Well, it's a new year complete with a new president and full of fresh expectations. What expectations? Some good and some bad.
It seems that Obama is a mixed bag trying to throw bones in all directions so that he engenders good will towards him. He meets with the left. He meets with the right. He appoints those to office that he once stood in stark contrast to, all at the same time still purporting to bring change.
Bottom line is, unlike Reagan or Lincoln, he doesn't hold a firm set of values that drive him. This may turn out to be a blessing. The programs and things he sets in motion will be difficult to stop, but it would indicate he is susceptible to public pressure. Seeing the number of appointments that are in legal and political trouble indicates he make hasty decisions without fully knowing the facts or ramifications (he comfortable dealing with corrupt politicians.)
There are many other facets that make Obama both a reason for optimism in 2012 and a reason to fear. The most stunning from 2008 has to do with the gullibility of the public. They believe what the news media feeds them and checks their brain at the door. What is obvious to conservatives (values, principles) seems to evade the vast majority of the public. This means the election is more emotional than logical.
How do we proceed for the next 4 years?
1. Pray for our new president that he reaches out to God for guidance and help. We want him to succeed in building our nation and not compromise it.
2. Communicate better our message of hope, a better life and what is the path to get there.
3. Build a perception of the Republican Party as optimistic, upbeat and fun... yet with a serious grasp on the issues. Work on being perceived as the party that knows their stuff, has a solid plan, is looking out for me (and my family) and more importantly has an active relationship with me.
4. Work on our elected representatives to engender their concurrence with and support of the party platform (it's a great platform.) I don't know if the report card on platform is the end-all, but it is a good start to identify those who actually are principled Republicans instead of simple bureaucrats.
5. Have regular communication with our state and national elected officials to get updates and give them a sense of where we stand on issues... in advance of a final bill.
6. Strategize quarterly to measure success, retool and implement.
I know some (if not most) of these ideas are already being implemented in some fashion, but I wanted to voice my support of a clear direction and plan for conservative Republicans to be successful in 2012.
Have a wonderful 2009 and be blessed. This is still the greatest nation that God has blessed on this earth!
Lee
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Obama is Hiding a Radical Past!
By Matthew Weaver on October 7, 2008 at 11:11 PM in Barack Obama, Current Affairs
(bumped by SusanUnPC at 11:11 p.m. ET)
Edited and updated at 8:50 p.m. ET.
Did you know that Barack Obama was affiliated with a leading national socialist party? Barack Obama didn’t include in his 2008 resume that he entered politics in the mid-1990s endorsed by Chicago’s leading socialists. This just keeps getting better and better. Barack Obama was an active participant in the 1990s, and a direct political beneficiary, of the Chicago New Party and, importantly, the Chicago DSA, a group of socialists affiliated with the Democratic Socialists of America.
- Barack Obama attended and participated in meetings of the Chicago New Party and the Chicago DSA, the local affiliate of the Democratic Socialists of America.
- Barack Obama sought the endorsement of the Chicago DSA which required rigorous scrutiny by the party’s Political Committee as well as Mr. Obama’s signature on a contract promising “a visible and active relationship with the NP.”
- Barack Obama actively used the endorsement from the Chicago DSA.
- Barack Obama won his DSA-endorsed and -backed campaign to secure his seat in the Illinois State Senate.
- Barack Obama continued his involvement with the Chicago DSA — including directly asking the group to join “his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration” — and received their endorsements in subsequent campaigns.
Obama’s participation in and endorsement from the Chicago New Party and Chicago DSA, the local affiliate of the Democratic Socialists of America (which is the U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International) is quite clear:
- According to the write-up on the July 1995 meeting of Chicago DSA and New Party membership, Barack Obama was one of about 50 people attending out of their then-300 member local group. Other documents below will demonstrate Barack Obama attended and participated in subsequent meetings.
- The New Party rigorously evaluated its candidate endorsements and claimed “a winning ratio of 77 of 110 elections.” This was no passive endorsement.
Candidates must be approved via a NP political committee. Once approved, candidates must sign a contract with the NP. The contract mandates that they must have a visible and active relationship with the NP.—New Ground
- Candidate Barack Obama participated as a panelist at the DSA-sponsored Town Meeting on February 25, 1996, entitled “Employment and Survival in Urban America”. As reported in New Ground,
Barack Obama observed that Martin Luther King’s March on Washington in the 1960s wasn’t simply about civil rights but demanded jobs as well. Now the issue is again coming to the front, but he wished the issue was on the Democratic agenda not just on Buchanan’s.
One of the themes that has emerged in Barack Obama’s campaign is “what does it take to create productive communities”, not just consumptive communities. It is an issue that joins some of the best instincts of the conservatives with the better instincts of the left. He felt the state government has three constructive roles to play.
The first is “human capital development”. By this he meant public education, welfare reform, and a “workforce preparation strategy”. Public education requires equality in funding. It’s not that money is the only solution to public education’s problems but it’s a start toward a solution. The current proposals for welfare reform are intended to eliminate welfare but it’s also true that the status quo is not tenable. A true welfare system would provide for medical care, child care and job training. While Barack Obama did not use this term, it sounded very much like the “social wage” approach used by many social democratic labor parties. By “workforce preparation strategy”, Barack Obama simply meant a coordinated, purposeful program of job training instead of the ad hoc, fragmented approach used by the State of Illinois today.
The state government can also play a role in redistribution, the allocation of wages and jobs. As Barack Obama noted, when someone gets paid $10 million to eliminate 4,000 jobs, the voters in his district know this is an issue of power not economics. The government can use as tools labor law reform, public works and contracts.
- Obama subsequently secured his endorsement from the Chicago DSA
The local Democratic Socialists of America affiliate issued their Chicago DSA Endorsements in the March 19th Primary Election:
Barack Obama is running to gain the Democratic ballot line for Illinois Senate 13th District. The 13th District is Alice Palmer’s old district, encompassing parts of Hyde Park and South Shore.
Mr. Obama graduated from Columbia University and promptly went into community organizing for the Developing Communities Project in Roseland and Altgeld Gardens on the far south side of Chicago. He went on to Harvard University, where he was editor of the Harvard Law Review. He graduated with a law degree. In 1992, he was Director of Illinois Project Vote, a voter registration campaign that made Carol Moseley Braun’s election to the U.S. Senate much easier than it would have been. At present, he practices law in Judson Miner’s law firm and is President of the board of the Annenberg Challenge Grant which is distributing some $50 million in grants to public school reform efforts.
What best characterizes Barack Obama is a quote from an article in Illinois Issues, a retrospective look at his experience as a community organizer while he was completing his degree at Harvard:
“… community organizations and organizers are hampered by their own dogmas about the style and substance of organizing. Most practice … a ‘consumer advocacy’ approach, with a focus on wrestling services and resources from outside powers that be. Few are thinking of harnessing the internal productive capacities, both in terms of money and people, that already exist in communities.” (Illinois issues, September, 1988)
Luckily, Mr. Obama does not have any opposition in the primary. His opponents have all dropped out or were ruled off the ballot.
- Barack Obama Continued Attending Membership Meetings of the Chicago DSA New Party
Obama attended membership meeting on April 11, 1996 where he expressed his gratitude for their support. The report shared that “Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration.” - Obama won his election with the help of the Chicago DSA’s New Party.
- Chicago DSA notes in 1998 that Barack Obama eulogized Saul Mendelson, co-founder of the Debs Dinner.
- In the fall of 1998, Chicago DSA’s New Ground’s editor offered nomination of Barack Obama for reelection.
- When Barack Obama challenged Bobby Rush for the 1st Congressional District in 2000, the Chicago DSA opted to recommend both:
For Congressman of the 1st Congressional District, the Executive Committee was faced with two very good candidates. As we are not making endorsements but merely recommendations, we felt no conflict in recommending both Bobby Rush and Barack Obama.
Bobby Rush was the incumbent Congressman. He was also a candidate for Mayor of Chicago in the last municipal elections, endorsed by Chicago DSA. While he hasn’t always been the ideal Congressman from a left perspective (being a cosponsor of the “NAFTA for Africa” bill, for example), he’s generally been quite good. To volunteer, call 773 264 7874. Contributions may be made to Citizens for Rush, 514 E. 95th St., Chicago, IL 60619.
Barak Obama is serving only his second term in the Illinois State Senate so he might be fairly charged with ambition, but the same might have be said of Bobby Rush when he ran against Congressman Charles Hayes. Obama also has put in time at the grass roots, working for five years as a community organizer in Harlem and in Chicago. When Obama participated in a 1996 UofC YDS Townhall Meeting on Economic Insecurity, much of what he had to say was well within the mainstream of European social democracy.
Conclusion
Barack Obama has a long-term and sustained relationship with the Chicago DSA, an affiliate of the Democratic Socialists of America, and with the Chicago New Party. He participated in multiple membership meetings and in DSA-sponsored events, repeatedly sought their endorsement. This does not answer all questions about Barack Obama’s past relationships with multiple socialist groups. What the media need to find out is this: Has Barack Obama broken his ties with them> If so, when and why?
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Is Obama Intelligent Enough to Be President?
Is Obama Intelligent Enough to Be President?
Dr. Clifton Chadwick
One of Barack Obama’s major selling points is that he is intelligent. This is what has been said.
* Obama is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he served as president of the Harvard Law Review.
* Obama worked as a community organizer and practiced as a civil rights attorney before serving in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004.
* He taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004.
Neither Palin (Bachelor in Journalism) nor John McCain (graduate from the U.S Naval Academy, near bottom of class) can top such educational merits. He is thoughtful and, as his own VP candidate says, articulate.
Sounds good.
Intelligence is a term to describe a property of the mind that encompasses many related abilities, such as the capacities to reason, to plan, to solve problems, to think abstractly, to comprehend ideas, to use language, and to learn. It includes breadth of storage capacity and speed of response. Good solutions to problems, a wide range of general and specific knowledge and quick reactions are typical signs of high intelligence. Let us concentrate on reasoning, thinking abstractly, problem solving, and quick thinking and good use of language
Quick thinking and use of language
First, when Rick Warren of Saddleback Church asked Obama if life begins at conception, Obama's non-response ran was as follows:
"From a theological perspective or scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade."
Many have pointed out that the response was glib, flippant and inadequate. Presidents should not consider moral issues above their pay grade. This was not a positive example of quick thinking.
Second, many people gave Obama the benefit of doubt on the Bacongate thing. Several said that Obama couldn't possibly be so dumb and mean enough to call Palin a pig. But if he is so intelligent why did he not see that putting a pig and lipstick in the same sentence was going to be so interpreted? Personally I think it might have been a slip, but when the audience reacted as it did, he should have known he was in trouble and later should have explained himself better. Not explaining suggests that he knew what he was doing. He did not make the intelligent move.
Third, the latest of these gaffes came just a few days ago. Asked about his advert saying McCain could not send an email, he was told
“It paints him as an old man. You say he can’t use a computer, he’s never sent an e-mail. What does that all mean?” Cuomo asked.
“What it means is that we’ve got a 21st century economy. And John McCain does not have a vision for how to move that forward,” Obama replied.
Obama rejected suggestions that his campaign ad was a low blow.
“If we’re going to ask questions about, you know, who has been promulgating negative ads that are completely unrelated to the issues at hand, I think I win that contest pretty handily,” Obama said.
Yes, he does seem to be winning negativity quite handily.
Fourth, several commentators have said the Barack is good as long as he is reading from a teleprompter, but looks bad when he speaks extemporaneously. For example,
"Democrats know something, and desperation is setting in. They have a novice campaigner who wanders off message." (Jim Wooten , September 12, 2008, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution)
"Barack Obama is a lot like Sean Penn or George Clooney. If you give him a script, he can deliver it pretty well. But if he tries to talk without a script that has been written for him by others, he quickly reveals that he is poorly-informed if not downright ignorant. Today he delivered another classic, by claiming that if only we would all properly inflate our tires, we could save as much gasoline as "all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling."(powerlineblog)
"Barack Obama without a teleprompter is an accident waiting to happen. Sometimes he reveals his ignorance of history, sometimes he stumbles incoherently, and sometimes he blurts out what he really believes. That's what happened today when Obama tried to talk about Georgia, a topic that has embarrassed him more than once already, beginning when, in the first hours after the invasion, he parroted the Russian line. "
About his verbal swiftness, Democratic lobbyist Lawrence F. Obrien, III said: "People like to say he is a black Jack Kennedy. Fine, up to a point. Kennedy was smart, elegant, very well spoken, slim, handsome -- but, he also was Irish. Sharp, quick and abundant sense of humor, able to make contact with people."
Extemporaneous speaking is a hallmark of intelligence. I hope you see what I mean about quick verbal facility, repartee, the kind of thing Kennedy and Johnson both had, but Obama does not have.
Reasoning and thinking abstractly
There are so many examples of problems here that I have just had to choose some of the more egregious and flagrant ones.
First, remarkably, Barack Obama has decided to take on John McCain on the subject of earmarks. This is somewhat like Al Capone taking on Eliot Ness on the subject of bootlegging. The McCain campaign released this response:
While Senator McCain has never requested a single earmark, Senator Obama has requested nearly a billion dollars worth during his short time in office. Though Senator Biden has been in the Senate for 36 years, he has only disclosed his earmarks for one year.
Senator Obama increased his earmark requests during each of his first three years in office. Governor Palin has cut requests for earmarks for Alaska by $150 million since entering office, and she has cut those requests every single year. She has also vetoed a half billion dollars in wasteful spending at the state level.
One might ask, what makes Obama think he can get away with this nonsense, when the facts are the precise opposite of his claims? But you know the answer to that question.
Second, for a guy with a reputation for being smooth, Barack Obama stumbled badly when he was pressed, only mildly, by a reporter in a campaign appearance in Pennsylvania recently:
It is striking how naive Obama sounds when he talks about foreign policy. He proposes keeping a "strike force" either in Iraq or somewhere nearby--presumably closer than Okinawa--to "deal with potential problems that might take place in the region." But that isn't a policy, it's a fantasy.
Third, Barack Obama gave a speech on patriotism recently in Missouri. As always when Obama waxes "eloquent," the media swooned. And, as always, the speech raised interesting questions if you actually read it. The implicit premise of the speech was that Obama's patriotism is being widely questioned. As far as I've seen, that isn't true. What has happened is that Obama's judgment and political ideology have been questioned because he has chosen to associate himself closely with people who manifestly are not patriotic, like Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright.
In one speech Obama said that America "is the greatest country on Earth." I'm happy to assume he means it, although whether Obama ever means what he says is an open question. But how, then, did Jeremiah "God damn America" Wright become Obama's spiritual guardian for twenty years? And how do we reconcile Obama's "greatest country on earth" rhetoric with the cynical comment by his political sponsor Bill Ayers on Ayers' own acquittal: "Guilty as sin, free as a bird. What a great country!" Obama failed to acknowledge, let alone answer, the questions that are raised by these associations.
Next blunder: plagarism! Just like his companion, Joe Biden!!
Campaigning in Terre Haute, Ind. on Saturday, Barack Obama, mocking claims by John McCain and Sarah Palin that they will challenge their Republican Party if elected, got off a pretty good line. "Maybe what they're saying is, 'Watch out George Bush,'" Obama said with sarcasm. "Except for economic policies, and tax policies, and energy policies, and health care policies, and education policies, and Karl Rove-style politics -- except for all that, we're really going to bring change to Washington! We’re really going to shake things up!"
It wasn't Obama's line, though. It came from Washington Post cartoonist Tom Toles, whose cartoon Friday featured these words along with a drawing of McCain and Sarah Palin in front of the White House: "Watch out, Mr. Bush! With the exception of economic policy and energy policy and social issues and tax policy and foreign policy and Supreme Court appointments and Rove-style politics, we're coming in there to shake things up!" (See the cartoon here.)
Asked about the borrowing, Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki said Obama used Toles's lines unwittingly, after being alerted to them by a friend who didn't mention the source.
Problem solving
Proposed policies and programs can give an idea of a candidate’s ability to think abstractly and solve problems. Some of Obama’s proposals are pretty bad.
For example, he wants to renegotiate the NAFTA! “I will make sure that we renegotiate. … I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced.” —Democratic primary debate in Cleveland, Feb. 26, 2008 (If you want to know why these Ideas are bad)
He opposes the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. “And I’ll also oppose the Colombia Free Trade Agreement if President Bush insists on sending it to Congress because the violence against unions in Colombia would make a mockery of the very labor protections that we have insisted be included in these kinds of agreements.” —Speech to Philadelphia AFL-CIO, April 2, 2008
In both of these cases he is wrong and he is pandering to the trade unions, instead of thinking about reasonable policies. Old-fashioned politics as usual.
Someone said that Barack Obama is a foreign policy realist with a strong, confident understanding of the world and America’s role in it. His philosophy is in the mold of T.R. Obama will speak softly and, always, because we are America, carry a big stick. Best of all, he will not continue the hysterical, fear-inspired, foreign policy failures of the Bush-McCain-Lieberman axis. But He has Talked Openly About Bombing Pakistan. Is that speaking softly? Does that show high quality abstract thinking?
“If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.” —Speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center, Washington, D.C., Aug. 1, 2007
As Dr. Phil would say, “What were you thinking?” In this case he was not thinking, he was rhetoricking. As none other than Joe Biden pointed out last August, “It’s not something you talk about. … The last thing you want to do is telegraph to the folks in Pakistan that we are about to violate their sovereignty.”
Asked if he’d be “willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea,” Obama replied: “I would.” —Democratic primary debate, Charleston, S.C., July 23, 2007. Then, in the debate with McCain he got hammered for that remark, tried to use Kissiner as an example, and Kissinger said he was wrong!
“I’ll make oil companies like Exxon pay a tax on their windfall profits, and we’ll use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills.” —Speech in Raleigh, N.C., June 9, 2008
Another attempt at pandering! Really NOT intelligent!
Oil companies are not the problem: supply and demand is.
Dubious double-dealing on Iraq
The well known Iranian commentator, Amir Taheri, says that Obama tried to convince Iraqi leaders to postpone troop withdrawals until after the November Presidential elections
WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence. According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.
"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.
Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion."
"However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open." Zebari says.
Though Obama claims the US presence is "illegal," he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the "weakened Bush administration," Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate. While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a "realistic withdrawal date." They declined.
McCain adviser Randy Scheunemann commented on this story:
"At this point, it is not yet clear what official American negotiations Senator Obama tried to undermine with Iraqi leaders, but the possibility of such actions is unprecedented. It should be concerning to all that he reportedly urged that the democratically-elected Iraqi government listen to him rather than the US administration in power. If news reports are accurate, this is an egregious act of political interference by a presidential candidate seeking political advantage overseas. Senator Obama needs to reveal what he said to Iraq's Foreign Minister during their closed door meeting. The charge that he sought to delay the withdrawal of Americans from Iraq raises serious questions about Senator Obama's judgment and it demands an explanation."
Puffing Up His Past and Future
After Republicans made fun of Obama's touting his experience as a "community organizer," MSNBC noted that Obama complained, "They haven't talked about the fact that I taught constitutional law."
There would seem to be an especially conspicuous absence of witnesses to the years after graduated from Columbia and before he moved to Chicago to work as a community organizer. Well, it turns out that one of his co-workers, Dan Armstrong, has in fact written about Mr. Obama during those days. And while he is an admitted fan of Obama’s, he claims that he has inflated his resume considerably. Others who worked with Obama at Business International have subsequently chimed in.
We know, too, that, according to Obama, we can look back on June 3, 2008–the date he wrested the Democratic nomination away from Hillary Clinton–as “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”
In Conclusion
Extemporaneous speaking is a hallmark of intelligence. He does not have it. He rambles, and gets lost if he does not have his teleprompter. His reasoning and ability to think abstractly have definitely been put in doubt. He is not very good at problem solving. He has been accused of double dealing over Iraq. He plagiarizes and puffs up both his past and the future. He lies quite often and is not smart enough to cover up his stories. Enough said?
Clifton Chadwick posted: September 30, 2008 10:37 am
Dr. Clifton Chadwick
One of Barack Obama’s major selling points is that he is intelligent. This is what has been said.
* Obama is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he served as president of the Harvard Law Review.
* Obama worked as a community organizer and practiced as a civil rights attorney before serving in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004.
* He taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004.
Neither Palin (Bachelor in Journalism) nor John McCain (graduate from the U.S Naval Academy, near bottom of class) can top such educational merits. He is thoughtful and, as his own VP candidate says, articulate.
Sounds good.
Intelligence is a term to describe a property of the mind that encompasses many related abilities, such as the capacities to reason, to plan, to solve problems, to think abstractly, to comprehend ideas, to use language, and to learn. It includes breadth of storage capacity and speed of response. Good solutions to problems, a wide range of general and specific knowledge and quick reactions are typical signs of high intelligence. Let us concentrate on reasoning, thinking abstractly, problem solving, and quick thinking and good use of language
Quick thinking and use of language
First, when Rick Warren of Saddleback Church asked Obama if life begins at conception, Obama's non-response ran was as follows:
"From a theological perspective or scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade."
Many have pointed out that the response was glib, flippant and inadequate. Presidents should not consider moral issues above their pay grade. This was not a positive example of quick thinking.
Second, many people gave Obama the benefit of doubt on the Bacongate thing. Several said that Obama couldn't possibly be so dumb and mean enough to call Palin a pig. But if he is so intelligent why did he not see that putting a pig and lipstick in the same sentence was going to be so interpreted? Personally I think it might have been a slip, but when the audience reacted as it did, he should have known he was in trouble and later should have explained himself better. Not explaining suggests that he knew what he was doing. He did not make the intelligent move.
Third, the latest of these gaffes came just a few days ago. Asked about his advert saying McCain could not send an email, he was told
“It paints him as an old man. You say he can’t use a computer, he’s never sent an e-mail. What does that all mean?” Cuomo asked.
“What it means is that we’ve got a 21st century economy. And John McCain does not have a vision for how to move that forward,” Obama replied.
Obama rejected suggestions that his campaign ad was a low blow.
“If we’re going to ask questions about, you know, who has been promulgating negative ads that are completely unrelated to the issues at hand, I think I win that contest pretty handily,” Obama said.
Yes, he does seem to be winning negativity quite handily.
Fourth, several commentators have said the Barack is good as long as he is reading from a teleprompter, but looks bad when he speaks extemporaneously. For example,
"Democrats know something, and desperation is setting in. They have a novice campaigner who wanders off message." (Jim Wooten , September 12, 2008, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution)
"Barack Obama is a lot like Sean Penn or George Clooney. If you give him a script, he can deliver it pretty well. But if he tries to talk without a script that has been written for him by others, he quickly reveals that he is poorly-informed if not downright ignorant. Today he delivered another classic, by claiming that if only we would all properly inflate our tires, we could save as much gasoline as "all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling."(powerlineblog)
"Barack Obama without a teleprompter is an accident waiting to happen. Sometimes he reveals his ignorance of history, sometimes he stumbles incoherently, and sometimes he blurts out what he really believes. That's what happened today when Obama tried to talk about Georgia, a topic that has embarrassed him more than once already, beginning when, in the first hours after the invasion, he parroted the Russian line. "
About his verbal swiftness, Democratic lobbyist Lawrence F. Obrien, III said: "People like to say he is a black Jack Kennedy. Fine, up to a point. Kennedy was smart, elegant, very well spoken, slim, handsome -- but, he also was Irish. Sharp, quick and abundant sense of humor, able to make contact with people."
Extemporaneous speaking is a hallmark of intelligence. I hope you see what I mean about quick verbal facility, repartee, the kind of thing Kennedy and Johnson both had, but Obama does not have.
Reasoning and thinking abstractly
There are so many examples of problems here that I have just had to choose some of the more egregious and flagrant ones.
First, remarkably, Barack Obama has decided to take on John McCain on the subject of earmarks. This is somewhat like Al Capone taking on Eliot Ness on the subject of bootlegging. The McCain campaign released this response:
While Senator McCain has never requested a single earmark, Senator Obama has requested nearly a billion dollars worth during his short time in office. Though Senator Biden has been in the Senate for 36 years, he has only disclosed his earmarks for one year.
Senator Obama increased his earmark requests during each of his first three years in office. Governor Palin has cut requests for earmarks for Alaska by $150 million since entering office, and she has cut those requests every single year. She has also vetoed a half billion dollars in wasteful spending at the state level.
One might ask, what makes Obama think he can get away with this nonsense, when the facts are the precise opposite of his claims? But you know the answer to that question.
Second, for a guy with a reputation for being smooth, Barack Obama stumbled badly when he was pressed, only mildly, by a reporter in a campaign appearance in Pennsylvania recently:
It is striking how naive Obama sounds when he talks about foreign policy. He proposes keeping a "strike force" either in Iraq or somewhere nearby--presumably closer than Okinawa--to "deal with potential problems that might take place in the region." But that isn't a policy, it's a fantasy.
Third, Barack Obama gave a speech on patriotism recently in Missouri. As always when Obama waxes "eloquent," the media swooned. And, as always, the speech raised interesting questions if you actually read it. The implicit premise of the speech was that Obama's patriotism is being widely questioned. As far as I've seen, that isn't true. What has happened is that Obama's judgment and political ideology have been questioned because he has chosen to associate himself closely with people who manifestly are not patriotic, like Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright.
In one speech Obama said that America "is the greatest country on Earth." I'm happy to assume he means it, although whether Obama ever means what he says is an open question. But how, then, did Jeremiah "God damn America" Wright become Obama's spiritual guardian for twenty years? And how do we reconcile Obama's "greatest country on earth" rhetoric with the cynical comment by his political sponsor Bill Ayers on Ayers' own acquittal: "Guilty as sin, free as a bird. What a great country!" Obama failed to acknowledge, let alone answer, the questions that are raised by these associations.
Next blunder: plagarism! Just like his companion, Joe Biden!!
Campaigning in Terre Haute, Ind. on Saturday, Barack Obama, mocking claims by John McCain and Sarah Palin that they will challenge their Republican Party if elected, got off a pretty good line. "Maybe what they're saying is, 'Watch out George Bush,'" Obama said with sarcasm. "Except for economic policies, and tax policies, and energy policies, and health care policies, and education policies, and Karl Rove-style politics -- except for all that, we're really going to bring change to Washington! We’re really going to shake things up!"
It wasn't Obama's line, though. It came from Washington Post cartoonist Tom Toles, whose cartoon Friday featured these words along with a drawing of McCain and Sarah Palin in front of the White House: "Watch out, Mr. Bush! With the exception of economic policy and energy policy and social issues and tax policy and foreign policy and Supreme Court appointments and Rove-style politics, we're coming in there to shake things up!" (See the cartoon here.)
Asked about the borrowing, Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki said Obama used Toles's lines unwittingly, after being alerted to them by a friend who didn't mention the source.
Problem solving
Proposed policies and programs can give an idea of a candidate’s ability to think abstractly and solve problems. Some of Obama’s proposals are pretty bad.
For example, he wants to renegotiate the NAFTA! “I will make sure that we renegotiate. … I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced.” —Democratic primary debate in Cleveland, Feb. 26, 2008 (If you want to know why these Ideas are bad)
He opposes the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. “And I’ll also oppose the Colombia Free Trade Agreement if President Bush insists on sending it to Congress because the violence against unions in Colombia would make a mockery of the very labor protections that we have insisted be included in these kinds of agreements.” —Speech to Philadelphia AFL-CIO, April 2, 2008
In both of these cases he is wrong and he is pandering to the trade unions, instead of thinking about reasonable policies. Old-fashioned politics as usual.
Someone said that Barack Obama is a foreign policy realist with a strong, confident understanding of the world and America’s role in it. His philosophy is in the mold of T.R. Obama will speak softly and, always, because we are America, carry a big stick. Best of all, he will not continue the hysterical, fear-inspired, foreign policy failures of the Bush-McCain-Lieberman axis. But He has Talked Openly About Bombing Pakistan. Is that speaking softly? Does that show high quality abstract thinking?
“If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.” —Speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center, Washington, D.C., Aug. 1, 2007
As Dr. Phil would say, “What were you thinking?” In this case he was not thinking, he was rhetoricking. As none other than Joe Biden pointed out last August, “It’s not something you talk about. … The last thing you want to do is telegraph to the folks in Pakistan that we are about to violate their sovereignty.”
Asked if he’d be “willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea,” Obama replied: “I would.” —Democratic primary debate, Charleston, S.C., July 23, 2007. Then, in the debate with McCain he got hammered for that remark, tried to use Kissiner as an example, and Kissinger said he was wrong!
“I’ll make oil companies like Exxon pay a tax on their windfall profits, and we’ll use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills.” —Speech in Raleigh, N.C., June 9, 2008
Another attempt at pandering! Really NOT intelligent!
Oil companies are not the problem: supply and demand is.
Dubious double-dealing on Iraq
The well known Iranian commentator, Amir Taheri, says that Obama tried to convince Iraqi leaders to postpone troop withdrawals until after the November Presidential elections
WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence. According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.
"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.
Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion."
"However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open." Zebari says.
Though Obama claims the US presence is "illegal," he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the "weakened Bush administration," Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate. While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a "realistic withdrawal date." They declined.
McCain adviser Randy Scheunemann commented on this story:
"At this point, it is not yet clear what official American negotiations Senator Obama tried to undermine with Iraqi leaders, but the possibility of such actions is unprecedented. It should be concerning to all that he reportedly urged that the democratically-elected Iraqi government listen to him rather than the US administration in power. If news reports are accurate, this is an egregious act of political interference by a presidential candidate seeking political advantage overseas. Senator Obama needs to reveal what he said to Iraq's Foreign Minister during their closed door meeting. The charge that he sought to delay the withdrawal of Americans from Iraq raises serious questions about Senator Obama's judgment and it demands an explanation."
Puffing Up His Past and Future
After Republicans made fun of Obama's touting his experience as a "community organizer," MSNBC noted that Obama complained, "They haven't talked about the fact that I taught constitutional law."
There would seem to be an especially conspicuous absence of witnesses to the years after graduated from Columbia and before he moved to Chicago to work as a community organizer. Well, it turns out that one of his co-workers, Dan Armstrong, has in fact written about Mr. Obama during those days. And while he is an admitted fan of Obama’s, he claims that he has inflated his resume considerably. Others who worked with Obama at Business International have subsequently chimed in.
We know, too, that, according to Obama, we can look back on June 3, 2008–the date he wrested the Democratic nomination away from Hillary Clinton–as “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”
In Conclusion
Extemporaneous speaking is a hallmark of intelligence. He does not have it. He rambles, and gets lost if he does not have his teleprompter. His reasoning and ability to think abstractly have definitely been put in doubt. He is not very good at problem solving. He has been accused of double dealing over Iraq. He plagiarizes and puffs up both his past and the future. He lies quite often and is not smart enough to cover up his stories. Enough said?
Clifton Chadwick posted: September 30, 2008 10:37 am
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Iran: A Christian jailed for converting from Islam
| Team, Below is a reminder of the intolerance and hate we are dealing with. Why would anyone in their right mind think that such an intolerant regime based on Islamic fundamentalism that would hate and kill for turning from Islam is better or on any kind of moral standing to critique the USA which has done more good throughout the world to ease pain and encourage human rights. BTW. The record of building up people and respecting life is indisputable and provable - the opposite is not. Lee -------------------------------------------------------- Iran: A Christian jailed for converting from Islam |  |  |  |
| Wednesday, 03 September 2008 | |
| NCRI – On August 22, Ramtin Soudmand, a Christian man whose father was executed 20 years ago by the mullahs' regime for converting to Christianity was arrested by the local office of the Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) in the holy city of Mashhad. "He was summoned to the local office of MOIS in Mashhad," a family member said. Soudmand lived in Tehran since his father's execution, however he was to report to Mashhad. "Ramtin decided not to pay any attention to the call and had said that he would wait until MOIS office in Tehran sent him a new summon," his mother said. Considering Mrs. Dibaj and her husband's problems in the past with the MOIS in Mashhad, Soudmand changed his mind and reported to the dreaded MOIS in that city where he was last seen. On September 26, 2006, the MOIS agents arrested Mrs. Fereshteh Dibaj, 28 and her husband, Reza Montazami, 35 in the holy city of Mashhad. Later the couple were transferred to an unknown location for a few days. While in custody, their house was searched by the MOIS and some of their belongings such as computers, CDs, documents and Christian books, were sized. In the raid, eight men, 6 women and two children were arrested. The victims were transferred to an unknown location. Among the detainees, there was an elderly couple in their 60s. The suppressive forces beat up these two senior citizens causing them serious injuries. They were transferred to Shariati Hospital in Isfahan where they were hospitalized in ICU. The MOIS agents thoroughly searched the house for forbidden Christian books and literatures. In a similar raid on a house-church in October of last year, the MOIS agents arrested a Christian couple in Karaj 40 kilometers west of the capital. The mullahs' regime is furious over Muslims converting to any other faith especially Christianity. It has even introduced a controversial bill to its Majlis (parliament) calling for death penalty for individuals converting from Islam to any other faith. |
Monday, September 22, 2008
Back to Iraq
Back to Iraq
Dexter Filkins had a very interesting piece in yesterday's New York Times: BAGHDAD -- At first, I didn't recognize the place. On Karada Mariam, a street that runs over the Tigris River toward the Green Zone, the Serwan and the Zamboor, two kebab places blown up by suicide bombers in 2006, were crammed with customers. Farther up the street was Pizza Napoli, the Italian place shut down in 2006; it, too, was open for business. And I'd forgotten altogether about Abu Nashwan's Wine Shop, boarded up when the black-suited militiamen of the Mahdi Army had threatened to kill its owners. There it was, flung open to the world. Two years ago, when I last stayed in Baghdad, Karada Mariam was like the whole of the city: shuttered, shattered, broken and dead. Abu Nawas Park -- I didn't recognize that, either. By the time I had left the country in August 2006, the two-mile stretch of riverside park was a grim, spooky, deserted place, a symbol for the dying city that Baghdad had become. These days, the same park is filled with people: families with children, women in jeans, women walking alone. Even the nighttime, when Iraqis used to cower inside their homes, no longer scares them. I can hear their laughter wafting from the park. At sundown the other day, I had to weave my way through perhaps 2,000 people. It was an astonishing, beautiful scene -- impossible, incomprehensible, only months ago. When I left Baghdad two years ago, the nation's social fabric seemed too shredded to ever come together again. The very worst had lost its power to shock. To return now is to be jarred in the oddest way possible: by the normal, by the pleasant, even by hope. The questions are jarring, too. Is it really different now? Is this something like peace or victory? And, if so, for whom: the Americans or the Iraqis? There are plenty of reasons why this peace may only amount to a cease-fire, fragile and reversible. The "surge" of American troops is over. The Iraqis are moving to take their country back, yet they wonder what might happen when the Americans' restraining presence is gone. The Awakening, a poetic name for paying former Sunni insurgents not to kill Americans or Iraqis, could fall apart, just as the Shiite Mahdi Army could reanimate itself as quickly as it disappeared. Politics in Iraq remains frozen in sectarian stalemate; the country's leaders cannot even agree to set a date for provincial elections, which might hand power to groups that never had it before. The mountain of oil money, piled ever higher by record oil prices, may become another reason to spill blood. But if this is not peace, it is not war, either -- at least not the war I knew. When I left Iraq in the summer of 2006, after living three and a half years here following the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime, I believed that evil had triumphed, and that it would be many years before it might be stopped. Iraq, filled with so many people living so close together, nurturing dark and unknowable grievances, seemed destined for a ghastly unraveling. And now, in the late summer of 2008, comes the calm. Violence has dropped by as much as 90 percent. A handful of the five million Iraqis who fled their homes -- one-sixth of all Iraqis -- are beginning to return. The mornings, once punctuated by the sounds of exploding bombs, are still. Is it possible that the rage, the thirst for revenge, the sectarian furies, have begun to fade? That Iraqis have been exhausted and frightened by what they have seen?
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Factcheck.org - Palin Truth in the face of lies
Team,
Increasing lies and innuendos about Governor Palin abound. The Dems will stop at nothing - seem to know no moral bounds - to discredit the no. 1 threat to their Presidency... Sarah Palin. Now, don't get me wrong, McCain is finally hitting his stride as well (maybe spurred by Sarah) but without Palin, his candidacy is very ordinary.
Below is a link to Factcheck.org where lies are sorted from the truth. I have copied the "Sliming Palin" article from there for ease of distribution.
Sarah Palin is not "perfect" (there may be minor missteps that come to light) but her integrity and intent is above board and as attacks increase on her, I believe it will have the effect of painting the Dems in a bad light and backfire.
Here's to the Dems stepping in a pile of poo again!
Lee
---------------------------------------
http://www.factcheck.org/election-2008/sliming_palin.html
Sliming Palin
September 8, 2008
False Internet claims and rumors fly about McCain's running mate.
Summary
We’ve been flooded for the past few days with queries about dubious Internet postings and mass e-mail messages making claims about McCain’s running mate, Gov. Palin. We find that many are completely false, or misleading.
* Palin did not cut funding for special needs education in Alaska by 62 percent. She didn’t cut it at all. In fact, she tripled per-pupil funding over just three years.
* She did not demand that books be banned from the Wasilla library. Some of the books on a widely circulated list were not even in print at the time. The librarian has said Palin asked a "What if?" question, but the librarian continued in her job through most of Palin's first term.
* She was never a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, a group that wants Alaskans to vote on whether they wish to secede from the United States. She’s been registered as a Republican since May 1982.
* Palin never endorsed or supported Pat Buchanan for president. She once wore a Buchanan button as a "courtesty" when he visited Wasilla, but shortly afterward she was appointed to co-chair of the campaign of Steve Forbes in the state.
* Palin has not pushed for teaching creationism in Alaska's schools. She has said that students should be allowed to "debate both sides" of the evolution question, but she also said creationism "doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."
A few of these claims were included in a chain e-mail by a woman named Anne Kilkenny. We'll be looking into other charges in that e-mail for a future story. For more explanation of the bullet points above, please read the Analysis.
Analysis
Since Republican presidential nominee John McCain tapped Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate, information about Palin's past has been zipping around the Internet. Several claims are not true, and other rumors are misleading.
No Cut for "Special Needs" Kids
It's not true, as widely reported in mass e-mails, Web postings and at least one mainstream news source, that Palin slashed the special education budget in Alaska by 62 percent. CNN's Soledad O'Brien made the claim on Sept. 4 in an interview with Nicolle Wallace, a senior adviser to the McCain campaign:
O'Brien, Sept. 4: One are that has gotten certainly people sending to me a lot of e-mails is the question about as governor what she did with the special needs budget, which I'm sure you're aware, she cut significantly, 62 percent I think is the number from when she came into office. As a woman who is now a mother to a special needs child, and I think she actually has a nephew which is autistic as well. How much of a problem is this going to be as she tries to navigate both sides of that issue?
Such a move might have made Palin look heartless or hypocritical in view of her convention-speech pledge to be an advocate for special needs children and their families. But in fact, she increased special needs funding so dramatically that a representative of local school boards described the jump as "historic."
According to an April 2008 article in Education Week, Palin signed legislation in March 2008 that would increase public school funding considerably, including special needs funding. It would increase spending on what Alaska calls "intensive needs" students (students with high-cost special requirements) from $26,900 per student in 2008 to $73,840 per student in 2011. That almost triples the per-student spending in three fiscal years. Palin's original proposal, according to the Anchorage Daily News, would have increased funds slightly more, giving intensive needs students a $77,740 allotment by 2011.
Education Week: A second part of the measure raises spending for students with special needs to $73,840 in fiscal 2011, from the current $26,900 per student in fiscal 2008, according to the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development.
Unlike many other states, Alaska has relatively flush budget coffers, thanks to a rise in oil and gas revenues. Funding for schools will remain fairly level next year, however. Overall per-pupil funding across the state will rise by $100, to $5,480, in fiscal 2009. ...
Carl Rose, the executive director of the Association of Alaska School Boards, praised the changes in funding for rural schools and students with special needs as a "historic event," and said the finance overhaul would bring more stability to district budgets.
According to Eddy Jeans at the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development, funding for special needs and intensive needs students has increased every year since Palin entered office, from a total of $203 million in 2006 to a projected $276 million in 2009.
Those who claim that Palin cut special needs funding by 62 percent are looking in the wrong place and misinterpreting what they find there. They point to an apparent drop in the Department of Education and Early Development budget for special schools. But the special schools budget, despite the similar name, isn't the special needs budget. "I don’t even consider the special schools component [part of] our special needs funding," Jeans told FactCheck.org. "The special needs funding is provided through our public school funding formula. The special schools is simply a budget component where we have funding set aside for special projects," such as the Alaska School for the Deaf and the Alaska Military Youth Academy. A different budget component, the Foundation Program, governs special needs programs in the public school system.
And in any case, the decrease in funding for special schools is illusory. Palin moved the Alaska Military Youth Academy's ChalleNGe program, a residential military school program that teaches job and life skills to students under 20, out of the budget line for "special schools" and into its own line. This resulted in an apparent drop of more than $5 million in the special schools budget with no actual decrease in funding for the programs.
Not a Book Burner
One false rumor accuses then-Mayor Palin of threatening to fire Wasilla’s librarian for refusing to ban books from the town library. Some versions of the rumor come complete with a list of the books that Palin allegedly attempted to ban. The story is false on several fronts: Palin never asked that books be banned; the librarian continued to serve in that position; no books were actually banned; and many of the books on the list that Palin supposedly wanted to censor weren't even in print at the time, proving that the list is a fabrication.
It’s true that Palin did raise the issue with Mary Ellen Emmons, Wasilla’s librarian, on at least two occasions. Emmons flatly stated her opposition both times. But, as the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman (Wasilla’s local paper) reported at the time, Palin asked general questions about what Emmons would say if Palin requested that a book be banned. According to Emmons, Palin "was asking me how I would deal with her saying a book can't be in the library." Emmons reported that Palin pressed the issue, asking whether Emmons' position would change if residents were picketing the library. Wasilla resident Anne Kilkenny, who was at the meeting, corroborates Emmons' story, telling the Chicago Tribune that "Sarah said to Mary Ellen, 'What would your response be if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?' "
Palin characterized the exchange differently, initially volunteering the episode as an example of discussions with city employees about following her administration's agenda. Palin described her questions to Emmons as “rhetorical,” noting that her questions "were asked in the context of professionalism regarding the library policy that is in place in our city." Actually, true rhetorical questions have implied answers (e.g., “Who do you think you are?”), so Palin probably meant to describe her questions as hypothetical or theoretical. We can't read minds, so it is impossible for us to know whether or not Palin may actually have wanted to ban books from the library or whether she simply wanted to know how her new employees would respond to an instruction from their boss. It is worth noting that, in an update, the Frontiersman points out that no book was ever banned from the library’s shelves.
Moreover, although Palin fired Emmons as part of a "loyalty" purge, she rehired Emmons the next day, and Emmons remained at her job for two-and-a-half more years. Actually, Palin initially requested Emmons’ resignation in October 1996, four days before the public discussion of censorship. That was at the same time she requested that all four of Wasilla’s department heads resign. Palin described the requests as a loyalty test and allowed all four department heads to retain their positions. But on Jan. 30, 1997, three months after the censorship discussion, Palin informed Emmons and Wasilla’s police chief, Irv Stambaugh, that they would be fired. According to the Chicago Tribune, Palin did not list censorship as a reason for Emmons’ firing. Palin rehired Emmons the following day. Emmons continued to serve as librarian until August 1999, when the Chicago Tribune reports that she resigned.
So what about that list of books targeted for banning, which according to one widely e-mailed version was taken “from the official minutes of the Wasilla Library Board”? If it was, the library board should take up fortune telling. The list includes the first four Harry Potter books, none of which had been published at the time of the Palin-Emmons conversations. The first wasn't published until 1998. In fact, the list is a simple cut-and-paste job, snatched (complete with typos and the occasional incorrect title) from the Florida Institute of Technology library Web page, which presents the list as “Books banned at one time or another in the United States.”
Closet Secessionist?
Palin was never a member of the Alaskan Independence Party – which calls for a vote on whether Alaska should secede from the union or remain a state – despite mistaken reports to the contrary. But her husband was a member for years, and she attended at least one party convention, as mayor of the town in which it was held.
The party's chair originally told reporters that Palin had been a member, but the official later retracted that statement. Chairwoman Lynette Clark told the New York Times that false information had been given to her by another member of the party after she first told the Times and others that Palin joined the AIP in 1994. Clark issued an apology on the AIP Web site.
The director of Alaska’s Division of Elections, Gail Fenumiai, confirms that Palin registered to vote in the state for the first time in May 1982 as a Republican and hasn’t changed her party affiliation since. She also told FactCheck.org that Palin’s husband, Todd, was registered with AIP from October 1995 to July 2000, and again from September 2000 until July 2002. (He has since been registered as undeclared.) However, the AIP says Todd Palin "never participated in any party activities aside from attending a convention in Wasilla at one time."
There is still some dispute as to whether Sarah Palin also attended the AIP’s 1994 convention, held in Wasilla. Clark and another AIP official told ABC News’ Jake Tapper that both Palins were there. Palin was elected mayor of Wasilla two years later. The McCain campaign says Sarah Palin went to the 2000 AIP convention, also held in Wasilla, “as a courtesy since she was mayor.” As governor, Palin sent a video message to the 2008 convention, which is available on YouTube, and the AIP says she attended in 2006 when she was campaigning.
Didn't Endorse Pat Buchanan
Claims that Palin endorsed conservative Republican Pat Buchanan for president in the 2000 campaign are false. She worked for conservative Republican Steve Forbes.
The incorrect reports stem from an Associated Press story on July 17, 1999, that said Palin was "among those sporting Buchanan buttons" at a lunch for Buchanan attended by about 85 people, during a swing he took through Fairbanks and Wasilla. Buchanan didn't help matters when he told a reporter for the liberal publication The Nation on Aug. 29: "I'm pretty sure she's a Buchananite." But in fact, she wasn't.
Soon after The AP story appeared, Palin wrote in a letter to the editor of the Anchorage Daily News that she had merely worn a Buchanan button as a courtesy to her visitor and was not endorsing him. The letter, published July 26, 1999, said:
Palin, July 26, 1999: As mayor of Wasilla, I am proud to welcome all presidential candidates to our city. This is true regardless of their party, or the latest odds of their winning. When presidential candidates visit our community, I am always happy to meet them. I'll even put on their button when handed one as a polite gesture of respect.
Though no reporter interviewed me for the Associated Press article on the recent visit by a presidential candidate (Metro, July 17), the article may have left your readers with the perception that I am endorsing this candidate, as opposed to welcoming his visit to Wasilla. As mayor, I will welcome all the candidates in Wasilla.
Palin actually worked for Forbes. Less than a month after being spotted wearing the "courtesy" button for Buchanan, she was named to the state leadership committee of the Forbes effort. The Associated Press reported on Aug. 7, 1999:
The Associated Press, Aug. 7 1999: State Sen. Mike Miller of Fairbanks will head the Alaska campaign chairman for Republican presidential candidate Steve Forbes, campaign officials said. Joining the Fairbanks Republican on the leadership committee will be Wasilla Mayor Sarah Palin, and former state GOP chairman Pete Hallgren, who will serve as co-chairs.
Still, after nine years, the truth has yet to catch up completely.
No Creationism in Schools
On Aug. 29, the Boston Globe reported that Palin was open to teaching creationism in public schools. That's true. She supports teaching creationism alongside evolution, though she has not actively pursued such a policy as governor.
In an Oct. 25, 2006, debate, when asked about teaching alternatives to evolution, Palin replied:
Palin, Oct. 25, 2006: Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject – creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides.
A couple of days later, Palin amended that statement in an interview with the Anchorage Daily News, saying:
Palin, Oct. 2006: I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum.
After her election, Palin let the matter drop. The Associated Press reported Sept 3: "Palin's children attend public schools and Palin has made no push to have creationism taught in them. ... It reflects a hands-off attitude toward mixing government and religion by most Alaskans." The article was headlined, "Palin has not pushed creation science as governor." It was written by Dan Joling, who reports from Anchorage and has covered Alaska for 30 years.
That E-mail Author
Switching gears: Almost 100 readers have written to ask us if the many claims made about Palin in an e-mail written by someone named Anne Kilkenny are true. We can tell you that Kilkenny is a real person. (She was quoted by the Chicago Tribune, as we said above.) According to the New York Times, she’s a Democrat. According to Kilkenny herself, Palin “has hated me since back in 1996, when I was one of the 100 or so people who rallied to support the City Librarian against Sarah’s attempt at censorship."
We’re still analyzing Kilkenny’s claims, and we will be posting something on this soon.
—by Brooks Jackson, Jessica Henig, Emi Kolawole, Joe Miller and Lori Robertson
Sources
Sutton, Anne. "Governor signs revamped education package into law." Anchorage Daily News, 28 Mar. 2008.
Holland, Megan. "Intensive needs funding examined." Anchorage Daily News, 12 Jan. 2008.
Cavanagh, Sean. "Alaska Legislators Overhaul Funding." Education Week, 29 Apr. 2008.
Joling, Dan. "Palin has not pushed creation science as governor." The Associated Press, 3 Sept. 2008.
Hayes, Christopher. "Sarah Palin, Buchananite." The Nation "Capitolism" Web site, 29 Aug. 2008.
Palin, Sarah. "Letters from the People." Anchorage Daily News. 26 July 1999; 5B.
The Associated Press: "Forbes sets Alaska leadership team," 7 Aug 1999.
Kizzia, Tom. "'Creation science' enters the race." Anchorage Daily News, 27 Oct. 2006.
Paulson, Michael. "Sarah Palin on faith, life and creation." The Boston Globe, 29 Aug. 2008.
Tapper, Jake. “Another AIP Official Says Palin Was at 1994 Convention.” ABCNews.com, 2 Sept. 2008.
Tapper, Jake. “Members of ‘Fringe’ Alaskan Independence Party Incorrectly Say Palin Was a Member in 90s.” ABCNews.Com, 1Sept. 2008.
Komarnitsky, S.J. "Wasilla Keeps Librarian, But Police Chief Is Out." 1 February 1997. The Anchorage Daily News, 8 Sept. 2008.
Stuart, Paul. "FROM THE ARCHIVE: Palin: Library Censorship Inquiries 'Rhetorical'." 18 December 1996. Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman, 8 Sept. 2008.
White, Rindi. "Palin Asked City Librarian Whether She'd Ban Books." 7 September 2008. The Chicago Tribune, 8 Sept. 2008.
Increasing lies and innuendos about Governor Palin abound. The Dems will stop at nothing - seem to know no moral bounds - to discredit the no. 1 threat to their Presidency... Sarah Palin. Now, don't get me wrong, McCain is finally hitting his stride as well (maybe spurred by Sarah) but without Palin, his candidacy is very ordinary.
Below is a link to Factcheck.org where lies are sorted from the truth. I have copied the "Sliming Palin" article from there for ease of distribution.
Sarah Palin is not "perfect" (there may be minor missteps that come to light) but her integrity and intent is above board and as attacks increase on her, I believe it will have the effect of painting the Dems in a bad light and backfire.
Here's to the Dems stepping in a pile of poo again!
Lee
---------------------------------------
http://www.factcheck.org/election-2008/sliming_palin.html
Sliming Palin
September 8, 2008
False Internet claims and rumors fly about McCain's running mate.
Summary
We’ve been flooded for the past few days with queries about dubious Internet postings and mass e-mail messages making claims about McCain’s running mate, Gov. Palin. We find that many are completely false, or misleading.
* Palin did not cut funding for special needs education in Alaska by 62 percent. She didn’t cut it at all. In fact, she tripled per-pupil funding over just three years.
* She did not demand that books be banned from the Wasilla library. Some of the books on a widely circulated list were not even in print at the time. The librarian has said Palin asked a "What if?" question, but the librarian continued in her job through most of Palin's first term.
* She was never a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, a group that wants Alaskans to vote on whether they wish to secede from the United States. She’s been registered as a Republican since May 1982.
* Palin never endorsed or supported Pat Buchanan for president. She once wore a Buchanan button as a "courtesty" when he visited Wasilla, but shortly afterward she was appointed to co-chair of the campaign of Steve Forbes in the state.
* Palin has not pushed for teaching creationism in Alaska's schools. She has said that students should be allowed to "debate both sides" of the evolution question, but she also said creationism "doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."
A few of these claims were included in a chain e-mail by a woman named Anne Kilkenny. We'll be looking into other charges in that e-mail for a future story. For more explanation of the bullet points above, please read the Analysis.
Analysis
Since Republican presidential nominee John McCain tapped Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate, information about Palin's past has been zipping around the Internet. Several claims are not true, and other rumors are misleading.
No Cut for "Special Needs" Kids
It's not true, as widely reported in mass e-mails, Web postings and at least one mainstream news source, that Palin slashed the special education budget in Alaska by 62 percent. CNN's Soledad O'Brien made the claim on Sept. 4 in an interview with Nicolle Wallace, a senior adviser to the McCain campaign:
O'Brien, Sept. 4: One are that has gotten certainly people sending to me a lot of e-mails is the question about as governor what she did with the special needs budget, which I'm sure you're aware, she cut significantly, 62 percent I think is the number from when she came into office. As a woman who is now a mother to a special needs child, and I think she actually has a nephew which is autistic as well. How much of a problem is this going to be as she tries to navigate both sides of that issue?
Such a move might have made Palin look heartless or hypocritical in view of her convention-speech pledge to be an advocate for special needs children and their families. But in fact, she increased special needs funding so dramatically that a representative of local school boards described the jump as "historic."
According to an April 2008 article in Education Week, Palin signed legislation in March 2008 that would increase public school funding considerably, including special needs funding. It would increase spending on what Alaska calls "intensive needs" students (students with high-cost special requirements) from $26,900 per student in 2008 to $73,840 per student in 2011. That almost triples the per-student spending in three fiscal years. Palin's original proposal, according to the Anchorage Daily News, would have increased funds slightly more, giving intensive needs students a $77,740 allotment by 2011.
Education Week: A second part of the measure raises spending for students with special needs to $73,840 in fiscal 2011, from the current $26,900 per student in fiscal 2008, according to the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development.
Unlike many other states, Alaska has relatively flush budget coffers, thanks to a rise in oil and gas revenues. Funding for schools will remain fairly level next year, however. Overall per-pupil funding across the state will rise by $100, to $5,480, in fiscal 2009. ...
Carl Rose, the executive director of the Association of Alaska School Boards, praised the changes in funding for rural schools and students with special needs as a "historic event," and said the finance overhaul would bring more stability to district budgets.
According to Eddy Jeans at the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development, funding for special needs and intensive needs students has increased every year since Palin entered office, from a total of $203 million in 2006 to a projected $276 million in 2009.
Those who claim that Palin cut special needs funding by 62 percent are looking in the wrong place and misinterpreting what they find there. They point to an apparent drop in the Department of Education and Early Development budget for special schools. But the special schools budget, despite the similar name, isn't the special needs budget. "I don’t even consider the special schools component [part of] our special needs funding," Jeans told FactCheck.org. "The special needs funding is provided through our public school funding formula. The special schools is simply a budget component where we have funding set aside for special projects," such as the Alaska School for the Deaf and the Alaska Military Youth Academy. A different budget component, the Foundation Program, governs special needs programs in the public school system.
And in any case, the decrease in funding for special schools is illusory. Palin moved the Alaska Military Youth Academy's ChalleNGe program, a residential military school program that teaches job and life skills to students under 20, out of the budget line for "special schools" and into its own line. This resulted in an apparent drop of more than $5 million in the special schools budget with no actual decrease in funding for the programs.
Not a Book Burner
One false rumor accuses then-Mayor Palin of threatening to fire Wasilla’s librarian for refusing to ban books from the town library. Some versions of the rumor come complete with a list of the books that Palin allegedly attempted to ban. The story is false on several fronts: Palin never asked that books be banned; the librarian continued to serve in that position; no books were actually banned; and many of the books on the list that Palin supposedly wanted to censor weren't even in print at the time, proving that the list is a fabrication.
It’s true that Palin did raise the issue with Mary Ellen Emmons, Wasilla’s librarian, on at least two occasions. Emmons flatly stated her opposition both times. But, as the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman (Wasilla’s local paper) reported at the time, Palin asked general questions about what Emmons would say if Palin requested that a book be banned. According to Emmons, Palin "was asking me how I would deal with her saying a book can't be in the library." Emmons reported that Palin pressed the issue, asking whether Emmons' position would change if residents were picketing the library. Wasilla resident Anne Kilkenny, who was at the meeting, corroborates Emmons' story, telling the Chicago Tribune that "Sarah said to Mary Ellen, 'What would your response be if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?' "
Palin characterized the exchange differently, initially volunteering the episode as an example of discussions with city employees about following her administration's agenda. Palin described her questions to Emmons as “rhetorical,” noting that her questions "were asked in the context of professionalism regarding the library policy that is in place in our city." Actually, true rhetorical questions have implied answers (e.g., “Who do you think you are?”), so Palin probably meant to describe her questions as hypothetical or theoretical. We can't read minds, so it is impossible for us to know whether or not Palin may actually have wanted to ban books from the library or whether she simply wanted to know how her new employees would respond to an instruction from their boss. It is worth noting that, in an update, the Frontiersman points out that no book was ever banned from the library’s shelves.
Moreover, although Palin fired Emmons as part of a "loyalty" purge, she rehired Emmons the next day, and Emmons remained at her job for two-and-a-half more years. Actually, Palin initially requested Emmons’ resignation in October 1996, four days before the public discussion of censorship. That was at the same time she requested that all four of Wasilla’s department heads resign. Palin described the requests as a loyalty test and allowed all four department heads to retain their positions. But on Jan. 30, 1997, three months after the censorship discussion, Palin informed Emmons and Wasilla’s police chief, Irv Stambaugh, that they would be fired. According to the Chicago Tribune, Palin did not list censorship as a reason for Emmons’ firing. Palin rehired Emmons the following day. Emmons continued to serve as librarian until August 1999, when the Chicago Tribune reports that she resigned.
So what about that list of books targeted for banning, which according to one widely e-mailed version was taken “from the official minutes of the Wasilla Library Board”? If it was, the library board should take up fortune telling. The list includes the first four Harry Potter books, none of which had been published at the time of the Palin-Emmons conversations. The first wasn't published until 1998. In fact, the list is a simple cut-and-paste job, snatched (complete with typos and the occasional incorrect title) from the Florida Institute of Technology library Web page, which presents the list as “Books banned at one time or another in the United States.”
Closet Secessionist?
Palin was never a member of the Alaskan Independence Party – which calls for a vote on whether Alaska should secede from the union or remain a state – despite mistaken reports to the contrary. But her husband was a member for years, and she attended at least one party convention, as mayor of the town in which it was held.
The party's chair originally told reporters that Palin had been a member, but the official later retracted that statement. Chairwoman Lynette Clark told the New York Times that false information had been given to her by another member of the party after she first told the Times and others that Palin joined the AIP in 1994. Clark issued an apology on the AIP Web site.
The director of Alaska’s Division of Elections, Gail Fenumiai, confirms that Palin registered to vote in the state for the first time in May 1982 as a Republican and hasn’t changed her party affiliation since. She also told FactCheck.org that Palin’s husband, Todd, was registered with AIP from October 1995 to July 2000, and again from September 2000 until July 2002. (He has since been registered as undeclared.) However, the AIP says Todd Palin "never participated in any party activities aside from attending a convention in Wasilla at one time."
There is still some dispute as to whether Sarah Palin also attended the AIP’s 1994 convention, held in Wasilla. Clark and another AIP official told ABC News’ Jake Tapper that both Palins were there. Palin was elected mayor of Wasilla two years later. The McCain campaign says Sarah Palin went to the 2000 AIP convention, also held in Wasilla, “as a courtesy since she was mayor.” As governor, Palin sent a video message to the 2008 convention, which is available on YouTube, and the AIP says she attended in 2006 when she was campaigning.
Didn't Endorse Pat Buchanan
Claims that Palin endorsed conservative Republican Pat Buchanan for president in the 2000 campaign are false. She worked for conservative Republican Steve Forbes.
The incorrect reports stem from an Associated Press story on July 17, 1999, that said Palin was "among those sporting Buchanan buttons" at a lunch for Buchanan attended by about 85 people, during a swing he took through Fairbanks and Wasilla. Buchanan didn't help matters when he told a reporter for the liberal publication The Nation on Aug. 29: "I'm pretty sure she's a Buchananite." But in fact, she wasn't.
Soon after The AP story appeared, Palin wrote in a letter to the editor of the Anchorage Daily News that she had merely worn a Buchanan button as a courtesy to her visitor and was not endorsing him. The letter, published July 26, 1999, said:
Palin, July 26, 1999: As mayor of Wasilla, I am proud to welcome all presidential candidates to our city. This is true regardless of their party, or the latest odds of their winning. When presidential candidates visit our community, I am always happy to meet them. I'll even put on their button when handed one as a polite gesture of respect.
Though no reporter interviewed me for the Associated Press article on the recent visit by a presidential candidate (Metro, July 17), the article may have left your readers with the perception that I am endorsing this candidate, as opposed to welcoming his visit to Wasilla. As mayor, I will welcome all the candidates in Wasilla.
Palin actually worked for Forbes. Less than a month after being spotted wearing the "courtesy" button for Buchanan, she was named to the state leadership committee of the Forbes effort. The Associated Press reported on Aug. 7, 1999:
The Associated Press, Aug. 7 1999: State Sen. Mike Miller of Fairbanks will head the Alaska campaign chairman for Republican presidential candidate Steve Forbes, campaign officials said. Joining the Fairbanks Republican on the leadership committee will be Wasilla Mayor Sarah Palin, and former state GOP chairman Pete Hallgren, who will serve as co-chairs.
Still, after nine years, the truth has yet to catch up completely.
No Creationism in Schools
On Aug. 29, the Boston Globe reported that Palin was open to teaching creationism in public schools. That's true. She supports teaching creationism alongside evolution, though she has not actively pursued such a policy as governor.
In an Oct. 25, 2006, debate, when asked about teaching alternatives to evolution, Palin replied:
Palin, Oct. 25, 2006: Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject – creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides.
A couple of days later, Palin amended that statement in an interview with the Anchorage Daily News, saying:
Palin, Oct. 2006: I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum.
After her election, Palin let the matter drop. The Associated Press reported Sept 3: "Palin's children attend public schools and Palin has made no push to have creationism taught in them. ... It reflects a hands-off attitude toward mixing government and religion by most Alaskans." The article was headlined, "Palin has not pushed creation science as governor." It was written by Dan Joling, who reports from Anchorage and has covered Alaska for 30 years.
That E-mail Author
Switching gears: Almost 100 readers have written to ask us if the many claims made about Palin in an e-mail written by someone named Anne Kilkenny are true. We can tell you that Kilkenny is a real person. (She was quoted by the Chicago Tribune, as we said above.) According to the New York Times, she’s a Democrat. According to Kilkenny herself, Palin “has hated me since back in 1996, when I was one of the 100 or so people who rallied to support the City Librarian against Sarah’s attempt at censorship."
We’re still analyzing Kilkenny’s claims, and we will be posting something on this soon.
—by Brooks Jackson, Jessica Henig, Emi Kolawole, Joe Miller and Lori Robertson
Sources
Sutton, Anne. "Governor signs revamped education package into law." Anchorage Daily News, 28 Mar. 2008.
Holland, Megan. "Intensive needs funding examined." Anchorage Daily News, 12 Jan. 2008.
Cavanagh, Sean. "Alaska Legislators Overhaul Funding." Education Week, 29 Apr. 2008.
Joling, Dan. "Palin has not pushed creation science as governor." The Associated Press, 3 Sept. 2008.
Hayes, Christopher. "Sarah Palin, Buchananite." The Nation "Capitolism" Web site, 29 Aug. 2008.
Palin, Sarah. "Letters from the People." Anchorage Daily News. 26 July 1999; 5B.
The Associated Press: "Forbes sets Alaska leadership team," 7 Aug 1999.
Kizzia, Tom. "'Creation science' enters the race." Anchorage Daily News, 27 Oct. 2006.
Paulson, Michael. "Sarah Palin on faith, life and creation." The Boston Globe, 29 Aug. 2008.
Tapper, Jake. “Another AIP Official Says Palin Was at 1994 Convention.” ABCNews.com, 2 Sept. 2008.
Tapper, Jake. “Members of ‘Fringe’ Alaskan Independence Party Incorrectly Say Palin Was a Member in 90s.” ABCNews.Com, 1Sept. 2008.
Komarnitsky, S.J. "Wasilla Keeps Librarian, But Police Chief Is Out." 1 February 1997. The Anchorage Daily News, 8 Sept. 2008.
Stuart, Paul. "FROM THE ARCHIVE: Palin: Library Censorship Inquiries 'Rhetorical'." 18 December 1996. Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman, 8 Sept. 2008.
White, Rindi. "Palin Asked City Librarian Whether She'd Ban Books." 7 September 2008. The Chicago Tribune, 8 Sept. 2008.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Foreign Policy Lessons From Fighting Muslim Pirates (Medved)
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
Foreign Policy Lessons From Fighting Muslim Pirates
| Most Americans remain utterly ignorant of this nation’s first foreign war but that exotic, long-ago struggle set the pattern for nearly all the many distant conflicts that followed. Refusal to confront the lessons of the First Barbary War (1801-1805) has led to some of the silliest arguments concerning The war against the Barbary States of North Africa ( When The president dispatched nearly all ships of the fledgling American navy to sail thousands of miles across the Atlantic and through the straits of The records of these dramatic, all-but-forgotten conflicts convey several important messages for the present day: 1. The 2. Most conflicts unfold without a Declaration of War. 3. Islamic enmity toward the 4. Cruel Treatment of enemies by Muslim extremists is a long-standing tradition. In 1793, Algerian pirates captured the merchant brig Polly and paraded the enslaved crewmen through jeering crowds in the streets of 5. There’s nothing new in far-flung American wars to defend Fortunately for them, they never had to contend with demonstrators who shouted “No blood for shipping!” 6. Even leaders who have worried about the growth of the 7. The Barbary Wars cost limited casualties for the |
Monday, August 4, 2008
Stephanopoulos to Pelosi: Why No Up or Down Vote on Drilling?
Stephanopoulos to Pelosi: Why No Up or Down Vote on Drilling?
By Noel Sheppard
August 3, 2008 - 13:41 ET
It seems that even ABC's George Stephanopoulos is getting fed up with Congressional Democrats blocking efforts by Republicans to expand offshore oil drilling in order to bring down gas prices.
On Sunday's "This Week," Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Cali.) was asked repeatedly why she refuses to allow this issue to come to a vote.
The look of disgust on Stephanopoulos's face as Pelosi mumbled non sequitur after non sequitur was almost more telling of his sense of frustration than the number of times he asked virtually the same question: "Why won't you permit a straight up or down vote?"
Readers should prepare themselves for an alternate reality, for Madame Speaker was quizzed on Sunday like never before (video available here, rush transcript from closed captioning, photo courtesy ABC News):
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, HOST: You've been getting a lot of heat for not allowing a straight up or down vote expanding drilling off the coasts of the
NANCY PELOSI, SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: What we have presented are options that will really make a difference at the pump. Free our oil, Mr. President. We're sitting on 700 million barrels of oil. That would have an immediate effect in ten days. What our colleagues are talking about is something that won't have an effect for ten years and it will be 2 cents at the time. If they want to present something that's part of an energy package, we're talking about something. But to single shoot on something that won't work and mislead the American people as to thinking it's going to reduce the price at the pump, I'm just not going to be a part of it.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Except it’s not just Republicans that are calling for this. Members of your own caucus say we must have a vote. Congressman Jason Altmire, let me show our viewers right now, says, “There is going to be a vote. September 30 will not come and go without a vote on the opening the Outer Continental Shelf. The message has been delivered. The issue can't be ignored any longer.” He says he speaks for a lot of Democrats. He's talked to the leadership and a vote must happen.
PELOSI: Maybe it will, as part of a larger energy package. Let's step back, call a halt and put this in perspective. What we have now is a failed energy policy by the Bush/Cheney, two oilmen in the White House. $4 a gallon gasoline at the pump. And what they're saying is let's have more of the same. Let's have more of big oil making, record profits, historic profits. You see the quarterly reports that just came out, who want to be subsidized who don't really want to compete. Let them use the subsidies to drill oil in protected areas. Instead we're saying, free the oil. Use it, don't lose it. There's 68 million acres in lower 48 and 20 million more acres in
STEPHANOPOULOS: But if you feel you have the better arguments, why not give a straight up or down vote for drilling?
PELOSI: Because the misrepresentation is being made that this is going to reduce the price at the pump. This is again a decoy, it’s not a solution.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, if you’re right, why not let it be debated out and have the vote?
PELOSI: We have a debate every single day on this subject. What you saw in the Congress this week was the war dance of the hand maidens of the oil companies. That's what you saw on the Republican side of the aisle. Democrats and Republicans are not right there on party lines on this issue. There are regional concerns, as well as some people concerned about what this means back home for them. But we have a planet to save. We have an economy to grow. And we can do that if we keep our balance in all of this and not just say but for drilling in unprotected and these protected areas offshore, we would have lower gas prices.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So what exactly are you trying to say? You say you might allow a vote as part of a comprehensive package, but you won’t allow a vote on --
PELOSI: We have put on the floor. Free our oil. Strong bipartisan support for that. Use it, don't lose it. Strong bipartisan support for that. End undue speculation, strong bipartisan support for that. We've talked about these things. Invest in renewable energy resources so that we can increase the supply of energy for our country. Strong bipartisan support for that.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Yet you brought those measures to the floor in a way under the suspension of the rules so that it couldn't be amended with a drilling proposal.
PELOSI: Well, we built consensus and have a strong bipartisan. This is what’s going to make a difference to reduce the dependence on foreign oil, to stop our dependence on fossil fuels in our own country. To increase the supply of energy immediately to reduce the price at the pump to protect the consumer. So this is a policy matter. This is very serious policy matter. It's not to use a tactic of one -- one tactic in order to undermine a comprehensive energy package to reduce our dependence on foreign oil which is a national security issue. To reduce our dependence on fossil fuels in our own country. Now, will we be talking about natural gas that's cheaper, better for the environment --
STEPHANOPOULOS: But why not allow votes on all that? When you came in as Speaker you promised in your commitment book "A New Direction for
PELOSI: They'll have to use their imagination as to how they can get a vote and then they may get a vote. What I am trying to, we have serious policy issues in our country. The President of the
STEPHANOPOULOS: And Senator Obama has agreed with you. He says, listen. This is not the answer. Drilling is not the answer. But he said over the weekend that he might be willing to sign onto drilling as part of a comprehensive proposal.
PELOSI: What Senator Obama said is what we want a President to say. Let's look at all of the options. Let's compare them. And let's see what really does increase our supply. Protect our environment, save our economy, protect the consumer, instead of a single shot thing that does none of the above. Why we give subsidies to big oil to drill instead of letting them --
STEPHANOPOULOS: I want to move on to other issues. Just to be clear, you are saying you will not allow a single up or down vote on drilling. But you will allow a vote on a package that includes drilling?
PELOSI: No, what I'm saying to you is, as far as I'm concerned, unless there is something that -- you never say never to anything. You know, people have their parliamentary options available to them. But from my standpoint, my flagship issue as Speaker of the House and 110th Congress has been to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reverse global warming. I'm not giving the gavel -- I'm not giving a gavel away to a tactic that will do neither of those things. That supports big oil at the cost and expense of the consumer. (underlines added by Lee for emphasis.)
STEPHANOPOULOS: So you’re not going to permit a vote, you may get beat, but you're not going to permit a vote on your own?
PELOSI: Again, we take this one step at a time. But while we're spending all of this time on a parliamentary tactic when nothing less is at stake than the planet, the air we breathe, our children breathe.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But that’s what I don’t understand. If you could get votes on everything else that you care about which you say there is strong bipartisan support, why not allow a vote on the drilling as well?
PELOSI: Because the President will not allow any of these other things to go forth. Why are we not saying to the President, why don't you release oil from the SPR in ten days to have the price at the pump go down? Why are you opposed to any undue speculation in the oil markets? Why do you not insist that people who have leases on our land with permits ready to go use those? The oil companies don't want competition. And what we would do by saying, go ahead, give them the subsidies. Allow them to drill in areas that are protected now, instead of where they're allowed to drill, is to diminish all of the opportunity that we have for an electricity standard for our country. Where we set out standards that makes the competition for renewable energy resources better. Which says to the private sector, invest here because there is a standard that they have to honor. If you just say it's drill, drill, drill, drill and we're going to subsidize it, what is the motivation for the private sector to come in and say we're going to support these renewable energies, wind, solar, biofuels. Plug-in cars. Natural gas and other alternatives.
Although Stephanopoulos never addressed the revolt that happened in the House on Friday when Pelosi adjourned the session for a five week vacation, he is to be commended for doing a fairly good grilling on Sunday.
As for Pelosi, Americans should be embarrassed by her disgraceful performance. If she represents the best House Democrats have to offer at this moment in history, we should all be fearful of the future.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Where has all the humility in service gone?
The article below is interesting and indicative of character. It used to be that in the good old days whether by pretense or actual character, our public leaders used to portray themselves as public servants - there to serve us . It was an honor to serve with humility , given the gravity of the position.
Now, I'll grant you that running for President of the United States takes some egotistical standing - one must have full confidence that they can run a country - pretty bold! However, the ego is tempered by the realization that any misstep can cost lives and ruin millions of household incomes. It is a solemn understanding - one that should not be taken lightly.
That's why the arrogance of Barak is so stunning. He is indicative of a "me-centered" narcissistic generation that doesn't understand how things work - they only understand how it impacts them. He appears to be running for what it brings him - prestige, power, affluence.
His lack of concrete ideas (those that cannot be changed) and inability to articulate thoughts without pre-written speeches (composed by others but delivered by him) clearly put him in the danger category for leadership.
Read the warning signs.
Lee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 3, 2008, 4:34 PM
Now, I'll grant you that running for President of the United States takes some egotistical standing - one must have full confidence that they can run a country - pretty bold! However, the ego is tempered by the realization that any misstep can cost lives and ruin millions of household incomes. It is a solemn understanding - one that should not be taken lightly.
That's why the arrogance of Barak is so stunning. He is indicative of a "me-centered" narcissistic generation that doesn't understand how things work - they only understand how it impacts them. He appears to be running for what it brings him - prestige, power, affluence.
His lack of concrete ideas (those that cannot be changed) and inability to articulate thoughts without pre-written speeches (composed by others but delivered by him) clearly put him in the danger category for leadership.
Read the warning signs.
Lee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 3, 2008, 4:34 PM
O-Force One
Posted by Allison O'Keefe| 
216
216From CBS News' Allison O'Keefe:
Barack Obama’s new campaign plane is nothing short of grand. Well, for the candidate that is.
Obama’s section of the plane rivals that of any first class. Recently the front cabin of the Boeing 757 was retrofitted to install four individual chairs that resemble La-Z-Boys. They are free-standing and made of plush leather with pockets on the sides. There is also a booth which seats four for a meeting or a meal.
His chair has his name and campaign logo embroidered on the back top -- “Obama ‘08” on one line and “President” underneath. To one side is a small table stacked with newspapers ready for the candidate’s arrival. The table of the booth is always covered in snacks and cheese and is where Obama spends most of his time during flights meeting with staff and sitting for the occasional interview.
“Typically the candidate's cabin is like business class -- roomier and less chaotic than the staff and press areas, but still short of the accoutrements of a pro team's charter,” says Politico’s Mike Allen, a frequent campaign flier.
After looking at a few photos of Obama’s cabin, Allen quipped, “Air Force One may seem a tad claustrophobic.” Check it out for yourself:
There are five sections on the 757, the first of which is Obama’s section, which can seat up to eight people at a time, although rarely are all eight seats taken. Depending on the destination or length of trip, Sen. Obama is joined by body man Reggie Love and a few senior staff members or perhaps a key Senate colleague. Recently, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., hitched a ride from Washington, D.C., to her home state for a full day of campaign events.
The next two sections are outfitted with expansive business class seats for senior and junior level staff including Obama’s media team, which films all of the candidate’s events for promotional purposes.
The back two sections are traditional coach seats where the Secret Service, reporters, cameramen and some of the communications staff sit. It is a rite of passage each election cycle for the party’s nominee to retrofit an aircraft to distinct specifications. While the campaign pays for their share of the plane, the news media also pay thousands of dollars to fly with Obama for each leg of his campaign.
CBS News’ John Bentley, who's covering the John McCain campaign, reports that McCain flies in a slightly smaller Boeing 737, which has four compartments: the first class area, where he sits; the “straight talk” area for interviews; a business class section for staffers; and the back of the plane, where the press and secret service sit.
In McCain's spacious first class area, there are 12 plush leather seats for the candidate, his wife and senior staffers. The “straight talk” area features a long leather bench and another first class seat which McCain sits in when he talks to the press – or would, if he used the area.
Since they acquired the plane with its specially modified area, McCain has spoken to the press there precisely once, over a month ago. All of these sections are separated by curtains, which are always shut as tightly as possible as soon as the plane takes off in order to keep the different sections of the plane from interacting with each other.
Barack Obama’s new campaign plane is nothing short of grand. Well, for the candidate that is.
Obama’s section of the plane rivals that of any first class. Recently the front cabin of the Boeing 757 was retrofitted to install four individual chairs that resemble La-Z-Boys. They are free-standing and made of plush leather with pockets on the sides. There is also a booth which seats four for a meeting or a meal.
His chair has his name and campaign logo embroidered on the back top -- “Obama ‘08” on one line and “President” underneath. To one side is a small table stacked with newspapers ready for the candidate’s arrival. The table of the booth is always covered in snacks and cheese and is where Obama spends most of his time during flights meeting with staff and sitting for the occasional interview.
“Typically the candidate's cabin is like business class -- roomier and less chaotic than the staff and press areas, but still short of the accoutrements of a pro team's charter,” says Politico’s Mike Allen, a frequent campaign flier.
After looking at a few photos of Obama’s cabin, Allen quipped, “Air Force One may seem a tad claustrophobic.” Check it out for yourself:
(CBS/Allison Davis O'Keefe)
(CBS/Allison Davis O'Keefe)
(CBS/Allison Davis O'Keefe)
There are five sections on the 757, the first of which is Obama’s section, which can seat up to eight people at a time, although rarely are all eight seats taken. Depending on the destination or length of trip, Sen. Obama is joined by body man Reggie Love and a few senior staff members or perhaps a key Senate colleague. Recently, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., hitched a ride from Washington, D.C., to her home state for a full day of campaign events.
The next two sections are outfitted with expansive business class seats for senior and junior level staff including Obama’s media team, which films all of the candidate’s events for promotional purposes.
The back two sections are traditional coach seats where the Secret Service, reporters, cameramen and some of the communications staff sit. It is a rite of passage each election cycle for the party’s nominee to retrofit an aircraft to distinct specifications. While the campaign pays for their share of the plane, the news media also pay thousands of dollars to fly with Obama for each leg of his campaign.
CBS News’ John Bentley, who's covering the John McCain campaign, reports that McCain flies in a slightly smaller Boeing 737, which has four compartments: the first class area, where he sits; the “straight talk” area for interviews; a business class section for staffers; and the back of the plane, where the press and secret service sit.
In McCain's spacious first class area, there are 12 plush leather seats for the candidate, his wife and senior staffers. The “straight talk” area features a long leather bench and another first class seat which McCain sits in when he talks to the press – or would, if he used the area.
Since they acquired the plane with its specially modified area, McCain has spoken to the press there precisely once, over a month ago. All of these sections are separated by curtains, which are always shut as tightly as possible as soon as the plane takes off in order to keep the different sections of the plane from interacting with each other.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Why Obama Can't be Coherant on Policy?
Just a quick observation. Obama is not clear on policy unless he's reading the teleprompter. In fact, he's down right conflicted! His stance on almost all major issues has waffled and wobbled to the point that his base is upset with him.
I would like to posit a reason.
Obama is so new to the national political scene that he has never really thought through any of the major issues. He's not a deep thinker as was Reagan who it was found that he had already written his major policy papers while still a relative unknown - prior to becoming President.
There are only two possibilities.
Maturity? Not a chance. Let's go with the proven John McCain and save ourselves and this great nation a real heartache and embarrassment that would rival the Jimmy Carter days.
Lee
I would like to posit a reason.
Obama is so new to the national political scene that he has never really thought through any of the major issues. He's not a deep thinker as was Reagan who it was found that he had already written his major policy papers while still a relative unknown - prior to becoming President.
There are only two possibilities.
- He is a consummate liar who fools even himself. The situation dictates a position, he yields to it. He can't remember that he had an opposite position before (sometimes only days before.) This gains him immediate favor but may be his undoing in the election debates.
- He has never even contemplated national or international politics before. It's all a mystery. How can you be expected to have a firm position on something you are working through on the fly? It's instant position without a drop of historical basis or understanding.
Maturity? Not a chance. Let's go with the proven John McCain and save ourselves and this great nation a real heartache and embarrassment that would rival the Jimmy Carter days.
Lee
Friday, July 18, 2008
Can't Rely on Military for National Security
"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." Barack Obama July 2, 2008.
In an address to AmeriCorps and Peace Corps, Barack said the above. He appears to have left the script and talked from his heart, however, one must wonder if the concept is clear in his mind. He is speaking about service to the country and getting involved with humanitarian efforts and military service, but then confuses the two by suggesting that civilian organizations take over security duties.
But, there are already civilian agencies participating in national security such as NSA, FBI, CIA, DEA and DHS! Does he not realize this? Or is he talking about starting a whole new civilian agency apart from these? If so, we are in big, big trouble. Double or triple your taxes. Increase the public sector and decrease the private sector. This would be devastating economically and logistically could not function.
Bottom line, I believe Barack once again has been confused about his message - speech written by others with a message he's never thought about before - not sure what he's driving at.
I recommend a NO vote for Barack and a YES vote for someone who knows the issues and has the big picture in sight - McCain.
Lee
In an address to AmeriCorps and Peace Corps, Barack said the above. He appears to have left the script and talked from his heart, however, one must wonder if the concept is clear in his mind. He is speaking about service to the country and getting involved with humanitarian efforts and military service, but then confuses the two by suggesting that civilian organizations take over security duties.
But, there are already civilian agencies participating in national security such as NSA, FBI, CIA, DEA and DHS! Does he not realize this? Or is he talking about starting a whole new civilian agency apart from these? If so, we are in big, big trouble. Double or triple your taxes. Increase the public sector and decrease the private sector. This would be devastating economically and logistically could not function.
Bottom line, I believe Barack once again has been confused about his message - speech written by others with a message he's never thought about before - not sure what he's driving at.
I recommend a NO vote for Barack and a YES vote for someone who knows the issues and has the big picture in sight - McCain.
Lee
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Barack Obama purges Web site critique of surge in Iraq
Very interesting development. I guess being liberal means never having to say your wrong - or sorry! From http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics comes the following...
Lee
------------------------------------------------------
Barack Obama purges Web site critique of surge in Iraq
BY JAMES GORDON MEEK
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU
Monday, July 14th 2008, 8:10 PM
WASHINGTON - Barack Obama's campaign scrubbed his presidential Web site over the weekend to remove criticism of the U.S. troop "surge" in Iraq, the Daily News has learned.
The presumed Democratic nominee replaced his Iraq issue Web page, which had described the surge as a "problem" that had barely reduced violence.
"The surge is not working," Obama's old plan stated, citing a lack of Iraqi political cooperation but crediting Sunni sheiks - not U.S. military muscle - for quelling violence in Anbar Province.
The News reported Sunday that insurgent attacks have fallen to the fewest since March 2004.
Obama's campaign posted a new Iraq plan Sunday night, which cites an "improved security situation" paid for with the blood of U.S. troops since the surge began in February 2007.
It praises G.I.s' "hard work, improved counterinsurgency tactics and enormous sacrifice."
Campaign aide Wendy Morigi said Obama is "not softening his criticism of the surge. We regularly update the Web site to reflect changes in current events."
GOP rival John McCain zinged Obama as a flip-flopper. "The major point here is that Sen. Obama refuses to acknowledge that he was wrong," said McCain, adding that Obama "refuses to acknowledge that it [the surge] is succeeding."
jmeek@nydailynews.com
Lee
------------------------------------------------------
Barack Obama purges Web site critique of surge in Iraq
BY JAMES GORDON MEEK
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU
Monday, July 14th 2008, 8:10 PM
WASHINGTON - Barack Obama's campaign scrubbed his presidential Web site over the weekend to remove criticism of the U.S. troop "surge" in Iraq, the Daily News has learned.
The presumed Democratic nominee replaced his Iraq issue Web page, which had described the surge as a "problem" that had barely reduced violence.
"The surge is not working," Obama's old plan stated, citing a lack of Iraqi political cooperation but crediting Sunni sheiks - not U.S. military muscle - for quelling violence in Anbar Province.
The News reported Sunday that insurgent attacks have fallen to the fewest since March 2004.
Obama's campaign posted a new Iraq plan Sunday night, which cites an "improved security situation" paid for with the blood of U.S. troops since the surge began in February 2007.
It praises G.I.s' "hard work, improved counterinsurgency tactics and enormous sacrifice."
Campaign aide Wendy Morigi said Obama is "not softening his criticism of the surge. We regularly update the Web site to reflect changes in current events."
GOP rival John McCain zinged Obama as a flip-flopper. "The major point here is that Sen. Obama refuses to acknowledge that he was wrong," said McCain, adding that Obama "refuses to acknowledge that it [the surge] is succeeding."
jmeek@nydailynews.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
