The history of fake outrage by the Republican campaign has been ridiculous. We've all seen the outrage over mini happenstance. The latest was the outrage over the girl with a B carved in her face. Of course, once it was found out to be true where was the outrage towards her? It was non existant.
Morning Joe:
I'm an avid watcher of Morning Joe and have been a fan since they started. It's part of my morning routine and I enjoy the dose of right wing banter that it gives me. I've always liked Joe, despite his possible murder of an aide in his office, Lori Klausutis. His spirit is in the right place even though his politics are in the wrong direction.
This morning Joe Scarborough's sidekick Willie Geist headed out to a neighborhood in Manhattan wearing a McCain/Palin T-shirt. He had an obvious video crew and was attempting to give out McCain/Palin T-Shirts. Nobody wanted one.
He got answers ranging from "Is this your Halloween outfit?" to "I don't like McCain, he stands for everything I'm against."
The video was light hearted and fun to watch if you're an Obama supporter. Willie did manage to get 2 McCain supporters to stop after hours of waiting. Unfortunately for him, they were the only two. It wasn't the video that got my blood boiling...it was the response from Joe Scarborough and Mike Barnacle.
After the video finished Joe Scarborough was outraged saying, "Aren't liberals supposed to be open minded?!?!" Mike Barnacle got his own jab by saying that we are "humorless" and to "LIGHTEN UP!" He's kidding right? They send Willie Geist to the most liberal part of New York City and expect people, 5 days before an election, to laugh and joke about something as serious as a possible McCain/Palin administration? Yeah, right.
Fake Outrage:
I grow weary of the fake outrage from the right wing talking heads. I grow weary of them constantly trashing Obama and then being "outraged" at every little thing they can. There is one simple word to describe it. PETTY.
Pettiness may lose them this election. I, for one, hope it does.
According to an article by Janet Porter on WorldNetDaily, anyone voting for Barack Obama next week is going to hell. It is apparent from the article that anyone voting for Barack Obama is not a Christian.
Here is a great quote from the article.
To all those who name the name of Christ who plan to willfully disobey Him by voting for Obama, take warning. Not only is our nation in grave danger, according to the Word of God, so are you ... [T]his election is not about race. It's not about the economy. It's about obeying God. And more...
Be forewarned: If you willfully disobey God on life and marriage because of race or false hope for the economy, you will usher in the kind of change that brought the Soviet Union to collapse. But the warning goes far beyond that. To those who think that God's grace gives them license to willfully disobey Him without consequences – think again:
Not everyone who says to Me, "Lord, Lord," shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?" And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!" (Matthew 7:21-23)
It seems Christians only have one choice this year. Vote for John McCain or you can kiss your Christianity goodbye!
"To those who call themselves by the name of Christ who ignore what God says about life and marriage, who and are clinging to a fantasy of economic gain, think again ... Then obey Him in the voting booth and out of it. If not, do us all a favor and quit calling yourself a Christian. "
Is this woman insane? Why would anyone feel that the person they voted for affected their religious stance anyway? I'm pretty sure that anyone could quote scripture till they were blue in the face and could not find ANY valid interpretation that would lead them to believe that a vote for Obama is a vote that will send you straight to hell.
Let's skip the fact that Janet Porter has a mental problem. Let's assume, for the moment, that she is a sane individual with a normal thought process. If, by some other standard of insanity, that is true, then why would any normal Christian say such a thing? Isn't Christianity the religion of tolerance? Isn't it the religion of peace? Isn't it the religion of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?" If that's the case, then Janet Porter, not Barack Obama voters, could be on the fast track to "Hell."
Please...someone...anyone tell me in what world would the Right Wing let us get away with saying anything REMOTELY close to what Ms. Porter is saying? The double standards MUST STOP. This MUST be widely reported. I have faith that the American people can smell a bullsh*tter when they have to. WorldNetDaily should be ashamed of themselves for allowing that article to be posted. Then again, when's the last time you saw a Conservative be ashamed of anything they do?
Saying anyone who votes for Barack Obama is not Christian is wrong, immoral and totally against what Christianity is actually trying to teach. Someone PLEASE tell her this!!!
Politico just came out with a great new article on Media Bias regarding coverage of the McCain campaign vs. the Obama campaign. It reminded me of an argument I had with a conservative on The Progressive Movement a few weeks ago. I will now take parts of that discussion and elaborate on it.
The meat of the Politico article is this:
OK, let’s just get this over with: Yes, in the closing weeks of this election, John McCain and Sarah Palin are getting hosed in the press, and at Politico. And, yes, based on a combined 35 years in the news business we’d take an educated guess — nothing so scientific as a Pew study — that Obama will win the votes of probably 80 percent or more of journalists covering the 2008 election. Most political journalists we know are centrists — instinctively skeptical of ideological zealotry — but with at least a mild liberal tilt to their thinking, particularly on social issues. So what?
Before answering the question, indulge us in noting that the subject of ideological bias in the news media is a drag. The people who care about it typically come at the issue with scalding biases of their own. Any statement journalists make on the subject can and will be used against them. So the incentive is to make bland and guarded statements. Even honest ones, meanwhile, will tend to strike partisans as evasive or self-delusional. Here goes anyway.
There have been moments in the general election when the one-sidedness of our site — when nearly every story was some variation on how poorly McCain was doing or how well Barack Obama was faring — has made us cringe.
And my favorite part of the article:
As it happens, McCain’s campaign is going quite poorly and Obama’s is going well. Imposing artificial balance on this reality would be a bias of its own.
I'm sure the Conservative nutjobs will be screaming media bias about the above even while Politico screams it themselves. Take a look at the list below and then at my 'out of the box' ideology behind it.
TV's Talking Heads:
First let's break down the major TV news outlets in America and let's see how biased they are.
FOXNews: Biased Conservative MSNBC: Biased Progressive CNN: Equally partisan (despite what FoxNews watchers say) NBC: Non Partisan - Brian Williams has zero outspoken bias. ABC: Biased Conservative CBS: Biased Progressive FOX: Biased conservative The Written Word:
The major newspaper outlets.
The New York Times: Biased Progressive The New York Post: Biased Conservative The Washington Times: Biased Conservative The Washington Post: Biased Progressive The Chicago Tribune: Biased Conservative The Wall Street Journal: Biased Conservative The L.A. Times: Biased Progressive Houston Chronicle: Biased Conservative The Boston Herald: Biased Progressive
and let's not leave out the magazine world:
Newsweek: Biased Progressive Rolling Stone: Biased Progressive The Weekly Standard: Biased Conservative The American Conservative: Biased DUH. The National Review: Biased Conservative The Nation: Biased Progressive Time: Biased Progressive
Now based on this list, I'm thinking the media bias isn't quite as bad as Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity make it out to be. They always claim "media bias" when a story doesn't fit their conservative agenda. They have done this SO well in the past that they've actually caused media outlets to not report the truth and their analysis for fear of being "biased."
Thankfully news organizations are waking up. They now list things as Opinion and don't claim that news has a bias. They report it, then comment on it. There is ZERO lack of reporting going on with very few exceptions where, for example, the Bush Administration does not allow Press access or the obvious lack of access to Sarah Palin.
Conservatives, I know you'll likely argue about CNN (as you call it, the Clinton News Network) being progressively biased but every panel they've had for every debate has had equal democrats and republicans. Just because the little meters they show have Obama winning and Biden winning in the debates doesn't mean they are biased. It means they are HONEST.
Me? Yes, there is a "liberal media bias:"
All that being said, I think the liberal media bias does exist. However, quite simply, it exists because those that are closest to the powers that be (journalists) see BS just like us average "Joe Sixpack" folks do.
You ever reach outside of the box to think that maybe the media is liberally biased is because liberal ideas are the ideas of change? The ideas of tolerance and the lack of bigotry allowed in our society? Maybe they are biased because more and more journalists are waking up.
Maybe journalists see the truth that is the neo-conservative movement. They are fighting back against an idea that all humans are NOT created equal. They are fighting back against the idea that running a smear campaign against a very respectable man (Barack Obama) is the only way to win. They are fighting back against the idea that to enable stupidity by putting an "Aww shucks" and "You betcha" hockey mom into national office with no vetting is the way to "recharge a campaign." And maybe, just maybe, they are fighting back against the corporate greed, corporate welfare, ethical nightmares and downright fraudulent activity.
When people say "the media is biased" they never stop to think that maybe its that way for a reason. Maybe enough journalists have seen enough bullsh*t and can't continue reporting objectively without selling their souls. Maybe having a media bias isn't a bad thing. The conservatives have their lie machine called Fox News. I'll stick with a "media bias" more than I will a station full of lies and outright false claims guised in "fair and balanced" journalism.
One day people will wake up and realize that "media bias" is there for a reason. If you have confidence in the average American...then have confidence in the media, as well. If good, honest journalism leans progressive...I still stand behind the reasoning 'outside the box' that I have listed.
I have been working on a draft of this post for about a week now, but today's news of the Secret Service foiling a white supremacist plot to kill Barack Obama and a lot of other people has made the topic urgent.
One of the greatest benefits of living in the United States is that we don't have to worry about violence on election day. Our elections come off without bloodshed. There are no bombs at polling places, no rioting, no general strike called by the opposition after a loss. No matter which party is in power, members of the opposition didn't have to worry about secretive para-military organizations bashing in the doors to their homes; family members taken into custody, never to be seen again.
One of my wife's conservative friends just filled in her absentee ballot. She and her husband reluctantly voted Obama because, "We are voting for vice presidents this year. If Obama wins, he will be assassinated, and if McCain wins he won't live out his term. We'd rather have Biden as president than Palin."
While a "no confidence" vote against McCain/Palin is as good as an Obama vote, their reasoning scares me. Last summer, when I overheard two black men on the bus talking about how "they" wouldn't let Obama become president, it was easy to ignore it. I read Redwing's post about traveling through Tenneessee, it became harder to ignore. It hit home when a couple of rednecks on a country road cursed out my wife for having an Obama bumper sticker on her car. I've heard the internet rumors about cities putting extra police on patrol for violence on election day. Now I am hearing it from middle aged, white Republicans.
They are military people, reasonable, moderate, conservative. Not the rabid trolls this site seems to be attracting recently. But they are picking up the same vibes from the fringe community as we liberals are. They are appalled by the unreasoning rancor and hatred at Republican rallys, the cloaked (and increasingly uncloaked) racism, they read internet blogs, listen to right-wing radio, and they are scared for the country.
The Republican party has relied on pandering to the lunatic fringe to give them the edge that put them over the top in the last two elections.After eight years of failed policies,and a lackluster candidate, in desperation, they have returned to the tried-and-true; the only thing that worked for them. It may not work this time, and I'm scared of the aftermath.
I fear that by appealing to the basest of human nature, the Republicans may have unleashed a Frankenstein they may not be able to control. Maybe its time to start worrying.
I am a cynic and this is how I see the electoral map with one week to go. It's looking like New Hampshire could be the state to watch this time around! Come on New Hampshire, Barack the vote! I will give another electoral map update on Friday. Let's hope it changes!
John McCain's military service record has led many to believe that he is a hero. Personally, in many ways, I believe he is. However, so is John Kerry and that didn't stop the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth from slandering him with lies, half-truths and propaganda. Most of the information herein can be found here. I have summarized some of the relevant points but there are many more in the article. After reading this, make up your own mind on Barack Obama's character. He could have easily let the far left run ads on what I'm about to summarize for you. Obama takes the high road. He doesn't allow such character attacks on McCain's military career, no matter how horrific some of the details are.
Former General Wesley Clark made an attempt to set the record straight about John McCain's military service, but was met with harsh criticism from the conservatively biased media. Apparently, John Kerry's military record is up for scrutiny but John McCain's isn't.
The facts remain that none of the people imprisoned with John McCain are out on the trail campaigning for him. Has anyone ever asked themselves why? Have you ever wondered why none of his crew mates from the USS Forrestal are campaigning with him? Well I did, and what I found will surprise you and perhaps even cause you to question his record yourself.
McCain - Man of Honor?
In the spring of 1974, Navy commander John McCain has returned home from his horrific experience in Hanoi. While on the grounds of the Fort McNair military base, McCain runs into John Dramesi, an Air Force lieutenant colonel who was also imprisoned and tortured in Vietnam.
However, there is a difference between these two men even though they shared a similar experience in North Vietnam. Some call it an "honor gap." Understandably, John McCain cracked under the torturous conditions as many before him had. He offered a "confession" to his North Vietnamese captors. Mr. Dramesi, on the other hand, not only attempted two daring escapes but he never uttered a single solitary disloyal word. Dramesi was tortured daily for over a month with sessions that nearly killed him. In fact, for his heroism, Dramesi received two Air Force Crosses, on of the branch's highest distinctions. Even McCain calls him "one of the toughest guys I've ever met." This, in my opinion, proves Dramesi's an honorable man who, when given a chance, will tell it like it is.
That's unfortunate for McCain, as Dramesi recalls a conversation he had with McCain while discussing a trip abroad that each of their college's sponsored. Here is the conversation:
"I'm going to the Middle East," Dramesi says. "Turkey, Kuwait, Lebanon, Iran."
"Why are you going to the Middle East?" McCain asks, dismissively.
"It's a place we're probably going to have some problems," Dramesi says.
"Why? Where are you go.ing to, John?"
"Oh, I'm going to Rio," said McCain
"What the hell are you going to Rio for?"
McCain, a married father of three, shrugs and says, "I got a better chance of getting laid."
You'd think that Dramesi would have been shocked by his chauvinistic banter, but he wasn't. Dramesi had this to say about the comment made by McCain.
"McCain says his life changed while he was in Vietnam, and he is now a different man," Dramesi said recently. "But he's still the undisciplined, spoiled brat that he was when he went in."
So, as we can see, an adulterous nature has been established by a fellow servicemen. Could he be lying? Sure he could...but unlike the Swift Boat Veteran's for Truth attacks (SBVT) on John Kerry, Dramesi was actually where he claimed to be. Many in the ads by the SBVT were not even in the area of John Kerry while claiming the moronic stories they did. Once one piece of their ads or the book Unfit for Command come out, it is difficult to trust anything else that is said by the same source. Unfortunately for Kerry, the American people just heard the headlines...not the evidence of outright falsehoods that came after.
Educating John McCain:
John McCain III was the son and grandson of high level military. His grandfather, John Sidney "Slew" McCain was a 4 star Admiral and commanded a U.S. carrier force in World War II. His father, "Junior" McCain was also a 4 star Admiral. It is perhaps in this revelation, that McCain's anger and frustration took root. Always feeling the pressure of his father and grandfather's accomplishments, but not quite having the brainpower to match them. McCain was a lousy student, barely passing classes, at times.
His sophomore year was his first recorded temper tantrum. When McCain tried picking up a pair of women while cruising with a friend, he was laughed at by the ladies, obviously not interested. McCain yelled and cursed them so fouly that he found himself in court on a profanity charge. Throughout his educational career he would drink until hammered and treat girls as poorly as any drunk you've met in your lifetime. Had McCain's parents not intervened he would have been expelled from Annapolis for excessive demerits.
McCain's First Airplane Crash:
Let's all not forget that Mr. McCain was a pilot. He wasn't a commercial airline pilot, either. He was a bonafied "Maverick" from Top Gun. At least according to him. Unfortunately, he's the only one who thinks so highly of his flight career.
An excerpt from his book is a good way to begin:
"I enjoyed the off-duty life of a Navy flier more than I enjoyed the actual flying," McCain writes. "I drove a Corvette, dated a lot, spent all my free hours at bars and beach parties." McCain chased a lot of tail. He hit the dog track. Developed a taste for poker and dice. He picked up models when he could, screwed a stripper when he couldn't."
I'm pretty sure that, at the time, he wasn't thinking about running for President. Back to his flight issues, according to those he flew with, McCain had issues with stalling his plane mid flight. It was at a training camp in Corpus Christi Bay that his first "crash" occurred. During a routine practice landing the plane stalled, and McCain was knocked out on impact. Thankfully, he came to, as he had landed underwater. He swam to the surface and was rescued. After the experience, instead of taking it easy and learning from his mistakes, McCain decided to still go out for the evening after a taking some painkillers.
"Crash" Number Two:
McCain's second "crash" came about due to his youthful addiction to gambling. Many of those that served with McCain would relish in their stories of Mr. McCain's gambling addiction, including himself. He was a craps player and used the term "addictive" to describe it.
One day, while flying over Spain, John McCain deviated from his designated flight path, apparently viewing the casinos from a lower perspective. According to the report, John McCain flew too low to the ground and he ended up slicing through a power line, bringing darkness to much of the surrounding area. Apparently, the military has a stricter code on what they consider a "crash." It could also have to do with his self described, "daredevil clowning" that led to the designation.
Most pilots would have lost their wings after the first crash, and almost all of them after a second crash. But thanks to the ole "family pull" he remained a pilot. Had he not been, he would never have endured the torture of a Vietnamese prison camp.
Crash Number Three:
The third crash from Mr. McCain came while flying back from Philadelphia. He was there on a date with his former model girlfriend, and soon to be wife, Carol Shepp. He was landing his plane at a refueling stop in Norfolk, Virginia when his plane stalled...again. This time, however, he managed to bail out at around 1000 feet and survived with no injury. The same could not be said for the plane, however.
This pretty much sealed the deal on his flying privileges. They were now, apparently, irrevocable.
Vietnam:
First, I cannot begin to understand the pain and suffering the John McCain suffered for our country. He did so with honor and I commend him for his decision to stay at the camp until the other prisoners were allowed to go with him. However, his decision to throw the military Code of Conduct that governed POWs was clear; "give no information. . . which might be harmful to my comrades." Under the code, POWs are bound to give only their name, rank, service number and date of birth. They are to give no statements that are disloyal to their country.
After McCain's fourth crash in Hanoi, he was captured. After what was probably a horrific period of pain and discomfort he proclaimed to his captors, "I'll give you military information if you will take me to the hospital." McCain now insists that he was "bluffing" the Vietnamese in order to get hospital treatment. However, according to Dramesi, who as we recall from earlier, did not give up any information, said McCain tried justifying his behavior while they were still prisoners. "I had to tell them," McCain insisted to Dramesi, "or I would have died in bed."
It is understandable that he was to give up the information, but lying to the American public about it, is not. I will end with this:
"Dramesi says he has no desire to dishonor McCain's service, but he believes that celebrating the downed pilot's behavior as heroic — "he wasn't exceptional one way or the other" — has a corrosive effect on military discipline. "This business of my country before my life?" Dramesi says. "Well, he had that opportunity and failed miserably. If it really were country first, John McCain would probably be walking around without one or two arms or legs — or he'd be dead.""
Conclusion:
Now I don't know if everything I have summarized is true. But I do believe some of it is. I believe John McCain has cheated on his wife, wasn't a very good pilot, and was not as honorable in his actions as he claims.
Any of you who have not read this article must read it now. I have only covered HALF of the article to keep this post from being too long. Please take the time, think about it objectively, and make your own decision before you cast a vote for John McCain.
We learned from the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that a man's military record is not off limits. We found out it was okay to question a man's bravery, a man's purple heart and a man's entire military service. We found out it was okay to outright LIE to the American people by using veterans who were not even stationed anywhere near John Kerry. What we found out thanks to the SBVT was shameful and completely below the belt.
What we have found out about Obama is that he refuses to allow an attack based on military service. He refuses to let the 527 groups run attacks against McCain's military record. I believe that if every voting American were to read the article I referenced, McCain would not even have a chance in this election.
If this sounds like a 12-step program introduction, there is a reason for it. But for now, Redwing has graciously invited me to post to this blog and I am glad to do so.
I read the entry entitled “What made you a liberal or conservative?” and it made me think. Not many things really do that these days: I either get fed Anti-Obama news from Fox News or a Pro-Obama diet from CNN. You can read my response to the column under that entry.
McCain has been out of this race since Hillary conceded the Democratic nomination: he’s not really a factor. For the most part, you are either voting for Obama, or you are voting against him. And as much as I wanted to believe otherwise, I have concluded that I am among that group. Which means I don’t really give a damn about John McCain. Substitute in Donald Duck, and I’d vote for him. Because like millions of progressives, I’m voting against Barack Obama, not for John McCain.
Why? Because it comes down to a simple concept: character. I don’t think Senator Obama has it. I don’t think he can define it, and he may not even be able to spell it. Does he have the intelligence and vision to lead the country? Probably. But without character, it doesn’t matter. I don’t trust him, don’t believe what he says, and I believe that he’s a charismatic opportunist that has bamboozled an otherwise smart and well-read electorate. I can overlook an outlier, but Obama has too many of them: his associations with the likes of Ayers and Wright indicate a man willing to align himself with whoever can give him credibility. Ayers fit the bill for the ultra-liberal crowd, and Wright gave him that same credibility with the Black community. And now that he’s being called on it, he’s retreating like a coward from both of them. He’s less than truthful, and he’s gullible and malleable. And that, with his lack of character, makes him unfit to lead this great country.
So like I did in 2000 and 2004, I’ll hold my nose and pull the Republican lever. And in my heart, I know that the Democrats deserve to lose this election. While I am supporting John McCain for President and am proud that conservatives have finally nominated a moderate, I am not as excited about his candidacy as I am fearful of Obama’s. Another pompous, out of touch ultra-liberal that is less than truthful but full of empty bravado. It failed twice before, and is likely to fail again. And when it does, all of the crying and moaning about the “stolen” election won’t change the fact that they will have once again nominated the wrong man.
Another man lacking in substance. But most of all, lacking in character.
I grew up in a politically mixed family. My father was a Republican, and my mother voted Democratic in every election since 1942. She was in the Navy. Her CO authorized time off for them to vote, and the next day, anyone who didn't vote found themselves restricted to post. At 88 years old, she just cast her mail-in ballot for Obama.
My first presidential election was 1972, I voted for Nixon. I voted Ford in '76, because he pardoned Nixon, effectively ending the Watergate mess; allowing the country to move on. And also because of the Mayaguez incident.
1980 was my year for youthful idealism, when I voted the Anderson Coalition. Remember John Anderson? One of his platform planks was to place a fifty-cents a gallon tax on gasoline. The tax would artificially inflate the cost of gas, and stimulate a demand for alternatives. Revenues from the tax were to be plowed into basic research on alternative fuels, public transportation improvements, etc. Where would we be if these programs were instituted in 1980?
But it was morning in America, and no politician has successfully run on a platform to raise taxes, no matter how noble the purpose. Anderson turned out to be the Ralph Nader of 1980. He received about 7% of the popular vote, Carter received 41%, and Ronald Reagan took office with 51%. My youthful enthusiasm helped pave the way for the Reagan era.
Because of some other bad decisions, I ended up in a nowhere, dollar above minimum wage job after getting out of the service. My income was low enough I qualified for government tuition assistance. If I skimped and saved, I could live on part time work and my GI Bill while I attended school.
Reagan went on a binge of cutting government spending, and PELL grants were among the first to go. I had to drop out of school. Luckily, I had finished my AA which got me a slightly better job, and kept going to school part time. It took me 10 years to get through college.
To me, it was extremely shortsighted to cut education funds. Because of my education, I have a better job. I am less likely to be out of work, and when I am, I am able to find work sooner. The government will not have to take care of me as much as it does an unskilled man. In my lifetime, I will pay several times the amount in taxes that it would have cost the government in tuition aid. Taxes they wouldn't have gotten from my bottom of the food chain job which was outsourced to the Third World.
I began to realize these same principles applied to a lot of social problems. Help people get on their feet, spend a little on education, health care, etc. Enable people to improve their lot, and it pays off in the long run. I have been a Democrat ever since.
Whether it was the Great Depression, World War II, or 9-11,Americans have always pulled together, rolled up their sleeves, tightened their belts, and did whatever it takes, as long as there was a perception of shared sacrifice; of everyone doing their part, we're all in this together.
This sense of shared sacrifice has been lost. Most Americans have seen their wages stagnate, their health care costs skyrocket, and their retirement savings in ashes, while Wall Street tycoons bail out in golden parachutes. Our military families bear the cost of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan while war profiteers rake it in.
Whenever America faced a crisis, a great leader has arisen to pull us through: George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt. Sometimes that great leader told us stuff that we didn't want to hear Stuff like we need to share the wealth, it is patriotic to pay your taxes, there are no easy solutions, we may have to sit down and talk to our enemies, we have to take responsibility for our own lives. I have heard each of these messages from Barack Obama. Great leaders talked to us like we were adults, not petulant children who throw a tantrum if we don't get our way. All I hear from John McCain is "Drill, baby drill!"
We are facing multiple crises: war and terrorism, energy and global warming, economic meltdown. All of these call for leadership, and out-of-the box thinking. John McCain represents the same thinking that got us into many of these messes. Its time for a real change. Barack Obama represents change, that's why he's getting my vote.
It appears some of the old cast of Happy Days has decided to get together and make an important statement. This is well worth 3 minutes of your time. If you have any trouble viewing this, click here.
In a true reversal of fortunes it appears that the Republican smear machine won't be using al-Qaeda against Barack Obama like was done to John Kerry in 2004.
2004:
In 2004, John Kerry was bashed by Fox News that Osama bin Laden had endorsed him. They derived this ridiculous attack from a video he released just days before the election. Dick Morris, a Faux News contributor, said "I think that Al Qaeda is voting with its silence for John Kerry." Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) said terrorists "are going to throw everything they can between now and the election to try and elect Kerry."
This is the purest example of Fox News' (and other Conservative media outlets) attempts to brainwash America. They repeatedly make accusations through innuendo and I find it disgusting. I used to be a Fox News junkie. I watched it for hours upon hours during the run up to the 2004 election and the 2006 election. It finally reached a tipping point and I could no longer bare the sadness and disappointment in the "Fair and Balanced" news source.
2006:
We all know that the Bush administration isn't concerned with al-Qaeda. However, I still am and would love to know that there was a team totally dedicated to finding him. It just seems crazy that Bush would say he isn't concerned with him anymore. Osama bin Laden obviously is the reason 9/11 happened. Why would Bush shut down the team trying to find him? This was barely reported on Fox News, as I was still a junkie. I began having to go to other news sources to find factual information. The attacks on the democratic party were monumental. Thankfully, they all came to realize they were going to lose. It's why the election night coverage was so boring. What we've learned is that when Fox News knows its team has lost, they are silent. It was around this time I began watching MSNBC and CNN more.
2008:
Now it appears that John McCain has been endorsed by al-Qaeda supporters. Where is Faux News bashing McCain for the endorsement? Where are the "Fair and Balanced" smears that were put on John Kerry in 2004 that should now be towards McCain in 2008? There is no backlash at all from Fox. Does anyone find this strange? I doubt it. I can't believe they haven't been sued for false advertisement for their slogan, "Fair and Balanced" after watching their Tim Russert and Colin Powell coverage.
Now election time is near and Fox News has continued to grow their conservative base. Gone is the balance and objective reporting they had years ago. I believe they've lost many supporters who enjoyed another viewpoint on the news. However, they have replaced those people with more and more conservative nutjobs who will believe anything they say.
Fox News is like a horrific car crash, you can't help but watch from afar, even though you know it's wrong.
Well, SueBeeHonee, another author on this blog posted earlier about Cindy McCain's $300,000 complete outfit worn at the Republican National Convention. The argument got heated and I believe was left with everyone saying it didn't matter because it was Cindy McCain's money and she should be able to do with it whatever she wants. While I thought it was too over the top to pretend you "know people are hurting" the conservative leaning commenter's made their pitch and I will let it stand. But that brings us to what this entry is really about. Sarah Palin's Wardrobe.
List of Charges:
The Republican National Committee has spent over $150,000 to outfit Sarah Palin on the campaign trail. These charges are as follows:
Macy's in Minneapolis - 3 pays totalling..$28,343.13 Neimen Marcus in Minneapolis - ............$75,062.63 Saks Fifth Avenue in St. Louis & NY - ......$49,425.74 RNC for Hair & Makeup Expenses - .........$4,716.49 Barney's in NY - .....................................$789.72 Bloomingdale's in NY - ...........................$5,102.71
I know some of you will be asking, what's the point of going through this type of scenario again? The answer is simple, this is not the wife of a Presidential candidate spending her own money on an outfit. This is the McCain campaign & the RNC spending donation money on incredibly expensive clothing for Sarah Palin (and likely McCain, as well). How can you advocate for the poor when you spend money on clothing like that? How can you truly "know the people are hurting," when you so blatantly spend top dollar on unnecessary fashion?
The McCain campaign has answered this charge by saying they will be giving the clothing to charity once the campaign is over. Does anyone else find this to be a bogus claim? So what if they give it to charity, I doubt it will ever get the value it originally cost.
Shouldn't Republicans be upset by this? Shouldn't they be saying the McCain campaign has more important things to spend donated money on? Shouldn't they be saying why are you spending money on Sarah Palin's baby when she is not part of the campaign? Shouldn't they be asking any of those things?
Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama on Meet the Press this weekend. I watched for a bit and decided to watch Fox News for a couple hours when I got home from my grandmother's house. From the time I turned False News on they proceeded to find every African-American conservative pundit they could to come on and refute Powell's decision. It was both ridiculous and hilarious at the same time. I counted 1 African American who favored Obama to 13 that did not. Kinda funny since I've seen polls that 86% to 95% of African-American voters are voting for Obama. But this is atypical of Fox and friends' brainwashing techniques and I'm not here to talk about them.
Colin Powell:
Mr. Powell, former G.W. Bush Secretary of State, endorsed George W. Bush in 2000. Then again, so did Iran. The key is that Bush won, and I feel partly due to Powell's (not Iran's) endorsement. Unfortunately, Bush decided to not play nice with Mr. Powell after his attempt to keep Bush in check caused Bush's Chief of Staff, Andrew Card to ask for his resignation. While this was a significant blow to Powell's ego, he stood firm as a conservative moderate Republican through the 2006 Democrat romping in the House & Senate.
Enter John McCain & Barack Obama:
Colin Powell supported John McCain at the start of the race. He even contributed the maximum to the McCain campaign. He has known Mr. McCain for 25 years and has expressed similar views on homeland security and foreign policy. All of this pointed to Powell endorsing John McCain for president as long as things laid out correctly in Powell's mind. Faux News was already not so sure. In fact, Bill Kristol stated that Powell would endorse Obama and give a speech at the Democratic National Convention. That didn't happen. Afterwards, Powell told CNN News in February 2008 that "I will vote for the candidate I think can do the best job in America—whether that candidate is a Republican or Democrat or an Independent."
In February 2008, I truly believe Powell was leaning towards his Republican roots and was voting McCain. However, Powell is a decisively tactical man. He knew that in order to make an educated decision he would need to see things from both perspectives. This meant he would need to meet with Barack Obama and John McCain to discuss their ideology and how it meshed with Powell's own ideas. Around the end of June, 2008 he did. At the time of these meetings in June of 2008, Colin Powell was still undecided. I believe Powell when he said this was a very tough decision. I believe Powell when he says race had nothing to do with his decision.
Cynics like antisocialism (a favorite conservative commenter of mine) will see this as a man who stuck with the color of his skin. Conservative professional liar & drug user, Rush Limbaugh has also made his feelings known. However, I think Colin Powell said it best when Tom Brokaw asked, "there will be some that say this is an African-American, distinguished American, supporting another African-American because of race." Powell responded, "If I had only that in mind, I could have done this six, eight, 10 months ago. I really have been going back and forth between somebody I have the highest respect for, John McCain and somebody I was getting to know, Barack Obama. And it was only within the last couple of months that I settled on this."
Colin Powell is still a Republican. This endorsement doesn't change that fact. Unlike most Republicans he can cross party lines to support the belief that Obama's qualifications as a inspirational leader, his picking of a good VP candidate who will help in foreign affairs (unlike Sarah "My IQ is 83" Palin -- no, this still hasn't been refuted) and his ability to motivate people in ways that not many other presidents have been able to (i.e. John F. Kennedy).
Some people will say (to borrow from Faux News' brainwashing technique) that Powell was saving this for an "October Surprise." I think that is a bogus claim and here's why. Most political announcements that seek real airtime in the 24hr news cycle time slots we have today will do so on Monday or Tuesday. This allows the news media to hammer hard and spread the story at a much quicker pace. However, Powell did this on the 2nd worse possible news day (1st being Saturday and 3rd being Friday), which is Sunday. Had he been timing this as a political stunt, he would have done so on Mon-Thur news cycles. He didn't. Powell also stated that he will not be campaigning for either candidate. Had this been a political stunt, Powell would have announced it on a Monday and campaigned for Obama afterwards. This is not happening.
Why this Endorsement Matters:
This endorsement matters because of one very simple fact. Colin Powell's endorsement was incredibly well spoken. It showed a gut wrenching decision by a man who was forced, through no fault of his own, to cross party lines to vote. Had Obama been white and McCain still run the same nasty campaign, Powell would have still voted for "white Obama". He sees past color of skin. It is one of the many things that makes him a great man.
Negativity has finally lost, everyone. I am proud of the majority in America waking up to the idea that hatred and negativity are not the way of the future. We need a new world order, and the first step is to bring America together. It's time to look past the time I had in Tennessee and look forward to a future without bigotry and claiming white privilege or the "Bradley Effect." It's time to forget color of skin when picking a presidential candidate.
Please take the time to watch the below video if you haven't seen it. It's well worth spending 12 minutes of your life seeing.
Jon Jolly was the man who made all of my wife and I's camping trips special. He provided us with Kayak and Canoe rentals. My wife and I just saw Jon this past Saturday. We had a great time, as always, and things were well.
Jonathan Jolly, 41, passed away Tuesday, October 14th, 2008 at North Carolina Baptist Hospital. He had a life-ending heart attack. He will be missed dearly.
Mr. Jolly ran the Hanging Rock Outdoor Center in Westfield, NC. He did so with great pride and a passion not all small business owners carry. We first met Jon several years ago on our first camping trip to Moore's Spring Campground. He was incredibly friendly and always made our trips down the Dan River a wonderful experience.
What makes this particularly hard to deal with is that we just saw him this past weekend. If you've ever met Jon you would know that he is in shape, very active and in the low percentile for Heart Failure. This is a lesson for everyone. Enjoy life. Do not waste the time you have on this Earth. Do not waste it because your time could run out at a moments notice, not matter how healthy or how careful you are.
Jon, if there is a Heaven you are in it. If there is a river in the sky, you are on it. If there is a ski slope in the clouds you are skiing down it. You were a wonderful man, a wonderful husband, a wonderful father and a great friend. We all love you and miss you already.
The last thing I said to Jon this past Saturday was, "The next time you see us, we'll have a baby!" He replied, "It's the greatest thing in the world, you will love it."
I'm so sorry that he will not be around while our child grows. He would have been a great role model for our son or daughter. Our sincerest condolences go to the Jolly family in their time of need.
I was on my way to work this morning when I heard a radio ad that almost brought a tear to my eye (I stress "almost"). This ad is the exact reason I feel the reversal of Roe v. Wade would be the worst decision of my lifetime.
First, I want to state that I do not think McCain won this debate more than I think Obama did not do what I had hoped in places he could have clearly won. He left false claims unanswered and did not fight back as hard as I wanted him to. McCain still came off as angry, cynical and instead of offering solutions, he attacked Obama on his policy and even his character. However, because of the lack of umph Obama fought back with, I am giving this debate to McCain.
Now, let's get the lies, half truths and misconceptions out of the way from FactCheck.
"McCain claimed the liberal group ACORN “is now on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history ... maybe destroying the fabric of democracy.” In fact, a Republican prosecutor said of the first and biggest ACORN fraud case: “[T]his scheme was not intended to permit illegal voting.” He said $8-an-hour workers turned in made-up voter registration forms rather than doing what ACORN paid them to do. McCain said “Joe the plumber” faced “much higher taxes” under Obama’s tax plan and would pay a fine under Obama’s health care plan if he failed to provide coverage for his workers. But Ohio plumber Joe Wurzelbacher would pay higher taxes only if the business he says he wants to buy puts his income over $200,000 a year, and his small business would be exempt from Obama’s requirement to provide coverage for workers.
Obama repeated a dubious claim that his health care plan will cut the average family’s premiums by $2,500 a year. Experts have found that figure to be overly optimistic.
McCain claimed that Obama’s real “object” is a government-run, single-payer health insurance system like those in Canada or England. The McCain campaign points to a quote from five years ago, when Obama told a labor gathering that he was “a proponent of a single-payer health care program.” But Obama has since qualified his enthusiasm for Canadian-style health care, and his current proposal is nothing like that.
Obama incorrectly claimed all of McCain’s ads had been “negative.” That was true for one recent week, but not over the entire campaign. And at times Obama has run a higher percentage of attack ads than McCain. McCain described Colombia as the "largest agricultural importer of our products." Actually, Canada imports the most U.S. farm products, and Colombia is far down the list.
Obama strained to portray himself as willing to break ranks with fellow Democrats. His prime example was his vote for a bill that was supported by 18 Democrats and opposed by 26. Congressional Quarterly rates him as voting with his party 97 percent of the time since becoming a U.S. senator.
In the "lie" department it is a tie. Lies were not the issue in this debate...defending the truth was.
Round 1: The Economy
In the opening round of the debate McCain was clearly getting his rear handed to him. He started out calling the 2 mortgage giants that are linked to the crisis we are now in, "Fannie & Freddie Mae." As often as they have come up, you would think he'd remember something so important correctly. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is not that hard to remember. I'll chalk it up to him being tired and worn out from all the campaigning he's doing. He also had his eyes wide and bugged out for much of the debate. I do not believe this is because he was "crazy eyed" as some people do. I believe this was also attributed to lack of sleep and his need to show America he can keep going and that age doesn't affect his ability to stay awake.
Unfortunately, McCain's first topic was the Economic Crisis we are clearly in. The DOW had dropped another 700+ points the day of the debate and there was no way possible for McCain to win the economic debate, considering he voted for many of the policies put into place that caused the crisis. He tried to spin it in his favor, he came out swinging, but I feel he did nothing but hit Obama's gloves in the first round. Obama wins Round 1.
Round 2 - Joe the plumber:
Joe Wurzelbacher is a plumber in Ohio. Joe had an encounter with Barack Obama on buying a business that earned $250-$280,000 a year. McCain came out on top in this particular discussion because one thing was wasn't brought up; Joe doesn't make $250,000 a year. The business he buys will likely not pay him a salary of $250k/yr so Obama's plan truly is better for him starting off. However, when the business does begin earning enough to pay Joe $250,000 a year, the scale begins to grow wider between what he currently saves and what he would pay. Had Obama focused on that he would have won the exchange. As it stood, he did not.
The thing I didn't like categorized was that future Joe was a "normal, middle class" earner. If you're making $250,000 a year when the medium income in Ohio is $44,000, you are NOT an "average" middle class earner. That part was also lost in the discussion and lended to McCain winning the exchange.
It was after this that McCain said, "Yes. Senator Obama, I am not President Bush. If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago." The only problem I have with that is that he's voted for Bush's policies 90% of the time. So perhaps McCain isn't Bush...but you know what McCain is? He's 90% Bush and 90% Bush is too much Bush for me. Despite that, McCain wins Round 2.
Round 3 Negative Ad Campaigning:
The negative ads are another example of a great opportunity squandered by Mr. Obama. He could have won this debate quite easily with the proper defense. I think one thing everyone needs to realize is there is a difference between negative ads attacking someones policy and negative ads attacking someones character. John McCain clearly takes the low road on attacking Barack Obama's character instead of focusing on policy. Had Mr. Obama pointed out that 100% of his ads are attacking John McCain's POLICY instead of his CHARACTER, he would have easily won this exchange.
There was also an interesting moment where John McCain kept pushing for Obama to refute comments made by John Lewis. Mr. McCain lied when he stated that he refuted anything negative towards Obama every time it came up. Really? If that were the case, 83 IQ Sarah Palin, would have been refuted for her "Palling around with terrorists" comments that clearly had no merit. He never did any such thing...so there's a lie that wasn't included on factcheck. I think Obama could have easily won with this response, but he didn't make it so, in my mind, he lost this exchange as well. Thankfully, the polls are showing the American people don't take kindly to the negativity and anger of John McCain. McCain wins Round 3.
Round 4 - Education:
Finally the debate rolls around to something I care deeply about; education. I am an extreme proponent of education reform. We need to reform the programs we are currently spending money on and spend even more money on making sure every single American that wants to go to college gets to and money not be an issue. Education is the key to America being great again. We need to educate our children with diligence and the extreme prudence. However, we also need to educated PARENTS. We need programs at each school that forces parents to get more involved in the lives of their children. We need programs that encourage all students to WANT to go to college. Bottom line: Education, Education, Education.
I do not agree with vouchers as John McCain does. However, the way with which both senators brought forth their arguments warrants a tie in this department. They both laid out their plans for education and it's just a matter of the American people choosing which one they like. I, of course, like Obama's plan more. I want to reform what we have AND spend more money on education. If that means cutting the military, trimming the fat in pork barrel projects and going without some things for a little while, so be it. Round 4 was a tie.
Round 5 - Energy:
Unfortunately for my eyelids, Energy was no different than Education. Both candidates laid out their plans and did so in a decent fashion. While I was more impressed with Obama's 10 year plan, neither of them did anything to further enhance their stance to be better than the other's. I think both candidates will do well on Energy. However, Obama will do so with less environmental impact (i.e. less Drilling) and McCain could care less about the environmental impact of oil (i.e. Drill Baby, Drill). Even when it's obvious the oil companies could care less either, McCain still wants to suck our planet dry. But alas, my view is my view and for the sake of debating, Round 5 was a tie.
Round 6 - Supreme Court Justices:
As with the round on Education and Energy, I feel both candidates did well to bring their plan on Supreme Court nominations to light. I differ strongly with McCain on who he would choose and totally agree with Obama voting against John Roberts. I believe turning over Roe v. Wade would be the biggest mistake in American history. John McCain wants the government out of our lives but he wants Government to run our women's reproductive systems. You can't have it both ways John. Either way, this Round is yet another tie because both of them conveyed their ideas in a good fashion. It will just come down to what direction America is wanting to go. Round 6 was a tie.
Conclusion:
This debate was a bit better than the others. I enjoyed the format, I enjoyed the moderator and I enjoyed the extended time each was given to make their points or show their anger. I think Obama, once again, came off as distinguished, calm, cool, collected and McCain was, once again, angry, frustrated, haughty and overall a grumpy old man. Unfortunately, Obama did not attack back where he should and did not defend his positions with the urgency that was needed. Obama lost the debate more than McCain won it. McCain, in my opinion, seems very erratic and I'm not sure I'd want someone with anger management issues to run our economy, our military or our education system.
Stats: Obama won one round, McCain won 2 rounds and they tied 3 rounds. According to the score and comparatively in boxing, McCain eeked out a win with a split decision. Neither fighter was hurt but they both know they were in a battle.
Despite my opinion, the American people have decided who won the debate. While I think McCain won, it's apparent the American people disagree with me. In an interesting International development, it is also apparent that those who bet on Obama to win the election can now claim their winnings after this last debate.
I'm not counting my chickens. I have now moved any state with a 5% or less Obama lead to be McCain's state. Unless something major happens, McCain will win this election easily. I can only hope the swing heads in the left direction this time around.
I don't have time to do a complete debate roundup from last night until this evening. I do feel McCain won the debate, but not by enough to matter in the polls. According to polls it seems Obama won his 3rd debate in a row. I don't believe in polls.
Anyway I will have more later, for now let's talk taxes.
Feel free to comment on the debate now, or wait for the write-up later.
Since I was receiving some whining from the Right about how nothing is ever posted here about ACORN or Ayers, I decided to do an entry dedicated to the FACTS about William Ayers and ACORN. As always, I will inject opinion as I see fit, but with sources that you can either choose to ignore or read and educate yourself on the situation.
Let's start with William Ayers, a 1960's former anti-war terrorist. He is well known for his radical past as well as his current work in education reform. What do we know about William Ayers? We know plenty. So let's start with a quick synopsis of his early life that led him to the terrorist acts he planned and went through with. This sums it up from Wikipedia.
Ayers became involved in the New Left and the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS).[7] He rose to national prominence as an SDS leader in 1968 and 1969. As head of an SDS regional group, the "Jesse James Gang", Ayers made decisive contributions to the Weatherman orientation toward militancy.[5]The group Ayers headed in Detroit, Michigan became one of the earliest gatherings of what became the Weatherman. Between the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago and the June 1969 SDS convention, Ayers became a prominent leader of the group, which arose as a result of a schism in SDS.[5]"During that time his infatuation with street fighting grew and he developed a language of confrontational militancy that became more and more pronounced over the year [1969]", disaffected former Weatherman member Cathy Wilkerson wrote in 2001. Ayers had previously become a roommate of Terry Robbins, a fellow militant, Wilkerson wrote. Robbins would later be killed while making a bomb.[8]
In June 1969, the Weatherman took control of the SDS at its national convention, where Ayers was elected Education Secretary.[5] Later in 1969, Ayers participated in planting a bomb at a statue dedicated to riot police casualties in the 1886 Haymarket Riot confrontation between labor supporters and the police.[9] The blast broke almost 100 windows and blew pieces of the statue onto the nearby Kennedy Expressway.[10] (The statue was rebuilt and unveiled on May 4, 1970, and blown up again by other Weathermen on October 6, 1970.[11][10] Rebuilding it yet again, the city posted a 24-hour police guard to prevent another blast.[10]) Ayers participated in the Days of Rage riot in Chicago in October 1969, and in December was at the "War Council" meeting in Flint, Michigan. Larry Grathwohl, an FBI informant in the Weatherman group from the fall of 1969 to the spring of 1970, thought that "Ayers, along with Bernardine Dohrn, probably had the most authority within the Weatherman".[12]
I will be the first to admit that what Ayers participated in was not only wrong, but terribly and horrifically wrong. He has even stated that if he had it to do all over again he would likely oppose the Vietnam war in similar ways. However, he's 60 years old now and realizes the hypothetical would never come to pass. Here's a quote by him I found interesting:
"I've thought about this a lot. Being almost 60, it's impossible to not have lots and lots of regrets about lots and lots of things, but the question of did we do something that was horrendous, awful? ... I don't think so. I think what we did was to respond to a situation that was unconscionable."
Obama's "ties" to William Ayers:
There is nothing that can sum this up better than Wikipedia. They've cited sources for all of the events and happenings between Obama and Ayers. I believe, if you chose to read the below and actually follow the sources, you would see that John McCain(and Anti-Socialism)'s attempt to link Obama to a former Terrorist is quite laughable. Read the below, if you dare to have your mind changed.
Bill Ayers and Barack Obama at one time lived in the same neighborhood in the city of Chicago, and both had worked on education reform in the state of Illinois. The two met "at a luncheon meeting about school reform."[41] Obama was named to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge Project Board of Directors to oversee the distribution of grants in Chicago. Later in 1995, Ayers hosted "a coffee" for "Mr. Obama's first run for office."[42] The two served on the board of a community anti-poverty group, the Woods Fund of Chicago, between 2000 and 2002, during which time the board met twelve times.[42] In April 2001, Ayers contributed $200 to Obama's re-election fund to the Illinois State Senate.[41] Since 2002, there has been little linking Obama and Ayers.[42] The senator said in September 2008 that he hadn't "seen him in a year-and-a-half."[43] In February 2008, Obama spokesman Bill Burton released a statement from the senator about the relationship between the two: "Senator Obama strongly condemns the violent actions of the Weathermen group, as he does all acts of violence. But he was an eight-year-old child when Ayers and the Weathermen were active, and any attempt to connect Obama with events of almost forty years ago is ridiculous."[41]CNN's review of project records found nothing to suggest anything inappropriate in the non-profit projects in which the two men were involved.[44] Internal reviews by The New York Times, The Washington Post, Time magazine, The Chicago Sun-Times, The New Yorker and The New Republic "have said that their reporting doesn't support the idea that Obama and Ayers had a close relationship".[45]
I suppose the conservatives of the world will claim "media bias" on all of the internal reviews so that they can continue to slander Obama's name by using the term "terrorist" and "Obama" in the same sentence. Once again, in my opinion, the Republican party shows that they have to lie to get ahead in a campaign. I find it disgusting and shameful, to quote Larry's new favorite term. Obama did not have a "close relationship" with Ayers so there is no need to compare the two ever again. That being said, let's move on to the next "scandal" involving Barack Obama.
As I did before, let's go over what ACORN is and then we'll see how Obama ties into the latest voter fraud "scandal."
ACORN stands for the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now. It is a community-based organization that advocates for low and moderate income families by working on neighborhood safety, health care and other social issues. ACORN was founded in 1970 by Wade Rathke and Gary Delgado. Maud Hurde is now the president and has been since 1990.
ACORN says that it is non-partisan but I'm pretty sure they have been aligned with the policies of the Democrats for quite some time. I suppose having a view on policy and being non-partisan CAN go hand in hand...but generally "the poor" are democrats so it is likely ACORN, being advocates for the poor are a progressive organization despite the "non-partisan" claim.
ACORN's primary issues they fund raise for are actions against predatory lending, helping the poor establish affordable housing, raising the minimum wage, education reform and gun control. They have had many successful and unsuccessful campaigns within each category.
House of Representatives Republican leader John Boehner (pronounced Bainer) called for ACORN to be barred from receiving federal monies, and for a ban on ACORN contracting with candidates for federal office. He said, "ACORN spent decades promoting the housing policies that brought America's economy to the brink, and similarly over the years has committed fraud on our system of elections"
In contrast, John Atlas writes an editorial that ACORN has "accumulated many enemies" and has been "subjected to vicious attacks from business lobbyists, conservative politicians, and right-wing media." This same source says that the Bush administration has harassed ACORN with accusations of voter fraud. In a report released on October 2008, the United States Department of Justice Inspector General found that former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias was wrongfully fired by Attorney General Alberto Gonzalas after Iglesias declined to indict over alleged voter fraud at an ACORN affiliate in New Mexico, citing insufficient evidence.
I'm not a big fan of a non-partisan group being partisan. But ACORN is an excellent organization and the good they have done far outshines any bad. In fact, I could not find any evidence of ACORN being indicted for voter fraud or any other misgivings.
John McCain and ACORN:
Yes, even John McCain has his own ties to ACORN. We might as well get those out of the way first. In October 2008, the McCain campaign released a web-based ad suggesting ACORN was partly responsible for the 2008 economic crisis. ACORN pushed back on this accusation via its website, calling the spot "a smear ad". On October 13, ACORN released a picture of Senator McCain attending an ACORN immigration forum to Politico. Wow, let's string McCain up for having ties to ACORN why don't we?
Let's get some truths about Obama's ties to ACORN out of the way first.
"Discredited Republican voter-suppression guru Ken Blackwell is attacking Barack Obama with naked lies about his supposed connection to ACORN.
• Fact: Barack was never an ACORN community organizer. • Fact: ACORN never hired Obama as a trainer, organizer, or any type of employee. • Fact: ACORN was not part of Project Vote, the successful voter registration drive Barack ran in 1992.
In his capacity as an attorney, Barack represented ACORN in a successful lawsuit alongside the U.S. Department of Justice against the state of Illinois to force state compliance with a federal voting access law. For his work helping enforce the law, called “Motor Voter,” Barack received the IVI-IPO Legal Eagle Award in 1995.
Ken Blackwell is best known today for disenfranchising Democratic voters in his dual role as Ohio Secretary of State and chair of George Bush’s Ohio campaign in 2004. To see him shed crocodile tears for the integrity of the vote while making accusations about Barack and ACORN with absolutely no basis in fact is disturbing. Blackwell’s attacks against ACORN and community organizers continue a vile Republican pattern of mockery and viciousness against this noble profession. Community organizers are the very individuals Republicans should be celebrating for helping people to help themselves rather than depending on the government.
In an October 14 article, the Associated Press reported that "Obama and two other lawyers represented ACORN [the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now] in 1995 in a lawsuit against the state of Illinois to make voter registration easier." Similarly, during the October 14 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, investigative correspondent Drew Griffin stated that "[a]s an attorney, [Obama] represented the ACORN group in a motor voter case in the state of Illinois, a case that he won." But neither the AP nor Griffin pointed out that the Department of Justice, the League of Women Voters of Illinois, and the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) joined with ACORN as plaintiffs in the suit."
I find this important because every report we seem to be seeing does not list the actual facts of this case. Instead they make it appear that Obama is a champion for ACORN, when in fact he was representing other organizations as well...including our own Department of Justice! Media Bias? Perhaps... The bottom line is, his ties to ACORN are over exaggerated, overplayed and Fox News is desperate to tie Obama to anything that will bring him down. Thankfully, most Americans feel the smear campaign is one reason NOT to vote for John McCain. Most Americans may not be as stupid as I once thought.
Here's some quotes from Reagan Democrats I think you will all enjoy.
A focus group showing a hard-hitting, no-holds barred anti-Obama attack ad from a 527 that has yet to air, to a group of midwestern Reagan Democrats. The results:
"Reagan Dems and Independents. Call them blue-collar plus. Slightly more Target than Walmart. Yes, the spot worked. Yes, they believed the charges against Obama. Yes, they actually think he's too liberal, consorts with bad people and WON'T BE A GOOD PRESIDENT...but they STILL don't give a f***. They said right out, "He won't do anything better than McCain" but they're STILL voting for Obama.
The two most unreal moments of my professional life of watching focus groups:
54 year-old white male, voted Kerry '04, Bush '00, Dole '96, hunter, Nascar fan...hard for Obama said: "I'm gonna hate him the minute I vote for him. He's gonna be a bad president. But I won't ever vote for another god-damn Republican. I want the government to take over all of Wall Street and bankers and the car companies and Wal-Mart run this county like we used to when Reagan was President."
The next was a woman, late 50s, Democrat but strongly pro-life. Loved B. and H. Clinton, loved Bush in 2000. "Well, I don't know much about this terrorist group Barack used to be in with that Weather guy but I'm sick of paying for health insurance at work and that's why I'm supporting Barack."
I felt like I was taking crazy pills. I sat on the other side of the glass and realized...this really is the Apocalypse. The Seventh Seal is broken and its time for eight years of pure, delicious crazy...."
Conclusion:
Well, as we approach the end of this entry I've come the conclusion that my conservative friends have forced me to make a very wise decision. That wise decision involved actual research (not blog research or Fox News research) and brain power to come to the conclusion that Obama's ties with William Ayers and ACORN are nothing more than innocent encounters for Obama and should not, and do not, represent his world view or policy decisions. Bring on the critics....these "scandals" are DEAD.
Posts
