3 million cards it turned in are invalid. And yesterday, a former employee of Acorn testified in a Pennsylvania state court that the group's quality-control efforts were "minimal or nonexistent" and largely window dressing. Anita MonCrief also says that Acorn was given lists of potential donors by several Democratic presidential campaigns, including that of Barack Obama, to troll for contributions.
The Obama campaign denies it "has any ties" to Acorn, but Mr. Obama's ties are extensive. In 1992 he headed a registration effort for Project Vote, an Acorn partner at the time. He did so well that he was made a top trainer for Acorn's Chicago conferences. In 1995, he represented Acorn in a key case upholding the constitutionality of the new Motor Voter Act -- the first law passed by the Clinton administration -- which created the mandated, nationwide postcard voter registration system that Acorn workers are using to flood election offices with bogus registrations.
Ms. MonCrief testified that in November 2007 Project Vote development director Karyn Gillette told her she had direct contact with the Obama campaign and had obtained their donor lists. Ms. MonCrief also testified she was given a spreadsheet to use in cultivating Obama donors who had maxed out on donations to the candidate, but who could contribute to voter registration efforts. Project Vote calls the allegation "absolutely false."
She says that when she had trouble with what appeared to be duplicate names on the list, Ms. Gillette told her she would talk with the Obama campaign and get a better version. Ms. MonCrief has given me copies of the donor lists she says were obtained from other Democratic campaigns, as well as the 2004 DNC donor lists.
In her testimony, Ms. MonCrief says she was upset by Acorn's "Muscle for Money" program, which she said intimidated businesses Acorn opposed into paying "protection" money in the form of grants. Acorn's Brian Kettering says the group only wants to change corporate behavior: "Acorn is proud of its corporate campaigns to stop abuses of working families."
Ms. MonCrief, 29, never expected to testify in a case brought by the state's Republican Party seeking the local Acorn affiliate's voter registration lists. An idealistic graduate of the University of Alabama, she joined Project Vote in 2005 because she thought it was empowering poor people. A strategic consultant for Acorn and a development associate with its Project Vote voter registration affiliate, Ms. MonCrief sat in on policy-making meetings with the national staff. She was fired early this year over personal expenses she had put on the group's credit card.
She says she became disillusioned because she saw that Acorn was run as the personal fiefdom of Wade Rathke, who founded the group in 1970 and ran it until he stepped down to take over its international operations this summer. Mr. Rathke's departure as head of Acorn came after revelations he'd employed his brother Dale for a decade while keeping from almost all of Acorn's board members the fact that Dale had embezzled over $1 million from the group a decade ago. (The embezzlement was confirmed to me by an Acorn official.)
"Anyone who questioned what was going on was viewed as the enemy," Ms. MonCrief told me. "Just like the mob, no one leaves Acorn happily." She believes the organization does some good but hopes its current leadership is replaced. She may not be alone.
Last August two of Acorn's eight dissident board members, Marcel Reed and Karen Inman, filed suit demanding access to financial records of Citizens Consulting Inc., the umbrella group through which most of Acorn's money flows. Ms. Inman told a news conference this month Mr. Rathke still exercises power over CCI and Acorn against the board's wishes. Bertha Lewis, the interim head of Acorn, told me Mr. Rathke has no ties to Acorn and that the dissident board members were "obsessed" and "confused."
According to public records, the IRS filed three tax liens totaling almost $1 million against Acorn this spring. Also this spring, CCI was paid $832,000 by the Obama campaign for get-out-the-vote efforts in key primary states. In filings with the Federal Election Commission, the Obama campaign listed the payments as "staging, sound, lighting," only correcting the filings after the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review revealed their true nature.
"Acorn needs a full forensic audit," Ms. MonCrief says, though she doesn't think that's likely. "Everyone wants to paper things over until later," she says. "But it may be too late to reform Acorn then." She strongly supports Barack Obama and hopes his allies can be helpful in cleaning up the group "after the heat of the election is gone."
Acorn's Mr. Kettering says the GOP lawsuit "is designed to suppress legitimate voters," and he says Ms. MonCrief isn't credible, given that she was fired for cause. Ms. MonCrief admits that she left after she began paying back some $3,000 in personal expenses she charged on an Acorn credit card. "I was very sorry, and I was paying it back," she says, but "suddenly Acorn decided that . . . I had to go. Since then I have gotten warnings to 'back off' from people at Acorn."
Acorn insists it operates with strict quality controls, turning in, as required by law, all registration forms "even if the name on them was Donald Duck," as Wade Rathke told me two years ago. Acorn whistleblowers tell a different story.
"There's no quality control on purpose, no checks and balances," says Nate Toler, who worked until 2006 as the head organizer of an Acorn campaign against Wal-Mart in California. And Ms. MonCrief says it is longstanding practice to blame bogus registrations on lower-level employees who then often face criminal charges, a practice she says Acorn internally calls "throwing folks under the bus."
Gregory Hall, a former Acorn employee, says he was told on his very first day in 2006 to engage in deceptive fund-raising tactics. Mr. Hall has founded a group called Speaking Truth to Power to push for a full airing of Acorn's problems "so the group can heal itself from within."
To date, Mr. Obama has declined to criticize Acorn, telling reporters this month he is happy with his own get-out-the-vote efforts and that "we don't need Acorn's help." That may be true. But there is no denying his ties with Acorn helped turbocharge his political career.
Mr. Fund is a columnist for WSJ.com.
ELISABETH HASSELBECK GETS DEATH THREATS FOR MC CAIN SUPPORT!!!????
Elisabeth Hasselbeck Receiving Death Threats For McCain Support
BY: Actress Archives | Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Having engaged in heated arguments with her “View” co-hosts over the current presidential election between senators Barack Obama and John McCain, it’s no surprise conservative Republican Elisabeth Hasselbeck has received the lion’s share of crackpot death threats made to the show.
Known for rocking a self-designed “AmeriMcCain Hero” t-shirt on the popular women’s daytime talk-show, Hasselbeck has been outspoken in recent weeks over her support of McCain and his running mate, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. On Monday, Hasselbeck joined Palin during a rally in Kissimmee Florida to counter recent criticisms of the vice-presidential nominee’s $150,000 wardrobe shopping spree.
And while Hasselbeck and her “View” co-host Whoopi Goldberg couldn’t disagree more on who the next president should be, according to Goldberg, Hasselbeck is not only providing much-needed counterpoint to the show’s ongoing political debates, but is doing so despite receiving the most death threats of anyone on the show.
Speaking to reporters Monday night during a panel discussion regarding art and educational justice at New York’s Cooper Union, Goldberg noted, “Politically we could not be more opposite, but I respect her tremendously.”
“Truth is,” Goldberg adds, “we could not have a dialogue without Elisabeth. It's not that we have to agree, the important thing is that we have the conversation."
This weekend, rumors that “View” co-host Joy Beher and Hasselbeck were not on speaking terms following a politically themed blow-out earlier this month were shot down by one of the show’s reps in an interview with Us Weekly.
According to the rep, “These fabricated rumors about alleged dissention between Elisabeth and Joy are as untrue today as they were yesterday, a week ago and when the rumor(s) first started."
Watching this video aggravates the HELL out of me. Since I saw first hand the political CORRUPTION perpetrated by the Democratic Party during the primaries and continuing into the General Election, and since I've been a PUMA and supporter of John McCain and Sarah Palin, I am now seeing things from "THE OTHER SIDE" and I am seeing things a lot more clearly.
Stupid Barbara Walters repeats that crap that Obama says when talking about Ayers. He was 8 years old when the terrorist attacks took place. SO WHAT? The question is Obama's JUDGEMENT and CHARACTER. WHY does he associate with people who HATE AMERICA? WHY do they associate with HIM? IF this doesn't make one stop and pause and examine these radical associates of Obama, if one doesn't see the pattern here. Obama always saying "he didn't know", lying about anything and everything negative about him. He really thinks Americans are JACKASSES. Thank God, PUMAS can see clearly. I hope PUMAS cost Obama the election. Sometimes REVENGE is oh so SWEET!!!
BY: Actress Archives | Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Having engaged in heated arguments with her “View” co-hosts over the current presidential election between senators Barack Obama and John McCain, it’s no surprise conservative Republican Elisabeth Hasselbeck has received the lion’s share of crackpot death threats made to the show.
Known for rocking a self-designed “AmeriMcCain Hero” t-shirt on the popular women’s daytime talk-show, Hasselbeck has been outspoken in recent weeks over her support of McCain and his running mate, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. On Monday, Hasselbeck joined Palin during a rally in Kissimmee Florida to counter recent criticisms of the vice-presidential nominee’s $150,000 wardrobe shopping spree.
And while Hasselbeck and her “View” co-host Whoopi Goldberg couldn’t disagree more on who the next president should be, according to Goldberg, Hasselbeck is not only providing much-needed counterpoint to the show’s ongoing political debates, but is doing so despite receiving the most death threats of anyone on the show.
Speaking to reporters Monday night during a panel discussion regarding art and educational justice at New York’s Cooper Union, Goldberg noted, “Politically we could not be more opposite, but I respect her tremendously.”
“Truth is,” Goldberg adds, “we could not have a dialogue without Elisabeth. It's not that we have to agree, the important thing is that we have the conversation."
This weekend, rumors that “View” co-host Joy Beher and Hasselbeck were not on speaking terms following a politically themed blow-out earlier this month were shot down by one of the show’s reps in an interview with Us Weekly.
According to the rep, “These fabricated rumors about alleged dissention between Elisabeth and Joy are as untrue today as they were yesterday, a week ago and when the rumor(s) first started."
Watching this video aggravates the HELL out of me. Since I saw first hand the political CORRUPTION perpetrated by the Democratic Party during the primaries and continuing into the General Election, and since I've been a PUMA and supporter of John McCain and Sarah Palin, I am now seeing things from "THE OTHER SIDE" and I am seeing things a lot more clearly.
Stupid Barbara Walters repeats that crap that Obama says when talking about Ayers. He was 8 years old when the terrorist attacks took place. SO WHAT? The question is Obama's JUDGEMENT and CHARACTER. WHY does he associate with people who HATE AMERICA? WHY do they associate with HIM? IF this doesn't make one stop and pause and examine these radical associates of Obama, if one doesn't see the pattern here. Obama always saying "he didn't know", lying about anything and everything negative about him. He really thinks Americans are JACKASSES. Thank God, PUMAS can see clearly. I hope PUMAS cost Obama the election. Sometimes REVENGE is oh so SWEET!!!
SARAH GIVES IT GOOD TO OBAMA AND L.A. TIMES!!!
I love this woman! Doesn't she have SPUNK? She says it like it is, as does John McCain. I can't even understand for the life of me, how ANYONE could possibly choose Obama over McCain???!!! How can you pick an UNQUALIFIED, INEXPERIENCED, NO ACCOMPLISHMENTS, CAUCUS CHEATING, ACORN-GENERAL ELECTION CHEATING, LYING FRAUD WITH NUMEROUS RADICAL ASSOCIATINS OVER A WAR HERO WHO IS HONEST AND HAS INTEGRITY?? A MAN WHO YOU KNOW PUTS HIS COUNTRY FIRST AND LOVES HIS COUNTRY!! I have faith that the American people will feel it in their hearts when they go into that voting booth who they should pull that lever for!! AND IT IS NOT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA!!!!
FROM BLOG: HILLBUZZ: THINGS LOOKING GOOD FOR MC CAIN/PALIN!!!!!
SHOCKER: Team Hillary believes McCain will win New Hampshire, Iowa, and MAINE
Posted by hillbuzz
Tonight’s been a busy night, in that we’ve talked to a half dozen people on three times as many subjects - including Team Hillary members in New Hampshire and Maine, who we know well from the primaries.
Here’s the kicker: these people aren’t McCain supporters. Several are working for Obama now in both states, because they have political jobs and thus must tow the party line. Others are voting Green and no longer campaigning for anyone, but are tuned into things in their states.
We know nothing about New Hampshire or Maine and have never pretended to. We won’t start now. All we’ll tell you is what these people told us tonight, and it’s that they truly do expect John McCain to win both New Hampshire and Maine next week, for the reasons they gave below:
(1) In both states, they have never seen an enthusiasm deficit for Democrats like this. Hillary Democrats there say there are more “closet McCain supporters” than anyone can count. Despite what the media says, people are not enthused and fired up to go out and vote for Obama — quite the contrary: people are scare of Obama’s policies and will be voting McCain. The enthusiasm deficit in both New Hampshire and Maine is “as clear as day” according to those we spoke to tonight. They say they do not see anywhere near the level of Obama signs, stickers, buttons, etc. out this year, as they did Kerry, Gore, Clinton, and even Dukakis gear in years past. They say this is actually shocking, because it should be everywhere, but no one cares enough to put those signs out. No one can use the excuse that there’s not enough money for signs and stickers: Obama’s campaign is supposedly rolling in dough, so why aren’t New Hampshire and Maine blanketed in Obama signs? Because people don’t want them in their yards and won’t be voting for him.
(2) We asked why people in these states are not voting for Obama and were told that in Maine, especially, a lot of it has to do with Joe the Plumber and redistributing the wealth. Much of Maine makes its living off the sea: fishermen pull in $200,000 or more a year in family businesses. Joe Biden’s slip that Obama really intends to define “wealthy” as $150,000 a year or above sent terror through Maine’s fishing community and other small business industries. We were told tonight that Maine and New Hampshire have more small family businesses that would be affected by Obama’s redistribution of wealth than we could imagine. Joe the Plumber resonated with these people — especially the fishermen. Todd Palin was recently dispatched to Maine in what the media claimed was an attempt to score one electoral college vote for Maine: tonight we were told it looks like McCain will win the whole state, not just that one congessional district.
(3) Sarah Palin was the smartest move John McCain could ever have made — she is playing incredibly well in Maine and New Hampshire, two states made up of mostly small towns, all of whom are outdoorsy and have traditions of female mayors, council members, and other high elected officials. Maine has two female United States Senators. That honestly never occured to us until now, but it does make a lot of sense. We knew Hillary Clinton would never win Iowa in the primaries because Iowa’s never elected a woman to high office — Maine has. Many, many times. People relate to Palin and trust John McCain. They like these candidates — while Obama in an unknown whose relationships and judgment make people uneasy. Add the socialism business to the top of this, and we’re told it moves New Hampshire and Maine into the red column.
Like we said at the start of this, we don’t know what to add here because these are two states we didn’t work for Hillary Clinton and that we know little about. The above was reported to us, and passed onto you, but the sources are solid people we know well, and whom we respect.
The other interesting tidbit that came out of the conversation tonight was that of the Hillary Clinton convention delegates who are openly supporting John McCain, the largest number of these people come from states that held caucuses.
We were told tonight that no one is yet picking up on the fact that Democrats in states that held caucuses, and who saw firsthand the fraud, voter intimidation, and other vile tricks Obama pulled in caucus states have NOT forgotten about any of this. These people are still LIVID that a Democrat dared to use Chicago fraud and intimidation to game the caucus system. The Clinton delegates from caucus states have been coordinating efforts amongst themselves for payback against Obama on November 4th, since no state will vote in a caucus then.
We’re told this is the reason that Iowa is so much closer than we ever dreamed it would be. Remember, we have insisted McCain would lose Iowa because of his opposition to ethanol subsidies. So, we’ve been baffled by McCain and Palin’s appearances throughout Iowa, or the fact internals we see show the state incredibly close. We never could figure out why — and it was so obvious this whole time. THE CAUCUS FRAUD Obama committed back in January is coming back to bite him in a HUGE way. Because of the ethanol opposition, McCain should be losing Iowa by large numbers — but the people we spoke to this evening says he’ll end up winning the state, largely because of Democrats who are so disgusted by the behavior of Obama’s followers during the caucuses.
This isn’t just Hillary Democrats either. It’s a large swath of Democrats who feel violated by the tactics Obama employed in their state — bringing thugs from Chicago across the Illinois border to vote in Iowa’s caucuses. People there remember the truth, and will have that in mind on November 4th.
We aren’t prepated to say whether we agree with any of this in terms of New Hampshire, Maine, or Iowa. We still believe Obama will take Iowa because of ethanol, but the people we spoke to were very convincing to the contrary. The ones in Maine and New Hampshire insisted over and over again that they’ve been at this for years and Obama is just not going to win either state.
They have never seen enthusiasm for a Democratic candidate so low — or fear of small-business-killing socialism so high. These people know in their guts McCain will win these states.
It’s how we feel about Ohio, the state we know best and report on frequently here. McCain will win Ohio, with no doubt in our mind. And others feel the same about New Hampshire, Maine, and Iowa.
And all of us agree that on election night, the media will be spinning and sputtering and trying to explain things that those of us on the ground have seen coming for months now.
Posted by hillbuzz
Tonight’s been a busy night, in that we’ve talked to a half dozen people on three times as many subjects - including Team Hillary members in New Hampshire and Maine, who we know well from the primaries.
Here’s the kicker: these people aren’t McCain supporters. Several are working for Obama now in both states, because they have political jobs and thus must tow the party line. Others are voting Green and no longer campaigning for anyone, but are tuned into things in their states.
We know nothing about New Hampshire or Maine and have never pretended to. We won’t start now. All we’ll tell you is what these people told us tonight, and it’s that they truly do expect John McCain to win both New Hampshire and Maine next week, for the reasons they gave below:
(1) In both states, they have never seen an enthusiasm deficit for Democrats like this. Hillary Democrats there say there are more “closet McCain supporters” than anyone can count. Despite what the media says, people are not enthused and fired up to go out and vote for Obama — quite the contrary: people are scare of Obama’s policies and will be voting McCain. The enthusiasm deficit in both New Hampshire and Maine is “as clear as day” according to those we spoke to tonight. They say they do not see anywhere near the level of Obama signs, stickers, buttons, etc. out this year, as they did Kerry, Gore, Clinton, and even Dukakis gear in years past. They say this is actually shocking, because it should be everywhere, but no one cares enough to put those signs out. No one can use the excuse that there’s not enough money for signs and stickers: Obama’s campaign is supposedly rolling in dough, so why aren’t New Hampshire and Maine blanketed in Obama signs? Because people don’t want them in their yards and won’t be voting for him.
(2) We asked why people in these states are not voting for Obama and were told that in Maine, especially, a lot of it has to do with Joe the Plumber and redistributing the wealth. Much of Maine makes its living off the sea: fishermen pull in $200,000 or more a year in family businesses. Joe Biden’s slip that Obama really intends to define “wealthy” as $150,000 a year or above sent terror through Maine’s fishing community and other small business industries. We were told tonight that Maine and New Hampshire have more small family businesses that would be affected by Obama’s redistribution of wealth than we could imagine. Joe the Plumber resonated with these people — especially the fishermen. Todd Palin was recently dispatched to Maine in what the media claimed was an attempt to score one electoral college vote for Maine: tonight we were told it looks like McCain will win the whole state, not just that one congessional district.
(3) Sarah Palin was the smartest move John McCain could ever have made — she is playing incredibly well in Maine and New Hampshire, two states made up of mostly small towns, all of whom are outdoorsy and have traditions of female mayors, council members, and other high elected officials. Maine has two female United States Senators. That honestly never occured to us until now, but it does make a lot of sense. We knew Hillary Clinton would never win Iowa in the primaries because Iowa’s never elected a woman to high office — Maine has. Many, many times. People relate to Palin and trust John McCain. They like these candidates — while Obama in an unknown whose relationships and judgment make people uneasy. Add the socialism business to the top of this, and we’re told it moves New Hampshire and Maine into the red column.
Like we said at the start of this, we don’t know what to add here because these are two states we didn’t work for Hillary Clinton and that we know little about. The above was reported to us, and passed onto you, but the sources are solid people we know well, and whom we respect.
The other interesting tidbit that came out of the conversation tonight was that of the Hillary Clinton convention delegates who are openly supporting John McCain, the largest number of these people come from states that held caucuses.
We were told tonight that no one is yet picking up on the fact that Democrats in states that held caucuses, and who saw firsthand the fraud, voter intimidation, and other vile tricks Obama pulled in caucus states have NOT forgotten about any of this. These people are still LIVID that a Democrat dared to use Chicago fraud and intimidation to game the caucus system. The Clinton delegates from caucus states have been coordinating efforts amongst themselves for payback against Obama on November 4th, since no state will vote in a caucus then.
We’re told this is the reason that Iowa is so much closer than we ever dreamed it would be. Remember, we have insisted McCain would lose Iowa because of his opposition to ethanol subsidies. So, we’ve been baffled by McCain and Palin’s appearances throughout Iowa, or the fact internals we see show the state incredibly close. We never could figure out why — and it was so obvious this whole time. THE CAUCUS FRAUD Obama committed back in January is coming back to bite him in a HUGE way. Because of the ethanol opposition, McCain should be losing Iowa by large numbers — but the people we spoke to this evening says he’ll end up winning the state, largely because of Democrats who are so disgusted by the behavior of Obama’s followers during the caucuses.
This isn’t just Hillary Democrats either. It’s a large swath of Democrats who feel violated by the tactics Obama employed in their state — bringing thugs from Chicago across the Illinois border to vote in Iowa’s caucuses. People there remember the truth, and will have that in mind on November 4th.
We aren’t prepated to say whether we agree with any of this in terms of New Hampshire, Maine, or Iowa. We still believe Obama will take Iowa because of ethanol, but the people we spoke to were very convincing to the contrary. The ones in Maine and New Hampshire insisted over and over again that they’ve been at this for years and Obama is just not going to win either state.
They have never seen enthusiasm for a Democratic candidate so low — or fear of small-business-killing socialism so high. These people know in their guts McCain will win these states.
It’s how we feel about Ohio, the state we know best and report on frequently here. McCain will win Ohio, with no doubt in our mind. And others feel the same about New Hampshire, Maine, and Iowa.
And all of us agree that on election night, the media will be spinning and sputtering and trying to explain things that those of us on the ground have seen coming for months now.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
SARAH'S NOT DOING THIS FOR NAUGHT!!!
Sarah Palin: 'Not Doing This For Naught'
John McCain's Vice Presidential Running Mate Remains Focused on Election Day Win
By RUSSELL GOLDMAN
Oct. 29, 2008
Down in the polls but certainly not out, Gov. Sarah Palin remains in the fight as the campaign enters its final week.
In an interview with ABC News' Elizabeth Vargas, the Republican vice-presidential nominee was asked about 2012, whether she was discouraged by the daily attacks on the campaign trail, and would instead pack it in and return to her home state of Alaska.
"I think that, if I were to give up and wave a white flag of surrender against some of the political shots that we've taken, that would bring this whole … I'm not doing this for naught," Palin said.
Palin said she believed in the current GOP ticket and that she was "thinking that it's going to go our way on Tuesday, Nov. 4. I truly believe that the wisdom of the people will be revealed on that day," she said.
Some sources within the campaign have suggested that Palin's series of public statements that differ from McCain and seem to come as a surprise to the campaign are evidence of her "going rogue."
The Alaska governor has said publicly that the campaign should have continued to fight in Michigan after McCain pulled out of the race there and she condemned the use of negative robocalls, even when McCain publicly approved of them.
Palin surprised the campaign last week when she said her medical records would be released, even though the campaign had not authorized them to be made public. Those records have yet to be made public.
When nominated in September at the Republican National Convention, Palin called herself a "pitbull" and quickly assumed the position of campaign attack dog, aggressively attacking Sen. Barack Obama's relationships and questioning his judgment.
Those attacks have come under increased scrutiny, as Palin has routinely linked Obama with 1960s radical Bill Ayers and today linked Obama to Rashid Khalidi, a Columbia University professor and former PLO associate. Palin has also accused the Democrat of promoting socialism.
Vargas asked Palin if she continued to reference Obama's relationships in order to suggest he was "un-American," an historically loaded term.
Palin said she was not calling Obama "un-American," but was calling attention to his record.
"[I'm] not calling him un-American. There is nothing wrong, though, with calling someone out on their record, their associations… The association issue here, it's not mean spirited. It's not negative campaigning. It's important and fair to the electorate."
In her interview with Vargas, Palin stepped back from comments she made Tuesday in Ohio in which she suggested that if elected, Obama would rewrite the Constitution to allow courts to confiscate private property.
"[I am] asking the question, what do his comments, from back there in 2001, candid comments that are caught on tape, what do they suggest in terms of his idea for future Supreme Court Justices, and perhaps for being able to reach some of the goals that it seems that he has in terms of redistributing other people's wealth… But not an explicit allegation like that," she said.
Palin was referring to a 2001 radio interview Obama gave regarding the Supreme Court when he said, "The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, as least as it's been interpreted."
John McCain's Vice Presidential Running Mate Remains Focused on Election Day Win
By RUSSELL GOLDMAN
Oct. 29, 2008
Down in the polls but certainly not out, Gov. Sarah Palin remains in the fight as the campaign enters its final week.
In an interview with ABC News' Elizabeth Vargas, the Republican vice-presidential nominee was asked about 2012, whether she was discouraged by the daily attacks on the campaign trail, and would instead pack it in and return to her home state of Alaska.
"I think that, if I were to give up and wave a white flag of surrender against some of the political shots that we've taken, that would bring this whole … I'm not doing this for naught," Palin said.
Palin said she believed in the current GOP ticket and that she was "thinking that it's going to go our way on Tuesday, Nov. 4. I truly believe that the wisdom of the people will be revealed on that day," she said.
Some sources within the campaign have suggested that Palin's series of public statements that differ from McCain and seem to come as a surprise to the campaign are evidence of her "going rogue."
The Alaska governor has said publicly that the campaign should have continued to fight in Michigan after McCain pulled out of the race there and she condemned the use of negative robocalls, even when McCain publicly approved of them.
Palin surprised the campaign last week when she said her medical records would be released, even though the campaign had not authorized them to be made public. Those records have yet to be made public.
When nominated in September at the Republican National Convention, Palin called herself a "pitbull" and quickly assumed the position of campaign attack dog, aggressively attacking Sen. Barack Obama's relationships and questioning his judgment.
Those attacks have come under increased scrutiny, as Palin has routinely linked Obama with 1960s radical Bill Ayers and today linked Obama to Rashid Khalidi, a Columbia University professor and former PLO associate. Palin has also accused the Democrat of promoting socialism.
Vargas asked Palin if she continued to reference Obama's relationships in order to suggest he was "un-American," an historically loaded term.
Palin said she was not calling Obama "un-American," but was calling attention to his record.
"[I'm] not calling him un-American. There is nothing wrong, though, with calling someone out on their record, their associations… The association issue here, it's not mean spirited. It's not negative campaigning. It's important and fair to the electorate."
In her interview with Vargas, Palin stepped back from comments she made Tuesday in Ohio in which she suggested that if elected, Obama would rewrite the Constitution to allow courts to confiscate private property.
"[I am] asking the question, what do his comments, from back there in 2001, candid comments that are caught on tape, what do they suggest in terms of his idea for future Supreme Court Justices, and perhaps for being able to reach some of the goals that it seems that he has in terms of redistributing other people's wealth… But not an explicit allegation like that," she said.
Palin was referring to a 2001 radio interview Obama gave regarding the Supreme Court when he said, "The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, as least as it's been interpreted."
SARAH SAYS FIRST DUDE LOOKS LIKE SECRET SERVICE GUY!!!
Palin: First Dude “Looks Like One Of The Secret Service Guys”
(CBS)From CBS News' Scott Conroy:
(CHILLICOTHE, OHIO) - Sarah Palin is no Joe Biden when it comes to cracking jokes on the campaign trail, but she proved here this afternoon that she can make the occasional funny observation.
Palin had just taken the stage at an outdoor rally in this picturesque southern Ohio town, which is located about an hour outside Columbus, when she noticed that she wasn’t being flanked by her usual sidekick.
“Someone I'd like you to meet--he didn’t come out on stage with me,” Palin said. “I'll have to find him, but it's my husband, Alaska's First Dude. I know he looks like one of the Secret Service guys, and so if you read any gossip about any spotting of me holding hands with a Secret Service guy, it's my husband Todd.”
Palin’s husband, a champion snowmobiler, certainly has the physique to meet the minimum qualifications for an agent. His Secret Service codename is “Driller.”
(CBS)From CBS News' Scott Conroy:
(CHILLICOTHE, OHIO) - Sarah Palin is no Joe Biden when it comes to cracking jokes on the campaign trail, but she proved here this afternoon that she can make the occasional funny observation.
Palin had just taken the stage at an outdoor rally in this picturesque southern Ohio town, which is located about an hour outside Columbus, when she noticed that she wasn’t being flanked by her usual sidekick.
“Someone I'd like you to meet--he didn’t come out on stage with me,” Palin said. “I'll have to find him, but it's my husband, Alaska's First Dude. I know he looks like one of the Secret Service guys, and so if you read any gossip about any spotting of me holding hands with a Secret Service guy, it's my husband Todd.”
Palin’s husband, a champion snowmobiler, certainly has the physique to meet the minimum qualifications for an agent. His Secret Service codename is “Driller.”
CBS NEWS LOOKS AT LACK OF OBAMA FUNDRAISING TRANSPARENCY!!!
ICYMI: CBS News Looks At The Lack Of Obama Fundraising Transparency
"The fact that the Obama campaign has not provided more information about who these small donors are really runs counter to his transparency message." -- Sheila Krumholz, Center For Responsive Politics
CBS' "Evening News"
October 27, 2008
CBS' Katie Couric: "If it seems that you're seeing a lot more of Barack Obama on TV, there's a good reason. He raised a lot more money than John McCain, and since clinching the nomination in June, he's outspent him better than 2-1. So where did Senator Obama get that kind of cash? Sharyl Attkisson follows the money."
CBS' Sharyl Attkisson: "Early on, both Barack Obama and John McCain promised to limit their fundraising, but Obama reversed that pledge when he won his party's nomination. Now he ranks as the greatest political fundraiser of all time, more than $600 million, compared to $350 million for McCain. Obama's broken another record. He's gotten more money than anyone in history from unidentified donors with names like 'Doodad' who lists his employer as 'Loving,' and has given more than $17,000, way over federal limits."
Barack Obama: "Ninety percent of our contributions are from small donors."
Attkisson: "And lots of Obama donors don't have to be disclosed at all under federal law because they gave under $200. McCain's posted his small donor list online -- an imperfect list that has some cities listed as 'Anonymous' -- but Obama hasn't given any details at all about who his small donors are, drawing extra criticism after he raised a record-shattering $150 million last month alone."
Center For Response Politics' Sheila Krumholz: "The fact that the Obama campaign has not provided more information about who these small donors are really runs counter to his transparency message."
Attkisson: "You might be surprised by who else besides those unnamed small donors is on the Obama team. Like McCain, Obama's corporate donor list reads like a who's who of the Wall Street collapse, only some are giving more to Obama -- lots more."
Krumholz: "The Obama campaign has just vacuumed up the money in this cycle, specifically from Goldman Sachs. Obama has received over $740,000, as compared to McCain's $220,000."
Attkisson: "Not to mention that the former head of Goldman Sachs, Robert Rubin, is Obama's chief economic advisor, and two current executives are bundling for him. Bundlers are mega-fundraisers who critics say get special access. Another big Obama bundler is Citicorp's Michael Froman. Obama's even tapped him to help put together his new administration. Obama's tripled McCain's hall from Lehman Brothers Interest. Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and J.P. Morgan Chase --more, more, and lots more to Obama. An Obama spokesman told us they followed all federal rules and have gone above and beyond transparency requirements."
Barack Obama: "The real question is, will our country be better off four years from now?"
Attkisson: "The election is still undecided, but the money race, it's not even close. Sharyl Attkisson, CBS News, Washington."
"The fact that the Obama campaign has not provided more information about who these small donors are really runs counter to his transparency message." -- Sheila Krumholz, Center For Responsive Politics
CBS' "Evening News"
October 27, 2008
CBS' Katie Couric: "If it seems that you're seeing a lot more of Barack Obama on TV, there's a good reason. He raised a lot more money than John McCain, and since clinching the nomination in June, he's outspent him better than 2-1. So where did Senator Obama get that kind of cash? Sharyl Attkisson follows the money."
CBS' Sharyl Attkisson: "Early on, both Barack Obama and John McCain promised to limit their fundraising, but Obama reversed that pledge when he won his party's nomination. Now he ranks as the greatest political fundraiser of all time, more than $600 million, compared to $350 million for McCain. Obama's broken another record. He's gotten more money than anyone in history from unidentified donors with names like 'Doodad' who lists his employer as 'Loving,' and has given more than $17,000, way over federal limits."
Barack Obama: "Ninety percent of our contributions are from small donors."
Attkisson: "And lots of Obama donors don't have to be disclosed at all under federal law because they gave under $200. McCain's posted his small donor list online -- an imperfect list that has some cities listed as 'Anonymous' -- but Obama hasn't given any details at all about who his small donors are, drawing extra criticism after he raised a record-shattering $150 million last month alone."
Center For Response Politics' Sheila Krumholz: "The fact that the Obama campaign has not provided more information about who these small donors are really runs counter to his transparency message."
Attkisson: "You might be surprised by who else besides those unnamed small donors is on the Obama team. Like McCain, Obama's corporate donor list reads like a who's who of the Wall Street collapse, only some are giving more to Obama -- lots more."
Krumholz: "The Obama campaign has just vacuumed up the money in this cycle, specifically from Goldman Sachs. Obama has received over $740,000, as compared to McCain's $220,000."
Attkisson: "Not to mention that the former head of Goldman Sachs, Robert Rubin, is Obama's chief economic advisor, and two current executives are bundling for him. Bundlers are mega-fundraisers who critics say get special access. Another big Obama bundler is Citicorp's Michael Froman. Obama's even tapped him to help put together his new administration. Obama's tripled McCain's hall from Lehman Brothers Interest. Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and J.P. Morgan Chase --more, more, and lots more to Obama. An Obama spokesman told us they followed all federal rules and have gone above and beyond transparency requirements."
Barack Obama: "The real question is, will our country be better off four years from now?"
Attkisson: "The election is still undecided, but the money race, it's not even close. Sharyl Attkisson, CBS News, Washington."
FORMER ACORN EMPLOYEE LINKS OBAMA TO ACORN ACTIVITY!!!!!!!!!!!
For Immediate Release
October 29, 2008 Contact: Press Office
Statement on Former ACORN Affliliate Employee's Testimony in Court Linking Obama Campaign Directly to ACORN Activity
ARLINGTON, VA -- Today, McCain-Palin 2008 campaign manager Rick Davis released the following statement in response to the testimony given by a former employee of an ACORN affiliate in a Pennsylvania court of law:
"Today's testimony by a former employee of an ACORN affiliate proves Barack Obama is guilty of lying to the American people about his relationship with ACORN. At the last presidential debate, in front of sixty million people, Barack Obama said his campaign was not involved' with ACORN. We now know that Barack Obama's campaign was working hand-in-glove with an organization reportedly under investigation by the F.B.I. and in more than a dozen states. In addition to funneling $832,000 to ACORN for get-out-the-vote efforts, the Obama campaign and ACORN have been sharing donor lists, encouraging maxed-out Obama donors to contribute to this unethical organization."
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Today, A Former Employee Of ACORN's Sister Organization Testified That A "Donor List" From Barack Obama's Campaign Was Provided In Late 2007 For Fundraising Efforts. "A former staffer for an affiliate of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now testified today that the organization was provided a donor list' from the presidential campaign of Barack Obama in late 2007 for fundraising efforts. Anita Moncrief, a former Washington, D.C. staffer for Project Vote, which she described as a sister organization of ACORN, said her supervisor told her the list of campaign contributors came from the Obama campaign. Moncrief said she has a copy of a development plan' that outlines how Obama contributors who had maxed out' under federal contribution limits would be targeted to give to Project Vote, and that it was her job to identify such contributors. Moncrief testified that ACORN and Project Vote were virtually identical ." (Brad Bumsted, "Former ACORN Staffer Testifies," Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 10/29/08)
During A Presidential Debate, Barack Obama Said He Was Not Involved With ACORN. BARACK OBAMA: "Now, with respect to ACORN, ACORN is a community organization. Apparently what they've done is they were paying people to go out and register folks, and apparently some of the people who were out there didn't really register people, they just filled out a bunch of names. It had nothing to do with us. We were not involved. The only involvement I've had with ACORN was I represented them alongside the U.S. Justice Department in making Illinois implement a motor voter law that helped people get registered at DMVs." (Senator Barack Obama, 2008 Presidential Debate, Hempstead, NY 10/15/08)
Barack Obama Started Working With ACORN In 1992. "What's more, Obama worked as executive directo r of ACORN's voter-registration arm, Project Vote, in 1992." (Editorial, "Is ACORN Stealing The Election?" Investor's Business Daily http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=308358130652174 , 10/8/08)
Barack Obama Represented ACORN In A Lawsuit. "The latest wave of ACORN investigations has provided Republicans with both an opening to assail an old foe, and a new line of criticism to use against the Democratic presidential nominee, who represented ACORN in a lawsuit in the 1990s." (Alexander Burns, "ACORN Gives GOP New Line Of Attack," Politico http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008 /14492.html , 10/11/08)
Barack Obama Trained ACORN Staff. "At the time, Talbot worked at the social action group ACORN and initially considered Obama a competitor. But she became so impressed with his work that she invited him to help train her staff." (Letta Tayler and Keith Herbert, "Obama Forged Path As Chicago Community Organizer," Los Angeles Times http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usobam025598601mar02,1,6933215,full.story , 3/2/08)
When Barack Obama Was On The Board Of Directors Of The Woods Fund, ACORN Received $190,000 Of Grants From The Organization. (Donors Forum Website,http://ifs.donorsforum.org , Accessed 6/10/08)
Barack Obama's Campaign "Paid More Than $800,000" To An ACORN Affiliate For Get-Out-The Vote Efforts. "U.S. Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign paid more than $800,000 to an offshoot of the liberal Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now for services the Democrat's campaign says it mistakenly misrepresented in federal reports." (David M. Brown, "Obama To Amend Report On $800,000 In Spending," Pittsburgh Tribune Review, 8/22/08)
ACORN's Political Action Committee Endorsed Barack Obama. "ACORN's Political Action Committee, ACORN Votes, announced Feb. 21 that it had endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for President." (ACORN, "ACORN's Political Action Committee Endorses Obama," Press Release Acorn.org , 2/21/08)
October 29, 2008 Contact: Press Office
Statement on Former ACORN Affliliate Employee's Testimony in Court Linking Obama Campaign Directly to ACORN Activity
ARLINGTON, VA -- Today, McCain-Palin 2008 campaign manager Rick Davis released the following statement in response to the testimony given by a former employee of an ACORN affiliate in a Pennsylvania court of law:
"Today's testimony by a former employee of an ACORN affiliate proves Barack Obama is guilty of lying to the American people about his relationship with ACORN. At the last presidential debate, in front of sixty million people, Barack Obama said his campaign was not involved' with ACORN. We now know that Barack Obama's campaign was working hand-in-glove with an organization reportedly under investigation by the F.B.I. and in more than a dozen states. In addition to funneling $832,000 to ACORN for get-out-the-vote efforts, the Obama campaign and ACORN have been sharing donor lists, encouraging maxed-out Obama donors to contribute to this unethical organization."
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Today, A Former Employee Of ACORN's Sister Organization Testified That A "Donor List" From Barack Obama's Campaign Was Provided In Late 2007 For Fundraising Efforts. "A former staffer for an affiliate of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now testified today that the organization was provided a donor list' from the presidential campaign of Barack Obama in late 2007 for fundraising efforts. Anita Moncrief, a former Washington, D.C. staffer for Project Vote, which she described as a sister organization of ACORN, said her supervisor told her the list of campaign contributors came from the Obama campaign. Moncrief said she has a copy of a development plan' that outlines how Obama contributors who had maxed out' under federal contribution limits would be targeted to give to Project Vote, and that it was her job to identify such contributors. Moncrief testified that ACORN and Project Vote were virtually identical ." (Brad Bumsted, "Former ACORN Staffer Testifies," Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 10/29/08)
During A Presidential Debate, Barack Obama Said He Was Not Involved With ACORN. BARACK OBAMA: "Now, with respect to ACORN, ACORN is a community organization. Apparently what they've done is they were paying people to go out and register folks, and apparently some of the people who were out there didn't really register people, they just filled out a bunch of names. It had nothing to do with us. We were not involved. The only involvement I've had with ACORN was I represented them alongside the U.S. Justice Department in making Illinois implement a motor voter law that helped people get registered at DMVs." (Senator Barack Obama, 2008 Presidential Debate, Hempstead, NY 10/15/08)
Barack Obama Started Working With ACORN In 1992. "What's more, Obama worked as executive directo r of ACORN's voter-registration arm, Project Vote, in 1992." (Editorial, "Is ACORN Stealing The Election?" Investor's Business Daily http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=308358130652174 , 10/8/08)
Barack Obama Represented ACORN In A Lawsuit. "The latest wave of ACORN investigations has provided Republicans with both an opening to assail an old foe, and a new line of criticism to use against the Democratic presidential nominee, who represented ACORN in a lawsuit in the 1990s." (Alexander Burns, "ACORN Gives GOP New Line Of Attack," Politico http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008 /14492.html , 10/11/08)
Barack Obama Trained ACORN Staff. "At the time, Talbot worked at the social action group ACORN and initially considered Obama a competitor. But she became so impressed with his work that she invited him to help train her staff." (Letta Tayler and Keith Herbert, "Obama Forged Path As Chicago Community Organizer," Los Angeles Times http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usobam025598601mar02,1,6933215,full.story , 3/2/08)
When Barack Obama Was On The Board Of Directors Of The Woods Fund, ACORN Received $190,000 Of Grants From The Organization. (Donors Forum Website,http://ifs.donorsforum.org , Accessed 6/10/08)
Barack Obama's Campaign "Paid More Than $800,000" To An ACORN Affiliate For Get-Out-The Vote Efforts. "U.S. Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign paid more than $800,000 to an offshoot of the liberal Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now for services the Democrat's campaign says it mistakenly misrepresented in federal reports." (David M. Brown, "Obama To Amend Report On $800,000 In Spending," Pittsburgh Tribune Review, 8/22/08)
ACORN's Political Action Committee Endorsed Barack Obama. "ACORN's Political Action Committee, ACORN Votes, announced Feb. 21 that it had endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for President." (ACORN, "ACORN's Political Action Committee Endorses Obama," Press Release Acorn.org , 2/21/08)
ACORN MAY BE PROSECUTED FOR RACKETEERING!!!!
Indiana Secretary of State believes there is a Criminal Conspiracy going on with ACORN and voter fraud. I hope ACORN is prosecuted. And I hope Obama is prosecuted, too!!!
"SO LONG, DEMOCRATS" BY WENDY BUTTON
A speechwriter for Obama, Edwards, and Clinton on why she’s voting McCain.
Since I started writing speeches more than ten years ago, I have always believed in the Democratic Party. Not anymore. Not after the election of 2008. This transformation has been swift and complete and since I’m a woman writing in the election of 2008, “very emotional.”
When I entered this campaign, it was at the 2006 Edwards staff Christmas party. My nametag read “Millie Worker.” When former Senator John Edwards read it, he laughed and said, “That makes you like my parent.” He went on to say, “Would you please come down to Chapel Hill so we can talk about what’s coming up.” I sat in John and Elizabeth’s living room for two and half hours. I left North Carolina, energized about politics for the first time in months.
Not only has this party belittled working people in this campaign, it has also been part of tearing down two female candidates.
I didn’t hear from anyone for three weeks.
When I finally received the official offer, it was the kind of political offer that said, “Go away.” That happens. It’s their campaign and I just assumed that I had been pushed out. The problem was that I had canceled a number of freelance writing jobs because I had assumed that when John said, “Start right away” I would. I needed a job right away and so I took the one in front of me with Senator Barack Obama.
When we first met, Obama and I had a nice conversation about speeches and writing, and at the end of the meeting I handed him a pocket-sized bottle of Grey Poupon mustard so he wouldn’t have to ask staff if it was okay to put it on his hamburger. At the bottom of the bottle was the logo for “The South Beach Diet” and he snapped, “Oh so you read People magazine.” He seemed to think that I was commenting on his bathing suit picture.
I helped with his announcement speech and others. I worked in the Senate when he was in D.C. One day after a hearing on Darfur, we were walking back to the office. I was still hobbling from a very bad ankle injury and in a very kind and gentle way he offered his arm when we approached the stairs. But later in debate preps and phone conversations and meetings, I realized that I had made a mistake. I didn’t belong. No matter how hard I tried, my heart wasn’t in it anymore.
See campaigns get complicated when you’ve written for so many Democrats. Not only had I written for Senator Edwards, but I had also been Senator Hillary Clinton’s speechwriter. Senator Joe Biden is a “good looking” man and his care after my father almost died from an aneurysm is the kind of kindness you never forget. When I saw Edwards at a traffic light in D.C. about a year after our meeting, he asked for help and I did and it was an honor to help him with his concession speech. And when the primary ended, it was a privilege to help Michelle Obama with a stump speech, be considered as a speechwriter for the V.P. nominee again, and send friends in Chicago ideas until the financial crisis hit. This is what the Democratic Party has been for me; it’s family. Now, it doesn’t even feel like a distant cousin.
This drift started on a personal level with the fall of former Senator John Edwards. It got stronger during the Democratic National Convention when I counted the substantive mentions of poverty on one hand and a whole bunch of bad canned partisan lines against Senator John McCain. Some faith was lifted after Senator Hillary Clinton’s grace during a difficult hour. But that faith was dashed when I saw that someone had raided the Caligula set and planted the old columns at Invesco Field.
The final straw came the other week when Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher (a.k.a Joe the Plumber) asked a question about higher taxes for small businesses. Instead of celebrating his aspirations, they were mocked. He wasn’t “a real plumber,” and “They’re fighting for Joe the Hedge-Fund manager,” and the patronizing, “I’ve got nothing but love for Joe the Plumber.”
Having worked in politics, I know that absolutely none of this is on the level. This back and forth is posturing, a charade, and a political game. These lines are what I refer to as “hooker lines”—a sure thing to get applause and the press to scribble as if they’re reporting meaningful news.
As the nation slouches toward disaster, the level of political discourse is unworthy of this moment in history. We have Republicans raising Ayers and Democrats fostering ageism with “erratic” and jokes about Depends. Sexism. Racism. Ageism and maybe some Socialism have all made their ugly cameos in election 2008. It’s not inspiring. Perhaps this is why I found the initial mocking of Joe so offensive and I realized an old line applied: “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party; the Democratic Party left me.”
The party I believed in wouldn’t look down on working people under any circumstance. And Joe the Plumber is right. This is the absolutely worst time to raise taxes on anyone: the rich, the middle class, the poor, small businesses and corporations.
Our economy is in the tank for many complicated reasons, especially because people don’t have enough money. So let them keep it. Let businesses keep it so they can create jobs and stay here and weather this storm. And yet, the Democratic ideology remains the same. Our approach to problems—big government solutions paid for by taxing the rich and big and smaller companies—is just as tired and out of date as trickle down economics. How about a novel approach that simply finds a sane way to stop the bleeding?
That’s not exactly the philosophy of a Democrat. Not only has this party belittled working people in this campaign from Joe the Plumber to the bitter comments, it has also been part of tearing down two female candidates. At first, certain Democrats and the press called Senator Clinton “dishonest.” They went after her cleavage. They said her experience as First Lady consisted of having tea parties. There was no outrage over “Bros before Hoes” or “Iron My Shirt.” Did Senator Clinton make mistakes? Of course. She’s human.
But here we are about a week out and it’s déjà vu all over again. Really, front-page news is how the Republican National Committee paid for Governor Sarah Palin’s wardrobe? Where’s the op-ed about how Obama tucks in his shirt when he plays basketball or how Senator Biden buttons the top button on his golf shirt?
Oh right, this story goes to the sincerity of her Hockey Mom persona. What planet am I living on? Everyone knows that when it comes to appearance, there’s a double standard for women politicians. Remember the speech Speaker Pelosi gave on the floor the day of the bailout vote? Check out how many stories commented on her hair that day and how many mentioned Congressman Barney Frank’s.
Here we are discussing Governor Palin’s clothes—oh wait, now we’re on to the make-up—not what either man is going to do to save our economy. This isn’t an accident. It is part of a manufactured narrative that she is stupid.
Governor Palin and I don’t agree on a lot of things, mostly social issues. But I have grown to appreciate the Governor. I was one of those initial skeptics and would laugh at the pictures. Not anymore. When someone takes on a corrupt political machine and a sitting governor, that is not done by someone with a low I.Q. or a moral core made of tissue paper. When someone fights her way to get scholarships and work her way through college even in a jagged line, that shows determination and humility you can’t learn from reading Reinhold Niebuhr. When a mother brings her son with special needs onto the national stage with love, honesty, and pride, that gives hope to families like mine as my older brother lives with a mental disability. And when someone can sit on a stage during the Sarah Palin rap on Saturday Night Live, put her hands in the air and watch someone in a moose costume get shot—that’s a sign of both humor and humanity.
Has she made mistakes? Of course, she’s human too. But the attention paid to her mistakes has been unprecedented compared to Senator Obama’s “57 states” remarks or Senator Biden using a version of the Samuel Johnson quote, “There’s nothing like a hanging in the morning to focus a man’s thoughts.”
But thank God for election 2008. We can talk about the wardrobe and make-up even though most people don’t understand the details about Senator Obama’s plan with Iraq. When he says, “all combat troops,” he’s not talking about all troops—it leaves a residual force of as large as 55,000 indefinitely. That’s not ending the war; that’s half a war.
I was dead wrong about the surge and thought it would be a disaster. Senator John McCain led when many of us were ready to quit. Yet we march on as if nothing has changed, wedded to an old plan, and that too is a long way from the Democratic Party.
I can no longer justify what this party has done and can’t dismiss the treatment of women and working people as just part of the new kind of politics. It’s wrong and someone has to say that. And also say that the Democratic Party’s talking points—that Senator John McCain is just four more years of the same and that he’s President Bush—are now just hooker lines that fit a very effective and perhaps wave-winning political argument…doesn’t mean they’re true. After all, he is the only one who’s worked in a bipartisan way on big challenges.
Before I cast my vote, I will correct my party affiliation and change it to No Party or Independent. Then, in the spirit of election 2008, I’ll get a manicure, pedicure, and my hair done. Might as well look pretty when I am unemployed in a city swimming with “D’s.”
Whatever inspiration I had in Chapel Hill two years ago is gone. When people say how excited they are about this election, I can now say, “Maybe for you. But I lost my home.”
Since I started writing speeches more than ten years ago, I have always believed in the Democratic Party. Not anymore. Not after the election of 2008. This transformation has been swift and complete and since I’m a woman writing in the election of 2008, “very emotional.”
When I entered this campaign, it was at the 2006 Edwards staff Christmas party. My nametag read “Millie Worker.” When former Senator John Edwards read it, he laughed and said, “That makes you like my parent.” He went on to say, “Would you please come down to Chapel Hill so we can talk about what’s coming up.” I sat in John and Elizabeth’s living room for two and half hours. I left North Carolina, energized about politics for the first time in months.
Not only has this party belittled working people in this campaign, it has also been part of tearing down two female candidates.
I didn’t hear from anyone for three weeks.
When I finally received the official offer, it was the kind of political offer that said, “Go away.” That happens. It’s their campaign and I just assumed that I had been pushed out. The problem was that I had canceled a number of freelance writing jobs because I had assumed that when John said, “Start right away” I would. I needed a job right away and so I took the one in front of me with Senator Barack Obama.
When we first met, Obama and I had a nice conversation about speeches and writing, and at the end of the meeting I handed him a pocket-sized bottle of Grey Poupon mustard so he wouldn’t have to ask staff if it was okay to put it on his hamburger. At the bottom of the bottle was the logo for “The South Beach Diet” and he snapped, “Oh so you read People magazine.” He seemed to think that I was commenting on his bathing suit picture.
I helped with his announcement speech and others. I worked in the Senate when he was in D.C. One day after a hearing on Darfur, we were walking back to the office. I was still hobbling from a very bad ankle injury and in a very kind and gentle way he offered his arm when we approached the stairs. But later in debate preps and phone conversations and meetings, I realized that I had made a mistake. I didn’t belong. No matter how hard I tried, my heart wasn’t in it anymore.
See campaigns get complicated when you’ve written for so many Democrats. Not only had I written for Senator Edwards, but I had also been Senator Hillary Clinton’s speechwriter. Senator Joe Biden is a “good looking” man and his care after my father almost died from an aneurysm is the kind of kindness you never forget. When I saw Edwards at a traffic light in D.C. about a year after our meeting, he asked for help and I did and it was an honor to help him with his concession speech. And when the primary ended, it was a privilege to help Michelle Obama with a stump speech, be considered as a speechwriter for the V.P. nominee again, and send friends in Chicago ideas until the financial crisis hit. This is what the Democratic Party has been for me; it’s family. Now, it doesn’t even feel like a distant cousin.
This drift started on a personal level with the fall of former Senator John Edwards. It got stronger during the Democratic National Convention when I counted the substantive mentions of poverty on one hand and a whole bunch of bad canned partisan lines against Senator John McCain. Some faith was lifted after Senator Hillary Clinton’s grace during a difficult hour. But that faith was dashed when I saw that someone had raided the Caligula set and planted the old columns at Invesco Field.
The final straw came the other week when Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher (a.k.a Joe the Plumber) asked a question about higher taxes for small businesses. Instead of celebrating his aspirations, they were mocked. He wasn’t “a real plumber,” and “They’re fighting for Joe the Hedge-Fund manager,” and the patronizing, “I’ve got nothing but love for Joe the Plumber.”
Having worked in politics, I know that absolutely none of this is on the level. This back and forth is posturing, a charade, and a political game. These lines are what I refer to as “hooker lines”—a sure thing to get applause and the press to scribble as if they’re reporting meaningful news.
As the nation slouches toward disaster, the level of political discourse is unworthy of this moment in history. We have Republicans raising Ayers and Democrats fostering ageism with “erratic” and jokes about Depends. Sexism. Racism. Ageism and maybe some Socialism have all made their ugly cameos in election 2008. It’s not inspiring. Perhaps this is why I found the initial mocking of Joe so offensive and I realized an old line applied: “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party; the Democratic Party left me.”
The party I believed in wouldn’t look down on working people under any circumstance. And Joe the Plumber is right. This is the absolutely worst time to raise taxes on anyone: the rich, the middle class, the poor, small businesses and corporations.
Our economy is in the tank for many complicated reasons, especially because people don’t have enough money. So let them keep it. Let businesses keep it so they can create jobs and stay here and weather this storm. And yet, the Democratic ideology remains the same. Our approach to problems—big government solutions paid for by taxing the rich and big and smaller companies—is just as tired and out of date as trickle down economics. How about a novel approach that simply finds a sane way to stop the bleeding?
That’s not exactly the philosophy of a Democrat. Not only has this party belittled working people in this campaign from Joe the Plumber to the bitter comments, it has also been part of tearing down two female candidates. At first, certain Democrats and the press called Senator Clinton “dishonest.” They went after her cleavage. They said her experience as First Lady consisted of having tea parties. There was no outrage over “Bros before Hoes” or “Iron My Shirt.” Did Senator Clinton make mistakes? Of course. She’s human.
But here we are about a week out and it’s déjà vu all over again. Really, front-page news is how the Republican National Committee paid for Governor Sarah Palin’s wardrobe? Where’s the op-ed about how Obama tucks in his shirt when he plays basketball or how Senator Biden buttons the top button on his golf shirt?
Oh right, this story goes to the sincerity of her Hockey Mom persona. What planet am I living on? Everyone knows that when it comes to appearance, there’s a double standard for women politicians. Remember the speech Speaker Pelosi gave on the floor the day of the bailout vote? Check out how many stories commented on her hair that day and how many mentioned Congressman Barney Frank’s.
Here we are discussing Governor Palin’s clothes—oh wait, now we’re on to the make-up—not what either man is going to do to save our economy. This isn’t an accident. It is part of a manufactured narrative that she is stupid.
Governor Palin and I don’t agree on a lot of things, mostly social issues. But I have grown to appreciate the Governor. I was one of those initial skeptics and would laugh at the pictures. Not anymore. When someone takes on a corrupt political machine and a sitting governor, that is not done by someone with a low I.Q. or a moral core made of tissue paper. When someone fights her way to get scholarships and work her way through college even in a jagged line, that shows determination and humility you can’t learn from reading Reinhold Niebuhr. When a mother brings her son with special needs onto the national stage with love, honesty, and pride, that gives hope to families like mine as my older brother lives with a mental disability. And when someone can sit on a stage during the Sarah Palin rap on Saturday Night Live, put her hands in the air and watch someone in a moose costume get shot—that’s a sign of both humor and humanity.
Has she made mistakes? Of course, she’s human too. But the attention paid to her mistakes has been unprecedented compared to Senator Obama’s “57 states” remarks or Senator Biden using a version of the Samuel Johnson quote, “There’s nothing like a hanging in the morning to focus a man’s thoughts.”
But thank God for election 2008. We can talk about the wardrobe and make-up even though most people don’t understand the details about Senator Obama’s plan with Iraq. When he says, “all combat troops,” he’s not talking about all troops—it leaves a residual force of as large as 55,000 indefinitely. That’s not ending the war; that’s half a war.
I was dead wrong about the surge and thought it would be a disaster. Senator John McCain led when many of us were ready to quit. Yet we march on as if nothing has changed, wedded to an old plan, and that too is a long way from the Democratic Party.
I can no longer justify what this party has done and can’t dismiss the treatment of women and working people as just part of the new kind of politics. It’s wrong and someone has to say that. And also say that the Democratic Party’s talking points—that Senator John McCain is just four more years of the same and that he’s President Bush—are now just hooker lines that fit a very effective and perhaps wave-winning political argument…doesn’t mean they’re true. After all, he is the only one who’s worked in a bipartisan way on big challenges.
Before I cast my vote, I will correct my party affiliation and change it to No Party or Independent. Then, in the spirit of election 2008, I’ll get a manicure, pedicure, and my hair done. Might as well look pretty when I am unemployed in a city swimming with “D’s.”
Whatever inspiration I had in Chapel Hill two years ago is gone. When people say how excited they are about this election, I can now say, “Maybe for you. But I lost my home.”
SARAH TELLS NEWSPAPER TO RELEASE THE TAPE!!!
October 29th, 2008
Palin Links Obama to Khalidi, Calls on LA Times to Release Tape
by Shushannah Walshe
BOWLING GREEN, OH — At a rally at Bowling Green University, Sarah Palin launched into one of her most scathing attacks of the campaign questioning Barack Obama’s support of Israel by linking him to a Columbia University professor who also served as the spokesperson for the Palestinian Liberation Organization.
“Now interesting what we are finding out in the last couple days about this assortment of friends from Chicago that Barack–that Barack Obama has. In case you missed the latest item let me summarize.” Palin said, “It seems that there is yet another radical professor from the neighborhood who spent a lot of time with Barack Obama going back several years. This is important because his associate, Rashid Khalidi he in addition to being a political ally of Barack Obama he’s a former spokesperson for the Palestinian Liberation Organization.”
She then slammed the Los Angeles Times for refusing to release a tape that the newspaper’s editors say shows Obama praising Khalidi at a 2003 party. Khalidi has a history of expressing anti-Israel views. The newspaper reported on the banquet and Obama and Khalidi’s relationship in an article published six months ago. Palin then questioned what Obama may have said about Israel at the party directly questioning his support of the country.
“And the twist here is that there’s a videotape of a party for this person, back in 2003, a celebration of him, and Barack was there, and we know some very derogatory things were said there about Israel and America’s support for that great nation. And among other things, Israel was described there as the perpetrator of terrorism instead of the victim. What we don’t know, what we don’t know is how Barack Obama responded to these slurs on a country that he now professes to support, and the reason is the newspaper that has the tape, the Los Angeles Times, refuses to release it,” Palin said.
She then accused the L.A. Times of not releasing the tape because of a desire to protect the Democratic nominee and called on them to release the tapes stressing that “it’s not too late.”
“It must be nice for a candidate to have major news organizations looking after his best interests like that. Maybe some politicians would love to have a pet newspaper of their very own. In this case-in this case we have a newspaper willing to throw aside even the public’s right to know in order to protect a candidate that its own editorial board has endorsed.” Palin said, “And if there’s a Pulitzer Prize category for excelling in kowtowing, then the L.A. Times, you’re winning. But it’s not too late, and if there is an ounce of credibility there, if the newspaper wants to keep that shred of credibility, let alone its dignity, than I say the public has a right to know. Let’s go to the videotape, LA Times.”
The L.A. Times says its promise to a confidential source prevents the paper from releasing the video
At the same rally, Palin was joined on stage by the most famous plumber in history, Joe Wurzelbacher. Palin greeted Joe the Plumber warmly, but he did not speak instead standing silently next to GOP Vice-Presidential candidate as she delivered her remarks.
Palin Links Obama to Khalidi, Calls on LA Times to Release Tape
by Shushannah Walshe
BOWLING GREEN, OH — At a rally at Bowling Green University, Sarah Palin launched into one of her most scathing attacks of the campaign questioning Barack Obama’s support of Israel by linking him to a Columbia University professor who also served as the spokesperson for the Palestinian Liberation Organization.
“Now interesting what we are finding out in the last couple days about this assortment of friends from Chicago that Barack–that Barack Obama has. In case you missed the latest item let me summarize.” Palin said, “It seems that there is yet another radical professor from the neighborhood who spent a lot of time with Barack Obama going back several years. This is important because his associate, Rashid Khalidi he in addition to being a political ally of Barack Obama he’s a former spokesperson for the Palestinian Liberation Organization.”
She then slammed the Los Angeles Times for refusing to release a tape that the newspaper’s editors say shows Obama praising Khalidi at a 2003 party. Khalidi has a history of expressing anti-Israel views. The newspaper reported on the banquet and Obama and Khalidi’s relationship in an article published six months ago. Palin then questioned what Obama may have said about Israel at the party directly questioning his support of the country.
“And the twist here is that there’s a videotape of a party for this person, back in 2003, a celebration of him, and Barack was there, and we know some very derogatory things were said there about Israel and America’s support for that great nation. And among other things, Israel was described there as the perpetrator of terrorism instead of the victim. What we don’t know, what we don’t know is how Barack Obama responded to these slurs on a country that he now professes to support, and the reason is the newspaper that has the tape, the Los Angeles Times, refuses to release it,” Palin said.
She then accused the L.A. Times of not releasing the tape because of a desire to protect the Democratic nominee and called on them to release the tapes stressing that “it’s not too late.”
“It must be nice for a candidate to have major news organizations looking after his best interests like that. Maybe some politicians would love to have a pet newspaper of their very own. In this case-in this case we have a newspaper willing to throw aside even the public’s right to know in order to protect a candidate that its own editorial board has endorsed.” Palin said, “And if there’s a Pulitzer Prize category for excelling in kowtowing, then the L.A. Times, you’re winning. But it’s not too late, and if there is an ounce of credibility there, if the newspaper wants to keep that shred of credibility, let alone its dignity, than I say the public has a right to know. Let’s go to the videotape, LA Times.”
The L.A. Times says its promise to a confidential source prevents the paper from releasing the video
At the same rally, Palin was joined on stage by the most famous plumber in history, Joe Wurzelbacher. Palin greeted Joe the Plumber warmly, but he did not speak instead standing silently next to GOP Vice-Presidential candidate as she delivered her remarks.
OBAMA AND ODINGA - THE BUTCHER OF KENYA!!!
Never in my 55 years have I ever seen a candidate for President of the United States, have so many ties to people who HATE AMERICA. IF it doesn't seem WRONG to YOU, then I think you should question WHY it doesn't. America has been fighting a war in Iraq for over 5 years. We are fighting terrorism. And yet so many Americans are anxious to elect a man who loves to associate with terrorists, criminals, and people who HATE our country.
This is also a man who REFUSES to show his birth certificate. We don't even KNOW if he is Constitutionally ELIGIBLE to even BE president. How can he swear that he will uphold the Constitution if his very presidency is BREAKING IT??
HOW MANY MORE RADICALS ARE IN OBAMA'S CLOSET????
Palin accuses Obama of ties to second 'radical professor
Gov. Sarah Palin says Sen. Barack Obama has ties to ex-"PLO spokesman"
(CNN) -- Gov. Sarah Palin on Wednesday said Sen. Barack Obama has ties to a Columbia University professor, whom she called "a former spokesperson for the Palestinian Liberation Organization."
The Obama campaign said on its Web site that "ugly insinuations about Barack Obama's relationship with a former neighbor and university colleague ... are completely false." The professor has denied he was a PLO spokesman.
Palin said her assertion "is not negative campaigning to call someone out on their record."
"It seems that there is yet another radical professor from the neighborhood who spent a lot of time with Barack Obama going back several years," Palin said at an event in Bowling Green, Ohio.
"This is important because his associate, Rashid Khalidi ... in addition to being a political ally of Barack Obama, he's a former spokesperson for the Palestinian Liberation Organization."
Sen. John McCain's campaign repeatedly has sought to tie Obama to former 1960s radical William Ayers, who co-founded the Weather Underground. Ayers is a professor at the University of Illinois.
Khalidi -- whose name Palin mispronounced -- is a leading scholar of Middle Eastern studies at Columbia, and he was a contemporary of Obama's while on faculty at the University of Chicago.
Khalidi has been a harsh critic of U.S. foreign policy toward Israel and has accused the country of "occupying" Palestinian territories. But he has denied acting as a PLO spokesman during a seven-year period in the 1970s and 1980s.
Khalidi said Wednesday, "I am not speaking to the media at this time, and certainly not until this idiot wind passes."
The Obama campaign called Palin's remarks "another recycled, manufactured controversy from the McCain campaign to distract voters' attention from John McCain's lock-step support for George Bush's economic policies."
In April, the Los Angeles Times published an article about a going-away dinner for Khalidi that Obama attended in Chicago, Illinois, in 2003. Khalidi was leaving to become a professor at Columbia.
The paper reported that a young Palestinian-American woman recited a poem at the farewell party that accused the Israeli government of terrorism for its treatment of Palestinians and was highly critical of U.S. support of Israel.
The McCain campaign accused the Los Angeles paper of "intentionally suppressing" a videotape it obtained from that dinner and demanded that it release the footage.
"What we don't know, what we don't know is how Barack Obama responded to these slurs on a country that he now professes to support, and the reason is the newspaper that has the tape, the Los Angeles Times, refuses to release it," Palin said.
The Times said it won't release the footage because a reporter promised a source that the video would not be made public.
Asked why the McCain campaign was bringing the matter up six months after the article appeared, an aide said that "because we are one week away from potentially electing Barack Obama."
At an event with Jewish voters in Boca Raton, Florida, in May, Obama said that he knows Khalidi through teaching at the University of Chicago and because their children attended the same school.
Obama said he is a "scholar, although he vehemently disagrees with a lot of Israel's policy."
"To pluck out one person who I know and who I've had a conversation with who has very different views than 900 of my friends and then to suggest that somehow that shows that maybe I'm not sufficiently pro-Israel, I think, is a very problematic stand to take," Obama said. "So we've got to be careful about guilt by association."
At an event Wednesday in Raleigh, North Carolina, Obama said McCain has spent the last few days calling him "every name in the book."
"Lately, he's called me a socialist for wanting to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can finally give tax relief to the middle class," Obama said. "I don't know what's next. By the end of the week, he'll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten. I shared my peanut butter and jelly sandwich."
Earlier Wednesday, Palin delivered her second policy address of the campaign season. Watch more on the final stretch »
Palin said that she and McCain are determined to put the country on "a path toward energy independence" and charged that an Obama administration would hinder that process.
Palin pointed to her experience as governor as evidence that she can help the U.S. achieve energy security.
"Whatever the good ol' boys are running these days, I know it's not the state of Alaska. And that's the kind of reform that we need -- serious reform in Washington, D.C, because the stakes for our country could not be higher," she said in Toledo, Ohio.
Palin said that by relying on oil from the Middle East, "we not only provide wealth to the sponsors of terror, but we provide high-value targets to the terrorists themselves."
The Alaska governor stressed expanding drilling, using nuclear power and tapping into the "American ingenuity" to solve the energy problem.
"Energy security is one of the great questions in this election," Palin said. "Sometimes I think it's no wonder that our opponents don't want to talk a whole lot about this because they don't get it."
Achieving energy security, Palin said, requires a "clean break" from the policies of the Bush administration and from "30 years' worth of failed energy policies in Washington."
Palin described the energy plans of Obama and Sen. Joe Biden as a "long, labored agenda of inaction."
The Obama campaign sent out a response from Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, which said, "Palin attacked her own running mate's record today by blaming our oil addiction on 'thirty years of failure' in Washington."
Later Wednesday, McCain and Obama both planned to campaign in Florida, a battleground state worth 27 electoral votes.
The senator from Arizona also was scheduled to appear on CNN's "Larry King Live" at 9 p.m. ET Wednesday.
Nationally, Obama holds a lead of 8 percentage points over McCain, 51 percent to 43 percent, according to CNN's poll of polls.
As a part of his final push, the Obama campaign on Wednesday planned to release a 30-minute campaign ad during prime-time television.
It's the first time in 16 years that a presidential candidate has bought a slot in prime time to make his closing argument. The half-hour ad was set to run on NBC, CBS, Fox and Univision at 8 p.m. ET.
The spot, which is estimated to have cost about $5 million, includes a live segment from Florida, with voters discussing their problems and Obama laying out his plans for the country.
CNN declined the Obama campaign's request to air the ad. CNN said it did not want to pre-empt its programming lineup with a 30-minute paid commercial program.
Obama's closing effort also includes an appearance on Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" and a late-night rally in Kissimmee with former President Clinton.
Republicans have been poking fun at Obama's prime-time blitz. In a fundraising e-mail from Palin, she says, "Combined, the Obama-Biden Democrats' television advertising budget is larger than McDonald's and Diet Coke."
The McCain campaign also released an ad Wednesday morning that says, "Behind the fancy speeches, the grand promises, the TV specials lies the truth ... Barack Obama lacks the experience America needs, and it shows."
Gov. Sarah Palin says Sen. Barack Obama has ties to ex-"PLO spokesman"
(CNN) -- Gov. Sarah Palin on Wednesday said Sen. Barack Obama has ties to a Columbia University professor, whom she called "a former spokesperson for the Palestinian Liberation Organization."
The Obama campaign said on its Web site that "ugly insinuations about Barack Obama's relationship with a former neighbor and university colleague ... are completely false." The professor has denied he was a PLO spokesman.
Palin said her assertion "is not negative campaigning to call someone out on their record."
"It seems that there is yet another radical professor from the neighborhood who spent a lot of time with Barack Obama going back several years," Palin said at an event in Bowling Green, Ohio.
"This is important because his associate, Rashid Khalidi ... in addition to being a political ally of Barack Obama, he's a former spokesperson for the Palestinian Liberation Organization."
Sen. John McCain's campaign repeatedly has sought to tie Obama to former 1960s radical William Ayers, who co-founded the Weather Underground. Ayers is a professor at the University of Illinois.
Khalidi -- whose name Palin mispronounced -- is a leading scholar of Middle Eastern studies at Columbia, and he was a contemporary of Obama's while on faculty at the University of Chicago.
Khalidi has been a harsh critic of U.S. foreign policy toward Israel and has accused the country of "occupying" Palestinian territories. But he has denied acting as a PLO spokesman during a seven-year period in the 1970s and 1980s.
Khalidi said Wednesday, "I am not speaking to the media at this time, and certainly not until this idiot wind passes."
The Obama campaign called Palin's remarks "another recycled, manufactured controversy from the McCain campaign to distract voters' attention from John McCain's lock-step support for George Bush's economic policies."
In April, the Los Angeles Times published an article about a going-away dinner for Khalidi that Obama attended in Chicago, Illinois, in 2003. Khalidi was leaving to become a professor at Columbia.
The paper reported that a young Palestinian-American woman recited a poem at the farewell party that accused the Israeli government of terrorism for its treatment of Palestinians and was highly critical of U.S. support of Israel.
The McCain campaign accused the Los Angeles paper of "intentionally suppressing" a videotape it obtained from that dinner and demanded that it release the footage.
"What we don't know, what we don't know is how Barack Obama responded to these slurs on a country that he now professes to support, and the reason is the newspaper that has the tape, the Los Angeles Times, refuses to release it," Palin said.
The Times said it won't release the footage because a reporter promised a source that the video would not be made public.
Asked why the McCain campaign was bringing the matter up six months after the article appeared, an aide said that "because we are one week away from potentially electing Barack Obama."
At an event with Jewish voters in Boca Raton, Florida, in May, Obama said that he knows Khalidi through teaching at the University of Chicago and because their children attended the same school.
Obama said he is a "scholar, although he vehemently disagrees with a lot of Israel's policy."
"To pluck out one person who I know and who I've had a conversation with who has very different views than 900 of my friends and then to suggest that somehow that shows that maybe I'm not sufficiently pro-Israel, I think, is a very problematic stand to take," Obama said. "So we've got to be careful about guilt by association."
At an event Wednesday in Raleigh, North Carolina, Obama said McCain has spent the last few days calling him "every name in the book."
"Lately, he's called me a socialist for wanting to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can finally give tax relief to the middle class," Obama said. "I don't know what's next. By the end of the week, he'll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten. I shared my peanut butter and jelly sandwich."
Earlier Wednesday, Palin delivered her second policy address of the campaign season. Watch more on the final stretch »
Palin said that she and McCain are determined to put the country on "a path toward energy independence" and charged that an Obama administration would hinder that process.
Palin pointed to her experience as governor as evidence that she can help the U.S. achieve energy security.
"Whatever the good ol' boys are running these days, I know it's not the state of Alaska. And that's the kind of reform that we need -- serious reform in Washington, D.C, because the stakes for our country could not be higher," she said in Toledo, Ohio.
Palin said that by relying on oil from the Middle East, "we not only provide wealth to the sponsors of terror, but we provide high-value targets to the terrorists themselves."
The Alaska governor stressed expanding drilling, using nuclear power and tapping into the "American ingenuity" to solve the energy problem.
"Energy security is one of the great questions in this election," Palin said. "Sometimes I think it's no wonder that our opponents don't want to talk a whole lot about this because they don't get it."
Achieving energy security, Palin said, requires a "clean break" from the policies of the Bush administration and from "30 years' worth of failed energy policies in Washington."
Palin described the energy plans of Obama and Sen. Joe Biden as a "long, labored agenda of inaction."
The Obama campaign sent out a response from Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, which said, "Palin attacked her own running mate's record today by blaming our oil addiction on 'thirty years of failure' in Washington."
Later Wednesday, McCain and Obama both planned to campaign in Florida, a battleground state worth 27 electoral votes.
The senator from Arizona also was scheduled to appear on CNN's "Larry King Live" at 9 p.m. ET Wednesday.
Nationally, Obama holds a lead of 8 percentage points over McCain, 51 percent to 43 percent, according to CNN's poll of polls.
As a part of his final push, the Obama campaign on Wednesday planned to release a 30-minute campaign ad during prime-time television.
It's the first time in 16 years that a presidential candidate has bought a slot in prime time to make his closing argument. The half-hour ad was set to run on NBC, CBS, Fox and Univision at 8 p.m. ET.
The spot, which is estimated to have cost about $5 million, includes a live segment from Florida, with voters discussing their problems and Obama laying out his plans for the country.
CNN declined the Obama campaign's request to air the ad. CNN said it did not want to pre-empt its programming lineup with a 30-minute paid commercial program.
Obama's closing effort also includes an appearance on Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" and a late-night rally in Kissimmee with former President Clinton.
Republicans have been poking fun at Obama's prime-time blitz. In a fundraising e-mail from Palin, she says, "Combined, the Obama-Biden Democrats' television advertising budget is larger than McDonald's and Diet Coke."
The McCain campaign also released an ad Wednesday morning that says, "Behind the fancy speeches, the grand promises, the TV specials lies the truth ... Barack Obama lacks the experience America needs, and it shows."
SCARY!!! CREEPY!!! NO EXPERIENCE!!! NO ACCOMPLISHMENTS!!!!
Perhaps such a media star like Obama would be better suited to be an Inspirational Speaker. But President of the United States? I DON'T THINK SO!!! NOBAMA!!! JUSTSAYNODEAL!!! PUMA!!
OBAMA COULDN'T TAKE CARE OF HIS OWN NEIGHBORHOOD. HOW WILL HE BE ABLE TO TAKE CARE OF THE WHOLE COUNTRY????
MC CAIN SLAMS L.A.TIMES FOR DOUBLE STANDARD IN WITHHOLDING OBAMA-KHALIDI TAPE!!!
McCain Slams LA Times for Double Standard in Withholding Obama-Khalidi Tape
John McCain says he's sure The Los Angeles Times would be quick to produce a tape that purported to show him or his running mate at a neo-Nazi event, so he can't understand why it won't show Barack Obama in the company of a former PLO mouthpiece.
FOXNews.com
Rashid Khalidi, a professor and activist tied to the PLO, was feted by Barack Obama at a farewell dinner for the Palestinian activist. (AP photo)
John McCain slammed The Los Angeles Times Wednesday for refusing to release a videotape that the newspaper's editors say shows Barack Obama praising a Chicago professor who served as a spokesman for the Palestine Liberation Organization when it was a U.S.-designated terror group.
Speaking to a Florida radio station, the Republican presidential candidate suggested a double standard in reporting by the newspaper.
The Times says it is standing by its promise not to show the tape, which it got from a source. The newspaper also has not provided a transcript of the 2003 farewell party for University of Chicago professor Rashid Khalidi. Among others in attendance were former Weather Underground founders William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.
"Apparently this is a tape with a dinner that Mr. Ayers, the former, and now still, unrepentant terrorist, who was at, and also the, one of the leading spokespersons for the PLO. Now, why that should not be made public is beyond me," McCain told La Kalle radio.
"I guarantee you, if there was a tape with me and Sarah Palin and some neo-Nazi or one of those, you think that that tape wouldn't be made public? Of course, Americans need to know, particularly about Ayers, and also about the PLO. So hopefully there will be enough pressure on the L.A. Times that it'll come out, but its really unfortunate that we have to go through this," McCain continued.
The LA Times told FOXNews.com that it won't reveal how it obtained the tape of Khalidi's farewell party, nor will the newspaper release it. Spokeswoman Nancy Sullivan said the paper is not interested in revisiting the story. "As far as we're concerned, the story speaks for itself," she said.
The newspaper reported Tuesday evening in a story on its Web site that the tape was from a confidential source.
"The Los Angeles Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it," the Times' editor, Russ Stanton, said. "The Times keeps its promises to sources."
Asked about the party and his relationship with Obama, Khalidi refused Wednesday to discuss the matter.
"I am not speaking to the press at this time, and do not speak to Fox in any case, as I just wrote one of your colleagues," Khalidi wrote in an e-mail statement to FOXNews.com.
The L.A. Times first reported on the relationship between Obama and Khalidi in April.
In the article, it quoted Obama at Khalidi's going-away party, calling Khalidi his "friend and frequent dinner companion." At the time, Obama reminisced about dinners at the home of Khalidi and his wife Mona, who were leaving Chicago and heading to New York for Khalidi's new job at Columbia University.
The dinner talks had been "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation -- a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table," but around "this entire world," the Times wrote, quoting Obama on the purported videotape.
The article went on to describe how Obama offered new hope to Palestinian Americans for a new U.S. policy on the Middle East and mentioned that one guest at the party compared "Zionist settlers on the West Bank" to Usama bin Laden because both had been "blinded by ideology."
The original article pointed out that the party, in which Khalidi encouraged guests to support Obama's run for the U.S. Senate, was videotaped and a copy had been obtained by The Times. It did not mention that the Times reporter and editors had vowed not to show the tape to anyone.
Sullivan said she would not give details of what else may be on the tape, adding that anyone interested in the video should read the newspaper's report, which was its final account.
"This is a story that we reported on six months ago, so any suggestion that we're suppressing the tape is absurd -- we're the ones that brought the existence of the tape to light," Sullivan said.
Khalidi, who from 1976 to1982 was reportedly a director of the official Palestinian press agency, WAFA, which was operating in exile from Beirut with the PLO, is currently the Edwards Said professor of Arab Studies at Columbia.
When Columbia hosted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a guest speaker last year, Khalidi told The New York Times after the appearance that he was "embarrassed" that university president Lee Bollinger wasn't nicer to the head of the Islamic Republic during his visit.
Click here to read the original LA Times story: 'Palestinians See a Friend in Barack Obama.'
A pro-Palestinian activist, Khalidi has been a fierce critic of American foreign policy and of Israel, which he has accused of establishing an "apartheid system" of government. The PLO advocate helped facilitate negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians in the early '90s, but he has denied he was ever an employee of the group, contradicting accounts in The New York Times and Washington Times.
The L.A. Times article in April noted that Khalidi was a professor at the University of Beirut at the time he was a mouthpiece for the PLO.
Obama in recent months has distanced himself from the man the Times says he once called a friend. "He is not one of my advisers. He's not one of my foreign policy people," Obama said at a campaign event in May. "He is a respected scholar, although he vehemently disagrees with a lot of Israel's policy."
The Los Angeles Times endorsed Obama for president on Oct. 19.
John McCain says he's sure The Los Angeles Times would be quick to produce a tape that purported to show him or his running mate at a neo-Nazi event, so he can't understand why it won't show Barack Obama in the company of a former PLO mouthpiece.
FOXNews.com
Rashid Khalidi, a professor and activist tied to the PLO, was feted by Barack Obama at a farewell dinner for the Palestinian activist. (AP photo)
John McCain slammed The Los Angeles Times Wednesday for refusing to release a videotape that the newspaper's editors say shows Barack Obama praising a Chicago professor who served as a spokesman for the Palestine Liberation Organization when it was a U.S.-designated terror group.
Speaking to a Florida radio station, the Republican presidential candidate suggested a double standard in reporting by the newspaper.
The Times says it is standing by its promise not to show the tape, which it got from a source. The newspaper also has not provided a transcript of the 2003 farewell party for University of Chicago professor Rashid Khalidi. Among others in attendance were former Weather Underground founders William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.
"Apparently this is a tape with a dinner that Mr. Ayers, the former, and now still, unrepentant terrorist, who was at, and also the, one of the leading spokespersons for the PLO. Now, why that should not be made public is beyond me," McCain told La Kalle radio.
"I guarantee you, if there was a tape with me and Sarah Palin and some neo-Nazi or one of those, you think that that tape wouldn't be made public? Of course, Americans need to know, particularly about Ayers, and also about the PLO. So hopefully there will be enough pressure on the L.A. Times that it'll come out, but its really unfortunate that we have to go through this," McCain continued.
The LA Times told FOXNews.com that it won't reveal how it obtained the tape of Khalidi's farewell party, nor will the newspaper release it. Spokeswoman Nancy Sullivan said the paper is not interested in revisiting the story. "As far as we're concerned, the story speaks for itself," she said.
The newspaper reported Tuesday evening in a story on its Web site that the tape was from a confidential source.
"The Los Angeles Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it," the Times' editor, Russ Stanton, said. "The Times keeps its promises to sources."
Asked about the party and his relationship with Obama, Khalidi refused Wednesday to discuss the matter.
"I am not speaking to the press at this time, and do not speak to Fox in any case, as I just wrote one of your colleagues," Khalidi wrote in an e-mail statement to FOXNews.com.
The L.A. Times first reported on the relationship between Obama and Khalidi in April.
In the article, it quoted Obama at Khalidi's going-away party, calling Khalidi his "friend and frequent dinner companion." At the time, Obama reminisced about dinners at the home of Khalidi and his wife Mona, who were leaving Chicago and heading to New York for Khalidi's new job at Columbia University.
The dinner talks had been "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation -- a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table," but around "this entire world," the Times wrote, quoting Obama on the purported videotape.
The article went on to describe how Obama offered new hope to Palestinian Americans for a new U.S. policy on the Middle East and mentioned that one guest at the party compared "Zionist settlers on the West Bank" to Usama bin Laden because both had been "blinded by ideology."
The original article pointed out that the party, in which Khalidi encouraged guests to support Obama's run for the U.S. Senate, was videotaped and a copy had been obtained by The Times. It did not mention that the Times reporter and editors had vowed not to show the tape to anyone.
Sullivan said she would not give details of what else may be on the tape, adding that anyone interested in the video should read the newspaper's report, which was its final account.
"This is a story that we reported on six months ago, so any suggestion that we're suppressing the tape is absurd -- we're the ones that brought the existence of the tape to light," Sullivan said.
Khalidi, who from 1976 to1982 was reportedly a director of the official Palestinian press agency, WAFA, which was operating in exile from Beirut with the PLO, is currently the Edwards Said professor of Arab Studies at Columbia.
When Columbia hosted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a guest speaker last year, Khalidi told The New York Times after the appearance that he was "embarrassed" that university president Lee Bollinger wasn't nicer to the head of the Islamic Republic during his visit.
Click here to read the original LA Times story: 'Palestinians See a Friend in Barack Obama.'
A pro-Palestinian activist, Khalidi has been a fierce critic of American foreign policy and of Israel, which he has accused of establishing an "apartheid system" of government. The PLO advocate helped facilitate negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians in the early '90s, but he has denied he was ever an employee of the group, contradicting accounts in The New York Times and Washington Times.
The L.A. Times article in April noted that Khalidi was a professor at the University of Beirut at the time he was a mouthpiece for the PLO.
Obama in recent months has distanced himself from the man the Times says he once called a friend. "He is not one of my advisers. He's not one of my foreign policy people," Obama said at a campaign event in May. "He is a respected scholar, although he vehemently disagrees with a lot of Israel's policy."
The Los Angeles Times endorsed Obama for president on Oct. 19.
WONDERFUL ARTICLE ABOUT SARAH AND SPECIAL NEEDS CHILDREN!!!
Beyond wardrobe, Sarah Palin speaks for special needs children
By Marjorie Dannenfelser
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
The Susan B. Anthony List Candidate Fund (www.sba-list.org), a political action committee that supports pro-life female office-seekers, endorsed Sarah Palin's 2006 Alaska gubernatorial run because she was the whole package - a politically astute, smart, traditional woman.
We were thrilled to watch her rise. A popular governor whose ego did not eclipse her determination to reform. She gained a reputation for clearing out the good ol' boy underbrush in government. Not one to stir up the stew of feminist victimhood, she advanced a new sort of self-reliant, obligation-oriented feminism. As a woman with traditional values doing a nontraditional things, she was a fresh role model. She and her husband advanced this philosophy together, as equal partners, while bringing their entire family along in the project.
Not one of us stopped to consider her wardrobe.
To all those feminist organizations so deeply threatened by her pro-life political position and meteoric rise, I have a message: Shut up and listen. She is the future.
No matter how one tries to destroy her, this woman's core values do not change. She knows who she is - and her outfits are not central to it. What is central are the timeless principles she embodies and seeks to advance. Her focus is on the obligations that we have to our children, our families and our nation.
When she is ridiculed for her decision to bring her son Trig, diagnosed with Down syndrome, into the world and then bring him along on the campaign, she only becomes stronger.
Why do you think she's attracting crowds of 10,000 25,000 and 60,000? Because she reminds us that each of us as individuals has the power to change our world, to organize solutions to others' sufferings - one decision, one individual at a time. She understands and articulates a principle about which we need to hear more - the value inherent in those deemed imperfect.
If the media chatter over her outfitting had subsided for 15 minutes last Friday or Saturday, the nation could have seen the real Sarah Palin. So wrapped up in tearing her down, the left and the media largely missed her Oct. 24 policy speech on special needs children. She knows of what she speaks.
Very rarely does an issue speak to the heart as poignantly as special needs children. Palin understands that heart and offers concrete help to those of us hungry for better information, authentic support and schooling solutions. Most important to me as a mother of a special needs child, she pointed to the power, strength and influence that individuals with special needs can have in our homes and our nation.
Her child, my child, and every special needs child, are not to be pitied. They are to be emulated. What a salve to the soul that Palin understands and articulates this. It brings so many special people and their families out of the shadows and into the limelight. They have so much to be proud of, and she helps them recognize that.
How does she have such a beautiful perspective? Because she sees the power, value, necessity and joy inherent in each individual life. It takes different eyes to see that, and a different voice - a mother's voice - to articulate it.
In the next few days, the women of America may have to work hard to hear Palin's voice. They will have to strain to focus on ignoring the media filter and intense anger and exclusionary politics of some on the left; persevere before it is too late. Palin's leadership brings with it great heart and profound respect for life and the ingenuity of every individual. She brings a fresh perspective that America needs.
Marjorie Dannenfelser is president of the Susan B. Anthony List, a nationwide network of pro-life Americans dedicated to advancing pro-life women in the political process. The organization is based in Arlington, Va. She is co-founder of Team Sarah, a national grassroots effort in support of Gov. Sarah Palin's vice presidential candidacy.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/29/EDE213PJE8.DTL
By Marjorie Dannenfelser
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
The Susan B. Anthony List Candidate Fund (www.sba-list.org), a political action committee that supports pro-life female office-seekers, endorsed Sarah Palin's 2006 Alaska gubernatorial run because she was the whole package - a politically astute, smart, traditional woman.
We were thrilled to watch her rise. A popular governor whose ego did not eclipse her determination to reform. She gained a reputation for clearing out the good ol' boy underbrush in government. Not one to stir up the stew of feminist victimhood, she advanced a new sort of self-reliant, obligation-oriented feminism. As a woman with traditional values doing a nontraditional things, she was a fresh role model. She and her husband advanced this philosophy together, as equal partners, while bringing their entire family along in the project.
Not one of us stopped to consider her wardrobe.
To all those feminist organizations so deeply threatened by her pro-life political position and meteoric rise, I have a message: Shut up and listen. She is the future.
No matter how one tries to destroy her, this woman's core values do not change. She knows who she is - and her outfits are not central to it. What is central are the timeless principles she embodies and seeks to advance. Her focus is on the obligations that we have to our children, our families and our nation.
When she is ridiculed for her decision to bring her son Trig, diagnosed with Down syndrome, into the world and then bring him along on the campaign, she only becomes stronger.
Why do you think she's attracting crowds of 10,000 25,000 and 60,000? Because she reminds us that each of us as individuals has the power to change our world, to organize solutions to others' sufferings - one decision, one individual at a time. She understands and articulates a principle about which we need to hear more - the value inherent in those deemed imperfect.
If the media chatter over her outfitting had subsided for 15 minutes last Friday or Saturday, the nation could have seen the real Sarah Palin. So wrapped up in tearing her down, the left and the media largely missed her Oct. 24 policy speech on special needs children. She knows of what she speaks.
Very rarely does an issue speak to the heart as poignantly as special needs children. Palin understands that heart and offers concrete help to those of us hungry for better information, authentic support and schooling solutions. Most important to me as a mother of a special needs child, she pointed to the power, strength and influence that individuals with special needs can have in our homes and our nation.
Her child, my child, and every special needs child, are not to be pitied. They are to be emulated. What a salve to the soul that Palin understands and articulates this. It brings so many special people and their families out of the shadows and into the limelight. They have so much to be proud of, and she helps them recognize that.
How does she have such a beautiful perspective? Because she sees the power, value, necessity and joy inherent in each individual life. It takes different eyes to see that, and a different voice - a mother's voice - to articulate it.
In the next few days, the women of America may have to work hard to hear Palin's voice. They will have to strain to focus on ignoring the media filter and intense anger and exclusionary politics of some on the left; persevere before it is too late. Palin's leadership brings with it great heart and profound respect for life and the ingenuity of every individual. She brings a fresh perspective that America needs.
Marjorie Dannenfelser is president of the Susan B. Anthony List, a nationwide network of pro-life Americans dedicated to advancing pro-life women in the political process. The organization is based in Arlington, Va. She is co-founder of Team Sarah, a national grassroots effort in support of Gov. Sarah Palin's vice presidential candidacy.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/29/EDE213PJE8.DTL
SARAH DELIVERS ENERGY INDEPENDENCE SPEECH!!!
Remarks by Governor Sarah Palin on Achieving Strategic Energy Independence
October 29, 2008
ARLINGTON, VA -- Governor Sarah Palin today will deliver the following remarks as prepared for delivery in Toledo, OH, at 9:00 a.m. ET:
Thank you all very much. I appreciate the hospitality of Xunlight Energy, and all the people of Toledo. The folks at Xunlight are doing great work for this community and our country.
Every day, when there are no cameras around to draw attention to it, this company and others like it are engaged in the great enterprise of energy independence. And what we see here is just a glimpse of much bigger things to come. Solar power is one of many alternative energy sources that are changing our economy for the better. And one day they will change our economy forever.
All who work in pursuit of new and clean energy sources understand that America's energy problems do not go away when oil and gasoline prices fall, as they have in recent weeks. Oil today is running about 64 dollars a barrel -- less than half of what it was just a couple of months ago. And though this sudden drop in prices sure makes a difference for families across America, the dangers of our dependence on foreign oil are just as they were before.
The price of oil is declining largely because of the market's expectation of a broad recession that would lower demand. This is hardly a good sign of things to come, and should only add to our sense of urgency in gaining energy independence. When our economy recovers, and growth once again creates new demand, we could run into the same brick wall of rising oil and gasoline prices -- and now is the time to make sure that doesn't happen. In Washington, we can view this period of lower oil prices as just one more chance to make excuses -- and on the problem of energy security, we've heard enough excuses. Or we can view it as an opportunity to finally confront the problem.
In reality, volatile oil prices are just the most immediate consequence when foreign powers control our energy supplies. They are an economic symptom of a strategic problem. And prices will stabilize only when we have reached the great goal of energy security for America.
Achieving this objective will require a clean break not just from the energy policies of the current administration, but from thirty years' worth of failed policies in Washington. As in other challenges that confront our nation, we must shape events, and not simply manage crises. We must steer far clear of the errors and false assumptions that have marked the energy policies of nearly twenty Congresses and seven presidents. Some tasks will be the work of decades, and some the work of years. And they all will begin in the term of the next president.
For our part, John McCain and I are determined to set this country firmly on a path toward energy independence. America has the resources to achieve this vital goal. We certainly have the ingenuity. And if John McCain and I are elected, we will supply the political will to finally get it done.
In my experiences in Alaska, I have seen what American ingenuity can achieve if given a chance. As governor of a huge energy-producing state, and as chair of our state's oil and gas conservation commission, and chairman of the nation's Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, I've also seen how political pressures, special interests, and corporate abuses can work against the clear public interest in expanding our domestic energy supplies.
Alaska is the one of the most resource-rich places on earth. Yet for many years, our state's oil and gas wealth was the carefully guarded preserve of the political establishment -- the good ol' boys -- rewarded by a few big oil companies and through an oil services company that liked things just the way they were. As you may have seen in the news this week, Alaska's senior senator is not the first man to discover the hazards of getting too close to moneyed interests with agendas of their own.
For the people of Alaska and their representatives, it had been hard enough to persuade Congress to authorize construction of the original Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline. And when Congress finally acted in 1973, it approved the pipeline over the "No" votes of five senators, including a freshmen senator named Joe Biden.
For the next three decades, there had been talk of building another pipeline to transport cleaner, greener natural gas down to the Lower 48. But that's all it ever amounted to -- talk. And one of the main obstacles was big oil itself -- ExxonMobil and other companies.
They should have been competing to invest in a new means of delivering their product to market. Instead, they wanted a higher price than fair competition would yield. They were holding out for more billions of dollars -- in public money. No one in good conscience could pay them what they wanted to build that pipeline. And that's how we found things when I became governor: No progress, no pipeline, no gas revenue for Alaska, no added energy security for America.
So we introduced the big oil companies and their lobbyists to a concept some of them had forgotten -- free-market competition. They had a monopoly on power and resources, and we broke it.
The result is, finally, progress on the largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history -- a nearly forty billion dollar natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence. When the last section is laid and its valves are opened, that pipeline will lead America one step farther away from reliance on foreign energy. That pipeline will be a lifeline -- freeing us from debt, dependence, and the influence of foreign powers that do not have our interests at heart.
We've shaken things up in Juneau. Whatever the good ol' boys are running these days, it's not the State of Alaska. And that's the kind of serious reform that we need in Washington, because the stakes for our country could not be higher.
Energy security is one of the great questions in this election. It tests our ability to confront and solve hard problems in Washington, instead of constantly putting things off. And it brings together so many other issues -- from the value of our pay checks to our nation's most vital interests abroad. Americans blame Washington for doing next to nothing about our energy problems, and they are right.
Abroad, we see Russia with designs on a vital pipeline in the Caucasus. Its strategy is to divide and intimidate our European allies by using energy as a weapon. And there, as elsewhere, we cannot leave ourselves at the mercy of foreign suppliers.
To confront the threat that Iran might seek to cut off nearly a fifth of world's oil supplies ... or that terrorists might strike at a vital refining facility in Saudi Arabia ... or that Venezuela might shut off its oil deliveries ... we Americans need to produce more of our own oil and gas.
In the worst cases, some of the world's most oil-rich nations are also the most oppressive societies. And whether we like it or not, the money we pay for their oil only makes them more powerful and more oppressive. Oil wealth allows undemocratic governments to crush dissent and to subjugate women. Other regimes use it to finance terrorists around the world and criminal syndicates in our own hemisphere.
By relying upon oil from the Middle East, we not only provide wealth to the sponsors of terror -- we provide high-value targets to the terrorists themselves. Across the world are pipelines, refineries, transit routes, and terminals for the oil we rely on. And Al Qaeda terrorists know where they are.
As if all this weren't bad enough, there is also the damage that our dependence on foreign oil inflicts on our economy. Over the years, trillions of dollars have flowed out of our country, often to nations or regimes hostile to our country. Through this massive transfer of wealth, we lose hundreds of billions of dollars a year that would be better invested in American enterprises to create American jobs.
All of this explains why, as Senator McCain has said, energy security is not just one more issue on the candidate questionnaire. Energy security is the sum total of so many problems that confront our nation. It demands of us that we shake off old ways, negotiate new hazards, and make hard choices long deferred. And three decades of partisan paralysis on energy security is enough. It's time we meet this challenge in a way consistent with the character of our nation, and that starts with producing more of our own energy.
In a McCain administration, we will authorize and support new exploration and production of America's own oil and gas reserves -- because we cannot outsource the solution to America's energy problem. Every year, we are sending hundreds of billions of dollars out of the country for oil imports, much of it from OPEC, while America's own oil and gas reserves in America go unused. And take it from a gal who knows the North Slope of Alaska: we've got lots of both.
As a matter of fairness, we must assure affordable fuel for America by producing more of the trillions of dollars' worth of our oil and natural gas. On land and offshore, we will drill here and drill now!
Another essential means to energy independence is a dramatic expansion in our use of nuclear energy. In a McCain administration, we will set this nation on a course to build 45 new reactors by the year 2030. And we will set the goal of 100 new plants to power the homes and factories and cities of America.
This task will be as difficult as it is necessary. We will need to recover all the knowledge and skills that have been lost over three stagnant decades in a highly technical field. We will need to solve complex problems of moving and storing materials that will always need safeguarding. We will need to do all of these things, and do them right, as we have done great things before.
One of the efforts that will assist in securing our energy future is the development of clean-coal technology. And here we have another big disagreement with our opponents. Last month Joe Biden told a voter -- and I quote -- "we're not supporting clean coal." He says clean coal's a good idea for China -- but sorry, Ohio, Joe Biden says it's not for you.
That's just nonsense, and there's plenty more of it in Senator Biden's record. He's against drilling off our coasts, for environmental reasons. But he says that offshore drilling holds real promise for the island nation of Cyprus -- as if the environmental safeguards of the Cypriots are more rigorous than our own. And so far as he and Senator Obama are concerned, nuclear power's okay, too -- but only for France and other European nations. Our opponents seem to have all sorts of solutions for the energy needs of other nations -- now if only they'd focus more on what America needs.
It's worth asking why Senators Obama and Biden are opposed to the very same production methods in America that they advocate for other nations. Usually, the answer we hear is that they fear environmental harm from domestic production, especially in the case of offshore drilling. But there's a big problem here, even if we take their argument on its own terms. Technology has made production far cleaner than was once thought possible -- by use of such methods as horizontal drilling, carbon capture and storage, and enhanced recovery. And those cleaner, safer technologies are far likelier to be used in the United States and Canada than by China, India, or other developing nations.
So policies that forego domestic production don't protect our environment. They simply accelerate and reward dirtier and more dangerous methods of production elsewhere, in countries that apply few if any environmental safeguards. While our opponents like to posture as defenders of the environment, in practice their refusal to support more domestic production does more harm than good.
As for our coal resources, America has more coal than the oil riches of Saudi Arabia. Burning coal cleanly is a challenge of practical problem-solving and human ingenuity -- and we have no shortage of those in America either. So, in a McCain administration, we will commit two billion dollars each year, until 2024, to clean-coal research, development, and deployment. We will refine the techniques and equipment. We will deliver not only electricity but jobs to some of the areas hardest hit by our economic troubles.
And in the end, with or without the green light from Joe the Six-Term Senator, we will make clean coal a reality. For the sake of our nation's security and our prosperity, we need American energy resources, brought to you by American ingenuity, and produced by American workers.
To meet America's great energy challenge, John and I will adopt an "all of the above" approach. In our administration, that will mean harnessing alternative sources of energy, like wind and solar. We will end subsidies and tariffs that drive prices up, and provide tax credits indexed to low automobile carbon emissions. We will encourage Americans to be part of the solution by taking steps in their everyday lives that conserve more and use less. And we will control greenhouse gas emissions by giving American businesses new incentives and new rewards to seek, instead of just giving them new taxes to pay and new orders to follow.
On energy policy, our opponents are always talking about things we cannot do, because our own government won't let us. When you look over the energy plans of Barack Obama and his allies in Congress, it's just a long, labored agenda of inaction. And it's the same agenda of inaction we could expect under the one-party rule of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. They're always talking about things we can't do in America, energy we can't produce, refineries we can't build, plants we can't approve, coal we cannot use, technologies we cannot master. As John McCain has observed, for a guy's who's slogan is "Yes, we can," Barack Obama's energy plan sure has a whole lot of "No we can't."
Again and again, our opponents say that drilling will not solve all of America's energy problems -- as if we all didn't know that already. But the fact that drilling won't solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all.
No, we can't "drill our way out of the problem" entirely. But this is America, the most resourceful country on earth, and we can drill, and refine, and mine, enrich, reprocess, invent, build, conserve, grow, and use every available means to regain our independence.
The mission of energy security will demand great things of our country. It will require commitment, resolve, and political courage. And John McCain is a man who knows something about hard missions, about overcoming dangers and keeping faith with his country. The stakes are high, and complete success will not come quickly. But I can promise you this: Unless we begin this mission now, the only change we'll see is a change for the worse. And when we do succeed in the hard work ahead, our children will live in a more prosperous country, in a more peaceful world. Thank you all very much, and God bless America.
###
October 29, 2008
ARLINGTON, VA -- Governor Sarah Palin today will deliver the following remarks as prepared for delivery in Toledo, OH, at 9:00 a.m. ET:
Thank you all very much. I appreciate the hospitality of Xunlight Energy, and all the people of Toledo. The folks at Xunlight are doing great work for this community and our country.
Every day, when there are no cameras around to draw attention to it, this company and others like it are engaged in the great enterprise of energy independence. And what we see here is just a glimpse of much bigger things to come. Solar power is one of many alternative energy sources that are changing our economy for the better. And one day they will change our economy forever.
All who work in pursuit of new and clean energy sources understand that America's energy problems do not go away when oil and gasoline prices fall, as they have in recent weeks. Oil today is running about 64 dollars a barrel -- less than half of what it was just a couple of months ago. And though this sudden drop in prices sure makes a difference for families across America, the dangers of our dependence on foreign oil are just as they were before.
The price of oil is declining largely because of the market's expectation of a broad recession that would lower demand. This is hardly a good sign of things to come, and should only add to our sense of urgency in gaining energy independence. When our economy recovers, and growth once again creates new demand, we could run into the same brick wall of rising oil and gasoline prices -- and now is the time to make sure that doesn't happen. In Washington, we can view this period of lower oil prices as just one more chance to make excuses -- and on the problem of energy security, we've heard enough excuses. Or we can view it as an opportunity to finally confront the problem.
In reality, volatile oil prices are just the most immediate consequence when foreign powers control our energy supplies. They are an economic symptom of a strategic problem. And prices will stabilize only when we have reached the great goal of energy security for America.
Achieving this objective will require a clean break not just from the energy policies of the current administration, but from thirty years' worth of failed policies in Washington. As in other challenges that confront our nation, we must shape events, and not simply manage crises. We must steer far clear of the errors and false assumptions that have marked the energy policies of nearly twenty Congresses and seven presidents. Some tasks will be the work of decades, and some the work of years. And they all will begin in the term of the next president.
For our part, John McCain and I are determined to set this country firmly on a path toward energy independence. America has the resources to achieve this vital goal. We certainly have the ingenuity. And if John McCain and I are elected, we will supply the political will to finally get it done.
In my experiences in Alaska, I have seen what American ingenuity can achieve if given a chance. As governor of a huge energy-producing state, and as chair of our state's oil and gas conservation commission, and chairman of the nation's Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, I've also seen how political pressures, special interests, and corporate abuses can work against the clear public interest in expanding our domestic energy supplies.
Alaska is the one of the most resource-rich places on earth. Yet for many years, our state's oil and gas wealth was the carefully guarded preserve of the political establishment -- the good ol' boys -- rewarded by a few big oil companies and through an oil services company that liked things just the way they were. As you may have seen in the news this week, Alaska's senior senator is not the first man to discover the hazards of getting too close to moneyed interests with agendas of their own.
For the people of Alaska and their representatives, it had been hard enough to persuade Congress to authorize construction of the original Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline. And when Congress finally acted in 1973, it approved the pipeline over the "No" votes of five senators, including a freshmen senator named Joe Biden.
For the next three decades, there had been talk of building another pipeline to transport cleaner, greener natural gas down to the Lower 48. But that's all it ever amounted to -- talk. And one of the main obstacles was big oil itself -- ExxonMobil and other companies.
They should have been competing to invest in a new means of delivering their product to market. Instead, they wanted a higher price than fair competition would yield. They were holding out for more billions of dollars -- in public money. No one in good conscience could pay them what they wanted to build that pipeline. And that's how we found things when I became governor: No progress, no pipeline, no gas revenue for Alaska, no added energy security for America.
So we introduced the big oil companies and their lobbyists to a concept some of them had forgotten -- free-market competition. They had a monopoly on power and resources, and we broke it.
The result is, finally, progress on the largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history -- a nearly forty billion dollar natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence. When the last section is laid and its valves are opened, that pipeline will lead America one step farther away from reliance on foreign energy. That pipeline will be a lifeline -- freeing us from debt, dependence, and the influence of foreign powers that do not have our interests at heart.
We've shaken things up in Juneau. Whatever the good ol' boys are running these days, it's not the State of Alaska. And that's the kind of serious reform that we need in Washington, because the stakes for our country could not be higher.
Energy security is one of the great questions in this election. It tests our ability to confront and solve hard problems in Washington, instead of constantly putting things off. And it brings together so many other issues -- from the value of our pay checks to our nation's most vital interests abroad. Americans blame Washington for doing next to nothing about our energy problems, and they are right.
Abroad, we see Russia with designs on a vital pipeline in the Caucasus. Its strategy is to divide and intimidate our European allies by using energy as a weapon. And there, as elsewhere, we cannot leave ourselves at the mercy of foreign suppliers.
To confront the threat that Iran might seek to cut off nearly a fifth of world's oil supplies ... or that terrorists might strike at a vital refining facility in Saudi Arabia ... or that Venezuela might shut off its oil deliveries ... we Americans need to produce more of our own oil and gas.
In the worst cases, some of the world's most oil-rich nations are also the most oppressive societies. And whether we like it or not, the money we pay for their oil only makes them more powerful and more oppressive. Oil wealth allows undemocratic governments to crush dissent and to subjugate women. Other regimes use it to finance terrorists around the world and criminal syndicates in our own hemisphere.
By relying upon oil from the Middle East, we not only provide wealth to the sponsors of terror -- we provide high-value targets to the terrorists themselves. Across the world are pipelines, refineries, transit routes, and terminals for the oil we rely on. And Al Qaeda terrorists know where they are.
As if all this weren't bad enough, there is also the damage that our dependence on foreign oil inflicts on our economy. Over the years, trillions of dollars have flowed out of our country, often to nations or regimes hostile to our country. Through this massive transfer of wealth, we lose hundreds of billions of dollars a year that would be better invested in American enterprises to create American jobs.
All of this explains why, as Senator McCain has said, energy security is not just one more issue on the candidate questionnaire. Energy security is the sum total of so many problems that confront our nation. It demands of us that we shake off old ways, negotiate new hazards, and make hard choices long deferred. And three decades of partisan paralysis on energy security is enough. It's time we meet this challenge in a way consistent with the character of our nation, and that starts with producing more of our own energy.
In a McCain administration, we will authorize and support new exploration and production of America's own oil and gas reserves -- because we cannot outsource the solution to America's energy problem. Every year, we are sending hundreds of billions of dollars out of the country for oil imports, much of it from OPEC, while America's own oil and gas reserves in America go unused. And take it from a gal who knows the North Slope of Alaska: we've got lots of both.
As a matter of fairness, we must assure affordable fuel for America by producing more of the trillions of dollars' worth of our oil and natural gas. On land and offshore, we will drill here and drill now!
Another essential means to energy independence is a dramatic expansion in our use of nuclear energy. In a McCain administration, we will set this nation on a course to build 45 new reactors by the year 2030. And we will set the goal of 100 new plants to power the homes and factories and cities of America.
This task will be as difficult as it is necessary. We will need to recover all the knowledge and skills that have been lost over three stagnant decades in a highly technical field. We will need to solve complex problems of moving and storing materials that will always need safeguarding. We will need to do all of these things, and do them right, as we have done great things before.
One of the efforts that will assist in securing our energy future is the development of clean-coal technology. And here we have another big disagreement with our opponents. Last month Joe Biden told a voter -- and I quote -- "we're not supporting clean coal." He says clean coal's a good idea for China -- but sorry, Ohio, Joe Biden says it's not for you.
That's just nonsense, and there's plenty more of it in Senator Biden's record. He's against drilling off our coasts, for environmental reasons. But he says that offshore drilling holds real promise for the island nation of Cyprus -- as if the environmental safeguards of the Cypriots are more rigorous than our own. And so far as he and Senator Obama are concerned, nuclear power's okay, too -- but only for France and other European nations. Our opponents seem to have all sorts of solutions for the energy needs of other nations -- now if only they'd focus more on what America needs.
It's worth asking why Senators Obama and Biden are opposed to the very same production methods in America that they advocate for other nations. Usually, the answer we hear is that they fear environmental harm from domestic production, especially in the case of offshore drilling. But there's a big problem here, even if we take their argument on its own terms. Technology has made production far cleaner than was once thought possible -- by use of such methods as horizontal drilling, carbon capture and storage, and enhanced recovery. And those cleaner, safer technologies are far likelier to be used in the United States and Canada than by China, India, or other developing nations.
So policies that forego domestic production don't protect our environment. They simply accelerate and reward dirtier and more dangerous methods of production elsewhere, in countries that apply few if any environmental safeguards. While our opponents like to posture as defenders of the environment, in practice their refusal to support more domestic production does more harm than good.
As for our coal resources, America has more coal than the oil riches of Saudi Arabia. Burning coal cleanly is a challenge of practical problem-solving and human ingenuity -- and we have no shortage of those in America either. So, in a McCain administration, we will commit two billion dollars each year, until 2024, to clean-coal research, development, and deployment. We will refine the techniques and equipment. We will deliver not only electricity but jobs to some of the areas hardest hit by our economic troubles.
And in the end, with or without the green light from Joe the Six-Term Senator, we will make clean coal a reality. For the sake of our nation's security and our prosperity, we need American energy resources, brought to you by American ingenuity, and produced by American workers.
To meet America's great energy challenge, John and I will adopt an "all of the above" approach. In our administration, that will mean harnessing alternative sources of energy, like wind and solar. We will end subsidies and tariffs that drive prices up, and provide tax credits indexed to low automobile carbon emissions. We will encourage Americans to be part of the solution by taking steps in their everyday lives that conserve more and use less. And we will control greenhouse gas emissions by giving American businesses new incentives and new rewards to seek, instead of just giving them new taxes to pay and new orders to follow.
On energy policy, our opponents are always talking about things we cannot do, because our own government won't let us. When you look over the energy plans of Barack Obama and his allies in Congress, it's just a long, labored agenda of inaction. And it's the same agenda of inaction we could expect under the one-party rule of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. They're always talking about things we can't do in America, energy we can't produce, refineries we can't build, plants we can't approve, coal we cannot use, technologies we cannot master. As John McCain has observed, for a guy's who's slogan is "Yes, we can," Barack Obama's energy plan sure has a whole lot of "No we can't."
Again and again, our opponents say that drilling will not solve all of America's energy problems -- as if we all didn't know that already. But the fact that drilling won't solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all.
No, we can't "drill our way out of the problem" entirely. But this is America, the most resourceful country on earth, and we can drill, and refine, and mine, enrich, reprocess, invent, build, conserve, grow, and use every available means to regain our independence.
The mission of energy security will demand great things of our country. It will require commitment, resolve, and political courage. And John McCain is a man who knows something about hard missions, about overcoming dangers and keeping faith with his country. The stakes are high, and complete success will not come quickly. But I can promise you this: Unless we begin this mission now, the only change we'll see is a change for the worse. And when we do succeed in the hard work ahead, our children will live in a more prosperous country, in a more peaceful world. Thank you all very much, and God bless America.
###
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
PUMAS ROARING!!! WE'RE STILL HERE!!!
PUMAs roaring at Trailblazers this morning
Karen Brooks
I've been getting a pretty hefty response to a story I wrote in today's paper that looked back on the PUMA movement (People United Means Action, or Party Unity My ****) and what they've been up to lately.
PUMA was begun by angry Hillary Clinton supporters who felt like Obama had treated her badly during the primary, that he's not qualified to be president, and that Democratic leadership had cheated them out of the party's rightful nominee.
The main point of the story was that promises of cohesive and disruptive action by PUMA, both during and after the convention, doesn't seem to have materialized in the manner we were told it would. It also reserved judgment on whether they had succeeded in defeating Obama for after the election, as it ain't over 'til it's over. We are still watching for you guys.
Obviously, in a group that comprises so many - 20 percent of 18 million, presumably - it's pretty difficult to reach everyone. As a result, they reached me. Here's what some of their emails said:
"You said in your article that Pumas have lost their roar. You are sooooooooooo wrong. I am one of the original pumas. Not only do I particiapate in the puma actions but I have also teamed up with another puma to develop a new website called McPalin Mavericks. The only difference between us and the other pumas is that we no longer call ourselves Democrats. We are Country Before Party and will no longer vote for a party but will research each candidate and vote based on what we find about their issues, character, and morals. We are not only still roaring but we are roaring louder than ever and will be here even after this election. Watch for us in the future. We are the people and WE will be the ones that will make CHANGE and give HOPE."
-----------------------
"We did get Hillary on the Ballet at the convention... as usual... Pelosi , Reid and Obama groupes where able to threaten everyone and you know the rest... All of the puma at the convention knew about it the threats ... how did you miss it ? That created even more fire in the puma actions... in fact we have grown substantially since the convention. We don't try to enroll members... they come to us."
-------------
"This PUMA still says Nobama!"
http://americanpumainitaly.blogspot.com/
----------------
-------------------
"PUMA roar is now a purr?
Are you speaking out of ignorance or trying to spread misinformation?
PUMA and all affiliated action groups are working and are more dedicated than ever."
---------------------
"I think you have it WRONG. There are lots of LOUD ROARS out there from Hillary supporters. Perhaps the AP and Dallas Morning News just don't want to hear them.
Also, many PUMAs and other Hillary supporters of McCain/Palin are not making their intentions known on PURPOSE....but they will make them known on November 4th."
"With all due respect, I don't know where you are getting your information. Have you asked millions of our members? Were they polled? We are alive and well and it will be because of us, PUMA, that will have a major affect on this election."
-------------------
"Hi Karen,
I caught site of your article "Roar of PUMAs, vocal Hillary Clinton supporters, has softened". Are you crazy? I will never ever support that worthless piece of crap. I am just one of millions who will be voting for John McCain. Don't try to fluff the truth. The Obama camp is afraid of PUMAS as they know we have the word out on the empty suit. And furthermore, I have campaigned for John McCain. You don't speak for me or the PUMAS so maybe a retraction would be nice, although I'm sure your a koolaid drinker for an empty suit with holes.
Have a nice day if it's possible."
-------------
And my favorite....
"GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!
I am still roaring."
------------------
And from a reader at pumapac.org:
I Am Puma......
I am Puma.....I am your neighbor...I live in the house on your street...you know..the one with no campaign signs in the yard..
I am waiting....
I am Puma...I stand beside you in the grocery store...I am the one with no campaign button on my shirt..
I am waiting...
I am Puma...I am the one beside you at the traffic light...I am in the car with no bumper sticker..
I am waiting...
I am Puma...When you call me at my home...I say to you "of course I will vote for "The One"....and I smile as I hang up the phone...
I am waiting...
I am Puma...On November 4th...I will wait no more....I will go to the polls with millions and millions of other Pumas and put my "Country First"
Then you will know me.....I am Joe Puma
You Will Hear Me Roar!!!
Karen Brooks
I've been getting a pretty hefty response to a story I wrote in today's paper that looked back on the PUMA movement (People United Means Action, or Party Unity My ****) and what they've been up to lately.
PUMA was begun by angry Hillary Clinton supporters who felt like Obama had treated her badly during the primary, that he's not qualified to be president, and that Democratic leadership had cheated them out of the party's rightful nominee.
The main point of the story was that promises of cohesive and disruptive action by PUMA, both during and after the convention, doesn't seem to have materialized in the manner we were told it would. It also reserved judgment on whether they had succeeded in defeating Obama for after the election, as it ain't over 'til it's over. We are still watching for you guys.
Obviously, in a group that comprises so many - 20 percent of 18 million, presumably - it's pretty difficult to reach everyone. As a result, they reached me. Here's what some of their emails said:
"You said in your article that Pumas have lost their roar. You are sooooooooooo wrong. I am one of the original pumas. Not only do I particiapate in the puma actions but I have also teamed up with another puma to develop a new website called McPalin Mavericks. The only difference between us and the other pumas is that we no longer call ourselves Democrats. We are Country Before Party and will no longer vote for a party but will research each candidate and vote based on what we find about their issues, character, and morals. We are not only still roaring but we are roaring louder than ever and will be here even after this election. Watch for us in the future. We are the people and WE will be the ones that will make CHANGE and give HOPE."
-----------------------
"We did get Hillary on the Ballet at the convention... as usual... Pelosi , Reid and Obama groupes where able to threaten everyone and you know the rest... All of the puma at the convention knew about it the threats ... how did you miss it ? That created even more fire in the puma actions... in fact we have grown substantially since the convention. We don't try to enroll members... they come to us."
-------------
"This PUMA still says Nobama!"
http://americanpumainitaly.blogspot.com/
----------------
-------------------
"PUMA roar is now a purr?
Are you speaking out of ignorance or trying to spread misinformation?
PUMA and all affiliated action groups are working and are more dedicated than ever."
---------------------
"I think you have it WRONG. There are lots of LOUD ROARS out there from Hillary supporters. Perhaps the AP and Dallas Morning News just don't want to hear them.
Also, many PUMAs and other Hillary supporters of McCain/Palin are not making their intentions known on PURPOSE....but they will make them known on November 4th."
"With all due respect, I don't know where you are getting your information. Have you asked millions of our members? Were they polled? We are alive and well and it will be because of us, PUMA, that will have a major affect on this election."
-------------------
"Hi Karen,
I caught site of your article "Roar of PUMAs, vocal Hillary Clinton supporters, has softened". Are you crazy? I will never ever support that worthless piece of crap. I am just one of millions who will be voting for John McCain. Don't try to fluff the truth. The Obama camp is afraid of PUMAS as they know we have the word out on the empty suit. And furthermore, I have campaigned for John McCain. You don't speak for me or the PUMAS so maybe a retraction would be nice, although I'm sure your a koolaid drinker for an empty suit with holes.
Have a nice day if it's possible."
-------------
And my favorite....
"GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!
I am still roaring."
------------------
And from a reader at pumapac.org:
I Am Puma......
I am Puma.....I am your neighbor...I live in the house on your street...you know..the one with no campaign signs in the yard..
I am waiting....
I am Puma...I stand beside you in the grocery store...I am the one with no campaign button on my shirt..
I am waiting...
I am Puma...I am the one beside you at the traffic light...I am in the car with no bumper sticker..
I am waiting...
I am Puma...When you call me at my home...I say to you "of course I will vote for "The One"....and I smile as I hang up the phone...
I am waiting...
I am Puma...On November 4th...I will wait no more....I will go to the polls with millions and millions of other Pumas and put my "Country First"
Then you will know me.....I am Joe Puma
You Will Hear Me Roar!!!
SARAH: FUTURE MEDIA STAR???
Sarah Palin: future media star?
Hollywood looking to capitalize on candidate's fame
By Andrew Wallenstein and Steven Zeitchik
Oct 23, 2008
As campaign managers for Sarah Palin plot last-minute tactics to get her elected, Hollywood bigwigs are convening strategy sessions of their own. Their goal: finding the ideal on-air vehicle for the vp candidate if and when she exits politics.
Love her or hate her -- there doesn't seem to be much middle ground with Palin -- the 44-year-old hockey mom has captured the public imagination in a way no politician has since, well, Barack Obama.
But as more and more polls cast doubt on the McCain-Palin ticket, producers and agents across the entertainment world are discussing possibilities for capitalizing on her fame, ranging from an Oprah-style syndicated talk show to a Sean Hannity-like perch in cable news or on radio.
"Any television person who sees the numbers when she appears on anything would say Sarah Palin would be great," said veteran morning-show producer Steve Friedman, citing the double-digit ratings gains her appearances on "Saturday Night Live" and "CBS Evening News" generated. "The passion she has on each side, love and hate, makes television people say, 'Wow, imagine the viewership.' "
Although none of the execs has -- at least as far as anyone is admitting -- made direct overtures to the Alaska governor, they are readying their battle plans if she decides to give up her day job.
Of course, even if the McCain-Palin ticket loses, the Tina Fey look-alike still has a job in politics for at least another two years as governor of Alaska. A spokesman for Palin did not return calls for comment.
But the candidate has undeniable onscreen charisma as her "SNL" performance proved last weekend. And though the Palin Express sometimes veers off the tracks -- as it did in her notorious interview with Katie Couric -- Americans enjoy celebrities as much for their contretemps as their talent.
Most industry insiders believe a talk show is the probable route for Palin. Although daytime syndication can be tough sledding, it would take a personality of her stature to break through the clutter, and her folksy red-state persona could be just the thing to connect with this female-skewing audience.
One producer/packager said he has held internal staff meetings about how to best parlay Palin's appeal and skills, with a daytime talk show the likely vehicle. "I see her less as a variety-show host like Ellen (DeGeneres) and more of a single-topic host like Tyra (Banks), or maybe what Jenny Jones used to be," said Chris Coelen, CEO of RDF USA.
However, one syndie veteran who wished to remain anonymous believes Palin would not make an ideal candidate for talk show host or even court show judge.
"I would not put her on the air," the exec said. "I find her a little stiff, and her ability to read the room is not quite fully developed."
Cable news is another possibility, particularly Fox News Channel, if Palin wants to keep her conservative bona fides intact. There's a well-worn path between the Beltway and TV, from Pat Buchanan to as recent an example as former presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee, who just began his own weekly series on Fox News.
A weekly cable news berth also could be a less demanding side gig to occupy while still in office in Alaska, though losing the election could dent her credibility among conservatives.
As campaign managers for Sarah Palin plot last-minute tactics to get her elected, Hollywood bigwigs are convening strategy sessions of their own. Their goal: finding the ideal on-air vehicle for the vp candidate if and when she exits politics.
Love her or hate her -- there doesn't seem to be much middle ground with Palin -- the 44-year-old hockey mom has captured the public imagination in a way no politician has since, well, Barack Obama.
But as more and more polls cast doubt on the McCain-Palin ticket, producers and agents across the entertainment world are discussing possibilities for capitalizing on her fame, ranging from an Oprah-style syndicated talk show to a Sean Hannity-like perch in cable news or on radio.
"Any television person who sees the numbers when she appears on anything would say Sarah Palin would be great," said veteran morning-show producer Steve Friedman, citing the double-digit ratings gains her appearances on "Saturday Night Live" and "CBS Evening News" generated. "The passion she has on each side, love and hate, makes television people say, 'Wow, imagine the viewership.' "
Although none of the execs has -- at least as far as anyone is admitting -- made direct overtures to the Alaska governor, they are readying their battle plans if she decides to give up her day job.
Of course, even if the McCain-Palin ticket loses, the Tina Fey look-alike still has a job in politics for at least another two years as governor of Alaska. A spokesman for Palin did not return calls for comment.
But the candidate has undeniable onscreen charisma as her "SNL" performance proved last weekend. And though the Palin Express sometimes veers off the tracks -- as it did in her notorious interview with Katie Couric -- Americans enjoy celebrities as much for their contretemps as their talent.
Most industry insiders believe a talk show is the probable route for Palin. Although daytime syndication can be tough sledding, it would take a personality of her stature to break through the clutter, and her folksy red-state persona could be just the thing to connect with this female-skewing audience.
One producer/packager said he has held internal staff meetings about how to best parlay Palin's appeal and skills, with a daytime talk show the likely vehicle. "I see her less as a variety-show host like Ellen (DeGeneres) and more of a single-topic host like Tyra (Banks), or maybe what Jenny Jones used to be," said Chris Coelen, CEO of RDF USA.
However, one syndie veteran who wished to remain anonymous believes Palin would not make an ideal candidate for talk show host or even court show judge.
"I would not put her on the air," the exec said. "I find her a little stiff, and her ability to read the room is not quite fully developed."
Cable news is another possibility, particularly Fox News Channel, if Palin wants to keep her conservative bona fides intact. There's a well-worn path between the Beltway and TV, from Pat Buchanan to as recent an example as former presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee, who just began his own weekly series on Fox News.
A weekly cable news berth also could be a less demanding side gig to occupy while still in office in Alaska, though losing the election could dent her credibility among conservatives.
Eric Wattenberg, an agent at N.S. Bienstock, a New York-based agency that counts many news anchors among its clientele, believes syndication is a safer bet. "I could see her getting more traction as an Oprah than as an Anderson Cooper," he said.
Some combination of talk and news could even be in the cards: One agent recommended News Corp. let her hone her chops for a few years on Fox News in anticipation of rolling out a broader-appealing talker over Fox's O&O stations after 2010.
And then there are those who are thinking outside the box, as in reality television.
One producer floated the idea -- only half-joking -- of taking advantage of the curiosity surrounding the entire Palin clan and their Alaska setting and packaging "The Palins": Think "The Osbournes" meets "Northern Exposure."
Some skeptics point out that Palin will run into a major obstacle in trying to win over the kind of widespread support one needs to become a national television figure. She is, after all, a polarizing personality. But as with such media darlings as Howard Stern or Star Jones, polarization has its advantages. "She could have a Kathie Lee Gifford kind of thing," Wattenberg said. "You're either addicted to her because you love her or you just want to tune in to see if she'll do something stupid."
Another potential obstacle to Palin is that there will be execs in liberal-leaning Hollywood who might shut the door to her solely out of political distaste. "People pretend they don't feel that way, but they do," one agent said.
The question mark amid all this speculation is whether Palin has any interest in an entertainment career. There's little indication of that, unless you count the vp candidate sending a tape of herself to late-night host Craig Ferguson last year before anyone in the lower 48 had ever heard of Wasilla. For a segment on his "Late Late Show," Ferguson had been soliciting invitations from politicians to help him become a citizen. The host was impressed enough with the unknown Palin's screen presence that he put the video on the air, even commenting, "Is it just me, or do I get a naughty librarian vibe from her?"
Even if Palin opts to remain in politics, Hollywood likely will find some way to sink its claws into her.
Although Matt Damon's comparison of Palin's rise to "a really bad Disney movie" was meant as a dig, the point wasn't lost on a lot of execs: The narrative of Palin's life is highly conducive to a biopic -- one likely already in development; whether it's a big-screen "W."-style treatment or a smaller-scale approach for women's cable channel Lifetime remains to be seen.
Palin herself might not be able to wait until the end of her term to act on any showbiz ambitions.
IMG Worldwide agent Babette Perry noted what could be called the Sanjaya effect: Celebrities (like the "American Idol" also-ran) can go from household name to obscurity with the push of a remote. "You've got to strike while the iron is hot," Perry said. "People forget that today's story is tomorrow's afterthought."
Kimberly Nordyke in Los Angeles and Paul J. Gough in New York contributed to this report.
Hollywood looking to capitalize on candidate's fame
By Andrew Wallenstein and Steven Zeitchik
Oct 23, 2008
As campaign managers for Sarah Palin plot last-minute tactics to get her elected, Hollywood bigwigs are convening strategy sessions of their own. Their goal: finding the ideal on-air vehicle for the vp candidate if and when she exits politics.
Love her or hate her -- there doesn't seem to be much middle ground with Palin -- the 44-year-old hockey mom has captured the public imagination in a way no politician has since, well, Barack Obama.
But as more and more polls cast doubt on the McCain-Palin ticket, producers and agents across the entertainment world are discussing possibilities for capitalizing on her fame, ranging from an Oprah-style syndicated talk show to a Sean Hannity-like perch in cable news or on radio.
"Any television person who sees the numbers when she appears on anything would say Sarah Palin would be great," said veteran morning-show producer Steve Friedman, citing the double-digit ratings gains her appearances on "Saturday Night Live" and "CBS Evening News" generated. "The passion she has on each side, love and hate, makes television people say, 'Wow, imagine the viewership.' "
Although none of the execs has -- at least as far as anyone is admitting -- made direct overtures to the Alaska governor, they are readying their battle plans if she decides to give up her day job.
Of course, even if the McCain-Palin ticket loses, the Tina Fey look-alike still has a job in politics for at least another two years as governor of Alaska. A spokesman for Palin did not return calls for comment.
But the candidate has undeniable onscreen charisma as her "SNL" performance proved last weekend. And though the Palin Express sometimes veers off the tracks -- as it did in her notorious interview with Katie Couric -- Americans enjoy celebrities as much for their contretemps as their talent.
Most industry insiders believe a talk show is the probable route for Palin. Although daytime syndication can be tough sledding, it would take a personality of her stature to break through the clutter, and her folksy red-state persona could be just the thing to connect with this female-skewing audience.
One producer/packager said he has held internal staff meetings about how to best parlay Palin's appeal and skills, with a daytime talk show the likely vehicle. "I see her less as a variety-show host like Ellen (DeGeneres) and more of a single-topic host like Tyra (Banks), or maybe what Jenny Jones used to be," said Chris Coelen, CEO of RDF USA.
However, one syndie veteran who wished to remain anonymous believes Palin would not make an ideal candidate for talk show host or even court show judge.
"I would not put her on the air," the exec said. "I find her a little stiff, and her ability to read the room is not quite fully developed."
Cable news is another possibility, particularly Fox News Channel, if Palin wants to keep her conservative bona fides intact. There's a well-worn path between the Beltway and TV, from Pat Buchanan to as recent an example as former presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee, who just began his own weekly series on Fox News.
A weekly cable news berth also could be a less demanding side gig to occupy while still in office in Alaska, though losing the election could dent her credibility among conservatives.
As campaign managers for Sarah Palin plot last-minute tactics to get her elected, Hollywood bigwigs are convening strategy sessions of their own. Their goal: finding the ideal on-air vehicle for the vp candidate if and when she exits politics.
Love her or hate her -- there doesn't seem to be much middle ground with Palin -- the 44-year-old hockey mom has captured the public imagination in a way no politician has since, well, Barack Obama.
But as more and more polls cast doubt on the McCain-Palin ticket, producers and agents across the entertainment world are discussing possibilities for capitalizing on her fame, ranging from an Oprah-style syndicated talk show to a Sean Hannity-like perch in cable news or on radio.
"Any television person who sees the numbers when she appears on anything would say Sarah Palin would be great," said veteran morning-show producer Steve Friedman, citing the double-digit ratings gains her appearances on "Saturday Night Live" and "CBS Evening News" generated. "The passion she has on each side, love and hate, makes television people say, 'Wow, imagine the viewership.' "
Although none of the execs has -- at least as far as anyone is admitting -- made direct overtures to the Alaska governor, they are readying their battle plans if she decides to give up her day job.
Of course, even if the McCain-Palin ticket loses, the Tina Fey look-alike still has a job in politics for at least another two years as governor of Alaska. A spokesman for Palin did not return calls for comment.
But the candidate has undeniable onscreen charisma as her "SNL" performance proved last weekend. And though the Palin Express sometimes veers off the tracks -- as it did in her notorious interview with Katie Couric -- Americans enjoy celebrities as much for their contretemps as their talent.
Most industry insiders believe a talk show is the probable route for Palin. Although daytime syndication can be tough sledding, it would take a personality of her stature to break through the clutter, and her folksy red-state persona could be just the thing to connect with this female-skewing audience.
One producer/packager said he has held internal staff meetings about how to best parlay Palin's appeal and skills, with a daytime talk show the likely vehicle. "I see her less as a variety-show host like Ellen (DeGeneres) and more of a single-topic host like Tyra (Banks), or maybe what Jenny Jones used to be," said Chris Coelen, CEO of RDF USA.
However, one syndie veteran who wished to remain anonymous believes Palin would not make an ideal candidate for talk show host or even court show judge.
"I would not put her on the air," the exec said. "I find her a little stiff, and her ability to read the room is not quite fully developed."
Cable news is another possibility, particularly Fox News Channel, if Palin wants to keep her conservative bona fides intact. There's a well-worn path between the Beltway and TV, from Pat Buchanan to as recent an example as former presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee, who just began his own weekly series on Fox News.
A weekly cable news berth also could be a less demanding side gig to occupy while still in office in Alaska, though losing the election could dent her credibility among conservatives.
Eric Wattenberg, an agent at N.S. Bienstock, a New York-based agency that counts many news anchors among its clientele, believes syndication is a safer bet. "I could see her getting more traction as an Oprah than as an Anderson Cooper," he said.
Some combination of talk and news could even be in the cards: One agent recommended News Corp. let her hone her chops for a few years on Fox News in anticipation of rolling out a broader-appealing talker over Fox's O&O stations after 2010.
And then there are those who are thinking outside the box, as in reality television.
One producer floated the idea -- only half-joking -- of taking advantage of the curiosity surrounding the entire Palin clan and their Alaska setting and packaging "The Palins": Think "The Osbournes" meets "Northern Exposure."
Some skeptics point out that Palin will run into a major obstacle in trying to win over the kind of widespread support one needs to become a national television figure. She is, after all, a polarizing personality. But as with such media darlings as Howard Stern or Star Jones, polarization has its advantages. "She could have a Kathie Lee Gifford kind of thing," Wattenberg said. "You're either addicted to her because you love her or you just want to tune in to see if she'll do something stupid."
Another potential obstacle to Palin is that there will be execs in liberal-leaning Hollywood who might shut the door to her solely out of political distaste. "People pretend they don't feel that way, but they do," one agent said.
The question mark amid all this speculation is whether Palin has any interest in an entertainment career. There's little indication of that, unless you count the vp candidate sending a tape of herself to late-night host Craig Ferguson last year before anyone in the lower 48 had ever heard of Wasilla. For a segment on his "Late Late Show," Ferguson had been soliciting invitations from politicians to help him become a citizen. The host was impressed enough with the unknown Palin's screen presence that he put the video on the air, even commenting, "Is it just me, or do I get a naughty librarian vibe from her?"
Even if Palin opts to remain in politics, Hollywood likely will find some way to sink its claws into her.
Although Matt Damon's comparison of Palin's rise to "a really bad Disney movie" was meant as a dig, the point wasn't lost on a lot of execs: The narrative of Palin's life is highly conducive to a biopic -- one likely already in development; whether it's a big-screen "W."-style treatment or a smaller-scale approach for women's cable channel Lifetime remains to be seen.
Palin herself might not be able to wait until the end of her term to act on any showbiz ambitions.
IMG Worldwide agent Babette Perry noted what could be called the Sanjaya effect: Celebrities (like the "American Idol" also-ran) can go from household name to obscurity with the push of a remote. "You've got to strike while the iron is hot," Perry said. "People forget that today's story is tomorrow's afterthought."
Kimberly Nordyke in Los Angeles and Paul J. Gough in New York contributed to this report.
MISOGNY IN THE FORM OF HALLOWEEN "ART"!!!!
Effigy of Sarah Palin hanging by a noose creates uproar in West Hollywood
Los Angeles sheriff's officials say the Halloween display isn't a hate crime. Authorities are keeping an eye on the house to make sure the situation doesn't get out of hand.
By Victoria Kim
October 28, 2008
A West Hollywood Halloween display showing a likeness of Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin hanging by a noose has caused a furor among some residents who reported it as a hate crime, authorities said Monday.
But Los Angeles County sheriff's officials said the mannequin sporting a beehive hairdo, glasses and a red coat does not rise to the level of a hate crime because it was part of a Halloween display.
"I'm not defending this; I'm not criticizing it. It doesn't rise to the level of hate crime," said Steve Whitmore, spokesman for the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, who said he went out to the house himself to look at the display this morning.
"Now, if there was a crime against bad taste . . . "
Sgt. Kristin Aloma of the Sheriff's Department's West Hollywood station said that since Sunday she had received five to 10 calls from residents offended by the display. Officials are monitoring the house to make sure the situation doesn't get out of hand, she said.
West Hollywood Mayor Jeffrey Prang said although he recognizes residents' right to free speech, he found the display problematic and felt it should be removed.
"While these residents have the legal right to display Senator John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin in effigy, I strongly oppose political speech that references violence -- real or perceived," Prang said in a statement. "I urge these residents to take down their display and find more constructive ways to express their opinion."
Whitmore said that potential hate crimes are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. If the same display had been made of a Barack Obama-like doll, for example, authorities would have to evaluate it independently, Whitmore said.
"That adds a whole other social, historical hate aspect to the display, and that is embedded in the consciousness of the country," he said, adding he's not sure whether it would be a hate crime. "It would be ill-advised of anybody to speculate on that."
ChadMichael Morrisette, who lives in the house, told a local TV news crew that cars and buses have been stopping near his home and that people have been snapping photos of the Halloween display.
The home's decorations also feature a doll of John McCain surrounded by decorative flames in the chimney, and other more typical Halloween items, such as skeletons and spider webs.
Kim is a Times staff writer.
victoria.kim@latimes.com
Los Angeles sheriff's officials say the Halloween display isn't a hate crime. Authorities are keeping an eye on the house to make sure the situation doesn't get out of hand.
By Victoria Kim
October 28, 2008
A West Hollywood Halloween display showing a likeness of Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin hanging by a noose has caused a furor among some residents who reported it as a hate crime, authorities said Monday.
But Los Angeles County sheriff's officials said the mannequin sporting a beehive hairdo, glasses and a red coat does not rise to the level of a hate crime because it was part of a Halloween display.
"I'm not defending this; I'm not criticizing it. It doesn't rise to the level of hate crime," said Steve Whitmore, spokesman for the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, who said he went out to the house himself to look at the display this morning.
"Now, if there was a crime against bad taste . . . "
Sgt. Kristin Aloma of the Sheriff's Department's West Hollywood station said that since Sunday she had received five to 10 calls from residents offended by the display. Officials are monitoring the house to make sure the situation doesn't get out of hand, she said.
West Hollywood Mayor Jeffrey Prang said although he recognizes residents' right to free speech, he found the display problematic and felt it should be removed.
"While these residents have the legal right to display Senator John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin in effigy, I strongly oppose political speech that references violence -- real or perceived," Prang said in a statement. "I urge these residents to take down their display and find more constructive ways to express their opinion."
Whitmore said that potential hate crimes are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. If the same display had been made of a Barack Obama-like doll, for example, authorities would have to evaluate it independently, Whitmore said.
"That adds a whole other social, historical hate aspect to the display, and that is embedded in the consciousness of the country," he said, adding he's not sure whether it would be a hate crime. "It would be ill-advised of anybody to speculate on that."
ChadMichael Morrisette, who lives in the house, told a local TV news crew that cars and buses have been stopping near his home and that people have been snapping photos of the Halloween display.
The home's decorations also feature a doll of John McCain surrounded by decorative flames in the chimney, and other more typical Halloween items, such as skeletons and spider webs.
Kim is a Times staff writer.
victoria.kim@latimes.com
Effigy of Sarah Palin hanging by a noose creates uproar in West Hollywood
Los Angeles sheriff's officials say the Halloween display isn't a hate crime. Authorities are keeping an eye on the house to make sure the situation doesn't get out of hand.
By Victoria Kim
October 28, 2008
A West Hollywood Halloween display showing a likeness of Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin hanging by a noose has caused a furor among some residents who reported it as a hate crime, authorities said Monday.
But Los Angeles County sheriff's officials said the mannequin sporting a beehive hairdo, glasses and a red coat does not rise to the level of a hate crime because it was part of a Halloween display.
"I'm not defending this; I'm not criticizing it. It doesn't rise to the level of hate crime," said Steve Whitmore, spokesman for the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, who said he went out to the house himself to look at the display this morning.
"Now, if there was a crime against bad taste . . . "
Sgt. Kristin Aloma of the Sheriff's Department's West Hollywood station said that since Sunday she had received five to 10 calls from residents offended by the display. Officials are monitoring the house to make sure the situation doesn't get out of hand, she said.
West Hollywood Mayor Jeffrey Prang said although he recognizes residents' right to free speech, he found the display problematic and felt it should be removed.
"While these residents have the legal right to display Senator John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin in effigy, I strongly oppose political speech that references violence -- real or perceived," Prang said in a statement. "I urge these residents to take down their display and find more constructive ways to express their opinion."
Whitmore said that potential hate crimes are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. If the same display had been made of a Barack Obama-like doll, for example, authorities would have to evaluate it independently, Whitmore said.
"That adds a whole other social, historical hate aspect to the display, and that is embedded in the consciousness of the country," he said, adding he's not sure whether it would be a hate crime. "It would be ill-advised of anybody to speculate on that."
ChadMichael Morrisette, who lives in the house, told a local TV news crew that cars and buses have been stopping near his home and that people have been snapping photos of the Halloween display.
The home's decorations also feature a doll of John McCain surrounded by decorative flames in the chimney, and other more typical Halloween items, such as skeletons and spider webs.
Kim is a Times staff writer.
victoria.kim@latimes.com
Los Angeles sheriff's officials say the Halloween display isn't a hate crime. Authorities are keeping an eye on the house to make sure the situation doesn't get out of hand.
By Victoria Kim
October 28, 2008
A West Hollywood Halloween display showing a likeness of Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin hanging by a noose has caused a furor among some residents who reported it as a hate crime, authorities said Monday.
But Los Angeles County sheriff's officials said the mannequin sporting a beehive hairdo, glasses and a red coat does not rise to the level of a hate crime because it was part of a Halloween display.
"I'm not defending this; I'm not criticizing it. It doesn't rise to the level of hate crime," said Steve Whitmore, spokesman for the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, who said he went out to the house himself to look at the display this morning.
"Now, if there was a crime against bad taste . . . "
Sgt. Kristin Aloma of the Sheriff's Department's West Hollywood station said that since Sunday she had received five to 10 calls from residents offended by the display. Officials are monitoring the house to make sure the situation doesn't get out of hand, she said.
West Hollywood Mayor Jeffrey Prang said although he recognizes residents' right to free speech, he found the display problematic and felt it should be removed.
"While these residents have the legal right to display Senator John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin in effigy, I strongly oppose political speech that references violence -- real or perceived," Prang said in a statement. "I urge these residents to take down their display and find more constructive ways to express their opinion."
Whitmore said that potential hate crimes are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. If the same display had been made of a Barack Obama-like doll, for example, authorities would have to evaluate it independently, Whitmore said.
"That adds a whole other social, historical hate aspect to the display, and that is embedded in the consciousness of the country," he said, adding he's not sure whether it would be a hate crime. "It would be ill-advised of anybody to speculate on that."
ChadMichael Morrisette, who lives in the house, told a local TV news crew that cars and buses have been stopping near his home and that people have been snapping photos of the Halloween display.
The home's decorations also feature a doll of John McCain surrounded by decorative flames in the chimney, and other more typical Halloween items, such as skeletons and spider webs.
Kim is a Times staff writer.
victoria.kim@latimes.com
MC CAIN CAMP DEMANDS L.A.TIMES RELEASE DAMNING OBAMA VIDEO!!!!!
McCain camp demands L.A. Times release video
John McCain's campaign is demanding that the Los Angeles Times release a video of a party for a prominent Palestinian activist that Barack Obama attended in 2003.
The Times described the going-away party for former University of Chicago professor, and Obama friend, Rashid Khalidi, in a story in April. The story reported that Palestinians thought they might have a friend in Obama because of his friendships in that community, despite the fact that his positions have never been particularly pro-Palestinian.
"A major news organization is intentionally suppressing information that could provide a clearer link between Barack Obama and Rashid Khalidi," said McCain spokesman Michael Goldfarb, citing Obama's friendship with Khalidi, who is now a professor at Columbia University.
He said the video could, among other things, show how Obama responded to a poem recited at the party accusing Israel of "terrorism" and warning of consequences for U.S. support for Israel, which Goldfarb described as "hate speech."
"The election is one week away, and it's unfortunate that the press so obviously favors Barack Obama that this campaign must publicly request that the Los Angeles Times do its job — make information public," he said.
The campaign hadn't previously demanded the video, though conservative bloggers have, and neither other reporters nor McCain's researchers have been able to dig up a copy.
Khalidi is a controversial figure, reviled by pro-Israel activists, though not a marginal one. A former professor at the University of Chicago, he's now Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies at Columbia, and respected by many in academia. He's been criticized most for saying that Palestinians have a right to resist Israeli occupation and has been described as a former P.L.O. spokesman, a label he has denied.
The paper hasn't explained its unwillingness to release the video, and Peter Wallsten, who found the tape and wrote about it, declined to discuss it with me last night. He forwarded an e-mail that the paper has sent readers who have complained as conservative blogs raise the issue.
"Over six months ago the Los Angeles Times published a detailed account of the events shown on the videotape. The Times is not suppressing anything. Just the opposite — the L.A. Times brought the matter to light," wrote the readers' representative, Jamie Gold.
L.A. Times spokeswoman Nancy Sullivan wouldn't discuss the decision not to release the tape in detail.
"When we reported on the tape six months ago, that was our full report," she said, and asked, "Does Politico release unpublished information?"
The answer to that question is yes — Politico and most news outlets constantly make available videos and documents, after describing them in part, which is why the Times' decision not to release the video is puzzling. My instinct, and many reporters', is to share as much source material as possible.
Critics have suggested that the Times is witholding the video for political reasons, but there are other possibilities: competitive reasons, or simply out of tradition. In the mechanics of reporting, there's another possibility as well. The video may have been given to the paper on the condition it not be released, or releasing it could compromise its source.
But the Times hasn't explained the move, and the McCain campaign is turning up the heat on a story that, whether or not the tape is released, is a reminder that some of Obama's Hyde Park friends stand well to the left of his stated positions.
John McCain's campaign is demanding that the Los Angeles Times release a video of a party for a prominent Palestinian activist that Barack Obama attended in 2003.
The Times described the going-away party for former University of Chicago professor, and Obama friend, Rashid Khalidi, in a story in April. The story reported that Palestinians thought they might have a friend in Obama because of his friendships in that community, despite the fact that his positions have never been particularly pro-Palestinian.
"A major news organization is intentionally suppressing information that could provide a clearer link between Barack Obama and Rashid Khalidi," said McCain spokesman Michael Goldfarb, citing Obama's friendship with Khalidi, who is now a professor at Columbia University.
He said the video could, among other things, show how Obama responded to a poem recited at the party accusing Israel of "terrorism" and warning of consequences for U.S. support for Israel, which Goldfarb described as "hate speech."
"The election is one week away, and it's unfortunate that the press so obviously favors Barack Obama that this campaign must publicly request that the Los Angeles Times do its job — make information public," he said.
The campaign hadn't previously demanded the video, though conservative bloggers have, and neither other reporters nor McCain's researchers have been able to dig up a copy.
Khalidi is a controversial figure, reviled by pro-Israel activists, though not a marginal one. A former professor at the University of Chicago, he's now Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies at Columbia, and respected by many in academia. He's been criticized most for saying that Palestinians have a right to resist Israeli occupation and has been described as a former P.L.O. spokesman, a label he has denied.
The paper hasn't explained its unwillingness to release the video, and Peter Wallsten, who found the tape and wrote about it, declined to discuss it with me last night. He forwarded an e-mail that the paper has sent readers who have complained as conservative blogs raise the issue.
"Over six months ago the Los Angeles Times published a detailed account of the events shown on the videotape. The Times is not suppressing anything. Just the opposite — the L.A. Times brought the matter to light," wrote the readers' representative, Jamie Gold.
L.A. Times spokeswoman Nancy Sullivan wouldn't discuss the decision not to release the tape in detail.
"When we reported on the tape six months ago, that was our full report," she said, and asked, "Does Politico release unpublished information?"
The answer to that question is yes — Politico and most news outlets constantly make available videos and documents, after describing them in part, which is why the Times' decision not to release the video is puzzling. My instinct, and many reporters', is to share as much source material as possible.
Critics have suggested that the Times is witholding the video for political reasons, but there are other possibilities: competitive reasons, or simply out of tradition. In the mechanics of reporting, there's another possibility as well. The video may have been given to the paper on the condition it not be released, or releasing it could compromise its source.
But the Times hasn't explained the move, and the McCain campaign is turning up the heat on a story that, whether or not the tape is released, is a reminder that some of Obama's Hyde Park friends stand well to the left of his stated positions.
PARK BENCHES NOW "ADDRESSES" FOR VOTING????
Judge rules Ohio homeless voters may list park benches as addresses
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) - A federal judge in Ohio has ruled that counties must allow homeless voters to list park benches and other locations that aren't buildings as their addresses.
U.S. District Judge Edmund Sargus also ruled that provisional ballots can't be invalidated because of poll worker errors.
Monday's ruling resolved the final two pieces of a settlement between the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless and Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner.
The coalition agreed to drop a constitutional challenge to Ohio's voter identification law until after the Nov. 4 election. In return, Brunner and the coalition agreed on procedures to verify provisional ballots across all Ohio counties.
The coalition was concerned that unequal treatment of provisional ballots would disenfranchise some voters.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) - A federal judge in Ohio has ruled that counties must allow homeless voters to list park benches and other locations that aren't buildings as their addresses.
U.S. District Judge Edmund Sargus also ruled that provisional ballots can't be invalidated because of poll worker errors.
Monday's ruling resolved the final two pieces of a settlement between the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless and Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner.
The coalition agreed to drop a constitutional challenge to Ohio's voter identification law until after the Nov. 4 election. In return, Brunner and the coalition agreed on procedures to verify provisional ballots across all Ohio counties.
The coalition was concerned that unequal treatment of provisional ballots would disenfranchise some voters.
SARAH DERIDES OBAMA!!!!!! YEAH!!! YEAH!!! YEAH!!!
Palin derides Obama in tour of three Va. cities
Tuesday, Oct 28, 2008
Gov. Sarah Palin dashed to rallies in three Virginia cities yesterday, deriding Sen. Barack Obama as "Barack the wealth-spreader."
Eight days before the presidential election, Sen. John McCain's running mate appeared before enthusiastic crowds in Leesburg, Fredericksburg and Salem, hoping to taper Obama's margins in Northern Virginia and build McCain's lead in Southwest Virginia.
Obama is to return to Virginia today for rallies in Harrisonburg and Norfolk in another sign of the tenacious fight for Virginia's 13 electoral votes.
In Fredericksburg during a rainy midday rally, Palin took aim at Obama's comments to "Joe the Plumber" in Ohio that "when you spread the wealth around," it's good for everybody.
"Now is not the time to experiment with socialism," Palin told a crowd of 5,000.
Palin kicked off the last full week of campaigning in Leesburg, talking taxes with "Tito the Builder" at her side.
Tito Munoz, a Colombian immigrant who rose to own a construction company in Prince William County, fired up that audience estimated at 8,000 in forested J.R.'s Festival Lakes.
"Everything we stand for is in danger by higher taxes and less freedom," Munoz said.
After contrasting the tax plans of Obama with those of McCain, Palin said the choice for voters should be clear.
"You can either do the math or go with your gut," she said, "either way you draw the same conclusion, and that's that Barack Obama is on the side of bigger, more controlling government."
The crowd chanted, "Use your brain, vote McCain."
Obama has proposed raising taxes on Americans earning more than $250,000 a year and cutting capital-gains taxes for small business.
Del. Kristen J. Amundson, D-Fairfax, said in a statement from the Obama campaign, "Governor Palin again proved she's good at distorting Barack Obama's positions, but what she didn't do today is provide an explanation for how John McCain's economic policies would be any different than George Bush's."
Palin's message resonated with voters such as Claudia Hinger of Purcellville, who said her vote comes down to the economy. Hinger works in a grocery and wants to be assured she'll keep more of her paycheck under a new president.
"I'm scared; my family's scared. I don't want to be in a 12-year Depression," Hinger said. "I feel if Obama became president, we'll be in trouble."
When the crowd started chanting "I am Joe," Palin remarked, "That's good, you betcha."
At midday, Mother Nature rained on Palin's rally in Hurkamp Park in downtown Fredericksburg, soaking the faithful to the skin, but not dampening their enthusiasm for their candidate.
"This election is going to be close. It's going to come down to the wire," Palin told the crowd.
"Virginia, are you ready to help us carry this state to victory?" she said to enthusiastic applause.
Signs in the crowd included: "Change is Coming," "No Redistribution, "Sarahcuda rocks," "Keep Virginia Red" and "Dudes 4 Sarah."
Former Gov. Jim Gilmore, the GOP candidate for the U.S. Senate, addressed the crowd, appealing to an underdog spirit that he well understands.
"John McCain has been written off in this election many times, and here he stands and he's going to win," Gilmore said.
As blustery winds and a biting cold settled in under gray skies, Palin promised that she and McCain would "shake things up in Washington," cut taxes, win the war in Iraq and get the economy back on track.
"By the way, I love this weather, because it reminds me of home," the Alaska governor said.
Palin capped her swing through Virginia last night with a third outdoor rally, before 12,000 bundled-up supporters at Salem Stadium.
In this election "it's the choice between a politician who puts his faith in government and a leader who puts his faith in you," she said.
"If you don't want your dreams dashed by the Obama tax increase," Palin said, "then you are Joe the Plumber, too, and we are all in this together, Virginia."
Tuesday, Oct 28, 2008
Gov. Sarah Palin dashed to rallies in three Virginia cities yesterday, deriding Sen. Barack Obama as "Barack the wealth-spreader."
Eight days before the presidential election, Sen. John McCain's running mate appeared before enthusiastic crowds in Leesburg, Fredericksburg and Salem, hoping to taper Obama's margins in Northern Virginia and build McCain's lead in Southwest Virginia.
Obama is to return to Virginia today for rallies in Harrisonburg and Norfolk in another sign of the tenacious fight for Virginia's 13 electoral votes.
In Fredericksburg during a rainy midday rally, Palin took aim at Obama's comments to "Joe the Plumber" in Ohio that "when you spread the wealth around," it's good for everybody.
"Now is not the time to experiment with socialism," Palin told a crowd of 5,000.
Palin kicked off the last full week of campaigning in Leesburg, talking taxes with "Tito the Builder" at her side.
Tito Munoz, a Colombian immigrant who rose to own a construction company in Prince William County, fired up that audience estimated at 8,000 in forested J.R.'s Festival Lakes.
"Everything we stand for is in danger by higher taxes and less freedom," Munoz said.
After contrasting the tax plans of Obama with those of McCain, Palin said the choice for voters should be clear.
"You can either do the math or go with your gut," she said, "either way you draw the same conclusion, and that's that Barack Obama is on the side of bigger, more controlling government."
The crowd chanted, "Use your brain, vote McCain."
Obama has proposed raising taxes on Americans earning more than $250,000 a year and cutting capital-gains taxes for small business.
Del. Kristen J. Amundson, D-Fairfax, said in a statement from the Obama campaign, "Governor Palin again proved she's good at distorting Barack Obama's positions, but what she didn't do today is provide an explanation for how John McCain's economic policies would be any different than George Bush's."
Palin's message resonated with voters such as Claudia Hinger of Purcellville, who said her vote comes down to the economy. Hinger works in a grocery and wants to be assured she'll keep more of her paycheck under a new president.
"I'm scared; my family's scared. I don't want to be in a 12-year Depression," Hinger said. "I feel if Obama became president, we'll be in trouble."
When the crowd started chanting "I am Joe," Palin remarked, "That's good, you betcha."
At midday, Mother Nature rained on Palin's rally in Hurkamp Park in downtown Fredericksburg, soaking the faithful to the skin, but not dampening their enthusiasm for their candidate.
"This election is going to be close. It's going to come down to the wire," Palin told the crowd.
"Virginia, are you ready to help us carry this state to victory?" she said to enthusiastic applause.
Signs in the crowd included: "Change is Coming," "No Redistribution, "Sarahcuda rocks," "Keep Virginia Red" and "Dudes 4 Sarah."
Former Gov. Jim Gilmore, the GOP candidate for the U.S. Senate, addressed the crowd, appealing to an underdog spirit that he well understands.
"John McCain has been written off in this election many times, and here he stands and he's going to win," Gilmore said.
As blustery winds and a biting cold settled in under gray skies, Palin promised that she and McCain would "shake things up in Washington," cut taxes, win the war in Iraq and get the economy back on track.
"By the way, I love this weather, because it reminds me of home," the Alaska governor said.
Palin capped her swing through Virginia last night with a third outdoor rally, before 12,000 bundled-up supporters at Salem Stadium.
In this election "it's the choice between a politician who puts his faith in government and a leader who puts his faith in you," she said.
"If you don't want your dreams dashed by the Obama tax increase," Palin said, "then you are Joe the Plumber, too, and we are all in this together, Virginia."
TO KNOW HER IS TO RESPECT HER: THE GREAT PALIN DIVIDE.
To Know Her Is To Respect Her
The great Palin divide.
by Fred Barnes
11/03/2008
Lorne Michaels is the longtime executive producer of Saturday Night Live. Sarah Palin appeared on SNL in mid-October, after which Michaels noted, "Her politics aren't my politics." But that wasn't all he said. "I think Palin will continue to be underestimated," Michaels told EW.com. "I watched the way she connected with people, and you can see that she's a very powerful, very disciplined, incredibly gracious woman. This was her first time out and she's had a huge impact. People connect to her."
Randy Ruedrich, the Republican chairman in Alaska, is someone you might suspect would be a friend and ally of Palin. He isn't. She helped drive him off the state's Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, criticized him publicly, and later tried to get him ousted as party chairman. Ruedrich is part of the "body count" of male politicians Palin left behind as she rose to become governor of Alaska. Yet Ruedrich says Palin is smart, very capable, and a political star.
Ruedrich isn't alone among Alaska politicians who take a cold-blooded view of Palin. Another Republican who has followed her career closely believes Palin has a ruthless streak. Yet this person, too, regards Palin as a rare talent with the skill and self-confidence to be a national political leader. And Palin's Alaska acquaintances were certain, from the moment she became John McCain's vice presidential running mate, that her acceptance speech would be a smashing success and she'd have little trouble in her debate with Joe Biden. Turned out they were right.
But that
didn't matter. The positive assessment of Palin by those who know her or have worked with her has come close to being drowned out by her critics, from the right and the left. Kathleen Parker, a conservative columnist, wrote last week that McCain was seduced by Palin's attractiveness into picking her as his running mate. The basis for Parker's conclusion was a comment by her husband about Palin, seconded by a friend ("I'm sexually attracted to her"), and a magazine article. Palin doesn't recall ever having met Parker, much less been interviewed by her.
Peggy Noonan, the former White House speechwriter for President Reagan who now writes for the Wall Street Journal, has run hot and cold on Palin, mostly cold. What appears to be her final judgment is that Palin's nomination for vice president is "no good, not for conservatism and not for the country. And, yes, it's a mark against John McCain." Palin and Noonan have never conversed either.
David Brooks, the New York Times columnist, has rendered an even harsher verdict, calling Palin "a fatal cancer to the Republican party." So far as Palin knows, she's never met Brooks or been interviewed by him.
And then there's the view of Matthew Dowd, a top strategist for President Bush's reelection campaign in 2004. He's been quoted as saying that McCain actually knows now that Palin is unqualified to be vice president. By choosing her, McCain "put the country at risk."
The difference of opinion here, between those who know Palin and those who don't, is unusual. The criticism of Palin is personal. Normally in politics, campaign operatives are called on to make excuses for a dull and uninspiring candidate. Invariably, they explain that in private, especially face-to-face with a small group of voters, the candidate is dazzlingly likable and enormously persuasive.
With Palin, it's the opposite. No one questions her ability to excite a crowd. Simply by stepping on stage at rallies, Palin rouses audiences, and her speeches are frequently interrupted by chants of "Sarah, Sarah, Sarah."
It's the private Palin, the person--who she is, what she knows, her lack of experience--that has provoked both the strongest criticism and most legitimate doubts about her readiness to be first in the line of succession if the president dies or is incapacitated.
A media person I know dismisses her as "a journalism graduate of the University of Idaho." This is pure snobbery. I asked him to name his favorite president of the past 60 or 70 years, and he chose Harry Truman. Truman never went to college but became a pretty good president nonetheless when he succeeded FDR after only a few weeks as vice president.
The issue of experience is more serious. Palin, a governor for less than two years, has no record in national affairs, with the exception of one issue--energy. And with gasoline prices falling, that issue has become less important than expected in the campaign.
On foreign and national security affairs, Palin has a knowledge gap. Indeed, if she knew more, she might have skewered Biden for the whoppers he told--about the Middle East, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan--in their debate on October 2. The press, while critical of Palin, didn't notice the inaccuracies either, or at least failed to draw attention to them.
Lack of experience is a recurring issue not only for vice presidential candidates, but
for presidential nominees as well. Barack Obama has been attacked for his limited experience in foreign policy. And though Biden, his running mate, has spent 36 years in the Senate, he seems to have learned very little from this experience.
Palin is in a familiar situation. Governors who run for national office automatically face questions about their inexperience in foreign affairs. Ronald Reagan did. Bill Clinton did. So did George W. Bush. Had Obama picked Virginia governor Tim Kaine as his veep, Kaine would have been hit with those questions. If McCain had chosen Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty (as he came close to doing), Pawlenty would have faced the same doubts. So the qualms about Palin's experience are merely par for the course.
Palin's record is another critical test of her personal skill as a leader. What has she done? A lot more than Kaine or Pawlenty or most governors. She ousted an incumbent governor of her own party, successfully fought corruption in the party, and tore up a deal with oil companies, forcing them to accept a less lucrative agreement on a new natural gas pipeline.
In judging Palin, it comes down to who is more credible. Is it those who've worked with her, or know her, or have at least met and talked with her? Or those who haven't? The answer is a no-brainer. Okay, I may be biased on the subject of Palin, having been impressed after spending nearly two hours with her on one occasion and an hour on another.
My advice is ignore the critics who know far less about Palin than she does about foreign policy. A good example is Ken Adelman, who headed the arms control agency in the Reagan administration. Adelman recently endorsed Obama and said he "would not have hired [Palin] for even a mid-level post in the arms control agency." Well, I know both Palin and Adelman. And Ken, I'm sorry to tell you, but I think there are an awful lot of jobs in Washington that Palin would get before you.
Fred Barnes is executive editor of THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
The great Palin divide.
by Fred Barnes
11/03/2008
Lorne Michaels is the longtime executive producer of Saturday Night Live. Sarah Palin appeared on SNL in mid-October, after which Michaels noted, "Her politics aren't my politics." But that wasn't all he said. "I think Palin will continue to be underestimated," Michaels told EW.com. "I watched the way she connected with people, and you can see that she's a very powerful, very disciplined, incredibly gracious woman. This was her first time out and she's had a huge impact. People connect to her."
Randy Ruedrich, the Republican chairman in Alaska, is someone you might suspect would be a friend and ally of Palin. He isn't. She helped drive him off the state's Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, criticized him publicly, and later tried to get him ousted as party chairman. Ruedrich is part of the "body count" of male politicians Palin left behind as she rose to become governor of Alaska. Yet Ruedrich says Palin is smart, very capable, and a political star.
Ruedrich isn't alone among Alaska politicians who take a cold-blooded view of Palin. Another Republican who has followed her career closely believes Palin has a ruthless streak. Yet this person, too, regards Palin as a rare talent with the skill and self-confidence to be a national political leader. And Palin's Alaska acquaintances were certain, from the moment she became John McCain's vice presidential running mate, that her acceptance speech would be a smashing success and she'd have little trouble in her debate with Joe Biden. Turned out they were right.
But that
didn't matter. The positive assessment of Palin by those who know her or have worked with her has come close to being drowned out by her critics, from the right and the left. Kathleen Parker, a conservative columnist, wrote last week that McCain was seduced by Palin's attractiveness into picking her as his running mate. The basis for Parker's conclusion was a comment by her husband about Palin, seconded by a friend ("I'm sexually attracted to her"), and a magazine article. Palin doesn't recall ever having met Parker, much less been interviewed by her.
Peggy Noonan, the former White House speechwriter for President Reagan who now writes for the Wall Street Journal, has run hot and cold on Palin, mostly cold. What appears to be her final judgment is that Palin's nomination for vice president is "no good, not for conservatism and not for the country. And, yes, it's a mark against John McCain." Palin and Noonan have never conversed either.
David Brooks, the New York Times columnist, has rendered an even harsher verdict, calling Palin "a fatal cancer to the Republican party." So far as Palin knows, she's never met Brooks or been interviewed by him.
And then there's the view of Matthew Dowd, a top strategist for President Bush's reelection campaign in 2004. He's been quoted as saying that McCain actually knows now that Palin is unqualified to be vice president. By choosing her, McCain "put the country at risk."
The difference of opinion here, between those who know Palin and those who don't, is unusual. The criticism of Palin is personal. Normally in politics, campaign operatives are called on to make excuses for a dull and uninspiring candidate. Invariably, they explain that in private, especially face-to-face with a small group of voters, the candidate is dazzlingly likable and enormously persuasive.
With Palin, it's the opposite. No one questions her ability to excite a crowd. Simply by stepping on stage at rallies, Palin rouses audiences, and her speeches are frequently interrupted by chants of "Sarah, Sarah, Sarah."
It's the private Palin, the person--who she is, what she knows, her lack of experience--that has provoked both the strongest criticism and most legitimate doubts about her readiness to be first in the line of succession if the president dies or is incapacitated.
A media person I know dismisses her as "a journalism graduate of the University of Idaho." This is pure snobbery. I asked him to name his favorite president of the past 60 or 70 years, and he chose Harry Truman. Truman never went to college but became a pretty good president nonetheless when he succeeded FDR after only a few weeks as vice president.
The issue of experience is more serious. Palin, a governor for less than two years, has no record in national affairs, with the exception of one issue--energy. And with gasoline prices falling, that issue has become less important than expected in the campaign.
On foreign and national security affairs, Palin has a knowledge gap. Indeed, if she knew more, she might have skewered Biden for the whoppers he told--about the Middle East, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan--in their debate on October 2. The press, while critical of Palin, didn't notice the inaccuracies either, or at least failed to draw attention to them.
Lack of experience is a recurring issue not only for vice presidential candidates, but
for presidential nominees as well. Barack Obama has been attacked for his limited experience in foreign policy. And though Biden, his running mate, has spent 36 years in the Senate, he seems to have learned very little from this experience.
Palin is in a familiar situation. Governors who run for national office automatically face questions about their inexperience in foreign affairs. Ronald Reagan did. Bill Clinton did. So did George W. Bush. Had Obama picked Virginia governor Tim Kaine as his veep, Kaine would have been hit with those questions. If McCain had chosen Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty (as he came close to doing), Pawlenty would have faced the same doubts. So the qualms about Palin's experience are merely par for the course.
Palin's record is another critical test of her personal skill as a leader. What has she done? A lot more than Kaine or Pawlenty or most governors. She ousted an incumbent governor of her own party, successfully fought corruption in the party, and tore up a deal with oil companies, forcing them to accept a less lucrative agreement on a new natural gas pipeline.
In judging Palin, it comes down to who is more credible. Is it those who've worked with her, or know her, or have at least met and talked with her? Or those who haven't? The answer is a no-brainer. Okay, I may be biased on the subject of Palin, having been impressed after spending nearly two hours with her on one occasion and an hour on another.
My advice is ignore the critics who know far less about Palin than she does about foreign policy. A good example is Ken Adelman, who headed the arms control agency in the Reagan administration. Adelman recently endorsed Obama and said he "would not have hired [Palin] for even a mid-level post in the arms control agency." Well, I know both Palin and Adelman. And Ken, I'm sorry to tell you, but I think there are an awful lot of jobs in Washington that Palin would get before you.
Fred Barnes is executive editor of THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
CLINTON DEMOCRATS: THE MEDIA HAS GOT IT ALL WRONG!!!!!!
Clinton Democrats: The Media Has Got It All Wrong
*This article was written for my Covering National Politics Class. A big thanks goes out to Harriet Christian, Heidi Li Feldman, and all of the PUMAs who were so gracious to me in Scranton. - CP
There are valid reasons why Obama still has problems winning over some Clinton supporters and it’s not because of racism.
by Christal Phillips
On the Road to Scranton
Outside of Penn Station in Manhattan, a man and a woman hold up “Hillary Clinton for President” placards as people gather around them to check off their names and board a bus that will take them to Scranton, PA for the day.
No, this story isn’t about the Democratic primaries. It is a brisk Saturday morning in October and the bus bound for Scranton is for a group of Democratic Hillary Clinton supporters who have pledged to campaign for Republican presidential nominee John McCain.
What may surprise some — especially those in the press who have attempted to blame the racism of uneducated small-town whites as the reason for Barack Obama’s failure to win over some Clinton supporters — is that the people on this bus are from one of the most liberal and racially diverse cities in America. A quarter of the nearly three dozen people on the bus are Asian, Hispanic, and African-American. The atmosphere is warm and electric, like a bittersweet reunion between close friends who had been separated after Clinton’s loss.
One look at Christopher Leake joking with other young Clinton supporters at the back of the bus, and it is clear he is a Clinton supporter who has been overlooked by the media. The 26-year-old graduate of Columbia University is an economist for a think tank in Manhattan. He also happens to be African-American. Leake proudly shows off his “Democrat for McCain” button pinned onto his “Bitches Get Stuff Done: Hillary for President” t-shirt.
Leake’s reasons for supporting McCain mainly stem from the treatment he and his candidate received during the primaries. “The media was biased and negative towards Hillary Clinton since the beginning of the primary when they could have used the time to vet Obama,” he said. “The media was like an extension of the Obama campaign. What Obama and the DNC did to Clinton was similar to what George W. Bush and Dick Cheney did to John McCain in 2000, but probably worse, because Obama had the assistance of the media to race-bait and smear the Clintons.”
Leake referred to Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina as an Obama surrogate who participated in playing the race card in order to help Obama win South Carolina, and to Obama’s national co-chair, Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. for coercing African-American superdelegates into switching their support from Clinton to Obama. During the primaries, Clyburn was vocal in describing Hillary Clinton’s campaign as “scurrilous” and “disingenuous” for wanting to count the popular vote in Michigan and Florida.
“It was hard being an African-American supporting Clinton,” Leake continued. “I was called a self-hating race traitor.” But supporting McCain isn’t just about sour grapes over the primary for Leake. “It is difficult for many people I know to accept my support for McCain. I am still a Democrat who will vote for down-ticket Democrats on the ballot. But I am also a moderate Democrat and a moderate Republican like McCain can definitely appeal to me. Obama is an opportunist who does not have strong policies or a concrete agenda.”
Leake has a theory as to why the Democratic Party rigged the election to favor Obama by not including two states Clinton won. “The Democratic Party is a disaster. I think it was so after 8 years of Bush that it was eager to purge the party of Reagan Democrats and create a new coalition of youth voters.” He believes that Clinton got in the way of their goal. “Hillary would have likely won the states Bill Clinton won with the help of moderate and conservative Democrats. Obama, on the other hand, has formed a new alliance of people - the young and minorities - many of whom usually do not vote in large numbers. These ‘Obamacrats’ are the same group Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, and Donna Brazille have attempted to cultivate for years.”
During most of the bus ride, the sentiment was echoed that a vote against Obama would send a message to the DNC that the party needs to be reformed. Most hoped to see Pelosi, Dean, and Brazile replaced in the aftermath of an Obama defeat. Anna Barone of Mount Vernon, NY accused Brazile of being “a sorry excuse for a neutral commentator on CNN” to the sounds of approval and laughter.
Barone, 34, travelled to 6 states for Clinton during the primary. The sexism, threats, and physical violence she says she experienced from Obama supporters is part of the reason why she feels strongly opposed to an Obama presidency. “I have been called a racist bitch and I have seen unimaginable things during the primaries and caucuses that have not been covered by the media.”
Barone once witnessed an Obama supporter call an African-American working on the Hillary Clinton campaign an “Aunt Jemima.” In Philadelphia, a poll worker physically pushed Barone and told her “that’s enough of this crap” when she attempted to put up Hillary Clinton posters in a polling place filled with Obama paraphernalia. “This is America. You have the right to vote for anyone you want without being heckled.”
Barone also witnessed voter intimidation by Obama supporters at caucuses; something she believes to have been a huge factor in Obama’s victory in a majority of caucuses and in the the delegate count over Clinton. “Hillary supporters were threatened in bathrooms of caucuses [and coerced into voting] for Obama,” Barone said angrily. “And they call us racists.”
Barone thinks Obama has divided the country by allowing his supporters and the media to label Clinton supporters as racists, something she says she still sees almost every day in the media and from Obama and his running mate Joe Biden.
At a San Francisco fundraiser on October 18th, Biden stated that “undecided people are having a difficult time just culturally making the change, making the move for the first African American president in the history of the United States of America.” Barone doesn’t believe the uncertainty has to do with the skin color of the Democratic nominee as much as with the Obama campaign’s criticism and hostility towards Clinton supporters — instead of putting in the effort to work for their votes.
“I don’t trust Obama,” said Barone. “He voted for Bush’s Energy Policy Act in 2005 and now he’s voted for FISA, which he previously opposed. No one knows what Obama is about and what he has done. At least Clinton has fought for universal health care and women and children’s rights. It took 24 debates for Obama to even have a position on the issues. I’d rather vote for someone I know than someone I don’t know.”
Barone has stopped watching CNN and MSNBC because she says she couldn’t take their one-sided commentary for Obama anymore. “They never reported anything negative on Obama but they trashed Clinton,” said Barone. “Obama never stood up for Hillary and the DNC never defended her from the media attacks. Her own party let her down.”
The attacks and calls for Clinton to drop out of the race by media pundits became so hysterical that Keith Olbermann of MSNBC got away with saying that some superdelegate should take Clinton into a room and “only he comes out”, a message many Clinton supporters considered to be a misogynistic death threat. However, the complaints from Clinton supporters about media bias have apparently fallen on deaf ears: “This is the year journalism died,” Barone said with a bit of sadness and disgust.
Sitting near the front of the bus to Pennsylvania is Catherine Tellesford from Flatbush, Brooklyn. The 53-year-old voted for Clinton in the primary and still has a “Hillary Clinton for President” poster displayed on her windowsill that she refuses to take down until November 5th. Her vote for McCain is a protest vote.
“I was bothered by how the media and Obama treated Clinton during the primary. I felt like they stole the election from her.” Tellesford still calls herself a Democrat and will vote for down-ticket Democratic candidates, but not for Obama. “I believe that Obama is narcissistic. He doesn’t believe or stand for anything besides vague terms like ‘hope’ and ‘change.’”
Tellesford is troubled by how women who support Obama have, in her view, ignored the sexism and misogyny that her generation has fought against. “The young women today who support Obama despite the sexism his campaign displayed during the primaries know nothing about fighting their own battles,” said Tellesford, who remembers the days when she could not wear pants to job interviews. “I fought for Roe v. Wade but I don’t think McCain will overturn it. I think it is being used as a weapon by the Obama campaign to pressure disaffected Democrats into voting for him.”
Wayne Singleton, the founder of the widely publicized group People United Means Action (PUMA) — the people of color umbrella — helped organize the trip to Scranton. He stopped watching MSNBC “when Chris Matthews’ leg got a tingling sensation from Obama and thought his speech on race should be required reading for school children. At that point I said, ‘He’s gone. He’s lost it.’”
* * *
Placing Principle before Party: Professor Heidi Li Feldman
For other Democrats, the only option other than voting straight party is to stay home on Election Day. This view is exemplified by Heidi Li Feldman, a professor of law and philosophy at Georgetown University, who is a Clinton supporter and who has chosen to abstain from voting for either Obama or McCain. She blogs daily at her website Heidi Li’s Potpourri and is the founder of both The Denver Group and Democrats for Principle before Party. In a telephone interview, Feldman discussed the media’s role in alienating Clinton supporters and her reasons as a Democrat for not supporting Obama.
“I think it is very difficult for journalists who work under tight deadlines to write in a nuanced way about the range of objections there are to Senator Obama,” said Feldman. “There is a tendency to oversimplify and say it is bitter Clinton supporters or ignorant white people who won’t support Obama. These are easy taglines. There are a lot of Democrats who will not support Obama because of the combination of the tactics he used and the media’s coverage of Clinton.”
“Many people ask me how I cannot support Obama now that Clinton supports him. There is an error in that way of thinking,” continued Feldman. “I didn’t support Clinton because I thought I should do whatever she wanted me to do. She is a public servant and I am a citizen…her decision doesn’t automatically imply that I should vote for him. The command/control model of politics is what I object to. I objected to it in the Republican Party and in politics in general.”
“When Karl Rove and George W. Bush teamed up to engage in voter intimidation in elections, so-called liberal Democrats objected to voter disenfranchisement. But when it came to a candidate they favored, suddenly they no longer objected to these tactics,” said Feldman.
“I think history shows that people who achieve office through corrupt ways often rule in a corrupt manner.” Feldman used Richard Nixon as a prime example. “Nixon’s conscience imposed no limitations. Likewise, George W. Bush cheated his way into office and lied about his reasons for invading and staying in Iraq. This is not disconnected from the fact that he was willing to do anything to get into the office in the first place which included stealing Florida. If you are willing to suppress voters in Florida and Michigan, then why should I think when you get into the office, you won’t feel that you are above law and conscience? Obama’s campaign showed a complete willingness to abandon process to achieve whatever he wanted.”
Feldman hopes to dispel the myth that Clinton supporters who do not vote for Obama are either bitter or have a vendetta against Obama. “Standing up to the principles of fair play is different from having a vendetta. Obama created an environment to tamper with the process and he did it repeatedly and in acquiescence with the DNC. Now he says he believes in caucus reform even though he trained his campaign staff to use coercion and intimidation to control the caucuses. Every time you take a step like that you are saying, ‘I don’t care about winning fairly. I just care about winning.’ The question is one of principle. Are you willing to support someone who engages in outright dishonest to disturbingly coercive tactics?”
As a female in the male dominated world of academia, Feldman experienced what it was like to be one of the few professors to support Clinton. “Academia is still dominated by men so it was gendered. The few Clinton supporters on our faculty were women,” said Feldman who admitted to having never seen so much opposition to dissent among her fellow academics. “When women remain devoted to a candidate men are not devoted to we are called bitter and disloyal, in an environment where you’d expect people to be more open-minded and nuanced. In this election, there was no disagreement allowed amongst Democrats in academia. It was just bizarre.”
“I want to be part of a party that accepts internal dissent and overcomes it not by telling people to shut up, but by following open and fair procedures. If not, I might as well become a Republican.”
* * *
Meeting the small-town voters in Pennsylvania
At the Democrats for McCain office in Scranton, I spoke to several of the local volunteers who switched their support from Clinton to McCain. Many were still upset that Obama and the media had stereotyped them as racists. Katie[1], 51, of White Haven, PA broke down in tears when asked about the accusations of racism leveled at people like herself and the Clintons.
“Obama was never a post-racial candidate. He has made race a huge issue,” Katie said, wiping away tears as she described what she perceived to be a hit job on the Clintons and their supporters. “All I saw everyday in the media were attacks on the Clintons. I am a Clinton Democrat. In 1996, Bill Clinton passed a college tax credit. Without that $10,000 tax credit I don’t know what I would have done to send my daughter to college. Bill took care of my family, and when the Clintons were attacked it hit me hard.”
Katie describes herself as a liberal. She read the New York Times for 40 years, but stopped after the Times allowed what Katie calls “astroturfing” on their Caucus Blog. Katie argues that “Astroturfing is when paid Obama bloggers go to websites to lie, post Obama talking points, and scare people,” She says that Obama supporters posted comments on the Caucus Blog, but that the Times wouldn’t publish her rebuttals or they would do so long after the thread was dead. She has asked not to have her real name used in this article because she alleges that her name and email, which can be found on pro-Hillary Clinton websites and forums, have been used by Obama supporters to send emails to a U.S. Senator, and also to send her nasty emails. “I was stupid to use my real name and email, not realizing that people in this election would go so far as to do these things,” Katie said.
Katie refuses to go back to the Democratic Party until Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi leave. “I never imagined I’d be voting for McCain a year ago. But after everything I’ve seen this year from the Democratic Party and Barack Obama…” Katie paused and shook her head in disbelief. “It just shocked me that the Democrats were capable of the attacks, the misogyny, the disenfranchisement I saw in the primary. Even John Edwards and Obama joined in on the sexism. These were aspects of the Democratic Party I never knew existed. This election opened my eyes to the DNC corruption. Real Democrats don’t act that way.”
Judy O’Connor, 58, of Carbondale, PA, has socialized with the Clintons and the Rodhams who spent summers in Scranton and has a great liking for them. “I’m still a Democrat. I’m just sick of the media and Obama surrogates calling the good people of Pennsylvania racists. As you can see there are volunteers of all races in this office. Never once did we think of race while campaigning.”
“I’m not voting for Obama because I don’t believe he has the experience or accomplishments and because his campaign used race-baiting and sexism to smear the Clintons,” said O’Connor whose voice grew louder at the mention of the Pennsylvania primary. “Obama has not been back here since St. Patrick’s Day. Do you know why? Because a day after he asked us for our votes, he flew to San Francisco to a private fundraiser with his rich buddies and called us bitter small town people who cling to our guns and religion. How dare he? We are hardworking, caring people. He calls us racists but he thinks he can insult our intelligence by saying that he never heard Jeremiah Wright’s racist rhetoric? Please.”
At the end of the day as tired volunteers boarded the bus back to New York City, Singleton assured them that their efforts would pay off on Election Day. “We need to reach out to more people and tell them that we’re Democrats for McCain. It’s a powerful statement because it tells those undecided voters that even if they are Democrats, they don’t have to vote for a candidate they find unacceptable. We’re here because we’ve decided to place country and principle before party.”
Ever since the economic crisis, Obama has won over more undecided Clinton supporters, placing him slightly ahead of McCain in recent polls. But even if Obama wins, he will have a lot of work to do to prove that he cares about the progressive issues and economic agenda of those working class voters and Clinton supporters whom some in the Obama campaign and the upper-end press corps continue to spurn — and yes, even accuse of being racist.
*This article was written for my Covering National Politics Class. A big thanks goes out to Harriet Christian, Heidi Li Feldman, and all of the PUMAs who were so gracious to me in Scranton. - CP
There are valid reasons why Obama still has problems winning over some Clinton supporters and it’s not because of racism.
by Christal Phillips
On the Road to Scranton
Outside of Penn Station in Manhattan, a man and a woman hold up “Hillary Clinton for President” placards as people gather around them to check off their names and board a bus that will take them to Scranton, PA for the day.
No, this story isn’t about the Democratic primaries. It is a brisk Saturday morning in October and the bus bound for Scranton is for a group of Democratic Hillary Clinton supporters who have pledged to campaign for Republican presidential nominee John McCain.
What may surprise some — especially those in the press who have attempted to blame the racism of uneducated small-town whites as the reason for Barack Obama’s failure to win over some Clinton supporters — is that the people on this bus are from one of the most liberal and racially diverse cities in America. A quarter of the nearly three dozen people on the bus are Asian, Hispanic, and African-American. The atmosphere is warm and electric, like a bittersweet reunion between close friends who had been separated after Clinton’s loss.
One look at Christopher Leake joking with other young Clinton supporters at the back of the bus, and it is clear he is a Clinton supporter who has been overlooked by the media. The 26-year-old graduate of Columbia University is an economist for a think tank in Manhattan. He also happens to be African-American. Leake proudly shows off his “Democrat for McCain” button pinned onto his “Bitches Get Stuff Done: Hillary for President” t-shirt.
Leake’s reasons for supporting McCain mainly stem from the treatment he and his candidate received during the primaries. “The media was biased and negative towards Hillary Clinton since the beginning of the primary when they could have used the time to vet Obama,” he said. “The media was like an extension of the Obama campaign. What Obama and the DNC did to Clinton was similar to what George W. Bush and Dick Cheney did to John McCain in 2000, but probably worse, because Obama had the assistance of the media to race-bait and smear the Clintons.”
Leake referred to Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina as an Obama surrogate who participated in playing the race card in order to help Obama win South Carolina, and to Obama’s national co-chair, Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. for coercing African-American superdelegates into switching their support from Clinton to Obama. During the primaries, Clyburn was vocal in describing Hillary Clinton’s campaign as “scurrilous” and “disingenuous” for wanting to count the popular vote in Michigan and Florida.
“It was hard being an African-American supporting Clinton,” Leake continued. “I was called a self-hating race traitor.” But supporting McCain isn’t just about sour grapes over the primary for Leake. “It is difficult for many people I know to accept my support for McCain. I am still a Democrat who will vote for down-ticket Democrats on the ballot. But I am also a moderate Democrat and a moderate Republican like McCain can definitely appeal to me. Obama is an opportunist who does not have strong policies or a concrete agenda.”
Leake has a theory as to why the Democratic Party rigged the election to favor Obama by not including two states Clinton won. “The Democratic Party is a disaster. I think it was so after 8 years of Bush that it was eager to purge the party of Reagan Democrats and create a new coalition of youth voters.” He believes that Clinton got in the way of their goal. “Hillary would have likely won the states Bill Clinton won with the help of moderate and conservative Democrats. Obama, on the other hand, has formed a new alliance of people - the young and minorities - many of whom usually do not vote in large numbers. These ‘Obamacrats’ are the same group Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, and Donna Brazille have attempted to cultivate for years.”
During most of the bus ride, the sentiment was echoed that a vote against Obama would send a message to the DNC that the party needs to be reformed. Most hoped to see Pelosi, Dean, and Brazile replaced in the aftermath of an Obama defeat. Anna Barone of Mount Vernon, NY accused Brazile of being “a sorry excuse for a neutral commentator on CNN” to the sounds of approval and laughter.
Barone, 34, travelled to 6 states for Clinton during the primary. The sexism, threats, and physical violence she says she experienced from Obama supporters is part of the reason why she feels strongly opposed to an Obama presidency. “I have been called a racist bitch and I have seen unimaginable things during the primaries and caucuses that have not been covered by the media.”
Barone once witnessed an Obama supporter call an African-American working on the Hillary Clinton campaign an “Aunt Jemima.” In Philadelphia, a poll worker physically pushed Barone and told her “that’s enough of this crap” when she attempted to put up Hillary Clinton posters in a polling place filled with Obama paraphernalia. “This is America. You have the right to vote for anyone you want without being heckled.”
Barone also witnessed voter intimidation by Obama supporters at caucuses; something she believes to have been a huge factor in Obama’s victory in a majority of caucuses and in the the delegate count over Clinton. “Hillary supporters were threatened in bathrooms of caucuses [and coerced into voting] for Obama,” Barone said angrily. “And they call us racists.”
Barone thinks Obama has divided the country by allowing his supporters and the media to label Clinton supporters as racists, something she says she still sees almost every day in the media and from Obama and his running mate Joe Biden.
At a San Francisco fundraiser on October 18th, Biden stated that “undecided people are having a difficult time just culturally making the change, making the move for the first African American president in the history of the United States of America.” Barone doesn’t believe the uncertainty has to do with the skin color of the Democratic nominee as much as with the Obama campaign’s criticism and hostility towards Clinton supporters — instead of putting in the effort to work for their votes.
“I don’t trust Obama,” said Barone. “He voted for Bush’s Energy Policy Act in 2005 and now he’s voted for FISA, which he previously opposed. No one knows what Obama is about and what he has done. At least Clinton has fought for universal health care and women and children’s rights. It took 24 debates for Obama to even have a position on the issues. I’d rather vote for someone I know than someone I don’t know.”
Barone has stopped watching CNN and MSNBC because she says she couldn’t take their one-sided commentary for Obama anymore. “They never reported anything negative on Obama but they trashed Clinton,” said Barone. “Obama never stood up for Hillary and the DNC never defended her from the media attacks. Her own party let her down.”
The attacks and calls for Clinton to drop out of the race by media pundits became so hysterical that Keith Olbermann of MSNBC got away with saying that some superdelegate should take Clinton into a room and “only he comes out”, a message many Clinton supporters considered to be a misogynistic death threat. However, the complaints from Clinton supporters about media bias have apparently fallen on deaf ears: “This is the year journalism died,” Barone said with a bit of sadness and disgust.
Sitting near the front of the bus to Pennsylvania is Catherine Tellesford from Flatbush, Brooklyn. The 53-year-old voted for Clinton in the primary and still has a “Hillary Clinton for President” poster displayed on her windowsill that she refuses to take down until November 5th. Her vote for McCain is a protest vote.
“I was bothered by how the media and Obama treated Clinton during the primary. I felt like they stole the election from her.” Tellesford still calls herself a Democrat and will vote for down-ticket Democratic candidates, but not for Obama. “I believe that Obama is narcissistic. He doesn’t believe or stand for anything besides vague terms like ‘hope’ and ‘change.’”
Tellesford is troubled by how women who support Obama have, in her view, ignored the sexism and misogyny that her generation has fought against. “The young women today who support Obama despite the sexism his campaign displayed during the primaries know nothing about fighting their own battles,” said Tellesford, who remembers the days when she could not wear pants to job interviews. “I fought for Roe v. Wade but I don’t think McCain will overturn it. I think it is being used as a weapon by the Obama campaign to pressure disaffected Democrats into voting for him.”
Wayne Singleton, the founder of the widely publicized group People United Means Action (PUMA) — the people of color umbrella — helped organize the trip to Scranton. He stopped watching MSNBC “when Chris Matthews’ leg got a tingling sensation from Obama and thought his speech on race should be required reading for school children. At that point I said, ‘He’s gone. He’s lost it.’”
* * *
Placing Principle before Party: Professor Heidi Li Feldman
For other Democrats, the only option other than voting straight party is to stay home on Election Day. This view is exemplified by Heidi Li Feldman, a professor of law and philosophy at Georgetown University, who is a Clinton supporter and who has chosen to abstain from voting for either Obama or McCain. She blogs daily at her website Heidi Li’s Potpourri and is the founder of both The Denver Group and Democrats for Principle before Party. In a telephone interview, Feldman discussed the media’s role in alienating Clinton supporters and her reasons as a Democrat for not supporting Obama.
“I think it is very difficult for journalists who work under tight deadlines to write in a nuanced way about the range of objections there are to Senator Obama,” said Feldman. “There is a tendency to oversimplify and say it is bitter Clinton supporters or ignorant white people who won’t support Obama. These are easy taglines. There are a lot of Democrats who will not support Obama because of the combination of the tactics he used and the media’s coverage of Clinton.”
“Many people ask me how I cannot support Obama now that Clinton supports him. There is an error in that way of thinking,” continued Feldman. “I didn’t support Clinton because I thought I should do whatever she wanted me to do. She is a public servant and I am a citizen…her decision doesn’t automatically imply that I should vote for him. The command/control model of politics is what I object to. I objected to it in the Republican Party and in politics in general.”
“When Karl Rove and George W. Bush teamed up to engage in voter intimidation in elections, so-called liberal Democrats objected to voter disenfranchisement. But when it came to a candidate they favored, suddenly they no longer objected to these tactics,” said Feldman.
“I think history shows that people who achieve office through corrupt ways often rule in a corrupt manner.” Feldman used Richard Nixon as a prime example. “Nixon’s conscience imposed no limitations. Likewise, George W. Bush cheated his way into office and lied about his reasons for invading and staying in Iraq. This is not disconnected from the fact that he was willing to do anything to get into the office in the first place which included stealing Florida. If you are willing to suppress voters in Florida and Michigan, then why should I think when you get into the office, you won’t feel that you are above law and conscience? Obama’s campaign showed a complete willingness to abandon process to achieve whatever he wanted.”
Feldman hopes to dispel the myth that Clinton supporters who do not vote for Obama are either bitter or have a vendetta against Obama. “Standing up to the principles of fair play is different from having a vendetta. Obama created an environment to tamper with the process and he did it repeatedly and in acquiescence with the DNC. Now he says he believes in caucus reform even though he trained his campaign staff to use coercion and intimidation to control the caucuses. Every time you take a step like that you are saying, ‘I don’t care about winning fairly. I just care about winning.’ The question is one of principle. Are you willing to support someone who engages in outright dishonest to disturbingly coercive tactics?”
As a female in the male dominated world of academia, Feldman experienced what it was like to be one of the few professors to support Clinton. “Academia is still dominated by men so it was gendered. The few Clinton supporters on our faculty were women,” said Feldman who admitted to having never seen so much opposition to dissent among her fellow academics. “When women remain devoted to a candidate men are not devoted to we are called bitter and disloyal, in an environment where you’d expect people to be more open-minded and nuanced. In this election, there was no disagreement allowed amongst Democrats in academia. It was just bizarre.”
“I want to be part of a party that accepts internal dissent and overcomes it not by telling people to shut up, but by following open and fair procedures. If not, I might as well become a Republican.”
* * *
Meeting the small-town voters in Pennsylvania
At the Democrats for McCain office in Scranton, I spoke to several of the local volunteers who switched their support from Clinton to McCain. Many were still upset that Obama and the media had stereotyped them as racists. Katie[1], 51, of White Haven, PA broke down in tears when asked about the accusations of racism leveled at people like herself and the Clintons.
“Obama was never a post-racial candidate. He has made race a huge issue,” Katie said, wiping away tears as she described what she perceived to be a hit job on the Clintons and their supporters. “All I saw everyday in the media were attacks on the Clintons. I am a Clinton Democrat. In 1996, Bill Clinton passed a college tax credit. Without that $10,000 tax credit I don’t know what I would have done to send my daughter to college. Bill took care of my family, and when the Clintons were attacked it hit me hard.”
Katie describes herself as a liberal. She read the New York Times for 40 years, but stopped after the Times allowed what Katie calls “astroturfing” on their Caucus Blog. Katie argues that “Astroturfing is when paid Obama bloggers go to websites to lie, post Obama talking points, and scare people,” She says that Obama supporters posted comments on the Caucus Blog, but that the Times wouldn’t publish her rebuttals or they would do so long after the thread was dead. She has asked not to have her real name used in this article because she alleges that her name and email, which can be found on pro-Hillary Clinton websites and forums, have been used by Obama supporters to send emails to a U.S. Senator, and also to send her nasty emails. “I was stupid to use my real name and email, not realizing that people in this election would go so far as to do these things,” Katie said.
Katie refuses to go back to the Democratic Party until Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi leave. “I never imagined I’d be voting for McCain a year ago. But after everything I’ve seen this year from the Democratic Party and Barack Obama…” Katie paused and shook her head in disbelief. “It just shocked me that the Democrats were capable of the attacks, the misogyny, the disenfranchisement I saw in the primary. Even John Edwards and Obama joined in on the sexism. These were aspects of the Democratic Party I never knew existed. This election opened my eyes to the DNC corruption. Real Democrats don’t act that way.”
Judy O’Connor, 58, of Carbondale, PA, has socialized with the Clintons and the Rodhams who spent summers in Scranton and has a great liking for them. “I’m still a Democrat. I’m just sick of the media and Obama surrogates calling the good people of Pennsylvania racists. As you can see there are volunteers of all races in this office. Never once did we think of race while campaigning.”
“I’m not voting for Obama because I don’t believe he has the experience or accomplishments and because his campaign used race-baiting and sexism to smear the Clintons,” said O’Connor whose voice grew louder at the mention of the Pennsylvania primary. “Obama has not been back here since St. Patrick’s Day. Do you know why? Because a day after he asked us for our votes, he flew to San Francisco to a private fundraiser with his rich buddies and called us bitter small town people who cling to our guns and religion. How dare he? We are hardworking, caring people. He calls us racists but he thinks he can insult our intelligence by saying that he never heard Jeremiah Wright’s racist rhetoric? Please.”
At the end of the day as tired volunteers boarded the bus back to New York City, Singleton assured them that their efforts would pay off on Election Day. “We need to reach out to more people and tell them that we’re Democrats for McCain. It’s a powerful statement because it tells those undecided voters that even if they are Democrats, they don’t have to vote for a candidate they find unacceptable. We’re here because we’ve decided to place country and principle before party.”
Ever since the economic crisis, Obama has won over more undecided Clinton supporters, placing him slightly ahead of McCain in recent polls. But even if Obama wins, he will have a lot of work to do to prove that he cares about the progressive issues and economic agenda of those working class voters and Clinton supporters whom some in the Obama campaign and the upper-end press corps continue to spurn — and yes, even accuse of being racist.
MC CAIN WORKERS PEPPER SPRAYED BY OBAMABOTS!!!!!
Campaign workers attacked
Mike Stevens says he and other Republican campaign volunteers were attacked on Monday when they were sprayed with pepper spray after an altercation with two people over campaign signs.
By Ben Bomberger
Two people were arrested Monday afternoon after an altercation led to five Republican campaign workers being sprayed with Mace at their headquarters in Galax.
Galax Police Chief Rick Clark said officers were dispatched shortly before 1 p.m. to the Galax Republican headquarters on East Grayson Street when a caller reported someone had sprayed office workers with Mace.
Responding officers arrested Daniel Cason Meinecke, 29, and Cara Annis Hindman, 26, both of Galax.
Meinecke was charged with one count of misdemeanor assault, Hindman was charged with five counts of misdemeanor assault.
Galax Republican Chairman Mike Stevens said he was one of the volunteers sprayed. He said a man and woman came into the office and asked for campaign yard signs for the Democratic ticket of Barack Obama and Joe Biden.
After being told the Obama-Biden campaign office was up the street, Stevens said, the man said he was aware of that, but that he thought Democratic signs were being stolen and “stashed” at the Republican office.
Stevens told him that nobody there had stolen signs, not were they “stashing” any in the building.
A confrontation escalated and, Stevens said, the man began to use some four-letter words.
Stevens said there were older women in the office and he asked the couple to leave the building.
“With the ladies in the office, I said that was enough and asked them to leave,” he said. “I told them, if they had a problem with someone stealing their signs they needed to contact the police department.”
Stevens said the couple replied that they weren’t leaving, and that they didn’t have to.
“I kind of moved them towards the door and he lashed out at me,” Stevens said. “So I lashed out at him.”
No punches were thrown, but instead the two simply held each other at bay, according to Stevens.
Once outside, Stevens said, the woman sprayed Mace on him and another volunteer before turning back to the office and spraying inside the building.
“It was surreal in the fact that I’ve had people in the past couple months come in and ask for signs. But to have an altercation like that just seems strange.”
While Stevens was unsure if the couple came into the building planning to start an altercation, he said it seemed evident they were.
“There was no business that this gentleman had to do in the office. We didn’t do anything... We didn’t steal his signs. The people in the building were a 75- and 71-year-old man and their respective wives... they aren’t out there stealing signs.”
Stevens said he felt the man just came to the headquarters to agitate office volunteers and that he had no reason to enter the building.
“I can’t say they came there for that purpose. But it seemed that it was to come in and agitate. When he started cussing, that’s when I felt it was time for them to go out of the way and go on down the road.”
With the election of a new president coming in the next week, Stevens said the tension between Republican and Democrats has been elevated.
“We are more divided,” as a result, he said.
Chief Clark said in a news release that Meinecke is alleged to have physically assaulted one of the Republican campaign workers; Hindman is alleged to have sprayed Pepper Mace that contaminated five Republican campaign workers.
Both were released on a secured bond pending their arraignment in Galax General District Court.
Mike Stevens says he and other Republican campaign volunteers were attacked on Monday when they were sprayed with pepper spray after an altercation with two people over campaign signs.
By Ben Bomberger
Two people were arrested Monday afternoon after an altercation led to five Republican campaign workers being sprayed with Mace at their headquarters in Galax.
Galax Police Chief Rick Clark said officers were dispatched shortly before 1 p.m. to the Galax Republican headquarters on East Grayson Street when a caller reported someone had sprayed office workers with Mace.
Responding officers arrested Daniel Cason Meinecke, 29, and Cara Annis Hindman, 26, both of Galax.
Meinecke was charged with one count of misdemeanor assault, Hindman was charged with five counts of misdemeanor assault.
Galax Republican Chairman Mike Stevens said he was one of the volunteers sprayed. He said a man and woman came into the office and asked for campaign yard signs for the Democratic ticket of Barack Obama and Joe Biden.
After being told the Obama-Biden campaign office was up the street, Stevens said, the man said he was aware of that, but that he thought Democratic signs were being stolen and “stashed” at the Republican office.
Stevens told him that nobody there had stolen signs, not were they “stashing” any in the building.
A confrontation escalated and, Stevens said, the man began to use some four-letter words.
Stevens said there were older women in the office and he asked the couple to leave the building.
“With the ladies in the office, I said that was enough and asked them to leave,” he said. “I told them, if they had a problem with someone stealing their signs they needed to contact the police department.”
Stevens said the couple replied that they weren’t leaving, and that they didn’t have to.
“I kind of moved them towards the door and he lashed out at me,” Stevens said. “So I lashed out at him.”
No punches were thrown, but instead the two simply held each other at bay, according to Stevens.
Once outside, Stevens said, the woman sprayed Mace on him and another volunteer before turning back to the office and spraying inside the building.
“It was surreal in the fact that I’ve had people in the past couple months come in and ask for signs. But to have an altercation like that just seems strange.”
While Stevens was unsure if the couple came into the building planning to start an altercation, he said it seemed evident they were.
“There was no business that this gentleman had to do in the office. We didn’t do anything... We didn’t steal his signs. The people in the building were a 75- and 71-year-old man and their respective wives... they aren’t out there stealing signs.”
Stevens said he felt the man just came to the headquarters to agitate office volunteers and that he had no reason to enter the building.
“I can’t say they came there for that purpose. But it seemed that it was to come in and agitate. When he started cussing, that’s when I felt it was time for them to go out of the way and go on down the road.”
With the election of a new president coming in the next week, Stevens said the tension between Republican and Democrats has been elevated.
“We are more divided,” as a result, he said.
Chief Clark said in a news release that Meinecke is alleged to have physically assaulted one of the Republican campaign workers; Hindman is alleged to have sprayed Pepper Mace that contaminated five Republican campaign workers.
Both were released on a secured bond pending their arraignment in Galax General District Court.
SARAH ROCKIN' TO "REDNECK WOMAN"!!!!
I dare you! Watch this video and see if you can do it WITHOUT SMILING!! Isn't she delightful? Sarah is the most fresh, genuine, authentic politician I have EVER seen!! I LOVE the fact that we have a candidate who is so REAL and the fact she is a WOMAN is a nice bonus, too!!
OBAMA WOULD FAIL SECURITY CLEARANCE!!!
WHY do terrorists LOVE Obama? WHY do terrorists want him to become PRESIDENT? Obama has had long-term relationships with these people who HATE our country. He is comfortable with them; they are comfortable with him. To me, THAT ALONE, should disqualify Obama for president. But with the media refusing to report anything negative about this radical opportunist, with the cheating he does and illegal contributions, he has the ability to BUY THE PRESIDENCY. WILL AMERICA LET HIM? I PRAY THEY WON'T!!
SARAH DOES ANOTHER HANNITY INTERVIEW!!!!
October 27th, 2008
Palin Tells Hannity: “Wisdom of the People Will Prevail”
by Shushannah Walshe
HARRISBURG, PA –-Fox News Channel’s Sean Hannity did his fourth interview with Sarah Palin yesterday and it aired tonight on Hannity and Colmes.
Palin told Hannity that she is confident that come Election Day that her ticket will be victorious.
“John and I have both been in that underdog position over and over again.” Palin said, “Being in the underdog position, it motivates us. Makes us work harder. And I believe that yes, the wisdom of the people will prevail on November 4th.”
Hannity spoke to Palin behind the stage of her rally in Tampa right before she walked out on stage with Elisabeth Hasselbeck.
As Palin stood next to her 7-year-old daughter, Piper, who is constantly by her mother’s side on the trail, Hannity asked how the campaign has affected the Alaska governor’s family. Palin said that her family has always been “quite busy.”
“We’ve always been pretty busy and had unconventional schedules with me working full time as mayor and Todd out commercial fishing, or working up on the North Slope.” Palin said, “And as governor then, too. So, practically speaking, not that much of a difference except that we’re on the road, of course, and sleeping in a different hotel every night.”
Palin told Hannity that some of her faith in journalism “eroded” because of what she saw as “unfair shots” taken at her children throughout the campaign.
Palin Tells Hannity: “Wisdom of the People Will Prevail”
by Shushannah Walshe
HARRISBURG, PA –-Fox News Channel’s Sean Hannity did his fourth interview with Sarah Palin yesterday and it aired tonight on Hannity and Colmes.
Palin told Hannity that she is confident that come Election Day that her ticket will be victorious.
“John and I have both been in that underdog position over and over again.” Palin said, “Being in the underdog position, it motivates us. Makes us work harder. And I believe that yes, the wisdom of the people will prevail on November 4th.”
Hannity spoke to Palin behind the stage of her rally in Tampa right before she walked out on stage with Elisabeth Hasselbeck.
As Palin stood next to her 7-year-old daughter, Piper, who is constantly by her mother’s side on the trail, Hannity asked how the campaign has affected the Alaska governor’s family. Palin said that her family has always been “quite busy.”
“We’ve always been pretty busy and had unconventional schedules with me working full time as mayor and Todd out commercial fishing, or working up on the North Slope.” Palin said, “And as governor then, too. So, practically speaking, not that much of a difference except that we’re on the road, of course, and sleeping in a different hotel every night.”
Palin told Hannity that some of her faith in journalism “eroded” because of what she saw as “unfair shots” taken at her children throughout the campaign.
"SARAH PALIN IS A BRAINIAC" By: Elaine Lafferty
The former editor in chief of Ms. magazine (and a Democrat) on what she learned on a campaign plane with the would-be VP.
It's difficult not to froth when one reads, as I did again and again this week, doubts about Sarah Palin's “intelligence,” coming especially from women such as PBS's Bonnie Erbe, who, as near as I recall, has not herself heretofore been burdened with the Susan Sontag of Journalism moniker. As Fred Barnes—God help me, I'm agreeing with Fred Barnes—suggests in the Weekly Standard, these high toned and authoritative dismissals come from people who have never met or spoken with Sarah Palin. Those who know her, love her or hate her, offer no such criticism. They know what I know, and I learned it from spending just a little time traveling on the cramped campaign plane this week: Sarah Palin is very smart.
I'm a Democrat, but I've worked as a consultant with the McCain campaign since shortly after Palin's nomination. Last week, there was the thought that as a former editor-in-chief of Ms. magazine as well as a feminist activist in my pre-journalism days, I might be helpful in contributing to a speech that Palin had long wanted to give on women's rights.
What is often called her “confidence” is actually a rarity in national politics: I saw a woman who knows exactly who she is.
Now by “smart,” I don't refer to a person who is wily or calculating or nimble in the way of certain talented athletes who we admire but suspect don't really have serious brains in their skulls. I mean, instead, a mind that is thoughtful, curious, with a discernable pattern of associative thinking and insight. Palin asks questions, and probes linkages and logic that bring to mind a quirky law professor I once had. Palin is more than a “quick study”; I'd heard rumors around the campaign of her photographic memory and, frankly, I watched it in action. She sees. She processes. She questions, and only then, she acts. What is often called her “confidence” is actually a rarity in national politics: I saw a woman who knows exactly who she is.
For all those old enough to remember Senator Sam Ervin, the brilliant strict constitutional constructionist and chairman of the Senate Watergate Committee whose patois included “I'm just a country lawyer"...Yup, Palin is that smart.
So no simple task then, this speech on women's rights. For the sin of being a Christian personally opposed to abortion, Palin is being pilloried by the inside-the-Beltway Democrat feminist establishment. (Yes, she is anti-abortion. And yes, instead of buying organic New Zealand lamb at Whole Foods, she joins other Alaskans in hunting for food. That's it. She is not a right-wing nut, and all the rest of the Internet drivel—the book banning at the Library, the rape kits decision—is nonsense. I digress.) Palin's role in this campaign was to energize “the Republican base,” which she has inarguably done. She also was expected to reach out to Hillary Clinton “moderates.” (Right. Only a woman would get both those jobs in either party.) Look, I am obviously personally pro-choice, and I disagree with McCain and Palin on that and a few other issues. But like many other Democrats, including Lynn Rothschild, I'm tired of the Democratic Party taking women for granted. I also happen to believe Sarah Palin supports women's rights, deeply and passionately.
Many of those—not all—who decried the sexist media treatment of Hillary Clinton have been silent as Palin has been skewered in the old ways that female public figures are skewered, as well as a host of sexualized new ways as well. Some feminists have weighed in; “Even the reportedly clear glasses she wears to play down her beauty queen credential and enhance her gravitas can't make up for experience,” writes my heroine Suzanne Braun Levine, former editor of Ms. Oppose her on policy? Fine. But how sad for feminist leaders to sink this low, especially when Palin has worn glasses since she was 10 years old.
Last month a prominent feminist blogger, echoing that sensibility, declared that the media was wrongly buying into the false idea that Palin was a feminist. Why? Well, just because she said she was a feminist, because she supported women's rights and opportunities, equal pay, Title IV—that was just “empty rhetoric,” they said. At least the blogger didn't go as far as NOW's Kim Gandy and declare that Palin was not a woman. Bottom line: you are not a feminist until we say you are. And there you have the formula for diminishing what was once a great and important mass social change movement to an exclusionary club that rejects women who sincerely want to join and, God forbid, grow to lead.
But here is the good news: women, citizens of America's high and low culture, the Economist and People magazine readers, will get it. They got it with Hillary even when feminist leaders were not supporting her or doing so half-heartedly. Yes, Palin is a harder sell, she looks and sounds different, and one can rightfully oppose her based on abortion policies. If you only vote on how a person personally feels about abortion, you will never want her to darken your door. If you care about anything else, she will continue to intrigue you. As Time's Nancy Gibbs noted a few weeks ago, quoting bioethicist Tom Murray, “Sympathy and subtlety are seasonings rarely applied to political red meat.” Will Palin's time come next week? I don't know. But her time will come.
It's difficult not to froth when one reads, as I did again and again this week, doubts about Sarah Palin's “intelligence,” coming especially from women such as PBS's Bonnie Erbe, who, as near as I recall, has not herself heretofore been burdened with the Susan Sontag of Journalism moniker. As Fred Barnes—God help me, I'm agreeing with Fred Barnes—suggests in the Weekly Standard, these high toned and authoritative dismissals come from people who have never met or spoken with Sarah Palin. Those who know her, love her or hate her, offer no such criticism. They know what I know, and I learned it from spending just a little time traveling on the cramped campaign plane this week: Sarah Palin is very smart.
I'm a Democrat, but I've worked as a consultant with the McCain campaign since shortly after Palin's nomination. Last week, there was the thought that as a former editor-in-chief of Ms. magazine as well as a feminist activist in my pre-journalism days, I might be helpful in contributing to a speech that Palin had long wanted to give on women's rights.
What is often called her “confidence” is actually a rarity in national politics: I saw a woman who knows exactly who she is.
Now by “smart,” I don't refer to a person who is wily or calculating or nimble in the way of certain talented athletes who we admire but suspect don't really have serious brains in their skulls. I mean, instead, a mind that is thoughtful, curious, with a discernable pattern of associative thinking and insight. Palin asks questions, and probes linkages and logic that bring to mind a quirky law professor I once had. Palin is more than a “quick study”; I'd heard rumors around the campaign of her photographic memory and, frankly, I watched it in action. She sees. She processes. She questions, and only then, she acts. What is often called her “confidence” is actually a rarity in national politics: I saw a woman who knows exactly who she is.
For all those old enough to remember Senator Sam Ervin, the brilliant strict constitutional constructionist and chairman of the Senate Watergate Committee whose patois included “I'm just a country lawyer"...Yup, Palin is that smart.
So no simple task then, this speech on women's rights. For the sin of being a Christian personally opposed to abortion, Palin is being pilloried by the inside-the-Beltway Democrat feminist establishment. (Yes, she is anti-abortion. And yes, instead of buying organic New Zealand lamb at Whole Foods, she joins other Alaskans in hunting for food. That's it. She is not a right-wing nut, and all the rest of the Internet drivel—the book banning at the Library, the rape kits decision—is nonsense. I digress.) Palin's role in this campaign was to energize “the Republican base,” which she has inarguably done. She also was expected to reach out to Hillary Clinton “moderates.” (Right. Only a woman would get both those jobs in either party.) Look, I am obviously personally pro-choice, and I disagree with McCain and Palin on that and a few other issues. But like many other Democrats, including Lynn Rothschild, I'm tired of the Democratic Party taking women for granted. I also happen to believe Sarah Palin supports women's rights, deeply and passionately.
Many of those—not all—who decried the sexist media treatment of Hillary Clinton have been silent as Palin has been skewered in the old ways that female public figures are skewered, as well as a host of sexualized new ways as well. Some feminists have weighed in; “Even the reportedly clear glasses she wears to play down her beauty queen credential and enhance her gravitas can't make up for experience,” writes my heroine Suzanne Braun Levine, former editor of Ms. Oppose her on policy? Fine. But how sad for feminist leaders to sink this low, especially when Palin has worn glasses since she was 10 years old.
Last month a prominent feminist blogger, echoing that sensibility, declared that the media was wrongly buying into the false idea that Palin was a feminist. Why? Well, just because she said she was a feminist, because she supported women's rights and opportunities, equal pay, Title IV—that was just “empty rhetoric,” they said. At least the blogger didn't go as far as NOW's Kim Gandy and declare that Palin was not a woman. Bottom line: you are not a feminist until we say you are. And there you have the formula for diminishing what was once a great and important mass social change movement to an exclusionary club that rejects women who sincerely want to join and, God forbid, grow to lead.
But here is the good news: women, citizens of America's high and low culture, the Economist and People magazine readers, will get it. They got it with Hillary even when feminist leaders were not supporting her or doing so half-heartedly. Yes, Palin is a harder sell, she looks and sounds different, and one can rightfully oppose her based on abortion policies. If you only vote on how a person personally feels about abortion, you will never want her to darken your door. If you care about anything else, she will continue to intrigue you. As Time's Nancy Gibbs noted a few weeks ago, quoting bioethicist Tom Murray, “Sympathy and subtlety are seasonings rarely applied to political red meat.” Will Palin's time come next week? I don't know. But her time will come.
JOE BIDEN BANS ANOTHER NEWS STATION!!!
Unfreakingbelievable!!!! Who the hell do the Obama-Biden campaign think they are? I think Obama's ARROGANCE and HUBRIS has rubbed off on Biden, or may it's been there all along! They are so used to the Obama-lovin' media throwing softball questions at them (like "what is your favorite color?") that when they get REAL QUESTIONS, they go bezerk!! I think it looks like Joe Biden is really losing it, don't ya think?
OBAMA EMPLOYEE "CONFESSES" ABOUT THE CAMPAIGN!!!
Ok, I want to clear my conscious a little. Hopefully you could make a blog post to help some fellow clinton supporters out.
I work for a campaign and can't wait for this week to be over.
I was doing it for a job. I was not a fan of any candidate but over time grew to love HRC.
The internal campaign idea is to twist, distort, humiliate and finally dispirit you.
We pay people and organize people to go to all the online sites and "play the part of a clinton or mccain supporter who just switched our support for obama"
We do this to stifle your motivation and to destroy your confidence.
We did this the whole primary and it worked.
Sprinkle in mass vote confusion and it becomes bewildering. Most people lose patience and just give up on their support of a candidate and decide to just block out tv, news, websites, etc.
This surprisingly has had a huge suppressing movement and vote turnout issues.
Next, we infiltrate all the blogs and all the youtube videos and overwhelm the voting, the comments, etc. All to continue this appearance of overwhelming world support.
People makes posts to the effect that the world has "gone mad"
Thats the intention. To make you feel stressed and crazy and feel like the world is ending.
We have also had quite a hand in skewing many many polls, some we couldn't control as much as we would have liked. But many we have spoiled over. Just enough to make real clear politics look scarey to a mccain supporter. Its worked, alough the goal was to appear 13-15 points ahead.
see, the results have been working. People tend to support a winner, go with the flow, become "sheeple"
The polls are roughly 3-5 points in favor of Barack. Thats due to our inflation of the polls and pulling in the sheeple.
Our donors, are the same people who finance the MSM. Their interests are tied, Barack then tends to come across as teflon. Nothing sticks. And trust, there were meetings with Fox news. The goal was to blunt them as much as possible. Watch Bill Oreilly he has become much more diplomatic and "fair and balanced" and soft. Its because he wants to retain the #1 spot on cable news and to do that he has to have access to the Obama campaign and we worked hard at stringing him a long and keeping him soft for an interview swap. It worked and now he is anticipating more access. So he is playing it still soft.
This is why nothing sticks.
The operation is massive, the goal is to paint a picture that is that of a winner, regardless of the results.
There is no true inauguration draft or true grant park construction going on. There will be a party, but we are boasting beyond the truth to make it seem like the election is wrapped up.
Our goal is to continue to make you lose your moral. We worked hard at persuasion and paying off and timing and playing the right political numbers to get key republican endorsements to make it seem even more like it was over and the world was coming to an end for you all.
There is a huge staff of people working around the clock, watching every site, blogs, etc. We flood these sites. We have had a goal to overwhelm.
The truth is here. I could go on and on, but you get the picture.
I am saying this because I know HRC was better for the country, and now realize this. I was too late by the time I connected to her. To me Barack was just a cool young dude that seemed like a star. I didn't know him or his policies, but now I understand more than I care to and I realize his interests are more for him, and the DNC and all working like puppets with dean. I always thought a president wanted the better good for the country. The end result I see is everyone dependent on the government, this means more and more people voting for the DNC. This means the future is forever altered. I don't see this as america, so I am now supporting John Mccain.
Sarah Palin is a huge threat, and our campaign has feared her like you can't imagine. If it seems unfair how she has been treated, well its because she has had a team working round the clock to make her look like a fool.
this is a big conspiracy and I am so shocked that its not realized.
We released a little blurb the other day that the Obama campaign was already working on reelection and now putting our efforts towards 2012. This was to make it seem like it was above us to continue caring about 2008. Trust me, its a lie. David is very smart, but its a sticky ugly not very truthful kind of intelligence.
Its not over yet, but I think the machine is working. And its a hill to climb.
I will be quitting my post on nov 5th and my vote will be for John Mccain. Fortunately, my position has been a marketing position and I don't feel I had any part of anything I would feel guilty for. But I look forward to getting out of this as the negativity and environment upsets me.
I wish you all well, and goodluck.
************************************************
MY THOUGHTS:
I wish I could get in touch with this woman; I wish she had come forward a long time ago. I have had a feeling for quite a while now that the polls are NOT what they seemed. The CORRUPT OBAMA CAMPAIGN is an evil machine and I pray to God that Americans will WAKE UP and as this woman realized, vote for the right man - John McCain.
I work for a campaign and can't wait for this week to be over.
I was doing it for a job. I was not a fan of any candidate but over time grew to love HRC.
The internal campaign idea is to twist, distort, humiliate and finally dispirit you.
We pay people and organize people to go to all the online sites and "play the part of a clinton or mccain supporter who just switched our support for obama"
We do this to stifle your motivation and to destroy your confidence.
We did this the whole primary and it worked.
Sprinkle in mass vote confusion and it becomes bewildering. Most people lose patience and just give up on their support of a candidate and decide to just block out tv, news, websites, etc.
This surprisingly has had a huge suppressing movement and vote turnout issues.
Next, we infiltrate all the blogs and all the youtube videos and overwhelm the voting, the comments, etc. All to continue this appearance of overwhelming world support.
People makes posts to the effect that the world has "gone mad"
Thats the intention. To make you feel stressed and crazy and feel like the world is ending.
We have also had quite a hand in skewing many many polls, some we couldn't control as much as we would have liked. But many we have spoiled over. Just enough to make real clear politics look scarey to a mccain supporter. Its worked, alough the goal was to appear 13-15 points ahead.
see, the results have been working. People tend to support a winner, go with the flow, become "sheeple"
The polls are roughly 3-5 points in favor of Barack. Thats due to our inflation of the polls and pulling in the sheeple.
Our donors, are the same people who finance the MSM. Their interests are tied, Barack then tends to come across as teflon. Nothing sticks. And trust, there were meetings with Fox news. The goal was to blunt them as much as possible. Watch Bill Oreilly he has become much more diplomatic and "fair and balanced" and soft. Its because he wants to retain the #1 spot on cable news and to do that he has to have access to the Obama campaign and we worked hard at stringing him a long and keeping him soft for an interview swap. It worked and now he is anticipating more access. So he is playing it still soft.
This is why nothing sticks.
The operation is massive, the goal is to paint a picture that is that of a winner, regardless of the results.
There is no true inauguration draft or true grant park construction going on. There will be a party, but we are boasting beyond the truth to make it seem like the election is wrapped up.
Our goal is to continue to make you lose your moral. We worked hard at persuasion and paying off and timing and playing the right political numbers to get key republican endorsements to make it seem even more like it was over and the world was coming to an end for you all.
There is a huge staff of people working around the clock, watching every site, blogs, etc. We flood these sites. We have had a goal to overwhelm.
The truth is here. I could go on and on, but you get the picture.
I am saying this because I know HRC was better for the country, and now realize this. I was too late by the time I connected to her. To me Barack was just a cool young dude that seemed like a star. I didn't know him or his policies, but now I understand more than I care to and I realize his interests are more for him, and the DNC and all working like puppets with dean. I always thought a president wanted the better good for the country. The end result I see is everyone dependent on the government, this means more and more people voting for the DNC. This means the future is forever altered. I don't see this as america, so I am now supporting John Mccain.
Sarah Palin is a huge threat, and our campaign has feared her like you can't imagine. If it seems unfair how she has been treated, well its because she has had a team working round the clock to make her look like a fool.
this is a big conspiracy and I am so shocked that its not realized.
We released a little blurb the other day that the Obama campaign was already working on reelection and now putting our efforts towards 2012. This was to make it seem like it was above us to continue caring about 2008. Trust me, its a lie. David is very smart, but its a sticky ugly not very truthful kind of intelligence.
Its not over yet, but I think the machine is working. And its a hill to climb.
I will be quitting my post on nov 5th and my vote will be for John Mccain. Fortunately, my position has been a marketing position and I don't feel I had any part of anything I would feel guilty for. But I look forward to getting out of this as the negativity and environment upsets me.
I wish you all well, and goodluck.
************************************************
MY THOUGHTS:
I wish I could get in touch with this woman; I wish she had come forward a long time ago. I have had a feeling for quite a while now that the polls are NOT what they seemed. The CORRUPT OBAMA CAMPAIGN is an evil machine and I pray to God that Americans will WAKE UP and as this woman realized, vote for the right man - John McCain.
HOLLYWOOD INSIDERS RIP MSNBC AND DEFEND PALIN!!!!
Hollywood insiders rip MSNBC, defend Palin
Mon Oct 27, 2008
LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - In a room full of television industry executives, no one seemed inclined to defend MSNBC on Monday for what some were calling its lopsidedly liberal coverage of the presidential election.
The cable news channel is "completely out of control," said writer-producer Linda Bloodworth-Thomason, a self-proclaimed liberal Democrat.
She added that she would prefer a lunch date with right-leaning Fox News star Sean Hannity over left-leaning MSNBC star Keith Olbermann.
Olbermann was criticized by many who attended Monday's luncheon sponsored by the Caucus for Producers, Writers & Directors at the Beverly Hills Hotel. The event was dubbed "Hollywood, America and Election '08."
Bloodworth-Thomason and others seemed especially critical of the way MSNBC -- and other media -- has attacked Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin while demeaning her supporters.
"We should stop the demonizing," she said, adding that Democrats have been worse than Republicans as far as personal attacks on candidates are concerned. "It diminishes us," she said of her fellow Democrats.
Bloodworth-Thomason even suggested a defense of Palin and her supporters should be written into TV programing, just as she went out of her way to portray Southern women as smart in her hit TV show "Designing Women."
Attendee Michael Reagan, the radio talk-show host and son of President Ronald Reagan, said he no longer will appear as a guest on MSNBC because "I actually get death threats."
"I'll stop sending them," joked Larry Gelbart, the writer, producer and director best known for the "M*A*S*H" television series and such movie screenplays as "Tootsie" and "Oh, God!"
Pollster Frank Luntz, a regular guest on the Fox News, joked that MSNBC is "the only network with more letters in its name than viewers."
On a more serious note, Luntz said it's a problem that the electorate chooses to watch news programs not for information but to confirm already-held beliefs, and that applies to viewers of CNN and Fox News as well.
Luntz predicted a Barack Obama victory and said that one of the many reasons the Democrats have been more effective with their message is because, while Republicans dominate talk radio, Democrats have begun to dominate the Internet.
"I'd rather have the Internet," he said.
Obama also gets credit because he's a better communicator than past Democrats, Luntz said, comparing the previous Democratic presidential nominee, John Kerry, to one of those trees that threw apples at Dorothy in "The Wizard of Oz."
Actress Patricia Heaton noted that Hollywood workers too often just assume everyone they work with is a like-minded liberal. When those around her belittle John McCain or Palin, the former "Everybody Loves Raymond" co-star politely reminds them that she's a Republican. That's what you have to do in our town," she said.
Actor Beau Bridges lamented that there is "too much entertainment" in elections nowadays. "Just put 'em in a room -- like we are now -- and let 'em talk about the issues," he said.
Some of the most spirited debate came from the panel's moderator, outspoken conservative Lionel Chetwynd. The writer, director and producer passionately defended the Iraq War and Palin, whom he called "the ideal Jeffersonian political figure."
Chetwynd's performance prompted Gelbart to joke that Chetwynd was the most "immoderate moderator" he had ever seen.
"It's a liberal organization," Chetwynd said of the Caucus. "But I'm trying."
Reuters/Hollywood Reporter
Mon Oct 27, 2008
LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - In a room full of television industry executives, no one seemed inclined to defend MSNBC on Monday for what some were calling its lopsidedly liberal coverage of the presidential election.
The cable news channel is "completely out of control," said writer-producer Linda Bloodworth-Thomason, a self-proclaimed liberal Democrat.
She added that she would prefer a lunch date with right-leaning Fox News star Sean Hannity over left-leaning MSNBC star Keith Olbermann.
Olbermann was criticized by many who attended Monday's luncheon sponsored by the Caucus for Producers, Writers & Directors at the Beverly Hills Hotel. The event was dubbed "Hollywood, America and Election '08."
Bloodworth-Thomason and others seemed especially critical of the way MSNBC -- and other media -- has attacked Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin while demeaning her supporters.
"We should stop the demonizing," she said, adding that Democrats have been worse than Republicans as far as personal attacks on candidates are concerned. "It diminishes us," she said of her fellow Democrats.
Bloodworth-Thomason even suggested a defense of Palin and her supporters should be written into TV programing, just as she went out of her way to portray Southern women as smart in her hit TV show "Designing Women."
Attendee Michael Reagan, the radio talk-show host and son of President Ronald Reagan, said he no longer will appear as a guest on MSNBC because "I actually get death threats."
"I'll stop sending them," joked Larry Gelbart, the writer, producer and director best known for the "M*A*S*H" television series and such movie screenplays as "Tootsie" and "Oh, God!"
Pollster Frank Luntz, a regular guest on the Fox News, joked that MSNBC is "the only network with more letters in its name than viewers."
On a more serious note, Luntz said it's a problem that the electorate chooses to watch news programs not for information but to confirm already-held beliefs, and that applies to viewers of CNN and Fox News as well.
Luntz predicted a Barack Obama victory and said that one of the many reasons the Democrats have been more effective with their message is because, while Republicans dominate talk radio, Democrats have begun to dominate the Internet.
"I'd rather have the Internet," he said.
Obama also gets credit because he's a better communicator than past Democrats, Luntz said, comparing the previous Democratic presidential nominee, John Kerry, to one of those trees that threw apples at Dorothy in "The Wizard of Oz."
Actress Patricia Heaton noted that Hollywood workers too often just assume everyone they work with is a like-minded liberal. When those around her belittle John McCain or Palin, the former "Everybody Loves Raymond" co-star politely reminds them that she's a Republican. That's what you have to do in our town," she said.
Actor Beau Bridges lamented that there is "too much entertainment" in elections nowadays. "Just put 'em in a room -- like we are now -- and let 'em talk about the issues," he said.
Some of the most spirited debate came from the panel's moderator, outspoken conservative Lionel Chetwynd. The writer, director and producer passionately defended the Iraq War and Palin, whom he called "the ideal Jeffersonian political figure."
Chetwynd's performance prompted Gelbart to joke that Chetwynd was the most "immoderate moderator" he had ever seen.
"It's a liberal organization," Chetwynd said of the Caucus. "But I'm trying."
Reuters/Hollywood Reporter
Monday, October 27, 2008
CAN YOU IMAGINE IF THIS WAS OF OBAMA???
Halloween Palin Prop Sparks Controversy In WeHo
WEST HOLLYWOOD, Calif. (AP) ― A Halloween decoration showing a mannequin dressed as vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin hanging by a noose from the roof of a West Hollywood home is drawing giggles from some passers-by and gasps of outrage from others.
The mannequin is dressed in brunet wig, glasses and a red business suit. Another mannequin dressed as John McCain emerges from a flaming chimney.
Chad Michael Morisette, who lives in the house, told CBS 2 News that drivers and bus passengers have been stopping to snap pictures of the macabre scene.
Morisette says the effigy would be out of bounds at any other time of year, but it's within the spirit of Halloween.
He says "it should be seen as art, and as within the month of October. It's Halloween, it's time to be scary it's time to be spooky."
(© 2008 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)
********************************************************
MY THOUGHTS:
I had not even seen this on FOX NEWS which does report News. I never would have expected to see it shown on any other station. However, can you IMAGINE if this were a mannequin of OBAMA with a rope around his neck hanging like that??? It would have been on ALL the news programs, continuously, and RACIST, RACIST, RACIST, RACIST WOULD HAVE BEEN SCREAMED FROM THE ROOFTOPS!! But because it's a WOMAN, because she's WHITE, and because she also happens to be a REPUBLICAN, well it's fine as far as the person who did this is concerned. People are passing by, stopping their cars and taking pictures as they giggle about it. DISGUSTING!!!
WEST HOLLYWOOD, Calif. (AP) ― A Halloween decoration showing a mannequin dressed as vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin hanging by a noose from the roof of a West Hollywood home is drawing giggles from some passers-by and gasps of outrage from others.
The mannequin is dressed in brunet wig, glasses and a red business suit. Another mannequin dressed as John McCain emerges from a flaming chimney.
Chad Michael Morisette, who lives in the house, told CBS 2 News that drivers and bus passengers have been stopping to snap pictures of the macabre scene.
Morisette says the effigy would be out of bounds at any other time of year, but it's within the spirit of Halloween.
He says "it should be seen as art, and as within the month of October. It's Halloween, it's time to be scary it's time to be spooky."
(© 2008 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)
********************************************************
MY THOUGHTS:
I had not even seen this on FOX NEWS which does report News. I never would have expected to see it shown on any other station. However, can you IMAGINE if this were a mannequin of OBAMA with a rope around his neck hanging like that??? It would have been on ALL the news programs, continuously, and RACIST, RACIST, RACIST, RACIST WOULD HAVE BEEN SCREAMED FROM THE ROOFTOPS!! But because it's a WOMAN, because she's WHITE, and because she also happens to be a REPUBLICAN, well it's fine as far as the person who did this is concerned. People are passing by, stopping their cars and taking pictures as they giggle about it. DISGUSTING!!!
ACORN'S ACTIONS THREATEN INTEGRITY OF VOTING!!!
Commentary: ACORN's actions threaten integrity of voting
Tara Wall: ACORN is under investigation in about a dozen states
By Tara Wall
CNN Contributor
Tara Wall says the accusations against ACORN aren't simply partisan nitpicking.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Under FBI investigation, with about a dozen active and open state investigations for accusations of voter registration fraud, ACORN has got some explaining to do. And now even The New York Times has chastised the organization for "vastly overstating" its voter registration numbers.
ACORN, or the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, had set up in 800 poor neighborhoods across the country, targeting minorities, mostly blacks, to register to vote.
It is a noble enough goal to combat past efforts to suppress the black vote and prevent voter "disenfranchisement." But just as the road to hell is paved with good intentions -- the good intentions of some is leading to an all-out path to destruction of the soul of our electoral process.
One Cleveland, Ohio, woman -- black, 20-something, first-time voter, being interviewed on television -- reported that she was "harassed" and "preyed upon" by ACORN workers each time she got off the bus. Each time she told them she had registered already and each time, they told her it was OK to do it again.
Eventually, she had registered six times and didn't realize she had done anything wrong until an election official noticed the discrepancy and called to notify the woman that her ability to vote could now be in jeopardy because she had registered so many times. What a travesty! Talk about disenfranchisement.
Not only are these acts egregious -- but could be considered racist. Re-registering minority voters not only puts the vote they cast in jeopardy, but works against the very system set up to prevent disenfranchisement, and signals that it is OK to cheat to win.
It's the same liberal elitist notion that one can't expect black students to learn at the same level as white students -- thus the cries for lowering the bar of standards for blacks (what former Education Secretary Rod Paige called the bigotry of low expectations).
Hey, what's a little cheating, the system isn't fair so black folks shouldn't be expected to play fair. Is ACORN suggesting that blacks have to cheat to get what they want or that Sen. Barack Obama (whom ACORN endorsed) can't win without cheating?
The accusations against ACORN aren't simply partisan nitpicking. In Ohio, the Democratic secretary of state has launched an investigation into multiple complaints. Elsewhere, accusations have come from former ACORN employees.
As Newsmax reported: "One of the most serious cases involving ACORN came out of Seattle, where prosecutors indicted seven ACORN workers in July 2007. They were accused of submitting phony registration forms in what Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed has called 'the worst case of voter-registration fraud' in the state's history."
In an effort to defend itself, the organization claims it can't be expected to get every single registration right; after all, it has signed up at least 1 million new voters.
It was just a week or so ago, the group insisted, that we stay focused on all the "correct" signatures it had accumulated over the years. All 1.3 million of them. Now it turns out, according to a New York Times report, the number is closer to 450,000. Wow -- talk about self-inflation.
It stands to reason, if the group can't seem to keep track of its legitimate new registrants, it's likely not doing much to discourage bogus ones. I mean Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck -- really? The point is not how many signatures ACORN is getting right, but what has it done to ensure it wasn't getting any wrong?
That Obama and Democrats haven't done more to denounce ACORN's acts as fervently as they have "voter intimidation and suppression" complaints against Republicans is beyond puzzling. It smacks of a double standard.
Voter fraud is just as egregious as suppression, as it is an assault that undermines the integrity of our voting system. Obama should be held to a higher standard.
He is running for the highest office in our country -- and not only has he performed legal work for this group, but his campaign paid an ACORN affiliate more than $800,000 for "get-out-the-vote-efforts," and has received the endorsement of ACORN's political action committee.
There are some leaders who are paying attention, and likely will be called racist for doing so. House Minority Leader John Boehner, an Ohio Republican, has strongly denounced ACORN's actions and asked the Bush administration and the campaigns (particularly Obama's) to pull all public funding from the organization.
Boehner claims the group has received $31 million "in direct funding from the federal government since 1998."
And in a letter to President Bush last week, he called for a Justice Department investigation in light of the group's apparent role in the financial meltdown. "ACORN, which for years has been closely connected with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, also appears to have played a key role in the irresponsible schemes that led to the current financial meltdown," Boehner said. If true, that is beyond troubling.
The results of ACORN's registration misdeeds and alleged fraud could prove catastrophic, if not lead to widespread corruption of the election system. Author and columnist John Fund, who predicts rampant voter fraud this election and fears an "election train wreck," wrote "Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy."
Fund makes some pertinent points comparing the 2000 election recount controversy to what's occurring this time around. He's also -- rightly -- concerned with the collision course future elections are on if we continue this litigious cycle of fraud that ends up requiring courts, not people, to decide our elected leaders.
ACORN's actions should at the very least raise suspicion. The ramifications we won't learn until after the election, but suffice it to say that the bar of voter integrity should be much higher. The right to a fair, unadulterated vote is every American's right no matter the party affiliation, color, creed or religion.
With registrations having ended and investigations continuing, the focus has now turned to blatant voter fraud -- which is much harder to prove. No matter what happens and who wins on November 4, rest assured, it is the beginning of what's to come for ACORN.
Tara Wall: ACORN is under investigation in about a dozen states
By Tara Wall
CNN Contributor
Tara Wall says the accusations against ACORN aren't simply partisan nitpicking.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Under FBI investigation, with about a dozen active and open state investigations for accusations of voter registration fraud, ACORN has got some explaining to do. And now even The New York Times has chastised the organization for "vastly overstating" its voter registration numbers.
ACORN, or the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, had set up in 800 poor neighborhoods across the country, targeting minorities, mostly blacks, to register to vote.
It is a noble enough goal to combat past efforts to suppress the black vote and prevent voter "disenfranchisement." But just as the road to hell is paved with good intentions -- the good intentions of some is leading to an all-out path to destruction of the soul of our electoral process.
One Cleveland, Ohio, woman -- black, 20-something, first-time voter, being interviewed on television -- reported that she was "harassed" and "preyed upon" by ACORN workers each time she got off the bus. Each time she told them she had registered already and each time, they told her it was OK to do it again.
Eventually, she had registered six times and didn't realize she had done anything wrong until an election official noticed the discrepancy and called to notify the woman that her ability to vote could now be in jeopardy because she had registered so many times. What a travesty! Talk about disenfranchisement.
Not only are these acts egregious -- but could be considered racist. Re-registering minority voters not only puts the vote they cast in jeopardy, but works against the very system set up to prevent disenfranchisement, and signals that it is OK to cheat to win.
It's the same liberal elitist notion that one can't expect black students to learn at the same level as white students -- thus the cries for lowering the bar of standards for blacks (what former Education Secretary Rod Paige called the bigotry of low expectations).
Hey, what's a little cheating, the system isn't fair so black folks shouldn't be expected to play fair. Is ACORN suggesting that blacks have to cheat to get what they want or that Sen. Barack Obama (whom ACORN endorsed) can't win without cheating?
The accusations against ACORN aren't simply partisan nitpicking. In Ohio, the Democratic secretary of state has launched an investigation into multiple complaints. Elsewhere, accusations have come from former ACORN employees.
As Newsmax reported: "One of the most serious cases involving ACORN came out of Seattle, where prosecutors indicted seven ACORN workers in July 2007. They were accused of submitting phony registration forms in what Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed has called 'the worst case of voter-registration fraud' in the state's history."
In an effort to defend itself, the organization claims it can't be expected to get every single registration right; after all, it has signed up at least 1 million new voters.
It was just a week or so ago, the group insisted, that we stay focused on all the "correct" signatures it had accumulated over the years. All 1.3 million of them. Now it turns out, according to a New York Times report, the number is closer to 450,000. Wow -- talk about self-inflation.
It stands to reason, if the group can't seem to keep track of its legitimate new registrants, it's likely not doing much to discourage bogus ones. I mean Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck -- really? The point is not how many signatures ACORN is getting right, but what has it done to ensure it wasn't getting any wrong?
That Obama and Democrats haven't done more to denounce ACORN's acts as fervently as they have "voter intimidation and suppression" complaints against Republicans is beyond puzzling. It smacks of a double standard.
Voter fraud is just as egregious as suppression, as it is an assault that undermines the integrity of our voting system. Obama should be held to a higher standard.
He is running for the highest office in our country -- and not only has he performed legal work for this group, but his campaign paid an ACORN affiliate more than $800,000 for "get-out-the-vote-efforts," and has received the endorsement of ACORN's political action committee.
There are some leaders who are paying attention, and likely will be called racist for doing so. House Minority Leader John Boehner, an Ohio Republican, has strongly denounced ACORN's actions and asked the Bush administration and the campaigns (particularly Obama's) to pull all public funding from the organization.
Boehner claims the group has received $31 million "in direct funding from the federal government since 1998."
And in a letter to President Bush last week, he called for a Justice Department investigation in light of the group's apparent role in the financial meltdown. "ACORN, which for years has been closely connected with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, also appears to have played a key role in the irresponsible schemes that led to the current financial meltdown," Boehner said. If true, that is beyond troubling.
The results of ACORN's registration misdeeds and alleged fraud could prove catastrophic, if not lead to widespread corruption of the election system. Author and columnist John Fund, who predicts rampant voter fraud this election and fears an "election train wreck," wrote "Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy."
Fund makes some pertinent points comparing the 2000 election recount controversy to what's occurring this time around. He's also -- rightly -- concerned with the collision course future elections are on if we continue this litigious cycle of fraud that ends up requiring courts, not people, to decide our elected leaders.
ACORN's actions should at the very least raise suspicion. The ramifications we won't learn until after the election, but suffice it to say that the bar of voter integrity should be much higher. The right to a fair, unadulterated vote is every American's right no matter the party affiliation, color, creed or religion.
With registrations having ended and investigations continuing, the focus has now turned to blatant voter fraud -- which is much harder to prove. No matter what happens and who wins on November 4, rest assured, it is the beginning of what's to come for ACORN.
SARAH MEETS WITH ISRAELI AMBASSADOR!!!
Palin Meets with Israeli Ambassador
by Shushannah Walshe
FREDERICKSBURG, VA–This morning Sarah Palin met with the Israeli Ambassador to the United States, Sallai Meridor. They met in Leesburg, Virginia for about 30 minutes before Palin started her day campaigning throughout the state.
Palin apologized to Meridor for not being able to get together earlier, but that she was happy they could meet now.
“I look forward to hearing about your work with the Jewish Agency and all the plans that we have. We’ll be working together.”
Meridor formerly served as the chairman of the Jewish Agency for Israel which according to their website aims to bring “a substantial number of Jews to live in Israel and ensuring their successful integration.”
A campaign advisor to Palin said that the Jewish Agency “intrigued” her and that is why they briefly discussed the organization at the beginning of the meeting.
The advisor said that most of the meeting focused on how to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The Alaska governor asked Meridor how far along they believed Iran’s state nuclear weapons program was and the Ambassador replied that Israel sees this a “very urgent issue.”
They discussed how to work together and with the global community to put pressure on Iran to abandon their nuclear weapons program.
Towards the end of their meeting they talked about the ongoing Israeli peace process with the Palestinians. Meridor said that their efforts are continuing, but the topic was cut short because Palin had to get to her first event of the day.
Palin has publicly expressed her staunch support for Israel–even having an Israeli flag in her Juneau, Alaska office. In her debate with Joe Biden she expressed her advocacy for Israel.
“Israel is our strongest and best ally in the Middle East. We have got to assure them that we will never allow a second Holocaust, despite, again, warnings from Iran and any other country that would seek to destroy Israel, that that is what they would like to see. We will support Israel.” Palin said, “A two-state solution, building our embassy, also, in Jerusalem, those things that we look forward to being able to accomplish, with this peace-seeking nation, and they have a track record of being able to forge these peace agreements.
She made a commitment that if she became Vice-President that a McCain-Palin administration would “work with our friends in Israel.”
In network interviews with both Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson she said that she wouldn’t “second guess” Israel’s security efforts if they felt threatened by Iran.
In September, Palin met with several foreign leaders in New York in an effort to boost her foreign policy credentials.
by Shushannah Walshe
FREDERICKSBURG, VA–This morning Sarah Palin met with the Israeli Ambassador to the United States, Sallai Meridor. They met in Leesburg, Virginia for about 30 minutes before Palin started her day campaigning throughout the state.
Palin apologized to Meridor for not being able to get together earlier, but that she was happy they could meet now.
“I look forward to hearing about your work with the Jewish Agency and all the plans that we have. We’ll be working together.”
Meridor formerly served as the chairman of the Jewish Agency for Israel which according to their website aims to bring “a substantial number of Jews to live in Israel and ensuring their successful integration.”
A campaign advisor to Palin said that the Jewish Agency “intrigued” her and that is why they briefly discussed the organization at the beginning of the meeting.
The advisor said that most of the meeting focused on how to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The Alaska governor asked Meridor how far along they believed Iran’s state nuclear weapons program was and the Ambassador replied that Israel sees this a “very urgent issue.”
They discussed how to work together and with the global community to put pressure on Iran to abandon their nuclear weapons program.
Towards the end of their meeting they talked about the ongoing Israeli peace process with the Palestinians. Meridor said that their efforts are continuing, but the topic was cut short because Palin had to get to her first event of the day.
Palin has publicly expressed her staunch support for Israel–even having an Israeli flag in her Juneau, Alaska office. In her debate with Joe Biden she expressed her advocacy for Israel.
“Israel is our strongest and best ally in the Middle East. We have got to assure them that we will never allow a second Holocaust, despite, again, warnings from Iran and any other country that would seek to destroy Israel, that that is what they would like to see. We will support Israel.” Palin said, “A two-state solution, building our embassy, also, in Jerusalem, those things that we look forward to being able to accomplish, with this peace-seeking nation, and they have a track record of being able to forge these peace agreements.
She made a commitment that if she became Vice-President that a McCain-Palin administration would “work with our friends in Israel.”
In network interviews with both Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson she said that she wouldn’t “second guess” Israel’s security efforts if they felt threatened by Iran.
In September, Palin met with several foreign leaders in New York in an effort to boost her foreign policy credentials.
SARAH CAN'T WIN NO MATTER WHAT SHE DOES!!!!
Sarah Palin can't win
BY S.E. CUPP
SPECIAL TO NYDAILYNEWS.COM
Saturday, October 25th 2008, 6:37 PM
Let me start by saying, as a pure political calculation, it may not have been the smartest use of Republican National Committee resources to spend $150,000 on a new wardrobe for Sarah Palin and her family. Nor was it politically savvy for the McCain campaign to pay a makeup artist $22,000 for the first two weeks of October. Like John Edwards' $400 haircut, these are political gifts to the opposition.
But all the makeup in the world can't cover over this fact: The gleeful, personal attacks being waged by Democrats and pundits against Palin on this front are just the latest in a relentless and unprincipled season-long smear campaign against the Republican candidate for vice president. They are proof positive that because she is a conservative woman, Sarah Palin simply cannot win.
For months Palin has been mocked by the liberal elite as a hick from Alaska. Because she can't explain the Bush Doctrine to Charlie Gibson's satisfaction or otherwise gives less than perfectly crafted answers to questions, she's an idiot. Her opponents have spent unparalleled amounts of time and energy trying to convince voters that she is not "just like you." She's even dumber.
But now, because the McCain campaign has budgeted some money for new clothes, questions about her intellect are shelved for another discussion, and her image takes center stage. Never mind that Republicans aren't supposed to bring up William Ayers, Tony Rezko, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright or any other non "Issues" with a capital "I." Now Democrats are hoping to make a serious issue out of Palin's high heels, her glasses and her new suits.
Her legs have been the focus of many a photographer's lens. Gawker.com writes that Palin's new clothes, much of which the campaign says will be returned or given to charity, are tantamount to a lipstick-laden Judas kiss: "There just might be some lingering Palin supporters in swing states who could stomach Palin's embarrassing interviews but not the betrayal of Barneys and Bloomindale's." Andrew O'Hehir on Salon.com suggests Palin is selling herself to hot-and-bothered male voters: "If John Edwards' haircuts were a campaign issue, then so are Palin's hot-librarian fantasy getups."
When, in the not distant past, Hillary Clinton was subjected to the slightest sign of such treatment by conservatives, the critics were - rightly - called sexist. The unpleasant fact is, Republican women are held to a different standard than Democratic women.
But some argue it's not the makeover they find offensive, it's how much money the RNC spent on it that matters and somehow reveals Palin to be a pretender - a Josephina Six Pack who secretly dreams of walking down catwalk runways.But think about this. Barack Obama is on track to have raised as much as a half-billion dollars for the general election. He has spent hundreds of millions on elaborate event-staging and advertising - plenty of which is an exercise in lighting, editing and image-making no different from putting on makeup to look good in front of a crowd. Should Obama spend more time presenting himself to voters unfiltered, without the benefit of such elaborate trappings?
These aren't questions we can ask Democrats, only Republicans. Only Republican women, in fact.
A recent experience I had is instructive. I was at Fox News with Lady Lynn De Rothschild, a former Hillary Clinton supporter and longtime Democrat who jumped ship for John McCain's campaign.
Another guest smugly explained that "people like the Rothschilds" would naturally vote Republican. But Lynn Forester was not born with money. She was raised in blue collar Oradell, N.J., worked hard to get an education, became a successful entrepreneur, and eventually married a Rothschild. Yet because she's wealthy now (not to mention beautiful and well-dressed), her conservative choice for President is immediately dismissed by the very Democrats who once propped her up as a role model.
We vilify women with money for voting Republican. We make fun of Republican women like Palin who don't sound like they have money. Whatever suits the moment and helps bring down a conservative woman - that's the line of attack that gets employed.
Rest assured, Sarah Palin has one major mark against her in the eyes of liberals - one that she couldn't overcome no matter how well she performed or how hard she tried. It's that she is a right-wing woman. When she's the folksy, "g" - dropping, gun-toting fisherman's wife from Wasilla, she's unsophisticated and only pretending to be vice-presidential material. But when she dresses the part of a woman campaigning for the second-highest office in the executive, she's a vain, out-of-touch materialist who's only pretending to be real.
What's a conservative girl to do?
Cupp is author or "Why You're Wrong About the Right," with Brett Joshpe. She is a political commentator and lives in New York City.
BY S.E. CUPP
SPECIAL TO NYDAILYNEWS.COM
Saturday, October 25th 2008, 6:37 PM
Let me start by saying, as a pure political calculation, it may not have been the smartest use of Republican National Committee resources to spend $150,000 on a new wardrobe for Sarah Palin and her family. Nor was it politically savvy for the McCain campaign to pay a makeup artist $22,000 for the first two weeks of October. Like John Edwards' $400 haircut, these are political gifts to the opposition.
But all the makeup in the world can't cover over this fact: The gleeful, personal attacks being waged by Democrats and pundits against Palin on this front are just the latest in a relentless and unprincipled season-long smear campaign against the Republican candidate for vice president. They are proof positive that because she is a conservative woman, Sarah Palin simply cannot win.
For months Palin has been mocked by the liberal elite as a hick from Alaska. Because she can't explain the Bush Doctrine to Charlie Gibson's satisfaction or otherwise gives less than perfectly crafted answers to questions, she's an idiot. Her opponents have spent unparalleled amounts of time and energy trying to convince voters that she is not "just like you." She's even dumber.
But now, because the McCain campaign has budgeted some money for new clothes, questions about her intellect are shelved for another discussion, and her image takes center stage. Never mind that Republicans aren't supposed to bring up William Ayers, Tony Rezko, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright or any other non "Issues" with a capital "I." Now Democrats are hoping to make a serious issue out of Palin's high heels, her glasses and her new suits.
Her legs have been the focus of many a photographer's lens. Gawker.com writes that Palin's new clothes, much of which the campaign says will be returned or given to charity, are tantamount to a lipstick-laden Judas kiss: "There just might be some lingering Palin supporters in swing states who could stomach Palin's embarrassing interviews but not the betrayal of Barneys and Bloomindale's." Andrew O'Hehir on Salon.com suggests Palin is selling herself to hot-and-bothered male voters: "If John Edwards' haircuts were a campaign issue, then so are Palin's hot-librarian fantasy getups."
When, in the not distant past, Hillary Clinton was subjected to the slightest sign of such treatment by conservatives, the critics were - rightly - called sexist. The unpleasant fact is, Republican women are held to a different standard than Democratic women.
But some argue it's not the makeover they find offensive, it's how much money the RNC spent on it that matters and somehow reveals Palin to be a pretender - a Josephina Six Pack who secretly dreams of walking down catwalk runways.But think about this. Barack Obama is on track to have raised as much as a half-billion dollars for the general election. He has spent hundreds of millions on elaborate event-staging and advertising - plenty of which is an exercise in lighting, editing and image-making no different from putting on makeup to look good in front of a crowd. Should Obama spend more time presenting himself to voters unfiltered, without the benefit of such elaborate trappings?
These aren't questions we can ask Democrats, only Republicans. Only Republican women, in fact.
A recent experience I had is instructive. I was at Fox News with Lady Lynn De Rothschild, a former Hillary Clinton supporter and longtime Democrat who jumped ship for John McCain's campaign.
Another guest smugly explained that "people like the Rothschilds" would naturally vote Republican. But Lynn Forester was not born with money. She was raised in blue collar Oradell, N.J., worked hard to get an education, became a successful entrepreneur, and eventually married a Rothschild. Yet because she's wealthy now (not to mention beautiful and well-dressed), her conservative choice for President is immediately dismissed by the very Democrats who once propped her up as a role model.
We vilify women with money for voting Republican. We make fun of Republican women like Palin who don't sound like they have money. Whatever suits the moment and helps bring down a conservative woman - that's the line of attack that gets employed.
Rest assured, Sarah Palin has one major mark against her in the eyes of liberals - one that she couldn't overcome no matter how well she performed or how hard she tried. It's that she is a right-wing woman. When she's the folksy, "g" - dropping, gun-toting fisherman's wife from Wasilla, she's unsophisticated and only pretending to be vice-presidential material. But when she dresses the part of a woman campaigning for the second-highest office in the executive, she's a vain, out-of-touch materialist who's only pretending to be real.
What's a conservative girl to do?
Cupp is author or "Why You're Wrong About the Right," with Brett Joshpe. She is a political commentator and lives in New York City.
OBAMA'S HAWAII TRIPS COST MORE THAN SARAH'S CLOTHES!!!
Obama’s Hawaii Trips Cost More Than Palin’s Clothes
Sunday, October 26, 2008
By: Ronald Kessler
Barack Obama’s trips to Hawaii on a chartered Boeing 757 each cost more than twice the price of Sarah Palin’s new clothes.
Brad Blakeman, who was in charge of scheduling for President Bush, says a Boeing 757 costs about $20,000 an hour for fuel, crew, and maintenance. Since a trip to Hawaii entails 10 hours of flying time from Chicago, the total cost for each round-trip comes to about $400,000.
Obama used the Boeing 757 for trips to Hawaii over the summer for a vacation and again last week to see his failing grandmother. Admirable though that visit was, “By Obama using a private jet to go on a purely personal visit to see his grandma, he’s wasting not only energy, but he’s using the money that his supporters have given him for campaign purposes,” Blakeman says. “It’s a purely personal visit paid for with campaign funds.”
On the other hand, the media are highlighting the Republican National Committee’s purchase of $150,000 in clothes for Palin, even though the dresses will be donated to charities. The New York Times played the story on page one.
“They’re picking on Palin, who was provided a wardrobe by the RNC strictly for political purposes, and it was always intended that these garments would be then given to charity,” Blakeman says. “So there’s a benefit that’s going to charity, not a benefit that Palin will have after the election. There was a need for it because she’s a modest person who didn’t have an extensive wardrobe to do 24/7 campaigning.”
To pick on Palin without going after Obama’s plane trips is “an absolute journalistic abuse,” Blakeman says. “This is the same plane that he took to Hawaii when he went on vacation. In the summertime, when gas was soaring and Americans were having to pinch their pennies, this guy gets on his campaign plane and goes to Hawaii on vacation. He did a couple campaign stops in a state that is not a swing state and is a guaranteed win for Obama. That was clearly to cover the tracks of this vacation.”
Blakeman notes that at the height of the gasoline price surge, Obama suggested that Americans check their vehicle’s tire pressure as a way of conserving fuel.
“I wonder if he checked the tires on his jumbo jet before taking off for a purely personal visit?” Blakeman says. “The way he spends campaign money is a direct reflection of how he will spend ours. He could have easily flown commercial or taken a much smaller corporate aircraft that would cost a fraction of a 757.”
Ironically, it was Palin as governor who saved money for Alaskans by selling the state’s jet and instead flying commercial.
Kellyanne Conway, one of the most respected Republican pollsters, says the media’s attack on Palin’s clothes is an example of elitist snobbery or “classism.” Noting the media’s treatment of her, “I can’t believe her own family still approves of her, after the unprecedented, personal and relentless attacks that this woman has undergone,” Conway says.
Besides attacks on Palin over her clothes, Conway cites snide remarks about “the way she speaks, her husband’s lack of a college degree, the barefoot and pregnant 17-year-old daughter, you know who hunts moose anyway? The classism is so raw and unapologetic, so unconsidered and so undisguised.”
Ronald Kessler is chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax.com. View his previous reports and get his dispatches sent to you free via
e-mail. Go here now.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
************************************************************
MY THOUGHTS:
That f**king Obama is really a piece of work!!! He takes money from people to use for his campaign; he takes ILLEGAL CONTRIBUTIONS from God knows WHO - people who have no right to donate; lets them go over their limits, etc. And then he has the NERVE to use their money so he can fly like the KING he THINKS he is??? WHAT NERVE!! WHAT ARROGANCE!! WHAT HUBRIS!! And Obama did NOT go to Hawaii just to see grandma. He actually went to TAKE CARE OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE PROBLEM. Now his Hawaiian Birth Certificate records are sealed!!! WHY THIS GUY CAN GET AWAY WITH MURDER IS BEYOND ME. HE DOESN'T HAVE TO SHOW HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE, HIS SCHOOL RECORDS, HIS STATE SENATE RECORDS - NOT EVEN HIS MEDICAL RECORDS. Just a simple letter from his doctor saying he's in good health. WHY shouldn't he show the actual RECORDS themselves?? BECAUSE HE HAS SOMETHING TO HIDE, WHAT ELSE???
Sunday, October 26, 2008
By: Ronald Kessler
Barack Obama’s trips to Hawaii on a chartered Boeing 757 each cost more than twice the price of Sarah Palin’s new clothes.
Brad Blakeman, who was in charge of scheduling for President Bush, says a Boeing 757 costs about $20,000 an hour for fuel, crew, and maintenance. Since a trip to Hawaii entails 10 hours of flying time from Chicago, the total cost for each round-trip comes to about $400,000.
Obama used the Boeing 757 for trips to Hawaii over the summer for a vacation and again last week to see his failing grandmother. Admirable though that visit was, “By Obama using a private jet to go on a purely personal visit to see his grandma, he’s wasting not only energy, but he’s using the money that his supporters have given him for campaign purposes,” Blakeman says. “It’s a purely personal visit paid for with campaign funds.”
On the other hand, the media are highlighting the Republican National Committee’s purchase of $150,000 in clothes for Palin, even though the dresses will be donated to charities. The New York Times played the story on page one.
“They’re picking on Palin, who was provided a wardrobe by the RNC strictly for political purposes, and it was always intended that these garments would be then given to charity,” Blakeman says. “So there’s a benefit that’s going to charity, not a benefit that Palin will have after the election. There was a need for it because she’s a modest person who didn’t have an extensive wardrobe to do 24/7 campaigning.”
To pick on Palin without going after Obama’s plane trips is “an absolute journalistic abuse,” Blakeman says. “This is the same plane that he took to Hawaii when he went on vacation. In the summertime, when gas was soaring and Americans were having to pinch their pennies, this guy gets on his campaign plane and goes to Hawaii on vacation. He did a couple campaign stops in a state that is not a swing state and is a guaranteed win for Obama. That was clearly to cover the tracks of this vacation.”
Blakeman notes that at the height of the gasoline price surge, Obama suggested that Americans check their vehicle’s tire pressure as a way of conserving fuel.
“I wonder if he checked the tires on his jumbo jet before taking off for a purely personal visit?” Blakeman says. “The way he spends campaign money is a direct reflection of how he will spend ours. He could have easily flown commercial or taken a much smaller corporate aircraft that would cost a fraction of a 757.”
Ironically, it was Palin as governor who saved money for Alaskans by selling the state’s jet and instead flying commercial.
Kellyanne Conway, one of the most respected Republican pollsters, says the media’s attack on Palin’s clothes is an example of elitist snobbery or “classism.” Noting the media’s treatment of her, “I can’t believe her own family still approves of her, after the unprecedented, personal and relentless attacks that this woman has undergone,” Conway says.
Besides attacks on Palin over her clothes, Conway cites snide remarks about “the way she speaks, her husband’s lack of a college degree, the barefoot and pregnant 17-year-old daughter, you know who hunts moose anyway? The classism is so raw and unapologetic, so unconsidered and so undisguised.”
Ronald Kessler is chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax.com. View his previous reports and get his dispatches sent to you free via
e-mail. Go here now.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
************************************************************
MY THOUGHTS:
That f**king Obama is really a piece of work!!! He takes money from people to use for his campaign; he takes ILLEGAL CONTRIBUTIONS from God knows WHO - people who have no right to donate; lets them go over their limits, etc. And then he has the NERVE to use their money so he can fly like the KING he THINKS he is??? WHAT NERVE!! WHAT ARROGANCE!! WHAT HUBRIS!! And Obama did NOT go to Hawaii just to see grandma. He actually went to TAKE CARE OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE PROBLEM. Now his Hawaiian Birth Certificate records are sealed!!! WHY THIS GUY CAN GET AWAY WITH MURDER IS BEYOND ME. HE DOESN'T HAVE TO SHOW HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE, HIS SCHOOL RECORDS, HIS STATE SENATE RECORDS - NOT EVEN HIS MEDICAL RECORDS. Just a simple letter from his doctor saying he's in good health. WHY shouldn't he show the actual RECORDS themselves?? BECAUSE HE HAS SOMETHING TO HIDE, WHAT ELSE???
SARAH SAYS OBAMA SHOULD DELAY 'CORONATION'!!!!!
Palin Says Obama Should Delay 'Coronation'
October 26, 2008
ABC News' Imtiyaz Delawala reports: Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin criticized Sen. Barack Obama as "getting a little bit ahead of himself" in expecting a win on Election Day, saying the Democratic presidential nominee should delay the "coronation" until after voters have cast their ballots.
At rallies in Tampa and Kissimmee, Fla., Palin said Obama was already preparing for post-election plans, citing an inaccurate report Saturday in the New York Times that Obama's inaugural address had already been written. Former President Clinton chief of staff John Podesta is leading transition preparation efforts for the Obama campaign, and had written a generic inaugural address for a book earlier this year -- when he still supported Sen. Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination.
"And you know that elections -- they're not decided until the votes are counted. But our opponent, he sure seems, once again to be getting out a little bit ahead of himself," Palin said at the Tampa rally. "John McCain and I, we're out here asking for your vote so we can get to work for you, and a lot of folks are still undecided. And you know, Barack Obama and I, we both have spent quite some time on the basketball court. But where I come from, you have to win the game before you start cutting down the nets."
Palin cited other instances -- such as Obama's use of a faux presidential seal for a day this summer, and his attempt to speak at Germany’s Brandenburg Gate -- as signs of Obama's presumptuousness leading up to Election Day.
"Remember the presidential seal that he made for himself a few months back? Or his plans to speak at the Brandenburg Gate until the German government had to remind him, ah, nah, that's an honor reserved for heads of state?" Palin asked the crowd. "Or the stadium that he's already rented out for the victory party that he has planned."
In fact, Obama has not rented out a stadium for Election Night -- he has reserved a green space known as Hutchinson Field in Chicago's historic Grant Park.
"You kind of get the feeling that the Obama campaign thinks this whole election process is just a formality," Palin continued. "And I know that judging by media coverage, it does seem that the coronation is already set. But as for John McCain and me, we don't take any vote for granted, and we are not assuming that we have your vote, we are respectfully asking for it."
Palin also defended herself on what she called "the whole clothes thing," saying that the $150,000 in clothes purchased for her and her family by the Republican National Committee were not her property, and that she's back to wearing her own clothes from Alaska.
"It is so nice to be back here in the Sunshine State and quite warm which I love, and grabbed a jacket this morning to put on not realizing how warm it would be. My own jacket," Palin said, emphasizing the word own, which drew laughs from the crowd.
She was prompted to address the clothing issue by an introduction by Elisabeth Hasselbeck, in which The View co-host called the questions on Palin’s wardrobe "deliberately sexist," and instead turning the focus from her clothes to the flag pin Palin wears.
"As you can see, Sarah Palin sure is a woman who knows how to dress," Hasselbeck told the crowd. "I'm actually personally most impressed by her accessories, you know, like the flag pin that she wears in honor, she wears it in honor of her son and our military men and women fighting abroad. And they fight for our very right to be here today, in her support."
"This whole thing with the wardrobe you know I have tried to just ignore it because it is so ridiculous, but I am glad now that Elisabeth brought it up cause it gives me an opportunity without the filter of the media to get to tell you the whole clothes thing," Palin responded at the top of her Tampa remarks. "Those clothes they are not my property, just like the lighting and the staging and everything else that the RNC purchased. I am not taking them with me, I'm back to wearing my own clothes from my favorite consignment shop in Anchorage, Alaska."
Palin then went on to describe some of the accessories she was wearing, including a pair of earrings from her mother-in-law, her $35 wedding ring, and her Blue Star mother pin.
"And my wedding ring, it's in Todd's pocket cause it hurts sometimes when I shake hands and it gets squished, a $35 wedding ring from Hawaii that I bought myself, and 'cause I always thought with my ring it's not what it's made of, it's what it represents and 20 years later happy to wear it," Palin said.
October 26, 2008
ABC News' Imtiyaz Delawala reports: Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin criticized Sen. Barack Obama as "getting a little bit ahead of himself" in expecting a win on Election Day, saying the Democratic presidential nominee should delay the "coronation" until after voters have cast their ballots.
At rallies in Tampa and Kissimmee, Fla., Palin said Obama was already preparing for post-election plans, citing an inaccurate report Saturday in the New York Times that Obama's inaugural address had already been written. Former President Clinton chief of staff John Podesta is leading transition preparation efforts for the Obama campaign, and had written a generic inaugural address for a book earlier this year -- when he still supported Sen. Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination.
"And you know that elections -- they're not decided until the votes are counted. But our opponent, he sure seems, once again to be getting out a little bit ahead of himself," Palin said at the Tampa rally. "John McCain and I, we're out here asking for your vote so we can get to work for you, and a lot of folks are still undecided. And you know, Barack Obama and I, we both have spent quite some time on the basketball court. But where I come from, you have to win the game before you start cutting down the nets."
Palin cited other instances -- such as Obama's use of a faux presidential seal for a day this summer, and his attempt to speak at Germany’s Brandenburg Gate -- as signs of Obama's presumptuousness leading up to Election Day.
"Remember the presidential seal that he made for himself a few months back? Or his plans to speak at the Brandenburg Gate until the German government had to remind him, ah, nah, that's an honor reserved for heads of state?" Palin asked the crowd. "Or the stadium that he's already rented out for the victory party that he has planned."
In fact, Obama has not rented out a stadium for Election Night -- he has reserved a green space known as Hutchinson Field in Chicago's historic Grant Park.
"You kind of get the feeling that the Obama campaign thinks this whole election process is just a formality," Palin continued. "And I know that judging by media coverage, it does seem that the coronation is already set. But as for John McCain and me, we don't take any vote for granted, and we are not assuming that we have your vote, we are respectfully asking for it."
Palin also defended herself on what she called "the whole clothes thing," saying that the $150,000 in clothes purchased for her and her family by the Republican National Committee were not her property, and that she's back to wearing her own clothes from Alaska.
"It is so nice to be back here in the Sunshine State and quite warm which I love, and grabbed a jacket this morning to put on not realizing how warm it would be. My own jacket," Palin said, emphasizing the word own, which drew laughs from the crowd.
She was prompted to address the clothing issue by an introduction by Elisabeth Hasselbeck, in which The View co-host called the questions on Palin’s wardrobe "deliberately sexist," and instead turning the focus from her clothes to the flag pin Palin wears.
"As you can see, Sarah Palin sure is a woman who knows how to dress," Hasselbeck told the crowd. "I'm actually personally most impressed by her accessories, you know, like the flag pin that she wears in honor, she wears it in honor of her son and our military men and women fighting abroad. And they fight for our very right to be here today, in her support."
"This whole thing with the wardrobe you know I have tried to just ignore it because it is so ridiculous, but I am glad now that Elisabeth brought it up cause it gives me an opportunity without the filter of the media to get to tell you the whole clothes thing," Palin responded at the top of her Tampa remarks. "Those clothes they are not my property, just like the lighting and the staging and everything else that the RNC purchased. I am not taking them with me, I'm back to wearing my own clothes from my favorite consignment shop in Anchorage, Alaska."
Palin then went on to describe some of the accessories she was wearing, including a pair of earrings from her mother-in-law, her $35 wedding ring, and her Blue Star mother pin.
"And my wedding ring, it's in Todd's pocket cause it hurts sometimes when I shake hands and it gets squished, a $35 wedding ring from Hawaii that I bought myself, and 'cause I always thought with my ring it's not what it's made of, it's what it represents and 20 years later happy to wear it," Palin said.
OBAMA AND/OR HIS "BOTS" EVEN THREATENING POLLSTERS!!!!
Death Threats Sent to Pollster
After releasing this morning’s numbers showing McCain ahead in Ohio and Florida, the Strategic Vision polling company received several death threats through the contact e-mail on the company’s web site.
David Johnson, the CEO of Strategic Vision, shared the messages with National Review Online.
One of the messages stated:
My goodness, your polls stinks. There are 3 polls that have Obama by double digits and only yours has Obama down. WOW!. How come your poll is the only one giving Palin high favor ratings? I think you nee dto be careful tonight when you get in your car and might want to check underneath your car. SCRAP YOUR IDIOTIC POLLS OR ELSE!
Another stated:
A poll that gave Sarah Palin and Barack Obama the same favorability rating is wrong off the bat. Be careful going outside tonight because you might not see tomorrow.
A third message stated:
Why would your presidential election poll results be so drastically different from every other reputable poll taken over the same time period? Are they that dumb or are you guys that smart? Smart guys wind up dead.
The company has contacted the FBI and appropriate authorities, Johnson said. There was, thankfully, nothing in the messages that indicated that the sender had actually sought out the location of the company or its employees. Johnson noted that while the messages came from different addresses, they all came within a short period of time, and that it was possible they were from the same person.
Johnson said he’s not fearful, but taking appropriate measures.
“It’s probably just a bunch of nut cases, but this is first time we’ve ever experienced something like this,” Johnson said. “It’s highly, highly unusual. We get messages in the vein of 'your numbers are wrong, the other guy's numbers are right' all the time. But this has never happened before.”
© National Review Online 2008. All Rights Reserved.
**************************************************************
MY THOUGHTS:
I don't know about you, but I am scared SHIT!! The Obama campaign is getting scarier and scarier by the day. All throughout this campaign, he and his supporters have known nothing but threats, intimidation, vandalism, bribes, etc. I am terrified of what will happen to this country no matter WHAT happens on November 4th!! Obama, the "uniter" is the BIGGEST DIVIDER EVER AND HE HAS SET RACIAL RELATIONS BACK 300 YEARS!!!
After releasing this morning’s numbers showing McCain ahead in Ohio and Florida, the Strategic Vision polling company received several death threats through the contact e-mail on the company’s web site.
David Johnson, the CEO of Strategic Vision, shared the messages with National Review Online.
One of the messages stated:
My goodness, your polls stinks. There are 3 polls that have Obama by double digits and only yours has Obama down. WOW!. How come your poll is the only one giving Palin high favor ratings? I think you nee dto be careful tonight when you get in your car and might want to check underneath your car. SCRAP YOUR IDIOTIC POLLS OR ELSE!
Another stated:
A poll that gave Sarah Palin and Barack Obama the same favorability rating is wrong off the bat. Be careful going outside tonight because you might not see tomorrow.
A third message stated:
Why would your presidential election poll results be so drastically different from every other reputable poll taken over the same time period? Are they that dumb or are you guys that smart? Smart guys wind up dead.
The company has contacted the FBI and appropriate authorities, Johnson said. There was, thankfully, nothing in the messages that indicated that the sender had actually sought out the location of the company or its employees. Johnson noted that while the messages came from different addresses, they all came within a short period of time, and that it was possible they were from the same person.
Johnson said he’s not fearful, but taking appropriate measures.
“It’s probably just a bunch of nut cases, but this is first time we’ve ever experienced something like this,” Johnson said. “It’s highly, highly unusual. We get messages in the vein of 'your numbers are wrong, the other guy's numbers are right' all the time. But this has never happened before.”
© National Review Online 2008. All Rights Reserved.
**************************************************************
MY THOUGHTS:
I don't know about you, but I am scared SHIT!! The Obama campaign is getting scarier and scarier by the day. All throughout this campaign, he and his supporters have known nothing but threats, intimidation, vandalism, bribes, etc. I am terrified of what will happen to this country no matter WHAT happens on November 4th!! Obama, the "uniter" is the BIGGEST DIVIDER EVER AND HE HAS SET RACIAL RELATIONS BACK 300 YEARS!!!
Sunday, October 26, 2008
SARAH DESERVES OUR RESPECT!!!!
(Oct 26, 2008): "Palin Deserves Our Respect" (Philly Inquirer)
Helen McCaffrey is the director of Women's Watch Inc., a nonprofit women's advocacy group based in Cape May.
I cannot predict who will win the presidential campaign, but I already know who will lose big: all women.
I realized this when I saw a 20-something male student who attends a class in the community college where I teach, wearing a T-shirt that read, "Sarah Palin is a C-." He wore it in public, in broad daylight, and without shame or even consciousness of what he was doing.
I took the time to advise him of the "error of his ways" and informed him of the consequences if he wore it to my class.
This encounter shook me right down to my socks.
Most of my adult life has been spent working for civil rights for all Americans, as a lawyer defending constitutional rights and now as a college teacher and director of a nonprofit advocating for the rights of women.
Not since I told myself I could lose weight on the pizza and cheesecake diet have I been so self-deluded. This election cycle has been like stepping on the scale.
It was the encounter with the young man that woke me up, but there were signs all along the campaign trail. First, with the candidacy of Sen. Hillary Clinton, who won 18 million popular votes from the people of the United States and was ridiculed, marginalized, and put in her place when she wasn't even offered the vice presidency slot.
But the really big attack on women occurred when John McCain selected only the second woman in history to be on a major-party ticket. He chose a governor of a state critical to our energy crisis. She is a very popular governor with an 80-percent approval rate. She was elected on her own merit without previous political ties. She is her own political creation, not the wife, daughter, sister or mistress of a politician.
I thought Americans would be proud of her nomination, whether we agreed or disagreed with her on the issues. Was I in for a shock.
The sexism that I believed had been eradicated was lurking, like some creature from the black lagoon, just below the surface. Suddenly it erupted and in some unexpected places.
Instead of engaging Palin on the issues, critics attacked attributes that are specifically female. It is Hillary's pantsuit drama to the power of 10. Palin's hair, her voice, her motherhood, and her personal hygiene were substituted for substance. That's when it was nice.
The hatred escalated to performers advocating Palin be "gang raped," to suggestions that her husband had had sex with their young daughters, and reports that her Down syndrome child really was that of her teenage daughter. One columnist even called for her to submit to DNA testing to prove her virtue. Smells a little like Salem to me. I was present at an Obama rally at which the mention of Palin's name drew shouts of "stone her."
"Stone her"? How biblical.
All this is at a time when women are regularly being raped as they try to cross the border into the United States; bloody, broken women haunt the emergency rooms of hospitals; and abuse and disrespect for women and girls is rising faster than bank bailouts. That is the atmosphere in which people, including women, choose to attempt to destroy a woman who is a legitimate political leader.
Agreement on issues is not required, but Palin merits respect.
It is dismaying that misogyny and sexism are so excessively marbleized into our daily interactions that some of us cannot even recognize their existence when confronted with it or when staring at it directly in the mirror.
It is my fervent hope that those who purport to be intellectuals begin to engage in argument and not resort to their baser selves or the easy exercise of personal and biology-based attacks.
Mockery and vilification of women such as Palin should become just as taboo as race-based slams. Until then, women are the real losers.
Helen McCaffrey is the director of Women's Watch Inc., a nonprofit women's advocacy group based in Cape May.
I cannot predict who will win the presidential campaign, but I already know who will lose big: all women.
I realized this when I saw a 20-something male student who attends a class in the community college where I teach, wearing a T-shirt that read, "Sarah Palin is a C-." He wore it in public, in broad daylight, and without shame or even consciousness of what he was doing.
I took the time to advise him of the "error of his ways" and informed him of the consequences if he wore it to my class.
This encounter shook me right down to my socks.
Most of my adult life has been spent working for civil rights for all Americans, as a lawyer defending constitutional rights and now as a college teacher and director of a nonprofit advocating for the rights of women.
Not since I told myself I could lose weight on the pizza and cheesecake diet have I been so self-deluded. This election cycle has been like stepping on the scale.
It was the encounter with the young man that woke me up, but there were signs all along the campaign trail. First, with the candidacy of Sen. Hillary Clinton, who won 18 million popular votes from the people of the United States and was ridiculed, marginalized, and put in her place when she wasn't even offered the vice presidency slot.
But the really big attack on women occurred when John McCain selected only the second woman in history to be on a major-party ticket. He chose a governor of a state critical to our energy crisis. She is a very popular governor with an 80-percent approval rate. She was elected on her own merit without previous political ties. She is her own political creation, not the wife, daughter, sister or mistress of a politician.
I thought Americans would be proud of her nomination, whether we agreed or disagreed with her on the issues. Was I in for a shock.
The sexism that I believed had been eradicated was lurking, like some creature from the black lagoon, just below the surface. Suddenly it erupted and in some unexpected places.
Instead of engaging Palin on the issues, critics attacked attributes that are specifically female. It is Hillary's pantsuit drama to the power of 10. Palin's hair, her voice, her motherhood, and her personal hygiene were substituted for substance. That's when it was nice.
The hatred escalated to performers advocating Palin be "gang raped," to suggestions that her husband had had sex with their young daughters, and reports that her Down syndrome child really was that of her teenage daughter. One columnist even called for her to submit to DNA testing to prove her virtue. Smells a little like Salem to me. I was present at an Obama rally at which the mention of Palin's name drew shouts of "stone her."
"Stone her"? How biblical.
All this is at a time when women are regularly being raped as they try to cross the border into the United States; bloody, broken women haunt the emergency rooms of hospitals; and abuse and disrespect for women and girls is rising faster than bank bailouts. That is the atmosphere in which people, including women, choose to attempt to destroy a woman who is a legitimate political leader.
Agreement on issues is not required, but Palin merits respect.
It is dismaying that misogyny and sexism are so excessively marbleized into our daily interactions that some of us cannot even recognize their existence when confronted with it or when staring at it directly in the mirror.
It is my fervent hope that those who purport to be intellectuals begin to engage in argument and not resort to their baser selves or the easy exercise of personal and biology-based attacks.
Mockery and vilification of women such as Palin should become just as taboo as race-based slams. Until then, women are the real losers.
SARAH AND ELISABETH BLAST 'RIDICULOUS' WARDROBE STORY!!!
Palin and Hasselbeck blast 'ridiculous' wardrobe story
From CNN Political Producer Peter Hamby, CNN's Dana Bash
Palin blasted the media for focusing on the $150,000 wardrobe story.
TAMPA, Florida (CNN) – Ensuring that news of the Republican National Committee's sartorial spending spree will remain in the headlines for at least one more news cycle, Sarah Palin on Sunday sounded off on the $150,000 wardrobe that was purchased for her in September, denouncing the report as "ridiculous" and declaring emphatically: "Those clothes, they are not my property."
A senior adviser to John McCain told CNN's Dana Bash that the comments about her wardrobe "were not the remarks we sent to her plane this morning." Palin did not discuss the wardrobe story at her rally in Kissimmee later in the day.
But in Tampa, Palin happily broached the clothing issue after being introduced by "The View" co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck, who accused Palin's opponents of being "fixated on her wardrobe" and "deliberately sexist."
That opened the door for Palin to weigh in on a topic that has frustrated the candidate and her advisers since the story first broke five days ago.
"This whole thing with the wardrobe, you know I have tried to just ignore it because it is so ridiculous, but I am glad now that Elisabeth brought it up, cause it gives me an opportunity without the filter of the media to get to tell you the whole clothes thing," she said.
"Those clothes, they are not my property. Just like the lighting and the staging and everything else that the RNC purchased, I'm not taking them with me. I am back to wearing my own clothes from my favorite consignment shop in Anchorage, Alaska. You'd think — not that I would even have to address the issue because, as Elisabeth is suggesting, the double standard here it's — gosh, we don't even want to waste our time."
Palin, however, forged on.
"I am glad, though, that she brought up accessories also. Let me tell you a little bit about a couple of accessories, didn't think that we would be talking about it, but my earrings — I see a Native Americans for Palin poster," she said. "These are beaded earrings from Todd's mom who is a Yupik Eskimo up in Alaska, Native American, Native Alaskan.
"And my wedding ring, it's in Todd's pocket, 'cause it hurts sometimes when I shake hands and it gets squished," she continued. "A $35 wedding ring from Hawaii that I bought myself and 'cause I always thought with my ring it's not what it's made of, it's what it represents, and 20 years later, happy to wear it. And then finally the other accessory, you bet I'm a gold — I'm a blue star mom. I'm wearing this in honor of my son who is fighting over in Iraq right now defending all of you."
After spending four minutes on the shopping escapade, Palin switched gears and trained her sights on Barack Obama, who, she said, is prematurely measuring the White House drapes.
"Barack Obama and I, we both have spent quite some time on the basketball court," she said. "But where I come from, you have to win the game before you start cutting down the nets."
Palin accused the Democrat of renting a stadium for a victory party on November 4.
That's actually not the case — Obama's rally on election night will be held outdoors in Grant Park in downtown Chicago.
"They've overlooked though the minor detail of earning your confidence and your trust and winning your votes," she said.
From CNN Political Producer Peter Hamby, CNN's Dana Bash
Palin blasted the media for focusing on the $150,000 wardrobe story.
TAMPA, Florida (CNN) – Ensuring that news of the Republican National Committee's sartorial spending spree will remain in the headlines for at least one more news cycle, Sarah Palin on Sunday sounded off on the $150,000 wardrobe that was purchased for her in September, denouncing the report as "ridiculous" and declaring emphatically: "Those clothes, they are not my property."
A senior adviser to John McCain told CNN's Dana Bash that the comments about her wardrobe "were not the remarks we sent to her plane this morning." Palin did not discuss the wardrobe story at her rally in Kissimmee later in the day.
But in Tampa, Palin happily broached the clothing issue after being introduced by "The View" co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck, who accused Palin's opponents of being "fixated on her wardrobe" and "deliberately sexist."
That opened the door for Palin to weigh in on a topic that has frustrated the candidate and her advisers since the story first broke five days ago.
"This whole thing with the wardrobe, you know I have tried to just ignore it because it is so ridiculous, but I am glad now that Elisabeth brought it up, cause it gives me an opportunity without the filter of the media to get to tell you the whole clothes thing," she said.
"Those clothes, they are not my property. Just like the lighting and the staging and everything else that the RNC purchased, I'm not taking them with me. I am back to wearing my own clothes from my favorite consignment shop in Anchorage, Alaska. You'd think — not that I would even have to address the issue because, as Elisabeth is suggesting, the double standard here it's — gosh, we don't even want to waste our time."
Palin, however, forged on.
"I am glad, though, that she brought up accessories also. Let me tell you a little bit about a couple of accessories, didn't think that we would be talking about it, but my earrings — I see a Native Americans for Palin poster," she said. "These are beaded earrings from Todd's mom who is a Yupik Eskimo up in Alaska, Native American, Native Alaskan.
"And my wedding ring, it's in Todd's pocket, 'cause it hurts sometimes when I shake hands and it gets squished," she continued. "A $35 wedding ring from Hawaii that I bought myself and 'cause I always thought with my ring it's not what it's made of, it's what it represents, and 20 years later, happy to wear it. And then finally the other accessory, you bet I'm a gold — I'm a blue star mom. I'm wearing this in honor of my son who is fighting over in Iraq right now defending all of you."
After spending four minutes on the shopping escapade, Palin switched gears and trained her sights on Barack Obama, who, she said, is prematurely measuring the White House drapes.
"Barack Obama and I, we both have spent quite some time on the basketball court," she said. "But where I come from, you have to win the game before you start cutting down the nets."
Palin accused the Democrat of renting a stadium for a victory party on November 4.
That's actually not the case — Obama's rally on election night will be held outdoors in Grant Park in downtown Chicago.
"They've overlooked though the minor detail of earning your confidence and your trust and winning your votes," she said.
OBAMA CAMP THINKS ELECTION IS JUST A FORMALITY!!!
Palin: Obama Camp Thinks Election is “Just a Formality.”
by Shushannah Walshe
TAMPA , Florida–-At a rally here today, Sarah Palin picked up one of her running mate’s attacks from yesterday that seems to have been already been debunked. She claimed that Barack Obama has already written his inauguration address citing a New York Times report.
“And you know that elections—they’re not decided until the votes are counted.” Palin said, “But our opponent, he sure seems, once again to be getting out a little bit ahead of himself. Just yesterday, the New York Times reported that Barack Obama’s inaugural address is already written. Nine days out from the election, nine days out, and yet it’s already written.”
The address Palin is referring to was written by John Podesta–who is currently directing the transition team for the Democratic nominee—and published in a book this summer when he was advising Obama’s rival, Hillary Clinton. The speech was a sample inaugural address for whoever eventually became the nominee.
Palin continued to try and peg Obama as presumptuous while stressing that her ticket is trying to earn votes and listed examples of how the Democratic nominee thinks that the election is “just a formality.”
“Barack Obama and I, we both have spent quite some time on the basketball court. But where I come from, you have to win the game before you start cutting down the nets. It’s kind of like that presidential seal. Remember the presidential seal that he made for himself a few months back? Or his plans to speak at the Brandenburg Gate until the German government had to remind him, ah, nah, that’s an honor reserved for heads of state. Or the stadium that he’s already rented out for the victory party that he has planned.”
This is also incorrect; the Obama campaign plans to speak on election night in Grant Park in Chicago while John McCain will give his address in the Biltmore Hotel in Phoenix.
Palin went on to blame the media for already electing Obama, but she promised the crowd that her ticket is still out working for votes.
“They’ve overlooked though the minor detail of earning your confidence and your trust and winning your votes.” Palin said, “And I know that judging by media coverage, it does seem that the coronation is already set, but as for John McCain and me, we don’t take any vote for granted, and we are not assuming that we have your vote, we are respectfully asking for it.”
by Shushannah Walshe
TAMPA , Florida–-At a rally here today, Sarah Palin picked up one of her running mate’s attacks from yesterday that seems to have been already been debunked. She claimed that Barack Obama has already written his inauguration address citing a New York Times report.
“And you know that elections—they’re not decided until the votes are counted.” Palin said, “But our opponent, he sure seems, once again to be getting out a little bit ahead of himself. Just yesterday, the New York Times reported that Barack Obama’s inaugural address is already written. Nine days out from the election, nine days out, and yet it’s already written.”
The address Palin is referring to was written by John Podesta–who is currently directing the transition team for the Democratic nominee—and published in a book this summer when he was advising Obama’s rival, Hillary Clinton. The speech was a sample inaugural address for whoever eventually became the nominee.
Palin continued to try and peg Obama as presumptuous while stressing that her ticket is trying to earn votes and listed examples of how the Democratic nominee thinks that the election is “just a formality.”
“Barack Obama and I, we both have spent quite some time on the basketball court. But where I come from, you have to win the game before you start cutting down the nets. It’s kind of like that presidential seal. Remember the presidential seal that he made for himself a few months back? Or his plans to speak at the Brandenburg Gate until the German government had to remind him, ah, nah, that’s an honor reserved for heads of state. Or the stadium that he’s already rented out for the victory party that he has planned.”
This is also incorrect; the Obama campaign plans to speak on election night in Grant Park in Chicago while John McCain will give his address in the Biltmore Hotel in Phoenix.
Palin went on to blame the media for already electing Obama, but she promised the crowd that her ticket is still out working for votes.
“They’ve overlooked though the minor detail of earning your confidence and your trust and winning your votes.” Palin said, “And I know that judging by media coverage, it does seem that the coronation is already set, but as for John McCain and me, we don’t take any vote for granted, and we are not assuming that we have your vote, we are respectfully asking for it.”
WILL THERE BE A FEMALE VOTER BACKLASH?? YOU BET YOUR ASS THERE WILL!!!!
Will There be a Female Voter Backlash?
By Mark Curtis - Posted on October 25th, 2008
(Moraga, California)
It’s a prospect that has been simmering for months. Angry, female voters- many of whom supported Hillary Clinton- threatening to stay home or vote for John McCain. The question with 10 days before the election is, will they materialize in any significant way?
At certain points throughout the summer, this sentiment was growing. One poll had 27 percent of female Clinton supporters either planning to refuse voting or cast their ballots for the GOP. Suspense only heightened when Sarah Palin was named to the Republican ticket.
Being out on the campaign trail I never sensed that the backlash could be as high as 27 percent. But I did think 10 to 15 percent was plausible and enough to swing the election. I kept in touch with groups such as www.hireheals.com and it’s leader Diane Montouvalos, whom I met at Hillary Clinton’s Pennsylvania victory rally.
Well now comes another group: www.justsaynodeal.com. Actually it was formed in June, but I just got a new e-mail update from them the other day. Here is part of what it said:
“A group of Hillary’s most ardent supporters formed a coalition called Just Say No Deal. What followed was a viral explosion which grew organically and virtually. We put our families, jobs, reputations and even, in some cases, our lives and safety on the line to stand up and speak out in the media against the corruption of the DNC and the thuggery of the Obama campaign and ACORN. The abuse inflicted upon Hillary supporters on the blogosphere and on the trail is now being felt by McCain supporters. And as a female candidate Sarah Palin is now getting a taste of what ‘Our Gal’ went through.”
Remember, this is not the Republican Party lashing out here. In many respects these are liberal-to-moderate women. Why would they side with Sarah Palin? Well, not for political ideology. But look at the big Palin story this week. The clamor over how much money was spent on her wardrobe, much like the dissection of Hillary Clinton’s pantsuit collection. Honestly, do male candidates face this scrutiny? No and that’s why you have women shouting about a double-standard in the media.
CNN’s Campbell Brown, an old colleague of mine, raised this issue in her columns and show the other day. "My Issue?" Brown said. "There is an incredible double standard here, and we are ignoring a very simple reality: women are judged based on their appearance far far more than men. That is a statement of fact. There has been plenty written about Sarah Palin's jackets, her hair, her looks.
“Sound Familar?" she asked. "There was plenty of talk and plenty written about Hillary Clinton's looks, hair, pantsuits. Compare that to the attention given to Barack Obama's $1,500 suits or John McCain's $520 Ferragamo shoes. There is no comparison."
Point well taken. It will be interesting to see what many women do on Election Day and how it might affect the outcome! Check in often at www.MarkCurtisMedia.com.
By Mark Curtis - Posted on October 25th, 2008
(Moraga, California)
It’s a prospect that has been simmering for months. Angry, female voters- many of whom supported Hillary Clinton- threatening to stay home or vote for John McCain. The question with 10 days before the election is, will they materialize in any significant way?
At certain points throughout the summer, this sentiment was growing. One poll had 27 percent of female Clinton supporters either planning to refuse voting or cast their ballots for the GOP. Suspense only heightened when Sarah Palin was named to the Republican ticket.
Being out on the campaign trail I never sensed that the backlash could be as high as 27 percent. But I did think 10 to 15 percent was plausible and enough to swing the election. I kept in touch with groups such as www.hireheals.com and it’s leader Diane Montouvalos, whom I met at Hillary Clinton’s Pennsylvania victory rally.
Well now comes another group: www.justsaynodeal.com. Actually it was formed in June, but I just got a new e-mail update from them the other day. Here is part of what it said:
“A group of Hillary’s most ardent supporters formed a coalition called Just Say No Deal. What followed was a viral explosion which grew organically and virtually. We put our families, jobs, reputations and even, in some cases, our lives and safety on the line to stand up and speak out in the media against the corruption of the DNC and the thuggery of the Obama campaign and ACORN. The abuse inflicted upon Hillary supporters on the blogosphere and on the trail is now being felt by McCain supporters. And as a female candidate Sarah Palin is now getting a taste of what ‘Our Gal’ went through.”
Remember, this is not the Republican Party lashing out here. In many respects these are liberal-to-moderate women. Why would they side with Sarah Palin? Well, not for political ideology. But look at the big Palin story this week. The clamor over how much money was spent on her wardrobe, much like the dissection of Hillary Clinton’s pantsuit collection. Honestly, do male candidates face this scrutiny? No and that’s why you have women shouting about a double-standard in the media.
CNN’s Campbell Brown, an old colleague of mine, raised this issue in her columns and show the other day. "My Issue?" Brown said. "There is an incredible double standard here, and we are ignoring a very simple reality: women are judged based on their appearance far far more than men. That is a statement of fact. There has been plenty written about Sarah Palin's jackets, her hair, her looks.
“Sound Familar?" she asked. "There was plenty of talk and plenty written about Hillary Clinton's looks, hair, pantsuits. Compare that to the attention given to Barack Obama's $1,500 suits or John McCain's $520 Ferragamo shoes. There is no comparison."
Point well taken. It will be interesting to see what many women do on Election Day and how it might affect the outcome! Check in often at www.MarkCurtisMedia.com.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
SARAH'S ONE OF US!!!!
'Sarah's one of us'
Supporters tout governor's shared qualities, values at Springfield stop on Friday.
Gregory Trotter • News-Leader • October 25, 2008
The bundled-up crowd of nearly 15,000 trudged in line through Friday morning's gray light.
From retirees to babies swaddled in blankets, they traveled from all over the state. Vendors hawked buttons and T-shirts; people laughed and interacted with neighbors in line. Many wiggled out of work or school to be there, to experience history -- to see Sarah Palin.
"I've never voted for a Republican in my life," said Charlotte Christ, a 37-year-old cook from Buffalo. "But Sarah's one of us. You can hear it in her voice."
Christ and her husband, Shawn, have two children, ages 2 and 4. They are drawn to the Alaskan governor's conservative values and persona as a Washington outsider.
"They finally found one who talks to me," Shawn Christ said.
About 4,000 people got tickets to see the Republican vice-presidential candidate and another 11,000 or so showed up and took their chances.
"I believe in her," said Ryan Haggard, 19, who traveled from Kansas City to be in line at 5:45 a.m. "She has true conservative values and wants for us to keep our money in our own pockets."
Some who traveled to see Palin felt a personal connection with her family life -- particularly the raising of her son Trig, who has Down syndrome.
"She stands up for children, especially those with special needs," said 70-year-old Ben Southerland, from Kimberling City, who also has a son with Down syndrome. "And she stands up for women -- not females -- but real women who raise children."
About 30 protesters lined the sidewalks of Sunshine Street and Campbell Avenue. They wielded signs such as "McCain-More of the Same" and "A natural gas pipeline to nowhere." Since Palin's campaign rented the Bass Pro property, the protesters were not allowed on the rally grounds.
"We were trying to have civil discussions about the issues," said Zach Allen, a 20-year-old Army Reserve and Barack Obama supporter, who held an American flag with another protester.
Later, Allen said they were asked to leave by rally officials when they walked onto the grounds with the flag.
Most of the people at the rally seemed drawn to Palin's conservative -- and Christian -- values.
"I don't want our country deep-sixed like Sodom and Gomorrah," said Christina Flowers, a 38-year-old evangelist. "And I hate it when people call Obama a messiah. There's only one messiah."
Flowers also took issue with Obama's alleged association with "terrorists, like Bill Ayers, and crooked politicians."
For mothers like Catherine Schmittling, a 37-year-old self-proclaimed "hockey mom," Palin represents their own identities. Before Palin took the podium, Schmittling leaned forward -- holding a red pom-pom -- grinning like she had a wonderful secret she could no longer keep to herself.
"She's a Christian woman who represents God-fearing people," Schmittling said, shaking her pom-pom. "In Sarah we trust."
Supporters tout governor's shared qualities, values at Springfield stop on Friday.
Gregory Trotter • News-Leader • October 25, 2008
The bundled-up crowd of nearly 15,000 trudged in line through Friday morning's gray light.
From retirees to babies swaddled in blankets, they traveled from all over the state. Vendors hawked buttons and T-shirts; people laughed and interacted with neighbors in line. Many wiggled out of work or school to be there, to experience history -- to see Sarah Palin.
"I've never voted for a Republican in my life," said Charlotte Christ, a 37-year-old cook from Buffalo. "But Sarah's one of us. You can hear it in her voice."
Christ and her husband, Shawn, have two children, ages 2 and 4. They are drawn to the Alaskan governor's conservative values and persona as a Washington outsider.
"They finally found one who talks to me," Shawn Christ said.
About 4,000 people got tickets to see the Republican vice-presidential candidate and another 11,000 or so showed up and took their chances.
"I believe in her," said Ryan Haggard, 19, who traveled from Kansas City to be in line at 5:45 a.m. "She has true conservative values and wants for us to keep our money in our own pockets."
Some who traveled to see Palin felt a personal connection with her family life -- particularly the raising of her son Trig, who has Down syndrome.
"She stands up for children, especially those with special needs," said 70-year-old Ben Southerland, from Kimberling City, who also has a son with Down syndrome. "And she stands up for women -- not females -- but real women who raise children."
About 30 protesters lined the sidewalks of Sunshine Street and Campbell Avenue. They wielded signs such as "McCain-More of the Same" and "A natural gas pipeline to nowhere." Since Palin's campaign rented the Bass Pro property, the protesters were not allowed on the rally grounds.
"We were trying to have civil discussions about the issues," said Zach Allen, a 20-year-old Army Reserve and Barack Obama supporter, who held an American flag with another protester.
Later, Allen said they were asked to leave by rally officials when they walked onto the grounds with the flag.
Most of the people at the rally seemed drawn to Palin's conservative -- and Christian -- values.
"I don't want our country deep-sixed like Sodom and Gomorrah," said Christina Flowers, a 38-year-old evangelist. "And I hate it when people call Obama a messiah. There's only one messiah."
Flowers also took issue with Obama's alleged association with "terrorists, like Bill Ayers, and crooked politicians."
For mothers like Catherine Schmittling, a 37-year-old self-proclaimed "hockey mom," Palin represents their own identities. Before Palin took the podium, Schmittling leaned forward -- holding a red pom-pom -- grinning like she had a wonderful secret she could no longer keep to herself.
"She's a Christian woman who represents God-fearing people," Schmittling said, shaking her pom-pom. "In Sarah we trust."
SARAH WILL NEVER BE OBSCURE EVER AGAIN!!!
Winner or loser, Sarah Palin will never again be an obscure politician from an obscure state
Paul Harris in New York
The Observer, Sunday October 26 2008
Rarely has a figure emerged so suddenly and spectacularly on to the American political scene as Sarah Palin. Equally rare is the way she has since been buried by an avalanche of scandal and mistakes.
From the shock of being chosen as John McCain's running mate and her stunning speech at the Republican National Convention to the almost daily update of gaffes, it has been a rollercoaster ride.
Palin brought things that had rarely or never been seen before on a presidential campaign. Moose-hunting. Her husband Todd as Alaska's First Dude. Her supporters proudly touting lipstick as a political weapon. Hockey moms and pitbulls. But away from the gimmicks, there was the historic nature of her place as a woman on the Republican ticket.
Yet, after almost two months on the campaign trail, her net impact is the greatest surprise: zero. Palin has reverted to the traditional role of the Vice-President. It is the one that Joe Biden has played for the Democrats to considerably less attention. That role is to be an attack dog. 'In the end, her impact is going to be neutral. The base loves her, but she is not going to bring many people on board for McCain who aren't there already,' said Professor Tracy Osborn, a political scientist and expert on women in politics at the University of Iowa.
For a while, though, everything about Palin seemed fresh. She was young, attractive, forthright and delivered a convention speech as if wielding a stiletto heel. Suddenly McCain's campaign had rock-star quality. Thousands flocked to see her.
But the wheels came off fairly quickly. The media obsession with Palin had a dark side, too. Every little obscure spat of her time in Alaska (a state which has quirky domestic politics at the best of times) was magnified. The greatest was Troopergate. It should have remained a minor staffing controversy in the frozen north. Did Palin use her powers to sack someone who refused to fire a state trooper Palin's family was feuding with? Who knows? But the issue refuses to die. On Friday, she gave a deposition under oath as a second inquiry took off.
There have been even more colourful scandals. There was the unplanned pregnancy of her teenage daughter. The disastrous interview with news anchor Katie Couric, in which Palin stumbled over the simplest of questions. In the harsh glare of the campaign spotlight a picture of a bumbling Palin emerged that scared more people than it inspired.
In the latest poll, 55 per cent of Americans believed her unprepared to be President. On Friday, the Los Angeles Times claimed Palin abused her position as governor to promote friends, their relatives and financial donors, sometimes with little regard for their qualifications. It said that more than 100 appointments went to campaign donors or their relatives.
Equally headline-worthy was last week's media obsession with her wardrobe after it was revealed that the Republican party had spent $150,000 on designer clothes for her. The New York Times (which has now endorsed Barack Obama) also reported that Amy Strozzi, Palin's make-up artist, had briefly been the highest-paid operative in the Republican campaign after netting $22,800 for two weeks' work in October. Palin has reacted angrily to those stories, decrying a media that pays attention to her appearance in a way that it does not for the male candidates.
But the media seems worried that if the Republicans lose the election Palin might drop off the radar. To keep her flame alive some have even speculated Palin may have a television career ahead of her. 'I think she's a perfect fit as a TV host, stirring passions on both sides,' said Michael Levine, a Hollywood PR expert.
But the pundits should stop fretting. Most serious analysis still sees a strong political future for Palin within the Republican party. She still has the backing of the powerful evangelical grassroots. Time will help to erase the memory of her gaffes. She will become a smoother and more experienced politician.
'She has a bright future ahead of her,' said Osborn, who predicted that she might end up in the Senate when an Alaskan seat becomes available. Others see a possible 2012 presidential run. Whatever happens, Palin will not be returning to the political obscurity from which she so suddenly emerged.
Paul Harris in New York
The Observer, Sunday October 26 2008
Rarely has a figure emerged so suddenly and spectacularly on to the American political scene as Sarah Palin. Equally rare is the way she has since been buried by an avalanche of scandal and mistakes.
From the shock of being chosen as John McCain's running mate and her stunning speech at the Republican National Convention to the almost daily update of gaffes, it has been a rollercoaster ride.
Palin brought things that had rarely or never been seen before on a presidential campaign. Moose-hunting. Her husband Todd as Alaska's First Dude. Her supporters proudly touting lipstick as a political weapon. Hockey moms and pitbulls. But away from the gimmicks, there was the historic nature of her place as a woman on the Republican ticket.
Yet, after almost two months on the campaign trail, her net impact is the greatest surprise: zero. Palin has reverted to the traditional role of the Vice-President. It is the one that Joe Biden has played for the Democrats to considerably less attention. That role is to be an attack dog. 'In the end, her impact is going to be neutral. The base loves her, but she is not going to bring many people on board for McCain who aren't there already,' said Professor Tracy Osborn, a political scientist and expert on women in politics at the University of Iowa.
For a while, though, everything about Palin seemed fresh. She was young, attractive, forthright and delivered a convention speech as if wielding a stiletto heel. Suddenly McCain's campaign had rock-star quality. Thousands flocked to see her.
But the wheels came off fairly quickly. The media obsession with Palin had a dark side, too. Every little obscure spat of her time in Alaska (a state which has quirky domestic politics at the best of times) was magnified. The greatest was Troopergate. It should have remained a minor staffing controversy in the frozen north. Did Palin use her powers to sack someone who refused to fire a state trooper Palin's family was feuding with? Who knows? But the issue refuses to die. On Friday, she gave a deposition under oath as a second inquiry took off.
There have been even more colourful scandals. There was the unplanned pregnancy of her teenage daughter. The disastrous interview with news anchor Katie Couric, in which Palin stumbled over the simplest of questions. In the harsh glare of the campaign spotlight a picture of a bumbling Palin emerged that scared more people than it inspired.
In the latest poll, 55 per cent of Americans believed her unprepared to be President. On Friday, the Los Angeles Times claimed Palin abused her position as governor to promote friends, their relatives and financial donors, sometimes with little regard for their qualifications. It said that more than 100 appointments went to campaign donors or their relatives.
Equally headline-worthy was last week's media obsession with her wardrobe after it was revealed that the Republican party had spent $150,000 on designer clothes for her. The New York Times (which has now endorsed Barack Obama) also reported that Amy Strozzi, Palin's make-up artist, had briefly been the highest-paid operative in the Republican campaign after netting $22,800 for two weeks' work in October. Palin has reacted angrily to those stories, decrying a media that pays attention to her appearance in a way that it does not for the male candidates.
But the media seems worried that if the Republicans lose the election Palin might drop off the radar. To keep her flame alive some have even speculated Palin may have a television career ahead of her. 'I think she's a perfect fit as a TV host, stirring passions on both sides,' said Michael Levine, a Hollywood PR expert.
But the pundits should stop fretting. Most serious analysis still sees a strong political future for Palin within the Republican party. She still has the backing of the powerful evangelical grassroots. Time will help to erase the memory of her gaffes. She will become a smoother and more experienced politician.
'She has a bright future ahead of her,' said Osborn, who predicted that she might end up in the Senate when an Alaskan seat becomes available. Others see a possible 2012 presidential run. Whatever happens, Palin will not be returning to the political obscurity from which she so suddenly emerged.
OBAMA'S OWN STAFFERS VOTING FRAUDULENTLY!!! SURPRISE!!! SURPRISE!!!
BAM STAFFERS PULL THEIR BOGUS OHIO BALLOTS
By JEANE MACINSTOSH - New York Post
October 25, 2008
Thirteen campaign workers for Barack Obama yesterday yanked their voter registrations and ballots in Ohio after being warned by a prosecutor that temporary residents can't vote in the battleground state.
A dozen staffers - including Obama Ohio spokeswoman Olivia Alair and James Cadogan, who recently joined Team Obama - signed a form letter asking the Franklin County elections board to pull their names from the rolls.
The letter - a copy of which was obtained by palestra.net, a Fox News affiliate - came a day after prosecutor Ron O'Brien publicly urged out-of-state campaign workers for both Obama and John McCain to "examine your conscience" before the elections board beings begins opening absentee ballots today.
Earlier in the week, O'Brien spoke with lawyers for both camps and urged them to make sure their staffs met permanent-residency rules, or face possible felony charges.
Also pulling his ballot yesterday was Hofstra University grad Jake Smith, an Obama volunteer who had voted in Knox County, Ohio.
On Thursday, O'Brien cut a deal with 13 out-of-staters, including four from New York, who tossed out their already-cast ballots and admitted they didn't meet residency requirements.
By JEANE MACINSTOSH - New York Post
October 25, 2008
Thirteen campaign workers for Barack Obama yesterday yanked their voter registrations and ballots in Ohio after being warned by a prosecutor that temporary residents can't vote in the battleground state.
A dozen staffers - including Obama Ohio spokeswoman Olivia Alair and James Cadogan, who recently joined Team Obama - signed a form letter asking the Franklin County elections board to pull their names from the rolls.
The letter - a copy of which was obtained by palestra.net, a Fox News affiliate - came a day after prosecutor Ron O'Brien publicly urged out-of-state campaign workers for both Obama and John McCain to "examine your conscience" before the elections board beings begins opening absentee ballots today.
Earlier in the week, O'Brien spoke with lawyers for both camps and urged them to make sure their staffs met permanent-residency rules, or face possible felony charges.
Also pulling his ballot yesterday was Hofstra University grad Jake Smith, an Obama volunteer who had voted in Knox County, Ohio.
On Thursday, O'Brien cut a deal with 13 out-of-staters, including four from New York, who tossed out their already-cast ballots and admitted they didn't meet residency requirements.
BIDEN ANGERED BY TOUGH QUESTIONS!!!
Didn't this reporter KNOW that you are NOT supposed to ask tough questions of the Obama campaign? Perhaps she didn't get the memo. And Joe, you outright LIED when you said Obama had no ties to ACORN and did not "donate one penny" to them. No he didn't donate one penny. He DONATED OVER $800,000!!! He has been involved with ACORN for the better part of 20 years and all the lying you do is not going to change that FACT.
And then you LIED again when you said you were not referring to Obama only when you warned your fundraisers about an international crisis. But then WHY did you SPECIFICALLY mention ONLY Obama, saying they would test him due to his inexperience and you compared him to JFK. You went so far as to say that he probably would NOT be right in his decision regarding this crisis.
I hear the Obama campaign is ANGRY now that this reporter had the AUDACITY to ask TOUGH questions!!! Golly gee, just because he wants to be President of the United States is no reason to ask Obama tough questions, now is it??
FROM BLOG: AMERICAN THINKER. SIGNS POINTING TO MC CAIN VICTORY!!!!
Signs Pointing To A McCain Victory
By Steven M. Warshawsky
Despite there being an entire cottage industry devoted to exposing the liberal bias of the mainstream media, Republicans and conservatives continue to allow themselves to be unduly influenced, and even demoralized, by what they read and hear in the big city newspapers and on network television.
What are they reading and hearing? That Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States. It's inevitable. It's his election to lose. What proof does the media offer? Public opinion polls that supposedly show Obama "winning" the race. (But see here and here.) The thousands of devoted supporters who attend Obama's rallies. The legions of blacks and young people who are more "inspired" than ever to vote for a candidate who understands their needs and interests. Etc. We all know the story by heart by now.
This is the "narrative" that the mainstream media has been imposing on this year's presidential campaign almost from the start. Remember how quickly the MSM jumped off the Hillary Clinton bandwagon and onto Obama's? Remember how annoyed and angry they became as Hillary refused to concede the nomination? The MSM decided that electing the nation's first black, socialist, anti-American president was politically and historically more important (and, for them, more exciting) than electing the nation's first female, socialist, patriotic president. And they are doing everything they can to achieve this goal.
Well, there is another story out there that the MSM refuses to address. A huge story. One that could, and I think will, significantly affect the outcome of this race. I'm referring to the widespread phenomenon of registered Democrats openly supporting John McCain. There are numerous "Democrats for McCain" type organizations. There are numerous websites and blogs written by Democrats touting McCain's candidacy. There are pro-McCain grassroots efforts being led by Democrats. And we all know friends or relatives who are Democrats, who voted for John Kerry in 2004, and who are no fans of President Bush - but who are going to vote for John McCain this year.
Yet, surprise surprise, the mainstream media is not talking about these voters, not talking about the real rift that is occurring within the ranks of the Democratic Party. Needless to say, if a similar rift were occurring in the Republican Party, it would be treated as the major story that it is. (Indeed, as such stories about the political fault lines in the Republican Party have been treated in the recent past.)
Who are these pro-McCain Democratic voters? They overwhelmingly tend to be former Hillary supporters. Perhaps the most well-known of these voters are the "PUMAs" - which stands for Party Unity My Ass. These are Hillary supporters who are adamantly opposed to Obama. Let's not forget that during the Democratic primaries - real elections, not polls - Hillary crushed Obama among white working-class and middle-class voters in such key states as Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. If a meaningful number of these voters end up voting for McCain, as I predict they will, then Obama's smooth road to the White House is going to run smack into a brick wall.
Earlier this week, I attended a John McCain campaign event in New York City. There were several Democrats in attendance. Not only people who are registered Democrats, but party leaders and workers who had been actively involved in Hillary Clinton's campaign. Indeed, the gentlemen who "keynoted" the event was a former publisher of the left-wing Village Voice magazine and a veteran of the Robert Kennedy, George McGovern, and Jimmy Carter campaigns. Hardly a right-wing conservative. He gave one of the best stump speeches I have heard why Barack Obama should not be elected president. (It comes down to not trusting Obama to keep the United States safe and strong in a dangerous world and rejecting Obama's "government knows best" attitude when it comes to domestic issues.) Another person I met at the event was a sprightly elderly woman who manned telephones for Hillary for five months, and now is supporting McCain.
There is nothing remotely similar to this taking place among Republicans. (No, Christopher Buckley endorsing Obama is not the same thing at all.)
Some more anecdotal evidence of a lack of support for Obama among Democrats: I live in the Upper West Side neighborhood of New York City. You cannot find too many places in the country that are more liberal than that. Walking around my neighborhood during the 2004 presidential campaign, I felt "assaulted" on all sides by Kerry-Edwards buttons, bumper stickers, and posters. This year, there clearly is not the same level of outward support for Obama. It is remarkable (and welcome). Will most of the people in my neighborhood vote for Obama on election day? Of course. Will Obama win New York? Almost certainly. But the lack of enthusiasm for Obama among these Democrats, who I'm sure would be going gaga for Hillary, speaks volumes about Obama's true prospects for victory this year.
The point is simple: Don't believe the Obama hype coming out of the mainstream media. If the media were truly objective and unbiased, they would be covering the race much differently. Instead of trying to browbeat the country into voting for Obama, they would be analyzing the issues and factors that favor and disfavor both candidates. Instead of focusing on college students and intellectuals, they would be focusing on working-class and middle-class voters, especially "Hillary Democrats." These voters may very well determine the election. Yet this huge story is being ignored by the MSM.
Furthermore, the media would not so consistently confuse intensity of support for breadth of support. Granted, Barack Obama's supporters tend to be more enthusiastic about their candidate than John McCain's supporters are about him. Leftists are always looking for their earthly messiah. But this does not mean that Obama's supporters, come election day, will outnumber McCain's. Whether in support of McCain or in opposition to Obama, I predict these voters will go to the polls. Contrary to the wishful thinking of Democratic pundits, they are not staying home. These voters may be unexcited, but they are not apathetic. And 51% of "unexcited" voters will defeat 49% of even the most "inspired" voters. Every time.
Of course, we all know what the mainstream media's "narrative" will be if (I believe, when) John McCain wins the election: The American people refused to vote for Obama because of the color of his skin (and not because of the content of his politics). The "right-wing attack machine" scared voters into voting for McCain, even against their own social and economic self-interest. Black and poor voters were intimidated by Republican thugs and prevented from voting. We know this story by heart as well.
So be prepared. In a few more weeks, the political environment in this country is likely to become a heckuva lot nastier. For there are real signs pointing to a McCain victory this year, whether or not the mainstream media wants to acknowledge them.
***********************************************************
MY THOUGHTS:
You know I have been thinking about this for some time now. Obama's candidacy has caused a deep racial divide in this country. Obama's supporters have been nasty, mean and threatening all along. And now the media is making it out to be a done deal that Obama will win. By refusing to report the TRUTH, that a lot of Democrats - a lot of people who support Hillary Clinton - PUMAS - ARE NOT SUPPORTING OBAMA!!! This is terribly dangerous. Because if, God willing, Mc Cain does win, the black people are going to go NUTS!! They will say it was stolen from THE ONE. Of course, they totally dismiss ACORN's cheating and stealing the election FOR OBAMA, but IF he loses, they will go BONKERS. And the media hasn't helped either in writing and talking about their fears of violence in the streets. The media has been trying to pick our next president for almost two years now. They refuse to report that there are MILLIONS OF PUMAS who will NOT vote for Obama. SO if anything does happen. If there is violence in the street, we can blame the mainstream media for it.
By Steven M. Warshawsky
Despite there being an entire cottage industry devoted to exposing the liberal bias of the mainstream media, Republicans and conservatives continue to allow themselves to be unduly influenced, and even demoralized, by what they read and hear in the big city newspapers and on network television.
What are they reading and hearing? That Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States. It's inevitable. It's his election to lose. What proof does the media offer? Public opinion polls that supposedly show Obama "winning" the race. (But see here and here.) The thousands of devoted supporters who attend Obama's rallies. The legions of blacks and young people who are more "inspired" than ever to vote for a candidate who understands their needs and interests. Etc. We all know the story by heart by now.
This is the "narrative" that the mainstream media has been imposing on this year's presidential campaign almost from the start. Remember how quickly the MSM jumped off the Hillary Clinton bandwagon and onto Obama's? Remember how annoyed and angry they became as Hillary refused to concede the nomination? The MSM decided that electing the nation's first black, socialist, anti-American president was politically and historically more important (and, for them, more exciting) than electing the nation's first female, socialist, patriotic president. And they are doing everything they can to achieve this goal.
Well, there is another story out there that the MSM refuses to address. A huge story. One that could, and I think will, significantly affect the outcome of this race. I'm referring to the widespread phenomenon of registered Democrats openly supporting John McCain. There are numerous "Democrats for McCain" type organizations. There are numerous websites and blogs written by Democrats touting McCain's candidacy. There are pro-McCain grassroots efforts being led by Democrats. And we all know friends or relatives who are Democrats, who voted for John Kerry in 2004, and who are no fans of President Bush - but who are going to vote for John McCain this year.
Yet, surprise surprise, the mainstream media is not talking about these voters, not talking about the real rift that is occurring within the ranks of the Democratic Party. Needless to say, if a similar rift were occurring in the Republican Party, it would be treated as the major story that it is. (Indeed, as such stories about the political fault lines in the Republican Party have been treated in the recent past.)
Who are these pro-McCain Democratic voters? They overwhelmingly tend to be former Hillary supporters. Perhaps the most well-known of these voters are the "PUMAs" - which stands for Party Unity My Ass. These are Hillary supporters who are adamantly opposed to Obama. Let's not forget that during the Democratic primaries - real elections, not polls - Hillary crushed Obama among white working-class and middle-class voters in such key states as Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. If a meaningful number of these voters end up voting for McCain, as I predict they will, then Obama's smooth road to the White House is going to run smack into a brick wall.
Earlier this week, I attended a John McCain campaign event in New York City. There were several Democrats in attendance. Not only people who are registered Democrats, but party leaders and workers who had been actively involved in Hillary Clinton's campaign. Indeed, the gentlemen who "keynoted" the event was a former publisher of the left-wing Village Voice magazine and a veteran of the Robert Kennedy, George McGovern, and Jimmy Carter campaigns. Hardly a right-wing conservative. He gave one of the best stump speeches I have heard why Barack Obama should not be elected president. (It comes down to not trusting Obama to keep the United States safe and strong in a dangerous world and rejecting Obama's "government knows best" attitude when it comes to domestic issues.) Another person I met at the event was a sprightly elderly woman who manned telephones for Hillary for five months, and now is supporting McCain.
There is nothing remotely similar to this taking place among Republicans. (No, Christopher Buckley endorsing Obama is not the same thing at all.)
Some more anecdotal evidence of a lack of support for Obama among Democrats: I live in the Upper West Side neighborhood of New York City. You cannot find too many places in the country that are more liberal than that. Walking around my neighborhood during the 2004 presidential campaign, I felt "assaulted" on all sides by Kerry-Edwards buttons, bumper stickers, and posters. This year, there clearly is not the same level of outward support for Obama. It is remarkable (and welcome). Will most of the people in my neighborhood vote for Obama on election day? Of course. Will Obama win New York? Almost certainly. But the lack of enthusiasm for Obama among these Democrats, who I'm sure would be going gaga for Hillary, speaks volumes about Obama's true prospects for victory this year.
The point is simple: Don't believe the Obama hype coming out of the mainstream media. If the media were truly objective and unbiased, they would be covering the race much differently. Instead of trying to browbeat the country into voting for Obama, they would be analyzing the issues and factors that favor and disfavor both candidates. Instead of focusing on college students and intellectuals, they would be focusing on working-class and middle-class voters, especially "Hillary Democrats." These voters may very well determine the election. Yet this huge story is being ignored by the MSM.
Furthermore, the media would not so consistently confuse intensity of support for breadth of support. Granted, Barack Obama's supporters tend to be more enthusiastic about their candidate than John McCain's supporters are about him. Leftists are always looking for their earthly messiah. But this does not mean that Obama's supporters, come election day, will outnumber McCain's. Whether in support of McCain or in opposition to Obama, I predict these voters will go to the polls. Contrary to the wishful thinking of Democratic pundits, they are not staying home. These voters may be unexcited, but they are not apathetic. And 51% of "unexcited" voters will defeat 49% of even the most "inspired" voters. Every time.
Of course, we all know what the mainstream media's "narrative" will be if (I believe, when) John McCain wins the election: The American people refused to vote for Obama because of the color of his skin (and not because of the content of his politics). The "right-wing attack machine" scared voters into voting for McCain, even against their own social and economic self-interest. Black and poor voters were intimidated by Republican thugs and prevented from voting. We know this story by heart as well.
So be prepared. In a few more weeks, the political environment in this country is likely to become a heckuva lot nastier. For there are real signs pointing to a McCain victory this year, whether or not the mainstream media wants to acknowledge them.
***********************************************************
MY THOUGHTS:
You know I have been thinking about this for some time now. Obama's candidacy has caused a deep racial divide in this country. Obama's supporters have been nasty, mean and threatening all along. And now the media is making it out to be a done deal that Obama will win. By refusing to report the TRUTH, that a lot of Democrats - a lot of people who support Hillary Clinton - PUMAS - ARE NOT SUPPORTING OBAMA!!! This is terribly dangerous. Because if, God willing, Mc Cain does win, the black people are going to go NUTS!! They will say it was stolen from THE ONE. Of course, they totally dismiss ACORN's cheating and stealing the election FOR OBAMA, but IF he loses, they will go BONKERS. And the media hasn't helped either in writing and talking about their fears of violence in the streets. The media has been trying to pick our next president for almost two years now. They refuse to report that there are MILLIONS OF PUMAS who will NOT vote for Obama. SO if anything does happen. If there is violence in the street, we can blame the mainstream media for it.
I DON'T CARE ANYMORE!!!!
This video is a reflection of how PUMAS are feeling, I believe. We've been through this entire campaign - almost two full years. I'm tired. I'm depleted. I've been through it all. I worked my heart, body and ass off for Hillary because I believed, and STILL DO BELIEVE in Hillary. But I am disappointed in Hillary, too. Somehow Obama, a no experience, no accomplishments lying fraud, has the support of enough big honchos and they have stolen and bought the nomination for him. And God FORBID, they may succeed in buying (and stealing) the election.
That famous race card. Good thing the election is almost here. That card must be worn out by now. But IF Obama wins, he'll have to get a full deck of race cards if he is president. Because every time anyone criticizes him, that card will come out. Just think George Bush how people make fun of him, criticize him, etc. I've done it all through these 8 years. But IF it is Obama, you will be called a RACIST. So get used to it!!
HUFFINGTON POST CITIZEN JOURNALIST CAN'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE LOVE SARAH!!!!
Why Some Smart Women Think Palin is a Good Choice
I was at the dentist yesterday and the hygienist asked me what I thought of the upcoming election. I looked at this woman who had sharp objects in her hand and I thought it might be prudent to take the non-committal route.
"Wow! Sure is something, huh? Most exciting election in my lifetime," I said, eyeing those tools of doom carefully. "What do you think?" (Years of working in radio has taught me to turn the question back on the questioner.)
She told me that she didn't like Obama because he was "too slick, like a car salesman," but she showed disdain for John McCain's claim of 'I know how to do that.' She smirked at me "Well," she said "if you knew how to do it, why weren't you doing it? Why didn't you find bin Laden, and solve the financial mess?"
I nodded. (I couldn't really do much else). When she removed the buzz saw and pick axe from my mouth I said "What about Sarah Palin?"
"Oh, I like her."
Nowadays when people say that, I ask them why, largely because it is a concept that befuddles me.
"Well, she's gutsy. And I think she's probably dealt with the Russians, being as how they are right there."
We moved on to the economy with which EVERYone has a problem, so we were in safe territory, as least as far as my mouth and pain were concerned.
But the interchange brought forward something that had been niggling at the back of my brain. Why do some smart women think Sarah Palin is a good choice for Vice President? Why do some smart women like her?
This has been bothering me for some time. I have some very smart women friends and a few of them think Palin has what it takes. I don't get it. Why can't they see what I see and what many conservative pundits are falling all over themselves to say? Palin is not qualified.
I called my friend Betti Hoeppner, the therapist. She reminded me of a situation from over 10 years ago when I had worked for a man who was very smart about some things, but would not accept that he was a bad manager. Everyone told him he was a dreadful manager, and still he would not believe it. I was befuddled then, too.
In the course of our conversation she explained why. She told me that sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief.
For example: You think you are an honest person. That is your core belief. But you cheat on your taxes. Cheating on your taxes goes against the idea of you being an honest person. This is a very uncomfortable feeling, the cognitive dissonance. You really want to continue believing that you are an honest person, so you may rationalize that the government "owes" you anyway.
But why do people hold the core belief that Palin is qualified in the first place? My friend Dr. Susan Bartell, the psychologist, was my next phone call.
"Think of it as a relationship," she told me. "Women are relationship-oriented, and many women feel that they are having one with the people they choose in the election. Some women say they could imagine themselves having coffee and pie with Palin around the dinner table."
All right. I get that. Not my thing, but I get that.
She told me that many women idealize their relationship partners. They see all the positive characteristics about that person and ignore the bad. This is especially true, Dr. Susan added, in the beginning of a relationship.
So for whatever reason they have chosen, some smart women have fallen in love with the "idea" of Sarah Palin. She's smart. She's gutsy. She's a woman. And she would be the first woman 'this close' to the Presidency.
And what happens when these smart women are presented with contradictory evidence? "Let's go back to the relationship analogy," Dr. Susan says. "When our eyes finally open to someone, we have choices. We can either get out of the relationship (divorce), or we stay and deal with the cognitive dissonance."
But Dr. Susan says that some women feel they don't have a choice. Their core belief is so strong that they don't believe they have an alternative. For example, perhaps they are strongly against pro-choice. Or they want a woman in the Executive Branch no matter what. Or they cannot subscribe to any of the democratic platform of ideas. At that point, they have no choice but to continue their idealization of Palin, thereby finding a way around their cognitive dissonance, albeit in an unhealthy way.
So in order to keep idealizing her, our smart friends either deny (that Alaskan report didn't find her guilty of doing anything unlawful), rationalize (and besides, they were partisan), or ignore (I never heard about any report. Besides, I just like her!).
Okay. This I get. Who hasn't fallen in love with the "idea" that we have created of a person, instead of the actual person? And lots of really smart women have done that!
So for whatever reason they have chosen, some smart women have fallen in love with the "idea" of Sarah Palin. She's smart. She's gutsy. She's a woman. And she would be the first woman 'this close' to the Presidency.
And what happens when these smart women are presented with contradictory evidence? "Let's go back to the relationship analogy," Dr. Susan says. "When our eyes finally open to someone, we have choices. We can either get out of the relationship (divorce), or we stay and deal with the cognitive dissonance."
But Dr. Susan says that some women feel they don't have a choice. Their core belief is so strong that they don't believe they have an alternative. For example, perhaps they are strongly against pro-choice. Or they want a woman in the Executive Branch no matter what. Or they cannot subscribe to any of the democratic platform of ideas. At that point, they have no choice but to continue their idealization of Palin, thereby finding a way around their cognitive dissonance, albeit in an unhealthy way.
So in order to keep idealizing her, our smart friends either deny (that Alaskan report didn't find her guilty of doing anything unlawful), rationalize (and besides, they were partisan), or ignore (I never heard about any report. Besides, I just like her!).
The bottom line? When it comes to our smart women friends, we probably aren't going to be able to change their minds about Sarah Palin. They are either still idealizing her, or they have a core belief too strong to accept any alternatives. But at least now we know why these smart women are choosing to consider Palin qualified and will check the Republican box on the ballot. We just don't have to like it.
***********************************************************
MY THOUGHTS:
A Citizen journalist on OFF THE BUS on the very liberal - ANTI-ANYTHING NOT PRO-OBAMA - Huffington Post seems to be befuddled WHY smart women like Sarah. I can understand where she's coming from because I feel the exact same way about OBAMA. I cannot understand WHY so many people think this man walks on water. Why professional journalists are willing to destroy their believability with their one-sided, pro-Obama lovin' coverage. Why the DNC would have gone through rigging the whole nomination, throwing out Hillary Clinton - stabbing her in the back and then throwing her under the bus - for this inexperienced opportunists with not one single accomplishment!!
I read an article where the writer said Obama's only accomplishment is the fact he got where he did so fast. He said IF he wins the White House and serves a four year term, it will be the longest he has held any job!!
OK, Pam Atherton, so I can understand why you might question people liking Sarah Palin because I can apply those same negative feelings to Obama. HOWEVER, Obama who is running for PRESIDENT has no experience and no accomplishments. Sarah Palin, on the other hand, has 15 years of public service experience. As for executive experience for which Obama has NONE, Sarah has been a business owner, Mayor and now the Governor of Alaska!! While Obama has been running for president these past two years, Sarah has been running the largest state in the union. And if that wasn't enough, she is the mother of five children, too!!
So while I can try to understand your feelings of unbelievability, to me it pales in comparison to Obama.
I was at the dentist yesterday and the hygienist asked me what I thought of the upcoming election. I looked at this woman who had sharp objects in her hand and I thought it might be prudent to take the non-committal route.
"Wow! Sure is something, huh? Most exciting election in my lifetime," I said, eyeing those tools of doom carefully. "What do you think?" (Years of working in radio has taught me to turn the question back on the questioner.)
She told me that she didn't like Obama because he was "too slick, like a car salesman," but she showed disdain for John McCain's claim of 'I know how to do that.' She smirked at me "Well," she said "if you knew how to do it, why weren't you doing it? Why didn't you find bin Laden, and solve the financial mess?"
I nodded. (I couldn't really do much else). When she removed the buzz saw and pick axe from my mouth I said "What about Sarah Palin?"
"Oh, I like her."
Nowadays when people say that, I ask them why, largely because it is a concept that befuddles me.
"Well, she's gutsy. And I think she's probably dealt with the Russians, being as how they are right there."
We moved on to the economy with which EVERYone has a problem, so we were in safe territory, as least as far as my mouth and pain were concerned.
But the interchange brought forward something that had been niggling at the back of my brain. Why do some smart women think Sarah Palin is a good choice for Vice President? Why do some smart women like her?
This has been bothering me for some time. I have some very smart women friends and a few of them think Palin has what it takes. I don't get it. Why can't they see what I see and what many conservative pundits are falling all over themselves to say? Palin is not qualified.
I called my friend Betti Hoeppner, the therapist. She reminded me of a situation from over 10 years ago when I had worked for a man who was very smart about some things, but would not accept that he was a bad manager. Everyone told him he was a dreadful manager, and still he would not believe it. I was befuddled then, too.
In the course of our conversation she explained why. She told me that sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief.
For example: You think you are an honest person. That is your core belief. But you cheat on your taxes. Cheating on your taxes goes against the idea of you being an honest person. This is a very uncomfortable feeling, the cognitive dissonance. You really want to continue believing that you are an honest person, so you may rationalize that the government "owes" you anyway.
But why do people hold the core belief that Palin is qualified in the first place? My friend Dr. Susan Bartell, the psychologist, was my next phone call.
"Think of it as a relationship," she told me. "Women are relationship-oriented, and many women feel that they are having one with the people they choose in the election. Some women say they could imagine themselves having coffee and pie with Palin around the dinner table."
All right. I get that. Not my thing, but I get that.
She told me that many women idealize their relationship partners. They see all the positive characteristics about that person and ignore the bad. This is especially true, Dr. Susan added, in the beginning of a relationship.
So for whatever reason they have chosen, some smart women have fallen in love with the "idea" of Sarah Palin. She's smart. She's gutsy. She's a woman. And she would be the first woman 'this close' to the Presidency.
And what happens when these smart women are presented with contradictory evidence? "Let's go back to the relationship analogy," Dr. Susan says. "When our eyes finally open to someone, we have choices. We can either get out of the relationship (divorce), or we stay and deal with the cognitive dissonance."
But Dr. Susan says that some women feel they don't have a choice. Their core belief is so strong that they don't believe they have an alternative. For example, perhaps they are strongly against pro-choice. Or they want a woman in the Executive Branch no matter what. Or they cannot subscribe to any of the democratic platform of ideas. At that point, they have no choice but to continue their idealization of Palin, thereby finding a way around their cognitive dissonance, albeit in an unhealthy way.
So in order to keep idealizing her, our smart friends either deny (that Alaskan report didn't find her guilty of doing anything unlawful), rationalize (and besides, they were partisan), or ignore (I never heard about any report. Besides, I just like her!).
Okay. This I get. Who hasn't fallen in love with the "idea" that we have created of a person, instead of the actual person? And lots of really smart women have done that!
So for whatever reason they have chosen, some smart women have fallen in love with the "idea" of Sarah Palin. She's smart. She's gutsy. She's a woman. And she would be the first woman 'this close' to the Presidency.
And what happens when these smart women are presented with contradictory evidence? "Let's go back to the relationship analogy," Dr. Susan says. "When our eyes finally open to someone, we have choices. We can either get out of the relationship (divorce), or we stay and deal with the cognitive dissonance."
But Dr. Susan says that some women feel they don't have a choice. Their core belief is so strong that they don't believe they have an alternative. For example, perhaps they are strongly against pro-choice. Or they want a woman in the Executive Branch no matter what. Or they cannot subscribe to any of the democratic platform of ideas. At that point, they have no choice but to continue their idealization of Palin, thereby finding a way around their cognitive dissonance, albeit in an unhealthy way.
So in order to keep idealizing her, our smart friends either deny (that Alaskan report didn't find her guilty of doing anything unlawful), rationalize (and besides, they were partisan), or ignore (I never heard about any report. Besides, I just like her!).
The bottom line? When it comes to our smart women friends, we probably aren't going to be able to change their minds about Sarah Palin. They are either still idealizing her, or they have a core belief too strong to accept any alternatives. But at least now we know why these smart women are choosing to consider Palin qualified and will check the Republican box on the ballot. We just don't have to like it.
***********************************************************
MY THOUGHTS:
A Citizen journalist on OFF THE BUS on the very liberal - ANTI-ANYTHING NOT PRO-OBAMA - Huffington Post seems to be befuddled WHY smart women like Sarah. I can understand where she's coming from because I feel the exact same way about OBAMA. I cannot understand WHY so many people think this man walks on water. Why professional journalists are willing to destroy their believability with their one-sided, pro-Obama lovin' coverage. Why the DNC would have gone through rigging the whole nomination, throwing out Hillary Clinton - stabbing her in the back and then throwing her under the bus - for this inexperienced opportunists with not one single accomplishment!!
I read an article where the writer said Obama's only accomplishment is the fact he got where he did so fast. He said IF he wins the White House and serves a four year term, it will be the longest he has held any job!!
OK, Pam Atherton, so I can understand why you might question people liking Sarah Palin because I can apply those same negative feelings to Obama. HOWEVER, Obama who is running for PRESIDENT has no experience and no accomplishments. Sarah Palin, on the other hand, has 15 years of public service experience. As for executive experience for which Obama has NONE, Sarah has been a business owner, Mayor and now the Governor of Alaska!! While Obama has been running for president these past two years, Sarah has been running the largest state in the union. And if that wasn't enough, she is the mother of five children, too!!
So while I can try to understand your feelings of unbelievability, to me it pales in comparison to Obama.
Friday, October 24, 2008
SARAH'S INTERVIEW WITH SEAN HANNITY - 10/23/08
Palin on "Hannity & Colmes"
Hannity & Colmes
SEAN HANNITY, CO-HOST: And welcome to this special edition of "Hannity & Colmes." I'm Sean Hannity. We're just outside Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in Beaver, Pennsylvania. And Governor Palin joins us. She just finished a big rally outside in the cold.
PALIN: That was so much fun.
HANNITY: Well, Alaska is cold, so you're used to the cold.
PALIN: You get used to the cold. It's crisp, refreshing.
HANNITY: It is crisp and refreshing. All right. We've got 12 days to go. Nervous, excited? You want this -- you want to get to election day?
PALIN: Very excited. Wishing there were more hours in the day, though, still. Wanting to get out there and speak with more Americans and hear from more of them also. Letting them know, too. You know, there's such a clear choice on November 4. So wishing that there were more hours in the day but very, very excited and anxious for the 4th.
HANNITY: All right. Let's -- first of all, did you enjoy "Saturday Night Live"? By the way, they had the highest ratings in 14 years on that program. Did you know that?
PALIN: Whatever I can do to help, yes. It was fun. It was a lot of fun.
HANNITY: Yes. And by the way, you gave "Hannity & Colmes" one of our highest ratings, too, for the year, so -- in our first interview together. So we appreciate that.
Look, the polls are all over the place. For example, we've got the battleground poll has it a 2-point race today. The A.P. poll has it even. "Investors Business Daily" has it now a 1.1 race.
Then you've got these other polls, double-digit lead for Obama. Where do you think the race is right now? And how do you interpret the polls? And are you following all of this?
PALIN: I think it's extremely close. And I think it's going to come right down to the wire on election day, also. I don't know what to make of the polls that are showing the double-digit lead for our opponent. You know, I don't know what to attribute that to, but no, I have that sense out there that it is very close and the choice, though, is getting clearer and clearer. I think that message is getting out there in that regard, so it's going to come down to the wire.
HANNITY: So you expect a long night on election night?
PALIN: Perhaps so. Perhaps so. But I do expect that, at the end of the day, all will be well. I don't underestimate the wisdom of the people, but Americans understand we must reform government. We've got to get our economy back on the right track. We have to have the right commander in chief understanding how important it is that we win the war against terrorists. The choice there very, very clear. And in these next 12 days, I think that more and more Americans are going to come on board with us.
HANNITY: Well, let me ask. We keep hearing about this group ACORN is in every single swing state now. There are allegations of voter fraud. You had even said -- you used the term stealing the election.
PALIN: Um-huh.
HANNITY: Are you concerned that that might be happening in this election?
PALIN: I join many Americans in sharing that concern that that voter registration fraud could be resulting in some questionable ballots being cast. And that is not fair. That is not right. That is un-American.
You know, we have our young men and women fighting in war zones for us today, trying to protect our rights to free and fair elections. And how dare anyone take that away from our electorate? And how dare anyone not disavow a group that has engaged in that voter registration?
HANNITY: Meaning you want Barack Obama and Joe Biden to do that?
PALIN: Heck yes. I wish that they would. I think that that -- that would bode well for them, if they...
HANNITY: But wait a minute. They funded them. Look, Barack Obama has represented them as a lawyer. Barack Obama has organized with them and helped train some of their so-called get-out-the-vote efforts. And the campaign has given over $800,000. So why would he disavow a group that obviously is working on his behalf?
PALIN: Well, obviously, we would like to see him disavow this group so that at least that message would be sent to Americans that he, too, cares about free and fair elections.
And, you know, we won't tolerate that abuse or that exploitation of an opportunity to have an unfair election. And, again, it would bode well for Barack Obama if he would stand strong on this one, have a backbone and disavow that group.
HANNITY: All right. Let's talk about the state of Pennsylvania where you've been spending a lot of time. I know Senator McCain is going to be coming back here.
We had Governor Rendell on "Hannity & Colmes" last night. And we got into the issue of the comments that were made by both John Murtha and by Barack Obama. Barack Obama speaking in San Francisco. You've talked about this on the campaign trail. Barack Obama said about people in Pennsylvania, this state, as a matter of fact this part of the state, that they're bitter Americans clinging to their guns and religion, with antipathy towards those that aren't like them.
PALIN: Yes.
HANNITY: What does that comment tell you about Barack Obama?
PALIN: I think he is so misjudging and prejudging. Of course, a part of America that is, especially here, so patriotic, so hard-working, middle- class American families here. Just desiring of their government to be government of the people, by the people, for the people, doing their best in securing jobs in their own hometowns, raising their families. There is nothing redneck or backwoods about any of this. This is true America.
And you know, we love Pennsylvania. We love this area of the country. And just honored and privileged to get to be here tonight.
HANNITY: It's sort of surprising, because now we've had two weeks in a row of comments by Congressman John Murtha. He's called his own constituents racist. And then when asked to expand on it, he referred to them as rednecks. You said in a recent -- I guess, you know, I'm one of those bitter American rednecks.
PALIN: I guess. I guess so. You know, if what I represent is what these people here in Pennsylvania stand for, too, again, love of country and a desire for that strong work ethic that is instilled in them to be rewarded, and not expecting government to be the be-all, end-all to answer all the questions for them. Then I represent what they represent. And proud to do this.
HANNITY: All right. We had Joe the plumber on "Hannity & Colmes" the other night. We spent a lot of time on him. He was on my radio show. We talked about that. There's something that seems to have shifted in terms of the narrative in the debate on economics, because Barack Obama's answer was, "Well, I don't want to punish your success but, you know, I want to spread the wealth around."
PALIN: Yes.
HANNITY: Joe Biden said it's patriotic for people to pay more taxes. Time to jump in; time to be patriotic. Do you think that the narrative on the economy has changed? And do you view those comments by Biden and Obama as socialist?
PALIN: I believe that the narrative has finally changed. There's been more revelation there about what Barack Obama's true intentions will be. He spoke plainly, finally, to Joe the plumber. He said yes, he wants to spread the wealth. And to Joe the plumber that sounded like socialism.
And Joe speaks for a lot of Americans, who hear some suggestion in there that taking more from our small businesses and from our individual families and then spreading their hard-working money around, according to a politician's priorities, that certainly would kill the entrepreneurial spirit that helped build this country, made it the greatest country on earth.
I've got a problem with it, and a lot of Americans are gravely concerned about that plan that Barack Obama has with his tax cut, he calls it. Really, it's a tax credit. Really, it is, just spreading the wealth. There's a problem with that.
HANNITY: We've got to take a break here. But I want to get into whether or not this is welfare. Because this has now come up in terms of the way people are interpreting it and analyzing the Obama economic plan.
Also I want to ask you about Joe Biden's comments, about if Barack Obama is elected we're going to have an international crisis within six years, and by the way, Americans may not be happy with how they resolve it.
So, we're going to take a break, come back. More from Governor Palin and more analysis right here on "Hannity & Colmes."
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HANNITY: And welcome back to "Hannity & Colmes." I'm Sean Hannity. We continue our interview with Governor Sarah Palin.
All right. I want to get back to, more specifically, because Barack Obama in every one of the debates, and Joe Biden in your debate with him, they keep repeating a mantra: 95 percent of Americans won't pay taxes. There has now been one analysis after another that 40 percent of Americans that don't pay will actually get a check under their plan. Do you think that's welfare?
PALIN: Well, what I think, it is the absolute wrong thing to do, especially in this economically woeful time in America. Now is not the time to be taking more from our families and more from our small businesses.
We need to see jobs created. We need small businesses to be able to keep more of what they're earning and producing so they can hire more people. That's how jobs are created. That's how the economy gets back on line. So no, his idea to take more at this time, especially is the complete opposite of where we should be going. It's a complete opposite of John McCain, his plan for economic recovery.
HANNITY: We've had tough economic times. Barack Obama has been saying this is the worst economy since the Great Depression. I would argue it's probably the worst economy since Jimmy Carter, because Ronald Reagan inherited a loss of, what, 10 million jobs. Inflation was 12.4 percent. Interest rates in America, if you can believe it, 21.5 percent.
He dropped the top marginal rates from 70 to 28 percent; created 20 million new jobs; doubled revenues to the government; and gave us, at the time, the longest period of peacetime economic growth in history. Compare the two models.
PALIN: Well, and thankfully, you know, hindsight being 20-20, we can look back and see what Reagan did, and we can repeat some of those solutions. We have that luxury now of seeing what works.
What doesn't work is any hint of socialism, again, at a time like this where we would think that it helps our small businesses and helps our families for government to take more of what they earn and produce and then to dole out those dollars to others according to a politician's priorities or desires. That is not what will help.
HANNITY: If we raise, as he's proposed, capital gains taxes, tax rates. If we raise windfall profits tax on companies and some of the other tax, and spend a trillion new dollars in spending...
PALIN: Right.
HANNITY: ... compare yo
Hannity & Colmes
SEAN HANNITY, CO-HOST: And welcome to this special edition of "Hannity & Colmes." I'm Sean Hannity. We're just outside Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in Beaver, Pennsylvania. And Governor Palin joins us. She just finished a big rally outside in the cold.
PALIN: That was so much fun.
HANNITY: Well, Alaska is cold, so you're used to the cold.
PALIN: You get used to the cold. It's crisp, refreshing.
HANNITY: It is crisp and refreshing. All right. We've got 12 days to go. Nervous, excited? You want this -- you want to get to election day?
PALIN: Very excited. Wishing there were more hours in the day, though, still. Wanting to get out there and speak with more Americans and hear from more of them also. Letting them know, too. You know, there's such a clear choice on November 4. So wishing that there were more hours in the day but very, very excited and anxious for the 4th.
HANNITY: All right. Let's -- first of all, did you enjoy "Saturday Night Live"? By the way, they had the highest ratings in 14 years on that program. Did you know that?
PALIN: Whatever I can do to help, yes. It was fun. It was a lot of fun.
HANNITY: Yes. And by the way, you gave "Hannity & Colmes" one of our highest ratings, too, for the year, so -- in our first interview together. So we appreciate that.
Look, the polls are all over the place. For example, we've got the battleground poll has it a 2-point race today. The A.P. poll has it even. "Investors Business Daily" has it now a 1.1 race.
Then you've got these other polls, double-digit lead for Obama. Where do you think the race is right now? And how do you interpret the polls? And are you following all of this?
PALIN: I think it's extremely close. And I think it's going to come right down to the wire on election day, also. I don't know what to make of the polls that are showing the double-digit lead for our opponent. You know, I don't know what to attribute that to, but no, I have that sense out there that it is very close and the choice, though, is getting clearer and clearer. I think that message is getting out there in that regard, so it's going to come down to the wire.
HANNITY: So you expect a long night on election night?
PALIN: Perhaps so. Perhaps so. But I do expect that, at the end of the day, all will be well. I don't underestimate the wisdom of the people, but Americans understand we must reform government. We've got to get our economy back on the right track. We have to have the right commander in chief understanding how important it is that we win the war against terrorists. The choice there very, very clear. And in these next 12 days, I think that more and more Americans are going to come on board with us.
HANNITY: Well, let me ask. We keep hearing about this group ACORN is in every single swing state now. There are allegations of voter fraud. You had even said -- you used the term stealing the election.
PALIN: Um-huh.
HANNITY: Are you concerned that that might be happening in this election?
PALIN: I join many Americans in sharing that concern that that voter registration fraud could be resulting in some questionable ballots being cast. And that is not fair. That is not right. That is un-American.
You know, we have our young men and women fighting in war zones for us today, trying to protect our rights to free and fair elections. And how dare anyone take that away from our electorate? And how dare anyone not disavow a group that has engaged in that voter registration?
HANNITY: Meaning you want Barack Obama and Joe Biden to do that?
PALIN: Heck yes. I wish that they would. I think that that -- that would bode well for them, if they...
HANNITY: But wait a minute. They funded them. Look, Barack Obama has represented them as a lawyer. Barack Obama has organized with them and helped train some of their so-called get-out-the-vote efforts. And the campaign has given over $800,000. So why would he disavow a group that obviously is working on his behalf?
PALIN: Well, obviously, we would like to see him disavow this group so that at least that message would be sent to Americans that he, too, cares about free and fair elections.
And, you know, we won't tolerate that abuse or that exploitation of an opportunity to have an unfair election. And, again, it would bode well for Barack Obama if he would stand strong on this one, have a backbone and disavow that group.
HANNITY: All right. Let's talk about the state of Pennsylvania where you've been spending a lot of time. I know Senator McCain is going to be coming back here.
We had Governor Rendell on "Hannity & Colmes" last night. And we got into the issue of the comments that were made by both John Murtha and by Barack Obama. Barack Obama speaking in San Francisco. You've talked about this on the campaign trail. Barack Obama said about people in Pennsylvania, this state, as a matter of fact this part of the state, that they're bitter Americans clinging to their guns and religion, with antipathy towards those that aren't like them.
PALIN: Yes.
HANNITY: What does that comment tell you about Barack Obama?
PALIN: I think he is so misjudging and prejudging. Of course, a part of America that is, especially here, so patriotic, so hard-working, middle- class American families here. Just desiring of their government to be government of the people, by the people, for the people, doing their best in securing jobs in their own hometowns, raising their families. There is nothing redneck or backwoods about any of this. This is true America.
And you know, we love Pennsylvania. We love this area of the country. And just honored and privileged to get to be here tonight.
HANNITY: It's sort of surprising, because now we've had two weeks in a row of comments by Congressman John Murtha. He's called his own constituents racist. And then when asked to expand on it, he referred to them as rednecks. You said in a recent -- I guess, you know, I'm one of those bitter American rednecks.
PALIN: I guess. I guess so. You know, if what I represent is what these people here in Pennsylvania stand for, too, again, love of country and a desire for that strong work ethic that is instilled in them to be rewarded, and not expecting government to be the be-all, end-all to answer all the questions for them. Then I represent what they represent. And proud to do this.
HANNITY: All right. We had Joe the plumber on "Hannity & Colmes" the other night. We spent a lot of time on him. He was on my radio show. We talked about that. There's something that seems to have shifted in terms of the narrative in the debate on economics, because Barack Obama's answer was, "Well, I don't want to punish your success but, you know, I want to spread the wealth around."
PALIN: Yes.
HANNITY: Joe Biden said it's patriotic for people to pay more taxes. Time to jump in; time to be patriotic. Do you think that the narrative on the economy has changed? And do you view those comments by Biden and Obama as socialist?
PALIN: I believe that the narrative has finally changed. There's been more revelation there about what Barack Obama's true intentions will be. He spoke plainly, finally, to Joe the plumber. He said yes, he wants to spread the wealth. And to Joe the plumber that sounded like socialism.
And Joe speaks for a lot of Americans, who hear some suggestion in there that taking more from our small businesses and from our individual families and then spreading their hard-working money around, according to a politician's priorities, that certainly would kill the entrepreneurial spirit that helped build this country, made it the greatest country on earth.
I've got a problem with it, and a lot of Americans are gravely concerned about that plan that Barack Obama has with his tax cut, he calls it. Really, it's a tax credit. Really, it is, just spreading the wealth. There's a problem with that.
HANNITY: We've got to take a break here. But I want to get into whether or not this is welfare. Because this has now come up in terms of the way people are interpreting it and analyzing the Obama economic plan.
Also I want to ask you about Joe Biden's comments, about if Barack Obama is elected we're going to have an international crisis within six years, and by the way, Americans may not be happy with how they resolve it.
So, we're going to take a break, come back. More from Governor Palin and more analysis right here on "Hannity & Colmes."
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HANNITY: And welcome back to "Hannity & Colmes." I'm Sean Hannity. We continue our interview with Governor Sarah Palin.
All right. I want to get back to, more specifically, because Barack Obama in every one of the debates, and Joe Biden in your debate with him, they keep repeating a mantra: 95 percent of Americans won't pay taxes. There has now been one analysis after another that 40 percent of Americans that don't pay will actually get a check under their plan. Do you think that's welfare?
PALIN: Well, what I think, it is the absolute wrong thing to do, especially in this economically woeful time in America. Now is not the time to be taking more from our families and more from our small businesses.
We need to see jobs created. We need small businesses to be able to keep more of what they're earning and producing so they can hire more people. That's how jobs are created. That's how the economy gets back on line. So no, his idea to take more at this time, especially is the complete opposite of where we should be going. It's a complete opposite of John McCain, his plan for economic recovery.
HANNITY: We've had tough economic times. Barack Obama has been saying this is the worst economy since the Great Depression. I would argue it's probably the worst economy since Jimmy Carter, because Ronald Reagan inherited a loss of, what, 10 million jobs. Inflation was 12.4 percent. Interest rates in America, if you can believe it, 21.5 percent.
He dropped the top marginal rates from 70 to 28 percent; created 20 million new jobs; doubled revenues to the government; and gave us, at the time, the longest period of peacetime economic growth in history. Compare the two models.
PALIN: Well, and thankfully, you know, hindsight being 20-20, we can look back and see what Reagan did, and we can repeat some of those solutions. We have that luxury now of seeing what works.
What doesn't work is any hint of socialism, again, at a time like this where we would think that it helps our small businesses and helps our families for government to take more of what they earn and produce and then to dole out those dollars to others according to a politician's priorities or desires. That is not what will help.
HANNITY: If we raise, as he's proposed, capital gains taxes, tax rates. If we raise windfall profits tax on companies and some of the other tax, and spend a trillion new dollars in spending...
PALIN: Right.
HANNITY: ... compare yo