In Iraq's Diyala Province, US forces anticipate exit
The American military is handing over control of projects in the troubled province ahead of a US-Iraqi security pact that could reduce the US footprint next year.
By Scott Peterson Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
from the November 3, 2008 edition
BALAD RUZ, Iraq - The US is actively transferring ownership of Iraq's troubled Diyala Province, using a tough-love approach to force Iraq to take on greater control ahead of any deal that would put limits on the American military next year.
From handing over irrigation projects to cutting funding in favor of a more cumbersome Iraqi payment system, the strategy amounts to the de facto first steps of withdrawal.
"Our big thing is getting Americans to stop doing things and get the Iraqi government to do them," says US Army Staff Sgt. Dave Schlicher, a civil affairs team leader who has worked in the towns along the Iran border for months.
*****************************************
The Stock market will go up.
The US is already preparing the groundwork to pull troops out as Iraq takes greater control - ALL WITHOUT ANNOUNCING A TIMETABLE.
So whats left - unemployment?
Obama
Showing posts with label McCain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label McCain. Show all posts
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Undecideds - Have Decided !!
MAYBE they don't want to tell you (which would indicate they support the candidate the media may not wish).
MAYBE they have decided but do not wish to say, because then they would be confronted with - but why won't you vote for the other guy.
Maybe the 5-10% will fall, mostly, for McCain, as I believe they will.
(AND THEY DIDN'T)
That will be enough.
(CLEARLY IT WASN'T)
Undecided Voters Probably Have Decided
Jeanna Bryner Senior Writer
LiveScience.com
Thu Oct 30, 2008.
Many voters who say they haven't decided between the two presidential candidates actually have decided. They just don't know it, finds a new study.
With the race to the White House being fiercely fought as ever, the undecided voters could make all the difference, and so while polls can give current trends in voter choice for one candidate over another, albeit possibly inaccurately, they don't tell us where the undecideds stand. Still, if they could cough up their true opinions, a different picture might emerge. "Undecided voters may have decided implicitly before they know that they have explicitly," said researcher Brian Nosek, a psychology professor at the University of Virginia.
Hidden preferences
Nosek and his colleagues analyzed survey data collected on a research and educate Web site called Project Implicit in which visitors can complete a test that measures their implicit associations on a variety of topics. In this survey, more than 25,000 participants completed a computer task that measured their unexpressed views regarding presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain.
Elections
MAYBE they have decided but do not wish to say, because then they would be confronted with - but why won't you vote for the other guy.
Maybe the 5-10% will fall, mostly, for McCain, as I believe they will.
(AND THEY DIDN'T)
That will be enough.
(CLEARLY IT WASN'T)
Undecided Voters Probably Have Decided
Jeanna Bryner Senior Writer
LiveScience.com
Thu Oct 30, 2008.
Many voters who say they haven't decided between the two presidential candidates actually have decided. They just don't know it, finds a new study.
With the race to the White House being fiercely fought as ever, the undecided voters could make all the difference, and so while polls can give current trends in voter choice for one candidate over another, albeit possibly inaccurately, they don't tell us where the undecideds stand. Still, if they could cough up their true opinions, a different picture might emerge. "Undecided voters may have decided implicitly before they know that they have explicitly," said researcher Brian Nosek, a psychology professor at the University of Virginia.
Hidden preferences
Nosek and his colleagues analyzed survey data collected on a research and educate Web site called Project Implicit in which visitors can complete a test that measures their implicit associations on a variety of topics. In this survey, more than 25,000 participants completed a computer task that measured their unexpressed views regarding presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain.
Elections
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Obama: praises Palestinian Rashid Khalidi - Old News
OMG - between hanging Palin in West Hollywood, the attacks on McCain supporters and their vehicles, the biased coverage of positive versus negative in the media ... and a video exists that is and should be available for voters ... and the LAT won't release it .... You can't get more biased than that.
McCain campaign accuses L.A. Times of 'suppressing' Obama video
The Times says its promise to a source prevents the paper from posting the video, which shows Barack Obama praising Palestinian activist Rashid Khalidi at a 2003 banquet. The story first appeared in April.
By a Times staff writer 6:01 PM PDT, October 28, 2008
John McCain's presidential campaign today accused the Los Angeles Times of "intentionally suppressing" a videotape it obtained of a 2003 banquet where then-state Sen. Barack Obama spoke of his friendship with Rashid Khalidi, a leading Palestinian scholar and activist. The Times first reported on the videotape in an April 2008 story about Obama's ties with Palestinians and Jews as he navigated the politics of Chicago.The report included a detailed description of the tape, but the newspaper did not make the video public.
"A major news organization is intentionally suppressing information that could provide a clearer link between Barack Obama and Rashid Khalidi," said McCain campaign spokesman Michael Goldfarb. " . . . 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."The Times today issued a statement about its decision not to post the tape."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. "The Times keeps its promises to sources."
[To read the rest of the article, click on the title link]
McCain campaign accuses L.A. Times of 'suppressing' Obama video
The Times says its promise to a source prevents the paper from posting the video, which shows Barack Obama praising Palestinian activist Rashid Khalidi at a 2003 banquet. The story first appeared in April.
By a Times staff writer 6:01 PM PDT, October 28, 2008
John McCain's presidential campaign today accused the Los Angeles Times of "intentionally suppressing" a videotape it obtained of a 2003 banquet where then-state Sen. Barack Obama spoke of his friendship with Rashid Khalidi, a leading Palestinian scholar and activist. The Times first reported on the videotape in an April 2008 story about Obama's ties with Palestinians and Jews as he navigated the politics of Chicago.The report included a detailed description of the tape, but the newspaper did not make the video public.
"A major news organization is intentionally suppressing information that could provide a clearer link between Barack Obama and Rashid Khalidi," said McCain campaign spokesman Michael Goldfarb. " . . . 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."The Times today issued a statement about its decision not to post the tape."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. "The Times keeps its promises to sources."
[To read the rest of the article, click on the title link]
Sunday, October 26, 2008
UN: Another reason why Obama MUST lose
Because these fools want him to win, believing that an Obama win will usher in years of UN corruption.
We saw this for years until iraq and the Oil for Food Scandal was knocked out, we saw this with the UN peacekeeping Scandals in Africa, we saw this with failure after failure of UN policy around the world and now the UN wants to use Bush as an excuse for all their failures and scandals.
At the U.N., Many Hope for an Obama Win
By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff WriterSunday, October 26, 2008; A17
UNITED NATIONS -- There are no "Obama 2008" buttons, banners or T-shirts visible here at UN headquarters, but it might be difficult to find a sliver of territory in the United States more enthusiastic over the prospect of the Illinois senator winning the White House.
An informal survey of more than two dozen U.N. staff members and foreign delegates showed that the overwhelming majority would prefer that Sen. Barack Obama win the presidency, saying they think that the Democrat would usher in a new agenda of multilateralism after an era marked by Republican disdain for the world body.
Obama supporters hail from Russia, Canada, France, Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Indonesia and elsewhere. One American employee here seemed puzzled that he was being asked whether Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was even a consideration. "Obama was and is unstoppable," the official said. "Please, God, let him win," he added.
"It would be hard to find anybody, I think, at the U.N. who would not believe that Obama would be a considerable improvement over any other alternative," said William H. Luers, executive director of the United Nations Association. "It's been a bad eight years, and there is a lot of bad feeling over it."
[To read the rest of the article, clock on the title link above.]At the U.N., Many Hope for an Obama Win
By Colum LynchWashington Post Staff WriterSunday, October 26, 2008; A17
UNITED NATIONS -- There are no "Obama 2008" buttons, banners or T-shirts visible here at U.N. headquarters, but it might be difficult to find a sliver of territory in the United States more enthusiastic over the prospect of the Illinois senator winning the White House.
An informal survey of more than two dozen U.N. staff members and foreign delegates showed that the overwhelming majority would prefer that Sen. Barack Obama win the presidency, saying they think that the Democrat would usher in a new agenda of multilateralism after an era marked by Republican disdain for the world body.
Obama supporters hail from Russia, Canada, France, Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Indonesia and elsewhere. One American employee here seemed puzzled that he was being asked whether Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was even a consideration. "Obama was and is unstoppable," the official said. "Please, God, let him win," he added.
"It would be hard to find anybody, I think, at the U.N. who would not believe that Obama would be a considerable improvement over any other alternative," said William H. Luers, executive director of the United Nations Association. "It's been a bad eight years, and there is a lot of bad feeling over it."
[To read the rest of the article, click on the title link above.]
It is almost too funny. The McCain campaign should use these statements in the remaning days.
UN
Obaam
We saw this for years until iraq and the Oil for Food Scandal was knocked out, we saw this with the UN peacekeeping Scandals in Africa, we saw this with failure after failure of UN policy around the world and now the UN wants to use Bush as an excuse for all their failures and scandals.
At the U.N., Many Hope for an Obama Win
By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff WriterSunday, October 26, 2008; A17
UNITED NATIONS -- There are no "Obama 2008" buttons, banners or T-shirts visible here at UN headquarters, but it might be difficult to find a sliver of territory in the United States more enthusiastic over the prospect of the Illinois senator winning the White House.
An informal survey of more than two dozen U.N. staff members and foreign delegates showed that the overwhelming majority would prefer that Sen. Barack Obama win the presidency, saying they think that the Democrat would usher in a new agenda of multilateralism after an era marked by Republican disdain for the world body.
Obama supporters hail from Russia, Canada, France, Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Indonesia and elsewhere. One American employee here seemed puzzled that he was being asked whether Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was even a consideration. "Obama was and is unstoppable," the official said. "Please, God, let him win," he added.
"It would be hard to find anybody, I think, at the U.N. who would not believe that Obama would be a considerable improvement over any other alternative," said William H. Luers, executive director of the United Nations Association. "It's been a bad eight years, and there is a lot of bad feeling over it."
[To read the rest of the article, clock on the title link above.]At the U.N., Many Hope for an Obama Win
By Colum LynchWashington Post Staff WriterSunday, October 26, 2008; A17
UNITED NATIONS -- There are no "Obama 2008" buttons, banners or T-shirts visible here at U.N. headquarters, but it might be difficult to find a sliver of territory in the United States more enthusiastic over the prospect of the Illinois senator winning the White House.
An informal survey of more than two dozen U.N. staff members and foreign delegates showed that the overwhelming majority would prefer that Sen. Barack Obama win the presidency, saying they think that the Democrat would usher in a new agenda of multilateralism after an era marked by Republican disdain for the world body.
Obama supporters hail from Russia, Canada, France, Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Indonesia and elsewhere. One American employee here seemed puzzled that he was being asked whether Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was even a consideration. "Obama was and is unstoppable," the official said. "Please, God, let him win," he added.
"It would be hard to find anybody, I think, at the U.N. who would not believe that Obama would be a considerable improvement over any other alternative," said William H. Luers, executive director of the United Nations Association. "It's been a bad eight years, and there is a lot of bad feeling over it."
[To read the rest of the article, click on the title link above.]
It is almost too funny. The McCain campaign should use these statements in the remaning days.
UN
Obaam
Gut the Military - leave America Defenseless
Obama has stated publicly, many times - he wants to cut 'wasteful' spending in the military on 'unproven' programs.
Wasteful - Subjective term that can mean - anything you want it to.
Unproven - Very subjective term that can encompass any program or set of programs.
******************
Obama has stated, again, very clearly, that he believes the US should work with our allies, work with the UN, not go it alone.
Any nation that works in conjunction with its allies does not need the largest military on earth. Just doesn't.
******************
Barney Frank - the people's choice for most hypocritical - responsible, or one of the responsible parties of the economic mortgage meltdown ... wants a 25% cut in the military.
Mr. Frank is one of the most senior members of Congress (that esteemed institution with 12% approval rating) and he does not speak for himself - he is representative of a faction of Congress.
*****************
John F. Kerry - Reporting for Duty - wants a 2nd New deal ... hundreds of billions to make this program go forward ... and the money will come from where.
****************
Among anarchists and revolutionaries, Marxists - the following would well be within their worldview - that the US acts many times if not all, without justification, arrogantly, abruptly, without respect for others, and possessing a military that acts in a criminal manner most of the time.
****************
Among intellectuals at our major universities - the US military does less good than it does harm. In the few cases where we do good, there are far more cases where we do greater harm than good, and possessing the largest military is in itself uncalled for, a sign of arrogance and belligerence, and wasteful spending. We intimidate and abuse other countries, we are too large for our own good. No enlightened democracy has a military as large as we do and no European nation has a military equal - therefore, it is entirely unnecessary to have such a large force.
**********************************
Individually, each of these forces within our political or academic system do not warrant undue concern, but when one of their own is on the verge of winning (Obama) the gutting of the military would occur - in my mind, there is no question as to whether or not it would occur. It will and unlike the efforts in the Clinton administration - this time Congress will be controlled by the Democrats and they will not be open to debating cuts or changes. Having control of all three branches (like Clinton until 94) does not in itself warrant undue fear for Clinton may have cut the military, but he didn't gut it as I suggest they will after January 2009 - the reason is I believe clear - the Democrats did not hold a large margin in Congress; we were not eight years into a war the Democrats hated from the start; we did not have perilous economic conditions.
For the above reasons, and the fact Obama is the furthest left candidate for president we have had since McGovern, and perhaps more left of McGovern given Obama's stated interest in Marxism (even if it was within an academic setting) - the gutting of the military would occur.
That is not to say we would not use the military - to ferry people around, to clean up trash, to help people collect food, rebuild dams ... the arts of behavior the left believe the military should be doing. Rather, our national security would, with each cut, be compromised - our future - not this year and not next year, but our future position in the world would be in question.
Electing Obama is the most unwise decision any person could make.
That does not mean we should be thrilled with Jovial McCain, but we are not electing someone to do a dance routine or talk about change. We are electing someone to protect us.
As much as Americans believe the president is responsible for economic issues, he is one player and as such should not be held any more responsible than the other players. Congress holds the purse strings and for two years, Congress has been controlled by the Democrats.
I understand the desire to immediately flip back and say the Congress hasn't produced the budgets it has - the president did. But if you look at the budget the president proposed versus the budget that came out of Congress you will notice something - tens of billions added. Over several years the amounts added to the budgets and supplemental budget requests is hundreds of billions in added projects. None of that was the president. Fanny and Freddy - had the Democratic Congress not prevented oversight on entities that were in large part pushed forward to get underprivileged people into homes, covered by the federal government - we would not have had the mortgage meltdown that took our stock market and dropped it into the abyss along with world markets. That was IN LARGE PART what begin the economic issues, compounded by a cyclical economic downturn now becomes a near cataclysmic event.
So why blame it on Republicans when the Democrats have held Congress for two years. Why would any sane and reasonable person, concerned about the world consider giving our future security to someone that has stated he will slash the military, to a party that is desirous of ensuring our military never again is in the position of unilaterally invading anything bigger than Grenada.
For the Retardican party to have selected candidates that cannot do any better than a 2 year Senator with no experience doing anything of any importance - you should pray your two candidates win, for if they do not, you will find yourself wandering in the desert for forty years during which time our security, our nation, our sovereignty will be in question and your whining will not stop it. You will be partly responsible for every life lost while the Democrats have control. You will be responsible for every program they create that cannot be undone, you will be responsible.
Electing Obama and the Democrats is the wrong course. It is the wrong direction and its effects on the US will be disastrous.
Obama
election
Friday, October 24, 2008
The Real Problems Facing this Country
Pakistan:
A government that carries on a charade to a large degree over control of the lands of Pakistan. The government of Pakistan does not have control of Waziristan, does not have control of its border region, does not control who enters or exits Pakistan from two directions. The government asks the permission of tribal leaders before it acts. Not to mention the financial crisis has forced Pakistan to very nearly beg for financial aid from the IMF.
The government itself is riddled with al qaida or Taliban supporters - the ISI and its control of the military and government bureaucracy leaves the civilian government little more than a facade behind which the real power is wielded by people who do not have the interests of Western Civilization anywhere in their top 20. The perception that the government begs for aid from the IMF will do nothing but weaken the government in the eyes of the extremists.
The government will take many years to fully change the infrastructure that provides haven to and support of extremist elements in the government. Until then - it is precariously perched upon a precipice - on one side, hope and change and opportunity. The other side of this precipice is death - for many thousands and a destabilized region that will make what has gone on in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Congo, and Rwanda look like pre-school.
A government in possession of nuclear weapons, controlled by ISI / pro-taliban/al qaida elements, supportive of extremist views makes everything Iran has done for terrorism seem like childs play. India cannot sit around and tolerate this - they have their own nuclear weapons.
The worlds largest democracy INDIA - stacked against a country that has technically never stopped its war, and now that enemy is under the control of the most extreme elements in Islam and they would possess nuclear weapons. What would you do if you were India, and don't say negotiate - India cannot afford to negotiate with people pointing nuclear weapons at them who want to die and go to heaven. Right now, the precarious perch keep this from happening. A delicate balance.
However, should we find intelligence that shows bin Laden is in a mountain area and we attack Pakistan - the government will fall, al qaida and taliban forces will take over, the pro-western forces will be killed or flee, India will go on highest alert, India's forces will move quickly into the Kashmir, and all this will come by March 2009 ...
In Israel - the extreme Jewish parties have vetoed the Kadima candidate for Prime Minister -Tzipi Livni. This will force an election and for the next 45-60 days, Israel will have an acting caretaker government. While the government will be able to function - it will not be as direct in acting as it would under one leader. In order to keep the integrity, all party candidates will be informed and consulted, and while this will not take an excessive amount of time, it will not be as seamless as it would have been if one person was in control. Is it weakness? Out of 10, maybe a fraction of 1, but as far as perception is concerned it would be a 4 or 5.
Since the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza 2005 and the removal of all Israeli troops out of Gaza, since the ceasefire 2007 with whomever it was - hamas/fatah ... more weapons have been smuggled in to Gaza and the West Bank than in the year prior to the ceasefire.
Russian sale of weapons to Syria - missiles and rockets.
Syrian positioning of troops on the border of Lebanon, Syrian troops in Lebanon. In process.
Iran is assisting Hizbollah with armaments. In process.
Iran is, by recent statements, at the most 4 months away from being in a position to possess a nuclear weapon.
Russia is exerting military pressure - threatening Poland and the Ukraine. If they install the US missile defense system, Russia has threatened military action against them. Russian military power exerting itself ... in Georgia, and threats against Poland and the Ukraine. Chances for a conflagration within 6 months - unlikely.
Venezuela - Chavez is in deep trouble. The infrastructure in his country is crumbling. held together by rubber bands. It will take decades to modernize, and the people will not wait. he holds billions - used to repress people and support extremist actions worldwide ... he will have to act within the next six months to suppress the rising call to end his regime and attempts to do just that. What he does will require the US attention and depending, our involvement. We cannot ignore a country that is part of a tripartite supplying nearly 50% of our oil, and not act when one of the three is a weak link. Chances for a conflagration within 6 months - very possible.
Congo - thousands are dying and the problem is only getting worse. In process.
Sudan - genocide on a level that is unknown since Rwanda. In process.
Philippines - A new Supreme Court ruling in that country has ended any hope of a peaceful resolution to the decades-old conflict between the Moro Islamic Liberation Front and the Philippines government. Peace talks have broken down before but not like this. It will be much harder this time, even if talks resume, to simply pick up from where they left off. What happens now will be what has happened every time in the past when talks ended and compromise was refused - death. The difference - it was nearly ten years ago, and the Islamic movement has gained quite a few new tools in its arsenal, to use against the government and the civilian populations. Chances for a conflagration within 6 months - very possible.
Thailand - not going away. Along dormant separatist movement that happens to be Islamic - corruption and instability throughout Thailand ... and it is ripe for a revolution that will turn into a bloodbath. The people do not support the military nor do they support the government that has been shown within the last three years to be corrupt. Add to this the head of the military - also happens to be a Muslim. Chances for a conflagration within 6 months - quite possible.
Bolivia - separatists, the country is dividing. Look for Venezuela to be involved along with communist insurgents. Lots of money to be made. Over 30 people killed in one of the three most volatile provinces seeking separation. Chances for a conflagration within 6 months - quite likely.
North Korea - an imminent statement was to be provided at the beginning of October sometime, by the government of North Korea. Many speculated it would reveal to the world that Kim had died. One way or another, the rule of Kim il Jung is near an end or soon to end, and the nuclear program has resumed or may resume, despite the US removing North Korea from the terrorist list. Chances for a conflagration within 6 months - possible.
THESE are the real problems we face today.
Both candidates agree - our economy will get stronger and it will repair itself, it will regardless of who is in office. That stated - who is best able to handle the above 13-14 situations. Who is best able to deal with the above 13 issues that will with certainty afflict the next president in his first six months and with certainty, within his first four years.
It is not the man who has less experience than my mailman. It is not the man about whom we have nothing to gauge his behavior, but about whom we know quite a bit about his character - and it is not very good.
We cannot. We must not hire someone to spend the next four years getting experience.
Millions of lives depend upon the decision - and none of them are in the US. The number of Americans affected will be many times that many.
Obama
A government that carries on a charade to a large degree over control of the lands of Pakistan. The government of Pakistan does not have control of Waziristan, does not have control of its border region, does not control who enters or exits Pakistan from two directions. The government asks the permission of tribal leaders before it acts. Not to mention the financial crisis has forced Pakistan to very nearly beg for financial aid from the IMF.
Sidebar:
Government: yes, we would like to send in troops to this area. May we do so? There are al qaida people in this area.
Tribal Chiefs: Let us think about this.
(a few phone calls later to the area in question)
Tribal Chiefs: yes, you may, but you must pay us this much money and must not begin until after sundown and you must be done by sun up and no one who is not a Muslim may enter the lands, and no bullets or equipment made by the US or Israel may be used, and the men who are involved must all wear black berets and carry 14 inch daggers, and they must not wear boots, they must wear traditional slippers, and we must be paid in advance, and as the government forces leave they must leave their weapons behind.
The government itself is riddled with al qaida or Taliban supporters - the ISI and its control of the military and government bureaucracy leaves the civilian government little more than a facade behind which the real power is wielded by people who do not have the interests of Western Civilization anywhere in their top 20. The perception that the government begs for aid from the IMF will do nothing but weaken the government in the eyes of the extremists.
The government will take many years to fully change the infrastructure that provides haven to and support of extremist elements in the government. Until then - it is precariously perched upon a precipice - on one side, hope and change and opportunity. The other side of this precipice is death - for many thousands and a destabilized region that will make what has gone on in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Congo, and Rwanda look like pre-school.
A government in possession of nuclear weapons, controlled by ISI / pro-taliban/al qaida elements, supportive of extremist views makes everything Iran has done for terrorism seem like childs play. India cannot sit around and tolerate this - they have their own nuclear weapons.
The worlds largest democracy INDIA - stacked against a country that has technically never stopped its war, and now that enemy is under the control of the most extreme elements in Islam and they would possess nuclear weapons. What would you do if you were India, and don't say negotiate - India cannot afford to negotiate with people pointing nuclear weapons at them who want to die and go to heaven. Right now, the precarious perch keep this from happening. A delicate balance.
However, should we find intelligence that shows bin Laden is in a mountain area and we attack Pakistan - the government will fall, al qaida and taliban forces will take over, the pro-western forces will be killed or flee, India will go on highest alert, India's forces will move quickly into the Kashmir, and all this will come by March 2009 ...
In Israel - the extreme Jewish parties have vetoed the Kadima candidate for Prime Minister -Tzipi Livni. This will force an election and for the next 45-60 days, Israel will have an acting caretaker government. While the government will be able to function - it will not be as direct in acting as it would under one leader. In order to keep the integrity, all party candidates will be informed and consulted, and while this will not take an excessive amount of time, it will not be as seamless as it would have been if one person was in control. Is it weakness? Out of 10, maybe a fraction of 1, but as far as perception is concerned it would be a 4 or 5.
Since the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza 2005 and the removal of all Israeli troops out of Gaza, since the ceasefire 2007 with whomever it was - hamas/fatah ... more weapons have been smuggled in to Gaza and the West Bank than in the year prior to the ceasefire.
Russian sale of weapons to Syria - missiles and rockets.
Syrian positioning of troops on the border of Lebanon, Syrian troops in Lebanon. In process.
Sidebar:
News flash for idiots and losers - Syria is working with Iran and Hizbollah = Sunni and Shia working together. Al Qaida = Sunni. Iran = Shia. Not so far apart after all.
Iran is assisting Hizbollah with armaments. In process.
Iran is, by recent statements, at the most 4 months away from being in a position to possess a nuclear weapon.
Russia is exerting military pressure - threatening Poland and the Ukraine. If they install the US missile defense system, Russia has threatened military action against them. Russian military power exerting itself ... in Georgia, and threats against Poland and the Ukraine. Chances for a conflagration within 6 months - unlikely.
Venezuela - Chavez is in deep trouble. The infrastructure in his country is crumbling. held together by rubber bands. It will take decades to modernize, and the people will not wait. he holds billions - used to repress people and support extremist actions worldwide ... he will have to act within the next six months to suppress the rising call to end his regime and attempts to do just that. What he does will require the US attention and depending, our involvement. We cannot ignore a country that is part of a tripartite supplying nearly 50% of our oil, and not act when one of the three is a weak link. Chances for a conflagration within 6 months - very possible.
Congo - thousands are dying and the problem is only getting worse. In process.
Sudan - genocide on a level that is unknown since Rwanda. In process.
Philippines - A new Supreme Court ruling in that country has ended any hope of a peaceful resolution to the decades-old conflict between the Moro Islamic Liberation Front and the Philippines government. Peace talks have broken down before but not like this. It will be much harder this time, even if talks resume, to simply pick up from where they left off. What happens now will be what has happened every time in the past when talks ended and compromise was refused - death. The difference - it was nearly ten years ago, and the Islamic movement has gained quite a few new tools in its arsenal, to use against the government and the civilian populations. Chances for a conflagration within 6 months - very possible.
Thailand - not going away. Along dormant separatist movement that happens to be Islamic - corruption and instability throughout Thailand ... and it is ripe for a revolution that will turn into a bloodbath. The people do not support the military nor do they support the government that has been shown within the last three years to be corrupt. Add to this the head of the military - also happens to be a Muslim. Chances for a conflagration within 6 months - quite possible.
Bolivia - separatists, the country is dividing. Look for Venezuela to be involved along with communist insurgents. Lots of money to be made. Over 30 people killed in one of the three most volatile provinces seeking separation. Chances for a conflagration within 6 months - quite likely.
North Korea - an imminent statement was to be provided at the beginning of October sometime, by the government of North Korea. Many speculated it would reveal to the world that Kim had died. One way or another, the rule of Kim il Jung is near an end or soon to end, and the nuclear program has resumed or may resume, despite the US removing North Korea from the terrorist list. Chances for a conflagration within 6 months - possible.
THESE are the real problems we face today.
Both candidates agree - our economy will get stronger and it will repair itself, it will regardless of who is in office. That stated - who is best able to handle the above 13-14 situations. Who is best able to deal with the above 13 issues that will with certainty afflict the next president in his first six months and with certainty, within his first four years.
It is not the man who has less experience than my mailman. It is not the man about whom we have nothing to gauge his behavior, but about whom we know quite a bit about his character - and it is not very good.
We cannot. We must not hire someone to spend the next four years getting experience.
Millions of lives depend upon the decision - and none of them are in the US. The number of Americans affected will be many times that many.
Obama
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Less than 2 weeks
I asked several classes, over the last few days about whether or not they would be able to tell / discern that the Roman Empire was crumbling, if they were a Roman citizen in the year 460 AD.
The Metrolink train that crashed into the freight train in Chatsworth - the Metrolink had 3 cars and it was rounding a turn heading in to the tunnel (except the freight train exited the tunnel and headed straight toward it). The fact the train was on a curve allowed car 3 passengers to SEE what would, within moments, happen. What can you do.
What if you were a rather intuitive type and could sense something - could you, would you do something to stop it if you could.
More than 24 people died in the train crash. What if we could intuitively sense much worse about to befall the country. What do you do? Then again, what if 50+% think differently ... does that mean my sense of events and history is wrong - or might they be wrong, and if I am wrong, what is the loss - not much, I am a loon who fears the sky falling. What if I am right.
The confluence of events is disturbing - serious and significant events. Events that will, transform the landscape economically, for decades. Events that will transform the political landscape for at least a decade. Events that will reverberate across the international landscape for decades, and may result in the loss of tens of thousands of lives, possibly much higher.
What do you do.
Pray that the American people make the right decision? But we have banned praying and God is all but forbidden in the US. That won't work. And besides - if I said I prayed that he would lose, someone would say I am a X/Y wing Christian fanatic. What irony.
Hope that in the next ten days, events unfold that allow the American people a more perceptive look at the candidates and allow them to make the choice that is best for the future of the country, not necessarily for any group or any segment, but for the very future of the country.
46 years ago this month, an event that nearly brought the US to the brink and beyond. We cannot do this again.
I may forgo the wall and moat and concentrate on buying property in St. Croix. Safe from the madness of a foolish administration and an inexperienced administrator - safe from nearly everything, and a good place to hide for four years until sanity returns.
I can only hope.I
Democrats
The Metrolink train that crashed into the freight train in Chatsworth - the Metrolink had 3 cars and it was rounding a turn heading in to the tunnel (except the freight train exited the tunnel and headed straight toward it). The fact the train was on a curve allowed car 3 passengers to SEE what would, within moments, happen. What can you do.
What if you were a rather intuitive type and could sense something - could you, would you do something to stop it if you could.
More than 24 people died in the train crash. What if we could intuitively sense much worse about to befall the country. What do you do? Then again, what if 50+% think differently ... does that mean my sense of events and history is wrong - or might they be wrong, and if I am wrong, what is the loss - not much, I am a loon who fears the sky falling. What if I am right.
The confluence of events is disturbing - serious and significant events. Events that will, transform the landscape economically, for decades. Events that will transform the political landscape for at least a decade. Events that will reverberate across the international landscape for decades, and may result in the loss of tens of thousands of lives, possibly much higher.
What do you do.
Pray that the American people make the right decision? But we have banned praying and God is all but forbidden in the US. That won't work. And besides - if I said I prayed that he would lose, someone would say I am a X/Y wing Christian fanatic. What irony.
Hope that in the next ten days, events unfold that allow the American people a more perceptive look at the candidates and allow them to make the choice that is best for the future of the country, not necessarily for any group or any segment, but for the very future of the country.
46 years ago this month, an event that nearly brought the US to the brink and beyond. We cannot do this again.
I may forgo the wall and moat and concentrate on buying property in St. Croix. Safe from the madness of a foolish administration and an inexperienced administrator - safe from nearly everything, and a good place to hide for four years until sanity returns.
I can only hope.I
Democrats
Monday, October 20, 2008
Follow the Money
Many big donors using a loophole in presidential race
By Michael Luo and Griff Palmer
Published: October 20, 2008
Much of the attention on the record amounts of money coursing through the presidential race this year, including Senator Barack Obama's announcement Sunday of his $150 million fund-raising bonanza in September, has focused on the explosion of small donors.
But there has been a less-remarked-upon proliferation on the national fund-raising landscape: the rise of mega-donors, a group of givers with arguably greater potential to influence the candidates.
Enabled by a loophole in campaign finance laws, they have written giant checks, which far exceed normal individual contribution limits to candidates, to joint fund-raising committees that benefit both the candidates and their respective parties.
The committees have been used far more heavily in this presidential election than in the past, in part because Senator John McCain's campaign has taken the concept to new levels, enabling donors to write checks of more than $70,000.
Obama's campaign has also leaned on large givers to contribute up to $33,100 at a time to complement his army of small donors over the Internet as he bypassed public financing for the general election. As a result, both candidates have nearly 2,000 people each who have given $25,000 or more to them through September.
"What we're seeing is an emphasis on the high-end check that we have not seen since the days of soft money," said Anthony Corrado Jr., a campaign finance expert at Colby College in Maine.
A New York Times analysis of donors who wrote checks of $25,000 or larger to the candidates' main joint fund-raising committees through August found some notable differences in the industries that Obama and McCain are drawing their largest contributions from.
The biggest portion of money from these mega-donors for both candidates came from the securities and investment industry. For McCain, the next-biggest group was real estate, and then donors who identified themselves as retired. With his emphasis on offshore drilling, McCain has also enjoyed heavy support from wealthy benefactors in the oil and gas industry, a group Obama drew relatively little from.
Besides those in the finance world, Obama drew the most in large checks from retired donors and lawyers - a group McCain collected significantly less in large checks from - followed by those in real estate and then business services, like management consulting.
Donations from the private equity and hedge fund industries accounted for a significantly greater amount of the giving from McCain's largest donors, compared with Obama, with donors perhaps fearing additional regulations that Obama has proposed. The Democrat was much more popular among generous benefactors in the entertainment industry than McCain.
The surge in contributions to these joint fund-raising committees - they have already taken in nearly $300 million this year through September, with McCain collecting slightly more than Obama, compared with just $69 million in 2004 - is a worrisome trend to some campaign finance watchdog groups.
They argue that the heavy emphasis on such arrangements brings candidates one step further into the embrace of major donors who are writing checks to them far larger than they could normally give.
Individuals are normally limited to contributing $2,300 to presidential candidates for the primary and another $2,300 for the general election, if the candidates are not taking public financing.
More than 1,800 people, however, had donated $25,000 or more as of the end of September to McCain through his various "Victory" committees, as the joint fund-raising committees are dubbed, according to Federal Election Commission filings and data compiled by Public Citizen, a nonpartisan watchdog group. More than 300 people have contributed $50,000 or more.
As for Obama, more than 1,900 people donated $25,000 or more to his joint fund-raising committees through the end of September.
The utility of such joint fund-raising committees, which were first used in a significant way at the presidential level by Senator John Kerry's campaign in 2004, is that they conglomerate contributions for various entities together into a single committee under the banner of the candidate. They offer convenience for major donors and afford them a sense of greater clout with the writing of a single large check, as opposed to several smaller ones.
The larger checks to the joint fund-raising committees are made possible because donors can contribute up to $28,500 to the national parties and $10,000 to state parties. The parties can spend on behalf of the candidates under certain restrictions.
McCain finance officials introduced their main joint fund-raising committee, McCain Victory 2008, in the spring. McCain was still able to accept primary money, so money raised through the victory committee was divvied up between his primary campaign coffers, the Republican National Committee, several state parties and a legal compliance fund for the general election. In a measure of how quickly such committees could amass cash, the opening fund-raiser for the victory committee in New York in May brought in $7 million.
Money
By Michael Luo and Griff Palmer
Published: October 20, 2008
Much of the attention on the record amounts of money coursing through the presidential race this year, including Senator Barack Obama's announcement Sunday of his $150 million fund-raising bonanza in September, has focused on the explosion of small donors.
But there has been a less-remarked-upon proliferation on the national fund-raising landscape: the rise of mega-donors, a group of givers with arguably greater potential to influence the candidates.
Enabled by a loophole in campaign finance laws, they have written giant checks, which far exceed normal individual contribution limits to candidates, to joint fund-raising committees that benefit both the candidates and their respective parties.
The committees have been used far more heavily in this presidential election than in the past, in part because Senator John McCain's campaign has taken the concept to new levels, enabling donors to write checks of more than $70,000.
Obama's campaign has also leaned on large givers to contribute up to $33,100 at a time to complement his army of small donors over the Internet as he bypassed public financing for the general election. As a result, both candidates have nearly 2,000 people each who have given $25,000 or more to them through September.
"What we're seeing is an emphasis on the high-end check that we have not seen since the days of soft money," said Anthony Corrado Jr., a campaign finance expert at Colby College in Maine.
A New York Times analysis of donors who wrote checks of $25,000 or larger to the candidates' main joint fund-raising committees through August found some notable differences in the industries that Obama and McCain are drawing their largest contributions from.
The biggest portion of money from these mega-donors for both candidates came from the securities and investment industry. For McCain, the next-biggest group was real estate, and then donors who identified themselves as retired. With his emphasis on offshore drilling, McCain has also enjoyed heavy support from wealthy benefactors in the oil and gas industry, a group Obama drew relatively little from.
Besides those in the finance world, Obama drew the most in large checks from retired donors and lawyers - a group McCain collected significantly less in large checks from - followed by those in real estate and then business services, like management consulting.
Donations from the private equity and hedge fund industries accounted for a significantly greater amount of the giving from McCain's largest donors, compared with Obama, with donors perhaps fearing additional regulations that Obama has proposed. The Democrat was much more popular among generous benefactors in the entertainment industry than McCain.
The surge in contributions to these joint fund-raising committees - they have already taken in nearly $300 million this year through September, with McCain collecting slightly more than Obama, compared with just $69 million in 2004 - is a worrisome trend to some campaign finance watchdog groups.
They argue that the heavy emphasis on such arrangements brings candidates one step further into the embrace of major donors who are writing checks to them far larger than they could normally give.
Individuals are normally limited to contributing $2,300 to presidential candidates for the primary and another $2,300 for the general election, if the candidates are not taking public financing.
More than 1,800 people, however, had donated $25,000 or more as of the end of September to McCain through his various "Victory" committees, as the joint fund-raising committees are dubbed, according to Federal Election Commission filings and data compiled by Public Citizen, a nonpartisan watchdog group. More than 300 people have contributed $50,000 or more.
As for Obama, more than 1,900 people donated $25,000 or more to his joint fund-raising committees through the end of September.
The utility of such joint fund-raising committees, which were first used in a significant way at the presidential level by Senator John Kerry's campaign in 2004, is that they conglomerate contributions for various entities together into a single committee under the banner of the candidate. They offer convenience for major donors and afford them a sense of greater clout with the writing of a single large check, as opposed to several smaller ones.
The larger checks to the joint fund-raising committees are made possible because donors can contribute up to $28,500 to the national parties and $10,000 to state parties. The parties can spend on behalf of the candidates under certain restrictions.
McCain finance officials introduced their main joint fund-raising committee, McCain Victory 2008, in the spring. McCain was still able to accept primary money, so money raised through the victory committee was divvied up between his primary campaign coffers, the Republican National Committee, several state parties and a legal compliance fund for the general election. In a measure of how quickly such committees could amass cash, the opening fund-raiser for the victory committee in New York in May brought in $7 million.
Money
Sarah Palin - God this and God that and God will and God won't
God will do this and God will do that, and pray that God saves us and pray that God ...
What if Sarah Palin said or wrote words similar to the above. What would the response be?
I can tell you with absolute certainty - SNL would mock her, news broadcasts on cable news would mock her, academics would mock her, the media would mock her in an ever so condescending manner ...
"Gird your loins, we're gonna win with your help, God willing, we're gonna win, but this is not gonna be an easy ride."
The funny thing is, it wasn't Sarah Palin. It was Joe Biden.
Obama
Biden
God
What if Sarah Palin said or wrote words similar to the above. What would the response be?
I can tell you with absolute certainty - SNL would mock her, news broadcasts on cable news would mock her, academics would mock her, the media would mock her in an ever so condescending manner ...
"Gird your loins, we're gonna win with your help, God willing, we're gonna win, but this is not gonna be an easy ride."
The funny thing is, it wasn't Sarah Palin. It was Joe Biden.
Obama
Biden
God
Sunday, October 19, 2008
The One: I will win this one way or I'll hire the lawyers to win it.
Obama Assembles U.S.'s `Largest Law Firm' to Monitor Election
By James Rowley
Oct. 20 (Bloomberg) -- Barack Obama and John McCain have a litigation game plan to accompany their election strategy.
Both candidates have armies of volunteers to ring doorbells and get voters to the polls. They are also forming squadrons of lawyers who are filing challenges and preparing in case Election Day doesn't settle the contest for the White House.
Legal battles unfolding in Ohio, Indiana and Wisconsin provide fresh evidence of the potential fights to come over ballot access in an election marked by unprecedented spending to increase the number of voters in strategically important states.
The millions of dollars that have been poured into registration drives have yielded millions of new voters across the country. Those same efforts have now generated heated battles in both parties with cries of voter fraud and intimidation that may threaten the integrity of the election.
Election officials, meanwhile, are braced for huge turnout and the problems that could create with long lines, malfunctioning machines and challenges to voters.
Already, the U.S. Supreme Court has handed Ohio Democrats a victory, dissolving a court order obtained by Republicans to force state officials to release the list of 200,000 new voters whose names or addresses don't match government databases.
Democrats' Accusations
Democrats accused Republicans of trying to improperly disqualify voters.
In Florida, Democratic lawyer Charles H. Lichtman has assembled almost 5,000 lawyers to monitor precincts, assist voters turned away at the polls and litigate any disputes that can't be resolved out of court.
``On Election Day, I will be managing the largest law firm in the country, albeit for one day,'' said Lichtman, 53, a Fort Lauderdale corporate lawyer and veteran of the five-week recount after the 2000 election when Florida eventually delivered the presidency to George W. Bush.
Obama's lawyers also have pressed allegations that Michigan Republicans planned to use mortgage-foreclosure lists to challenge voters. Indiana labor unions allied with Democratic presidential nominee Obama, an Illinois senator, are battling a Republican chairman over early voting in the state's second- largest county.
2002 Law
Much of the partisan disagreement is over enforcing a 2002 law enacted by Congress to help states prevent a Florida-type recount by requiring election officials to set up database checks to purge voters.
Ohio's Republican Party obtained a court order directing Jennifer Brunner, Ohio's secretary of state, to give county election officials the lists of new voters whose names didn't match drivers' licenses or Social Security records.
In her successful Supreme Court petition, Brunner called the order a recipe for ``disruption'' and ``chaos'' as the state prepares for a presidential vote that polls of Ohio voters predict will produce another razor-thin margin. Database checks are not ``a litmus test'' for the right to vote, she said in a statement announcing the appeal.
Republicans contend the federal law requires record checks to counter fraudulent voter registration, which they say has been perpetrated by a nationwide network of community activists known as ACORN. The party's presidential nominee, Arizona Senator McCain, has cried foul over the drive by ACORN -- an acronym for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now -- to register 1.3 million voters this year.
`Deceased Individuals'
``They're registering the same person at different addresses,'' said Sean Cairncross, the Republican National Committee's chief counsel. ``They're registering people at vacant lots'' as well as ``deceased individuals.''
ACORN says bogus applications are only a tiny percentage of the new voters it registered, and it flags suspicious cases to election officials.
On Oct. 2, Ohio Republicans won a separate court fight with Brunner over absentee ballots cast by McCain supporters. The state's Supreme Court countermanded Brunner's order that local election boards reject the ballots if the applicant hadn't checked a box that indicating they were a ``qualified voter'' when submitting the absentee ballot.
Democrats and voter-rights lawyers, meanwhile, accuse Republicans of twisting the Help America Vote Act to use identity-card or database checks as a method to prevent legitimate voters from casting ballots.
`No Basis'
``That is one of the oldest dumbest lines the Democratic Party uses,'' said John McClelland, spokesman for the Ohio Republicans in Columbus. ``There is no basis for it.''
Ohio doesn't require first-time voters to register party affiliation, though the Obama campaign said Democrats have a significant edge among the 660,000 new Ohio voters.
Michael McDonald, a political scientist at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, said there is scant evidence of large numbers of people fraudulently casting ballots. ```We all know the stories of dead people voting in Chicago,'' he said. ``We don't have zombies showing up at polling places and casting ballots.''
Without ``any data,'' the argument over whether there is vote fraud or ballot suppression is ``the political equivalent of a religious debate,'' said Doug Chapin, director of electionline.org, a Washington-based unit of the Pew Charitable Trust that studies election law.
`Tenets of Faith'
``Both sides have deeply held tenets of faith, but no way to prove'' that ``they are right or the other side is wrong.''
Still, vote fraud has become an attack line for McCain, 72.
In an Oct. 15 debate, McCain said Obama, 47, was in league with ACORN and accused the group of ``perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history.''
Obama denied any connection with ACORN, and said the group was defrauded by people who filled out registration cards with fake names just to get paid.
Bob Bauer, the general counsel of Obama's campaign, charged that Republican efforts like the Ohio party's lawsuit, are ``grounded simply in an effort to intimidate voters and suppress the vote.''
In a conference call with reporters, Bauer vowed to mount ``ferocious response'' to any effort to purge voter rolls, such as the lawsuit by Wisconsin's Republican attorney general, J.B. Van Hollen.
Van Hollen, who co-chairs McCain's presidential campaign in Wisconsin, sued to force the state agency overseeing elections to perform database searches to check the validity of all voters registered since Jan. 1, 2006. A decision is expected next week.
By James Rowley
Oct. 20 (Bloomberg) -- Barack Obama and John McCain have a litigation game plan to accompany their election strategy.
Both candidates have armies of volunteers to ring doorbells and get voters to the polls. They are also forming squadrons of lawyers who are filing challenges and preparing in case Election Day doesn't settle the contest for the White House.
Legal battles unfolding in Ohio, Indiana and Wisconsin provide fresh evidence of the potential fights to come over ballot access in an election marked by unprecedented spending to increase the number of voters in strategically important states.
The millions of dollars that have been poured into registration drives have yielded millions of new voters across the country. Those same efforts have now generated heated battles in both parties with cries of voter fraud and intimidation that may threaten the integrity of the election.
Election officials, meanwhile, are braced for huge turnout and the problems that could create with long lines, malfunctioning machines and challenges to voters.
Already, the U.S. Supreme Court has handed Ohio Democrats a victory, dissolving a court order obtained by Republicans to force state officials to release the list of 200,000 new voters whose names or addresses don't match government databases.
Democrats' Accusations
Democrats accused Republicans of trying to improperly disqualify voters.
In Florida, Democratic lawyer Charles H. Lichtman has assembled almost 5,000 lawyers to monitor precincts, assist voters turned away at the polls and litigate any disputes that can't be resolved out of court.
``On Election Day, I will be managing the largest law firm in the country, albeit for one day,'' said Lichtman, 53, a Fort Lauderdale corporate lawyer and veteran of the five-week recount after the 2000 election when Florida eventually delivered the presidency to George W. Bush.
Obama's lawyers also have pressed allegations that Michigan Republicans planned to use mortgage-foreclosure lists to challenge voters. Indiana labor unions allied with Democratic presidential nominee Obama, an Illinois senator, are battling a Republican chairman over early voting in the state's second- largest county.
2002 Law
Much of the partisan disagreement is over enforcing a 2002 law enacted by Congress to help states prevent a Florida-type recount by requiring election officials to set up database checks to purge voters.
Ohio's Republican Party obtained a court order directing Jennifer Brunner, Ohio's secretary of state, to give county election officials the lists of new voters whose names didn't match drivers' licenses or Social Security records.
In her successful Supreme Court petition, Brunner called the order a recipe for ``disruption'' and ``chaos'' as the state prepares for a presidential vote that polls of Ohio voters predict will produce another razor-thin margin. Database checks are not ``a litmus test'' for the right to vote, she said in a statement announcing the appeal.
Republicans contend the federal law requires record checks to counter fraudulent voter registration, which they say has been perpetrated by a nationwide network of community activists known as ACORN. The party's presidential nominee, Arizona Senator McCain, has cried foul over the drive by ACORN -- an acronym for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now -- to register 1.3 million voters this year.
`Deceased Individuals'
``They're registering the same person at different addresses,'' said Sean Cairncross, the Republican National Committee's chief counsel. ``They're registering people at vacant lots'' as well as ``deceased individuals.''
ACORN says bogus applications are only a tiny percentage of the new voters it registered, and it flags suspicious cases to election officials.
On Oct. 2, Ohio Republicans won a separate court fight with Brunner over absentee ballots cast by McCain supporters. The state's Supreme Court countermanded Brunner's order that local election boards reject the ballots if the applicant hadn't checked a box that indicating they were a ``qualified voter'' when submitting the absentee ballot.
Democrats and voter-rights lawyers, meanwhile, accuse Republicans of twisting the Help America Vote Act to use identity-card or database checks as a method to prevent legitimate voters from casting ballots.
`No Basis'
``That is one of the oldest dumbest lines the Democratic Party uses,'' said John McClelland, spokesman for the Ohio Republicans in Columbus. ``There is no basis for it.''
Ohio doesn't require first-time voters to register party affiliation, though the Obama campaign said Democrats have a significant edge among the 660,000 new Ohio voters.
Michael McDonald, a political scientist at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, said there is scant evidence of large numbers of people fraudulently casting ballots. ```We all know the stories of dead people voting in Chicago,'' he said. ``We don't have zombies showing up at polling places and casting ballots.''
Without ``any data,'' the argument over whether there is vote fraud or ballot suppression is ``the political equivalent of a religious debate,'' said Doug Chapin, director of electionline.org, a Washington-based unit of the Pew Charitable Trust that studies election law.
`Tenets of Faith'
``Both sides have deeply held tenets of faith, but no way to prove'' that ``they are right or the other side is wrong.''
Still, vote fraud has become an attack line for McCain, 72.
In an Oct. 15 debate, McCain said Obama, 47, was in league with ACORN and accused the group of ``perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history.''
Obama denied any connection with ACORN, and said the group was defrauded by people who filled out registration cards with fake names just to get paid.
Bob Bauer, the general counsel of Obama's campaign, charged that Republican efforts like the Ohio party's lawsuit, are ``grounded simply in an effort to intimidate voters and suppress the vote.''
In a conference call with reporters, Bauer vowed to mount ``ferocious response'' to any effort to purge voter rolls, such as the lawsuit by Wisconsin's Republican attorney general, J.B. Van Hollen.
Van Hollen, who co-chairs McCain's presidential campaign in Wisconsin, sued to force the state agency overseeing elections to perform database searches to check the validity of all voters registered since Jan. 1, 2006. A decision is expected next week.
Colin Powell: Obama is the man
Oct 19, 11:50 AM EDT
Colin Powell endorses Barack Obama for president
By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Colin Powell, a Republican who was President Bush's first secretary of state, endorsed Democrat Barack Obama for president Sunday and criticized the tone of Republican John McCain's campaign.
Powell said both Obama and Republican John McCain are qualified to be commander in chief. But he said Obama is better suited to handle the nation's economic problems as well as help improve its standing in the world.
"It isn't easy for me to disappoint Sen. McCain in the way that I have this morning, and I regret that," Powell, interviewed on NBC's "Meet the Press," said of his longtime friend, the Arizona senator.
Concerning the Iraq war (just so we are clear):
Reporter: Mr. Secretary, there were a number of chinks in your own armor, actually, because of the lead-up to the Iraq war and the events. How much did that play into your decision about this? And will it be taken perhaps by some, because of your previous high-profile position, won't it be taken by some as a repudiation of the Iraq war?
Powell: I don't know why. The Iraq war is the Iraq war. We now see that things are a lot better in Iraq. Maybe if we had put a surge in at the beginning, it would have been a lot better years ago, but it's a lot better now, and we can see ahead to where U.S. forces will start to come out.
And so, my concern was not my past or what happened in Iraq, but where we're going in the future. My sole concern was where are we going after January 20 of 2009, not what happened in 2003.
I'm well aware of the role I played. My role has been very, very straightforward. I wanted to avoid a war. The president agreed with me. We tried to do that. We couldn't get it through the U.N. and when the president made the decision, I supported that decision. And I've never blinked from that. I've never said I didn't support a decision to go to war.
And the war looked great until the 9th of April, when the statue fell, everybody thought it was terrific. And it was terrific. The troops had done a great job. But then we failed to understand that the war really was not over, that a new phase of the war was beginning. And we weren't ready for it and we didn't respond to it well enough, and things went very, very -- very, very south, very bad.
Powell
Obama
US elections
Colin Powell endorses Barack Obama for president
By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Colin Powell, a Republican who was President Bush's first secretary of state, endorsed Democrat Barack Obama for president Sunday and criticized the tone of Republican John McCain's campaign.
Powell said both Obama and Republican John McCain are qualified to be commander in chief. But he said Obama is better suited to handle the nation's economic problems as well as help improve its standing in the world.
"It isn't easy for me to disappoint Sen. McCain in the way that I have this morning, and I regret that," Powell, interviewed on NBC's "Meet the Press," said of his longtime friend, the Arizona senator.
Concerning the Iraq war (just so we are clear):
Reporter: Mr. Secretary, there were a number of chinks in your own armor, actually, because of the lead-up to the Iraq war and the events. How much did that play into your decision about this? And will it be taken perhaps by some, because of your previous high-profile position, won't it be taken by some as a repudiation of the Iraq war?
Powell: I don't know why. The Iraq war is the Iraq war. We now see that things are a lot better in Iraq. Maybe if we had put a surge in at the beginning, it would have been a lot better years ago, but it's a lot better now, and we can see ahead to where U.S. forces will start to come out.
And so, my concern was not my past or what happened in Iraq, but where we're going in the future. My sole concern was where are we going after January 20 of 2009, not what happened in 2003.
I'm well aware of the role I played. My role has been very, very straightforward. I wanted to avoid a war. The president agreed with me. We tried to do that. We couldn't get it through the U.N. and when the president made the decision, I supported that decision. And I've never blinked from that. I've never said I didn't support a decision to go to war.
And the war looked great until the 9th of April, when the statue fell, everybody thought it was terrific. And it was terrific. The troops had done a great job. But then we failed to understand that the war really was not over, that a new phase of the war was beginning. And we weren't ready for it and we didn't respond to it well enough, and things went very, very -- very, very south, very bad.
Powell
Obama
US elections
Monday, October 13, 2008
Biden and McCain: Who is Angry and Who is Passionate
Biden: McCain attacks attempt to distract voters
October 13, 2008
By BETH LaMONTAGNE HALL
ROCHESTER, N.H. (AP) — Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden said Monday that Republican John McCain is falsely attacking Barack Obama to distract voters from the economy while lurching from one bad idea to another.
"Every single false charge, every single baseless accusation is a simple attempt to get you to focus on something other than what's affecting your families and your country," Biden told about 500 people at an American Legion hall.
"I've known John McCain for a long, long time," Biden added. "It's disappointing that his campaign, as a recent analysis has shown, literally 100 percent of the McCain campaign's advertisements are negative."
"I guess when you vote with the president 100 percent of the time, you can only attack 100 percent of the time," he said.
So which side is it that is inflaming issues. When Biden screams and yells, he is passionate. When McCain does it, he is angry.
And the media can claim with a straight face they are unbiased, reporting the news?
Joke
media
October 13, 2008
By BETH LaMONTAGNE HALL
ROCHESTER, N.H. (AP) — Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden said Monday that Republican John McCain is falsely attacking Barack Obama to distract voters from the economy while lurching from one bad idea to another.
"Every single false charge, every single baseless accusation is a simple attempt to get you to focus on something other than what's affecting your families and your country," Biden told about 500 people at an American Legion hall.
"I've known John McCain for a long, long time," Biden added. "It's disappointing that his campaign, as a recent analysis has shown, literally 100 percent of the McCain campaign's advertisements are negative."
"I guess when you vote with the president 100 percent of the time, you can only attack 100 percent of the time," he said.
justaposed against
So which side is it that is inflaming issues. When Biden screams and yells, he is passionate. When McCain does it, he is angry.
And the media can claim with a straight face they are unbiased, reporting the news?
Joke
media
Angry Hateful People
Two tests -
1)
Twenty Cars
Place ten cars in the most conservative neighborhood. The exact neighborhood to be determined by the liberal group.
Place ten cars in the most liberal neighborhood. The exact neighborhood would be determined by a conservative group.
2)
Twenty People
Ten people carry signs for McCain and walk in a liberal neighborhood. Which place, determined by conservatives.
Ten people carry signs for Obama and walk in a conservative neighborhood. Which place, determined by liberals.
*************************
What we hope to determine -
Which if either group experience physical violence, attacks, rock throwing, or other physically threatening actions. Less significant, which if any group experiences abusive language or gestures toward them.
Which set of vehicles is damaged, if any, and in what way. Which set of vehicles are more raodworthy, usable, sellable, fixable.
Then we can talk about angry, violent, and hateful.
Obama
McCain
1)
Twenty Cars
Place ten cars in the most conservative neighborhood. The exact neighborhood to be determined by the liberal group.
Place ten cars in the most liberal neighborhood. The exact neighborhood would be determined by a conservative group.
2)
Twenty People
Ten people carry signs for McCain and walk in a liberal neighborhood. Which place, determined by conservatives.
Ten people carry signs for Obama and walk in a conservative neighborhood. Which place, determined by liberals.
*************************
What we hope to determine -
Which if either group experience physical violence, attacks, rock throwing, or other physically threatening actions. Less significant, which if any group experiences abusive language or gestures toward them.
Which set of vehicles is damaged, if any, and in what way. Which set of vehicles are more raodworthy, usable, sellable, fixable.
Then we can talk about angry, violent, and hateful.
Obama
McCain
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Fannie and Freddie
I have not commented on the debates between Obama and McCain because it is difficult to figure out where to start.
McCain cannot talk his way out of a wet paper bag.
Obama could sell ice cubes to Eskimos (or Inuit).
Neither defines a good and competent leader.
Nor does it demonstrate who tells the truth.
Obama has serious problems with the truth. he wants to win, and will play things up as best he can and why shouldn't he. He should be so far ahead in the polls McCain couldn't catch up if Republicans started registering dead people to vote, by the thousands.
The economy is tanked - and people blame Bush.
The war is very unpopular - and people blame Bush.
McCain is old and is linked to Bush - and people blame Bush.
With all that, the best Obama can do is 3-4. At the most it was 8-9 points.
The question is, why isn't it 15-20 points higher???
THAT is what Democrats should think about. Their guy can't seem to make headway. Most polls are within the margin of error, and a percent of people who say they will vote for Obama, will not - they are saying they will to sound more sophisticated and open-minded.
I digress ... the letter McCain and 19 other US Senators signed, requesting oversight / regulation of Freddie and Fanny ... and none were Democrats and Obama was not on the list.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Obama v McCain: One Reporter's POV
October 7, 2008, 3:24 PM
Reporter's Notebook: Seeing How The Other Half Lives
Dean Reynolds
(CBS) From CBS News' Dean Reynolds:
(NASHVILLE, TENN.) - After most of the previous 12 months covering Barack Obama's campaign for the presidency, it was interesting, instructive and, well, relaxing to follow John McCain for the last few days. The differences between the two are striking.
Obama is the big time orator, McCain is the guy who struggles with a teleprompter or even note cards strategically placed nearby. Obama's crowds are larger, more enthusiastic.
McCain's events are smaller, but to my eye, better choreographed. And now with the addition of Sarah Palin to some of his events, McCain can boast of crowds that match Obama's in energy. There is an urgency to the McCain campaign now that I don't think was there before. Due to the fact that he is running second, no doubt, but it may also be because McCain has a finishing kick.
Whatever the case, he is sharper on the stump than he was before. (Though I would suspect a candidate running behind would want to schedule two or three appearances per day, instead of the one McCain usually does.) It is true that McCain enjoys taking questions from the audience in town hall-style settings. That doesn't mean he is the master of that kind of forum, it just means he's good at it. He likes to converse with voters.
Obama does it well too, but seldom achieves that intangible bond with the people that all politicians crave -- or fake. Behind the scenes, where the public is not allowed, there are other differences. Obama's campaign schedule is fuller, more hectic and seemingly improvisational. The Obama aides who deal with the national reporters on the campaign plane are often overwhelmed, overworked and un-informed about where, when, why or how the candidate is moving about. Baggage calls are preposterously early with the explanation that it's all for security reasons. If so, I would love to have someone from Obama's campaign explain why the entire press corps, the Secret Service, and the local police idled for two hours in a Miami hotel parking lot recently because there was nothing to do and nowhere to go. It was not an isolated case.
The national headquarters in Chicago airily dismisses complaints from journalists wondering why a schedule cannot be printed up or at least e-mailed in time to make coverage plans. Nor is there much sympathy for those of us who report for a newscast that airs in the early evening hours. Our shows place a premium on live reporting from the scene of campaign events. But this campaign can often be found in the air and flying around at the time the "CBS Evening News with Katie Couric" is broadcast. I suspect there is a feeling within the Obama campaign that the broadcast networks are less influential in the age of the internet and thus needn't be accomodated as in the days of yore. Even if it's true, they are only hurting themselves by dissing audiences that run in the tens of millions every night.
The McCain folks are more helpful and generally friendly. The schedules are printed on actual books you can hold in your hand, read, and then plan accordingly. The press aides are more knowledgeable and useful to us in the news media. The events are designed with a better eye, and for the simple needs of the press corps. When he is available, John McCain is friendly and loquacious. Obama holds news conferences, but seldom banters with the reporters who've been following him for thousands of miles around the country. Go figure.
The McCain campaign plane is better than Obama's, which is cramped, uncomfortable and smells terrible most of the time. Somehow the McCain folks manage to keep their charter clean, even where the press is seated. The other day in Albuquerque, N.M., the reporters were given almost no time to file their reports after McCain spoke. It was an important, aggressive speech, lambasting Obama's past associations. When we asked for more time to write up his remarks and prepare our reports, the campaign readily agreed to it. They understood. Similar requests are often denied or ignored by the Obama campaign aides, apparently terrified that the candidate may have to wait 20 minutes to allow reporters to chronicle what he's just said. It's made all the more maddening when we are rushed to our buses only to sit and wait for 30 minutes or more because nobody seems to know when Obama is actually on the move.
Maybe none of this means much. Maybe a front-running campaign like Obama's that is focused solely on victory doesn't have the time to do the mundane things like print up schedules or attend to the needs of reporters. But in politics, everything that goes around comes around.
election
Reporter's Notebook: Seeing How The Other Half Lives
Dean Reynolds
(CBS) From CBS News' Dean Reynolds:
(NASHVILLE, TENN.) - After most of the previous 12 months covering Barack Obama's campaign for the presidency, it was interesting, instructive and, well, relaxing to follow John McCain for the last few days. The differences between the two are striking.
Obama is the big time orator, McCain is the guy who struggles with a teleprompter or even note cards strategically placed nearby. Obama's crowds are larger, more enthusiastic.
McCain's events are smaller, but to my eye, better choreographed. And now with the addition of Sarah Palin to some of his events, McCain can boast of crowds that match Obama's in energy. There is an urgency to the McCain campaign now that I don't think was there before. Due to the fact that he is running second, no doubt, but it may also be because McCain has a finishing kick.
Whatever the case, he is sharper on the stump than he was before. (Though I would suspect a candidate running behind would want to schedule two or three appearances per day, instead of the one McCain usually does.) It is true that McCain enjoys taking questions from the audience in town hall-style settings. That doesn't mean he is the master of that kind of forum, it just means he's good at it. He likes to converse with voters.
Obama does it well too, but seldom achieves that intangible bond with the people that all politicians crave -- or fake. Behind the scenes, where the public is not allowed, there are other differences. Obama's campaign schedule is fuller, more hectic and seemingly improvisational. The Obama aides who deal with the national reporters on the campaign plane are often overwhelmed, overworked and un-informed about where, when, why or how the candidate is moving about. Baggage calls are preposterously early with the explanation that it's all for security reasons. If so, I would love to have someone from Obama's campaign explain why the entire press corps, the Secret Service, and the local police idled for two hours in a Miami hotel parking lot recently because there was nothing to do and nowhere to go. It was not an isolated case.
The national headquarters in Chicago airily dismisses complaints from journalists wondering why a schedule cannot be printed up or at least e-mailed in time to make coverage plans. Nor is there much sympathy for those of us who report for a newscast that airs in the early evening hours. Our shows place a premium on live reporting from the scene of campaign events. But this campaign can often be found in the air and flying around at the time the "CBS Evening News with Katie Couric" is broadcast. I suspect there is a feeling within the Obama campaign that the broadcast networks are less influential in the age of the internet and thus needn't be accomodated as in the days of yore. Even if it's true, they are only hurting themselves by dissing audiences that run in the tens of millions every night.
The McCain folks are more helpful and generally friendly. The schedules are printed on actual books you can hold in your hand, read, and then plan accordingly. The press aides are more knowledgeable and useful to us in the news media. The events are designed with a better eye, and for the simple needs of the press corps. When he is available, John McCain is friendly and loquacious. Obama holds news conferences, but seldom banters with the reporters who've been following him for thousands of miles around the country. Go figure.
The McCain campaign plane is better than Obama's, which is cramped, uncomfortable and smells terrible most of the time. Somehow the McCain folks manage to keep their charter clean, even where the press is seated. The other day in Albuquerque, N.M., the reporters were given almost no time to file their reports after McCain spoke. It was an important, aggressive speech, lambasting Obama's past associations. When we asked for more time to write up his remarks and prepare our reports, the campaign readily agreed to it. They understood. Similar requests are often denied or ignored by the Obama campaign aides, apparently terrified that the candidate may have to wait 20 minutes to allow reporters to chronicle what he's just said. It's made all the more maddening when we are rushed to our buses only to sit and wait for 30 minutes or more because nobody seems to know when Obama is actually on the move.
Maybe none of this means much. Maybe a front-running campaign like Obama's that is focused solely on victory doesn't have the time to do the mundane things like print up schedules or attend to the needs of reporters. But in politics, everything that goes around comes around.
election
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Polls and Fools - Democrats and Racists.
It is widely believed that when looking for racism in politics, one should look to the right side.
If I had a quarter for every time it was insinuated or outright stated, that Republicans were racists, while Democrats were open minded and tolerant ... I would have my student loans paid off, my mortgage paid off, and I would have a moat and wall around my property.
If I had a quarter every time it was insinuated or outright stated that Democrats were smarter, brighter, better able to reason and analyze than Republicans, I would have all remaining debts paid off, a second story added to my home, and a new pool.
Our story begins where stories usually begin ...
Woody Allen is best known in the US for something I hope, other than, Annie Hall - that was 1977. I would proffer Allen's fame has arisen from his pedophilic (there is no word -pedophilic, but, if you know anything about academia, they make up their own words and I for one do not believe they should be the only entitled to make up words) tendencies, not his films - any longer. Only in Europe where their sexual 'openness' includes a deep regard for the sexual identity of children, do they still consider him a god.
It would be a disgrace if Obama did not win - says the child molester. It would be a very terrible thing for the United States if Obama does not win.
Why - because a McCain win continues the incompetence and misjudgement of the Bush administration.
Based on what evidence? Amazingly - when you make these sweeping idiotic statements, you do not need evidence, just feelings - and the Molester says so when he says he hopes that the American people are moved to vote for Obama. MOVED to vote for someone - emotionally driven to select someone / vote for someone you may not otherwise support.
Acting on emotion has always worked for me! That is the best way to select someone - for Mayor, Senator, President, spouse - based upon how you feel at any given moment. Our country needs more emotional decision making.
And if the country, by a close margin do not select Obama, then what Mr. Molester? Are they all rednecks and racists? Does it bode ill for the world? Well .... you will not have to look much further than ... your own party.
If I had a quarter for every time it was insinuated or outright stated, that Republicans were racists, while Democrats were open minded and tolerant ... I would have my student loans paid off, my mortgage paid off, and I would have a moat and wall around my property.
If I had a quarter every time it was insinuated or outright stated that Democrats were smarter, brighter, better able to reason and analyze than Republicans, I would have all remaining debts paid off, a second story added to my home, and a new pool.
Our story begins where stories usually begin ...
Nothing funny about Obama losing, funnyman Woody Allen says
Sep 19, 2008 AFP
US filmmaker Woody Allen, best known for such comedy classics as "Annie Hall," says it will be no laughing matter if Barack Obama fails to win the race for the White House.
"It would be a disgrace and a humiliation if Barack Obama does not win," he told Spanish journalists at the ongoing 56th San Sebastian film festival, where his latest film "Vicky Cristina Barcelona" is being screened.
"It would be a very, very terrible thing for the United States in many, many ways," he said. Democratic hopeful Obama, Allen said, is "so much better" than Republican rival John McCain, and "represents a huge step upward from (the) incompetence and misjudgement" of the Bush administration.
"It would be a terrible thing if the American public was not moved to vote for him, that they actually preferred more of the same."
On Thursday, Spanish-born Hollywood actor Antonio Banderas, who is also in San Sebastian, said he is backing Obama for the sake of his daughter acknowledging, however, that he cannot vote as he is not a US citizen.
Woody Allen is best known in the US for something I hope, other than, Annie Hall - that was 1977. I would proffer Allen's fame has arisen from his pedophilic (there is no word -pedophilic, but, if you know anything about academia, they make up their own words and I for one do not believe they should be the only entitled to make up words) tendencies, not his films - any longer. Only in Europe where their sexual 'openness' includes a deep regard for the sexual identity of children, do they still consider him a god.
It would be a disgrace if Obama did not win - says the child molester. It would be a very terrible thing for the United States if Obama does not win.
Why - because a McCain win continues the incompetence and misjudgement of the Bush administration.
Based on what evidence? Amazingly - when you make these sweeping idiotic statements, you do not need evidence, just feelings - and the Molester says so when he says he hopes that the American people are moved to vote for Obama. MOVED to vote for someone - emotionally driven to select someone / vote for someone you may not otherwise support.
Acting on emotion has always worked for me! That is the best way to select someone - for Mayor, Senator, President, spouse - based upon how you feel at any given moment. Our country needs more emotional decision making.
And if the country, by a close margin do not select Obama, then what Mr. Molester? Are they all rednecks and racists? Does it bode ill for the world? Well .... you will not have to look much further than ... your own party.
Poll: Racial misgivings of whites an Obama issue
Sep 20, 2008
By RON FOURNIER and TREVOR TOMPSON
Associated Press Writers
WASHINGTON (AP) - Deep-seated racial misgivings could cost Barack Obama the White House if the election is close, according to an AP-Yahoo News poll that found one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks—many calling them "lazy," "violent" or responsible for their own troubles.
The poll, conducted with Stanford University, suggests that the percentage of voters who may turn away from Obama because of his race could easily be larger than the final difference between the candidates in 2004—about 2.5 percentage points.
Certainly, Republican John McCain has his own obstacles: He's an ally of an unpopular president and would be the nation's oldest first-term president.
But Obama faces this: 40 percent of all white Americans hold at least a partly negative view toward blacks, and that includes many Democrats and independents.
More than a third of all white Democrats and independents—voters Obama can't win the White House without—agreed with at least one negative adjective about blacks, according to the survey, and they are significantly less likely to vote for Obama than those who don't have such views.
Such numbers are a harsh dose of reality in a campaign for the history books. Obama, the first black candidate with a serious shot at the presidency, accepted the Democratic nomination on the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech, a seminal moment for a nation that enshrined slavery in its Constitution.
"There are a lot fewer bigots than there were 50 years ago, but that doesn't mean there's only a few bigots," said Stanford political scientist Paul Sniderman who helped analyze the exhaustive survey.
The pollsters set out to determine why Obama is locked in a close race with McCain even as the political landscape seems to favor Democrats. President Bush's unpopularity, the Iraq war and a national sense of economic hard times cut against GOP candidates, as does that fact that Democratic voters outnumber Republicans.
The findings suggest that Obama's problem is close to home—among his fellow Democrats, particularly non-Hispanic white voters. Just seven in 10 people who call themselves Democrats support Obama, compared to the 85 percent of self-identified Republicans who back McCain.
The survey also focused on the racial attitudes of independent voters because they are likely to decide the election.
Lots of Republicans harbor prejudices, too, but the survey found they weren't voting against Obama because of his race. Most Republicans wouldn't vote for any Democrat for president—white, black or brown.
Not all whites are prejudiced. Indeed, more whites say good things about blacks than say bad things, the poll shows. And many whites who see blacks in a negative light are still willing or even eager to vote for Obama.
On the other side of the racial question, the Illinois Democrat is drawing almost unanimous support from blacks, the poll shows, though that probably wouldn't be enough to counter the negative effect of some whites' views.
Race is not the biggest factor driving Democrats and independents away from Obama. Doubts about his competency loom even larger, the poll indicates. More than a quarter of all Democrats expressed doubt that Obama can bring about the change they want, and they are likely to vote against him because of that.
Three in 10 of those Democrats who don't trust Obama's change-making credentials say they plan to vote for McCain.
Still, the effects of whites' racial views are apparent in the polling.
Statistical models derived from the poll suggest that Obama's support would be as much as 6 percentage points higher if there were no white racial prejudice.
But in an election without precedent, it's hard to know if such models take into account all the possible factors at play.
The AP-Yahoo poll used the unique methodology of Knowledge Networks, a Menlo Park, Calif., firm that interviews people online after randomly selecting and screening them over telephone.
Numerous studies have shown that people are more likely to report
embarrassing behavior and unpopular opinions when answering questions on a computer rather than talking to a stranger.
Other techniques used in the poll included recording people's responses to black or white faces flashed on a computer screen, asking participants to rate how well certain adjectives apply to blacks, measuring whether people believe blacks' troubles are their own fault, and simply asking people how much they like or dislike blacks.
"We still don't like black people," said John Clouse, 57, reflecting the sentiments of his pals gathered at a coffee shop in Somerset, Ohio.
Given a choice of several positive and negative adjectives that might describe blacks, 20 percent of all whites said the word "violent" strongly applied. Among other words, 22 percent agreed with "boastful," 29 percent "complaining," 13 percent "lazy" and 11 percent "irresponsible."
When asked about positive adjectives, whites were more likely to stay on the fence than give a strongly positive assessment.
Among white Democrats, one-third cited a negative adjective and, of those, 58 percent said they planned to back Obama.
The poll sought to measure latent prejudices among whites by asking about factors contributing to the state of black America. One finding: More than a quarter of white Democrats agree that "if blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as whites."
Those who agreed with that statement were much less likely to back Obama than those who didn't.
Among white independents, racial stereotyping is not uncommon. For example, while about 20 percent of independent voters called blacks intelligent" or "smart," more than one third latched on the adjective "complaining" and 24 percent said blacks were "violent."
Nearly four in 10 white independents agreed that blacks would be better off if they "try harder."The survey broke ground by incorporating images of black and white faces to measure implicit racial attitudes, or prejudices that are so deeply rooted that people may not realize they have them. That test suggested the incidence of racial prejudice is even higher, with more than half of whites revealing more negative feelings toward blacks than whites.
Researchers used mathematical modeling to sort out the relative impact of a huge swath of variables that might have an impact on people's votes—including race, ideology, party identification, the hunger for change and the sentiments of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's backers.
Just 59 percent of her white Democratic supporters said they wanted Obama to be president. Nearly 17 percent of Clinton's white backers plan to vote for McCain.
Among white Democrats, Clinton supporters were nearly twice as likely as Obama backers to say at least one negative adjective described blacks well, a finding that suggests many of her supporters in the primaries—particularly whites with high school education or less—were motivated in part by racial attitudes.
The survey of 2,227 adults was conducted Aug. 27 to Sept. 5. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.1 percentage points.
AIG, McCain, Pelosi, Kerry, and Obama - Change?
In an effort to be as forthcoming as possible, I also had stock in AIG. Bought back in 2000 at about $95 a share, 100 shares.
It is now worthless - $4.00 a share. I did not receive any lobbyist funds. My mistake was an idiot and fool who should be fired from Wells Fargo Investments.
Anyway - remember Obama, different than the rest, going to kick the lobbyists out of Washington ... well, guess who has his fingers in the pots he intends to clean out?
First story -
Pelosi, in her most recent financial disclosure form, reported that her husband owned between $250,000 and $500,000 of stock in AIG, which ceded majority control to the U.S. government this week in exchange for $85 billion of loans.
Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, disclosed that his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, had more than $2 million of AIG stock at the end of 2007, when shares were worth $58.30. AIG has fallen 85 percent this week to close yesterday at $2.69. The lawmakers' aides didn't respond to calls seeking comment.
Altogether, 56 senators and representatives had stakes in AIG, Lehman, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Bear Stearns Cos. or IndyMac Bancorp Inc. -- some of the biggest casualties of the market bloodbath -- according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The most recent annual disclosure filings list investments as of Dec. 31, 2007, and reveal the size of holdings only within a range of values. Lawmakers may have sold shares since then.
AIG: Government Bails Out a Heavy Hitter
Published by Lindsay Renick Mayer on September 17, 2008 10:06 AM
The Federal Reserve announced today that it's coming to the rescue of American International Group (AIG) to the tune of $85 billion. The nation's largest insurer, which asked the Fed for emergency funding in the midst of financial hardships, hasn't had trouble over the years giving money to lawmakers, however. AIG is on CRP's Heavy Hitters list, which profiles the 100 all-time contributors to federal candidates and committees. Of all of the companies facing major transitions over the last week, lawmakers owned the most stock in AIG. Twenty-seven lawmakers owned stock in AIG last year, worth between $6.4 million and $20 million. Rep. Robin Hayes (R-N.C.), one of the richest members of Congress, was at the top of the list of congressional investors, owning stock worth between $2.8 million and $11.5 million, while Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) followed with stock valued around $2 million. Of all the companies making headlines this week, AIG has been the most nonpartisan in its contributions, splitting evenly the $9.7 million it has contributed over time. Sen. Chris Dodd, chair of the Senate banking committee, has racked up the most from AIG, with a total of $281,400, while Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), a member of both the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee and the Senate Finance Committee, takes second with $116,400. Presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama collected $103,000 and $82,600 from AIG, respectively.
WALL STREET Shake-Up - Personal for lawmakers
Wall Street's grim news has plenty of people worried about their pocketbooks. Lawmakers are among them, not only concerned with how to boost the economy but with their own personal finances tied to companies that are struggling. The richest members of Congress seem to be the most invested in the companies at the center of the Wall Street shake-up. According to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, nine lawmakers have between $785,900 and $1.8 million of their own money invested in Merrill Lynch, the brokerage firm that agreed over the weekend to sell itself to Bank of America for $50 billion after facing tens of billions of dollars in losses. Because Bank of America offered to buy the company at a 70 percent premium over the company's closing price on Friday, those who own stock in Merrill Lynch stand to gain from the transaction. Two of the richest members of Congress owned the most stock in the company. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) reported holding between $500,001 and $1 million on his most recent personal financial disclosure, covering 2007, and Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.) owned between $250,003 and $601,000 in stock. (Lawmakers disclose their finances in ranges, annually, making it difficult to determine their assets' precise values.) Merrill's white knight, Bank of America, which, comparatively, seems to be managing just fine in today's sour economy, is a far more popular investment for members of Congress. Fifty-four lawmakers who held stock in the company in 2007, worth between $1.9 million and $5 million, are probably breathing easier, knowing that Bank of America is buying--rather than having to be bought. Rep. Robin Hayes (R-N.C.), another one of the richest members of Congress, owned between $865,004 and $1.8 million in stock in the company, while Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.), yet another of the richest lawmakers, owned between $201,004 and $465,000 in stock. Seven lawmakers, led by Kerry, owned stock in both Bank of America and Merrill Lynch. The weekend's headlines also laid bare the state of investment bank Lehman Brothers, which filed for bankruptcy Monday after the federal government refused to bail it out and the company was unable to find a buyer. Eight lawmakers owned stock in Lehman Brothers at the end of 2007, valued at between $102,170 and $184,160. Rep. Jane Harman's stock in the company was worth the most at between $5,001 and $100,000. Harman, a California Democrat, was the wealthiest member of Congress in 2006.Of all of the companies facing major transitions, lawmakers owned the most stock in American International Group (AIG), the nation's largest insurer, which has asked the Federal Reserve for emergency funding as it faces financial hardships. Twenty-seven lawmakers owned stock in AIG last year, worth between $6.4 million and $20 million. Hayes was at the top of the list of congressional investors, owning stock worth between $2.8 million and $11.5 million, while Kerry followed with stock valued around $2 million. The 2007 reports are the most recent available for Congress, and they represent snapshots of members' finances at the end of that year. Lawmakers may have sold off these investments in the last eight months, as the outlook for companies darkened. In addition, CRP does not yet have the personal financial disclosure data for about 50 lawmakers who received extensions on the annual reports.Before the Fall, Companies Were Major ContributorsAs these companies struggle to stay afloat without bringing the economy crashing down around them, the government has said it won't bail them out, but will instead leave Wall Street to straighten out the mess. This is the sobering message that has been delivered to companies that are among the top contributors of all time to federal politics. Since the 1990 election, Merrill Lynch's PAC and employees have given $14.7 million to federal candidates, parties and committees. The company leans heavily Republican--64 percent of the brokerage's total donations have gone to GOP candidates and committees. All three of its top recipients have been (or still are) presidential hopefuls this election cycle. Republican John McCain received $394,300 from people associated with Merrill Lynch, making the company his top contributor. Democrat Hillary Clinton collected $290,650, and Barack Obama got $229,100. The company's favorite non-presidential candidate is Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), a member of both the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee and the Senate Finance Committee. He has received $226,150 in this election cycle. Bank of America's PAC and employees have given $16.6 million, also favoring Republicans, though less sharply. About 54 percent of the company's contributions over time have gone to the GOP. Obama is the top recipient of contributions from employees at Bank of America, with $263,500 in donations. McCain has brought in $177,500, making him the fourth-largest recipient. Sen. Chris Dodd, chair of the Senate banking committee, has collected $144,650, while congressional leaders Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer (both Democrats) and John Boehner (a Republican) are all among the company's top 20 recipients over time. Lehman Brothers has given $9.2 million through employees and its PAC since 1989, with 54 percent of that going to Democrats. Clinton and Barack Obama top the list of all-time recipients for the company, collecting $410,000 and $395,600 respectively. Schumer hauled in $181,450, while Dodd has collected $165,800. The top recipient of PAC money from Lehman Brothers has been Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.), a member of the House Financial Services Committee, which has jurisdiction over banking and the securities industry. Castle has collected $38,500 from Lehman's PAC since 1993.This election cycle, Lehman employees have given about $1.3 million to presidential candidates. Only fellow financial giants Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and Morgan Stanley have given more to the presidential hopefuls this election cycle. Lehman employees have made their firm one of the top contributors to both Obama ($370,500) and John McCain ($117,500) this election cycle. (For a full list of recipients of Lehman contributions, see this post from Friday.)Of all the companies making headlines this week, AIG has been the most nonpartisan in its contributions, splitting evenly the $9.7 million it has contributed over time. Dodd has racked up the most from AIG, with a total of $281,400, while Schumer takes second with $116,400. McCain and Obama collected $103,000 and $82,600 from AIG, respectively.
*****************************************************
The point is not to say - oh look, Obama took it but McCain took a few thousand more ... rather, Obama has made anti-lobbyists the center of his campaign along with anything else remotely connected to change.
Lobbyists
It is now worthless - $4.00 a share. I did not receive any lobbyist funds. My mistake was an idiot and fool who should be fired from Wells Fargo Investments.
Anyway - remember Obama, different than the rest, going to kick the lobbyists out of Washington ... well, guess who has his fingers in the pots he intends to clean out?
First story -
Pelosi, in her most recent financial disclosure form, reported that her husband owned between $250,000 and $500,000 of stock in AIG, which ceded majority control to the U.S. government this week in exchange for $85 billion of loans.
Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, disclosed that his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, had more than $2 million of AIG stock at the end of 2007, when shares were worth $58.30. AIG has fallen 85 percent this week to close yesterday at $2.69. The lawmakers' aides didn't respond to calls seeking comment.
Altogether, 56 senators and representatives had stakes in AIG, Lehman, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Bear Stearns Cos. or IndyMac Bancorp Inc. -- some of the biggest casualties of the market bloodbath -- according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The most recent annual disclosure filings list investments as of Dec. 31, 2007, and reveal the size of holdings only within a range of values. Lawmakers may have sold shares since then.
AIG: Government Bails Out a Heavy Hitter
Published by Lindsay Renick Mayer on September 17, 2008 10:06 AM
The Federal Reserve announced today that it's coming to the rescue of American International Group (AIG) to the tune of $85 billion. The nation's largest insurer, which asked the Fed for emergency funding in the midst of financial hardships, hasn't had trouble over the years giving money to lawmakers, however. AIG is on CRP's Heavy Hitters list, which profiles the 100 all-time contributors to federal candidates and committees. Of all of the companies facing major transitions over the last week, lawmakers owned the most stock in AIG. Twenty-seven lawmakers owned stock in AIG last year, worth between $6.4 million and $20 million. Rep. Robin Hayes (R-N.C.), one of the richest members of Congress, was at the top of the list of congressional investors, owning stock worth between $2.8 million and $11.5 million, while Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) followed with stock valued around $2 million. Of all the companies making headlines this week, AIG has been the most nonpartisan in its contributions, splitting evenly the $9.7 million it has contributed over time. Sen. Chris Dodd, chair of the Senate banking committee, has racked up the most from AIG, with a total of $281,400, while Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), a member of both the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee and the Senate Finance Committee, takes second with $116,400. Presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama collected $103,000 and $82,600 from AIG, respectively.
WALL STREET Shake-Up - Personal for lawmakers
Wall Street's grim news has plenty of people worried about their pocketbooks. Lawmakers are among them, not only concerned with how to boost the economy but with their own personal finances tied to companies that are struggling. The richest members of Congress seem to be the most invested in the companies at the center of the Wall Street shake-up. According to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, nine lawmakers have between $785,900 and $1.8 million of their own money invested in Merrill Lynch, the brokerage firm that agreed over the weekend to sell itself to Bank of America for $50 billion after facing tens of billions of dollars in losses. Because Bank of America offered to buy the company at a 70 percent premium over the company's closing price on Friday, those who own stock in Merrill Lynch stand to gain from the transaction. Two of the richest members of Congress owned the most stock in the company. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) reported holding between $500,001 and $1 million on his most recent personal financial disclosure, covering 2007, and Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.) owned between $250,003 and $601,000 in stock. (Lawmakers disclose their finances in ranges, annually, making it difficult to determine their assets' precise values.) Merrill's white knight, Bank of America, which, comparatively, seems to be managing just fine in today's sour economy, is a far more popular investment for members of Congress. Fifty-four lawmakers who held stock in the company in 2007, worth between $1.9 million and $5 million, are probably breathing easier, knowing that Bank of America is buying--rather than having to be bought. Rep. Robin Hayes (R-N.C.), another one of the richest members of Congress, owned between $865,004 and $1.8 million in stock in the company, while Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.), yet another of the richest lawmakers, owned between $201,004 and $465,000 in stock. Seven lawmakers, led by Kerry, owned stock in both Bank of America and Merrill Lynch. The weekend's headlines also laid bare the state of investment bank Lehman Brothers, which filed for bankruptcy Monday after the federal government refused to bail it out and the company was unable to find a buyer. Eight lawmakers owned stock in Lehman Brothers at the end of 2007, valued at between $102,170 and $184,160. Rep. Jane Harman's stock in the company was worth the most at between $5,001 and $100,000. Harman, a California Democrat, was the wealthiest member of Congress in 2006.Of all of the companies facing major transitions, lawmakers owned the most stock in American International Group (AIG), the nation's largest insurer, which has asked the Federal Reserve for emergency funding as it faces financial hardships. Twenty-seven lawmakers owned stock in AIG last year, worth between $6.4 million and $20 million. Hayes was at the top of the list of congressional investors, owning stock worth between $2.8 million and $11.5 million, while Kerry followed with stock valued around $2 million. The 2007 reports are the most recent available for Congress, and they represent snapshots of members' finances at the end of that year. Lawmakers may have sold off these investments in the last eight months, as the outlook for companies darkened. In addition, CRP does not yet have the personal financial disclosure data for about 50 lawmakers who received extensions on the annual reports.Before the Fall, Companies Were Major ContributorsAs these companies struggle to stay afloat without bringing the economy crashing down around them, the government has said it won't bail them out, but will instead leave Wall Street to straighten out the mess. This is the sobering message that has been delivered to companies that are among the top contributors of all time to federal politics. Since the 1990 election, Merrill Lynch's PAC and employees have given $14.7 million to federal candidates, parties and committees. The company leans heavily Republican--64 percent of the brokerage's total donations have gone to GOP candidates and committees. All three of its top recipients have been (or still are) presidential hopefuls this election cycle. Republican John McCain received $394,300 from people associated with Merrill Lynch, making the company his top contributor. Democrat Hillary Clinton collected $290,650, and Barack Obama got $229,100. The company's favorite non-presidential candidate is Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), a member of both the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee and the Senate Finance Committee. He has received $226,150 in this election cycle. Bank of America's PAC and employees have given $16.6 million, also favoring Republicans, though less sharply. About 54 percent of the company's contributions over time have gone to the GOP. Obama is the top recipient of contributions from employees at Bank of America, with $263,500 in donations. McCain has brought in $177,500, making him the fourth-largest recipient. Sen. Chris Dodd, chair of the Senate banking committee, has collected $144,650, while congressional leaders Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer (both Democrats) and John Boehner (a Republican) are all among the company's top 20 recipients over time. Lehman Brothers has given $9.2 million through employees and its PAC since 1989, with 54 percent of that going to Democrats. Clinton and Barack Obama top the list of all-time recipients for the company, collecting $410,000 and $395,600 respectively. Schumer hauled in $181,450, while Dodd has collected $165,800. The top recipient of PAC money from Lehman Brothers has been Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.), a member of the House Financial Services Committee, which has jurisdiction over banking and the securities industry. Castle has collected $38,500 from Lehman's PAC since 1993.This election cycle, Lehman employees have given about $1.3 million to presidential candidates. Only fellow financial giants Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and Morgan Stanley have given more to the presidential hopefuls this election cycle. Lehman employees have made their firm one of the top contributors to both Obama ($370,500) and John McCain ($117,500) this election cycle. (For a full list of recipients of Lehman contributions, see this post from Friday.)Of all the companies making headlines this week, AIG has been the most nonpartisan in its contributions, splitting evenly the $9.7 million it has contributed over time. Dodd has racked up the most from AIG, with a total of $281,400, while Schumer takes second with $116,400. McCain and Obama collected $103,000 and $82,600 from AIG, respectively.
*****************************************************
The point is not to say - oh look, Obama took it but McCain took a few thousand more ... rather, Obama has made anti-lobbyists the center of his campaign along with anything else remotely connected to change.
Lobbyists
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments