dprin339's Blog

I don't know when "flip-flopping" became such a big issue. It may have started when Aaron decided a golden calf wasn't such a hot idea after all. I also don't know if it shows anything other than that Obama is trying to react to public opinion, or, to put a positive spin on it: that he's flexible. What about the nature of the flips? Since every one is to the right, I think it shows that the nation is more conservative than pre-April Obama. From here.

Anyways, even though I don't know whether I care about it (The only one that really bothers me is the refusal to debate McCain. The first joint town hall should be exciting.), I know some do, and I'm willing to change my policy on this subject. Doh!

CHANGE #1: Despite Pledging To Withdraw American Troops From Iraq Immediately, Barack Obama Now Says He Would "Refine" His Policy After Listening To The Commanders On The Ground

In July 2008, Barack Obama Said He Will Continue To "Refine" His Iraq Policy. Obama: "I've always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability. That assessment has not changed...And when I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I'm sure I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies." (Jeff Zeleny, "Obama: Open to 'Refine' Iraq Withdrawal Timeline," The New York Times' "The Caucus" Blog, http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com, 7/3/08)

In The Primaries, Barack Obama Committed To Withdrawing Troops From Iraq Regardless Of The Advice He Received From Commanders On The Ground. ABC's Charles Gibson: "And, Senator Obama, your campaign manager, David Plouffe, said, 'When he is' -- this is talking about you - 'When he is elected president, we will be out of Iraq in 16 months at the most. There should be no confusion about that.' So you'd give the same rock-hard pledge, that no matter what the military commanders said, you would give the order to bring them home?" Obama: "Because the commander-in-chief sets the mission, Charlie. That's not the role of the generals. ... Now, I will always listen to our commanders on the ground with respect to tactics, once I've given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberately, in an orderly fashion, out of Iraq, and we are going to have our combat troops out. We will not have permanent bases there. Once I have provided that mission, if they come to me and want to adjust tactics, then I will certainly take their recommendations into consideration. But, ultimately, the buck stops with me as the commander-in-chief." (Sen. Barack Obama, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Philadelphia, PA, 4/16/08)

CHANGE #2: Despite Pledging To Accept Public Financing, Barack Obama Has Reversed His Position And Opted Out Of The System

Barack Obama Has Declined Public Financing In The General Election, Calling It A "Broken System." "In a web video emailed to supporters, Obama asks his supporters to help him 'declare our independence from a broken system.' Of course, it's not so much a broken system that explains why he's passing on the FEC's $80+million. He will easily raise more than he could ever get in public funding." (Jonathan Martin, "Obama Opts Out Of Public Financing," The Politico's "Jonathan Martin" Blog, www.politico.com, 6/19/08)

In Response To A Midwest Democracy Network Questionnaire, Barack Obama Said He Would Accept Public Funding In The General Election. Question: "If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?" Obama: "Yes. I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests." (Sen. Barack Obama, "Presidential Candidate Questionnaire," Midwest Democracy Network, www.commoncause.org, 11/27/07)

CHANGE #3: Barack Obama Is Backtracking On His Support For Unilaterally Renegotiating NAFTA

During The Primaries, Barack Obama Pledged To Unilaterally Renegotiate NAFTA. NBC'S TIM RUSSERT: "A simple question. Will you as president say to Canada and Mexico, this [NAFTA] has not worked for us, we are out?" OBAMA: "I will make sure that we renegotiate in the same way that Senator Clinton talked about, and I think actually Senator Clinton's answer on this one is right. I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced." (Sen. Barack Obama, MSNBC Democrat Presidential Debate, Cleveland, OH, 2/26/08)

In The General Election, Barack Obama Now Says His Words Were "Overheated And Amplified." "In an interview with Fortune to be featured in the magazine's upcoming issue, the presumptive Democratic nominee backed off his harshest attacks on the free trade agreement and indicated he didn't want to unilaterally reopen negotiations on NAFTA. 'Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified,' he conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA 'devastating' and 'a big mistake,' despite nonpartisan studies concluding that the trade zone has had a mild, positive effect on the U.S. economy." (Nina Easton, "Obama: NAFTA Not So Bad After All," Fortune, 6/18/08)

CHANGE #4: Barack Obama Is Considering Reducing Corporate Taxes Despite Having Called Corporate Tax Cuts "The Exact Wrong Prescription For America"

The Wall Street Journal Reported That Barack Obama Would Consider Lowering Corporate Taxes. "Sen. Obama's nod to lowering corporate taxes comes as Republicans have been attacking him for proposals that would raise the cost of doing business, such as his pledge to raise the tax rate on capital gains, and his vow to increase the top income-tax rates, which are often used by small, unincorporated enterprises. He didn't say how deeply he would cut the rate, but said it could be trimmed in return for reducing corporate tax breaks, simplifying the tax system." (Bob Davis and Amy Chozick, "Obama Plans Spending Boost, Possible Cut In Business Tax," The Wall Street Journal, 6/17/08)

Just Last Month, Barack Obama Called Corporate Tax Cuts "The Exact Wrong Prescription For America." OBAMA: "And his proposals, which are essentially $300 billion worth of corporate tax cuts ... I think is the exact wrong prescription for America." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 5/4/08)

CHANGE #5: Barack Obama Has Changed Positions On The D.C. Handgun Ban

In June 2008, Barack Obama Said He Thought The D.C. Handgun Ban Was Unconstitutional. Obama: "It looks to me that the D.C. handgun ban overshot the runway. That it went beyond constitutional limits." (Bloomberg's "Taking Stock," 6/26/08)

Obama Campaign: "Obama Believes The D.C. Handgun Law Is Constitutional." "[T]he campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he '...believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.'" (James Oliphant and Michael J. Higgins, "Court To Hear Gun Case," Chicago Tribune, 11/20/07)

During An Interview, Barack Obama Acknowledged His Support For The D.C. Gun Ban. Questioner Leon Harris: "One other issue that's of great importance here in the district as well is gun control. You said in Idaho recently - I'm quoting here - 'I have no intention of taking away folks' guns,' but you support the D.C. handgun ban." Obama: "Right." (Leon Harris and Sen. Barack Obama, Forum Sponsored By ABC And Politico.Com, Washington, DC, 2/12/08)

CHANGE #6: Barack Obama Has Shifted From Opposing Welfare Reform To Celebrating Welfare Reform In A Television Ad

In His Newest Television Ad, Barack Obama Touts His Role In Slashing Welfare Rolls, But Leaves Out That He Was Against The 1996 Federal Legislation That Enacted Welfare Reform. "Barack Obama aligned himself with welfare reform on Monday, launching a television ad which touts the way the overhaul 'slashed the rolls by 80 percent.' Obama leaves out, however, that he was against the 1996 federal legislation which precipitated the caseload reduction." (Teddy Davis and Gregory Wallace, "Obama Shifts On Welfare Reform," ABC News' "Political Radar" Blog, http://blogs.abcnews.com, Posted 7/1/08)

In 1997, Barack Obama Said He Would Have Probably Not Supported Federal Welfare Reform Legislation. "'I am not a defender of the status quo with respect to welfare,' Obama said on the floor of the Illinois state Senate on May 31, 1997. 'Having said that, I probably would not have supported the federal legislation, because I think it had some problems.'" (Teddy Davis and Gregory Wallace, "Obama Shifts On Welfare Reform," ABC News' "Political Radar" Blog, http://blogs.abcnews.com, Posted 7/1/08)

CHANGE #7: As A Presidential Candidate, Barack Obama Criticizes The Administration's Energy Policy Despite Having Voted For The 2005 Bush-Cheney Energy Bill

Barack Obama Attacks John McCain On Energy Policy, Saying He Will Be A "Third Bush Term." OBAMA: "Make no mistake, this is an area where John McCain is offering a third Bush term." (Thomas Fitzgerald, "Obama Knocks McCain, Says Primary Fight Not Hurting, Philadelphia Inquirer, 4/1/08)

"Obama, Of Course, Voted For The 2005 Energy Bill, Which Passed The Senate Overwhelmingly 74-26." (Jake Tapper, "Who's Offering A 3rd Bush Term On Energy?" ABC News' "Political Punch" Blog, blogs.abcnews.com, 4/3/08)

"Someone Else Who Voted Against It? The Candidate Whom Obama Says Is Offering 'A Third Bush Term' On Energy Policy -- John McCain." (Jake Tapper, "Who's Offering A 3rd Bush Term On Energy?" ABC News' "Political Punch" Blog, blogs.abcnews.com, 4/3/08)

CHANGE #8: Barack Obama Has Shifted Positions On Nuclear Power

In September 2007, Barack Obama Said "I Don't Think That We Can Take Nuclear Power Off The Table". "I don't think that we can take nuclear power off the table. What we have to make sure of is that we have the capacity to store it properly and safely, and that we reduce whatever threats might come from terrorism." (Sen. Barack Obama, MSNBC Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Hanover, NH, 9/26/07)

In December 2007, Barack Obama Said "I Am Not A Nuclear Energy Proponent". "I start off with the premise that nuclear energy is not optimal. I am not a nuclear energy proponent." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Town Hall Event, Newton, IA, 12/30/07)

CHANGE #9: Obama Adviser Said Obama Was Not Opposed To An Individual Health Care Mandate Despite His Opposition During The Primary

Campaign Adviser, Kavita Patel, Said That Obama "Is Not Opposed To The Idea" Of An Individual Mandate And That The Campaign Is In Touch With Former Clinton Health Care Advisers. "Asked if Obama would be seen as reversing himself if he were to endorse an individual mandate after clashing with Clinton on the issue, Patel dismissed the concern. 'He has not said he is opposed to it,' [Kavita] Patel told ABC News. 'He has voiced his disagreement with having that be a part of his health-care plan last year. But he is not opposed to the idea itself.' Patel added that the Obama campaign is in touch with former Clinton health-care advisers." (Teddy Davis, John Santucci and Gregory Wallace, "Obama Health Plan Could Go In Clinton's Direction," ABC News' "Political Radar" Blog, blogs.abcnews.com, 6/26/08)

Barack Obama Argued With Sen. Clinton Saying There Is "A Different Way" To Achieve Universal Care Rather Than Imposing An Individual Mandate. Obama: "We've got a philosophical difference which we've debated repeatedly, and that is that Senator Clinton believes the only way to achieve universal health care is to force everybody to purchase it, and my belief is the reason that people don't have it is not because they don't want it, but because they can't afford it." (Barack Obama, CNN/Univision Democrat Presidential Debate, Austin, TX, 2/21/08)

CHANGE #10: During The Primaries, Barack Obama Pledged To Filibuster Any Bill Which Contained Immunity For Telecommunications Companies Involved In Electronic Surveillance, But Now Backs A Compromise Bill

In October 2007, The Obama Campaign Pledged He Would Filibuster "Any Bill That Includes Retroactive Immunity For Telecommunications Companies." Obama Spokesman Bill Burton: "To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies." (Greg Sargent, "Obama Camp Says It: He'll Support Filibuster Of Any Bill Containing Telecom Immunity," Talking Points Memo's "Election Central" Blog, tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com, 10/24/07)

Barack Obama Now Supports A Bill Reauthorizing Electronic Surveillance That Grants Immunity To Telecommunications Companies. Obama: "Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives and the liberty of the American people." (Ben Smith, "Obama Backs FISA Compromise," The Politico's "Ben Smith" Blog, www.politico.com, 6/20/08)

CHANGE #11: Barack Obama Disagreed With The Supreme Court Decision Striking Down The Use Of The Death Penalty For A Convicted Child Rapist Although In The Past He Opposed The Death Penalty

When Asked About Today's Supreme Court Decision Striking Down The Use Of The Death Penalty For A Child Rapist, Barack Obama Stated That He Disagreed With The Decision. Reporter: "Senator, what's your reaction to the Supreme Court's decision today striking down the death penalty for a child rapist?" Obama: "I disagree with the decision. I have said repeatedly that I think that the death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstances, for the most egregious of crimes. I think that the rape of a small child, 6 or 8 years old, is a heinous crime. And if a state makes a decision that under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances, the death penalty is at least potentially applicable, that that does not violate our constitution. Now, I think it's -- you know, had the Supreme Court said we want to constrain the ability of the states to do this to make sure that it's done in a careful and appropriate way, that would have been one thi ng. But it basically had a blanket prohibition and I disagreed with that decision." (Sen. Barack Obama, Press Conference, Chicago, IL, 6/25/08)

Running For The Illinois State Senate In 1996, Barack Obama Opposed The Death Penalty. Question: "Do you support capital punishment?" Obama's Answer: "No." (Independent Voters Of Illinois Independent Precinct Organization 1996 General Candidate Questionnaire, Barack Obama Responses, 9/9/96)

CHANGE #12: Barack Obama Has Backtracked From His Earlier Commitment To Meet With The Leaders Of State Sponsors Of Terror "Without Precondition"

At A July 2007 Debate, Barack Obama Announced He Would Personally Meet With Leaders Of Iran, North Korea, Syria And Other Hostile Nations "Without Precondition." QUESTION: "[W]ould you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?"... OBAMA: "I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration - is ridiculous." (CNN/YouTube Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Charleston, SC, 7/23/07)

The Boston Globe's Joan Vennochi: "On foreign policy, Obama went from stating that he would meet, without preconditions, with the president of Iran, to saying he would meet 'with the appropriate Iranian leaders at a time and place of my choosing - if and only if - it can advance the interests of the United States.'" (Joan Vennochi, Op-Ed, "Obama And McCain Flip-Flop, Flip-Flop," The Boston Globe, 6/22/08)

CHANGE #13: After Saying Jerusalem Should Be "Undivided," Barack Obama Has Since Backtracked

At The Annual AIPAC Policy Conference, Barack Obama Says Clearly That Jerusalem Should Be The "Undivided" Capital Of Israel. Obama: "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At The Annual AIPAC Policy Conference, Arlington, VA, 6/4/08)

One Day After The AIPAC Conference, Barack Obama Said The Future Of Jerusalem Would Have To Be Negotiated By Israel And The Palestinians. CNN's Candy Crowley: "I want to ask you about something you said in AIPAC yesterday. You said that Jerusalem must remain undivided. Do Palestinians have no claim to Jerusalem in the future?" Obama: "Well, obviously, it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues." (CNN's "The Situation Room," 6/5/08)

CHANGE #14: As A Presidential Candidate, Barack Obama Has Backed Away From His Earlier Support For Normalized Relations With Cuba And Ending The Embargo

Barack Obama: "As president, I'll maintain the embargo it's an important inducement for change because we know that Castro's death will not guarantee freedom." (Beth Reinhard, "It's Got A Good Beat And You Can Dance To It," The Miami Herald's "Naked Politics" Blog, 8/25/07)

"In January 2004, Obama Said It Was Time 'To End The Embargo With Cuba' Because It Had 'Utterly Failed In The Effort To Overthrow Castro.'" ("Top Obama Flip-Flops," The Washington Post, 2/25/08)

Barack Obama: "I think it's time for us to end the embargo with Cuba." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL, 1/20/04)

CHANGE #15: Barack Obama Is Against The California Ballot Measure Banning Gay Marriage Despite His Assertion That Marriage Is Between A Man And A Woman

Barack Obama Came Out Against A California Ballot Measure That Would Ban Same-Sex Marriage. "Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, who previously said the issue of gay marriage should be left up to each state, has announced his opposition to a California ballot measure that would ban same-sex marriages. In a letter to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club read Sunday at the group's annual Pride Breakfast in San Francisco, the Illinois senator said he supports extending 'fully equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples under both state and federal law.'" (Aurelio Rojas, "Obama Rejects Proposed California Gay Marriage Ban," Sacramento Bee, 7/1/08)

"Obama Had Previously Said He Opposes Same-Sex Marriage But That Each State Should Make Its Own Decision." (Aurelio Rojas, "Obama Rejects Proposed California Gay Marriage Ban," Sacramento Bee, 7/1/08)

CHANGE #16: Barack Obama Says That "Mental Distress" Should Not Be Reason For A Late Term Abortion Which Contradicts His Past Extreme Pro-Abortion Views

Barack Obama: Mental Distress Should Not Be A Reason For A Late Term Abortion. "I have repeatedly said that I think it's entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don't think that 'mental distress' qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term." (Sen. Barack Obama Interview, Relevant Magazine, 7/1/08)

Barack Obama Appears To Have Backed Away "From His Long-Stated Positions On Abortion." "In a recent interview, Obama appears to back away from his long-stated positions on abortion (and a proposed federal abortion rights law he had co-sponsored), repudiate 35 years of accepted Supreme Court rulings on the issue and embrace a view on abortion restrictions that has been expressed on the Court only by Justices Thomas and Scalia." (Jan Crawford Greenburg, "Obama: Sounding Like Thomas And Scalia?" http://blogs.abcnews.com, 7/4/08)

CHANGE #17: Barack Obama Said He Would Debate "Anywhere, Anytime" But Has Rejected Joint Town Hall Meetings

Barack Obama Says He Would Debate John McCain "Anywhere, Anytime." OBAMA: "I am happy to have a debate with John McCain and George Bush about foreign policy. If John McCain wants to meet me anywhere, anytime, to have a debate about our respective policies in Iraq, Iran, the Middle East or around the world, that is a conversation I am happy to have. Because I believe that there is no separation between John McCain and George Bush when it comes to our Middle East policy and I think their policy has failed." (Barack Obama, Media Availability, Watertown, SD, 5/16/08)

However, Barack Obama Has Rejected Joint Town Hall Meetings. "Avoiding town hall meetings and rejecting public campaign financing may be predictable strategies for minimizing one of McCain's greatest strengths and exploiting one of his key weaknesses. But they pull Obama down into the cynical political calculations he pledged to rise above." (Editorial, "Obama's Big Words Ring Hollow," St. Petersburg Times, 6/20/08)

Change #18: Barack Obama decides to tap the strategic oil reserve.

“Sen. Obama has looked at this issue, he recognizes that Americans are suffering, that we have a unique situation with rising gas prices and this is one occasion where we need to look at this strategically and he made the decision that we need to tap the strategic petroleum reserves.”

Obama last month said he did not think the country should use the strategic oil reserves "at this point."

"I have said and in fact supported a congressional resolution that said we should suspend putting more oil into the strategic oil reserve but the strategic oil reserve I think has to be reserved for a genuine emergency," he said on July 7.

CNN

Change #19: Obama now says he's "open" to oil drilling.

Obama said Friday that he would be willing to compromise on his position against offshore oil drilling if it were part of a more overarching strategy to lower energy costs.

"My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices," Obama told The Palm Beach Post early into a two-day swing through Florida.

But on Saturday morning, Obama said this "wasn't really a new position."

"I made a general point about the fact that we need to provide the American people some relief and that there has been constructive conversations between Republicans and Democrats in the Senate on this issue," he said during a press conference in Cape Canaveral.

"What I will not do, and this has always been my position, is to support a plan that suggests this drilling is the answer to our energy problems," Obama added.

"If we've got a plan on the table that I think meets the goals that America has to set and there are some things in there that I don't like, then obviously that's something that I would consider because that's the nature of how we govern in a democracy."

The senator from Illinois has spoken out against offshore drilling since Sen. John McCain in June proposed striking down the federal moratorium banning offshore oil and gas drilling to help alleviate high gas prices. See where offshore drilling is allowed

"When I'm president, I intend to keep in place the moratorium here in Florida and around the country that prevents oil companies from drilling off Florida's coasts," Obama told reporters in Jacksonville in late June. "That's how we can protect our coastline and still make the investments that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and bring down gas prices for good."

CNN

Change #20: Obama flip flops in the same sentence in response to a seven year old girl's question about why he wants to be president. Obama wants to turn back the clock and more forward; Back to the Future?

Change #21: Obama doesn't know correct stance on Georgia.

First, a moral equivalency position because he didn't know what he was talking about and hadn't talked to his 300 foreign policy advisers:

Chicago, IL -- "I strongly condemn the outbreak of violence in Georgia, and urge an immediate end to armed conflict. Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to avoid an escalation to full scale war. Georgia's territorial integrity must be respected. All sides should enter into direct talks on behalf of stability in Georgia, and the United States, the United Nations Security Council, and the international community should fully support a peaceful resolution to this crisis."

Second, McCain's position:

"I condemn Russia's aggressive actions and reiterate my call for an immediate ceasefire... Russia must stop its bombing campaign, cease flights of Russian aircraft in Georgian airspace, and withdraw its ground forces from Georgia."

Change #22: Obama insists he voted for protecting infants who survive abortion, but he actually voted against just such a law. When he insisted that he only voted against it because it would water down abortion, he lied because the law included such a provision.

Change #23: Obama said, at the Saddleback forum that he thinks marriage is between a man and a woman, but would vote against a federal amendment saying so because it would prohibit people from visiting their lovers in hospitals. California has a proposition that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman and doesn't restrict civil unions. He won't support it.

Saturday’s presidential candidates forum, moderated by Pastor Rick Warren, gave me a number of new reasons to believe John McCain may beat Barack Obama in the 2008 race for the White House, a race Obama’s party has every reason to win.

But first, congratulations are in order for Pastor Rick Warren, whom I am honored to call a friend. His questions were fair, concise (what a relief!), and important. He managed to get the candidates to reveal their differences on important issues in a way that has not been done before.

And Pastor Warren’s function as “Values-Inquisitor-in-Chief” reminded all of us that while a certain separation of church and state is very good for our republic, it is dangerous and un-American to advocate for the divorce of religiously motivated moral values from politics. The candidates proved this in their own words by explaining how their religious and moral values shape their policy proposals.

Before Saturday’s event, most analysts agreed the forum at Saddleback Church was the perfect venue for Obama to break into McCain’s considerable advantage among evangelical voters. He would be on their turf and could talk their language—beautifully, of course—and that would be enough.

How wrong they were.

They were wrong because most political pundits still don’t “get” regular church-going evangelicals. Or more precisely, because they don’t get the faith dynamics of fervent Christians of any denomination (weekly church attendees is a more consistent voting block than any denomination as a whole). They assume getting their votes is mostly about connecting with them through a common faith language. They assume because Obama talks the lingo of conversion and salvation (even from the pulpit at times), and because McCain has seemed uncomfortable sharing his faith experience, then Obama is very much like this voting block and should be able to get some of their votes.

The logical flaw here is the assumption that active Christians judge a candidate primarily by his religious talk. The recent American religious experience is full of scandal. The regular churchgoer is now rather unimpressed by words alone and is particularly attentive to behavior inconsistent with Biblical standards. Action, or in the case of politics, policy, is their best indication a politician can be trusted to govern wisely.

In this light, there were two moments in Saturday’s forum that, in my opinion, were the beginning of an unraveling of Obama’s campaign.

The first and most important of these was Obama’s response to Pastor Warren’s excellent question, “When do babies get human rights?” The senator from Illinois responded:

“I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade” (Obamablahblah it's a simple question)

Now we do know. What I find disturbing is that while Senator Obama says he doesn’t know when babies get rights, he has always felt comfortable voting to refuse the right to life to all pre-born babies, even ones who are aborted outside of the womb, through partial birth abortion or, shockingly, even after a botched abortion.

Senator Obama doesn’t know if these babies have human rights, and still he is willing to vote in favor of letting them die?

You don’t have to be a theologian or a scientist to know that kind of moral thinking is deeply flawed. Ask a hunter. When a deer hunter sees something moving in the bushes, and he isn’t absolutely sure it is a deer, and not a fellow hunter, he cannot shoot. He must clear up his doubt before acting. Anyone, of any pay grade, knows when it comes to defending human life it is only just to err on the side of caution.

Senator Obama’s convoluted response to a simple question did not end there. He stated his support for Roe vs. Wade but predicated it with this phrase: “but the issue has moral content.” If the issue has “moral content,” will he continue to support Roe vs. Wade unconditionally? NARAL gives him a 100% approval rating, isn’t that proof enough that he is willing to overlook the issue’s “moral content?”

John McCain’s answer stood out for its clarity and simplicity: “at the moment of conception.”

And to think both these men have the same pay grade as U.S. senators.

The second telling moment of the debate was in response to Pastor Warren’s question regarding which of the eight sitting Supreme Court Justices the candidates wouldn’t have appointed.

Senator Obama named Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. But strangely, he considered it necessary to twice demean along the way the intelligence of Justice Thomas, the second and currently only black Supreme Court Justice of the United States of America. Obama said Justice Thomas isn’t a “strong enough jurist or legal thinker” and then backhanded Thomas’ intellect once again by saying that while he disagrees with Justice Scalia’s constitutional interpretations, he doesn’t doubt his (in comparison to Thomas’) “intellectual brilliance.”

Senator Obama’s response here was curious for another reason. He chose not to list at first the two newest members of the court, Justices Roberts and Alito, even though he voted against their confirmation in the Senate.

Senator McCain answered this second question by immediately listing all four liberal judges on the bench, with no explanations needed. His audience understood everything. Above all, they came to know him as one of them.

SENATE Minority Leader Malcolm Smith told a conclave of lobbyists in Kingston last week that their clients would be shut out of a Democrat-controlled Senate in January if they didn't pony up large contributions now, a "shocked" longtime lobbyist has told The Post. (isn't the "ONE", their leader supposed to be ABOVE lobbyist cash?)

The Queens-based Smith, whose party is given a good chance by political experts of winning control of the Senate in the November elections, also made what the lobbyist called "an inappropriate and offensive" sexual joke about marital infidelity.

"It was a shocking set of remarks and people were looking around the room in disbelief," said the well-known lobbyist, who has strong Republican and Democratic ties.

"It was far more blatant a threat than anything we're used to hearing from many of the leaders," the lobbyist continued.

"The whole thing was incredible. Malcolm got up there and thanked everyone for coming and told them we should think of his fund-raising event as being like an IPO, an initial public offering.

"He said we should get in early because then it doesn't cost as much. The longer you wait to get in, he said, the more it will cost you and if you don't get in at all, then it will be painful after November, after the Democrats win the majority," the lobbyist continued.

"Then he referred to [Bronx state Sen.] Jeff Klein about four times as his 'enforcer,' who is going to be brutal, aggressive, about collecting the contributions, and that he was the one managing the IPO."

Linking campaign contributions to future government actions is illegal under New York law, legal experts told The Post.

The lobbyist, meanwhile, also said Smith, the married father of two who fathered an out-of-wedlock child with a woman other than his wife three years ago, made "an inappropriate and unprofessional" sexual innuendo at the event, a Senate Democratic golf outing at the private Wiltwyck Golf Club, attended by about 75 lobbyists who paid up to $75,000 each.

"The golf was called off because of rain, so the program was being shortened and the dinner was held early," the lobbyist recalled.

"Smith was up there joking about what was going on, about the dinner ending early, and then said something like, 'If anybody needs a permission slip for their spouse so that they can say you were here for a few hours more, I'll say you were here until 8. You're covered until about 8.'

"There was only one way to interpret that - cheating on your spouse - even if it was a joke," the lobbyist recalled.

Repeated attempts to reach Smith for comment were unsuccessful, and he didn't return messages left on his cellphone.

Curtis Taylor, his press secretary, also refused to discuss the specifics of the event, even though he was among those present.

Obama was relaxed, intelligent and reflective; McCain was energetic and forceful but fell back more on his favorite campaign lines. Obama was every bit the impressive, likable young man; McCain was the elder statesman telling his best stories. Obama was comfortable talking about his faith; McCain said the bare minimum about it.

But the most telling contrast between the two was the depth McCain could draw on. Obama went first. After his winning performance - he drew a good-natured high-five from the best-selling Warren after joking that his definition of "rich" definitely includes authors who have sold 25 million copies of their books - it was unclear whether McCain could match his conversational acumen. But within about a minute, it was obvious that McCain would eclipse Obama.

For both, the first question was, who would they listen to in the White House. Obama said his wife, his grandmother and a collection of senators, in that order. McCain first said Gen. David Petraeus, who presumably knows more about matters of war and peace than Mrs. Obama. Obama's answer was worthy of an aspiring guest on "Oprah McCain's of an aspiring commander in chief.

Both were asked early on about an instance when they had bucked their party. Obama mentioned a brief interlude of working with McCain on a forgettable piece of ethics legislation. McCain noted his work on out-of-control spending, torture, and climate change - and had barely scratched the surface. He recalled differing with Reagan on sending Marines to Lebanon in the early 1980s, a reminder of how long he has been immersed in national-security issues.

Another early question was about the hardest decision they had ever made. Obama said his decision to oppose the Iraq war, but as a liberal state senator in Illinois at the time, no one would have expected him to do otherwise. McCain said refusing early release as a Vietnam POW, in a riveting answer.

Within the first 15 minutes, McCain had established a moral seriousness stemming from his long experience as a national leader and his conduct in Vietnam as a POW that Obama simply couldn't match. Throughout the night, McCain brought up Iraq, al Qaeda and the Georgia crisis, while Obama was determinedly inward-looking. Asked whether he thinks evil exists, Obama cited Darfur, then street crime in the United States. McCain invoked Osama bin Laden.

McCain sounded like a potential president, Obama more like a potential therapist, seeing all sides and offering them the balm of his thoughtfulness and verbal acuity. He looked very young and slender. It was almost as if Democrats had gone from merely appealing to graduate students to nominating one.

Excerpt from NYP article. Funny how the New York Post wasn't interested in the "grey" areas of rumor & lies .

It's August.

It's early.

But for Democrats, it's over.

Over. Done. Fini.

At the risk of sounding like I've snapped...allow me this snap judgment.

The Democrats have just lost the presidency this week.

For them, a horrible week.

So horrible...so discombobulated. So inconsistently communicated and messaged, that they've lost their message.

And I think, this election too.

Because here's the deal as we end this week, my friends.

The Dems...are done.

I know. Laugh all you want. And I will conveniently destroy this message in the event I'm wrong.

But here's why I don't think I am.

During this crucial defining period that brought a Russian bear out of hibernation and a befuddled Nancy Pelosi into drilling reality...allow me to drill home this point.

Democrats lost a lot of mojo this week, their only saving grace that it's an August week.

I don't think that will save them.

Not when Russia threatens a new Cold War and the best their presumptive nominee can do is offer hope warring parties could put aside their hostilities...

While his opponent calls Russia what it clearly was and is: a bully. And a bully that must be dealt with.

And if his presidential metal wasn't tested enough...Barack Obama caves to Hillary Clinton and allows a roll call vote. He's doing it for all good and decent reasons. But nothing good or decent will come of it....her supporters still don't flip over him, no matter what he does to accommodate them.

He's given Hillary a prime time speech. Bill a prime time speech. Chelsea a prime time speech. Is Sox the Cat still around?

My god, who won this damn thing? Show some backbone, man!

Then in the middle of the week Obama's economic team comes out with this grand explanation of a tax cut package that reminds all again...not of cuts promised for the middle class...but serious hikes for those who don't much consider themselves above middle class.

And charges again that these new numbers "still" don't add up as we explored on this very show.

On the very same week Nancy Pelosi read the furor among her own members and decided to backtrack on that no-drilling vote thing.

Not good things for a party that said it would lead the charge.

It shouldn't be this way...with the slowing economy, democrats should be running away.

But they look weak on a military crisis.

Inconsistent on an economic crisis.

And impotent on their own brewing political convention crisis.

Things change. Tides ebb and flow.

But I think we will look back to this week in August as the time the party that had it all in the bag...just puked in it.

Friday, August 15, 2008 1:27 AM EDT

Cal Thomas
Tribune Media Services

Russia’s invasion of Georgia on the pretext of “protecting” Russian peacekeepers stationed in the separatist enclave of South Ossetia and ending the “ethnic cleansing” of native Russians living there, is a sobering reminder that the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989 was not a sign that old-line communists were ready to walk the sawdust trail of repentance and convert to capitalism, democracy, human rights and religious freedom. Quite the contrary.

Vladimir Putin, who continues to effectively run Russia through his hand-picked “successor,” President Dmitry Medvedev, still resembles what he once was: the head of the notorious KGB security agency. Putin never renounced communism, nor has he embraced Western values. Russia was admitted to the G-8 largely because many in the West believed it would soften Putin and transform the Russian bear into a pussycat. That was a mistake and now we see Putin for what he is: a man intent on restoring Russia’s “greatness” by means that closely resemble those employed by deceased Soviet dictators.

On Tuesday, Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet Union’s last head of state, wrote an opinion piece for The Washington Post in which he blamed Georgia for Russia’s invasion. Blaming the victim has long been a strategy of dictatorial leaders who seek a moral high ground for immoral actions.

The horrors visited on the Georgian people, including thousands of deaths, thousands more wounded and massive property destruction, provides a look into how the two American presidential candidates would handle such a crisis. On vacation in Hawaii, Barack Obama offered a somewhat tepid initial statement through a spokesperson, until confronted by John McCain’s much more forceful one.

Obama then issued a second and longer statement in person. Appearing tieless, and somewhat clueless before cameras, Obama sounded as if the media were doing him a favor by showing up. He began rather informally with, “I appreciate all you guys taking the time to be here.” Isn’t that their job? Obama’s remarks were delivered in a halting voice, with many pauses and “uhs,” making him appear uncomfortable, lacking in his usual self-confidence — even hubris — and unfamiliar with the words apparently written by someone else.

Obama called on Russia to stop its bombing of Georgia, but what was missing was an “or else.” Obama’s version of an “or else” consisted of calling upon the feckless United Nations Security Council to pass a resolution for “an immediate end to the violence.” Wow, that’s likely to make Russia sweat! The world is still waiting for Iran to comply with several U.N. resolutions. Saddam Hussein ignored 16 U.N. resolutions before the United States enforced them.

Obama also wants a U.N. mediator “to address the crisis” and he even called for “other international forums” to be convened “to condemn this aggression.” Not only that, Obama said multilateral and bilateral arrangements with Russia need to be “reviewed,” including “Russia’s interest in joining the World Trade Organization.” Is that tough, or what? It’s or what.

John McCain’s “or else” was far more specific, credible and has the potential to produce results. McCain warned Russia of “severe, long-term negative consequences” from the Georgia invasion, charged Moscow with intending to topple Georgia’s pro-Western government and urged NATO to “convene an emergency session to demand a cease-fire” (apparently achieved through the intervention of France) “and begin discussions on the deployment of an international peacekeeping force to South Ossetia and the implications for NATO’s future relationship with Russia.”

McCain has long been a critic of what he regards as Russia’s retreat on human rights and democratic reforms. If elected president, he said he would push to exclude Russia from membership in the G-8 group of industrial nations.

Whatever the political outcome of Russia’s invasion of Georgia, the incident has reminded American voters that in uncertain times it is dangerous to choose a rookie with no foreign policy experience and a juvenile approach to world affairs over one tempered by war who understands that U.N. resolutions might as well be written in disappearing ink.

John McCain knows that peace through strength is what defeated the Soviet Union and that it’s peace through strength that will best preserve free nations and advance their interests.

Thursday, August 14, 2008

By Ben Lieberman

It’s true: Hundreds of promising oil leases on federal lands are being stonewalled, contributing to lower supplies and higher prices at the pump. But the blame lies not with the oil companies, but with environmental activists.

Much of America’s energy potential lies underneath federally controlled lands and waters, but some of those areas are off-limits to oil exploration and drilling. In response to high gasoline prices, several Washington lawmakers want to open these areas, including some of the 85 percent of our territorial waters that are restricted, as well as a small portion of Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Polls show that the public endorses this step, but the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate, fearing a loss of support from anti-drilling environmental activists, has thus far blocked these measures.

Their argument? The oil companies don’t need new leases in restricted areas because they aren’t diligently pursuing leases in areas that are currently open to them. “Why should we be giving big oil additional leases when they have 68 million acres under lease already that they’re not drilling on right now?” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi asked.

Sounds damning. But the charge of industry dawdling is totally without support, and proponents of the “use it or lose it” bills that seek to punish delays have yet to produce a single credible example of an oil company dragging its feet on a green-lighted project.

In many cases, there isn’t any energy to be found. Dry holes happen, and just because the law allows drilling somewhere is no guarantee of success. However, plenty of leases are sitting atop oil that’s likely to remain underground for years, and perhaps permanently. The culprits are environmental activists and their delaying tactics, including several instances in the past few weeks alone.

For example, a lease sale was recently held in New Mexico involving 78 parcels. Environmentalists immediately protested all 78. These protests are one of the first, but by no means the last step that green groups can take to try to stop oil and natural gas production. If past is prologue, subsequent delays and litigation will prevent this energy from reaching the market by many years, and may kill off these projects entirely.

At the same time, energy production in northwestern Colorado was shut down, thanks to activists exploiting the nearly impossible paperwork requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This time, it’s the black-footed ferret, but more than 1,000 other listed species means many leases are in or near the potential habitat for at least one of them. Whether shutting down a significant part of Colorado’s energy production really benefits the ferrets is an open question, but useful or not, such shutdowns are common. And the ESA is only one of many tools in the anti-energy activists’ arsenal.

In each case, the oil companies are the ones fighting delays, not causing them. Such battles are becoming more common.

"Protests of leases have risen from 167 per year from 1997-2000 to 1,180 per year from 2001-2007 — a 706 percent increase," according to Daniel Kish, vice president of the Institute for Energy Research. "Unless this is stopped, any efforts to access land for energy will be meaningless."

Thus, we have an anti-energy double whammy when it comes to domestic production. There are vast energy-rich areas that are completely off limits, and there are others that are subject to spools of red tape that environmental activists can use to stall or even preclude production.

But rather then streamline these provisions, along with opening up the restricted areas, Democrats and their don’t-drill-anywhere allies would rather spin conspiracy theories about big oil sitting on their rights — and ignore the real reason that more domestic energy isn’t coming online.

Friday, August 15, 2008

 AP

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

WASHINGTON —  Iraqi Shiite explosive and assassination teams are being trained in at least four locations in Iran by Tehran's elite Quds force and Lebanese Hezbollah, according to intelligence gleaned from captured militia fighters and other sources in Iraq.

A senior U.S. military intelligence officer in Baghdad also said the fighters planned to return to Iraq in the next few months to kill specific Iraqi officials as well as U.S. and Iraqi forces.

The intelligence officer described the information Thursday in an interview with The Associated Press. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the intelligence information.

The officer on Wednesday provided Iraq's national security adviser with several lists of the assassination teams' expected targets. The country's intelligence service is preparing operations to determine where and when the specially trained fighters will enter Iraq and will provide an assessment to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, the intelligence officer said.

Iran, Hezbollah's mentor, denies giving any support to Shiite extremists in Iraq.

The U.S. official disclosed the information in an attempt to create political pressure on Iran to suspend the training and prevent the militia fighters from returning to Iraq.

/**/ The U.S. military also wants the Iraqi government to take steps to protect the targets. "Wanted" posters picturing men believed to be heading the special groups are being posted around Baghdad, the military officer said.

The fighters are expected to return to Iraq between now and October, but the officer said there's no intelligence suggesting they are actually in Iraq yet.

Many of the fighters fled to Iran this spring after Iraqi government forces cracked down first on militia sanctuaries in Basra and Sadr City in Baghdad, then Amarah, and now in Diyala province, the military officer said.

One of the reasons the U.S. believes the special groups moved out during that period is the sharp decline in the number of deadly roadside bombs using explosively formed penetrators.

In March, there were 55 such attacks. By July, that number had dropped to around 18, the officer said. U.S. intelligence believes those sophisticated bombs can be traced back to Iran.

The officer said training is going on in at least four locations in Iran: Qom, Tehran, Ahvaz and Mashhad.

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Friday that regional nations should fill the security vacuum when U.S. troops withdraw from Iraq but said there was no prospect of sending in Iranian forces.

The United States and Iraq have worked on a deal this year to try to ensure Iraqi security but have disagreed on timing for American troops to withdraw. Iraq has insisted on a timetable but President Bush has refused to accept one.

"The United States will soon leave the region, then regional countries should fill the security vacuum; there is no need for interference of other countries," Ahmadinejad said on the final day of a two-day visit to Istanbul, Turkey's financial and cultural center.

U.S. and Iraqi negotiators missed a July 31 target date for completing a security deal amid disagreement over U.S. troop withdrawals. Iraq's Shiite-led government believes a schedule is essential to win approval for a security deal in parliament.

Ahmadinejad said Iraq's "stability and territorial integrity," was important for Iran, a position backed by his Turkish hosts. "We all have to protect the state of Iraq."

The elite Quds Force is a branch of Iran's Revolutionary Guard. The Islamic militant group Hezbollah, based in Lebanon, is believed to receive weapons from Syria and Iran.

The number of "special group criminals" — the U.S. name for Iraqi fighters sponsored by Iran — is unknown but is estimated to be in the hundreds and possibly more than 1,000.

According to the officer, the training camps are operating under the direction of Quds force commander, Brig. Gen. Ghassem Soleimani, with the knowledge and approval of Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

The training includes how to conduct reconnaissance to pinpoint targets, small arms and weapons training, small unit tactics, and terrorist cell operations and communications.

They are also learning how to use explosively formed penetrator bombs and other improvised explosive devices and rocket propelled grenades, including the RPG-29, a signature weapon of Lebanese Hezbollah and the Quds force.

Lebanese Hezbollah conducts much of the training in the camps because its members speak Arabic, the dominant language in Iraq.

The U.S. officer said there were no confirmed reports of Lebanese Hezbollah members crossing into Iraq.

That conflicts with what Iraqi Shiite lawmakers and a top Army officer told The AP last month: Hezbollah trainers were running training camps in southern Iraq until April, when they were pushed into Iran by the Iraqi crackdown.

The trainees in the Iranian camps include three Iraqis already wanted by the Iraqi government for terrorist attacks: Haji Mahdi, Haji Thamir, and Baqir al Sa'idi, the officer said. He identified two Iraqi Shiite militia groups in Iran by name: "The League of the Righteous," or "Asaib al Haq," and the "Kataib al Hezbollah."

The "special group criminals" are offshoots of cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's Jaysh al-Mahdi militia. They spun off their own groups after al-Sadr declared a cease-fire with the Iraqi government in August 2007 and are not thought to be under his control now.

By MARY JACOBY
August 11, 2008; Page A5

John McCain's top foreign-policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, is a leading expert on U.S.-allied Georgia -- and was a paid lobbyist for the former Soviet republic until March, in the run-up to what has become a major battle between Georgia and Russia.

Democratic rival Barack Obama's presidential campaign was quick to try to paint Mr. Scheunemann's dual roles as a conflict of interest after Sen. McCain swiftly took Georgia's side in the dispute, and cited it as evidence that Sen. McCain is "ensconced in a lobbyist culture," as Obama spokesman Hari Sevugan told reporters over the weekend. (people are dying over there & the “ONE” just wants it to be all about politics.)

But given the rapid escalation of the fighting, and the fact that Georgia is being viewed as a victim of its neighbor's aggression, Mr. Scheunemann's ties to the small nation and its pro-Western Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili may look less like a weakness and more like a strength in the first foreign-policy crisis of the general election campaign.

"In a major international crisis, what is their response?" Mr. Scheunemann said of the Obama campaign in an interview Sunday. "To take a cheap shot at me, as if helping a struggling democracy is somehow wrong." Mr. Scheunemann took a formal leave of absence from his two-person lobbying firm earlier this year amid controversy over Sen. McCain's ties to lobbyists. (desperate attempt by the “ONE” to try and blame this crisis on McCain)

Mr. Scheunemann's firm, Orion Strategies, continues to represent Georgia in Washington, and signed a new $200,000 contract with the country in April. Mr. Scheunemann remains an owner of the firm, though he is no longer registered to lobby for it. Mr. Scheunemann said he has made more than a dozen trips to Georgia since he began lobbying for the country in 2004.

The crisis puts a spotlight on Mr. Scheunemann, 48 years old, who has long been a leading neoconservative voice in the American foreign-policy debate. He played a prominent role advocating for toppling Saddam Hussein, serving in 2002 as executive director of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. At a key moment before the war, he helped to line up allies in "New Europe" -- notably former Soviet bloc states like Latvia -- to write a letter in support of the invasion. That came as "Old Europe" American allies like France and Germany resisted.

Mr. Schueneman has made a career in lobbying for countries, including Georgia, that aspire to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Russia's objections to expansion of the Western military alliance are a factor in the current assault in the Caucasus.

As a foreign-policy aide to then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott in 1997, Mr. Scheunemann accompanied Sen. McCain on a trip to the newly independent former Soviet republic. At a dinner, Sen. McCain first met Mr. Saakashvili, who had been a law student in Washington, and was then a young reform-minded Georgian parliamentarian, Mr. Scheunemann said.

In 2003, Sen. McCain returned to Georgia and gave a speech calling on then-President Eduard Shevardnadze to conduct fair presidential and parliamentary elections. The elections weren't perceived as fair, however, and democratic activists launched the protests known as the Rose Revolution that led to Mr. Saakashvili's gaining power.

In August 2006, Sen. McCain returned to Georgia on another congressional delegation, visiting Mr. Saakashvili at a presidential villa on the Black Sea. While Mr. Scheunemann watched from a dock, Sen. McCain and the Georgian leader rode jet skis together, Mr. Scheunemann said.

"He knows all the top players" in Georgia, Zeyno Baran, an analyst on energy and the Caucasus region at the Hudson Institute in Washington, said of Mr. Scheunemann.

Mr. Scheunemann is an architect of the U.S.-led expansion of NATO to include former Soviet satellite states, a bipartisan policy begun under the Clinton administration intended to contain Russia.

But in the 1990s and early 2000s Russia had little economic and diplomatic power to stop its former satellites and republics -- including Poland, the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Romania -- from joining the Western alliance.

Sen. McCain has said that NATO leaders' failure to advance Georgia's application for membership at a summit of the alliance in Romania earlier this year emboldened Russia to invade.

Mr. Scheunemann said he had foreseen the possibility of a Russian attack on Georgia. He had long counseled President Saakashvili to avoid overreacting to provocations from the Russian-backed breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia that are at the center of the current conflict, these people say.

"At all sort of critical moments, when there have been repeated Russian provocations, Randy was a calming influence" advising Georgians against responding to Russia with military action, Ms. Baran said.

Mr. Scheunemann's firm has earned more than $2 million since 2004 lobbying U.S. officials, including Sen. McCain and his staff, on behalf of various clients including Georgia, records show.

Ticket Twist

Some Barack Obama supporters have been told they must complete six hours of volunteer work by Friday if they want a seat at Denver's Invesco Field for the senator's Democratic nomination acceptance speech. The Rocky Mountain News reports a campaign phone message says volunteering makes one eligible for a ticket, but does not guarantee one.

Well, that phone message is not going over too well.

One applicant says: "It's not fair. It's elitist. And they need to practice what they are preaching." And another calls the conditions "blackmail," adding he was told to volunteer for 12 hours to have a shot at two tickets for the August 28 event.

The campaign originally said the tickets were free and that it hoped to fill half the stadium with Coloradans. An Obama spokesman says only those who indicated on their application they would volunteer have been asked to do so. But no one has explained the phone messages indicating a service requirement for a ticket.

Just doing the math here. Assuming that 20,000 tickets are "give aways" to special people, that leaves 50,000 seats that have to be earned with volunteer work on the campaign.  This doesn't make sense, if each person has to "give" 6 hours to him that would make 37,500 people each day for the next 8 days. How is that supposed to happen? What are they going to have to do? It's a logistical nightmare! And then, even if this was achieved, there is no guarantee of a ticket.

Just another hairbrained scheme on behalf of the "ONE".

Posted: 3:59 am
August 13, 2008

HOUSE Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently called congressional Republicans who want up-or-down drilling votes "hand maidens of the oil companies." Let's call Pelosi what she is: House girl of the Big Wind boondogglers.

Pelosi refuses to consider GOP energy proposals that don't include massive government subsidies for so-called eco-alternatives that have never panned out.

Which brings us to Pelosi's 2007 financial disclosure form. Schedule III lists "Assets and 'Unearned Income' " of $100,001 to $250,000 from Clean Energy Fuels Corp. - Public Common Stock. Clean Energy Fuels Corp. (CLNE) is a natural-gas provider founded by T. Boone Pickens, the former oilman turned wind-power evangelist.

Pickens and Pelosi both downplay the need to drill for more US oil. Instead, the Pickens plan proposes to replace natural gas with wind power in power generation and free up natural gas for transportation needs.

Let's be real about the limitations and costs of wind power: Experience demonstrates the unreliability of wind and the miserably low operating capacity of wind-power facilities here and around the world. Depending on wind requires supplemental fossil-fuel plants as backup to be turned on and off to compensate for wind-power-supply shortfalls - nullifying any reductions in carbon-dioxide emissions.

Naturally, the Pickens Big Wind plan is proudly endorsed by Pelosi's friends at the Sierra Club. Through another company, Mesa Power, Pickens has committed upward of $12 billion in wind farms on the Texas panhandle. CLNE and Mesa Power are separate entities, but what benefits one piece of the Pickens puzzle benefits them all. The wind venture, as Pickens himself admits, depends on permanent federal subsidies.

Pickens is banking on 'em. And Pelosi is banking on him. She bought between $50,000 and $100,000 worth of stock in Pickens' CLNE Corp. in May 2007 on the day of the initial public offering:

"She, and other investors, stand to gain a substantial return on their investment if gasoline prices stay high, and municipal, state and even the federal governments start using natural gas as their primary fuel source," reported dontgomovement.com.

CLNE also happens to be the sponsor of Proposition 10, a ballot initiative in Pelosi's home state of California to dole out $10 billion in state and federal funds for renewable-energy incentives - namely, natural gas and wind.

Follow the money. Or, to put it in economist's terms, as energy analyst Kenneth Medlock III did in The Dallas Morning News about the Pickens multibillion-dollar wind-farm investment: "A lot of what he's trying to do is add value to a stranded asset . . . he's obviously got millions of dollars on the line."

And so, potentially, does Pelosi - all the while wagging her finger at the financial motivation of others.

WHAT DID SAY HUH?

Obama says: "Everybody knows that it makes no sense that you send a kid to the emergency room for a treatable illness like asthma, they end up taking up a hospital bed, it costs, when, if you, they just gave, you gave them treatment early and they got some treatment, and a, a breathalyzer, or inhalator, not a breathalyzer . . .  (no such thing as an inhalator & MOST people actually KNOW what a breathalyzer is)  what point was he trying to make here? he obviously knows NOTHING about having an asthmatic child.

"What they'll say is, 'Well it costs too much money,' but you know what? It would cost, about . . . It -- it -- it would cost about the same as what we would spend . . . It . . . Over the course of 10 years it would cost what it would costs us . . . (nervous laugh) All right. Okay. We're going to . . . It . . . It would cost us about the same as it would cost for about -- hold on one second. I can't hear myself. But I'm glad you're fired up, though. I'm glad."  WHAT THE HECK WAS HE TRYING TO SAY HERE?

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Nearly 10,000 of the biggest donors to Republican candidates and causes across the country will probably receive a foreboding “warning” letter in the mail next week.

The letter is an opening shot across the bow from an unusual new outside political group on the left that is poised to engage in hardball tactics to prevent similar groups on the right from getting off the ground this fall.

Led by Tom Matzzie, a liberal political operative who has been involved with some prominent left-wing efforts in recent years, the newly formed nonprofit group, Accountable America, is planning to confront donors to conservative groups, hoping to create a chilling effect that will dry up contributions.

“We want to stop the Swift Boating before it gets off the ground,” said Mr. Matzzie, who described his effort as “going for the jugular.”

The warning letter is intended as a first step, alerting donors who might be considering giving to right-wing groups to a variety of potential dangers, including legal trouble, public exposure and watchdog groups digging through their lives.

The group is also hoping to be able to respond if an outside conservative group broadcasts a television advertisement attacking Senator Barack Obama, or another Democratic candidate, by running commercials exposing the donors behind the advertisements.

Judd Legum, who was the research director for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign, has signed on to play the same role for Accountable America.

The group has raised only $200,000, but Mr. Matzzie said he expected to collect more than $500,000 by next week, with an ultimate goal of $2 million.

Mr. Matzzie said he had decided to focus exclusively on conservative donors because such an effort could be done cheaply.

“It’s targeted,” Mr. Matzzie said. “We don’t need $25 million.”

Mr. Matzzie recently served as one of the leaders of Progressive Media U.S.A., a group that was intended to lead a left-wing media effort in the presidential election, but the group folded several months ago after it failed to raise enough money, partly because of signals from the Obama campaign that donors should not give to outside groups.

Mr. Obama and other Democratic officials have issued warnings about possible activities by outside groups like the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which helped sink Senator John Kerry’s presidential bid in 2004. But activity among outside conservative groups has been decidedly low-level.

Still, Accountable America has singled out some major Republican donors, including Sheldon Adelson, a billionaire casino mogul, and Mel Sembler, a former ambassador and real estate magnate, both major donors to Freedom’s Watch, a conservative group.

Calls to Mr. Sembler and Mr. Adelson were not returned, but Ed Patru, a spokesman for Freedom’s Watch, scoffed at Mr. Matzzie’s plan.

“This idea sounds even more sloppily thought out than his last venture, which, of course, went belly-up for lack of financial support,” Mr. Patru said.

“I doubt anyone will be intimidated by him,” he said, “but if it gives anyone pause, they are always welcome to give to Freedom’s Watch — all of our donors are entitled to complete anonymity by law.”

Indeed, anonymity is a potential obstacle to the group’s efforts. Outside political groups organized as 501(c)4 entities, including Accountable America, do not have to disclose the names of their donors.

Chris LaCivita, a Republican strategist who helped organize the Swift Boat effort, said Mr. Matzzie’s group was likely to have the opposite effect on potential donors, firing them up instead of discouraging them.

“They’re not going to be intimidated by some pipsqueak on the kooky left,” Mr. LaCivita said.

My goodness, what are they AFRAID of? Is there some deep dark secret they are afraid will tank the "ONE"? hmmmmmmmmmmmm what ever happened to freedom of speech?

Cant' WAIT to see the first one! Like anyone is going be scared by this nutjob! Please!

By Artificial IntelligencecloseAuthor: Artificial Intelligence Name: Artificial Intelligence
Email: goldenspiral@metrocast.net
Site:
About: See Authors Posts (2) on January 11, 2008 at 11:54 PM in Uncategorized

“While pledging to turn down donations from lobbyists themselves, Senator Obama raised more than $1 million in the first three months of his presidential campaign from law firms and companies that have major lobbying operations in the nation’s capital,” Dan Morain wrote April 23, 2007, in the Los Angeles Times.

Stephen Weissman of the nonpartisan think tank Campaign Finance Institute said Obama “gets an asterisk that says he is trying to be different … But overall, the same wealthy interests are funding his campaign as are funding other candidates, whether or not they are lobbyists,” Morain wrote.

Public Citizen (WhiteHouseForSale.or) lists nine of Sen. Obama’s fundraising bundlers as registered lobbyists who have collected in the neighborhood of $1.5 million for his campaign—in addition to their own personal contributions.

Frank M. Clark is chairman and chief executive officer of Commonwealth Edison (ComEd), a unit of Chicago-based Exelon Corporation. As an Obama bundler, Clark raised $200,000+. FEC records show that on January 26, 2007, he personally contributed $2,100 to Obama for America.

Scott Blake Harris is the managing partner of the Washington, D.C., firm Harris Wiltshire and Grannis, which handles such legislative issues as Communications/Broadcasting/ Radio/TV, Science/Technology, Telecommunications, and Trade (Foreign and Domestic), as well as representing the Computing Technology Industry Association. As an Obama bundler, Harris raised $200,000+. FEC records show that on March 15, 2007, he personally contributed $2,000 to Obama for America.

Allan J. Katz is a shareholder and chairman of the Policy Practice Group at Akerman Senterfitt in Tallahassee, Florida. Katz is a Member of the Florida Democratic Committee and Democratic National Committee, and Tallahassee City Commissioner. As an Obama bundler, Katz raised $200,000+ with Marilyn Katz of MK Communications (who personally contributed $1,000 to Obama for America on January 21, 2007).

Robert S. Litt is a partner at the Washington, D.C. firm Arnold & Porter, a regulatory and public affairs firm which represents multiple clients in a variety of industries. As an Obama bundler, Litt raised unknown amount of money. FEC records show that Litt personally contributed $2,300 on February 26, 2007 and $2,300 on May 2, 2007 to Obama for America.

Thomas J. Perrelli is managing partner in the Washington, D.C., office of Jenner and Block, a Chicago general practice law firm, which includes among its clients the National Cable and Telecommunications Association and Time Warner Inc. As an Obama bundler, Perrelli raised $200,000+. FEC records show that Perrelli personally contributed $2,100 on January 16, 2007 and $200 on March 5, 2007 and $2,300 on March 21, 2007 to Obama for America.

Thomas A. Reed is Of Counsel at Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis LLP K&L Gates), which represents multiple industries and multiple clients. As an Obama bundler, Reed raised $200,000+. FEC records show that on March 20, 2007, Reed contributed $2,300 to Obama for America.

Paul N. Roth is a partner at the New York firm Schulte Roth & Zabel, which represents financial institutions, investments, securities, including Cerberus Capital Partners. As an Obama bundler, Roth raised at least $50,000. FEC records show that on March 20, 2007, Roth personally contributed $2,300 to Obama for America.

Alan D. Solomont of Solomont Bailis Ventures in Massachusetts represents Health Services/HMOs. As an Obama bundler, Solomont raised $200,000+. FEC records show that Solomont personally contributed $2,100 on January 26, 2007; $2,500 on March 30, 2007 (Rebecca Solomont at the same address made two $2,300 contributions on the same day); and $2,300 on March 30, 2007 to Obama for America.

Tom E. Wheeler is managing director of Core Capital Partners, a private equity fund in Washington, D.C. As an Obama bundler, Wheeler raised $100,000+. FEC records show that Wheeler personally contributed $2,100 on January 16, 2007; $2,500 on May 2, 2007 and an additional $2,300 on May 2, 2007 to Obama for America. (Note: another $2,300 was added then removed also on May 2, 2007.)

UPDATE: Jeffrey St. Clair and Joshua Frank wrote July 4, 2007, in the Dissident Voice.

“Barack, for the second quarter in a row, has surpassed the fundraising prowess of Hillary Clinton. To be sure small online donations have propelled the young senator to the top, but so too have his connections to big industry. The Obama campaign, as of late March 2007, has accepted $159,800 from executives and employees of Exelon, the nation’s largest nuclear power plant operator.

“The Illinois-based company also helped Obama’’s 2004 senatorial campaign. As Ken Silverstein reported in the November 2006 issue of Harper’s, ‘[Exelon] is Obama’s fourth largest patron, having donated a total of $74,350 to his campaigns. During debate on the 2005 energy bill, Obama helped to vote down an amendment that would have killed vast loan guarantees for power-plant operators to develop new energy projects the public will not only pay millions of dollars in loan costs but will risk losing billions of dollars if the companies default.’”

Picking up on an ad put together by Ohio Democrats, Barack Obama is airing a radio commercial blaming John McCain (and campaign manager Rick Davis) for the potential loss of about 8,000 jobs in Wilmington, Ohio. Basically, Davis lobbied in support of DHL's bid to acquire Airborne Express of Seattle, which had an important hub in Wilmington, Ohio. McCain backed the acquisition and thwarted the efforts of several colleagues to block it. Five years down the line, DHL wants to send some of its cargo on UPS planes, which would likely eliminate the need for its Wilmington facility.

But at the time of the merger, being acquired by DHL seemed a great way to ensure Airborne's future growth. Analysts in Seattle (which lost Airborne's corporate headquarters) foresaw great potential for the new DHL to expand market share and jobs in the U.S. Even the Cincinnati Enquirer seemed to think that Airborne would do extremely well by hitching itself to DHL's far deeper pockets:

DHL Worldwide Express' purchase of Airborne Express' ground assets Tuesday for an estimated $1.05 billion immediately makes DHL a serious player in the U.S. freight market, and it could make the Tristate a major hub for both ground and air shipments...

The agreement immediately would create a major competitor to Federal Express and United Parcel Service for the American overnight express market. Those two companies combine to control about 79 percent of the market; FedEx has 46 percent of U.S. overnight business, and UPS has 33 percent.

Independent analysts anticipated that both DHL's existing facility at the Cincinnati airport and the newly acquired one in Wilmington, Ohio would get plenty of business:

Several industry analysts say the two hubs probably wouldn't serve the same functions as they do now under the new company. But they said it would make sense to keep both open.

"They got a major asset with that airport in Wilmington, where they have two runways, and they can run flights 24 hours a day with no neighbors complaining," said Peter Jacobs, freight analyst with Seattle stock brokerage Ragan MacKenzie. "And they just bought 8 percent of the entire U.S. small freight market. They'll need some more capacity to grow that, so maybe the new building at the Cincinnati airport could become a mega-hub for the region. The real key here is the ground network, which is what DHL has been missing."

And those analysts proved right. In the 5 years since the merger went through, DHL moved its freight operation from Kentucky to Wilmington, and added jobs at Wilmington:

The move boosted the economy in Clinton County, which is between Columbus and Cincinnati. Bob Gray, an executive at the air park, estimates the net gain was about 1,000 jobs.

Adding to the deal's promise was the 'historic agreement' secured by the Teamsters to protect the jobs:

Last year, DHL bought Airborne Express for more than $1 billion. The agreement reached earlier this week states that DHL fully anticipates growth, which will mean more Teamster jobs as a result of the merger.

The agreement also provides a no-layoff protection. Also, regular full-time employees are guaranteed at least 40 hours of work each week.

"The agreement also protects premium weekend and holiday pay," added Tyson Johnson, Director of the Teamsters Freight Division. The 6,000 DHL workers are covered under the Teamsters National Master Freight Agreement. More than 3,000 other Teamsters at DHL are covered under separate contracts.

"During this time of economic uncertainty, these workers will know they have a written agreement that protects their jobs and their futures," Johnson said.