A Bad Week For McCain

Share:
We can run through a week when the Dow plunged briefly under 8000, when a 120 point loss day look good because at one point it was a whole lot worse, when McCain slipped further behind Obama in the polls, and when McCain was not able to right his footing at a townhall debate that was supposed to be his strength.

Look at the body language of that debate and you can see where this race is going. Agree or disagree with Obama, he looked Presidential, he sounded measured and reasonable, for those who had fears about his conduct under pressure it has been largely put to rest.

In fact, it is the relatively more experience John McCain who has been increasingly to use the buzz-word from the Obama camp, erratic. Hey I can’t help it, it is the best adjective. McCain has simply done things that are bizarre or perhaps best described as desperate and fleeting. He has shifted course too quickly. He has tried to go negative and recently pulled even those punches.

Let us start there because last weekend, it was Governor Sarah Palin who began the attack on Obama by connecting him with William Ayers, a former member of the Weather Underground from the 1960s and suggesting that his friendship with the 60s radical showed a lack of judgment and worse. The attacks are symbolic and suggestive as well as substantive. The symbolism of terrorism, the use of Obama’s middle name, and other attacks are ways to allow people to be reminded that Obama is not the same as they are.

There are people who honestly believe that Obama is a Muslim. The most despicable display may have been the Sheriff from Florida who in full uniform attacked Obama at a McCain rally using his full name Barack Hussein Obama, as if to remind people, hey this guy is not one of us. It was almost a Vanguard moment when it was pointed out that it is illegal for a law enforcement officer to politic in uniform. When called on the issue, the Sheriff, did not seem to get it. He defended it by suggesting he was always on duty. Sorry but that’s not how it works.

There is no evidence in the polling that the attacks are working. In part, I suspect that is because people are a bit more worried about substantive issues. The other thing is that you have to create these images early in a campaign. You have to plant them in the minds of voters and pound them home. In the last month, that is difficult because people have watched Obama for months now, they have seen him at the convention and at debates. They have, in short, their own view of the man.

These attacks have thus amounted largely to what they call “red meat” or fodder where the true believers rally behind, but not issues that middle of the road voters can relate. Obama’s lead stretches by the day. States that I never thought would be in play, Obama may be ahead in such as North Carolina, Virginia, even Montana.

The news footage from the McCain rallies was frightening at times, when McCain was launching his attack microphones caught people saying things like he’s a “terrorist” or “kill him.” There has to be some responsibility here given the historic nature of Obama’s run and the real dangers that exist there.

Perhaps to his credit and perhaps to his detriment, McCain has backed off the attack of late.

A man at a rally in Minnesota stood up and told mCain he was scared of Obama presidency.

McCain finally stepped up:

“I have to tell you. Sen. Obama is a decent person and a person you don’t have to be scared of as president of the United States.”

The crowd booed and shouted “Come on, John!” McCain quickly added:

“If I didn’t think I’d be a heck of a lot better, I wouldn’t be running for president of the United States.”

A woman at a town hall meeting accused Obama of being an Arab, as though that were somehow the worst thing you could imagine.

McCain’s response:

“No, ma’am. He’s a decent family man and citizen.”

On the one hand, McCain corrects her error, but on the other hand, McCain does not have the guts to say, there is nothing wrong with being an Arab, nor does he point out to her than in fact, Obama is a Christian not a Muslim.

There is a lot of ignorance going on in this race and there is a lot of ugliness rearing its heading and McCain despite attempts to ramp it down at the end of the week is a major contributor to it.

It has been a tough week for Governor Sarah Palin who is now facing ethics charges in Alaska for improperly dismissing an official who crimes was not firing an Alaska state trooper who happened to be divorcing Palin’s sister. I guess abuse of power is alright if you are a maverick.

But the real irony is that she is the one throwing bombshells at Obama for his ties to domestic terrorists, while at the same time, she has ties to Alaska’s Separatist Party. Palin’s husband was a registered member of the Alaska Independence Party until 2002 when he re-registered as an independent voter. One of the planks is that they want Alaska to secede from the United States. Meanwhile, Governor Palin addressed the convention for this party and sent a video tape to the 2008 Convention telling the delegates to “keep up the good work” and calling their convention “inspiring.”

If Palin wants Obama to explain his ties to Ayres, maybe she ought to clean out her own closet.

On October 5, she said:

“Our opponents see America as imperfect enough to pal around with terrorists who would bomb their own country.”

And yet, she pals around with people who want to secede from our country and she addresses their conventions and tells them to “keep up the good work.” Pot meet kettle.

So what is the truth. One of the best non-partisan sits around is FactCheck.org.

They called the attacks by McCain misleading and groundless.

“In a TV ad, McCain says Obama “lied” about his association with William Ayers, a former bomb-setting, anti-war radical from the 1960s and ’70s. We find McCain’s claim to be groundless. New details have recently come to light, but nothing Obama said previously has been shown to be false.”

They continue:

“We find McCain’s accusation that Obama “lied” to be groundless. It is true that recently released records show half a dozen or so more meetings between the two men than were previously known, but Obama never denied working with Ayers.

Other claims are seriously misleading. The education project described in the Web ad, far from being “radical,” had the support of the Republican governor and was run by a board that included prominent local leaders, including one Republican who has donated $1,500 to McCain’s campaign this year. The project is described by Education Week as reflecting “mainstream thinking” about school reform.

Despite the newly released records, there’s still no evidence of a deep or strong “friendship” with Ayers, a former radical anti-war protester whose actions in the 1960s and ’70s Obama has called “detestable” and “despicable.”

Even the description of Ayers as a “terrorist” is a matter of interpretation. Setting off bombs can fairly be described as terrorism even when they are intended to cause only property damage, which is what Ayers has admitted doing in his youth. But for nearly three decades since, Ayers has lived the relatively quiet life of an educator. It would be correct to call him a “former terrorist,” and an “unapologetic” one at that. But if McCain means the word “terrorist” to invoke images of 9/11, he’s being misleading; Ayers is no Osama bin Laden now, and never was.”

Here’s the exchange in question:

McCain: Look, we don’t care about an old washed-up terrorist and his wife, who still, at least on Sept. 11, 2001, said he still wanted to bomb more. … The point is, Senator Obama said he was just a guy in the neighborhood. We need to know that’s not true.

Obama never said Ayers was “just” a guy in the neighborhood. The quote is from a Democratic primary debate on April 16 in Philadelphia, and Obama actually was more forthcoming than McCain lets on. Obama specifically acknowledged working together with Ayers on a charitable board, and didn’t deny getting some early political support from him. Here’s the exchange:

ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos, April 16: An early organizing meeting for your state senate campaign was held at his house, and your campaign has said you are friendly. Can you explain that relationship for the voters, and explain to Democrats why it won’t be a problem?

Obama: George, but this is an example of what I’m talking about.

This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who’s a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He’s not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.

And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn’t make much sense, George

The article goes on to show a list of pretty mainstream and conservative people who also sit on the same board with Obama and Ayres.

Among the mainstream Chicago luminaries on Obama’s board was Arnold R. Weber, a former president of Northwestern University, who in 1971 was appointed by Republican President Richard Nixon as executive director of the Cost of Living Council and who later was tapped by Republican President Ronald Reagan to serve on an emergency labor board. More recently, Weber has given $1,500 to John McCain’s presidential campaign this year.

Others on Obama’s supposedly “radical” board included Stanley Ikenberry, a former president of the University of Illinois system; Ray Romero, a vice president of Ameritech; Susan Crown, a philanthropist; Handy Lindsey, the president of the Field Foundation of Illinois; and Wanda White, the executive director of the Community Workshop for Economic Development.

Kurtz originally claimed that Ayers somehow was responsible for installing Obama as head of the board, speculating in his “cover-up” article that Obama “almost certainly received the job at the behest of Bill Ayers.” But after days of poring over the records, he failed to produce any evidence of that in his Wall Street Journal article. To the contrary, Ayers was not involved in the choice, according to Deborah Leff, then president of the Joyce Foundation. She told the Times, and confirmed to FactCheck.org, that she recommended Obama for the position to Patricia Graham of the Spencer Foundation. Graham told us that she asked Obama if he’d become chairman; he accepted, provided Graham would be vice-chair.

The bipartisan board of directors, which did not include Ayers, elected Obama chairman, and he served in that capacity from 1995 to 1999, awarding grants for projects and raising matching funds. Ayers headed up a separate arm of the group, working with grant recipients.

If you want to read the lengthy FactCheck.org article click here.

The bottom line is that McCain and Palin probably could have picked a better target if they were bent on changing the subject. Given the economy in this country, more people are probably concerned about their retirement and their mortgage payments than the relationship between Obama and a 60s radical who did some really bad things when Obama was 8 years old.

If you are on the conservative side of the fence, I am sure there are many legitimate things with which to tie Obama. This is simply not one of them. And my guess is that based on the polls and lack of response from the public, this one goes away.

The amazing thing about this race is the Republicans response to the economic crisis–government intervention, bailout, and government backing of financial institutions.

There is a saying that there are no atheists in a fox hole, it appears equally true that there are no libertarians in an economic crisis. At the end of the day, that may be the biggest news that comes out of this week.

—Doug Paul Davis reporting

Share:

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

260 thoughts on “A Bad Week For McCain”

  1. Davisite

    The above websites will connect you to the home page where the demographic and battleground state selection menu includes multiple options, not just seniors in Fl and PA.

  2. Davisite

    The above websites will connect you to the home page where the demographic and battleground state selection menu includes multiple options, not just seniors in Fl and PA.

  3. Davisite

    The above websites will connect you to the home page where the demographic and battleground state selection menu includes multiple options, not just seniors in Fl and PA.

  4. Davisite

    The above websites will connect you to the home page where the demographic and battleground state selection menu includes multiple options, not just seniors in Fl and PA.

  5. chester

    “On the one hand, McCain corrects her error, but on the other hand, McCain does not have the guts to say, there is nothing wrong with being an Arab, nor does he point out to her than in fact, Obama is a Christian not a Muslim.”

    Come on DPD, you should have given more thought before writing this. Go you actually want to be on record stating that John McCain lacks guts? McCain defended Obama as a decent family man and a good American. Where do we have similar acknowledgment from Obama? Where has he taken to task his legions of angry leftist supporters saying and writing anything and everything nasty about McCain and Palin? It is incredible to me that even any half-intelligent person would characterize McCain as anything but a man of integrity and virtue; yet he is routinely vilified and denigrated by Obama’s minions… who, may I add, are much supposedly much better educated than the folks McCain had to correct.

    For political junkies and bloggers this election is incredible theater. So much is at stake, and so many events have culminated to agitate the sensibilities of even the most politically inactive and naïve. What frightens me more than anything at this point is the historical record and my personal experience for what happens when people make decisions based on a state of high-emotion rather than reason.

    Unfortunately, the stuff that is reported and blogged contributes – not to the deep and important topics – but rather it only serves to rile people. We should concern ourselves with the ideas and beliefs of the candidates; not the “he said – she said” crap that the still-in-high-school infotainment industry and blogosphere cranks out.

    Maybe this is part of the media-backed Obama campaign strategy, because if Americans truly understood what his stated beliefs and ideas represent, they might realize a new fear for their future and the future of their children. A move toward socialism now equates to a decision to throw in the towel on the great American experiment. It is another back-door attempt at the quick-buck-free-lunch grab that motivated lenders and investment bankers to deal in these liar-loans. The anger is genuine and understood, but the Obama-inspired correction is the now classic American reactionary over steer. “The greedy CEOs robbed us so now we are going to take it back though the grace of government” is the message. However, there is no free-lunch so, like the financial market meltdown, somebody it going to have to pay. It will be all of us if Obama is elected.

    America is a land of hope and opportunity because of the traditions of strong family values, civility, community, strong defense, national pride, spirituality, persistence and hard work. I want a candidate that best represents these values and ideas. McCain does more than Obama. I don’t care what names they call each other during the campaign. I think neither should you.

  6. chester

    “On the one hand, McCain corrects her error, but on the other hand, McCain does not have the guts to say, there is nothing wrong with being an Arab, nor does he point out to her than in fact, Obama is a Christian not a Muslim.”

    Come on DPD, you should have given more thought before writing this. Go you actually want to be on record stating that John McCain lacks guts? McCain defended Obama as a decent family man and a good American. Where do we have similar acknowledgment from Obama? Where has he taken to task his legions of angry leftist supporters saying and writing anything and everything nasty about McCain and Palin? It is incredible to me that even any half-intelligent person would characterize McCain as anything but a man of integrity and virtue; yet he is routinely vilified and denigrated by Obama’s minions… who, may I add, are much supposedly much better educated than the folks McCain had to correct.

    For political junkies and bloggers this election is incredible theater. So much is at stake, and so many events have culminated to agitate the sensibilities of even the most politically inactive and naïve. What frightens me more than anything at this point is the historical record and my personal experience for what happens when people make decisions based on a state of high-emotion rather than reason.

    Unfortunately, the stuff that is reported and blogged contributes – not to the deep and important topics – but rather it only serves to rile people. We should concern ourselves with the ideas and beliefs of the candidates; not the “he said – she said” crap that the still-in-high-school infotainment industry and blogosphere cranks out.

    Maybe this is part of the media-backed Obama campaign strategy, because if Americans truly understood what his stated beliefs and ideas represent, they might realize a new fear for their future and the future of their children. A move toward socialism now equates to a decision to throw in the towel on the great American experiment. It is another back-door attempt at the quick-buck-free-lunch grab that motivated lenders and investment bankers to deal in these liar-loans. The anger is genuine and understood, but the Obama-inspired correction is the now classic American reactionary over steer. “The greedy CEOs robbed us so now we are going to take it back though the grace of government” is the message. However, there is no free-lunch so, like the financial market meltdown, somebody it going to have to pay. It will be all of us if Obama is elected.

    America is a land of hope and opportunity because of the traditions of strong family values, civility, community, strong defense, national pride, spirituality, persistence and hard work. I want a candidate that best represents these values and ideas. McCain does more than Obama. I don’t care what names they call each other during the campaign. I think neither should you.

  7. chester

    “On the one hand, McCain corrects her error, but on the other hand, McCain does not have the guts to say, there is nothing wrong with being an Arab, nor does he point out to her than in fact, Obama is a Christian not a Muslim.”

    Come on DPD, you should have given more thought before writing this. Go you actually want to be on record stating that John McCain lacks guts? McCain defended Obama as a decent family man and a good American. Where do we have similar acknowledgment from Obama? Where has he taken to task his legions of angry leftist supporters saying and writing anything and everything nasty about McCain and Palin? It is incredible to me that even any half-intelligent person would characterize McCain as anything but a man of integrity and virtue; yet he is routinely vilified and denigrated by Obama’s minions… who, may I add, are much supposedly much better educated than the folks McCain had to correct.

    For political junkies and bloggers this election is incredible theater. So much is at stake, and so many events have culminated to agitate the sensibilities of even the most politically inactive and naïve. What frightens me more than anything at this point is the historical record and my personal experience for what happens when people make decisions based on a state of high-emotion rather than reason.

    Unfortunately, the stuff that is reported and blogged contributes – not to the deep and important topics – but rather it only serves to rile people. We should concern ourselves with the ideas and beliefs of the candidates; not the “he said – she said” crap that the still-in-high-school infotainment industry and blogosphere cranks out.

    Maybe this is part of the media-backed Obama campaign strategy, because if Americans truly understood what his stated beliefs and ideas represent, they might realize a new fear for their future and the future of their children. A move toward socialism now equates to a decision to throw in the towel on the great American experiment. It is another back-door attempt at the quick-buck-free-lunch grab that motivated lenders and investment bankers to deal in these liar-loans. The anger is genuine and understood, but the Obama-inspired correction is the now classic American reactionary over steer. “The greedy CEOs robbed us so now we are going to take it back though the grace of government” is the message. However, there is no free-lunch so, like the financial market meltdown, somebody it going to have to pay. It will be all of us if Obama is elected.

    America is a land of hope and opportunity because of the traditions of strong family values, civility, community, strong defense, national pride, spirituality, persistence and hard work. I want a candidate that best represents these values and ideas. McCain does more than Obama. I don’t care what names they call each other during the campaign. I think neither should you.

  8. chester

    “On the one hand, McCain corrects her error, but on the other hand, McCain does not have the guts to say, there is nothing wrong with being an Arab, nor does he point out to her than in fact, Obama is a Christian not a Muslim.”

    Come on DPD, you should have given more thought before writing this. Go you actually want to be on record stating that John McCain lacks guts? McCain defended Obama as a decent family man and a good American. Where do we have similar acknowledgment from Obama? Where has he taken to task his legions of angry leftist supporters saying and writing anything and everything nasty about McCain and Palin? It is incredible to me that even any half-intelligent person would characterize McCain as anything but a man of integrity and virtue; yet he is routinely vilified and denigrated by Obama’s minions… who, may I add, are much supposedly much better educated than the folks McCain had to correct.

    For political junkies and bloggers this election is incredible theater. So much is at stake, and so many events have culminated to agitate the sensibilities of even the most politically inactive and naïve. What frightens me more than anything at this point is the historical record and my personal experience for what happens when people make decisions based on a state of high-emotion rather than reason.

    Unfortunately, the stuff that is reported and blogged contributes – not to the deep and important topics – but rather it only serves to rile people. We should concern ourselves with the ideas and beliefs of the candidates; not the “he said – she said” crap that the still-in-high-school infotainment industry and blogosphere cranks out.

    Maybe this is part of the media-backed Obama campaign strategy, because if Americans truly understood what his stated beliefs and ideas represent, they might realize a new fear for their future and the future of their children. A move toward socialism now equates to a decision to throw in the towel on the great American experiment. It is another back-door attempt at the quick-buck-free-lunch grab that motivated lenders and investment bankers to deal in these liar-loans. The anger is genuine and understood, but the Obama-inspired correction is the now classic American reactionary over steer. “The greedy CEOs robbed us so now we are going to take it back though the grace of government” is the message. However, there is no free-lunch so, like the financial market meltdown, somebody it going to have to pay. It will be all of us if Obama is elected.

    America is a land of hope and opportunity because of the traditions of strong family values, civility, community, strong defense, national pride, spirituality, persistence and hard work. I want a candidate that best represents these values and ideas. McCain does more than Obama. I don’t care what names they call each other during the campaign. I think neither should you.

  9. Anonymous

    Wow, Chester, could you be more generic? Facts are the Repugs have been in charge, they messed it up, and the Dems are going to have to clean up their mess. But, if Obama scares you so much, by all means, please leave the country. I think Russia has an opening for a fascist.

  10. Anonymous

    Wow, Chester, could you be more generic? Facts are the Repugs have been in charge, they messed it up, and the Dems are going to have to clean up their mess. But, if Obama scares you so much, by all means, please leave the country. I think Russia has an opening for a fascist.

  11. Anonymous

    Wow, Chester, could you be more generic? Facts are the Repugs have been in charge, they messed it up, and the Dems are going to have to clean up their mess. But, if Obama scares you so much, by all means, please leave the country. I think Russia has an opening for a fascist.

  12. Anonymous

    Wow, Chester, could you be more generic? Facts are the Repugs have been in charge, they messed it up, and the Dems are going to have to clean up their mess. But, if Obama scares you so much, by all means, please leave the country. I think Russia has an opening for a fascist.

  13. Anonymous

    I do not understand this. Can someone please explain:

    I watch the McCain/Palin (Clown) rallies on the news (ie, the liberal press), and they keep showing people from the U.S. that are extremely angry….and are absolute McCain fans.

    I am an independent, and the part that I don’t understand is why these people at these McCain rallies are so mad….It’s their posse that’s been in charge for the last 8 years…

    It would be something if the dems were piping mad at Obama rallies, but it makes no sense to me that the McCain people are so steaming mad.

    Can someone please explain? Is the liberal media just misrepresenting them? Maybe I have misunderestimated something here.

  14. Anonymous

    I do not understand this. Can someone please explain:

    I watch the McCain/Palin (Clown) rallies on the news (ie, the liberal press), and they keep showing people from the U.S. that are extremely angry….and are absolute McCain fans.

    I am an independent, and the part that I don’t understand is why these people at these McCain rallies are so mad….It’s their posse that’s been in charge for the last 8 years…

    It would be something if the dems were piping mad at Obama rallies, but it makes no sense to me that the McCain people are so steaming mad.

    Can someone please explain? Is the liberal media just misrepresenting them? Maybe I have misunderestimated something here.

  15. Anonymous

    I do not understand this. Can someone please explain:

    I watch the McCain/Palin (Clown) rallies on the news (ie, the liberal press), and they keep showing people from the U.S. that are extremely angry….and are absolute McCain fans.

    I am an independent, and the part that I don’t understand is why these people at these McCain rallies are so mad….It’s their posse that’s been in charge for the last 8 years…

    It would be something if the dems were piping mad at Obama rallies, but it makes no sense to me that the McCain people are so steaming mad.

    Can someone please explain? Is the liberal media just misrepresenting them? Maybe I have misunderestimated something here.

  16. Anonymous

    I do not understand this. Can someone please explain:

    I watch the McCain/Palin (Clown) rallies on the news (ie, the liberal press), and they keep showing people from the U.S. that are extremely angry….and are absolute McCain fans.

    I am an independent, and the part that I don’t understand is why these people at these McCain rallies are so mad….It’s their posse that’s been in charge for the last 8 years…

    It would be something if the dems were piping mad at Obama rallies, but it makes no sense to me that the McCain people are so steaming mad.

    Can someone please explain? Is the liberal media just misrepresenting them? Maybe I have misunderestimated something here.

  17. Mike Brady

    I live in Davis, but I am not your stereotypical Davis liberal/hippie. I agree with the repubs on a lot of their stances on issues, but I also agree w/ the dems on some of theirs.

    What I don’t get is why all the anger on the part of the republican base right now—They’re mad as hell, as if Obama has been running the country for the past 2 terms and Obama has gotten us into this….

    BUSH has been in charge for 8 years!!! BUSH was their guy!!! Why are they so mad at the dems?

  18. Mike Brady

    I live in Davis, but I am not your stereotypical Davis liberal/hippie. I agree with the repubs on a lot of their stances on issues, but I also agree w/ the dems on some of theirs.

    What I don’t get is why all the anger on the part of the republican base right now—They’re mad as hell, as if Obama has been running the country for the past 2 terms and Obama has gotten us into this….

    BUSH has been in charge for 8 years!!! BUSH was their guy!!! Why are they so mad at the dems?

  19. Mike Brady

    I live in Davis, but I am not your stereotypical Davis liberal/hippie. I agree with the repubs on a lot of their stances on issues, but I also agree w/ the dems on some of theirs.

    What I don’t get is why all the anger on the part of the republican base right now—They’re mad as hell, as if Obama has been running the country for the past 2 terms and Obama has gotten us into this….

    BUSH has been in charge for 8 years!!! BUSH was their guy!!! Why are they so mad at the dems?

  20. Mike Brady

    I live in Davis, but I am not your stereotypical Davis liberal/hippie. I agree with the repubs on a lot of their stances on issues, but I also agree w/ the dems on some of theirs.

    What I don’t get is why all the anger on the part of the republican base right now—They’re mad as hell, as if Obama has been running the country for the past 2 terms and Obama has gotten us into this….

    BUSH has been in charge for 8 years!!! BUSH was their guy!!! Why are they so mad at the dems?

  21. Doug Paul Davis

    “Come on DPD, you should have given more thought before writing this. Go you actually want to be on record stating that John McCain lacks guts? McCain defended Obama as a decent family man and a good American. Where do we have similar acknowledgment from Obama?”

    Obama has always called McCain a decent man, with a great record of public service to his country.

    But for me you missed my point.

    The woman accused Obama of being an Arab. I assume that’s just her ignorant way of saying he’s a Muslim, not understanding the difference between the two.

    Obama is not a Muslim or an Arab. But there is nothing wrong with being either. McCain response is bizarre.

    Let’s put it in different terms.

    Woman: Obama is black.

    McCain: No, he’s a decent man.

    So being black means not being decent? In the actual example, being Arab means not being decent? Is there something wrong with being Arab? Just what is wrong with McCain here?

    I’m sorry Chester, but I don’t understand why you do not get this–there is something not right with McCain’s response here. I’m glad he thinks that Obama is decent, but that wasn’t exactly the question.

  22. Doug Paul Davis

    “Come on DPD, you should have given more thought before writing this. Go you actually want to be on record stating that John McCain lacks guts? McCain defended Obama as a decent family man and a good American. Where do we have similar acknowledgment from Obama?”

    Obama has always called McCain a decent man, with a great record of public service to his country.

    But for me you missed my point.

    The woman accused Obama of being an Arab. I assume that’s just her ignorant way of saying he’s a Muslim, not understanding the difference between the two.

    Obama is not a Muslim or an Arab. But there is nothing wrong with being either. McCain response is bizarre.

    Let’s put it in different terms.

    Woman: Obama is black.

    McCain: No, he’s a decent man.

    So being black means not being decent? In the actual example, being Arab means not being decent? Is there something wrong with being Arab? Just what is wrong with McCain here?

    I’m sorry Chester, but I don’t understand why you do not get this–there is something not right with McCain’s response here. I’m glad he thinks that Obama is decent, but that wasn’t exactly the question.

  23. Doug Paul Davis

    “Come on DPD, you should have given more thought before writing this. Go you actually want to be on record stating that John McCain lacks guts? McCain defended Obama as a decent family man and a good American. Where do we have similar acknowledgment from Obama?”

    Obama has always called McCain a decent man, with a great record of public service to his country.

    But for me you missed my point.

    The woman accused Obama of being an Arab. I assume that’s just her ignorant way of saying he’s a Muslim, not understanding the difference between the two.

    Obama is not a Muslim or an Arab. But there is nothing wrong with being either. McCain response is bizarre.

    Let’s put it in different terms.

    Woman: Obama is black.

    McCain: No, he’s a decent man.

    So being black means not being decent? In the actual example, being Arab means not being decent? Is there something wrong with being Arab? Just what is wrong with McCain here?

    I’m sorry Chester, but I don’t understand why you do not get this–there is something not right with McCain’s response here. I’m glad he thinks that Obama is decent, but that wasn’t exactly the question.

  24. Doug Paul Davis

    “Come on DPD, you should have given more thought before writing this. Go you actually want to be on record stating that John McCain lacks guts? McCain defended Obama as a decent family man and a good American. Where do we have similar acknowledgment from Obama?”

    Obama has always called McCain a decent man, with a great record of public service to his country.

    But for me you missed my point.

    The woman accused Obama of being an Arab. I assume that’s just her ignorant way of saying he’s a Muslim, not understanding the difference between the two.

    Obama is not a Muslim or an Arab. But there is nothing wrong with being either. McCain response is bizarre.

    Let’s put it in different terms.

    Woman: Obama is black.

    McCain: No, he’s a decent man.

    So being black means not being decent? In the actual example, being Arab means not being decent? Is there something wrong with being Arab? Just what is wrong with McCain here?

    I’m sorry Chester, but I don’t understand why you do not get this–there is something not right with McCain’s response here. I’m glad he thinks that Obama is decent, but that wasn’t exactly the question.

  25. Doug Paul Davis

    Chester:

    Here is a direct quote where you see a similar statement from Obama.

    From his acceptance speech:

    “The Republican nominee, John McCain, has worn the uniform of our country with bravery and distinction, and for that we owe him our gratitude and our respect.”

    Care to retract your erroneous statement now?

  26. Doug Paul Davis

    Chester:

    Here is a direct quote where you see a similar statement from Obama.

    From his acceptance speech:

    “The Republican nominee, John McCain, has worn the uniform of our country with bravery and distinction, and for that we owe him our gratitude and our respect.”

    Care to retract your erroneous statement now?

  27. Doug Paul Davis

    Chester:

    Here is a direct quote where you see a similar statement from Obama.

    From his acceptance speech:

    “The Republican nominee, John McCain, has worn the uniform of our country with bravery and distinction, and for that we owe him our gratitude and our respect.”

    Care to retract your erroneous statement now?

  28. Doug Paul Davis

    Chester:

    Here is a direct quote where you see a similar statement from Obama.

    From his acceptance speech:

    “The Republican nominee, John McCain, has worn the uniform of our country with bravery and distinction, and for that we owe him our gratitude and our respect.”

    Care to retract your erroneous statement now?

  29. OLd Skool Davis

    I don’t see anyone here taking ownership of the actions of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. Last time I checked they were Democrats.

    They had there hand on the “tiller” with respect to the colossal failures of Freddie Mac and Fannie May!

  30. OLd Skool Davis

    I don’t see anyone here taking ownership of the actions of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. Last time I checked they were Democrats.

    They had there hand on the “tiller” with respect to the colossal failures of Freddie Mac and Fannie May!

  31. OLd Skool Davis

    I don’t see anyone here taking ownership of the actions of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. Last time I checked they were Democrats.

    They had there hand on the “tiller” with respect to the colossal failures of Freddie Mac and Fannie May!

  32. OLd Skool Davis

    I don’t see anyone here taking ownership of the actions of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. Last time I checked they were Democrats.

    They had there hand on the “tiller” with respect to the colossal failures of Freddie Mac and Fannie May!

  33. Doug Paul Davis

    In response to your post, I looked up Fact Check on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

    Found some interesting stuff:

    QUOTE:

    McCain in the Vanguard of Mortgage Reform?

    Palin said that McCain had sounded the alarm on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years ago.

    Palin: We need to look back, even two years ago, and we need to be appreciative of John McCain’s call for reform with Fannie Mae, with Freddie Mac, with the mortgage-lenders, too, who were starting to really kind of rear that head of abuse.

    Palin is referring to a bill that would have increased oversight on Fannie and Freddie. In our recent article about assigning blame for the crisis, we found that by the time McCain added his name to the bill as a cosponsor, the collapse was well underway. Home prices began falling only two months later. Our colleagues at PolitiFact also questioned this claim.

    More from Thursday:

    An email floated around that three former Fannie Mae executive were economic advisers to Obama.

    According to FACTCHECK this is untrue.

    QUOTE:

    No, claims made in a chain e-mail are false. Jim Johnson advised on non-economic matters but quit after a week. Franklin Raines says he took a “couple of calls” but was never an adviser. We find no evidence Tim Howard ever had a connection to the Obama campaign.
    According to yet another false e-mail making the rounds on the Internet, Franklin Raines and J. Timothy Howard are chief “economic” and “finance” advisers to the presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama. Not true. Neither man works for the Obama campaign, either now or in the past. The e-mail is technically accurate when it says Obama selected Jim Johnson to head his vice presidential search committee, but it fails to mention that Johnson lasted only a week in that unpaid position.

    It’s true that all three men were at one time top executives of the Federal National Mortgage Association, the huge company known as “Fannie Mae,” which was set up by Congress to supply money for home mortgages. But it’s a huge stretch to conclude, as this e-mail does, that these three men “brought down Wall Street.” The message is mostly accurate in its description of the roles Raines and Howard played in an accounting scandal from several years ago, though we weren’t able to verify the exact value of each man’s “golden parachute.” However, charges against Raines were dropped this year in exchange for his giving up $24.7 million in stocks, cash and other benefits. The settlement included a $2 million payment to the federal government to be covered by Fannie Mae’s insurance policy. Howard also agreed to a settlement valued at $6.4 million, including $5.2 million in stock options. The e-mail also notes that Johnson, who was CEO before Raines, was criticized for receiving $21 million in compensation a decade ago.

    Obama’s Connection to Raines

    We addressed Raines’ connection to Obama on the FactCheck Wire back in September after a McCain-Palin campaign ad claimed that Raines, the former Fannie Mae chairman and CEO, was advising Obama on economic matters. Both Raines and the Obama campaign denied that Raines was, or is currently, working for the campaign as an adviser. And the Washington Post’s Michael Dobbs, who writes the Fact Checker column, found that the connection between the two was being exaggerated. This e-mail exaggerates the relationship even further, claiming that Raines is a “chief economic advisor,” which is utterly false.

    This false claim rests on misinterpretation of a Washington Post profile of Raines by reporter Anita Huslin. In the article, Huslin – apparently quoting Raines – said he had “taken calls from Barack Obama’s presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters.” When Dobbs questioned Huslin about what Raines had told her, she said that Raines said “he had gotten a couple of calls from the Obama campaign.” Huslin added, “I asked him about what, and he said ‘oh, general housing, economy issues.’ (’Not mortgage/foreclosure meltdown or Fannie-specific,’ I asked, and he said ‘no.’)”

    After the McCain campaign released the ad linking the two, Raines issued a statement through the Obama campaign saying, “I am not an advisor to Barack Obama, nor have I provided his campaign with advice on housing or economic matters.” Raines told McCain campaign adviser Carly Fiorina the same thing even before the ad was released. He sent Fiorina an e-mail after he heard that she had called him an adviser to Obama. The e-mail read: “Carly: Is this true? I am not an adviser to the Obama campaign. Frank.” But the McCain ad ran anyway. McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said he was unaware of the e-mail.

    Obama’s Connection to Jim Johnson

    We addressed Jim Johnson’s connection to Obama in another wire post also in September. Johnson, who was CEO of Fannie Mae from 1991 until 1998 (he left the company in 1999), was picked to join a selection committee (along with Caroline Kennedy and Eric Holder) to help choose Obama’s vice presidential running mate. However, Johnson resigned from the position just one week later amid allegations that he received special treatment in obtaining loans from Countrywide Financial Corp. The e-mail claims that he was “hired as a Senior Obama Finance Advisor and was selected to run Obama’s Vice Presidential Search Committee.” It isn’t apparent if Johnson was selected to “run” the committee, and he clearly didn’t have much of a chance to do so. We found no reports of Johnson ever having been a “senior finance advisor” to the campaign, and Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor says he never was.

    Obama’s Connection to Tim Howard

    The e-mail’s claim about Howard is pure fantasy. We found no press reports or other evidence indicating that Howard has, or ever had, any relationship with the Obama campaign, let alone being “a Chief Economic adviser.” Normally, chief advisers to the campaigns do interviews with reporters and are widely quoted. When we asked the Obama campaign if Howard had ever been an adviser, spokesman Vietor said, “Timothy Howard is not a policy advisor and has not been one.” Howard served as the chief financial officer for Fannie Mae until 2004, when, along with Raines, he was dismissed from the company under speculation of mismanaging Fannie’s financial records.

  34. Doug Paul Davis

    In response to your post, I looked up Fact Check on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

    Found some interesting stuff:

    QUOTE:

    McCain in the Vanguard of Mortgage Reform?

    Palin said that McCain had sounded the alarm on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years ago.

    Palin: We need to look back, even two years ago, and we need to be appreciative of John McCain’s call for reform with Fannie Mae, with Freddie Mac, with the mortgage-lenders, too, who were starting to really kind of rear that head of abuse.

    Palin is referring to a bill that would have increased oversight on Fannie and Freddie. In our recent article about assigning blame for the crisis, we found that by the time McCain added his name to the bill as a cosponsor, the collapse was well underway. Home prices began falling only two months later. Our colleagues at PolitiFact also questioned this claim.

    More from Thursday:

    An email floated around that three former Fannie Mae executive were economic advisers to Obama.

    According to FACTCHECK this is untrue.

    QUOTE:

    No, claims made in a chain e-mail are false. Jim Johnson advised on non-economic matters but quit after a week. Franklin Raines says he took a “couple of calls” but was never an adviser. We find no evidence Tim Howard ever had a connection to the Obama campaign.
    According to yet another false e-mail making the rounds on the Internet, Franklin Raines and J. Timothy Howard are chief “economic” and “finance” advisers to the presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama. Not true. Neither man works for the Obama campaign, either now or in the past. The e-mail is technically accurate when it says Obama selected Jim Johnson to head his vice presidential search committee, but it fails to mention that Johnson lasted only a week in that unpaid position.

    It’s true that all three men were at one time top executives of the Federal National Mortgage Association, the huge company known as “Fannie Mae,” which was set up by Congress to supply money for home mortgages. But it’s a huge stretch to conclude, as this e-mail does, that these three men “brought down Wall Street.” The message is mostly accurate in its description of the roles Raines and Howard played in an accounting scandal from several years ago, though we weren’t able to verify the exact value of each man’s “golden parachute.” However, charges against Raines were dropped this year in exchange for his giving up $24.7 million in stocks, cash and other benefits. The settlement included a $2 million payment to the federal government to be covered by Fannie Mae’s insurance policy. Howard also agreed to a settlement valued at $6.4 million, including $5.2 million in stock options. The e-mail also notes that Johnson, who was CEO before Raines, was criticized for receiving $21 million in compensation a decade ago.

    Obama’s Connection to Raines

    We addressed Raines’ connection to Obama on the FactCheck Wire back in September after a McCain-Palin campaign ad claimed that Raines, the former Fannie Mae chairman and CEO, was advising Obama on economic matters. Both Raines and the Obama campaign denied that Raines was, or is currently, working for the campaign as an adviser. And the Washington Post’s Michael Dobbs, who writes the Fact Checker column, found that the connection between the two was being exaggerated. This e-mail exaggerates the relationship even further, claiming that Raines is a “chief economic advisor,” which is utterly false.

    This false claim rests on misinterpretation of a Washington Post profile of Raines by reporter Anita Huslin. In the article, Huslin – apparently quoting Raines – said he had “taken calls from Barack Obama’s presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters.” When Dobbs questioned Huslin about what Raines had told her, she said that Raines said “he had gotten a couple of calls from the Obama campaign.” Huslin added, “I asked him about what, and he said ‘oh, general housing, economy issues.’ (’Not mortgage/foreclosure meltdown or Fannie-specific,’ I asked, and he said ‘no.’)”

    After the McCain campaign released the ad linking the two, Raines issued a statement through the Obama campaign saying, “I am not an advisor to Barack Obama, nor have I provided his campaign with advice on housing or economic matters.” Raines told McCain campaign adviser Carly Fiorina the same thing even before the ad was released. He sent Fiorina an e-mail after he heard that she had called him an adviser to Obama. The e-mail read: “Carly: Is this true? I am not an adviser to the Obama campaign. Frank.” But the McCain ad ran anyway. McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said he was unaware of the e-mail.

    Obama’s Connection to Jim Johnson

    We addressed Jim Johnson’s connection to Obama in another wire post also in September. Johnson, who was CEO of Fannie Mae from 1991 until 1998 (he left the company in 1999), was picked to join a selection committee (along with Caroline Kennedy and Eric Holder) to help choose Obama’s vice presidential running mate. However, Johnson resigned from the position just one week later amid allegations that he received special treatment in obtaining loans from Countrywide Financial Corp. The e-mail claims that he was “hired as a Senior Obama Finance Advisor and was selected to run Obama’s Vice Presidential Search Committee.” It isn’t apparent if Johnson was selected to “run” the committee, and he clearly didn’t have much of a chance to do so. We found no reports of Johnson ever having been a “senior finance advisor” to the campaign, and Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor says he never was.

    Obama’s Connection to Tim Howard

    The e-mail’s claim about Howard is pure fantasy. We found no press reports or other evidence indicating that Howard has, or ever had, any relationship with the Obama campaign, let alone being “a Chief Economic adviser.” Normally, chief advisers to the campaigns do interviews with reporters and are widely quoted. When we asked the Obama campaign if Howard had ever been an adviser, spokesman Vietor said, “Timothy Howard is not a policy advisor and has not been one.” Howard served as the chief financial officer for Fannie Mae until 2004, when, along with Raines, he was dismissed from the company under speculation of mismanaging Fannie’s financial records.

  35. Doug Paul Davis

    In response to your post, I looked up Fact Check on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

    Found some interesting stuff:

    QUOTE:

    McCain in the Vanguard of Mortgage Reform?

    Palin said that McCain had sounded the alarm on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years ago.

    Palin: We need to look back, even two years ago, and we need to be appreciative of John McCain’s call for reform with Fannie Mae, with Freddie Mac, with the mortgage-lenders, too, who were starting to really kind of rear that head of abuse.

    Palin is referring to a bill that would have increased oversight on Fannie and Freddie. In our recent article about assigning blame for the crisis, we found that by the time McCain added his name to the bill as a cosponsor, the collapse was well underway. Home prices began falling only two months later. Our colleagues at PolitiFact also questioned this claim.

    More from Thursday:

    An email floated around that three former Fannie Mae executive were economic advisers to Obama.

    According to FACTCHECK this is untrue.

    QUOTE:

    No, claims made in a chain e-mail are false. Jim Johnson advised on non-economic matters but quit after a week. Franklin Raines says he took a “couple of calls” but was never an adviser. We find no evidence Tim Howard ever had a connection to the Obama campaign.
    According to yet another false e-mail making the rounds on the Internet, Franklin Raines and J. Timothy Howard are chief “economic” and “finance” advisers to the presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama. Not true. Neither man works for the Obama campaign, either now or in the past. The e-mail is technically accurate when it says Obama selected Jim Johnson to head his vice presidential search committee, but it fails to mention that Johnson lasted only a week in that unpaid position.

    It’s true that all three men were at one time top executives of the Federal National Mortgage Association, the huge company known as “Fannie Mae,” which was set up by Congress to supply money for home mortgages. But it’s a huge stretch to conclude, as this e-mail does, that these three men “brought down Wall Street.” The message is mostly accurate in its description of the roles Raines and Howard played in an accounting scandal from several years ago, though we weren’t able to verify the exact value of each man’s “golden parachute.” However, charges against Raines were dropped this year in exchange for his giving up $24.7 million in stocks, cash and other benefits. The settlement included a $2 million payment to the federal government to be covered by Fannie Mae’s insurance policy. Howard also agreed to a settlement valued at $6.4 million, including $5.2 million in stock options. The e-mail also notes that Johnson, who was CEO before Raines, was criticized for receiving $21 million in compensation a decade ago.

    Obama’s Connection to Raines

    We addressed Raines’ connection to Obama on the FactCheck Wire back in September after a McCain-Palin campaign ad claimed that Raines, the former Fannie Mae chairman and CEO, was advising Obama on economic matters. Both Raines and the Obama campaign denied that Raines was, or is currently, working for the campaign as an adviser. And the Washington Post’s Michael Dobbs, who writes the Fact Checker column, found that the connection between the two was being exaggerated. This e-mail exaggerates the relationship even further, claiming that Raines is a “chief economic advisor,” which is utterly false.

    This false claim rests on misinterpretation of a Washington Post profile of Raines by reporter Anita Huslin. In the article, Huslin – apparently quoting Raines – said he had “taken calls from Barack Obama’s presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters.” When Dobbs questioned Huslin about what Raines had told her, she said that Raines said “he had gotten a couple of calls from the Obama campaign.” Huslin added, “I asked him about what, and he said ‘oh, general housing, economy issues.’ (’Not mortgage/foreclosure meltdown or Fannie-specific,’ I asked, and he said ‘no.’)”

    After the McCain campaign released the ad linking the two, Raines issued a statement through the Obama campaign saying, “I am not an advisor to Barack Obama, nor have I provided his campaign with advice on housing or economic matters.” Raines told McCain campaign adviser Carly Fiorina the same thing even before the ad was released. He sent Fiorina an e-mail after he heard that she had called him an adviser to Obama. The e-mail read: “Carly: Is this true? I am not an adviser to the Obama campaign. Frank.” But the McCain ad ran anyway. McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said he was unaware of the e-mail.

    Obama’s Connection to Jim Johnson

    We addressed Jim Johnson’s connection to Obama in another wire post also in September. Johnson, who was CEO of Fannie Mae from 1991 until 1998 (he left the company in 1999), was picked to join a selection committee (along with Caroline Kennedy and Eric Holder) to help choose Obama’s vice presidential running mate. However, Johnson resigned from the position just one week later amid allegations that he received special treatment in obtaining loans from Countrywide Financial Corp. The e-mail claims that he was “hired as a Senior Obama Finance Advisor and was selected to run Obama’s Vice Presidential Search Committee.” It isn’t apparent if Johnson was selected to “run” the committee, and he clearly didn’t have much of a chance to do so. We found no reports of Johnson ever having been a “senior finance advisor” to the campaign, and Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor says he never was.

    Obama’s Connection to Tim Howard

    The e-mail’s claim about Howard is pure fantasy. We found no press reports or other evidence indicating that Howard has, or ever had, any relationship with the Obama campaign, let alone being “a Chief Economic adviser.” Normally, chief advisers to the campaigns do interviews with reporters and are widely quoted. When we asked the Obama campaign if Howard had ever been an adviser, spokesman Vietor said, “Timothy Howard is not a policy advisor and has not been one.” Howard served as the chief financial officer for Fannie Mae until 2004, when, along with Raines, he was dismissed from the company under speculation of mismanaging Fannie’s financial records.

  36. Doug Paul Davis

    In response to your post, I looked up Fact Check on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

    Found some interesting stuff:

    QUOTE:

    McCain in the Vanguard of Mortgage Reform?

    Palin said that McCain had sounded the alarm on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years ago.

    Palin: We need to look back, even two years ago, and we need to be appreciative of John McCain’s call for reform with Fannie Mae, with Freddie Mac, with the mortgage-lenders, too, who were starting to really kind of rear that head of abuse.

    Palin is referring to a bill that would have increased oversight on Fannie and Freddie. In our recent article about assigning blame for the crisis, we found that by the time McCain added his name to the bill as a cosponsor, the collapse was well underway. Home prices began falling only two months later. Our colleagues at PolitiFact also questioned this claim.

    More from Thursday:

    An email floated around that three former Fannie Mae executive were economic advisers to Obama.

    According to FACTCHECK this is untrue.

    QUOTE:

    No, claims made in a chain e-mail are false. Jim Johnson advised on non-economic matters but quit after a week. Franklin Raines says he took a “couple of calls” but was never an adviser. We find no evidence Tim Howard ever had a connection to the Obama campaign.
    According to yet another false e-mail making the rounds on the Internet, Franklin Raines and J. Timothy Howard are chief “economic” and “finance” advisers to the presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama. Not true. Neither man works for the Obama campaign, either now or in the past. The e-mail is technically accurate when it says Obama selected Jim Johnson to head his vice presidential search committee, but it fails to mention that Johnson lasted only a week in that unpaid position.

    It’s true that all three men were at one time top executives of the Federal National Mortgage Association, the huge company known as “Fannie Mae,” which was set up by Congress to supply money for home mortgages. But it’s a huge stretch to conclude, as this e-mail does, that these three men “brought down Wall Street.” The message is mostly accurate in its description of the roles Raines and Howard played in an accounting scandal from several years ago, though we weren’t able to verify the exact value of each man’s “golden parachute.” However, charges against Raines were dropped this year in exchange for his giving up $24.7 million in stocks, cash and other benefits. The settlement included a $2 million payment to the federal government to be covered by Fannie Mae’s insurance policy. Howard also agreed to a settlement valued at $6.4 million, including $5.2 million in stock options. The e-mail also notes that Johnson, who was CEO before Raines, was criticized for receiving $21 million in compensation a decade ago.

    Obama’s Connection to Raines

    We addressed Raines’ connection to Obama on the FactCheck Wire back in September after a McCain-Palin campaign ad claimed that Raines, the former Fannie Mae chairman and CEO, was advising Obama on economic matters. Both Raines and the Obama campaign denied that Raines was, or is currently, working for the campaign as an adviser. And the Washington Post’s Michael Dobbs, who writes the Fact Checker column, found that the connection between the two was being exaggerated. This e-mail exaggerates the relationship even further, claiming that Raines is a “chief economic advisor,” which is utterly false.

    This false claim rests on misinterpretation of a Washington Post profile of Raines by reporter Anita Huslin. In the article, Huslin – apparently quoting Raines – said he had “taken calls from Barack Obama’s presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters.” When Dobbs questioned Huslin about what Raines had told her, she said that Raines said “he had gotten a couple of calls from the Obama campaign.” Huslin added, “I asked him about what, and he said ‘oh, general housing, economy issues.’ (’Not mortgage/foreclosure meltdown or Fannie-specific,’ I asked, and he said ‘no.’)”

    After the McCain campaign released the ad linking the two, Raines issued a statement through the Obama campaign saying, “I am not an advisor to Barack Obama, nor have I provided his campaign with advice on housing or economic matters.” Raines told McCain campaign adviser Carly Fiorina the same thing even before the ad was released. He sent Fiorina an e-mail after he heard that she had called him an adviser to Obama. The e-mail read: “Carly: Is this true? I am not an adviser to the Obama campaign. Frank.” But the McCain ad ran anyway. McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said he was unaware of the e-mail.

    Obama’s Connection to Jim Johnson

    We addressed Jim Johnson’s connection to Obama in another wire post also in September. Johnson, who was CEO of Fannie Mae from 1991 until 1998 (he left the company in 1999), was picked to join a selection committee (along with Caroline Kennedy and Eric Holder) to help choose Obama’s vice presidential running mate. However, Johnson resigned from the position just one week later amid allegations that he received special treatment in obtaining loans from Countrywide Financial Corp. The e-mail claims that he was “hired as a Senior Obama Finance Advisor and was selected to run Obama’s Vice Presidential Search Committee.” It isn’t apparent if Johnson was selected to “run” the committee, and he clearly didn’t have much of a chance to do so. We found no reports of Johnson ever having been a “senior finance advisor” to the campaign, and Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor says he never was.

    Obama’s Connection to Tim Howard

    The e-mail’s claim about Howard is pure fantasy. We found no press reports or other evidence indicating that Howard has, or ever had, any relationship with the Obama campaign, let alone being “a Chief Economic adviser.” Normally, chief advisers to the campaigns do interviews with reporters and are widely quoted. When we asked the Obama campaign if Howard had ever been an adviser, spokesman Vietor said, “Timothy Howard is not a policy advisor and has not been one.” Howard served as the chief financial officer for Fannie Mae until 2004, when, along with Raines, he was dismissed from the company under speculation of mismanaging Fannie’s financial records.

  37. Doug Paul Davis

    As far as Dodd and Frank, my google search has not uncovered anything that isn’t coming from right wing sources. Hopefully Fact Check will post something and we can see what the actual story is.

  38. Doug Paul Davis

    As far as Dodd and Frank, my google search has not uncovered anything that isn’t coming from right wing sources. Hopefully Fact Check will post something and we can see what the actual story is.

  39. Doug Paul Davis

    As far as Dodd and Frank, my google search has not uncovered anything that isn’t coming from right wing sources. Hopefully Fact Check will post something and we can see what the actual story is.

  40. Doug Paul Davis

    As far as Dodd and Frank, my google search has not uncovered anything that isn’t coming from right wing sources. Hopefully Fact Check will post something and we can see what the actual story is.

  41. Anonymous

    Chester wrote:
    “America is a land of hope and opportunity because of the traditions of strong family values, civility, community, strong defense, national pride, spirituality, persistence and hard work. I want a candidate that best represents these values and ideas. McCain does more than Obama. I don’t care what names they call each other during the campaign.

    As with many conservatives posting comments on DPD’s weblog today, Chester confuses real ideas with straw ideas (analogous to the term “straw bosses”). Words like “civility,” are just words to Chester and his fellow travelers–else why would he write, “I don’t care what names they call each other…”
    One either cares to be civil, or not. If one doesn’t care if politicians call each other names, then one relinquishes claim to civility as a personal value. Makes me wonder how important words like “family values” or “community” are to Chester and his cadre? Or, like “civility,” are such words to them just that, simply words to tack up on this weblog with no other connection to how they really think?
    Anon

  42. Anonymous

    Chester wrote:
    “America is a land of hope and opportunity because of the traditions of strong family values, civility, community, strong defense, national pride, spirituality, persistence and hard work. I want a candidate that best represents these values and ideas. McCain does more than Obama. I don’t care what names they call each other during the campaign.

    As with many conservatives posting comments on DPD’s weblog today, Chester confuses real ideas with straw ideas (analogous to the term “straw bosses”). Words like “civility,” are just words to Chester and his fellow travelers–else why would he write, “I don’t care what names they call each other…”
    One either cares to be civil, or not. If one doesn’t care if politicians call each other names, then one relinquishes claim to civility as a personal value. Makes me wonder how important words like “family values” or “community” are to Chester and his cadre? Or, like “civility,” are such words to them just that, simply words to tack up on this weblog with no other connection to how they really think?
    Anon

  43. Anonymous

    Chester wrote:
    “America is a land of hope and opportunity because of the traditions of strong family values, civility, community, strong defense, national pride, spirituality, persistence and hard work. I want a candidate that best represents these values and ideas. McCain does more than Obama. I don’t care what names they call each other during the campaign.

    As with many conservatives posting comments on DPD’s weblog today, Chester confuses real ideas with straw ideas (analogous to the term “straw bosses”). Words like “civility,” are just words to Chester and his fellow travelers–else why would he write, “I don’t care what names they call each other…”
    One either cares to be civil, or not. If one doesn’t care if politicians call each other names, then one relinquishes claim to civility as a personal value. Makes me wonder how important words like “family values” or “community” are to Chester and his cadre? Or, like “civility,” are such words to them just that, simply words to tack up on this weblog with no other connection to how they really think?
    Anon

  44. Anonymous

    Chester wrote:
    “America is a land of hope and opportunity because of the traditions of strong family values, civility, community, strong defense, national pride, spirituality, persistence and hard work. I want a candidate that best represents these values and ideas. McCain does more than Obama. I don’t care what names they call each other during the campaign.

    As with many conservatives posting comments on DPD’s weblog today, Chester confuses real ideas with straw ideas (analogous to the term “straw bosses”). Words like “civility,” are just words to Chester and his fellow travelers–else why would he write, “I don’t care what names they call each other…”
    One either cares to be civil, or not. If one doesn’t care if politicians call each other names, then one relinquishes claim to civility as a personal value. Makes me wonder how important words like “family values” or “community” are to Chester and his cadre? Or, like “civility,” are such words to them just that, simply words to tack up on this weblog with no other connection to how they really think?
    Anon

  45. Doug Paul Davis

    O’Reilly may be “registered” independent, but he’s basically conservative in his ideology. He’s not what I would consider an objective observer. Take a look at the FACTCHECK site, they debunk claims from both sides. That’s the kind of information I look for. O’Reilly is a hack with an agenda. Show me something from an objective observer that verifies the claims against Frank and Dodd. I doubt you will be able to do it.

  46. Doug Paul Davis

    O’Reilly may be “registered” independent, but he’s basically conservative in his ideology. He’s not what I would consider an objective observer. Take a look at the FACTCHECK site, they debunk claims from both sides. That’s the kind of information I look for. O’Reilly is a hack with an agenda. Show me something from an objective observer that verifies the claims against Frank and Dodd. I doubt you will be able to do it.

  47. Doug Paul Davis

    O’Reilly may be “registered” independent, but he’s basically conservative in his ideology. He’s not what I would consider an objective observer. Take a look at the FACTCHECK site, they debunk claims from both sides. That’s the kind of information I look for. O’Reilly is a hack with an agenda. Show me something from an objective observer that verifies the claims against Frank and Dodd. I doubt you will be able to do it.

  48. Doug Paul Davis

    O’Reilly may be “registered” independent, but he’s basically conservative in his ideology. He’s not what I would consider an objective observer. Take a look at the FACTCHECK site, they debunk claims from both sides. That’s the kind of information I look for. O’Reilly is a hack with an agenda. Show me something from an objective observer that verifies the claims against Frank and Dodd. I doubt you will be able to do it.

  49. Old Skool Davis

    “Ideology”, “Right wing”, your slaying me today. LOL!

    O.K., how about Michelle Malkin or Charles Krauthammer? Are these respected journalists “hacks” as well?

  50. Old Skool Davis

    “Ideology”, “Right wing”, your slaying me today. LOL!

    O.K., how about Michelle Malkin or Charles Krauthammer? Are these respected journalists “hacks” as well?

  51. Old Skool Davis

    “Ideology”, “Right wing”, your slaying me today. LOL!

    O.K., how about Michelle Malkin or Charles Krauthammer? Are these respected journalists “hacks” as well?

  52. Old Skool Davis

    “Ideology”, “Right wing”, your slaying me today. LOL!

    O.K., how about Michelle Malkin or Charles Krauthammer? Are these respected journalists “hacks” as well?

  53. Don Shor

    “O.K., how about Michelle Malkin or Charles Krauthammer? Are these respected journalists “hacks” as well?”
    Neither of them are journalists. They are columnists.

  54. Don Shor

    “O.K., how about Michelle Malkin or Charles Krauthammer? Are these respected journalists “hacks” as well?”
    Neither of them are journalists. They are columnists.

  55. Don Shor

    “O.K., how about Michelle Malkin or Charles Krauthammer? Are these respected journalists “hacks” as well?”
    Neither of them are journalists. They are columnists.

  56. Don Shor

    “O.K., how about Michelle Malkin or Charles Krauthammer? Are these respected journalists “hacks” as well?”
    Neither of them are journalists. They are columnists.

  57. Thomas Randall, Jr

    For those of you wondering and wanted to know more about the Republican Party locally, there are two upcoming events locally that the Republican Party is involved with that are worth attending to learn more about John McCain and the other Republican Party nominated candidates:

    WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2008

    Yolo County Republican Party (YCRP)

    Presidential Debate Watching Party

    Sudwerk Bar and Grill Restaurant

    2001 2nd Street

    Davis, CA 95616-5474

    Open to the Public (Republicans and undecided preferred).

    Admission is free.

    Doors open at approximately 5:30 p.m. (PDT)

    All debates start at 6:00 p.m. (PDT) and end by 7:30 p.m. (PDT)

    No host food and drink is available.

    Please log on to the following websites for more information:

    http://www.yologop.org

    http://www.debates.org

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_debates,_2008

    AND ALSO TO BE HELD ON:

    WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2008

    Davis Chapter of the League of Women Voters (LWV)

    Candidates Forum Featuring

    The Republican Party and Democratic Party Nominees

    For State Senate and Assembly

    Lois Wolk and Mariko Yamada

    Greg Aghizarian and Manuel Cosme

    8:00 p.m. (new start time)

    Admission is Free.

    Open to the Public.

    This event will be held at another venue in Davis promptly following the conclusion of the Presidential Debate Watching Party.

    For more information, please view the following webpage for details

    http://www.lwvdavis.org/calendar.html

    Also, the local Republican Party Headquarers (HQ) is located at:

    526 Main Street
    Woodland, CA 95695

    Mr. Steve Venables, Contact Person

    Phone # (530) 406-1400

    E-Mail: steve@wt.webmail.com

  58. Thomas Randall, Jr

    For those of you wondering and wanted to know more about the Republican Party locally, there are two upcoming events locally that the Republican Party is involved with that are worth attending to learn more about John McCain and the other Republican Party nominated candidates:

    WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2008

    Yolo County Republican Party (YCRP)

    Presidential Debate Watching Party

    Sudwerk Bar and Grill Restaurant

    2001 2nd Street

    Davis, CA 95616-5474

    Open to the Public (Republicans and undecided preferred).

    Admission is free.

    Doors open at approximately 5:30 p.m. (PDT)

    All debates start at 6:00 p.m. (PDT) and end by 7:30 p.m. (PDT)

    No host food and drink is available.

    Please log on to the following websites for more information:

    http://www.yologop.org

    http://www.debates.org

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_debates,_2008

    AND ALSO TO BE HELD ON:

    WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2008

    Davis Chapter of the League of Women Voters (LWV)

    Candidates Forum Featuring

    The Republican Party and Democratic Party Nominees

    For State Senate and Assembly

    Lois Wolk and Mariko Yamada

    Greg Aghizarian and Manuel Cosme

    8:00 p.m. (new start time)

    Admission is Free.

    Open to the Public.

    This event will be held at another venue in Davis promptly following the conclusion of the Presidential Debate Watching Party.

    For more information, please view the following webpage for details

    http://www.lwvdavis.org/calendar.html

    Also, the local Republican Party Headquarers (HQ) is located at:

    526 Main Street
    Woodland, CA 95695

    Mr. Steve Venables, Contact Person

    Phone # (530) 406-1400

    E-Mail: steve@wt.webmail.com

  59. Thomas Randall, Jr

    For those of you wondering and wanted to know more about the Republican Party locally, there are two upcoming events locally that the Republican Party is involved with that are worth attending to learn more about John McCain and the other Republican Party nominated candidates:

    WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2008

    Yolo County Republican Party (YCRP)

    Presidential Debate Watching Party

    Sudwerk Bar and Grill Restaurant

    2001 2nd Street

    Davis, CA 95616-5474

    Open to the Public (Republicans and undecided preferred).

    Admission is free.

    Doors open at approximately 5:30 p.m. (PDT)

    All debates start at 6:00 p.m. (PDT) and end by 7:30 p.m. (PDT)

    No host food and drink is available.

    Please log on to the following websites for more information:

    http://www.yologop.org

    http://www.debates.org

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_debates,_2008

    AND ALSO TO BE HELD ON:

    WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2008

    Davis Chapter of the League of Women Voters (LWV)

    Candidates Forum Featuring

    The Republican Party and Democratic Party Nominees

    For State Senate and Assembly

    Lois Wolk and Mariko Yamada

    Greg Aghizarian and Manuel Cosme

    8:00 p.m. (new start time)

    Admission is Free.

    Open to the Public.

    This event will be held at another venue in Davis promptly following the conclusion of the Presidential Debate Watching Party.

    For more information, please view the following webpage for details

    http://www.lwvdavis.org/calendar.html

    Also, the local Republican Party Headquarers (HQ) is located at:

    526 Main Street
    Woodland, CA 95695

    Mr. Steve Venables, Contact Person

    Phone # (530) 406-1400

    E-Mail: steve@wt.webmail.com

  60. Thomas Randall, Jr

    For those of you wondering and wanted to know more about the Republican Party locally, there are two upcoming events locally that the Republican Party is involved with that are worth attending to learn more about John McCain and the other Republican Party nominated candidates:

    WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2008

    Yolo County Republican Party (YCRP)

    Presidential Debate Watching Party

    Sudwerk Bar and Grill Restaurant

    2001 2nd Street

    Davis, CA 95616-5474

    Open to the Public (Republicans and undecided preferred).

    Admission is free.

    Doors open at approximately 5:30 p.m. (PDT)

    All debates start at 6:00 p.m. (PDT) and end by 7:30 p.m. (PDT)

    No host food and drink is available.

    Please log on to the following websites for more information:

    http://www.yologop.org

    http://www.debates.org

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_debates,_2008

    AND ALSO TO BE HELD ON:

    WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2008

    Davis Chapter of the League of Women Voters (LWV)

    Candidates Forum Featuring

    The Republican Party and Democratic Party Nominees

    For State Senate and Assembly

    Lois Wolk and Mariko Yamada

    Greg Aghizarian and Manuel Cosme

    8:00 p.m. (new start time)

    Admission is Free.

    Open to the Public.

    This event will be held at another venue in Davis promptly following the conclusion of the Presidential Debate Watching Party.

    For more information, please view the following webpage for details

    http://www.lwvdavis.org/calendar.html

    Also, the local Republican Party Headquarers (HQ) is located at:

    526 Main Street
    Woodland, CA 95695

    Mr. Steve Venables, Contact Person

    Phone # (530) 406-1400

    E-Mail: steve@wt.webmail.com

  61. Doug Paul Davis

    ” It is a widely known fact as well: that Barney Frank was quite literally in bed with Herb Moses a top level Fannie Mae executive.”

    Then you should have no problem finding a non-columnist, non-talking head, non-partisan, reputable source that can prove it. Funny thing is that you haven’t and probably do not even understand the question.

  62. Doug Paul Davis

    ” It is a widely known fact as well: that Barney Frank was quite literally in bed with Herb Moses a top level Fannie Mae executive.”

    Then you should have no problem finding a non-columnist, non-talking head, non-partisan, reputable source that can prove it. Funny thing is that you haven’t and probably do not even understand the question.

  63. Doug Paul Davis

    ” It is a widely known fact as well: that Barney Frank was quite literally in bed with Herb Moses a top level Fannie Mae executive.”

    Then you should have no problem finding a non-columnist, non-talking head, non-partisan, reputable source that can prove it. Funny thing is that you haven’t and probably do not even understand the question.

  64. Doug Paul Davis

    ” It is a widely known fact as well: that Barney Frank was quite literally in bed with Herb Moses a top level Fannie Mae executive.”

    Then you should have no problem finding a non-columnist, non-talking head, non-partisan, reputable source that can prove it. Funny thing is that you haven’t and probably do not even understand the question.

  65. Anonymous

    If O’Reilly is “fair and balanced” then so was Joseph Geobbels.If we are going to get ahead as a country we need to ignor people lik O’Reilly.

  66. Anonymous

    If O’Reilly is “fair and balanced” then so was Joseph Geobbels.If we are going to get ahead as a country we need to ignor people lik O’Reilly.

  67. Anonymous

    If O’Reilly is “fair and balanced” then so was Joseph Geobbels.If we are going to get ahead as a country we need to ignor people lik O’Reilly.

  68. Anonymous

    If O’Reilly is “fair and balanced” then so was Joseph Geobbels.If we are going to get ahead as a country we need to ignor people lik O’Reilly.

  69. Don Shor

    Herb Moses was Barney Frank’s boyfriend in a relationship which ended over ten years ago. That is a fact.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/frank121898.htm

    I don’t really see what any of that has to do with our current economic crisis, or whether McCain or Obama would be a better president for the next 4 – 8 years. There’s plenty of blame to go around for the current economic mess.

    The next Secretary of Treasury will have unprecedented power. The most conservative administration in decades has proposed an extraordinary level of government involvement in the market.

    “There is a saying that there are no atheists in a fox hole, it appears equally true that there are no libertarians in an economic crisis.”
    There are, of course, plenty of atheists in foxholes, and there have been libertarians (if you want to call them that) opposed to the current proposals. A majority of House Republicans voted against the bailout bill.

    Remember when Republicans were fiscal conservatives and tried to balance the budget?

  70. Don Shor

    Herb Moses was Barney Frank’s boyfriend in a relationship which ended over ten years ago. That is a fact.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/frank121898.htm

    I don’t really see what any of that has to do with our current economic crisis, or whether McCain or Obama would be a better president for the next 4 – 8 years. There’s plenty of blame to go around for the current economic mess.

    The next Secretary of Treasury will have unprecedented power. The most conservative administration in decades has proposed an extraordinary level of government involvement in the market.

    “There is a saying that there are no atheists in a fox hole, it appears equally true that there are no libertarians in an economic crisis.”
    There are, of course, plenty of atheists in foxholes, and there have been libertarians (if you want to call them that) opposed to the current proposals. A majority of House Republicans voted against the bailout bill.

    Remember when Republicans were fiscal conservatives and tried to balance the budget?

  71. Don Shor

    Herb Moses was Barney Frank’s boyfriend in a relationship which ended over ten years ago. That is a fact.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/frank121898.htm

    I don’t really see what any of that has to do with our current economic crisis, or whether McCain or Obama would be a better president for the next 4 – 8 years. There’s plenty of blame to go around for the current economic mess.

    The next Secretary of Treasury will have unprecedented power. The most conservative administration in decades has proposed an extraordinary level of government involvement in the market.

    “There is a saying that there are no atheists in a fox hole, it appears equally true that there are no libertarians in an economic crisis.”
    There are, of course, plenty of atheists in foxholes, and there have been libertarians (if you want to call them that) opposed to the current proposals. A majority of House Republicans voted against the bailout bill.

    Remember when Republicans were fiscal conservatives and tried to balance the budget?

  72. Don Shor

    Herb Moses was Barney Frank’s boyfriend in a relationship which ended over ten years ago. That is a fact.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/frank121898.htm

    I don’t really see what any of that has to do with our current economic crisis, or whether McCain or Obama would be a better president for the next 4 – 8 years. There’s plenty of blame to go around for the current economic mess.

    The next Secretary of Treasury will have unprecedented power. The most conservative administration in decades has proposed an extraordinary level of government involvement in the market.

    “There is a saying that there are no atheists in a fox hole, it appears equally true that there are no libertarians in an economic crisis.”
    There are, of course, plenty of atheists in foxholes, and there have been libertarians (if you want to call them that) opposed to the current proposals. A majority of House Republicans voted against the bailout bill.

    Remember when Republicans were fiscal conservatives and tried to balance the budget?

  73. Doug Paul Davis

    “DPD- your arrogance is very unbecoming!! LOL! “

    It’s exasperation that you cannot make a very simple argument and appear to have very little idea of the difference between O’Reilly and reputable reporter or otherwise impartial observer.

    Don:

    “There are, of course, plenty of atheists in foxholes, and there have been libertarians (if you want to call them that) opposed to the current proposals. A majority of House Republicans voted against the bailout bill. “

    Yes and no. The people in who ended up voting against in by-and-large had little stake in the process. They were neither in the administration, the leadership in Congress, they were not in the cabinet, and they were not running for president.

  74. Doug Paul Davis

    “DPD- your arrogance is very unbecoming!! LOL! “

    It’s exasperation that you cannot make a very simple argument and appear to have very little idea of the difference between O’Reilly and reputable reporter or otherwise impartial observer.

    Don:

    “There are, of course, plenty of atheists in foxholes, and there have been libertarians (if you want to call them that) opposed to the current proposals. A majority of House Republicans voted against the bailout bill. “

    Yes and no. The people in who ended up voting against in by-and-large had little stake in the process. They were neither in the administration, the leadership in Congress, they were not in the cabinet, and they were not running for president.

  75. Doug Paul Davis

    “DPD- your arrogance is very unbecoming!! LOL! “

    It’s exasperation that you cannot make a very simple argument and appear to have very little idea of the difference between O’Reilly and reputable reporter or otherwise impartial observer.

    Don:

    “There are, of course, plenty of atheists in foxholes, and there have been libertarians (if you want to call them that) opposed to the current proposals. A majority of House Republicans voted against the bailout bill. “

    Yes and no. The people in who ended up voting against in by-and-large had little stake in the process. They were neither in the administration, the leadership in Congress, they were not in the cabinet, and they were not running for president.

  76. Doug Paul Davis

    “DPD- your arrogance is very unbecoming!! LOL! “

    It’s exasperation that you cannot make a very simple argument and appear to have very little idea of the difference between O’Reilly and reputable reporter or otherwise impartial observer.

    Don:

    “There are, of course, plenty of atheists in foxholes, and there have been libertarians (if you want to call them that) opposed to the current proposals. A majority of House Republicans voted against the bailout bill. “

    Yes and no. The people in who ended up voting against in by-and-large had little stake in the process. They were neither in the administration, the leadership in Congress, they were not in the cabinet, and they were not running for president.

  77. Don Shor

    I agree. Actually, the way this bailout vote went illustrated what a McCain presidency would be like.

    There are plenty of reasons not to vote for John McCain.

    First, in the extremely unlikely event that he were to get elected (I see no electoral college path to victory for him at this point), he would be unable to govern. The Democrats are on their way to 58, maybe 60, seats in the Senate. A filibuster-proof majority. McCain would face a strong ideologically-driven minority in his own party that would oppose any efforts at bipartisanship, and a united Democratic party. Republicans are in disarray, and don’t have a core philosophy any more. It would be complete gridlock.

    Second, his management style is a disaster. Just look at how he’s run this campaign, and compare it just on an executive level with how Obama has run his. McCain has zig-zagged all over the place, latching onto one zany idea after another. The term “Hail Mary pass” has been used by so many commentators, on both left and right, that it could be used to describe his whole campaign. From everything I have read, his campaign team is in total disarray.
    By comparison, Obama has had a consistent strategy, worked precinct by precinct in the primaries, now state by state. He has kept to the same general themes and approach, even when Democrats outside the campaign were getting nervous after the conventions. From all accounts, he is willing to delegate and has an exceptionally tight, disciplined campaign organization.

    I realized after he chose Sarah Palin what has bothered me about McCain. This all reminds me very much of Richard Nixon. Not the venal, paranoid, alcoholic Nixon we all learned about later. I mean the Nixon presidency as we experienced it at the time.

    Nixon was a drama queen, fond of the grand gesture. I remember as a young teenager sitting in a living room in South Dakota, surrounded by grownup conservative Republicans, when Nixon’s choice of Spiro Agnew was announced. “Spiro who?” they said, nearly in unison. Another incredibly unqualified vice presidential nominee. But he became a darling of the hard right because of his caustic attacks on the left.

    Secret plan to end the war. Bombing Cambodia. Christmas bombing of Hanoi. Stopping the bombing. Secret trips to China. Wage and price controls (ironically, that bill was also called the Economic Stabilization Act). Watergate. Secret tapes. Firing his top aides. Saturday Night Massacre. It was just one thing after another. I have much the same sense of a reactive, crap-shooting president in McCain.

    Third, his foreign policy would be a disaster. I do not sense that he has the temperament to act carefully. At a time when we need to rebuild our alliances, he would fray them further. We could not afford to expand the military to conduct the current wars the way he has proposed, and I suspect he would have us committed elsewhere within a first term. He seems to be listening to the same neo-conservatives who led us into the current mess, if his response to the Russia/Georgia conflict is any indication. We would be more bankrupt, more isolated, and less secure.

  78. Don Shor

    I agree. Actually, the way this bailout vote went illustrated what a McCain presidency would be like.

    There are plenty of reasons not to vote for John McCain.

    First, in the extremely unlikely event that he were to get elected (I see no electoral college path to victory for him at this point), he would be unable to govern. The Democrats are on their way to 58, maybe 60, seats in the Senate. A filibuster-proof majority. McCain would face a strong ideologically-driven minority in his own party that would oppose any efforts at bipartisanship, and a united Democratic party. Republicans are in disarray, and don’t have a core philosophy any more. It would be complete gridlock.

    Second, his management style is a disaster. Just look at how he’s run this campaign, and compare it just on an executive level with how Obama has run his. McCain has zig-zagged all over the place, latching onto one zany idea after another. The term “Hail Mary pass” has been used by so many commentators, on both left and right, that it could be used to describe his whole campaign. From everything I have read, his campaign team is in total disarray.
    By comparison, Obama has had a consistent strategy, worked precinct by precinct in the primaries, now state by state. He has kept to the same general themes and approach, even when Democrats outside the campaign were getting nervous after the conventions. From all accounts, he is willing to delegate and has an exceptionally tight, disciplined campaign organization.

    I realized after he chose Sarah Palin what has bothered me about McCain. This all reminds me very much of Richard Nixon. Not the venal, paranoid, alcoholic Nixon we all learned about later. I mean the Nixon presidency as we experienced it at the time.

    Nixon was a drama queen, fond of the grand gesture. I remember as a young teenager sitting in a living room in South Dakota, surrounded by grownup conservative Republicans, when Nixon’s choice of Spiro Agnew was announced. “Spiro who?” they said, nearly in unison. Another incredibly unqualified vice presidential nominee. But he became a darling of the hard right because of his caustic attacks on the left.

    Secret plan to end the war. Bombing Cambodia. Christmas bombing of Hanoi. Stopping the bombing. Secret trips to China. Wage and price controls (ironically, that bill was also called the Economic Stabilization Act). Watergate. Secret tapes. Firing his top aides. Saturday Night Massacre. It was just one thing after another. I have much the same sense of a reactive, crap-shooting president in McCain.

    Third, his foreign policy would be a disaster. I do not sense that he has the temperament to act carefully. At a time when we need to rebuild our alliances, he would fray them further. We could not afford to expand the military to conduct the current wars the way he has proposed, and I suspect he would have us committed elsewhere within a first term. He seems to be listening to the same neo-conservatives who led us into the current mess, if his response to the Russia/Georgia conflict is any indication. We would be more bankrupt, more isolated, and less secure.

  79. Don Shor

    I agree. Actually, the way this bailout vote went illustrated what a McCain presidency would be like.

    There are plenty of reasons not to vote for John McCain.

    First, in the extremely unlikely event that he were to get elected (I see no electoral college path to victory for him at this point), he would be unable to govern. The Democrats are on their way to 58, maybe 60, seats in the Senate. A filibuster-proof majority. McCain would face a strong ideologically-driven minority in his own party that would oppose any efforts at bipartisanship, and a united Democratic party. Republicans are in disarray, and don’t have a core philosophy any more. It would be complete gridlock.

    Second, his management style is a disaster. Just look at how he’s run this campaign, and compare it just on an executive level with how Obama has run his. McCain has zig-zagged all over the place, latching onto one zany idea after another. The term “Hail Mary pass” has been used by so many commentators, on both left and right, that it could be used to describe his whole campaign. From everything I have read, his campaign team is in total disarray.
    By comparison, Obama has had a consistent strategy, worked precinct by precinct in the primaries, now state by state. He has kept to the same general themes and approach, even when Democrats outside the campaign were getting nervous after the conventions. From all accounts, he is willing to delegate and has an exceptionally tight, disciplined campaign organization.

    I realized after he chose Sarah Palin what has bothered me about McCain. This all reminds me very much of Richard Nixon. Not the venal, paranoid, alcoholic Nixon we all learned about later. I mean the Nixon presidency as we experienced it at the time.

    Nixon was a drama queen, fond of the grand gesture. I remember as a young teenager sitting in a living room in South Dakota, surrounded by grownup conservative Republicans, when Nixon’s choice of Spiro Agnew was announced. “Spiro who?” they said, nearly in unison. Another incredibly unqualified vice presidential nominee. But he became a darling of the hard right because of his caustic attacks on the left.

    Secret plan to end the war. Bombing Cambodia. Christmas bombing of Hanoi. Stopping the bombing. Secret trips to China. Wage and price controls (ironically, that bill was also called the Economic Stabilization Act). Watergate. Secret tapes. Firing his top aides. Saturday Night Massacre. It was just one thing after another. I have much the same sense of a reactive, crap-shooting president in McCain.

    Third, his foreign policy would be a disaster. I do not sense that he has the temperament to act carefully. At a time when we need to rebuild our alliances, he would fray them further. We could not afford to expand the military to conduct the current wars the way he has proposed, and I suspect he would have us committed elsewhere within a first term. He seems to be listening to the same neo-conservatives who led us into the current mess, if his response to the Russia/Georgia conflict is any indication. We would be more bankrupt, more isolated, and less secure.

  80. Don Shor

    I agree. Actually, the way this bailout vote went illustrated what a McCain presidency would be like.

    There are plenty of reasons not to vote for John McCain.

    First, in the extremely unlikely event that he were to get elected (I see no electoral college path to victory for him at this point), he would be unable to govern. The Democrats are on their way to 58, maybe 60, seats in the Senate. A filibuster-proof majority. McCain would face a strong ideologically-driven minority in his own party that would oppose any efforts at bipartisanship, and a united Democratic party. Republicans are in disarray, and don’t have a core philosophy any more. It would be complete gridlock.

    Second, his management style is a disaster. Just look at how he’s run this campaign, and compare it just on an executive level with how Obama has run his. McCain has zig-zagged all over the place, latching onto one zany idea after another. The term “Hail Mary pass” has been used by so many commentators, on both left and right, that it could be used to describe his whole campaign. From everything I have read, his campaign team is in total disarray.
    By comparison, Obama has had a consistent strategy, worked precinct by precinct in the primaries, now state by state. He has kept to the same general themes and approach, even when Democrats outside the campaign were getting nervous after the conventions. From all accounts, he is willing to delegate and has an exceptionally tight, disciplined campaign organization.

    I realized after he chose Sarah Palin what has bothered me about McCain. This all reminds me very much of Richard Nixon. Not the venal, paranoid, alcoholic Nixon we all learned about later. I mean the Nixon presidency as we experienced it at the time.

    Nixon was a drama queen, fond of the grand gesture. I remember as a young teenager sitting in a living room in South Dakota, surrounded by grownup conservative Republicans, when Nixon’s choice of Spiro Agnew was announced. “Spiro who?” they said, nearly in unison. Another incredibly unqualified vice presidential nominee. But he became a darling of the hard right because of his caustic attacks on the left.

    Secret plan to end the war. Bombing Cambodia. Christmas bombing of Hanoi. Stopping the bombing. Secret trips to China. Wage and price controls (ironically, that bill was also called the Economic Stabilization Act). Watergate. Secret tapes. Firing his top aides. Saturday Night Massacre. It was just one thing after another. I have much the same sense of a reactive, crap-shooting president in McCain.

    Third, his foreign policy would be a disaster. I do not sense that he has the temperament to act carefully. At a time when we need to rebuild our alliances, he would fray them further. We could not afford to expand the military to conduct the current wars the way he has proposed, and I suspect he would have us committed elsewhere within a first term. He seems to be listening to the same neo-conservatives who led us into the current mess, if his response to the Russia/Georgia conflict is any indication. We would be more bankrupt, more isolated, and less secure.

  81. Old Skool Davis

    DPD- you in there? Come on out.

    I’m sorry- I put up the fox news link to get you salivating like a rabid dog! It worked quite splendidly!!

    Question- for you brilliant minds.

    Have any of you given creedence to the “Bradley effect” ?

  82. Old Skool Davis

    DPD- you in there? Come on out.

    I’m sorry- I put up the fox news link to get you salivating like a rabid dog! It worked quite splendidly!!

    Question- for you brilliant minds.

    Have any of you given creedence to the “Bradley effect” ?

  83. Old Skool Davis

    DPD- you in there? Come on out.

    I’m sorry- I put up the fox news link to get you salivating like a rabid dog! It worked quite splendidly!!

    Question- for you brilliant minds.

    Have any of you given creedence to the “Bradley effect” ?

  84. Old Skool Davis

    DPD- you in there? Come on out.

    I’m sorry- I put up the fox news link to get you salivating like a rabid dog! It worked quite splendidly!!

    Question- for you brilliant minds.

    Have any of you given creedence to the “Bradley effect” ?

  85. Don Shor

    “Have any of you given creedence to the “Bradley effect” ?”

    Yes. I think it is less of a factor than it used to be. Times and attitudes have changed.

  86. Don Shor

    “Have any of you given creedence to the “Bradley effect” ?”

    Yes. I think it is less of a factor than it used to be. Times and attitudes have changed.

  87. Don Shor

    “Have any of you given creedence to the “Bradley effect” ?”

    Yes. I think it is less of a factor than it used to be. Times and attitudes have changed.

  88. Don Shor

    “Have any of you given creedence to the “Bradley effect” ?”

    Yes. I think it is less of a factor than it used to be. Times and attitudes have changed.

  89. Doug Paul Davis

    There was an article in the NY Times yesterday that the Bradley effect wasn’t actually the Bradley effect. Basically, the exit polls in California were correct, Bradley won on election day with the people who went to the polls. However, the election was won by a narrow margins due to the absentee ballots margins for Deukmejian. So in point of fact, there was no discrepancy.

  90. Doug Paul Davis

    There was an article in the NY Times yesterday that the Bradley effect wasn’t actually the Bradley effect. Basically, the exit polls in California were correct, Bradley won on election day with the people who went to the polls. However, the election was won by a narrow margins due to the absentee ballots margins for Deukmejian. So in point of fact, there was no discrepancy.

  91. Doug Paul Davis

    There was an article in the NY Times yesterday that the Bradley effect wasn’t actually the Bradley effect. Basically, the exit polls in California were correct, Bradley won on election day with the people who went to the polls. However, the election was won by a narrow margins due to the absentee ballots margins for Deukmejian. So in point of fact, there was no discrepancy.

  92. Doug Paul Davis

    There was an article in the NY Times yesterday that the Bradley effect wasn’t actually the Bradley effect. Basically, the exit polls in California were correct, Bradley won on election day with the people who went to the polls. However, the election was won by a narrow margins due to the absentee ballots margins for Deukmejian. So in point of fact, there was no discrepancy.

  93. Old Skool Davis

    It’s unfortunate, in this mega communication age, that once trusted beacons of truth like The New York Times and The Washinton Post have sold out and are in the tank.

    The Annenberg people do show an enormous amount of credibility.
    They are to be lauded for there extreme efforts in “getting it right”.

  94. Old Skool Davis

    It’s unfortunate, in this mega communication age, that once trusted beacons of truth like The New York Times and The Washinton Post have sold out and are in the tank.

    The Annenberg people do show an enormous amount of credibility.
    They are to be lauded for there extreme efforts in “getting it right”.

  95. Old Skool Davis

    It’s unfortunate, in this mega communication age, that once trusted beacons of truth like The New York Times and The Washinton Post have sold out and are in the tank.

    The Annenberg people do show an enormous amount of credibility.
    They are to be lauded for there extreme efforts in “getting it right”.

  96. Old Skool Davis

    It’s unfortunate, in this mega communication age, that once trusted beacons of truth like The New York Times and The Washinton Post have sold out and are in the tank.

    The Annenberg people do show an enormous amount of credibility.
    They are to be lauded for there extreme efforts in “getting it right”.

  97. Anonymous

    It’s unfortunate, in this mega communication age, that once trusted beacons of truth like The New York Times and The Washinton Post have sold out and are in the tank.

    The Annenberg people do show an enormous amount of credibility.
    They are to be lauded for there extreme efforts in “getting it right”.

    It must be nice and comfortable to never have to worry about questioning your own opinions, to never submit them to questioning, either.
    To see how it’s done, questioning one’s own certainty, in case you ever get bored with certainty, read Dick Cavett’s column on the NY Times website, if you ever read the Gray Lady, that is.

  98. Anonymous

    It’s unfortunate, in this mega communication age, that once trusted beacons of truth like The New York Times and The Washinton Post have sold out and are in the tank.

    The Annenberg people do show an enormous amount of credibility.
    They are to be lauded for there extreme efforts in “getting it right”.

    It must be nice and comfortable to never have to worry about questioning your own opinions, to never submit them to questioning, either.
    To see how it’s done, questioning one’s own certainty, in case you ever get bored with certainty, read Dick Cavett’s column on the NY Times website, if you ever read the Gray Lady, that is.

  99. Anonymous

    It’s unfortunate, in this mega communication age, that once trusted beacons of truth like The New York Times and The Washinton Post have sold out and are in the tank.

    The Annenberg people do show an enormous amount of credibility.
    They are to be lauded for there extreme efforts in “getting it right”.

    It must be nice and comfortable to never have to worry about questioning your own opinions, to never submit them to questioning, either.
    To see how it’s done, questioning one’s own certainty, in case you ever get bored with certainty, read Dick Cavett’s column on the NY Times website, if you ever read the Gray Lady, that is.

  100. Anonymous

    It’s unfortunate, in this mega communication age, that once trusted beacons of truth like The New York Times and The Washinton Post have sold out and are in the tank.

    The Annenberg people do show an enormous amount of credibility.
    They are to be lauded for there extreme efforts in “getting it right”.

    It must be nice and comfortable to never have to worry about questioning your own opinions, to never submit them to questioning, either.
    To see how it’s done, questioning one’s own certainty, in case you ever get bored with certainty, read Dick Cavett’s column on the NY Times website, if you ever read the Gray Lady, that is.

  101. Vincente

    Perhaps in your opinion. From my standpoint with few exceptions the New York Times and Washington still provide as good a product as I’ve seen from anywhere else. The sources you have cited are crap. And you are questioning the Times and the Post–are you serious?

  102. Vincente

    Perhaps in your opinion. From my standpoint with few exceptions the New York Times and Washington still provide as good a product as I’ve seen from anywhere else. The sources you have cited are crap. And you are questioning the Times and the Post–are you serious?

  103. Vincente

    Perhaps in your opinion. From my standpoint with few exceptions the New York Times and Washington still provide as good a product as I’ve seen from anywhere else. The sources you have cited are crap. And you are questioning the Times and the Post–are you serious?

  104. Vincente

    Perhaps in your opinion. From my standpoint with few exceptions the New York Times and Washington still provide as good a product as I’ve seen from anywhere else. The sources you have cited are crap. And you are questioning the Times and the Post–are you serious?

  105. help!

    “It’s unfortunate, in this mega communication age, that once trusted beacons of truth like The New York Times and The Washinton Post have sold out and are in the tank.

    The Annenberg people do show an enormous amount of credibility.
    They are to be lauded for there extreme efforts in “getting it right”.”

    Really??

    So how am I, a poor ignorant working stiff, to know if a media source is a trusted beacon or not?

    Is it a matter of asking “old skool” for judgement? should I look around to see what is widely labeled “liberal” and avoid those? or is there something else that I could look for in case “old skool” isn’t around to hold my hand, or if I haven’t yet put my finger to the wind to see if the “L” word has been used for that source?

  106. help!

    “It’s unfortunate, in this mega communication age, that once trusted beacons of truth like The New York Times and The Washinton Post have sold out and are in the tank.

    The Annenberg people do show an enormous amount of credibility.
    They are to be lauded for there extreme efforts in “getting it right”.”

    Really??

    So how am I, a poor ignorant working stiff, to know if a media source is a trusted beacon or not?

    Is it a matter of asking “old skool” for judgement? should I look around to see what is widely labeled “liberal” and avoid those? or is there something else that I could look for in case “old skool” isn’t around to hold my hand, or if I haven’t yet put my finger to the wind to see if the “L” word has been used for that source?

  107. help!

    “It’s unfortunate, in this mega communication age, that once trusted beacons of truth like The New York Times and The Washinton Post have sold out and are in the tank.

    The Annenberg people do show an enormous amount of credibility.
    They are to be lauded for there extreme efforts in “getting it right”.”

    Really??

    So how am I, a poor ignorant working stiff, to know if a media source is a trusted beacon or not?

    Is it a matter of asking “old skool” for judgement? should I look around to see what is widely labeled “liberal” and avoid those? or is there something else that I could look for in case “old skool” isn’t around to hold my hand, or if I haven’t yet put my finger to the wind to see if the “L” word has been used for that source?

  108. help!

    “It’s unfortunate, in this mega communication age, that once trusted beacons of truth like The New York Times and The Washinton Post have sold out and are in the tank.

    The Annenberg people do show an enormous amount of credibility.
    They are to be lauded for there extreme efforts in “getting it right”.”

    Really??

    So how am I, a poor ignorant working stiff, to know if a media source is a trusted beacon or not?

    Is it a matter of asking “old skool” for judgement? should I look around to see what is widely labeled “liberal” and avoid those? or is there something else that I could look for in case “old skool” isn’t around to hold my hand, or if I haven’t yet put my finger to the wind to see if the “L” word has been used for that source?

  109. Food For Thought

    HERE IS SOME FOOD FOR THOUGHT:

    About six months ago, I started thinking 'where did the money come from for Obama' . I have four daughters who went to College, and we were middle class, and money was tight. We (including my girls) worked hard and there were lots of student loans.

    I started looking into Obama's life.

    Around 1979 Obama started college at Occidental in California . He is very open about his two years at Occidental, he tried all kinds of drugs and was wasting his time but, even though he had a brilliant mind, did not apply himself to his studies. 'Barry' (that was the name he used all his life) during this time had two roommates, Muhammad Hasan Chandoo and Wahid Hamid, both from Pakistan. During the summer of 1981, after his second year in college, he made a 'round the world' trip. Stopping to see his mother in Indonesia, next Hyderabad in India, three weeks in Karachi, Pakistan where he stayed with his roommate ' s family, then off to Africa to visit his father's family. My question – Where did he get the money for this trip? Nether I, nor any one of my children would have had money for a trip like this when they where in college. When he came back he started school at Columbia University in New York . It is at this time he wants everyone to call him Barack – not Barry. Do you know what the tuition is at Columbia? It's not cheap to say the least! Where did he get money for tuition? Student Loans? Maybe. After Columbia, he went to Chicago to work as a Community Organizer for $12,000 a year. Why Chicago? Why not New York? He was already living in New York .

    By 'chance' he met Antoin 'Tony' Rezko, born in Aleppo Syria , and a real estate developer in Chicago. Rezko has been convicted of fraud and bribery this year. Rezko, was named 'Entrepreneur of the Decade' by the Arab-American Business and Professional Association. About two years later, Obama entered Harvard Law School. Do you have any idea what tuition is for Harvard Law School? Where did he get the money for Law School? More student loans? After Law school, he went back to Chicago. Rezko offered him a job, which he turned down. But, he did take a job with Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland. Guess what? They represented 'Rezar' which is Rezko's firm. Rezko was one of Obama's first major financial contributors when he ran for office in Chicago. In 2003, Rezko threw an early fundraiser for Obama which Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendelland claims was instrumental in providing Obama with 'seed money' for his U.S. Senate race. In 2005, Obama purchased a new home in Kenwood District of Chicago for $1.65 million (less than asking price). With ALL those Student Loans – Where did he get the money for the property? On the same day Rezko's wife, Rita, purchased the adjoining empty lot for full price. The London Times reported that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born Billionaire loaned Rezko $3.5 million three weeks before Obama's new home was purchased. Obama met Nadhmi Auchi many times with Rezko.

    Now, we have Obama running for President. Valerie Jarrett, was Michele Obama's boss. She is now Obama's chief advisor and he does not make any major decisions without talking to her first. Where was Jarrett born? Ready for this? Shiraz, Iran ! Do we see a pattern here? Or am I going crazy?

    On May 10, 2008 The Times reported, Robert Malley, advisor to Obama, was 'sacked' after the press found out he was having regular contacts with 'Hamas', which controls Gaza and is connected with Iran. This past week, buried in the back part of the papers, Iraqi newspapers reported that during Obama's visit to Iraq, he asked their leaders to do nothing about the war until after he is elected, and he will 'Take care of things'.
    Oh, and by the way, remember the college roommates that where born in Pakistan? They are in charge of all those 'small' Internet campaign contributions for Obama. Where is that money coming from? The poor and middle class in this country? Or could it be from the Middle East ?

    And the final bit of news. On September 7, 2008, The Washington Times posted a verbal slip that was made on 'This Week' with George Stephanapoulos. Obama on talking about his religion said, 'My Muslim faith'. When questioned, he 'made a mistake'. Some mistake! Do you state YOUR religion incorrectly? I mean, I'm a Baptist, and never ONCE have I said, by 'mistake' that I'm a Methodist–or Muslim! Seems like this man makes an awful lot of 'mistakes' when he opens his mouth. No wonder they insist that there be no signs at the rallies – he MUST be able to read that Teleprompter!

    All of the above information I got on line. If you would like to check it – Wikipedia, encyclopedia, Barack Obama; Tony Rezko; Valerie Jarrett: Daily Times – Obama visited Pakistan in 1981; The Washington Times – September 7, 2008; The Times May 10, 2008.

    Now the BIG question – If I found out all this information on my own, Why haven't all of our 'intelligent' members of the press been reporting this?

    A phrase that keeps ringing in my ear – 'Beware of the enemy from within' !!!

  110. Food For Thought

    HERE IS SOME FOOD FOR THOUGHT:

    About six months ago, I started thinking 'where did the money come from for Obama' . I have four daughters who went to College, and we were middle class, and money was tight. We (including my girls) worked hard and there were lots of student loans.

    I started looking into Obama's life.

    Around 1979 Obama started college at Occidental in California . He is very open about his two years at Occidental, he tried all kinds of drugs and was wasting his time but, even though he had a brilliant mind, did not apply himself to his studies. 'Barry' (that was the name he used all his life) during this time had two roommates, Muhammad Hasan Chandoo and Wahid Hamid, both from Pakistan. During the summer of 1981, after his second year in college, he made a 'round the world' trip. Stopping to see his mother in Indonesia, next Hyderabad in India, three weeks in Karachi, Pakistan where he stayed with his roommate ' s family, then off to Africa to visit his father's family. My question – Where did he get the money for this trip? Nether I, nor any one of my children would have had money for a trip like this when they where in college. When he came back he started school at Columbia University in New York . It is at this time he wants everyone to call him Barack – not Barry. Do you know what the tuition is at Columbia? It's not cheap to say the least! Where did he get money for tuition? Student Loans? Maybe. After Columbia, he went to Chicago to work as a Community Organizer for $12,000 a year. Why Chicago? Why not New York? He was already living in New York .

    By 'chance' he met Antoin 'Tony' Rezko, born in Aleppo Syria , and a real estate developer in Chicago. Rezko has been convicted of fraud and bribery this year. Rezko, was named 'Entrepreneur of the Decade' by the Arab-American Business and Professional Association. About two years later, Obama entered Harvard Law School. Do you have any idea what tuition is for Harvard Law School? Where did he get the money for Law School? More student loans? After Law school, he went back to Chicago. Rezko offered him a job, which he turned down. But, he did take a job with Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland. Guess what? They represented 'Rezar' which is Rezko's firm. Rezko was one of Obama's first major financial contributors when he ran for office in Chicago. In 2003, Rezko threw an early fundraiser for Obama which Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendelland claims was instrumental in providing Obama with 'seed money' for his U.S. Senate race. In 2005, Obama purchased a new home in Kenwood District of Chicago for $1.65 million (less than asking price). With ALL those Student Loans – Where did he get the money for the property? On the same day Rezko's wife, Rita, purchased the adjoining empty lot for full price. The London Times reported that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born Billionaire loaned Rezko $3.5 million three weeks before Obama's new home was purchased. Obama met Nadhmi Auchi many times with Rezko.

    Now, we have Obama running for President. Valerie Jarrett, was Michele Obama's boss. She is now Obama's chief advisor and he does not make any major decisions without talking to her first. Where was Jarrett born? Ready for this? Shiraz, Iran ! Do we see a pattern here? Or am I going crazy?

    On May 10, 2008 The Times reported, Robert Malley, advisor to Obama, was 'sacked' after the press found out he was having regular contacts with 'Hamas', which controls Gaza and is connected with Iran. This past week, buried in the back part of the papers, Iraqi newspapers reported that during Obama's visit to Iraq, he asked their leaders to do nothing about the war until after he is elected, and he will 'Take care of things'.
    Oh, and by the way, remember the college roommates that where born in Pakistan? They are in charge of all those 'small' Internet campaign contributions for Obama. Where is that money coming from? The poor and middle class in this country? Or could it be from the Middle East ?

    And the final bit of news. On September 7, 2008, The Washington Times posted a verbal slip that was made on 'This Week' with George Stephanapoulos. Obama on talking about his religion said, 'My Muslim faith'. When questioned, he 'made a mistake'. Some mistake! Do you state YOUR religion incorrectly? I mean, I'm a Baptist, and never ONCE have I said, by 'mistake' that I'm a Methodist–or Muslim! Seems like this man makes an awful lot of 'mistakes' when he opens his mouth. No wonder they insist that there be no signs at the rallies – he MUST be able to read that Teleprompter!

    All of the above information I got on line. If you would like to check it – Wikipedia, encyclopedia, Barack Obama; Tony Rezko; Valerie Jarrett: Daily Times – Obama visited Pakistan in 1981; The Washington Times – September 7, 2008; The Times May 10, 2008.

    Now the BIG question – If I found out all this information on my own, Why haven't all of our 'intelligent' members of the press been reporting this?

    A phrase that keeps ringing in my ear – 'Beware of the enemy from within' !!!

  111. Food For Thought

    HERE IS SOME FOOD FOR THOUGHT:

    About six months ago, I started thinking 'where did the money come from for Obama' . I have four daughters who went to College, and we were middle class, and money was tight. We (including my girls) worked hard and there were lots of student loans.

    I started looking into Obama's life.

    Around 1979 Obama started college at Occidental in California . He is very open about his two years at Occidental, he tried all kinds of drugs and was wasting his time but, even though he had a brilliant mind, did not apply himself to his studies. 'Barry' (that was the name he used all his life) during this time had two roommates, Muhammad Hasan Chandoo and Wahid Hamid, both from Pakistan. During the summer of 1981, after his second year in college, he made a 'round the world' trip. Stopping to see his mother in Indonesia, next Hyderabad in India, three weeks in Karachi, Pakistan where he stayed with his roommate ' s family, then off to Africa to visit his father's family. My question – Where did he get the money for this trip? Nether I, nor any one of my children would have had money for a trip like this when they where in college. When he came back he started school at Columbia University in New York . It is at this time he wants everyone to call him Barack – not Barry. Do you know what the tuition is at Columbia? It's not cheap to say the least! Where did he get money for tuition? Student Loans? Maybe. After Columbia, he went to Chicago to work as a Community Organizer for $12,000 a year. Why Chicago? Why not New York? He was already living in New York .

    By 'chance' he met Antoin 'Tony' Rezko, born in Aleppo Syria , and a real estate developer in Chicago. Rezko has been convicted of fraud and bribery this year. Rezko, was named 'Entrepreneur of the Decade' by the Arab-American Business and Professional Association. About two years later, Obama entered Harvard Law School. Do you have any idea what tuition is for Harvard Law School? Where did he get the money for Law School? More student loans? After Law school, he went back to Chicago. Rezko offered him a job, which he turned down. But, he did take a job with Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland. Guess what? They represented 'Rezar' which is Rezko's firm. Rezko was one of Obama's first major financial contributors when he ran for office in Chicago. In 2003, Rezko threw an early fundraiser for Obama which Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendelland claims was instrumental in providing Obama with 'seed money' for his U.S. Senate race. In 2005, Obama purchased a new home in Kenwood District of Chicago for $1.65 million (less than asking price). With ALL those Student Loans – Where did he get the money for the property? On the same day Rezko's wife, Rita, purchased the adjoining empty lot for full price. The London Times reported that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born Billionaire loaned Rezko $3.5 million three weeks before Obama's new home was purchased. Obama met Nadhmi Auchi many times with Rezko.

    Now, we have Obama running for President. Valerie Jarrett, was Michele Obama's boss. She is now Obama's chief advisor and he does not make any major decisions without talking to her first. Where was Jarrett born? Ready for this? Shiraz, Iran ! Do we see a pattern here? Or am I going crazy?

    On May 10, 2008 The Times reported, Robert Malley, advisor to Obama, was 'sacked' after the press found out he was having regular contacts with 'Hamas', which controls Gaza and is connected with Iran. This past week, buried in the back part of the papers, Iraqi newspapers reported that during Obama's visit to Iraq, he asked their leaders to do nothing about the war until after he is elected, and he will 'Take care of things'.
    Oh, and by the way, remember the college roommates that where born in Pakistan? They are in charge of all those 'small' Internet campaign contributions for Obama. Where is that money coming from? The poor and middle class in this country? Or could it be from the Middle East ?

    And the final bit of news. On September 7, 2008, The Washington Times posted a verbal slip that was made on 'This Week' with George Stephanapoulos. Obama on talking about his religion said, 'My Muslim faith'. When questioned, he 'made a mistake'. Some mistake! Do you state YOUR religion incorrectly? I mean, I'm a Baptist, and never ONCE have I said, by 'mistake' that I'm a Methodist–or Muslim! Seems like this man makes an awful lot of 'mistakes' when he opens his mouth. No wonder they insist that there be no signs at the rallies – he MUST be able to read that Teleprompter!

    All of the above information I got on line. If you would like to check it – Wikipedia, encyclopedia, Barack Obama; Tony Rezko; Valerie Jarrett: Daily Times – Obama visited Pakistan in 1981; The Washington Times – September 7, 2008; The Times May 10, 2008.

    Now the BIG question – If I found out all this information on my own, Why haven't all of our 'intelligent' members of the press been reporting this?

    A phrase that keeps ringing in my ear – 'Beware of the enemy from within' !!!

  112. Food For Thought

    HERE IS SOME FOOD FOR THOUGHT:

    About six months ago, I started thinking 'where did the money come from for Obama' . I have four daughters who went to College, and we were middle class, and money was tight. We (including my girls) worked hard and there were lots of student loans.

    I started looking into Obama's life.

    Around 1979 Obama started college at Occidental in California . He is very open about his two years at Occidental, he tried all kinds of drugs and was wasting his time but, even though he had a brilliant mind, did not apply himself to his studies. 'Barry' (that was the name he used all his life) during this time had two roommates, Muhammad Hasan Chandoo and Wahid Hamid, both from Pakistan. During the summer of 1981, after his second year in college, he made a 'round the world' trip. Stopping to see his mother in Indonesia, next Hyderabad in India, three weeks in Karachi, Pakistan where he stayed with his roommate ' s family, then off to Africa to visit his father's family. My question – Where did he get the money for this trip? Nether I, nor any one of my children would have had money for a trip like this when they where in college. When he came back he started school at Columbia University in New York . It is at this time he wants everyone to call him Barack – not Barry. Do you know what the tuition is at Columbia? It's not cheap to say the least! Where did he get money for tuition? Student Loans? Maybe. After Columbia, he went to Chicago to work as a Community Organizer for $12,000 a year. Why Chicago? Why not New York? He was already living in New York .

    By 'chance' he met Antoin 'Tony' Rezko, born in Aleppo Syria , and a real estate developer in Chicago. Rezko has been convicted of fraud and bribery this year. Rezko, was named 'Entrepreneur of the Decade' by the Arab-American Business and Professional Association. About two years later, Obama entered Harvard Law School. Do you have any idea what tuition is for Harvard Law School? Where did he get the money for Law School? More student loans? After Law school, he went back to Chicago. Rezko offered him a job, which he turned down. But, he did take a job with Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland. Guess what? They represented 'Rezar' which is Rezko's firm. Rezko was one of Obama's first major financial contributors when he ran for office in Chicago. In 2003, Rezko threw an early fundraiser for Obama which Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendelland claims was instrumental in providing Obama with 'seed money' for his U.S. Senate race. In 2005, Obama purchased a new home in Kenwood District of Chicago for $1.65 million (less than asking price). With ALL those Student Loans – Where did he get the money for the property? On the same day Rezko's wife, Rita, purchased the adjoining empty lot for full price. The London Times reported that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born Billionaire loaned Rezko $3.5 million three weeks before Obama's new home was purchased. Obama met Nadhmi Auchi many times with Rezko.

    Now, we have Obama running for President. Valerie Jarrett, was Michele Obama's boss. She is now Obama's chief advisor and he does not make any major decisions without talking to her first. Where was Jarrett born? Ready for this? Shiraz, Iran ! Do we see a pattern here? Or am I going crazy?

    On May 10, 2008 The Times reported, Robert Malley, advisor to Obama, was 'sacked' after the press found out he was having regular contacts with 'Hamas', which controls Gaza and is connected with Iran. This past week, buried in the back part of the papers, Iraqi newspapers reported that during Obama's visit to Iraq, he asked their leaders to do nothing about the war until after he is elected, and he will 'Take care of things'.
    Oh, and by the way, remember the college roommates that where born in Pakistan? They are in charge of all those 'small' Internet campaign contributions for Obama. Where is that money coming from? The poor and middle class in this country? Or could it be from the Middle East ?

    And the final bit of news. On September 7, 2008, The Washington Times posted a verbal slip that was made on 'This Week' with George Stephanapoulos. Obama on talking about his religion said, 'My Muslim faith'. When questioned, he 'made a mistake'. Some mistake! Do you state YOUR religion incorrectly? I mean, I'm a Baptist, and never ONCE have I said, by 'mistake' that I'm a Methodist–or Muslim! Seems like this man makes an awful lot of 'mistakes' when he opens his mouth. No wonder they insist that there be no signs at the rallies – he MUST be able to read that Teleprompter!

    All of the above information I got on line. If you would like to check it – Wikipedia, encyclopedia, Barack Obama; Tony Rezko; Valerie Jarrett: Daily Times – Obama visited Pakistan in 1981; The Washington Times – September 7, 2008; The Times May 10, 2008.

    Now the BIG question – If I found out all this information on my own, Why haven't all of our 'intelligent' members of the press been reporting this?

    A phrase that keeps ringing in my ear – 'Beware of the enemy from within' !!!

  113. Old Skool Davis

    Indeed it is nice and comfortable to be back here in America.

    Would you like a preface? I say old sport: Is the New York Times showing any bias?

    And: Do you you really feel enlightened by a depressed, neurotic, washed up talk show host from Sixties?? LOL!!

  114. Old Skool Davis

    Indeed it is nice and comfortable to be back here in America.

    Would you like a preface? I say old sport: Is the New York Times showing any bias?

    And: Do you you really feel enlightened by a depressed, neurotic, washed up talk show host from Sixties?? LOL!!

  115. Old Skool Davis

    Indeed it is nice and comfortable to be back here in America.

    Would you like a preface? I say old sport: Is the New York Times showing any bias?

    And: Do you you really feel enlightened by a depressed, neurotic, washed up talk show host from Sixties?? LOL!!

  116. Old Skool Davis

    Indeed it is nice and comfortable to be back here in America.

    Would you like a preface? I say old sport: Is the New York Times showing any bias?

    And: Do you you really feel enlightened by a depressed, neurotic, washed up talk show host from Sixties?? LOL!!

  117. Old Skool Davis

    Food for thought:
    Man, can I relate. I often hear these voices in my head that are fathomably irrational.

    I’ve sought treatment at the Mather Va clinic to no avail.

  118. Old Skool Davis

    Food for thought:
    Man, can I relate. I often hear these voices in my head that are fathomably irrational.

    I’ve sought treatment at the Mather Va clinic to no avail.

  119. Old Skool Davis

    Food for thought:
    Man, can I relate. I often hear these voices in my head that are fathomably irrational.

    I’ve sought treatment at the Mather Va clinic to no avail.

  120. Old Skool Davis

    Food for thought:
    Man, can I relate. I often hear these voices in my head that are fathomably irrational.

    I’ve sought treatment at the Mather Va clinic to no avail.

  121. Doug Paul Davis

    Don: The Snopes site is another good place to fact check stuff. This is why I insist on reputable sources when these claims are made, most of the time, partisan sources are distorted at best and sometimes outright false.

  122. Doug Paul Davis

    Don: The Snopes site is another good place to fact check stuff. This is why I insist on reputable sources when these claims are made, most of the time, partisan sources are distorted at best and sometimes outright false.

  123. Doug Paul Davis

    Don: The Snopes site is another good place to fact check stuff. This is why I insist on reputable sources when these claims are made, most of the time, partisan sources are distorted at best and sometimes outright false.

  124. Doug Paul Davis

    Don: The Snopes site is another good place to fact check stuff. This is why I insist on reputable sources when these claims are made, most of the time, partisan sources are distorted at best and sometimes outright false.

  125. chester

    “The Republican nominee, John McCain, has worn the uniform of our country with bravery and distinction, and for that we owe him our gratitude and our respect.”

    “Care to retract your erroneous statement now?”

    DPD, you know that this is only Obama’s calculated minimum for what he would need to say to prevent repercussions from military families and patriots. Also, this was months ago and just as the primary campaign was kicking off. Can’t you find anything more recent?

    McCain has, on numerous occasions, directly characterized Obama and Biden as decent and likeable Americans. In face-to-face meetings, McCain took his own supports to task by openly disagreeing with them in support for Obama’s human qualities. Where has Obama done the same in his Democrat campaign events? Your criticism of McCain missing opportunities to promote multiculturalism while, in effect, campaigning for Obama (as in “it is okay to vote for Arabs and Muslims even though Obama is neither”) seems an indication that your thoughts strayed a bit too far on this topic.

    On a separate point about all the stated confusion about Republican anger when Bush is in the Whitehouse… how about these:

    • Republicans are mad at all politicians for failing them.
    • Republicans are mad at the state of American culture.
    • Republicans are mad that Democrats have controlled Congress for two years and have accomplished nothing.
    • Republicans know that the source of the problems in the financial markets predate the Bush administration. They are mad at everyone participating in the giving and getting for these “liar loans”.
    • Republicans still support conservative principles, but are mad that McCain apparently does not or does not know how to make the point.
    • Republicans are mad that they are losing to socialists.
    • Republicans are mad that reactionaries are willing to disregard decades of global prosperity derived from the American-style, free-market principles to label it a “failure”.
    • Republicans do not have so many unresolved childhood issues as Democrats who tend to blame “big daddy Bush” for their personal failures, instead of looking in the mirror. Republicans are less mad at Bush because it is an irrational anger.
    • Republicans are mad because France now seems to be a smarter country than the US.

  126. chester

    “The Republican nominee, John McCain, has worn the uniform of our country with bravery and distinction, and for that we owe him our gratitude and our respect.”

    “Care to retract your erroneous statement now?”

    DPD, you know that this is only Obama’s calculated minimum for what he would need to say to prevent repercussions from military families and patriots. Also, this was months ago and just as the primary campaign was kicking off. Can’t you find anything more recent?

    McCain has, on numerous occasions, directly characterized Obama and Biden as decent and likeable Americans. In face-to-face meetings, McCain took his own supports to task by openly disagreeing with them in support for Obama’s human qualities. Where has Obama done the same in his Democrat campaign events? Your criticism of McCain missing opportunities to promote multiculturalism while, in effect, campaigning for Obama (as in “it is okay to vote for Arabs and Muslims even though Obama is neither”) seems an indication that your thoughts strayed a bit too far on this topic.

    On a separate point about all the stated confusion about Republican anger when Bush is in the Whitehouse… how about these:

    • Republicans are mad at all politicians for failing them.
    • Republicans are mad at the state of American culture.
    • Republicans are mad that Democrats have controlled Congress for two years and have accomplished nothing.
    • Republicans know that the source of the problems in the financial markets predate the Bush administration. They are mad at everyone participating in the giving and getting for these “liar loans”.
    • Republicans still support conservative principles, but are mad that McCain apparently does not or does not know how to make the point.
    • Republicans are mad that they are losing to socialists.
    • Republicans are mad that reactionaries are willing to disregard decades of global prosperity derived from the American-style, free-market principles to label it a “failure”.
    • Republicans do not have so many unresolved childhood issues as Democrats who tend to blame “big daddy Bush” for their personal failures, instead of looking in the mirror. Republicans are less mad at Bush because it is an irrational anger.
    • Republicans are mad because France now seems to be a smarter country than the US.

  127. chester

    “The Republican nominee, John McCain, has worn the uniform of our country with bravery and distinction, and for that we owe him our gratitude and our respect.”

    “Care to retract your erroneous statement now?”

    DPD, you know that this is only Obama’s calculated minimum for what he would need to say to prevent repercussions from military families and patriots. Also, this was months ago and just as the primary campaign was kicking off. Can’t you find anything more recent?

    McCain has, on numerous occasions, directly characterized Obama and Biden as decent and likeable Americans. In face-to-face meetings, McCain took his own supports to task by openly disagreeing with them in support for Obama’s human qualities. Where has Obama done the same in his Democrat campaign events? Your criticism of McCain missing opportunities to promote multiculturalism while, in effect, campaigning for Obama (as in “it is okay to vote for Arabs and Muslims even though Obama is neither”) seems an indication that your thoughts strayed a bit too far on this topic.

    On a separate point about all the stated confusion about Republican anger when Bush is in the Whitehouse… how about these:

    • Republicans are mad at all politicians for failing them.
    • Republicans are mad at the state of American culture.
    • Republicans are mad that Democrats have controlled Congress for two years and have accomplished nothing.
    • Republicans know that the source of the problems in the financial markets predate the Bush administration. They are mad at everyone participating in the giving and getting for these “liar loans”.
    • Republicans still support conservative principles, but are mad that McCain apparently does not or does not know how to make the point.
    • Republicans are mad that they are losing to socialists.
    • Republicans are mad that reactionaries are willing to disregard decades of global prosperity derived from the American-style, free-market principles to label it a “failure”.
    • Republicans do not have so many unresolved childhood issues as Democrats who tend to blame “big daddy Bush” for their personal failures, instead of looking in the mirror. Republicans are less mad at Bush because it is an irrational anger.
    • Republicans are mad because France now seems to be a smarter country than the US.

  128. chester

    “The Republican nominee, John McCain, has worn the uniform of our country with bravery and distinction, and for that we owe him our gratitude and our respect.”

    “Care to retract your erroneous statement now?”

    DPD, you know that this is only Obama’s calculated minimum for what he would need to say to prevent repercussions from military families and patriots. Also, this was months ago and just as the primary campaign was kicking off. Can’t you find anything more recent?

    McCain has, on numerous occasions, directly characterized Obama and Biden as decent and likeable Americans. In face-to-face meetings, McCain took his own supports to task by openly disagreeing with them in support for Obama’s human qualities. Where has Obama done the same in his Democrat campaign events? Your criticism of McCain missing opportunities to promote multiculturalism while, in effect, campaigning for Obama (as in “it is okay to vote for Arabs and Muslims even though Obama is neither”) seems an indication that your thoughts strayed a bit too far on this topic.

    On a separate point about all the stated confusion about Republican anger when Bush is in the Whitehouse… how about these:

    • Republicans are mad at all politicians for failing them.
    • Republicans are mad at the state of American culture.
    • Republicans are mad that Democrats have controlled Congress for two years and have accomplished nothing.
    • Republicans know that the source of the problems in the financial markets predate the Bush administration. They are mad at everyone participating in the giving and getting for these “liar loans”.
    • Republicans still support conservative principles, but are mad that McCain apparently does not or does not know how to make the point.
    • Republicans are mad that they are losing to socialists.
    • Republicans are mad that reactionaries are willing to disregard decades of global prosperity derived from the American-style, free-market principles to label it a “failure”.
    • Republicans do not have so many unresolved childhood issues as Democrats who tend to blame “big daddy Bush” for their personal failures, instead of looking in the mirror. Republicans are less mad at Bush because it is an irrational anger.
    • Republicans are mad because France now seems to be a smarter country than the US.

  129. Doug Paul Davis

    Wow Chester, I thought you were a bit less partisan than you are, I guess.


    DPD, you know that this is only Obama’s calculated minimum for what he would need to say to prevent repercussions from military families and patriots. Also, this was months ago and just as the primary campaign was kicking off. Can’t you find anything more recent?”

    I’m sure I can, but that was the speech I was most familiar with and knew it was there. But pretty much every speech I’ve watched of Obama’s has the same statement. Finding the text from them however is more problematic, hence my choice was for expediency and I thought that would demonstrate the point, which was an aside.

    “Your criticism of McCain missing opportunities to promote multiculturalism while, in effect, campaigning for Obama (as in “it is okay to vote for Arabs and Muslims even though Obama is neither”) seems an indication that your thoughts strayed a bit too far on this topic.”

    That’s a non-response. This has nothing to do with multiculturalism, it has to do with anti-Muslim/ Arab bigotry. McCain’s response defended Obama in the wrong way, there is nothing wrong with being Arab or Muslim, McCain’s response speaks volumes as does your lack of response.

  130. Doug Paul Davis

    Wow Chester, I thought you were a bit less partisan than you are, I guess.


    DPD, you know that this is only Obama’s calculated minimum for what he would need to say to prevent repercussions from military families and patriots. Also, this was months ago and just as the primary campaign was kicking off. Can’t you find anything more recent?”

    I’m sure I can, but that was the speech I was most familiar with and knew it was there. But pretty much every speech I’ve watched of Obama’s has the same statement. Finding the text from them however is more problematic, hence my choice was for expediency and I thought that would demonstrate the point, which was an aside.

    “Your criticism of McCain missing opportunities to promote multiculturalism while, in effect, campaigning for Obama (as in “it is okay to vote for Arabs and Muslims even though Obama is neither”) seems an indication that your thoughts strayed a bit too far on this topic.”

    That’s a non-response. This has nothing to do with multiculturalism, it has to do with anti-Muslim/ Arab bigotry. McCain’s response defended Obama in the wrong way, there is nothing wrong with being Arab or Muslim, McCain’s response speaks volumes as does your lack of response.

  131. Doug Paul Davis

    Wow Chester, I thought you were a bit less partisan than you are, I guess.


    DPD, you know that this is only Obama’s calculated minimum for what he would need to say to prevent repercussions from military families and patriots. Also, this was months ago and just as the primary campaign was kicking off. Can’t you find anything more recent?”

    I’m sure I can, but that was the speech I was most familiar with and knew it was there. But pretty much every speech I’ve watched of Obama’s has the same statement. Finding the text from them however is more problematic, hence my choice was for expediency and I thought that would demonstrate the point, which was an aside.

    “Your criticism of McCain missing opportunities to promote multiculturalism while, in effect, campaigning for Obama (as in “it is okay to vote for Arabs and Muslims even though Obama is neither”) seems an indication that your thoughts strayed a bit too far on this topic.”

    That’s a non-response. This has nothing to do with multiculturalism, it has to do with anti-Muslim/ Arab bigotry. McCain’s response defended Obama in the wrong way, there is nothing wrong with being Arab or Muslim, McCain’s response speaks volumes as does your lack of response.

  132. Doug Paul Davis

    Wow Chester, I thought you were a bit less partisan than you are, I guess.


    DPD, you know that this is only Obama’s calculated minimum for what he would need to say to prevent repercussions from military families and patriots. Also, this was months ago and just as the primary campaign was kicking off. Can’t you find anything more recent?”

    I’m sure I can, but that was the speech I was most familiar with and knew it was there. But pretty much every speech I’ve watched of Obama’s has the same statement. Finding the text from them however is more problematic, hence my choice was for expediency and I thought that would demonstrate the point, which was an aside.

    “Your criticism of McCain missing opportunities to promote multiculturalism while, in effect, campaigning for Obama (as in “it is okay to vote for Arabs and Muslims even though Obama is neither”) seems an indication that your thoughts strayed a bit too far on this topic.”

    That’s a non-response. This has nothing to do with multiculturalism, it has to do with anti-Muslim/ Arab bigotry. McCain’s response defended Obama in the wrong way, there is nothing wrong with being Arab or Muslim, McCain’s response speaks volumes as does your lack of response.

  133. chester

    “Wow Chester, I thought you were a bit less partisan than you are, I guess”

    DPD my friend, I consider myself a right-of-center political moderate and I think you would too, but Democrats have drifted so far left these days that balanced nuance doesn’t register much in the debate. To make a point I and others on the right must seem like Attila the Hun in comparison.

    Breat blog by the way. It is great to have an outlet where mostly intelligent dialog fills the screen. I admit to learning a bit from my fellow Davis citizens on the left. However, I think we will have to agree to disagree on the the point about McCain versus Obama for who says the most nice things about the other and who we should consider having the most or least race-bias.

  134. chester

    “Wow Chester, I thought you were a bit less partisan than you are, I guess”

    DPD my friend, I consider myself a right-of-center political moderate and I think you would too, but Democrats have drifted so far left these days that balanced nuance doesn’t register much in the debate. To make a point I and others on the right must seem like Attila the Hun in comparison.

    Breat blog by the way. It is great to have an outlet where mostly intelligent dialog fills the screen. I admit to learning a bit from my fellow Davis citizens on the left. However, I think we will have to agree to disagree on the the point about McCain versus Obama for who says the most nice things about the other and who we should consider having the most or least race-bias.

  135. chester

    “Wow Chester, I thought you were a bit less partisan than you are, I guess”

    DPD my friend, I consider myself a right-of-center political moderate and I think you would too, but Democrats have drifted so far left these days that balanced nuance doesn’t register much in the debate. To make a point I and others on the right must seem like Attila the Hun in comparison.

    Breat blog by the way. It is great to have an outlet where mostly intelligent dialog fills the screen. I admit to learning a bit from my fellow Davis citizens on the left. However, I think we will have to agree to disagree on the the point about McCain versus Obama for who says the most nice things about the other and who we should consider having the most or least race-bias.

  136. chester

    “Wow Chester, I thought you were a bit less partisan than you are, I guess”

    DPD my friend, I consider myself a right-of-center political moderate and I think you would too, but Democrats have drifted so far left these days that balanced nuance doesn’t register much in the debate. To make a point I and others on the right must seem like Attila the Hun in comparison.

    Breat blog by the way. It is great to have an outlet where mostly intelligent dialog fills the screen. I admit to learning a bit from my fellow Davis citizens on the left. However, I think we will have to agree to disagree on the the point about McCain versus Obama for who says the most nice things about the other and who we should consider having the most or least race-bias.

  137. what??

    “but Democrats have drifted so far left these days that balanced nuance doesn’t register much in the debate.”

    Drifted so far to the left since when?? From Reagan onward, I think the Democrats have become more conservative from where they used to be.

  138. what??

    “but Democrats have drifted so far left these days that balanced nuance doesn’t register much in the debate.”

    Drifted so far to the left since when?? From Reagan onward, I think the Democrats have become more conservative from where they used to be.

  139. what??

    “but Democrats have drifted so far left these days that balanced nuance doesn’t register much in the debate.”

    Drifted so far to the left since when?? From Reagan onward, I think the Democrats have become more conservative from where they used to be.

  140. what??

    “but Democrats have drifted so far left these days that balanced nuance doesn’t register much in the debate.”

    Drifted so far to the left since when?? From Reagan onward, I think the Democrats have become more conservative from where they used to be.

  141. Anonymous

    “I think the Democrats have become more conservative from where they used to be.”

    That is an incredible statement. Democrats used to be aligned with labor, not all the fringe extremists groups that run the Party today. Do you honestly think the average John Kennedy Democrat was more left than the average Obama Democrat?

    The “blue Democrats” today are the standard-issue Democrats of old. Today they require the extra label since they differ so much from the Nancy Pelosi-style Democrat.

  142. Anonymous

    “I think the Democrats have become more conservative from where they used to be.”

    That is an incredible statement. Democrats used to be aligned with labor, not all the fringe extremists groups that run the Party today. Do you honestly think the average John Kennedy Democrat was more left than the average Obama Democrat?

    The “blue Democrats” today are the standard-issue Democrats of old. Today they require the extra label since they differ so much from the Nancy Pelosi-style Democrat.

  143. Anonymous

    “I think the Democrats have become more conservative from where they used to be.”

    That is an incredible statement. Democrats used to be aligned with labor, not all the fringe extremists groups that run the Party today. Do you honestly think the average John Kennedy Democrat was more left than the average Obama Democrat?

    The “blue Democrats” today are the standard-issue Democrats of old. Today they require the extra label since they differ so much from the Nancy Pelosi-style Democrat.

  144. Anonymous

    “I think the Democrats have become more conservative from where they used to be.”

    That is an incredible statement. Democrats used to be aligned with labor, not all the fringe extremists groups that run the Party today. Do you honestly think the average John Kennedy Democrat was more left than the average Obama Democrat?

    The “blue Democrats” today are the standard-issue Democrats of old. Today they require the extra label since they differ so much from the Nancy Pelosi-style Democrat.

  145. Anonymous

    Republicans know that the source of the problems in the financial markets predate the Bush administration. They are mad at everyone participating in the giving and getting for these “liar loans”.

    Eight years is a long time. You might want to blame others, but there was plenty of time to make changes. Most of the real excesses happened during this administration.

  146. Anonymous

    Republicans know that the source of the problems in the financial markets predate the Bush administration. They are mad at everyone participating in the giving and getting for these “liar loans”.

    Eight years is a long time. You might want to blame others, but there was plenty of time to make changes. Most of the real excesses happened during this administration.

  147. Anonymous

    Republicans know that the source of the problems in the financial markets predate the Bush administration. They are mad at everyone participating in the giving and getting for these “liar loans”.

    Eight years is a long time. You might want to blame others, but there was plenty of time to make changes. Most of the real excesses happened during this administration.

  148. Anonymous

    Republicans know that the source of the problems in the financial markets predate the Bush administration. They are mad at everyone participating in the giving and getting for these “liar loans”.

    Eight years is a long time. You might want to blame others, but there was plenty of time to make changes. Most of the real excesses happened during this administration.

  149. Doug Paul Davis

    It is interesting two different time frames given here…

    First a 28 year time frame:

    “From Reagan onward, I think the Democrats have become more conservative from where they used to be.”

    Then a 48 year time frame:

    “Do you honestly think the average John Kennedy Democrat was more left than the average Obama Democrat? “

    Interestingly, I think both are right Democrats are more liberal than they were in 1960 and less liberal than they were in 1980.

  150. Doug Paul Davis

    It is interesting two different time frames given here…

    First a 28 year time frame:

    “From Reagan onward, I think the Democrats have become more conservative from where they used to be.”

    Then a 48 year time frame:

    “Do you honestly think the average John Kennedy Democrat was more left than the average Obama Democrat? “

    Interestingly, I think both are right Democrats are more liberal than they were in 1960 and less liberal than they were in 1980.

  151. Doug Paul Davis

    It is interesting two different time frames given here…

    First a 28 year time frame:

    “From Reagan onward, I think the Democrats have become more conservative from where they used to be.”

    Then a 48 year time frame:

    “Do you honestly think the average John Kennedy Democrat was more left than the average Obama Democrat? “

    Interestingly, I think both are right Democrats are more liberal than they were in 1960 and less liberal than they were in 1980.

  152. Doug Paul Davis

    It is interesting two different time frames given here…

    First a 28 year time frame:

    “From Reagan onward, I think the Democrats have become more conservative from where they used to be.”

    Then a 48 year time frame:

    “Do you honestly think the average John Kennedy Democrat was more left than the average Obama Democrat? “

    Interestingly, I think both are right Democrats are more liberal than they were in 1960 and less liberal than they were in 1980.

  153. Your response stinks too..

    That’s a non-response. This has nothing to do with multiculturalism, it has to do with anti-Muslim/ Arab bigotry. McCain’s response defended Obama in the wrong way, there is nothing wrong with being Arab or Muslim, McCain’s response speaks volumes as does your lack of response.

    Your defense and support of someone who associates with terrorists speaks volumes.

    If Obama wants us to lose, fine, it will be his loss, his responsibility. No more “Bush this Bush that” cop outs. Let Obama win the election, lose the war, and get iraqi civilian blood on his own hands.

  154. Your response stinks too..

    That’s a non-response. This has nothing to do with multiculturalism, it has to do with anti-Muslim/ Arab bigotry. McCain’s response defended Obama in the wrong way, there is nothing wrong with being Arab or Muslim, McCain’s response speaks volumes as does your lack of response.

    Your defense and support of someone who associates with terrorists speaks volumes.

    If Obama wants us to lose, fine, it will be his loss, his responsibility. No more “Bush this Bush that” cop outs. Let Obama win the election, lose the war, and get iraqi civilian blood on his own hands.

  155. Your response stinks too..

    That’s a non-response. This has nothing to do with multiculturalism, it has to do with anti-Muslim/ Arab bigotry. McCain’s response defended Obama in the wrong way, there is nothing wrong with being Arab or Muslim, McCain’s response speaks volumes as does your lack of response.

    Your defense and support of someone who associates with terrorists speaks volumes.

    If Obama wants us to lose, fine, it will be his loss, his responsibility. No more “Bush this Bush that” cop outs. Let Obama win the election, lose the war, and get iraqi civilian blood on his own hands.

  156. Your response stinks too..

    That’s a non-response. This has nothing to do with multiculturalism, it has to do with anti-Muslim/ Arab bigotry. McCain’s response defended Obama in the wrong way, there is nothing wrong with being Arab or Muslim, McCain’s response speaks volumes as does your lack of response.

    Your defense and support of someone who associates with terrorists speaks volumes.

    If Obama wants us to lose, fine, it will be his loss, his responsibility. No more “Bush this Bush that” cop outs. Let Obama win the election, lose the war, and get iraqi civilian blood on his own hands.

  157. Anonymous

    “All of the above information I got on line. If you would like to check it – Wikipedia, encyclopedia, Barack Obama; Tony Rezko; Valerie Jarrett: Daily Times – Obama visited Pakistan in 1981; The Washington Times – September 7, 2008; The Times May 10, 2008.” writes “Food For Thought”

    And, I would add, “if you believe everything you read on the internet, then I have a bridge to nowhere in Alaska to sell you!”

  158. Anonymous

    “All of the above information I got on line. If you would like to check it – Wikipedia, encyclopedia, Barack Obama; Tony Rezko; Valerie Jarrett: Daily Times – Obama visited Pakistan in 1981; The Washington Times – September 7, 2008; The Times May 10, 2008.” writes “Food For Thought”

    And, I would add, “if you believe everything you read on the internet, then I have a bridge to nowhere in Alaska to sell you!”

  159. Anonymous

    “All of the above information I got on line. If you would like to check it – Wikipedia, encyclopedia, Barack Obama; Tony Rezko; Valerie Jarrett: Daily Times – Obama visited Pakistan in 1981; The Washington Times – September 7, 2008; The Times May 10, 2008.” writes “Food For Thought”

    And, I would add, “if you believe everything you read on the internet, then I have a bridge to nowhere in Alaska to sell you!”

  160. Anonymous

    “All of the above information I got on line. If you would like to check it – Wikipedia, encyclopedia, Barack Obama; Tony Rezko; Valerie Jarrett: Daily Times – Obama visited Pakistan in 1981; The Washington Times – September 7, 2008; The Times May 10, 2008.” writes “Food For Thought”

    And, I would add, “if you believe everything you read on the internet, then I have a bridge to nowhere in Alaska to sell you!”

  161. ...

    “Interestingly, I think both are right Democrats are more liberal than they were in 1960 and less liberal than they were in 1980.”

    Depends on whether you want to throw the old, more conservative southern Democrats into the mix or not.

    1960 the party was more conservative to hold the southern Democrats in the party. By 1980 the party became so liberal that the southern Democrats were going Republican. After that the Democrats had to become more moderate just to start winning elections again.

  162. ...

    “Interestingly, I think both are right Democrats are more liberal than they were in 1960 and less liberal than they were in 1980.”

    Depends on whether you want to throw the old, more conservative southern Democrats into the mix or not.

    1960 the party was more conservative to hold the southern Democrats in the party. By 1980 the party became so liberal that the southern Democrats were going Republican. After that the Democrats had to become more moderate just to start winning elections again.

  163. ...

    “Interestingly, I think both are right Democrats are more liberal than they were in 1960 and less liberal than they were in 1980.”

    Depends on whether you want to throw the old, more conservative southern Democrats into the mix or not.

    1960 the party was more conservative to hold the southern Democrats in the party. By 1980 the party became so liberal that the southern Democrats were going Republican. After that the Democrats had to become more moderate just to start winning elections again.

  164. ...

    “Interestingly, I think both are right Democrats are more liberal than they were in 1960 and less liberal than they were in 1980.”

    Depends on whether you want to throw the old, more conservative southern Democrats into the mix or not.

    1960 the party was more conservative to hold the southern Democrats in the party. By 1980 the party became so liberal that the southern Democrats were going Republican. After that the Democrats had to become more moderate just to start winning elections again.

  165. mad as hell

    Chester:

    I fail to see where current Republican policy really helps the middle class. Republicans call themselves “fiscal conservatives”; if that’s true, I don’t know what that phrase means any more.

    Clinton left a budget surplus and ~20 million new jobs. The stock market just crossed 10,000 for the first time. We were at peace. Gas was $1.46 when Bush took office.

    What has Bush done? And where has McCain really distinguished himself economically from Bush? I don’t trust Republicans to run the economy right now.

  166. mad as hell

    Chester:

    I fail to see where current Republican policy really helps the middle class. Republicans call themselves “fiscal conservatives”; if that’s true, I don’t know what that phrase means any more.

    Clinton left a budget surplus and ~20 million new jobs. The stock market just crossed 10,000 for the first time. We were at peace. Gas was $1.46 when Bush took office.

    What has Bush done? And where has McCain really distinguished himself economically from Bush? I don’t trust Republicans to run the economy right now.

  167. mad as hell

    Chester:

    I fail to see where current Republican policy really helps the middle class. Republicans call themselves “fiscal conservatives”; if that’s true, I don’t know what that phrase means any more.

    Clinton left a budget surplus and ~20 million new jobs. The stock market just crossed 10,000 for the first time. We were at peace. Gas was $1.46 when Bush took office.

    What has Bush done? And where has McCain really distinguished himself economically from Bush? I don’t trust Republicans to run the economy right now.

  168. mad as hell

    Chester:

    I fail to see where current Republican policy really helps the middle class. Republicans call themselves “fiscal conservatives”; if that’s true, I don’t know what that phrase means any more.

    Clinton left a budget surplus and ~20 million new jobs. The stock market just crossed 10,000 for the first time. We were at peace. Gas was $1.46 when Bush took office.

    What has Bush done? And where has McCain really distinguished himself economically from Bush? I don’t trust Republicans to run the economy right now.

  169. chester

    “What has Bush done? And where has McCain really distinguished himself economically from Bush? I don’t trust Republicans to run the economy right now.”

    Well, I don’t think many people are happy with the GOP’s lack of fiscal discipline. However, putting Democrats in both branches of government is like firing the Sheriff because of prisoner abuse and hiring the Mafia to replace him.

    What the media and Left fail to acknowledge is that much of the excess growth in the deficit came from having to rebuild a military and national security system that Clinton decimated. In 1988, Reagan’s last year, the defense budget was $426.4 billion and 27.3% of the total US budget. In 2000, the year Clinton left office, the defense budget had been cut to $311.7 billion and a paltry 16.5% of the total budget. In 2008 the defense budget is $494.41 billion and 20.9% of the total budget. However, we also must add $47 billion for homeland security. This gets the total defense/security budget about back to where it was when Reagan left office (as a percent of the total budget). Contrast this to the budget for human services. When Reagan left office it was 49.7% of the total budget. By the time Clinton left it was 64.1%. In 2008 human services take up about 63% of the total budget. Much of the human services budget is mandated education, social security and Medicare costs. Bush tried to tackle the largest of these – social security – but was shot down by Dems and a war-angry public (although his reliance on private accounts would have been a disaster with the recent stock market crash).

    Dems also like to point to Bush tax cuts as being the culprit for the loss of the Clinton-era surplus. They leave out the following facts:

    • Clinton cut too much from Defense spending… possibly contributing to 9-11.
    • On the revenue-side, the Clinton budget benefitted from tax receipts generated from the Dot-Com Bubble which conveniently popped in 2001 – the year Bush took office.
    • The Bush tax cut did stimulate the economy and increase tax receipts. It was likely we had have had a larger, longer and stronger recession in 2001 had tax rates stayed at Clinton levels.
    • 9-11 hit our economy hard and caused a significant drop in tax receipts and threatened again to throw us into a recession… hence the extension of tax cuts.
    • The US budget does not have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem. Clinton stuffed the budget with mandated social service increases. Bush restored the defense budget. We can’t cut either easily.
    • The Laffer Curve is reality now that global competition wins on the smallest of margins… if we raise taxes our businesses will be less able to compete with their global competitors… hence we lose jobs and tax receipts.

    Conservatives are not happy with Bush and the GOP congress that got booted. However, they are much less happy with the Democrat congress. McCain is a much better choice than the socialist Obama if you are really concerned about the deficit and government spending.

  170. chester

    “What has Bush done? And where has McCain really distinguished himself economically from Bush? I don’t trust Republicans to run the economy right now.”

    Well, I don’t think many people are happy with the GOP’s lack of fiscal discipline. However, putting Democrats in both branches of government is like firing the Sheriff because of prisoner abuse and hiring the Mafia to replace him.

    What the media and Left fail to acknowledge is that much of the excess growth in the deficit came from having to rebuild a military and national security system that Clinton decimated. In 1988, Reagan’s last year, the defense budget was $426.4 billion and 27.3% of the total US budget. In 2000, the year Clinton left office, the defense budget had been cut to $311.7 billion and a paltry 16.5% of the total budget. In 2008 the defense budget is $494.41 billion and 20.9% of the total budget. However, we also must add $47 billion for homeland security. This gets the total defense/security budget about back to where it was when Reagan left office (as a percent of the total budget). Contrast this to the budget for human services. When Reagan left office it was 49.7% of the total budget. By the time Clinton left it was 64.1%. In 2008 human services take up about 63% of the total budget. Much of the human services budget is mandated education, social security and Medicare costs. Bush tried to tackle the largest of these – social security – but was shot down by Dems and a war-angry public (although his reliance on private accounts would have been a disaster with the recent stock market crash).

    Dems also like to point to Bush tax cuts as being the culprit for the loss of the Clinton-era surplus. They leave out the following facts:

    • Clinton cut too much from Defense spending… possibly contributing to 9-11.
    • On the revenue-side, the Clinton budget benefitted from tax receipts generated from the Dot-Com Bubble which conveniently popped in 2001 – the year Bush took office.
    • The Bush tax cut did stimulate the economy and increase tax receipts. It was likely we had have had a larger, longer and stronger recession in 2001 had tax rates stayed at Clinton levels.
    • 9-11 hit our economy hard and caused a significant drop in tax receipts and threatened again to throw us into a recession… hence the extension of tax cuts.
    • The US budget does not have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem. Clinton stuffed the budget with mandated social service increases. Bush restored the defense budget. We can’t cut either easily.
    • The Laffer Curve is reality now that global competition wins on the smallest of margins… if we raise taxes our businesses will be less able to compete with their global competitors… hence we lose jobs and tax receipts.

    Conservatives are not happy with Bush and the GOP congress that got booted. However, they are much less happy with the Democrat congress. McCain is a much better choice than the socialist Obama if you are really concerned about the deficit and government spending.

  171. chester

    “What has Bush done? And where has McCain really distinguished himself economically from Bush? I don’t trust Republicans to run the economy right now.”

    Well, I don’t think many people are happy with the GOP’s lack of fiscal discipline. However, putting Democrats in both branches of government is like firing the Sheriff because of prisoner abuse and hiring the Mafia to replace him.

    What the media and Left fail to acknowledge is that much of the excess growth in the deficit came from having to rebuild a military and national security system that Clinton decimated. In 1988, Reagan’s last year, the defense budget was $426.4 billion and 27.3% of the total US budget. In 2000, the year Clinton left office, the defense budget had been cut to $311.7 billion and a paltry 16.5% of the total budget. In 2008 the defense budget is $494.41 billion and 20.9% of the total budget. However, we also must add $47 billion for homeland security. This gets the total defense/security budget about back to where it was when Reagan left office (as a percent of the total budget). Contrast this to the budget for human services. When Reagan left office it was 49.7% of the total budget. By the time Clinton left it was 64.1%. In 2008 human services take up about 63% of the total budget. Much of the human services budget is mandated education, social security and Medicare costs. Bush tried to tackle the largest of these – social security – but was shot down by Dems and a war-angry public (although his reliance on private accounts would have been a disaster with the recent stock market crash).

    Dems also like to point to Bush tax cuts as being the culprit for the loss of the Clinton-era surplus. They leave out the following facts:

    • Clinton cut too much from Defense spending… possibly contributing to 9-11.
    • On the revenue-side, the Clinton budget benefitted from tax receipts generated from the Dot-Com Bubble which conveniently popped in 2001 – the year Bush took office.
    • The Bush tax cut did stimulate the economy and increase tax receipts. It was likely we had have had a larger, longer and stronger recession in 2001 had tax rates stayed at Clinton levels.
    • 9-11 hit our economy hard and caused a significant drop in tax receipts and threatened again to throw us into a recession… hence the extension of tax cuts.
    • The US budget does not have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem. Clinton stuffed the budget with mandated social service increases. Bush restored the defense budget. We can’t cut either easily.
    • The Laffer Curve is reality now that global competition wins on the smallest of margins… if we raise taxes our businesses will be less able to compete with their global competitors… hence we lose jobs and tax receipts.

    Conservatives are not happy with Bush and the GOP congress that got booted. However, they are much less happy with the Democrat congress. McCain is a much better choice than the socialist Obama if you are really concerned about the deficit and government spending.

  172. chester

    “What has Bush done? And where has McCain really distinguished himself economically from Bush? I don’t trust Republicans to run the economy right now.”

    Well, I don’t think many people are happy with the GOP’s lack of fiscal discipline. However, putting Democrats in both branches of government is like firing the Sheriff because of prisoner abuse and hiring the Mafia to replace him.

    What the media and Left fail to acknowledge is that much of the excess growth in the deficit came from having to rebuild a military and national security system that Clinton decimated. In 1988, Reagan’s last year, the defense budget was $426.4 billion and 27.3% of the total US budget. In 2000, the year Clinton left office, the defense budget had been cut to $311.7 billion and a paltry 16.5% of the total budget. In 2008 the defense budget is $494.41 billion and 20.9% of the total budget. However, we also must add $47 billion for homeland security. This gets the total defense/security budget about back to where it was when Reagan left office (as a percent of the total budget). Contrast this to the budget for human services. When Reagan left office it was 49.7% of the total budget. By the time Clinton left it was 64.1%. In 2008 human services take up about 63% of the total budget. Much of the human services budget is mandated education, social security and Medicare costs. Bush tried to tackle the largest of these – social security – but was shot down by Dems and a war-angry public (although his reliance on private accounts would have been a disaster with the recent stock market crash).

    Dems also like to point to Bush tax cuts as being the culprit for the loss of the Clinton-era surplus. They leave out the following facts:

    • Clinton cut too much from Defense spending… possibly contributing to 9-11.
    • On the revenue-side, the Clinton budget benefitted from tax receipts generated from the Dot-Com Bubble which conveniently popped in 2001 – the year Bush took office.
    • The Bush tax cut did stimulate the economy and increase tax receipts. It was likely we had have had a larger, longer and stronger recession in 2001 had tax rates stayed at Clinton levels.
    • 9-11 hit our economy hard and caused a significant drop in tax receipts and threatened again to throw us into a recession… hence the extension of tax cuts.
    • The US budget does not have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem. Clinton stuffed the budget with mandated social service increases. Bush restored the defense budget. We can’t cut either easily.
    • The Laffer Curve is reality now that global competition wins on the smallest of margins… if we raise taxes our businesses will be less able to compete with their global competitors… hence we lose jobs and tax receipts.

    Conservatives are not happy with Bush and the GOP congress that got booted. However, they are much less happy with the Democrat congress. McCain is a much better choice than the socialist Obama if you are really concerned about the deficit and government spending.

  173. Anonymous

    “What the media and Left fail to acknowledge is that much of the excess growth in the deficit came from having to rebuild a military and national security system that Clinton decimated.”

    Sorry Chester but after the Cold War ended there was less need for a huge defense budget. It can stay that way unless we fabricate enemies and go into senseless wars. We would be far better off “wasting” our money on social programs like health and education.

    Please review the last eight years – the person you supported was in charge. You made a bad choice 8 years ago and another bad choice 4 years ago. What makes you believe you are capable of making the right choice this time?

  174. Anonymous

    “What the media and Left fail to acknowledge is that much of the excess growth in the deficit came from having to rebuild a military and national security system that Clinton decimated.”

    Sorry Chester but after the Cold War ended there was less need for a huge defense budget. It can stay that way unless we fabricate enemies and go into senseless wars. We would be far better off “wasting” our money on social programs like health and education.

    Please review the last eight years – the person you supported was in charge. You made a bad choice 8 years ago and another bad choice 4 years ago. What makes you believe you are capable of making the right choice this time?

  175. Anonymous

    “What the media and Left fail to acknowledge is that much of the excess growth in the deficit came from having to rebuild a military and national security system that Clinton decimated.”

    Sorry Chester but after the Cold War ended there was less need for a huge defense budget. It can stay that way unless we fabricate enemies and go into senseless wars. We would be far better off “wasting” our money on social programs like health and education.

    Please review the last eight years – the person you supported was in charge. You made a bad choice 8 years ago and another bad choice 4 years ago. What makes you believe you are capable of making the right choice this time?

  176. Anonymous

    “What the media and Left fail to acknowledge is that much of the excess growth in the deficit came from having to rebuild a military and national security system that Clinton decimated.”

    Sorry Chester but after the Cold War ended there was less need for a huge defense budget. It can stay that way unless we fabricate enemies and go into senseless wars. We would be far better off “wasting” our money on social programs like health and education.

    Please review the last eight years – the person you supported was in charge. You made a bad choice 8 years ago and another bad choice 4 years ago. What makes you believe you are capable of making the right choice this time?

  177. ...

    “What the media and Left fail to acknowledge is that much of the excess growth in the deficit came from having to rebuild a military and national security system that Clinton decimated.”

    We had base closures (McClellan, for instance) all over, and that was supposed to give us a “peace dividend”. I presume that contributed to bringing government costs down and supporting a surplus.

    So you would say that we should have kept military expenditures up as we has them at the beginning of Clinton?

    I thought the military did an excellent job of invading Iraq and Afghanistan, inasmuch as their goal was to overthrow governments. And that was with Clinton’s military, basically. The military waste, to my view, has been not appropriately planning for what to do next (nation-building and keeping the peace).

    In 2000 GW Bush campaigned on the policy of getting out of the business of nation-building and peace-keeping (presumably in response to the Balkan wars and Kosovo). So I am confused by the claim of Clinton screwing up the military. It seems like Bush inherited exactly the military that he really wanted at the outset.

    Only after invading Iraq and Afghanistan did nation-building suddenly seem important. To me, I look at Afghanistan and Iraq and I still think that we’re dealing with the consequences of poor planning on the part of the Bush administration.

    But then I only follow NPR, the Sac Bee, and the Enterprise. What do your “mainstream” news sources tell you about this?

  178. ...

    “What the media and Left fail to acknowledge is that much of the excess growth in the deficit came from having to rebuild a military and national security system that Clinton decimated.”

    We had base closures (McClellan, for instance) all over, and that was supposed to give us a “peace dividend”. I presume that contributed to bringing government costs down and supporting a surplus.

    So you would say that we should have kept military expenditures up as we has them at the beginning of Clinton?

    I thought the military did an excellent job of invading Iraq and Afghanistan, inasmuch as their goal was to overthrow governments. And that was with Clinton’s military, basically. The military waste, to my view, has been not appropriately planning for what to do next (nation-building and keeping the peace).

    In 2000 GW Bush campaigned on the policy of getting out of the business of nation-building and peace-keeping (presumably in response to the Balkan wars and Kosovo). So I am confused by the claim of Clinton screwing up the military. It seems like Bush inherited exactly the military that he really wanted at the outset.

    Only after invading Iraq and Afghanistan did nation-building suddenly seem important. To me, I look at Afghanistan and Iraq and I still think that we’re dealing with the consequences of poor planning on the part of the Bush administration.

    But then I only follow NPR, the Sac Bee, and the Enterprise. What do your “mainstream” news sources tell you about this?

  179. ...

    “What the media and Left fail to acknowledge is that much of the excess growth in the deficit came from having to rebuild a military and national security system that Clinton decimated.”

    We had base closures (McClellan, for instance) all over, and that was supposed to give us a “peace dividend”. I presume that contributed to bringing government costs down and supporting a surplus.

    So you would say that we should have kept military expenditures up as we has them at the beginning of Clinton?

    I thought the military did an excellent job of invading Iraq and Afghanistan, inasmuch as their goal was to overthrow governments. And that was with Clinton’s military, basically. The military waste, to my view, has been not appropriately planning for what to do next (nation-building and keeping the peace).

    In 2000 GW Bush campaigned on the policy of getting out of the business of nation-building and peace-keeping (presumably in response to the Balkan wars and Kosovo). So I am confused by the claim of Clinton screwing up the military. It seems like Bush inherited exactly the military that he really wanted at the outset.

    Only after invading Iraq and Afghanistan did nation-building suddenly seem important. To me, I look at Afghanistan and Iraq and I still think that we’re dealing with the consequences of poor planning on the part of the Bush administration.

    But then I only follow NPR, the Sac Bee, and the Enterprise. What do your “mainstream” news sources tell you about this?

  180. ...

    “What the media and Left fail to acknowledge is that much of the excess growth in the deficit came from having to rebuild a military and national security system that Clinton decimated.”

    We had base closures (McClellan, for instance) all over, and that was supposed to give us a “peace dividend”. I presume that contributed to bringing government costs down and supporting a surplus.

    So you would say that we should have kept military expenditures up as we has them at the beginning of Clinton?

    I thought the military did an excellent job of invading Iraq and Afghanistan, inasmuch as their goal was to overthrow governments. And that was with Clinton’s military, basically. The military waste, to my view, has been not appropriately planning for what to do next (nation-building and keeping the peace).

    In 2000 GW Bush campaigned on the policy of getting out of the business of nation-building and peace-keeping (presumably in response to the Balkan wars and Kosovo). So I am confused by the claim of Clinton screwing up the military. It seems like Bush inherited exactly the military that he really wanted at the outset.

    Only after invading Iraq and Afghanistan did nation-building suddenly seem important. To me, I look at Afghanistan and Iraq and I still think that we’re dealing with the consequences of poor planning on the part of the Bush administration.

    But then I only follow NPR, the Sac Bee, and the Enterprise. What do your “mainstream” news sources tell you about this?

  181. chester

    “… after the Cold War ended there was less need for a huge defense budget. It can stay that way unless we fabricate enemies and go into senseless wars.”

    Has the cold war ended? What do the people of Georgia say about that? So, we have fabricated our enemies? I guess you are willing to accept a few thousand innocent American citizens being blown up and burned alive in terrorist attacks… since these attacks are only the result of fabricated enemies. I guess you don’t have a problem with 100 thousand or so Kurds being gassed to death. I think people like you truly do not understand the evil side of human nature: the agenda of despot leaders and the destructive capacity of envy and malicious tribal, religious and national pride. God help you if you are one of these 9-11 conspiracy theorists. Please get counseling if that is the case.

    Here is what I think: any American citizens that support weakening our national defense will agree to be identified as such. Then, if and when America is unable to sufficiently defend herself and her interests when attacked, the identified people will forfeit their assets and their self to military service to compensate for their error in judgment.

  182. chester

    “… after the Cold War ended there was less need for a huge defense budget. It can stay that way unless we fabricate enemies and go into senseless wars.”

    Has the cold war ended? What do the people of Georgia say about that? So, we have fabricated our enemies? I guess you are willing to accept a few thousand innocent American citizens being blown up and burned alive in terrorist attacks… since these attacks are only the result of fabricated enemies. I guess you don’t have a problem with 100 thousand or so Kurds being gassed to death. I think people like you truly do not understand the evil side of human nature: the agenda of despot leaders and the destructive capacity of envy and malicious tribal, religious and national pride. God help you if you are one of these 9-11 conspiracy theorists. Please get counseling if that is the case.

    Here is what I think: any American citizens that support weakening our national defense will agree to be identified as such. Then, if and when America is unable to sufficiently defend herself and her interests when attacked, the identified people will forfeit their assets and their self to military service to compensate for their error in judgment.

  183. chester

    “… after the Cold War ended there was less need for a huge defense budget. It can stay that way unless we fabricate enemies and go into senseless wars.”

    Has the cold war ended? What do the people of Georgia say about that? So, we have fabricated our enemies? I guess you are willing to accept a few thousand innocent American citizens being blown up and burned alive in terrorist attacks… since these attacks are only the result of fabricated enemies. I guess you don’t have a problem with 100 thousand or so Kurds being gassed to death. I think people like you truly do not understand the evil side of human nature: the agenda of despot leaders and the destructive capacity of envy and malicious tribal, religious and national pride. God help you if you are one of these 9-11 conspiracy theorists. Please get counseling if that is the case.

    Here is what I think: any American citizens that support weakening our national defense will agree to be identified as such. Then, if and when America is unable to sufficiently defend herself and her interests when attacked, the identified people will forfeit their assets and their self to military service to compensate for their error in judgment.

  184. chester

    “… after the Cold War ended there was less need for a huge defense budget. It can stay that way unless we fabricate enemies and go into senseless wars.”

    Has the cold war ended? What do the people of Georgia say about that? So, we have fabricated our enemies? I guess you are willing to accept a few thousand innocent American citizens being blown up and burned alive in terrorist attacks… since these attacks are only the result of fabricated enemies. I guess you don’t have a problem with 100 thousand or so Kurds being gassed to death. I think people like you truly do not understand the evil side of human nature: the agenda of despot leaders and the destructive capacity of envy and malicious tribal, religious and national pride. God help you if you are one of these 9-11 conspiracy theorists. Please get counseling if that is the case.

    Here is what I think: any American citizens that support weakening our national defense will agree to be identified as such. Then, if and when America is unable to sufficiently defend herself and her interests when attacked, the identified people will forfeit their assets and their self to military service to compensate for their error in judgment.

  185. Political Historian

    Someone mentioned Pelosi… If you compare Pelosi to Sam Rayburn, she’s definitely more liberal. If you compare her to Tip O’Neill, I don’t think she’s more liberal and she’s probably less liberal. Just find it interesting that conservatives still point back to 1960 to show that Democrats have moved to the left. A lot happened since then with regards to the South and the switch from a solid Democratic south to a Solid Republican one.

  186. Political Historian

    Someone mentioned Pelosi… If you compare Pelosi to Sam Rayburn, she’s definitely more liberal. If you compare her to Tip O’Neill, I don’t think she’s more liberal and she’s probably less liberal. Just find it interesting that conservatives still point back to 1960 to show that Democrats have moved to the left. A lot happened since then with regards to the South and the switch from a solid Democratic south to a Solid Republican one.

  187. Political Historian

    Someone mentioned Pelosi… If you compare Pelosi to Sam Rayburn, she’s definitely more liberal. If you compare her to Tip O’Neill, I don’t think she’s more liberal and she’s probably less liberal. Just find it interesting that conservatives still point back to 1960 to show that Democrats have moved to the left. A lot happened since then with regards to the South and the switch from a solid Democratic south to a Solid Republican one.

  188. Political Historian

    Someone mentioned Pelosi… If you compare Pelosi to Sam Rayburn, she’s definitely more liberal. If you compare her to Tip O’Neill, I don’t think she’s more liberal and she’s probably less liberal. Just find it interesting that conservatives still point back to 1960 to show that Democrats have moved to the left. A lot happened since then with regards to the South and the switch from a solid Democratic south to a Solid Republican one.

  189. Anonymous

    To All,
    In reading all the terms here to describe others it is interesting to note the name calling. Ie; “Conservative,Liberal,Middle of the Road, Christian, Muslim, Media backed etc.
    So, with 2 exceptions,”food for thought”, and Chester, You’re all full of crap on a continual basis.

  190. Anonymous

    To All,
    In reading all the terms here to describe others it is interesting to note the name calling. Ie; “Conservative,Liberal,Middle of the Road, Christian, Muslim, Media backed etc.
    So, with 2 exceptions,”food for thought”, and Chester, You’re all full of crap on a continual basis.

  191. Anonymous

    To All,
    In reading all the terms here to describe others it is interesting to note the name calling. Ie; “Conservative,Liberal,Middle of the Road, Christian, Muslim, Media backed etc.
    So, with 2 exceptions,”food for thought”, and Chester, You’re all full of crap on a continual basis.

  192. Anonymous

    To All,
    In reading all the terms here to describe others it is interesting to note the name calling. Ie; “Conservative,Liberal,Middle of the Road, Christian, Muslim, Media backed etc.
    So, with 2 exceptions,”food for thought”, and Chester, You’re all full of crap on a continual basis.

  193. Anonymous

    “To All,
    In reading all the terms here to describe others it is interesting to note the name calling. Ie; “Conservative,Liberal,Middle of the Road, Christian, Muslim, Media backed etc.
    So, with 2 exceptions,”food for thought”, and Chester, You’re all full of crap on a continual basis.”

    Oh, the hypocrisy!

    Chester uses those terms (even to describe others) his posts above.

    “Food for thought” reprints a discredited internet rumor as if to insult the intelligence of thinking voters.

  194. Anonymous

    “To All,
    In reading all the terms here to describe others it is interesting to note the name calling. Ie; “Conservative,Liberal,Middle of the Road, Christian, Muslim, Media backed etc.
    So, with 2 exceptions,”food for thought”, and Chester, You’re all full of crap on a continual basis.”

    Oh, the hypocrisy!

    Chester uses those terms (even to describe others) his posts above.

    “Food for thought” reprints a discredited internet rumor as if to insult the intelligence of thinking voters.

  195. Anonymous

    “To All,
    In reading all the terms here to describe others it is interesting to note the name calling. Ie; “Conservative,Liberal,Middle of the Road, Christian, Muslim, Media backed etc.
    So, with 2 exceptions,”food for thought”, and Chester, You’re all full of crap on a continual basis.”

    Oh, the hypocrisy!

    Chester uses those terms (even to describe others) his posts above.

    “Food for thought” reprints a discredited internet rumor as if to insult the intelligence of thinking voters.

  196. Anonymous

    “To All,
    In reading all the terms here to describe others it is interesting to note the name calling. Ie; “Conservative,Liberal,Middle of the Road, Christian, Muslim, Media backed etc.
    So, with 2 exceptions,”food for thought”, and Chester, You’re all full of crap on a continual basis.”

    Oh, the hypocrisy!

    Chester uses those terms (even to describe others) his posts above.

    “Food for thought” reprints a discredited internet rumor as if to insult the intelligence of thinking voters.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for