Regarding Obama being risky - you know what you will get with McCain - more of the same.
Our country was founded on risk, our innovations, our creativity, our progress is all based on risk. The founding fathers took a risk when they chose to challenge English rule. Americans took a risk when the ventured westward. Orville and Wilbur Wright took a risk when they flew at Kittyhawk. We took a risk when we shot a man into space, when we first orbited the earth, when we landed a man on the moon.
When someone starts up a their own business - is this not a risk? When you try something new, think outside the box - is this not a risk?
If we played it "safe" like McCain wants to do - we'd still be 13 english colonies, and probably huddled safely in underground bunkers like rabbits.
McCain is trying to brand himself as something known and equate it with safe and comfortable like a old pair of shoes, but when the old shoe has a big hole in the bottom maybe it's time to take a risk and try on a new pair.
Riddle: Where does McCain stand on the issues?
Answer: ummmm...what day is it?
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
McCain Ad a Full Tank of Nonsense
McCain Ad a Full Tank of Nonsense
McCain ad says Obama's the guy to thank for emptying our wallets at the filling station. We say that's ridiculous.
By Viveca Novak factcheck.org
Jul 22, 2008 Updated: 2:08 p.m. ET Jul 22, 2008
Summary
McCain's new ad accuses Obama of keeping gas prices high, all by himself. That's absurd, and McCain knows it – he has said repeatedly that our current problems were "30 years in the making."
The ad also tells us that gas prices are high because "some in Washington are still saying no to drilling in America." Not true. The federal government's estimate is that if the moratorium on offshore drilling were lifted today, it would be 2030 before we'd see a noticeable effect on supply
For the same reason, it's simply not true that drilling more now will "rescue our family budgets."
Analysis
Sen. John McCain, who's expected to receive the Republican presidential nomination in September, goes after Sen. Barack Obama, his Democratic counterpart, with a new ad that focuses on the cost of gas. According to McCain's campaign, the spot will air on national cable channels and in unspecified "key states."
Lousy Linkage
McCain 2008 TV Ad: "Pump"
The ad opens with a shot of an old-fashioned gas pump standing on a shimmering, moving, body of – water? desert sand? petroleum? It's hard to tell. The female narrator says: "Gas prices – $4, $5, no end in sight, because some in Washington are still saying no to drilling in America. No to independence from foreign oil."
"Some" are indeed opposed to lifting the moratorium on new drilling in the waters of the Outer Continental Shelf, and they include Obama.
What's not true, however, is that current opposition to lifting the moratorium has anything to do with today's gas prices. They aren't high because any one individual is against ending the ban. As we have pointed out previously, the Energy Information Administration estimates that if the go-ahead were given right now for such drilling, it would be 2030 before there would be enough oil flowing to have a "significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices." Is there "no end in sight" because of opposition to ending the moratorium? No more so than because of opposition to hastening the development of alternative sources of energy and new kinds of cars. But most experts believe that if we haven't implemented other strategies well before 2030, we're in deep trouble.
As for saying "no to independence from foreign oil," we suppose someone, somewhere, might be saying that – quietly, to themselves, in a small, soundproof room – but no major-party presidential candidate that we're aware of is doing so.
Thank-You Note, Returned to Sender
The most glaring bit of calumny in the ad occurs when the narrator asks, "Who can you thank for rising prices at the pump?" At that point the volume goes up on the soundtrack's background noise, and we realize it's a crowd of voices chanting "O-ba-ma! O-ba-ma!" just as the Illinois Democrat's image appears on-screen.
The notion that Obama is singlehandedly, or to any significant degree, or more than most other senators, to blame for the high cost of gas is absurd in too many ways to count here. Okay, we'll give you a couple: Obama has been in the Senate only since 2005. McCain himself said earlier this month that the problem has been decades in the making.
In fact, he has been saying this repeatedly. McCain has been in Congress for a quarter of a century, a span that nearly corresponds with the one he mentioned in his speech. Does that mean McCain might fit the profile of someone to thank for high gas prices more easily than Obama? One could note, for example, that McCain has voted against increases in corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards on two occasions, in 2003 and 2005, even though he teamed with Democratic Sen. John Kerry back in 2002 on a bill to raise the standards to 36 mpg by 2015. McCain's Web site proposes enforcing existing CAFE standards, not tightening them, as Obama would do.
But no one person can be pinned with the credit or the blame for something as vague as "rising prices at the pump." OPEC policy, the weather, wars in oil-producing countries, refinery capacity, consumer demand, environmental concerns, the value of the dollar and a host of other considerations factor into the cost of a fill-up. In fact, McCain may be paying Obama an inadvertent compliment by alleging he has such influence in this area.
Both candidates have energy proposals to reduce U.S. dependence on oil. Obama's was first, and its centerpiece is a 10-year, $150 billion spending plan focusing on clean coal technology, further development of plug-in hybrid cars, commercialization of wind and solar power, and other measures.
McCain's, which is called the Lexington Project, includes building 45 new nuclear power plants; offering a $300 million prize for major advancement of low-cost, plug-in hybrid or electric car technology; and "encouraging the market" in wind, hydro and solar power. Both he and Obama would cut use of fossil fuels to combat climate change.
Lousy Linkage Redux
The ad comes full circle as the narrator tells us, "One man knows we must now drill more in America and rescue our family budgets." Let us reiterate our earlier point that opening up the OCS for drilling now wouldn't have much impact on supply or prices until 2030, according to the government. So forget about rescuing "our family budgets." In 22 years, it'll be other families' budgets – maybe our children's – that will be at issue.
McCain even acknowledged as much in late June when, after saying that drilling would have a positive effect on prices in the short term, he backtracked and said he believed it would have a beneficial "psychological impact."
That seems to have slipped his mind.
===============
McCain admits Iraq is about Oil:
McCain ad says Obama's the guy to thank for emptying our wallets at the filling station. We say that's ridiculous.
By Viveca Novak factcheck.org
Jul 22, 2008 Updated: 2:08 p.m. ET Jul 22, 2008
Summary
McCain's new ad accuses Obama of keeping gas prices high, all by himself. That's absurd, and McCain knows it – he has said repeatedly that our current problems were "30 years in the making."
The ad also tells us that gas prices are high because "some in Washington are still saying no to drilling in America." Not true. The federal government's estimate is that if the moratorium on offshore drilling were lifted today, it would be 2030 before we'd see a noticeable effect on supply
For the same reason, it's simply not true that drilling more now will "rescue our family budgets."
Analysis
Sen. John McCain, who's expected to receive the Republican presidential nomination in September, goes after Sen. Barack Obama, his Democratic counterpart, with a new ad that focuses on the cost of gas. According to McCain's campaign, the spot will air on national cable channels and in unspecified "key states."
Lousy Linkage
McCain 2008 TV Ad: "Pump"
Announcer: Gas prices - $4, $5, no end in sight, because some in Washington are
still saying no to drilling in America.
No to independence from foreign
oil.
Who can you thank for rising prices at the pump?
Chant:
Obama, Obama
Announcer: One man knows we must now drill more in America
and rescue our family budgets.
Don't hope for more energy, vote for it.
McCain.
John McCain: I'm John McCain and I approve this message.
The ad opens with a shot of an old-fashioned gas pump standing on a shimmering, moving, body of – water? desert sand? petroleum? It's hard to tell. The female narrator says: "Gas prices – $4, $5, no end in sight, because some in Washington are still saying no to drilling in America. No to independence from foreign oil."
"Some" are indeed opposed to lifting the moratorium on new drilling in the waters of the Outer Continental Shelf, and they include Obama.
What's not true, however, is that current opposition to lifting the moratorium has anything to do with today's gas prices. They aren't high because any one individual is against ending the ban. As we have pointed out previously, the Energy Information Administration estimates that if the go-ahead were given right now for such drilling, it would be 2030 before there would be enough oil flowing to have a "significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices." Is there "no end in sight" because of opposition to ending the moratorium? No more so than because of opposition to hastening the development of alternative sources of energy and new kinds of cars. But most experts believe that if we haven't implemented other strategies well before 2030, we're in deep trouble.
As for saying "no to independence from foreign oil," we suppose someone, somewhere, might be saying that – quietly, to themselves, in a small, soundproof room – but no major-party presidential candidate that we're aware of is doing so.
Thank-You Note, Returned to Sender
The most glaring bit of calumny in the ad occurs when the narrator asks, "Who can you thank for rising prices at the pump?" At that point the volume goes up on the soundtrack's background noise, and we realize it's a crowd of voices chanting "O-ba-ma! O-ba-ma!" just as the Illinois Democrat's image appears on-screen.
The notion that Obama is singlehandedly, or to any significant degree, or more than most other senators, to blame for the high cost of gas is absurd in too many ways to count here. Okay, we'll give you a couple: Obama has been in the Senate only since 2005. McCain himself said earlier this month that the problem has been decades in the making.
McCain, July 7: Our dangerous dependence on foreign oil has been 30 years in the making, and was caused by the failure of politicians in Washington to think long-term about the future of the country.
In fact, he has been saying this repeatedly. McCain has been in Congress for a quarter of a century, a span that nearly corresponds with the one he mentioned in his speech. Does that mean McCain might fit the profile of someone to thank for high gas prices more easily than Obama? One could note, for example, that McCain has voted against increases in corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards on two occasions, in 2003 and 2005, even though he teamed with Democratic Sen. John Kerry back in 2002 on a bill to raise the standards to 36 mpg by 2015. McCain's Web site proposes enforcing existing CAFE standards, not tightening them, as Obama would do.
But no one person can be pinned with the credit or the blame for something as vague as "rising prices at the pump." OPEC policy, the weather, wars in oil-producing countries, refinery capacity, consumer demand, environmental concerns, the value of the dollar and a host of other considerations factor into the cost of a fill-up. In fact, McCain may be paying Obama an inadvertent compliment by alleging he has such influence in this area.
Both candidates have energy proposals to reduce U.S. dependence on oil. Obama's was first, and its centerpiece is a 10-year, $150 billion spending plan focusing on clean coal technology, further development of plug-in hybrid cars, commercialization of wind and solar power, and other measures.
McCain's, which is called the Lexington Project, includes building 45 new nuclear power plants; offering a $300 million prize for major advancement of low-cost, plug-in hybrid or electric car technology; and "encouraging the market" in wind, hydro and solar power. Both he and Obama would cut use of fossil fuels to combat climate change.
Lousy Linkage Redux
The ad comes full circle as the narrator tells us, "One man knows we must now drill more in America and rescue our family budgets." Let us reiterate our earlier point that opening up the OCS for drilling now wouldn't have much impact on supply or prices until 2030, according to the government. So forget about rescuing "our family budgets." In 22 years, it'll be other families' budgets – maybe our children's – that will be at issue.
McCain even acknowledged as much in late June when, after saying that drilling would have a positive effect on prices in the short term, he backtracked and said he believed it would have a beneficial "psychological impact."
That seems to have slipped his mind.
===============
McCain admits Iraq is about Oil:
Monday, July 21, 2008
Sunday, July 20, 2008
"It's All In Your Head"
John McCain: "It's All In Your Head"
We've been listening to John McCain and George Bush talk about the economy, and we've noticed a pattern: they keep saying the problems are all in our heads.
We've been listening to John McCain and George Bush talk about the economy, and we've noticed a pattern: they keep saying the problems are all in our heads.
Maliki Endorses Obama's Iraq Timeline in Huge Blow for McCain, Bush
Maliki Endorses Obama's Iraq Timeline in Huge Blow for McCain, Bush
By Tom Hayden, Huffington Post. Posted July 19, 2008
In a stunning diplomatic breakthrough for Barack Obama, Iraq's prime minister yesterday endorsed the Democratic candidate's 16-month timeline for withdrawing combat troops from Iraq.
Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki endorsed the Obama approach in a July 18 interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel, just as President Bush and Sen. John McCain were touting a vague new commitment to a "horizon" for withdrawal. The New York Times did not report the Maliki statement in its July 19 edition.
Here is Maliki's statement, delivered as Obama's visit to the region was beginning:
By Tom Hayden, Huffington Post. Posted July 19, 2008
In a stunning diplomatic breakthrough for Barack Obama, Iraq's prime minister yesterday endorsed the Democratic candidate's 16-month timeline for withdrawing combat troops from Iraq.
Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki endorsed the Obama approach in a July 18 interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel, just as President Bush and Sen. John McCain were touting a vague new commitment to a "horizon" for withdrawal. The New York Times did not report the Maliki statement in its July 19 edition.
Here is Maliki's statement, delivered as Obama's visit to the region was beginning:
"Whoever is thinking about the shorter term [for withdrawal] is closer to reality. Artificially extending the stay of U.S. troops would cause problems ... As soon as possible, as far as we're concerned… Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic ... Artificially prolonging the tenure of US troops in Iraq would cause problems. U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Phil Gramm whines "It's the democrats fault"
McCain adviser Gramm leaves campaign
Former lawmaker from Texas resigns after 'nation of whiners' comment
MSNBC -- Fri., July. 18, 2008
NEW YORK - Former Texas Sen. Phil Gramm resigned Friday from his role as Republican presidential candidate John McCain's campaign co-chairman, hoping to quiet the uproar that followed his comments that Americans had become a "nation of whiners" whose constant complaints about the U.S. economy show they are in a "mental recession."
Gramm, a past presidential candidate, made the remarks more than a week ago. McCain immediately distanced himself from the comments, but they brought a steady stream of criticism just as McCain is trying to show he can help steer the country past its current financial troubles.
Gramm said in a statement late Friday that he is stepping down to "end this distraction."
Gramm made the comment to The Washington Times and later explained that he was talking about the nation's leaders not the American people. Democrats claimed at the time that the Gramm comments showed that McCain is out of touch with voters' concerns over high gas prices, the struggling housing industry and the shaky economy in general.
Former lawmaker from Texas resigns after 'nation of whiners' comment
MSNBC -- Fri., July. 18, 2008
NEW YORK - Former Texas Sen. Phil Gramm resigned Friday from his role as Republican presidential candidate John McCain's campaign co-chairman, hoping to quiet the uproar that followed his comments that Americans had become a "nation of whiners" whose constant complaints about the U.S. economy show they are in a "mental recession."
Gramm, a past presidential candidate, made the remarks more than a week ago. McCain immediately distanced himself from the comments, but they brought a steady stream of criticism just as McCain is trying to show he can help steer the country past its current financial troubles.
Gramm said in a statement late Friday that he is stepping down to "end this distraction."
"It is clear to me that Democrats want to attack me rather than debate Senator McCain on important economic issues facing the country,that kind of distraction hurts not only Senator McCain's ability to present concrete programs to deal with the country's problems, it hurts the country. To end this distraction and get on with the real debate, I hereby step down as co-chair of the McCain campaign and join the growing number of rank-and-file McCain supporters."
Gramm made the comment to The Washington Times and later explained that he was talking about the nation's leaders not the American people. Democrats claimed at the time that the Gramm comments showed that McCain is out of touch with voters' concerns over high gas prices, the struggling housing industry and the shaky economy in general.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Professor McCain and Psychology 101
The way a candidate runs his or her campaign provides some insight as to how he/she will run things if elected. The same goes for a candidate's choice of advisors and surrogates.
This week, Phil Graham, McCain's economic advisor, referred to the economic slowdown as "a mental recession" and called the United States “a nation of whiners.” Some have speculated that Phil Graham would be at the top of the list for McCain's pick as Treasury Secretary. When gas is over $4.00 a gallon, a barrel of oil setting new records on a daily basis, Americans are feeling more than a pinch at the gas pumps and stores.
When Bush took office, a barrel of oil was $27.69 a barrel. Today it's $145.00 a barrel approximately an increase of 500% and rising. Airlines are begging passengers to contact congress and ask that something be done - when corporations are asking for that kind of help you know it's not all in your head.
McCain quickly came out and attempted to distance himself from Graham, stating that Graham did not speak for him. While McCain was doing this tap dance, Graham was at that moment speaking for McCain with the Wall Street Journal. Which is it? Yesterday Graham doesn't speak for McCain, today he does, tomorrow he....does or doesn't?
Previously, McCain was asked when he last pumped gas and what was the price of gas. McCain responded "Oh, I don’t remember. Now there’s Secret Service protection. But I’ve done it for many, many years. I don’t recall and frankly, I don’t see how it matters."
Well, the price of gas does matter. It matters when you have to put gas in your car in order to go to work, to earn money to pay your bills and buy food. It's soon reaching the point where people will need a second and third job to pay for gas so they can get to their first job.
McCain isn't above playing psychologist, of his proposed "gas tax holiday" he said "it will provide a little psychological boost”. Bush's "tax stimulus" checks were "feel good" gestures they are not solutions. We don't need "feel good" or "psychological boosts", we need real solutions.
Although it's July, many people are looking three or four months ahead, when winter sets in, when it gets cold. A minimum delivery of 125 gallons of heating oil is costing over $500.00. People are worried how they will keep warm as they know our congress and certainly the two oil guys in the white house won't be doing anything to help.
When you are tucking your kids into bed, putting on a few more blankets to keep them warm, will you kiss them good night and tell them it doesn't matter because the fact they are cold is all in their heads?
This week, Phil Graham, McCain's economic advisor, referred to the economic slowdown as "a mental recession" and called the United States “a nation of whiners.” Some have speculated that Phil Graham would be at the top of the list for McCain's pick as Treasury Secretary. When gas is over $4.00 a gallon, a barrel of oil setting new records on a daily basis, Americans are feeling more than a pinch at the gas pumps and stores.
When Bush took office, a barrel of oil was $27.69 a barrel. Today it's $145.00 a barrel approximately an increase of 500% and rising. Airlines are begging passengers to contact congress and ask that something be done - when corporations are asking for that kind of help you know it's not all in your head.
McCain quickly came out and attempted to distance himself from Graham, stating that Graham did not speak for him. While McCain was doing this tap dance, Graham was at that moment speaking for McCain with the Wall Street Journal. Which is it? Yesterday Graham doesn't speak for McCain, today he does, tomorrow he....does or doesn't?
Previously, McCain was asked when he last pumped gas and what was the price of gas. McCain responded "Oh, I don’t remember. Now there’s Secret Service protection. But I’ve done it for many, many years. I don’t recall and frankly, I don’t see how it matters."
Well, the price of gas does matter. It matters when you have to put gas in your car in order to go to work, to earn money to pay your bills and buy food. It's soon reaching the point where people will need a second and third job to pay for gas so they can get to their first job.
McCain isn't above playing psychologist, of his proposed "gas tax holiday" he said "it will provide a little psychological boost”. Bush's "tax stimulus" checks were "feel good" gestures they are not solutions. We don't need "feel good" or "psychological boosts", we need real solutions.
Although it's July, many people are looking three or four months ahead, when winter sets in, when it gets cold. A minimum delivery of 125 gallons of heating oil is costing over $500.00. People are worried how they will keep warm as they know our congress and certainly the two oil guys in the white house won't be doing anything to help.
When you are tucking your kids into bed, putting on a few more blankets to keep them warm, will you kiss them good night and tell them it doesn't matter because the fact they are cold is all in their heads?
Thursday, July 10, 2008
McCain Flummoxed By Vietnam Vet
Flummoxed By Vietnam Vet, McCain Falsely Claims He ‘Received Every Award From Every Vets Organization
Think Progress -- July 8, 2008
Posing the first question in a Denver town hall meeting yesterday, a Vietnam veteran challenged Sen. John McCain on his Senate voting record regarding veterans issues, remarking he had voted against increasing vets health funding four years in a row. Ignoring the veteran’s point, McCain testily — and repeatedly — insisted that he had “received every award from every major veteran’s organization in America”:
MCCAIN: I’ve received every award from every major veteran’s organization in America. I received every organization in America their awards. … The reason why I have a perfect voting record from organizations like the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American Legion and all the other veterans service organizations is because of my support of them. […]
VETERAN: You do not have a perfect voting record by the DAV and the VFW. That’s where these votes were recorded. These votes were proposals by your colleagues in the Senate to increase health care of the VA in 2003, 4, 5, and 6 for troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. And you voted against those proposals. […]
MCCAIN: I’ve been endorsed in every election by every veterans organization that do that, I’ve been supported by them, and I’ve received their highest awards from all of those organizations. So I guess they don’t know something you know.
McCain has made the exact same claim before — and it is just a false today as it was then. As ThinkProgress documented, McCain’s so-called “perfect” record has been roundly criticized by prominent veterans groups: He received a grade of D from the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America and a 20 percent vote rating from the Disabled Veterans of America; Vietnam Veterans of America noted McCain had “voted against us” in 15 “key votes.”
As for the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars — with whom McCain claims to have a “perfect voting record” — both groups vigorously supported Sen. Jim Webb’s (D-VA) GI Bill that McCain tirelessly opposed.
Later in the town hall, McCain admitted he does “not have a perfect voting record,” but then declared that questions about veterans issues were off limits: “I will be glad to debate a lot of things, but not that one,” McCain said.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Not Bush?
The more McCain tries to put some distance between himself and bush - the closer they get. From the Fear and Smear tactics to fudging facts and now those attending his scripted "town hall" meetings are screened.
Censorship at Town Hall Event Bolsters "McCain = Bush" Argument
Tue, 07/08/2008 - 1:46pm. Alerts
A BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERTby Meg White
In Denver, John McCain's campaign seems to be intent upon proving protesters right. A group of protesters with the Colorado group ProgressNow.org was asked to leave a town hall meeting for McCain Tuesday in Denver. McCain's Secret Service told the protesters they had to ditch their signs (one reading "Bush and McCain Peas In A Pod") or be charged with trespassing.Carol Kreck, a 61-year old librarian, was at the same town hall event. She was ticketed for her refusal to leave the sidewalk or get rid of her sign that read "McCain=Bush." Her court date is set for July 23.
It is uncertain whether Kreck was protesting the event with ProgressNow or she was on her own, but the encounter was caught on tape by the group. She wondered aloud why a Republican campaign such as McCain's would take issue with being associated with the most powerful Republican leader in the nation:
"Why is that offensive?"
President George W. Bush's Administration was charged with similar actions in Denver in 2005, when White House staffers forced three attendees to leave an event because their bumper stickers were deemed offensive.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Bumbles, Fumbles and Stumbles
When McCain became the presumptive GOPer nominee, he had at least a 3 month headstart on organizing and running his national presidental campaign. He had 3 months to fine tune his "message" and to dominate the headlines.
McCain didn't step into presidential campaign mode until Obama became the apparant Democratic party nominee. McCain bumbled a 3 month lead.
Weeks before becoming the Democratic nominee, Obama hit the ground running with his presidential campaign. Obama showed a smooth transition from primary campaigning to presidential campaigning while McCain napped and is only now trying to get organized.
With all the messes that bush has left us, from Iraq, the economy to gas prices, etc. and considering the low approval/support for bush and GOPer - I was expecting a Shock & Awe blitz by McCain to be well underway. Yet, McCain's campaign is bumbling, fumbling and stumbling.
I've often said that the manner in which a candidate leads their campaign is indictative of how they will govern and manage things if elected.
Those who are leaning towards supporting McCain should be asking themselves if this is the way McCain will run the country. Bumbling the problems, daily flip-flopping on what he supports or doesn't support is not the kind of leadership we can afford. Forget 'staying the course' on anything - McCain is still trying to find a map.
Obama easily stepped into a leadership position, he's set the course for the Democratic party and presented his path for the country. McCain is bumbling around waiting for direction from the GOP or Rove or both. This presents another question - in the event of a McCain presidency - will McCain lead or just take orders from GOP headquarters?
McCain didn't step into presidential campaign mode until Obama became the apparant Democratic party nominee. McCain bumbled a 3 month lead.
Weeks before becoming the Democratic nominee, Obama hit the ground running with his presidential campaign. Obama showed a smooth transition from primary campaigning to presidential campaigning while McCain napped and is only now trying to get organized.
With all the messes that bush has left us, from Iraq, the economy to gas prices, etc. and considering the low approval/support for bush and GOPer - I was expecting a Shock & Awe blitz by McCain to be well underway. Yet, McCain's campaign is bumbling, fumbling and stumbling.
I've often said that the manner in which a candidate leads their campaign is indictative of how they will govern and manage things if elected.
Those who are leaning towards supporting McCain should be asking themselves if this is the way McCain will run the country. Bumbling the problems, daily flip-flopping on what he supports or doesn't support is not the kind of leadership we can afford. Forget 'staying the course' on anything - McCain is still trying to find a map.
Obama easily stepped into a leadership position, he's set the course for the Democratic party and presented his path for the country. McCain is bumbling around waiting for direction from the GOP or Rove or both. This presents another question - in the event of a McCain presidency - will McCain lead or just take orders from GOP headquarters?
Monday, July 7, 2008
Republicans are using Fuzzy Math....again
Fuzzy math or catapulting the truth or cooking the books - call it what you will - but the republicans are once again twisting facts.
Miscounting Obama's Tax Votes
Republicans claim Obama "voted 94 times for higher taxes." But their count is inflated and misleading.
By Lori Robertson factcheck.org Jul 3, 2008 Newsweek
Summary The McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee both claim that Obama has voted 94 times "for higher taxes." We find that their count is padded.
After looking at every one of the 94 votes that the RNC includes in its tally, we find:
Analysis In a June 9 press release, Tucker Bounds, spokesman for Sen. John McCain's campaign said that "during just three years in the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama has already voted 94 times for higher taxes." The same day, the RNC, which researched Obama's votes and is the original source of the claim, issued its own release, saying "Obama Voted At Least 94 Times For Higher Taxes" and that he had voted "For A Tax Increase Approximately Once Every Five Days Congress Has Been In Session." A few days later, McCain adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin and other campaign staffers repeated the charge, which was quoted in various news stories. We suspect we'll be hearing this figure a lot more as the campaign wears on.
If this type of claim sounds familiar, it's because George W. Bush's campaign used a similar refrain against John Kerry in 2004, charging that Kerry voted for "higher taxes" a whopping 350 times. We found that claim to be incorrect as well. This time around, Republicans are using some of the same tricky accounting to beef up the number of votes.
Miscounting Obama's Tax Votes
Republicans claim Obama "voted 94 times for higher taxes." But their count is inflated and misleading.
By Lori Robertson factcheck.org Jul 3, 2008 Newsweek
Summary The McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee both claim that Obama has voted 94 times "for higher taxes." We find that their count is padded.
After looking at every one of the 94 votes that the RNC includes in its tally, we find:
Twenty-three were for measures that would have produced no tax increase at all; they were against proposed tax cuts.
Seven of the votes were in favor of measures that would have lowered taxes for many, while raising them on a relative few, either corporations or affluent individuals.
Eleven votes the GOP is counting would have increased taxes on those making more than $1 million a year – in order to fund programs such as Head Start and school nutrition programs, or veterans' health care.The GOP sometimes counted two, three and even four votes on the same measure. We found their tally included a total of 17 votes on seven measures, effectively padding their total by 10.
The majority of the 94 votes – 53 of them, including some mentioned above – were on budget measures, not tax bills, and would not have resulted in any tax change. Four other votes were non-binding motions related to conference report negotiations.
Analysis In a June 9 press release, Tucker Bounds, spokesman for Sen. John McCain's campaign said that "during just three years in the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama has already voted 94 times for higher taxes." The same day, the RNC, which researched Obama's votes and is the original source of the claim, issued its own release, saying "Obama Voted At Least 94 Times For Higher Taxes" and that he had voted "For A Tax Increase Approximately Once Every Five Days Congress Has Been In Session." A few days later, McCain adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin and other campaign staffers repeated the charge, which was quoted in various news stories. We suspect we'll be hearing this figure a lot more as the campaign wears on.
If this type of claim sounds familiar, it's because George W. Bush's campaign used a similar refrain against John Kerry in 2004, charging that Kerry voted for "higher taxes" a whopping 350 times. We found that claim to be incorrect as well. This time around, Republicans are using some of the same tricky accounting to beef up the number of votes.
Saturday, July 5, 2008
It Pays to be a friend of Bush
Feds' closed-door deal could ease development
New Forest Service rules could let largest private owner convert landBy Karl Vick MSNBC Sat., July. 5, 2008
MISSOULA, Mont. - The Bush administration is preparing to ease the way for the nation's largest private landowner to convert hundreds of thousands of acres of mountain forestland to residential subdivisions.
The deal was struck behind closed doors between Mark E. Rey, the former timber lobbyist who oversees the U.S. Forest Service, and Plum Creek Timber Co., a former logging company turned real estate investment trust that is building homes. Plum Creek owns more than 8 million acres nationwide, including 1.2 million acres in the mountains of western Montana, where local officials were stunned and outraged at the deal.
"We have 40 years of Forest Service history that has been reversed in the last three months," said Pat O'Herren, an official in Missoula County, which is threatening to sue the Forest Service for forgoing environmental assessments and other procedures that would have given the public a voice in the matter.
------------------------
Former Larry Craig aide and timber lobbyist, uses federal position to help access to trophy home sites deep in the forest
June 11, 2008 — Ralph Maughan
We’ve talked about Mark Rey before. He is under secretary for natural resources and environment in USDA, and thus oversees the U.S. Forest Service. Before that he learned the ropes from none other than Larry Craig and became a lobbyist for the timber industry.
In the past, he has barely escaped jail for defying court orders, and most recently is busy trampling on states rights to open national forest logging roads as acess to proposed and under constrution trophy homes deep the the forests.
These energy sucking, hard-to-service palaces are being built over the objections of states and counties that will have to pay the bills.
Rocky Barker discusses Rey today. D.C. political appointee flouts states rights and local control. Letters from the West. Idaho Statesman
---------
Friends of Mark E. Rey:
Richard Pombo: The two work together to move public resources to private companies. They have created more park roads and bargin mining rights in history. GOP Team.
Pombo Connections:
Jack Abramoff: Campaign accounts received $7,500 from Abramoff.
George W. Bush: Bush calls Pombo "The Marlboro Man." Pombo is one of Bush's closest allies on Capitol Hill.
Abramoff-Reed Indian Casino Scandal: Pombo chairs the House Resources Committee (deals with Indian tribes) and he has received thousands in contributions from tribes.
K Street Project: Pombo chairs the House Resources Committee which handles Native American issues linked tightly to the K Street influence.
John T. Doolittle: The FDIC's chief spokesman characterized what Doolittle and Pombo did as "a seamy abuse of the legislative process. In 2001, the two congressmen inserted many of the sensitive documents into the Congressional record
Mark E. Rey: The two work together to move public resources to private companies. They have created more park roads and bargin mining rights in history. GOP Team.
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations: Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay made Pombo chairman of the Resources Committee, he did so largely because he shared Pombo's desire to gut the Endangered Species Act.
Endangered Species: Pombo's changes to the Endangered Species Act will give more freedom to developers and require taxpayers to compensate developers for lost opportunity when the Act prohibits building.
Duane Gibson: Former House Resources Committee aide and mining industry lobbyist, Gibson held a $1,000 a head fundraiser for Pombo that included many mining industry officials.
Duane R. Gibson: Gibson, a mining lobbyist, hasworked for the Resources Committee and is a former Abramoff hand. Monsanto: Pombo was one of the members who helped the rBGH Hormone milk get on the market. Detalis of Monsanto's support $$ for cooperation below.
Safari Club: Pombo supports the broader legislation for the SCI canned hunts where caged animals are shot in fenced areas. Check the Cheney story, he got 70 pheasants in a day plus ducks.
Barbara Bonfiglio: Bonfiglio was Treasurer for Rep. Pombo's RICH Political Action Committee (leadership PAC)
Biotech Brigade: Where ever there are corporate interests against the environment or human health, Pombo can be counted on to jump in and fight for his corporate supporters.
Michael J. Malik, Sr.: Malik was a top Donor & friend
Marian Ilitch: Top 10 Donor and giftgiver
LCV “Dirty Dozen,” members, Conrad Burns (MT), Rick Santorum (PA), Jim Talent (MO), and Representatives Henry Cuellar (TX), Katherine Harris (FL), Richard Pombo (CA), Charles Taylor (NC) and Heather ...
Monsanto's American Government : 1994 Member Congressional Committee stalling rBGH labeling to kill it in committee; he took Monsanto funds at the time.
New Forest Service rules could let largest private owner convert landBy Karl Vick MSNBC Sat., July. 5, 2008
MISSOULA, Mont. - The Bush administration is preparing to ease the way for the nation's largest private landowner to convert hundreds of thousands of acres of mountain forestland to residential subdivisions.
The deal was struck behind closed doors between Mark E. Rey, the former timber lobbyist who oversees the U.S. Forest Service, and Plum Creek Timber Co., a former logging company turned real estate investment trust that is building homes. Plum Creek owns more than 8 million acres nationwide, including 1.2 million acres in the mountains of western Montana, where local officials were stunned and outraged at the deal.
"We have 40 years of Forest Service history that has been reversed in the last three months," said Pat O'Herren, an official in Missoula County, which is threatening to sue the Forest Service for forgoing environmental assessments and other procedures that would have given the public a voice in the matter.
------------------------
Former Larry Craig aide and timber lobbyist, uses federal position to help access to trophy home sites deep in the forest
June 11, 2008 — Ralph Maughan
We’ve talked about Mark Rey before. He is under secretary for natural resources and environment in USDA, and thus oversees the U.S. Forest Service. Before that he learned the ropes from none other than Larry Craig and became a lobbyist for the timber industry.
In the past, he has barely escaped jail for defying court orders, and most recently is busy trampling on states rights to open national forest logging roads as acess to proposed and under constrution trophy homes deep the the forests.
These energy sucking, hard-to-service palaces are being built over the objections of states and counties that will have to pay the bills.
Rocky Barker discusses Rey today. D.C. political appointee flouts states rights and local control. Letters from the West. Idaho Statesman
---------
Friends of Mark E. Rey:
Richard Pombo: The two work together to move public resources to private companies. They have created more park roads and bargin mining rights in history. GOP Team.
Pombo Connections:
Jack Abramoff: Campaign accounts received $7,500 from Abramoff.
George W. Bush: Bush calls Pombo "The Marlboro Man." Pombo is one of Bush's closest allies on Capitol Hill.
Abramoff-Reed Indian Casino Scandal: Pombo chairs the House Resources Committee (deals with Indian tribes) and he has received thousands in contributions from tribes.
K Street Project: Pombo chairs the House Resources Committee which handles Native American issues linked tightly to the K Street influence.
John T. Doolittle: The FDIC's chief spokesman characterized what Doolittle and Pombo did as "a seamy abuse of the legislative process. In 2001, the two congressmen inserted many of the sensitive documents into the Congressional record
Mark E. Rey: The two work together to move public resources to private companies. They have created more park roads and bargin mining rights in history. GOP Team.
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations: Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay made Pombo chairman of the Resources Committee, he did so largely because he shared Pombo's desire to gut the Endangered Species Act.
Endangered Species: Pombo's changes to the Endangered Species Act will give more freedom to developers and require taxpayers to compensate developers for lost opportunity when the Act prohibits building.
Duane Gibson: Former House Resources Committee aide and mining industry lobbyist, Gibson held a $1,000 a head fundraiser for Pombo that included many mining industry officials.
Duane R. Gibson: Gibson, a mining lobbyist, hasworked for the Resources Committee and is a former Abramoff hand. Monsanto: Pombo was one of the members who helped the rBGH Hormone milk get on the market. Detalis of Monsanto's support $$ for cooperation below.
Safari Club: Pombo supports the broader legislation for the SCI canned hunts where caged animals are shot in fenced areas. Check the Cheney story, he got 70 pheasants in a day plus ducks.
Barbara Bonfiglio: Bonfiglio was Treasurer for Rep. Pombo's RICH Political Action Committee (leadership PAC)
Biotech Brigade: Where ever there are corporate interests against the environment or human health, Pombo can be counted on to jump in and fight for his corporate supporters.
Michael J. Malik, Sr.: Malik was a top Donor & friend
Marian Ilitch: Top 10 Donor and giftgiver
LCV “Dirty Dozen,” members, Conrad Burns (MT), Rick Santorum (PA), Jim Talent (MO), and Representatives Henry Cuellar (TX), Katherine Harris (FL), Richard Pombo (CA), Charles Taylor (NC) and Heather ...
Monsanto's American Government : 1994 Member Congressional Committee stalling rBGH labeling to kill it in committee; he took Monsanto funds at the time.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
HERE COMES THE SMEAR
GOP TO LAUNCH TV AD BLITZ AGAINST OBAMA
First Read - 7/2/08
From NBC's Mark Murray
Beginning this weekend, the Republican National Committee will launch a $3 million advertising blitz against Obama in the battleground states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
This first ad will be on the topic on energy security, and it will contrast McCain's and Obama's positions on the issue. The actual content of the ad, however, has yet to be released. The vendor of this new ad against Obama -- GOP ad-maker Brad Todd -- has issued this statement: "Following Barack Obama's decision to become the only major party presidential candidate in history to not adhere to campaign spending caps, the Republican National Committee has begun an independent expenditure campaign in accordance with FEC regulations. The RNC will first advertise this weekend in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, highlighting the issue of energy security, which is emerging as a defining difference in the race for president."
In response to this ad, the Obama campaign issued this press release: "It has been reported that the Republican National Committee will begin running television ads in a number of battleground states this weekend. As John McCain's own advisors have noted, the RNC and the McCain campaign operate as one unit. And since these ads will likely be attack ads that contradict McCain's pledge to run a respectful campaign, he can, and should, immediately reverse his plan to air them. In fact, a few months ago, McCain urged GOP state party committees to run a respectful campaign, stating, 'I have pledged to conduct a respectful campaign. And I have urged, time after time, various entities within the Republican Party to also do that.' Clearly, the RNC should adhere to the same standard."
An important (yet inside-baseball) note: While the RNC is paying for this advertising blitz, it is coming from its independent expenditure unit. What that means is that the RNC has nothing to do with the ad's message or content; a vendor -- in this case, Brad Todd -- is responsible for that.
This, in fact, was an issue in that infamous RNC "Call me" TV ad against Harold Ford Jr. in Tennessee in 2006. It was an ad paid for by the RNC, but they were able to deny --legitimately -- that they had anything to do with the message. Both political parties utilize independent expenditure TV ads.
First Read - 7/2/08
From NBC's Mark Murray
Beginning this weekend, the Republican National Committee will launch a $3 million advertising blitz against Obama in the battleground states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
This first ad will be on the topic on energy security, and it will contrast McCain's and Obama's positions on the issue. The actual content of the ad, however, has yet to be released. The vendor of this new ad against Obama -- GOP ad-maker Brad Todd -- has issued this statement: "Following Barack Obama's decision to become the only major party presidential candidate in history to not adhere to campaign spending caps, the Republican National Committee has begun an independent expenditure campaign in accordance with FEC regulations. The RNC will first advertise this weekend in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, highlighting the issue of energy security, which is emerging as a defining difference in the race for president."
In response to this ad, the Obama campaign issued this press release: "It has been reported that the Republican National Committee will begin running television ads in a number of battleground states this weekend. As John McCain's own advisors have noted, the RNC and the McCain campaign operate as one unit. And since these ads will likely be attack ads that contradict McCain's pledge to run a respectful campaign, he can, and should, immediately reverse his plan to air them. In fact, a few months ago, McCain urged GOP state party committees to run a respectful campaign, stating, 'I have pledged to conduct a respectful campaign. And I have urged, time after time, various entities within the Republican Party to also do that.' Clearly, the RNC should adhere to the same standard."
An important (yet inside-baseball) note: While the RNC is paying for this advertising blitz, it is coming from its independent expenditure unit. What that means is that the RNC has nothing to do with the ad's message or content; a vendor -- in this case, Brad Todd -- is responsible for that.
This, in fact, was an issue in that infamous RNC "Call me" TV ad against Harold Ford Jr. in Tennessee in 2006. It was an ad paid for by the RNC, but they were able to deny --legitimately -- that they had anything to do with the message. Both political parties utilize independent expenditure TV ads.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
