Michael Russnow of the Huffington Post states that John McCain sold his soul "in the bleakest of hopes that he could convert angry Hillary voters to his cause.", by choosing Sarah Palin as his running mate.
He goes on to state:
"If he'd wanted to steal Hillary voters and as a double trump show up Obama's inexperience and match Joe Biden's fortitude, why not go with someone like Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine, an individualist like he fashions himself who went a bit further and voted, unlike McCain, against Clinton's impeachment. It wouldn't have thrilled the conservatives, but where do they really have to go? To Bob Barr, a Libertarian? No, they'd suck in their tummies, take a deep breath and do anything to stop the upstart Obama machine and his lefty running-mate Joe Biden..."
"So in a misplaced manner, he figured he might pick up two birds with one stone and chose Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, a young woman of the far political right who would thrill his flagging conservative base and with twisted logic felt just the fact of her gender would bring alienated Hillary voters (especially women) to his cause...."
"Do we believe that the Hillary voters will be more electrified with a woman who is against all forms of abortion, including rape and incest? A woman, though the daughter of a science teacher, who wants creationism taught in our schools? A woman who, like the Bush administration, is not at all concerned about the human effects on global warming? A woman who objected to the Department of Interior's listing of polar bears as an endangered species in order to protect the oil drilling companies?..."
"Suddenly, Dan Quayle is looking a lot better. No, I was not a fan and loved Senator Lloyd Bentsen's comeback to him in the 1988 vice presidential debate when Quayle indicated his experience was similar to John F. Kennedy. It was charming and quite funny when Bentsen said Quayle was no Jack Kennedy. But at least in terms of legislative experience he was. Quayle had been a congressman for four years and a senator for eight years, which, whatever his shortcomings, leads me to my original thought: Sarah Palin, you're no Dan Quayle -- not by a long shot, and that's not a compliment."
To read the full article click on the headline
Sunday, August 31, 2008
POLLS: VOTERS DOUBT PALIN’S QUALIFICATIONS
Most voters are unfamiliar with John McCain’s new running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, and many question her qualifications to be president, according to a USA TODAY/Gallup poll.
In the poll taken Friday, 39 percent said she is ready to serve as president if needed, 33 percent said she isn’t and 29 percent have no opinion.
That’s the lowest rating any running mate has had since then-Indiana Sen. Dan Quayle was selected in 1988 to join George H.W. Bush’s team.
In the poll taken Friday, 39 percent said she is ready to serve as president if needed, 33 percent said she isn’t and 29 percent have no opinion.
That’s the lowest rating any running mate has had since then-Indiana Sen. Dan Quayle was selected in 1988 to join George H.W. Bush’s team.
Sarah Palin, Dick Cheney in a dress?
One of the best lines I've heard this weekend to describe Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was uttered by Ron Reagan Jr. while commentating on the radio program "7 days in America" broadcast over Air America yesterday.
Ron Reagan Jr. said of Palin:
"She is pro-life, pro-gun, anti gay rights, doesn't believe in global warming, doesn't believe in equal pay for equal work for women and that ANWR should be opened to oil drilling. She is Dick Cheney in a dress with less experience than Dan Quayle"
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Alaska GOP-ers have frosty reaction to Palin pick
From the Scoreboard at Politico.com comes the following bit of information. It seems as thought members of the Alaskan GOP are not all that broken up over seeing Gov. Sarah Palin leave if elected Vice-President.
"The legislative leadership of the Alaska Republican Party isn’t enamored with Palin’s selection.
State Senate President Lyda Green said she thought it was a joke when someone called her at 6 a.m. to tell her the news."She's not prepared to be governor. How can she be prepared to be vice president or president?" said Green, a Republican from Palin's hometown of Wasilla. "Look at what she's done to this state. What would she do to the nation?"
Green, who has feuded with Palin, brought up the big oil tax increase Palin pushed through last year. She also pointed to the award of a $500 million state subsidy to a Canadian firm to pursue a natural gas pipeline that's far from guaranteed.
House Speaker John Harris, a Republican from Valdez, was also astonished at the news. He didn't want to get into the issue of her qualifications.
"She's old enough," Harris said. "She's a U.S. citizen." "
"The legislative leadership of the Alaska Republican Party isn’t enamored with Palin’s selection.
State Senate President Lyda Green said she thought it was a joke when someone called her at 6 a.m. to tell her the news."She's not prepared to be governor. How can she be prepared to be vice president or president?" said Green, a Republican from Palin's hometown of Wasilla. "Look at what she's done to this state. What would she do to the nation?"
Green, who has feuded with Palin, brought up the big oil tax increase Palin pushed through last year. She also pointed to the award of a $500 million state subsidy to a Canadian firm to pursue a natural gas pipeline that's far from guaranteed.
House Speaker John Harris, a Republican from Valdez, was also astonished at the news. He didn't want to get into the issue of her qualifications.
"She's old enough," Harris said. "She's a U.S. citizen." "
Click on the headline to read the full story from Politico.com
Spotswood MP killed by blast in Baghdad
NJ.com is reporting that 20-year-old Army Specialist Michael Gonzalez from Spotswood, who had been deployed to Iraq less than two months ago was killed Thursday in Baghdad, the Defense Department said.
Michael Gonzalez , a member of the military police, died from wounds caused by an improvised explosive device.
Our heart felt thoughts and prayers go out to his family and all that knew him.
For more on the death of this American Hero, click on the headline
Friday, August 29, 2008
Palin facing investigation in Alaska
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R), Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) running mate, faces an investigation over her controversial firing of a public safety commissioner.
State lawmakers approved an investigation late last month into whether the governor retaliated against former commissioner Walt Monegan for not firing a state trooper entangled in a divorce and ongoing custody battle with Palin’s sister. The investigation will also examine whether Palin or any of her family members pressured Monegan to fire state trooper Mike Wooten because of the messy divorce.
Palin has denied any wrongdoing. But Democrats will undoubtedly use the allegations to attack the “clean-government” reputation of the first-term governor.
To read more click on the headline
State lawmakers approved an investigation late last month into whether the governor retaliated against former commissioner Walt Monegan for not firing a state trooper entangled in a divorce and ongoing custody battle with Palin’s sister. The investigation will also examine whether Palin or any of her family members pressured Monegan to fire state trooper Mike Wooten because of the messy divorce.
Palin has denied any wrongdoing. But Democrats will undoubtedly use the allegations to attack the “clean-government” reputation of the first-term governor.
To read more click on the headline
Democrats begin attacks on Palin
The Hill
By Klaus Marre and Manu Raju
Shortly after the announcement that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) had selected Sarah Palin as his running mate, Democrats began questioning the Alaska governor’s ability to step in as president.
“Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency,” said Bill Burton, a spokesman for Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.). “Gov. Palin shares John McCain’s commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade, the agenda of Big Oil and continuing George Bush’s failed economic policies — that’s not the change we need, it's just more of the same.”
Democrats also wasted no time bringing up that Palin is under investigation for her firing of a state official.
“Sarah Palin is inexperienced, unethical, and wrong on all the issues that Americans care about,” said Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) on MSNBC. “Do we have confidence that if, God forbid, something happened to John McCain that Sarah Palin is going to know what to do and is going to have her hand on the tiller of America's foreign policy? What makes her ready to be commander in chief?”
Wasserman Schultz pointed to the probe of Palin and sought to tie her to other Alaskans under investigation.
“There has been a culture of corruption [in] Alaska. Sen. Ted Stevens, Congressman Don Young, Gov. Sarah Palin — they are all cut from the same cloth,” Wasserman Schultz stated.
By Klaus Marre and Manu Raju
Shortly after the announcement that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) had selected Sarah Palin as his running mate, Democrats began questioning the Alaska governor’s ability to step in as president.
“Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency,” said Bill Burton, a spokesman for Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.). “Gov. Palin shares John McCain’s commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade, the agenda of Big Oil and continuing George Bush’s failed economic policies — that’s not the change we need, it's just more of the same.”
Democrats also wasted no time bringing up that Palin is under investigation for her firing of a state official.
“Sarah Palin is inexperienced, unethical, and wrong on all the issues that Americans care about,” said Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) on MSNBC. “Do we have confidence that if, God forbid, something happened to John McCain that Sarah Palin is going to know what to do and is going to have her hand on the tiller of America's foreign policy? What makes her ready to be commander in chief?”
Wasserman Schultz pointed to the probe of Palin and sought to tie her to other Alaskans under investigation.
“There has been a culture of corruption [in] Alaska. Sen. Ted Stevens, Congressman Don Young, Gov. Sarah Palin — they are all cut from the same cloth,” Wasserman Schultz stated.
To read more click onto the headline
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Where is America’s voice?
RiseUp Founder & Publisher: Janice S. Ellis, Ph.D. has another poignant and thoughtful publisher's note in this weeks edition of her publication.
For the 45 anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr's "I Have a Dream" speech she asks "Where is Americas' Voice?".
Hopefully last night's speech by Barack Obama may have answered her question.
" Where is America’s voice? At critical points in the history of this country, it has, more often than not been resoundingly clear. But, today, it is garbled at best.
While one or more leaders may help define America’s voice, clarify it, and epitomize it with their actions, the voice itself goes beyond a personality or the vocalization of precepts and principles and specific initiatives. The presence and power of America’s voice characterizes ages, codifies eras, creates the culture, and more often than not, foretells the nature of a future society.
We have only to recall a few critical periods in America’s history and the personalities that led us through them—from the Declaration of Independence to the end of the Cold War — to be poignantly, and sometimes painfully, reminded of the great void that exists today.
Where is America’s voice? And if you are able to hear some muffled musings, what is it saying? Are you clear about where we are headed domestically or globally?
Through the work and words of the founding fathers and the framers of the Constitution — John Adams, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and others — America gained its voice and its course through the end of the eighteenth century was clear.
Throughout the nineteenth century, America’s voice defined the periods from the establishment of the institution of slavery to the Civil War that ended it; the Jim Crow era that began after that war and lingered into the twentieth century until the Civil Rights Movement that fought to end it.
During these various and disparate epoch-making times America’s voice was — for better or worse — represented by Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglass, Strom Thurmond, Lester Maddox, George Wallace, Lyndon Johnson, Martin Luther King, Jr., among others.
In between those times, World War I was fought to make the world safe for democracy. That was followed by what has been dubbed as the Gilded Age where the rich got richer, the poor poorer. America roared in the twenties, crashed economically in the early thirties, and joined the world to defeat fascism in the forties. And we lived and breathed the Cold War and its remnants for the next nearly fifty years.
We all know these seminal historical events and the leaders that brought us through them: Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.
During any of these periods, America’s voice was very discernible if not always strong. The times seem more definable, the voice clearer, even while we lived them.
Where is America’s voice today? Where are the political and philosophical giants that represent us?
With the current war on terrorism, one might say that America’s voice is still one that proclaims democracy and individual freedom as paramount at home and abroad. But that voice seems muffled by all the static and noise that has emerged around the reasons for the preemptive strike against Iraq.
Where is America’s voice? What is it saying to us here at home? What is the message conveyed abroad?
As Dr. King stepped to the podium to give his “I Have a Dream” speech, he was introduced to the crowd gathered along the reflecting pool between the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial as the “moral leader” of our nation. After the speech, commentators called him the “voice of America’s conscience.” He was for that seminal period in America’s history.
There is no one leader — no one person — that today can be called the voice of America’s conscience.
More importantly, who are the leaders that will help America find its voice? It is not just left to the historians. We can shape it if we dare. Or we can sit idly by, and watch as we stumble into the future."
For the 45 anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr's "I Have a Dream" speech she asks "Where is Americas' Voice?".
Hopefully last night's speech by Barack Obama may have answered her question.
" Where is America’s voice? At critical points in the history of this country, it has, more often than not been resoundingly clear. But, today, it is garbled at best.
While one or more leaders may help define America’s voice, clarify it, and epitomize it with their actions, the voice itself goes beyond a personality or the vocalization of precepts and principles and specific initiatives. The presence and power of America’s voice characterizes ages, codifies eras, creates the culture, and more often than not, foretells the nature of a future society.
We have only to recall a few critical periods in America’s history and the personalities that led us through them—from the Declaration of Independence to the end of the Cold War — to be poignantly, and sometimes painfully, reminded of the great void that exists today.
Where is America’s voice? And if you are able to hear some muffled musings, what is it saying? Are you clear about where we are headed domestically or globally?
Through the work and words of the founding fathers and the framers of the Constitution — John Adams, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and others — America gained its voice and its course through the end of the eighteenth century was clear.
Throughout the nineteenth century, America’s voice defined the periods from the establishment of the institution of slavery to the Civil War that ended it; the Jim Crow era that began after that war and lingered into the twentieth century until the Civil Rights Movement that fought to end it.
During these various and disparate epoch-making times America’s voice was — for better or worse — represented by Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglass, Strom Thurmond, Lester Maddox, George Wallace, Lyndon Johnson, Martin Luther King, Jr., among others.
In between those times, World War I was fought to make the world safe for democracy. That was followed by what has been dubbed as the Gilded Age where the rich got richer, the poor poorer. America roared in the twenties, crashed economically in the early thirties, and joined the world to defeat fascism in the forties. And we lived and breathed the Cold War and its remnants for the next nearly fifty years.
We all know these seminal historical events and the leaders that brought us through them: Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.
During any of these periods, America’s voice was very discernible if not always strong. The times seem more definable, the voice clearer, even while we lived them.
Where is America’s voice today? Where are the political and philosophical giants that represent us?
With the current war on terrorism, one might say that America’s voice is still one that proclaims democracy and individual freedom as paramount at home and abroad. But that voice seems muffled by all the static and noise that has emerged around the reasons for the preemptive strike against Iraq.
Where is America’s voice? What is it saying to us here at home? What is the message conveyed abroad?
As Dr. King stepped to the podium to give his “I Have a Dream” speech, he was introduced to the crowd gathered along the reflecting pool between the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial as the “moral leader” of our nation. After the speech, commentators called him the “voice of America’s conscience.” He was for that seminal period in America’s history.
There is no one leader — no one person — that today can be called the voice of America’s conscience.
More importantly, who are the leaders that will help America find its voice? It is not just left to the historians. We can shape it if we dare. Or we can sit idly by, and watch as we stumble into the future."
To check out this past weeks edition of RiseUp magazine and read the feature article about Martin Luther King Jr., click on the headline
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Cory Booker, The next Barack Obama?
Salon.com's Rebecca Traister stumbled upon Cory Booker at an event held by Vote Hope, a PAC founded to help elect Barack Obama president that's now broadening to create an infrastructure that will help propel more minority candidates to elected office.
She was very impressed by Booker's address to the Vote Hope group and by his life story. Traister compare Cory Booker very favorable to Barack Obama and wonders if Booker's star will shine as brightly as Obama's has in the future.
To read her take on Cory Booker at Salon.com's War Room click onto the headline
Kerry Goes After McCain
For those of you who were not watching C-Span last night you might have missed John Kerry's address to the DNC. His address was edgy and extremley effective. Kerry savaged McCain, he also distinguished Obama from McCain more thoroughly, and effectively, than any other convention speaker.
Democrats "looove" Joe Biden
Obama's New Southern Strategy: Send Biden
by BOB MOSER - The Nation
No matter how much I hooted and mooed when Bill Clinton slithered on stage last night to nourish his ego afresh, I couldn't help cracking a smile of recognition when Bubba brought out his slowest drawl to declare, "I looove Joe Biden."
I have been hearing that exact same phrase, drawn out just the same way, from Southern delegates all week when I asked them about Obama's number two. "Oh, we looove Joe Biden," they say, almost always adding that they love him because he just comes on out and says it, consequences be damned. It's been a while since anybody in Dixie was saying such things about a Democrat on the ticket. And it counts as just about the highest compliment a politician can get down there.
Biden's big speech was hardly a classic from start to finish. But what a start: His son Beau (the new heartthrob of the Democratic set--at least my set) got the waterworks going, and Biden kept it flowing for a good while--until that awful "More of the Same" refrain came a-clunking, with the Democrats holding signs bearing the wretched phrase, waving them on cue as if they were auditioning for the opening ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics. I almost like Biden better for fumbling those pedestrian lines.
But when Biden means it, you know it--and the things he meant last night, he said with a kind of conviction and sincerity that the '90s version of a Democratic populist, ol' Bill, can only match in his rarest performances. Biden looks a lot like Barack Obama's Bill Clinton--a guy who speaks the kind of American that Democrats in the South and the Midwest can hear. While the general consensus about "using Bill" has been "send him to Appalachia," Biden just might be able to relieve Bubba of that duty and make a fresher case for Obama and the Democrats.
To read more of this article click onto the headline.
by BOB MOSER - The Nation
No matter how much I hooted and mooed when Bill Clinton slithered on stage last night to nourish his ego afresh, I couldn't help cracking a smile of recognition when Bubba brought out his slowest drawl to declare, "I looove Joe Biden."
I have been hearing that exact same phrase, drawn out just the same way, from Southern delegates all week when I asked them about Obama's number two. "Oh, we looove Joe Biden," they say, almost always adding that they love him because he just comes on out and says it, consequences be damned. It's been a while since anybody in Dixie was saying such things about a Democrat on the ticket. And it counts as just about the highest compliment a politician can get down there.
Biden's big speech was hardly a classic from start to finish. But what a start: His son Beau (the new heartthrob of the Democratic set--at least my set) got the waterworks going, and Biden kept it flowing for a good while--until that awful "More of the Same" refrain came a-clunking, with the Democrats holding signs bearing the wretched phrase, waving them on cue as if they were auditioning for the opening ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics. I almost like Biden better for fumbling those pedestrian lines.
But when Biden means it, you know it--and the things he meant last night, he said with a kind of conviction and sincerity that the '90s version of a Democratic populist, ol' Bill, can only match in his rarest performances. Biden looks a lot like Barack Obama's Bill Clinton--a guy who speaks the kind of American that Democrats in the South and the Midwest can hear. While the general consensus about "using Bill" has been "send him to Appalachia," Biden just might be able to relieve Bubba of that duty and make a fresher case for Obama and the Democrats.
To read more of this article click onto the headline.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
MEDIA ADVISORY: DEMOCRATIC PARTY PRESS CONFERENCE (SEPT. 2)
MIDDLETOWN TOWNSHIP (MONMOUTH COUNTY, NJ):
Middletown Democrats for Township Committee
PATRICIA A. WALSH and JIM GRENAFEGE will be holding a press conference on TUESDAY, SEPT.
2 outside the POLICE ENTRANCE to TOWN HALL, 1 KING'S HIGHWAY, AT 6:30 PM.
Mrs. Walsh and Mr. Grenafege will be discussing budgetary problems they intend to repair
once elected.
The president of the Bayshore Democratic Club, Mr. Greg Gibadlo, will be hosting the
event.
All media and residents are invited.
Special Note: This press conference will be held before that evenings township committee meeting so it should be an event in itself worth the price of admission.
Middletown Democrats for Township Committee
PATRICIA A. WALSH and JIM GRENAFEGE will be holding a press conference on TUESDAY, SEPT.
2 outside the POLICE ENTRANCE to TOWN HALL, 1 KING'S HIGHWAY, AT 6:30 PM.
Mrs. Walsh and Mr. Grenafege will be discussing budgetary problems they intend to repair
once elected.
The president of the Bayshore Democratic Club, Mr. Greg Gibadlo, will be hosting the
event.
All media and residents are invited.
Special Note: This press conference will be held before that evenings township committee meeting so it should be an event in itself worth the price of admission.
Anyone who doubts President Clinton’s commitment to electing Barack Obama should tune in tonight
The Hill - Leading the News
By Sam Youngman
DENVER — An aide to former president Bill Clinton said Tuesday, “Anyone who doubts President Clinton’s commitment to electing Barack Obama should tune in Wednesday night.”
Seeking to douse reports that Clinton remains angry about Obama’s victory in the Democratic presidential primary, Matt McKenna, a Clinton spokesman, said he was not undercutting the nominee in remarks to foreign dignitaries in which he seemed to suggest Democrats were making a mistake.
“It’s unfortunate that some in the media feel the need to twist every statement to fit a manufactured storyline,” McKenna said. “This was a serious discussion about solving some of the world’s most serious problems, not party politics.”
The Hill reported Tuesday that the former president, speaking just hours before his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), was to address the convention from the podium, said: “Suppose, for example, you’re a voter. And you’ve got candidate X and candidate Y. Candidate X agrees with you on everything, but you don’t think that person can deliver on anything. Candidate Y disagrees with you on half the issues, but you believe that on the other half, the candidate will be able to deliver. For whom would you vote?”
Then, perhaps mindful of how his off-the-cuff remarks might be taken, Clinton added after a pause: “This has nothing to do with what’s going on now.”
The comments are unlikely to be taken as an innocent mistake by those Democrats angry with the former president for, they say, not supporting the Illinois senator wholeheartedly, if not implicitly undercutting him.
The former president talked about the importance of a politician being able to deliver on his promises following an electoral victory and how voters factor in that ability when picking their candidate.
During the contentious and at times nasty nomination battle between Sens. Clinton and Obama (Ill.), the Clinton campaign repeatedly pushed the question of whether Obama, a freshman senator, had the experience or the ability to deliver on his promises if elected. Clinton, they argued, was more suited to do so.
The former president devoted much of his remarks to solving the global energy crisis and the need to address climate change.
But time and again he returned to his great love of politics, noting that it was not only the closeness and intensity of the nomination battle between his wife and Obama that piqued his interest this year, but also the “infusion of cash from small amounts by Internet donors and the explosion of blog sites.”
“For those of us interested in politics, it was an endlessly fascinating process already, and it’s still got some twists and turns between now and November,” Bill Clinton said.
The former president did say early in his remarks that the purpose of a party convention is to “introduce the candidate in a new and different and hopefully more positive way ... [to] unify the party and [aid in] defining the battle” between the two parties.
The unifying-the-party aspect is what has many Democrats concerned about Clinton’s Wednesday-night remarks.
Clinton has been a media magnet throughout the year as his remarks have caused heartache and headaches for former and current supporters.
From when he called Obama’s candidacy “a fairytale” to when he compared the Illinois senator’s win in South Carolina to that of the Rev. Jesse Jackson in 1988, many Clinton loyalists, detractors and analysts feel that Clinton did irreparable damage to both his wife’s candidacy and his legacy as president.
Now in a convention that continues to be racked with stories and questions about how unified the Democratic Party truly is, Clinton’s appearance Wednesday — and his tendency to go off the teleprompter — has some Democrats very nervous.
Former Clinton aide and Democratic strategist Paul Begala, however, told The Hill that the former president is solidly behind Obama’s candidacy.
“He’s totally for Barack,” Begala said Tuesday. “He’s totally for Barack.”
By Sam Youngman
DENVER — An aide to former president Bill Clinton said Tuesday, “Anyone who doubts President Clinton’s commitment to electing Barack Obama should tune in Wednesday night.”
Seeking to douse reports that Clinton remains angry about Obama’s victory in the Democratic presidential primary, Matt McKenna, a Clinton spokesman, said he was not undercutting the nominee in remarks to foreign dignitaries in which he seemed to suggest Democrats were making a mistake.
“It’s unfortunate that some in the media feel the need to twist every statement to fit a manufactured storyline,” McKenna said. “This was a serious discussion about solving some of the world’s most serious problems, not party politics.”
The Hill reported Tuesday that the former president, speaking just hours before his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), was to address the convention from the podium, said: “Suppose, for example, you’re a voter. And you’ve got candidate X and candidate Y. Candidate X agrees with you on everything, but you don’t think that person can deliver on anything. Candidate Y disagrees with you on half the issues, but you believe that on the other half, the candidate will be able to deliver. For whom would you vote?”
Then, perhaps mindful of how his off-the-cuff remarks might be taken, Clinton added after a pause: “This has nothing to do with what’s going on now.”
The comments are unlikely to be taken as an innocent mistake by those Democrats angry with the former president for, they say, not supporting the Illinois senator wholeheartedly, if not implicitly undercutting him.
The former president talked about the importance of a politician being able to deliver on his promises following an electoral victory and how voters factor in that ability when picking their candidate.
During the contentious and at times nasty nomination battle between Sens. Clinton and Obama (Ill.), the Clinton campaign repeatedly pushed the question of whether Obama, a freshman senator, had the experience or the ability to deliver on his promises if elected. Clinton, they argued, was more suited to do so.
The former president devoted much of his remarks to solving the global energy crisis and the need to address climate change.
But time and again he returned to his great love of politics, noting that it was not only the closeness and intensity of the nomination battle between his wife and Obama that piqued his interest this year, but also the “infusion of cash from small amounts by Internet donors and the explosion of blog sites.”
“For those of us interested in politics, it was an endlessly fascinating process already, and it’s still got some twists and turns between now and November,” Bill Clinton said.
The former president did say early in his remarks that the purpose of a party convention is to “introduce the candidate in a new and different and hopefully more positive way ... [to] unify the party and [aid in] defining the battle” between the two parties.
The unifying-the-party aspect is what has many Democrats concerned about Clinton’s Wednesday-night remarks.
Clinton has been a media magnet throughout the year as his remarks have caused heartache and headaches for former and current supporters.
From when he called Obama’s candidacy “a fairytale” to when he compared the Illinois senator’s win in South Carolina to that of the Rev. Jesse Jackson in 1988, many Clinton loyalists, detractors and analysts feel that Clinton did irreparable damage to both his wife’s candidacy and his legacy as president.
Now in a convention that continues to be racked with stories and questions about how unified the Democratic Party truly is, Clinton’s appearance Wednesday — and his tendency to go off the teleprompter — has some Democrats very nervous.
Former Clinton aide and Democratic strategist Paul Begala, however, told The Hill that the former president is solidly behind Obama’s candidacy.
“He’s totally for Barack,” Begala said Tuesday. “He’s totally for Barack.”
Hillary Clinton speaks at convention. The press concocts a story
After last nights rousing and historic address in front of the Democratic National Convention in which Hillary Clinton gave her support to Barack Obama, Eric Boehlert has a an enlightening column over at Media Matters today.
For weeks now political pundits and the media have been questioning Clinton's motives for allowing her name to be placed into nomination for the presidency tonight. They have claimed that this is all a ploy by the Clinton's to promote disharmony among rank and file Democrats and to somehow steal the spotlight and nomination away from Obama.
This is simply not true.
In his column, Boehlert puts into historical perspective last night speech by Hillary Clinton and what it means to the Democrats to have her name be placed into nomination. The Clinton critics all seem to forget their convention history when it comes to Hillary.
Click on the headline to read Eric Boehlert's column
Union leader: Racism keeps Obama from building lead
The Hill
By Kevin Bogardus
DENVER — A prominent union leader on Tuesday blamed racism for Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) failure to build a big lead over GOP rival Sen. John McCain.
Gerald McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), said many workers are considering voting for McCain (R-Ariz.) because of his military service and status as a hero of the Vietnam War.
McEntee said several union members had approached him, saying they could not vote for Obama because of his race. He also said some local union presidents have failed to support Obama out of fear.
“There are some local union presidents that are afraid — yes, that’s the word, afraid — to hand out literature for Barack Obama,” said McEntee.
McEntee said union members need to consider Obama’s voting record on labor issues, not his race.
“You can’t vote for Barack Obama because he’s black? That’s bulls--t. Absolute bulls--t,” said McEntee to a standing ovation from the crowd.
McEntee said that the race between Obama and McCain should not be close and that the Democrat should have a much bigger lead in the polls.
“We have to wake up, wake up our own members,” said McEntee. “It’s a no-brainer, a no-brainer.”
McEntee encouraged the Illinois delegates to campaign in other states for Obama, since they know the senator best.
Key Democrats this week have voiced worries that Obama does not have a bigger lead over McCain, who is hampered by President Bush’s unpopularity. Other union officials also have cited Obama’s race as a reason why some white union members are not embracing him.
McEntee said McCain is not a friend of unions and members must campaign for Obama and spread the message of his support for labor. He said unions will be in deep trouble if Obama is defeated for the presidency.
“If we don’t win those states — excuse my language, I know it’s early — but we will be in the proverbial s--thouse for the next four years,” McEntee said.
By Kevin Bogardus
DENVER — A prominent union leader on Tuesday blamed racism for Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) failure to build a big lead over GOP rival Sen. John McCain.
Gerald McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), said many workers are considering voting for McCain (R-Ariz.) because of his military service and status as a hero of the Vietnam War.
McEntee said several union members had approached him, saying they could not vote for Obama because of his race. He also said some local union presidents have failed to support Obama out of fear.
“There are some local union presidents that are afraid — yes, that’s the word, afraid — to hand out literature for Barack Obama,” said McEntee.
McEntee said union members need to consider Obama’s voting record on labor issues, not his race.
“You can’t vote for Barack Obama because he’s black? That’s bulls--t. Absolute bulls--t,” said McEntee to a standing ovation from the crowd.
McEntee said that the race between Obama and McCain should not be close and that the Democrat should have a much bigger lead in the polls.
“We have to wake up, wake up our own members,” said McEntee. “It’s a no-brainer, a no-brainer.”
McEntee encouraged the Illinois delegates to campaign in other states for Obama, since they know the senator best.
Key Democrats this week have voiced worries that Obama does not have a bigger lead over McCain, who is hampered by President Bush’s unpopularity. Other union officials also have cited Obama’s race as a reason why some white union members are not embracing him.
McEntee said McCain is not a friend of unions and members must campaign for Obama and spread the message of his support for labor. He said unions will be in deep trouble if Obama is defeated for the presidency.
“If we don’t win those states — excuse my language, I know it’s early — but we will be in the proverbial s--thouse for the next four years,” McEntee said.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
McCain Camp Tries To Downplay Top Aide Lobbying In Favor Of Gun Rights For Suspected Terrorists
Think Progress
by Satyam
In 2007, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) introduced legislation giving the Justice Department the discretion to prohibit gun sales to terror suspects. The legislation was supported by gun-control groups as well as the Bush administration.
Siding with the gun industry in opposing closing this “terror gap” was Randy Scheunemann, now Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) top foreign policy adviser. Newsweek reports that Scheunemann lobbied against the bill on behalf of the National Shooting Sports Foundation:
One group opposed to closing the loophole is the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a gun manufacturers’ trade association. Until this spring, one of its congressional lobbyists was Randy Scheunemann … Registration documents filed by Scheunemann’s company, Orion Strategies, list the terror-gap bill as one of its specific lobbying objectives, and the registrations listed Scheunemann as a lobbyist until he took a leave.
In response, the McCain campaign “declined to say if Scheunemann had ever lobbied McCain on gun-control bills.” McCain spokesperson Jill Hazelbaker said that Scheunemann is a “foreign-policy adviser.” In March, however, Scheunemann told National Journal that “he has weighed in with advice on Second Amendment and firearms issues” in advising McCain:
Officially the top foreign policy and national security adviser to McCain’s campaign, Scheunemann told National Journal in March he has weighed in with advice on Second Amendment and firearms issues. He said he had stopped lobbying for all his clients early this year, and his lobbying registration forms show that the NRA work ended at the end of 2007.
After McCain spoke to the NRA national convention in May, “Scheunemann spent most of his time at the event backstage — where McCain had a brief meeting with NRA leaders.”
Hinting at yet another conflict of interest, the McCain campaign “refused to answer questions about whether the senator supports or opposes the White House plan to close the loophole” giving expanded gun rights to terrorists, reports Newsweek.
by Satyam
In 2007, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) introduced legislation giving the Justice Department the discretion to prohibit gun sales to terror suspects. The legislation was supported by gun-control groups as well as the Bush administration.
Siding with the gun industry in opposing closing this “terror gap” was Randy Scheunemann, now Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) top foreign policy adviser. Newsweek reports that Scheunemann lobbied against the bill on behalf of the National Shooting Sports Foundation:
One group opposed to closing the loophole is the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a gun manufacturers’ trade association. Until this spring, one of its congressional lobbyists was Randy Scheunemann … Registration documents filed by Scheunemann’s company, Orion Strategies, list the terror-gap bill as one of its specific lobbying objectives, and the registrations listed Scheunemann as a lobbyist until he took a leave.
In response, the McCain campaign “declined to say if Scheunemann had ever lobbied McCain on gun-control bills.” McCain spokesperson Jill Hazelbaker said that Scheunemann is a “foreign-policy adviser.” In March, however, Scheunemann told National Journal that “he has weighed in with advice on Second Amendment and firearms issues” in advising McCain:
Officially the top foreign policy and national security adviser to McCain’s campaign, Scheunemann told National Journal in March he has weighed in with advice on Second Amendment and firearms issues. He said he had stopped lobbying for all his clients early this year, and his lobbying registration forms show that the NRA work ended at the end of 2007.
After McCain spoke to the NRA national convention in May, “Scheunemann spent most of his time at the event backstage — where McCain had a brief meeting with NRA leaders.”
Hinting at yet another conflict of interest, the McCain campaign “refused to answer questions about whether the senator supports or opposes the White House plan to close the loophole” giving expanded gun rights to terrorists, reports Newsweek.
Petraeus Disagrees With McCain, Says Success In Iraq Was Possible Without The Surge»
Think Progress
By Ben
Gen. David Petraeus, top commander of coalition military forces in Iraq, recently sat down with Newsweek to do a “valedictory” interview before he takes up his new post as CENTCOM commander next month.
Newsweek reported that while Petraeus recognized that al-Qaeda in Iraq has been significantly diminished, he refusesd to say the terror group had been “defeated.” Moreover, Petraeus acknowledged that the recent successes in Iraq may have been possible without the surge:
Petraeus is careful not to credit all the progress to the surge of U.S. troops in 2007. The sea change came last year from a series of movements now known as the Awakening. […] So would the Sunni Awakening have succeeded without the surge? Possibly, he concedes.
Yet, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) disagrees with Petraeus, who McCain recently named as one of “the three wisest people” that he would rely heavily on as president. Last month during an interview with CBS News anchor Katie Couric, McCain dismissed the notion that security in Iraq may have improved without the so-called “surge” of U.S. forces there:
COURIC: Sen. Obama […] says that there might have been improved security even without the surge. What’s your response to that?
McCAIN: I don’t know how you respond to something that is such a false depiction of what actually happened.
Also last month, McCain declared outright that “we have succeeded in Iraq. We have succeeded.” Again, Petraeus cautioned against such rhetoric, Newsweek reported:
As the general’s counterinsurgency guidance puts it, under the rubric “Manage Expectations”: “Avoid premature declarations of success.” […] “The champagne bottle remains in the back of the refrigerator,” he says.
However, McCain and his chief campaign surrogates have been declaring success in Iraq for quite some time. It is therefore unlikely they will be taking Petraeus’s advice.
By Ben
Gen. David Petraeus, top commander of coalition military forces in Iraq, recently sat down with Newsweek to do a “valedictory” interview before he takes up his new post as CENTCOM commander next month.
Newsweek reported that while Petraeus recognized that al-Qaeda in Iraq has been significantly diminished, he refusesd to say the terror group had been “defeated.” Moreover, Petraeus acknowledged that the recent successes in Iraq may have been possible without the surge:
Petraeus is careful not to credit all the progress to the surge of U.S. troops in 2007. The sea change came last year from a series of movements now known as the Awakening. […] So would the Sunni Awakening have succeeded without the surge? Possibly, he concedes.
Yet, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) disagrees with Petraeus, who McCain recently named as one of “the three wisest people” that he would rely heavily on as president. Last month during an interview with CBS News anchor Katie Couric, McCain dismissed the notion that security in Iraq may have improved without the so-called “surge” of U.S. forces there:
COURIC: Sen. Obama […] says that there might have been improved security even without the surge. What’s your response to that?
McCAIN: I don’t know how you respond to something that is such a false depiction of what actually happened.
Also last month, McCain declared outright that “we have succeeded in Iraq. We have succeeded.” Again, Petraeus cautioned against such rhetoric, Newsweek reported:
As the general’s counterinsurgency guidance puts it, under the rubric “Manage Expectations”: “Avoid premature declarations of success.” […] “The champagne bottle remains in the back of the refrigerator,” he says.
However, McCain and his chief campaign surrogates have been declaring success in Iraq for quite some time. It is therefore unlikely they will be taking Petraeus’s advice.
TED KENNEDY TRIBUTE VIDEO: Denver Convention
If you haven't seen this tribute of Ted Kennedy from last nights events at the Democratic Convention in Denver, take a look at it now. It is moving and inspirational.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Myths and falsehoods regarding Obama's votes on "born alive" bills
Media Matters
Fri, Aug 22, 2008
In reporting on abortion-rights opponents' criticism of Sen. Barack Obama's opposition as an Illinois state senator to bills seeking to amend the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975, the media have promoted numerous myths and falsehoods about Obama and the legislation. In several instances, the media have simply repeated false accusations -- or made the accusations themselves -- that Obama's opposition amounted to support for infanticide. For example, on the August 18 edition of his radio show, Rush Limbaugh claimed that Obama "believes it is proper to kill a baby that has survived an abortion," while right-wing pundit Ann Coulter said that Obama "wants the doctors ... chasing it through the delivery room to make sure it gets killed." Further, author Jerome Corsi claimed that "[e]ven if a child was born, he said the woman still had the right to kill the child in an abortion," and Oregonian associate editor David Reinhard wrote that Obama's opposition was "enabling infanticide." In fact, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted, Obama and other opponents said the bill posed a threat to abortion rights and was unnecessary because, they said, Illinois law already prohibited the conduct supposedly addressed by the bill.
Other myths and falsehoods that the media have promoted include the following:
MYTH: IL attorney general's letter contradicts Obama's explanation for opposing the legislation
Media figures have misrepresented findings by the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) and the office of Illinois' then-Attorney General Jim Ryan to claim that Obama's assertion that Illinois law already "mandate[d] lifesaving measures for premature babies" was false. But the attorney general's letter in no way undermines Obama's statement. Moreover, tasked by the state attorney general with investigating allegations that fetuses surviving abortions at an Illinois hospital were not receiving medical care, the IDPH reportedly said, consistent with Obama's statement, that had the allegations proved true, the alleged conduct would have been illegal.
In his book The Case Against Barack Obama, author David Freddoso writes that a July 2000 letter from Ryan's office refutes Obama's statement. The letter was a response to Concerned Women for America regarding a complaint by nurse Jill Stanek, who claimed that fetuses that were born alive at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, were abandoned without treatment, including in a soiled utility room. Under Ryan's letterhead, chief deputy attorney general Carole R. Doris wrote, in part:
On December 6, 1999, IDPH provided this office with its investigative report and advised us that IDPH's internal review did not indicate a violation of the Hospital Licensing Act or the Vital Records Act.
No other allegations or medical evidence to support any statutory violation (including the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act about which you inquired) were referred to our office by the Department for prosecution.
[...]
While we are deeply respectful of your serious concerns about the practices and methods of abortions at this hospital, we have concluded that there is no basis for legal action by this office against the Hospital or its employees, agents or staff at this time.
From that letter, Freddoso concludes that the state found that "[i]n leaving born babies to die without treatment, Christ Hospital was doing nothing illegal under the laws of Illinois." But the state's conclusions regarding the law were reportedly the opposite of what Freddoso claims; IDPH reportedly concluded that if the hospital had done what Stanek alleged, its actions would have been illegal under existing law.
In an August 2004 email discussion with Stanek, Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn quoted IDPH spokesman Tom Shafer stating, apparently in reference to Stanek and another nurse, Allison Baker: "[W]hat they were alleging were violations of existing law. ... We took (the allegations) very seriously." Zorn wrote further: "Shafer told me that the 1999 investigation reviewed logs, personnel files and medical records. It concluded, 'The allegation that infants were allowed to expire in a utility room could not be substantiated (and) all staff interviewed denied that any infant was ever left alone.' " From Zorn's 2004 blog post:
As you well know, Jill, the Illinois Atty. General's office, then under abortion foe Jim Ryan, was quite concerned about your allegations and directed the Illinois Dept. of Public Health to conduct a thorough investigation of the claims made by you and Allison Baker.
Why?
"Because what they were alleging were violations of existing law," IDPH spokesman Tom Shafer told me yesterday. "We took (the allegations) very seriously."
Shafer told me that the 1999 investigation reviewed logs, personnel files and medical records. It concluded, "The allegation that infants were allowed to expire in a utility room could not be substantiated (and) all staff interviewed denied that any infant was ever left alone."
Shafer was quick to add that neither he nor the IDPH report concluded that your testimony was untruthful or exaggerated to help advance your anti-abortion views -- simply that their investigation did not substantiate the allegations.
In other words, the IDPH's reported position supported Obama's explanation: Current law already "mandated lifesaving measures for premature babies." Freddoso writes of Obama's explanation: "This is not true. Such measures were not already the law in Illinois. Not according to the Department of Public Health. Not according to Attorney General Ryan" [emphasis in original]. But the letter does not, as Freddoso claims, assert that "[s]uch measures were not already the law in Illinois." Nor does the IDPH; indeed, Zorn quoted the IDPH spokesman saying that the actions alleged by Stanek would have violated the law at the time.
Myth: Jill Stanek is a credible source for media outlets to cite
In addition to Freddoso, several media outlets, including The New York Times, the Associated Press, Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, The New York Sun and The Hill have quoted or cited criticism of Obama by Stanek over his opposition to bills to amend the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975 without citing relevant facts that undermine her credibility. These facts include her suggestion that domestic violence is acceptable against women who have abortions; her support of billboards in Tanzania that say "Faithful Condom Users" in English and Swahili and displays a large skeleton and aimed to discourage condom use there in favor of abstinence and "be[ing] faithful"; and her citation of a report that "aborted fetuses are much sought after delicacies" in China to which she added, "I think this stuff is happening." Media Matters has laid out several of these statements by Stanek.
MYTH: A 2003 bill Obama voted against in committee would have had same effect as 2002 federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which even abortion-rights advocates did not oppose
Media figures including Freddoso and Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund have reported that the 2003 bill to amend the Illinois Abortion Law that Obama voted against was identical in its language to the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 (BAIPA), which Obama has said he would have supported. In reporting what they have characterized as an inconsistency in Obama's position, these media figures have advanced the false suggestion that the bills would have had the same effect. In fact, although both bills included language providing that the bills would not impinge on Roe v. Wade, Obama and abortion-rights advocates noted that Illinois law, unlike federal law at the time, includes statutory provisions specifically regulating abortion. Abortion-rights advocates said that in order for the Illinois bill to avoid restricting abortion rights in any way, it would also have to make explicit reference to Illinois law and make clear that it would not affect access to abortion under Illinois law.
In an August 15 Wall Street Journal column, Fund wrote that Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) supported the federal BAIPA and later added: "But in the Illinois Senate, when Mr. Obama chaired the Health and Human Services Committee, records show a bill consisting of exactly the same language two years later was voted down by six to four. Mr. Obama was one of the legislators opposing it."
Similarly, in an August 13 National Review Online article, Freddoso wrote that "Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) does not share his [Obama's] position. In 2001, just three months after Obama inveighed against protecting premature babies in Illinois, the United States Senate voted on the language of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. It contained no significant legal differences from the Illinois bill, but it did contain even more specific and redundant language stating that the bill did not apply to the unborn, only those already born." He continued: "But in case there is any ambiguity, the federal bill was identical, word for word, to the bill that Obama voted to kill two years later in the Illinois senate health committee, which he chaired."
But abortion-rights advocates in Illinois opposed the 2003 state bill because, they said, the language of the federal bill in Illinois would not sufficiently protect abortion rights in Illinois. Specifically, Planned Parenthood of Illinois has said:
Finally, perhaps the most significant difference between the federal and state versions of the legislation is the fact that the federal version applied to federal law while the state version applied to Illinois law. The federal legislation was considered to be a restatement of existing federal law. The federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act did not amend or change Illinois law. At the time, there were no federal laws regulating abortion in any way. Therefore, the federal law did not limit access to abortion services or threaten legal action against physicians. But, Illinois law does regulate abortion and medical practice. Therefore, it is the state legislation that would have affected abortion practice in Illinois, not federal law. While these differences between the federal and state legislation may appear to be just legal technicalities, when it came to medical care for pregnant women the actual impact would have been significant.
The group goes on to explain that that this affected the 2003 state legislation that Obama opposed:
On March 12, 2003 both bills [in a 2003 state package] were posted for consideration in the Illinois Senate Health and Human Services Committee which was chaired by Senator Barack Obama. The bills' sponsor, Senator Rick Winkel first presented SB 1082. He requested that an amendment be adopted to the bill which would change it to mirror the federal legislation passed in 2002. The amendment was adopted in a procedural move called "leave for attendance roll call" which is a courtesy that is afforded to bill sponsors in order to move committee hearings along in a timely fashion. Despite the fact that the bill then contained the same language as the federal law, it remained problematic because it still amended Illinois statutes regulating abortion, and it still was part of a package that included SB 1083. Senator Winkel presented SB 1082 to the committee and it failed on a vote of six members voting no (including Senator Obama) and four members voting yes. Chairman Obama asked Senator Winkel if he wished to present SB 1083. He declined. Senator Winkel did not present the bill because, due to the failure of SB 1082, SB 1083 lacked a definition of a "live born" fetus and, thus, was structurally flawed. SB 1082 and SB 1083 were not considered again that session.
Planned Parenthood states of the 2005 "compromise" bill that included legislative language making clear that the bill did not affect state abortion or medical practice law: "The enactment of HB 984 did not negatively impact access to abortion services in Illinois and medical care for pregnant women remains protected."
From Fund's column:
It turns out that while in the Illinois legislature, he [Obama] voted against a bill that would have defined a fully born baby who survived an abortion as a "person." The concept isn't that controversial even among liberal Democrats. Senator Barbara Boxer of California, the Senate's leading pro-choice champion, urged her fellow Democrats to vote for a federal version of the same concept back in 2001, saying such a provision did not impinge on the rights enshrined in the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion. The Born Alive Infants bill eventually passed the U.S. Senate by 98 to 0.
But in the Illinois Senate, when Mr. Obama chaired the Health and Human Services Committee, records show a bill consisting of exactly the same language two years later was voted down by six to four. Mr. Obama was one of the legislators opposing it.
From Freddoso's article:
Obama would speak against the born-alive protection bill once again when it was proposed in 2002, and he would kill the bill when it came before the committee he chaired in 2003, after Democrats had taken control of the Illinois General Assembly. His is a radical position that most abortion-choice advocates do not share.
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) does not share his position. In 2001, just three months after Obama inveighed against protecting premature babies in Illinois, the United States Senate voted on the language of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. It contained no significant legal differences from the Illinois bill, but it did contain even more specific and redundant language stating that the bill did not apply to the unborn, only those already born.
But in case there is any ambiguity, the federal bill was identical, word for word, to the bill that Obama voted to kill two years later in the Illinois senate health committee, which he chaired. Obama's work to kill the bill in 2003 has always been attested to by witnesses (committee records are poorly kept in Springfield), but yesterday the National Right to Life Committee found and revealed the document showing definitively that Obama had voted against it in committee -- against the exact same bill he is now falsely claiming on his own campaign website that he would have supported.
MYTH: Obama voted "present" on IL bill to avoid being the only senator to vote "no"
In The Obama Nation, Corsi falsely asserted that on March 30, 2001, Obama voted "present" on a bill amending the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975 that opponents said posed a threat to abortion rights because he didn't want to be the only state senator to vote against the bill. In fact, according to the transcript of the Senate's proceedings on the bill that day -- which Corsi himself cited -- the roll call for the vote was 34 voting aye, 6 voting no, and 12 voting present.
In The Obama Nation, Corsi wrote:
Not wanting to be the only Illinois state senator to vote against the bill, a move that Obama realized would be politically unpopular with his constituency, he took the easy way out and voted "Present." [Page 238]. [citing "State of Illinois, 92nd General Assembly, Regular Session, Senate Transcript, 20th Legislative Day, March 30, 2001, at http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf pp. 86-87"]
Pam Sutherland, the president and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, has reportedly said that Obama's "present" votes on "born alive" bills were part of a legislative strategy.
MYTH: Obama argued that protections for "a nine-month old fetus" would essentially "forbid abortions from taking place"
In his book, Corsi also falsely claimed that during the debate on the March 30, 2001, bill, "Obama rose to object that if the bill passed, and a nine-month-old fetus survived a late-term labor-induced abortion was deemed to be a person who had a right to live, then the law would "forbid abortions to take place" [Page 238]. In fact, Obama was not describing a "nine-month-old fetus," but rather specifically referring to "a previable fetus," asserting that defining it as a "person" under the law would "essentially bar abortions."
Fox News' Sean Hannity uncritically echoed Corsi's false claim on the August 15 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show.
—E.H.H., A.H.S., & R.S.K.
Fri, Aug 22, 2008
In reporting on abortion-rights opponents' criticism of Sen. Barack Obama's opposition as an Illinois state senator to bills seeking to amend the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975, the media have promoted numerous myths and falsehoods about Obama and the legislation. In several instances, the media have simply repeated false accusations -- or made the accusations themselves -- that Obama's opposition amounted to support for infanticide. For example, on the August 18 edition of his radio show, Rush Limbaugh claimed that Obama "believes it is proper to kill a baby that has survived an abortion," while right-wing pundit Ann Coulter said that Obama "wants the doctors ... chasing it through the delivery room to make sure it gets killed." Further, author Jerome Corsi claimed that "[e]ven if a child was born, he said the woman still had the right to kill the child in an abortion," and Oregonian associate editor David Reinhard wrote that Obama's opposition was "enabling infanticide." In fact, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted, Obama and other opponents said the bill posed a threat to abortion rights and was unnecessary because, they said, Illinois law already prohibited the conduct supposedly addressed by the bill.
Other myths and falsehoods that the media have promoted include the following:
MYTH: IL attorney general's letter contradicts Obama's explanation for opposing the legislation
Media figures have misrepresented findings by the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) and the office of Illinois' then-Attorney General Jim Ryan to claim that Obama's assertion that Illinois law already "mandate[d] lifesaving measures for premature babies" was false. But the attorney general's letter in no way undermines Obama's statement. Moreover, tasked by the state attorney general with investigating allegations that fetuses surviving abortions at an Illinois hospital were not receiving medical care, the IDPH reportedly said, consistent with Obama's statement, that had the allegations proved true, the alleged conduct would have been illegal.
In his book The Case Against Barack Obama, author David Freddoso writes that a July 2000 letter from Ryan's office refutes Obama's statement. The letter was a response to Concerned Women for America regarding a complaint by nurse Jill Stanek, who claimed that fetuses that were born alive at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, were abandoned without treatment, including in a soiled utility room. Under Ryan's letterhead, chief deputy attorney general Carole R. Doris wrote, in part:
On December 6, 1999, IDPH provided this office with its investigative report and advised us that IDPH's internal review did not indicate a violation of the Hospital Licensing Act or the Vital Records Act.
No other allegations or medical evidence to support any statutory violation (including the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act about which you inquired) were referred to our office by the Department for prosecution.
[...]
While we are deeply respectful of your serious concerns about the practices and methods of abortions at this hospital, we have concluded that there is no basis for legal action by this office against the Hospital or its employees, agents or staff at this time.
From that letter, Freddoso concludes that the state found that "[i]n leaving born babies to die without treatment, Christ Hospital was doing nothing illegal under the laws of Illinois." But the state's conclusions regarding the law were reportedly the opposite of what Freddoso claims; IDPH reportedly concluded that if the hospital had done what Stanek alleged, its actions would have been illegal under existing law.
In an August 2004 email discussion with Stanek, Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn quoted IDPH spokesman Tom Shafer stating, apparently in reference to Stanek and another nurse, Allison Baker: "[W]hat they were alleging were violations of existing law. ... We took (the allegations) very seriously." Zorn wrote further: "Shafer told me that the 1999 investigation reviewed logs, personnel files and medical records. It concluded, 'The allegation that infants were allowed to expire in a utility room could not be substantiated (and) all staff interviewed denied that any infant was ever left alone.' " From Zorn's 2004 blog post:
As you well know, Jill, the Illinois Atty. General's office, then under abortion foe Jim Ryan, was quite concerned about your allegations and directed the Illinois Dept. of Public Health to conduct a thorough investigation of the claims made by you and Allison Baker.
Why?
"Because what they were alleging were violations of existing law," IDPH spokesman Tom Shafer told me yesterday. "We took (the allegations) very seriously."
Shafer told me that the 1999 investigation reviewed logs, personnel files and medical records. It concluded, "The allegation that infants were allowed to expire in a utility room could not be substantiated (and) all staff interviewed denied that any infant was ever left alone."
Shafer was quick to add that neither he nor the IDPH report concluded that your testimony was untruthful or exaggerated to help advance your anti-abortion views -- simply that their investigation did not substantiate the allegations.
In other words, the IDPH's reported position supported Obama's explanation: Current law already "mandated lifesaving measures for premature babies." Freddoso writes of Obama's explanation: "This is not true. Such measures were not already the law in Illinois. Not according to the Department of Public Health. Not according to Attorney General Ryan" [emphasis in original]. But the letter does not, as Freddoso claims, assert that "[s]uch measures were not already the law in Illinois." Nor does the IDPH; indeed, Zorn quoted the IDPH spokesman saying that the actions alleged by Stanek would have violated the law at the time.
Myth: Jill Stanek is a credible source for media outlets to cite
In addition to Freddoso, several media outlets, including The New York Times, the Associated Press, Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, The New York Sun and The Hill have quoted or cited criticism of Obama by Stanek over his opposition to bills to amend the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975 without citing relevant facts that undermine her credibility. These facts include her suggestion that domestic violence is acceptable against women who have abortions; her support of billboards in Tanzania that say "Faithful Condom Users" in English and Swahili and displays a large skeleton and aimed to discourage condom use there in favor of abstinence and "be[ing] faithful"; and her citation of a report that "aborted fetuses are much sought after delicacies" in China to which she added, "I think this stuff is happening." Media Matters has laid out several of these statements by Stanek.
MYTH: A 2003 bill Obama voted against in committee would have had same effect as 2002 federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which even abortion-rights advocates did not oppose
Media figures including Freddoso and Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund have reported that the 2003 bill to amend the Illinois Abortion Law that Obama voted against was identical in its language to the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 (BAIPA), which Obama has said he would have supported. In reporting what they have characterized as an inconsistency in Obama's position, these media figures have advanced the false suggestion that the bills would have had the same effect. In fact, although both bills included language providing that the bills would not impinge on Roe v. Wade, Obama and abortion-rights advocates noted that Illinois law, unlike federal law at the time, includes statutory provisions specifically regulating abortion. Abortion-rights advocates said that in order for the Illinois bill to avoid restricting abortion rights in any way, it would also have to make explicit reference to Illinois law and make clear that it would not affect access to abortion under Illinois law.
In an August 15 Wall Street Journal column, Fund wrote that Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) supported the federal BAIPA and later added: "But in the Illinois Senate, when Mr. Obama chaired the Health and Human Services Committee, records show a bill consisting of exactly the same language two years later was voted down by six to four. Mr. Obama was one of the legislators opposing it."
Similarly, in an August 13 National Review Online article, Freddoso wrote that "Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) does not share his [Obama's] position. In 2001, just three months after Obama inveighed against protecting premature babies in Illinois, the United States Senate voted on the language of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. It contained no significant legal differences from the Illinois bill, but it did contain even more specific and redundant language stating that the bill did not apply to the unborn, only those already born." He continued: "But in case there is any ambiguity, the federal bill was identical, word for word, to the bill that Obama voted to kill two years later in the Illinois senate health committee, which he chaired."
But abortion-rights advocates in Illinois opposed the 2003 state bill because, they said, the language of the federal bill in Illinois would not sufficiently protect abortion rights in Illinois. Specifically, Planned Parenthood of Illinois has said:
Finally, perhaps the most significant difference between the federal and state versions of the legislation is the fact that the federal version applied to federal law while the state version applied to Illinois law. The federal legislation was considered to be a restatement of existing federal law. The federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act did not amend or change Illinois law. At the time, there were no federal laws regulating abortion in any way. Therefore, the federal law did not limit access to abortion services or threaten legal action against physicians. But, Illinois law does regulate abortion and medical practice. Therefore, it is the state legislation that would have affected abortion practice in Illinois, not federal law. While these differences between the federal and state legislation may appear to be just legal technicalities, when it came to medical care for pregnant women the actual impact would have been significant.
The group goes on to explain that that this affected the 2003 state legislation that Obama opposed:
On March 12, 2003 both bills [in a 2003 state package] were posted for consideration in the Illinois Senate Health and Human Services Committee which was chaired by Senator Barack Obama. The bills' sponsor, Senator Rick Winkel first presented SB 1082. He requested that an amendment be adopted to the bill which would change it to mirror the federal legislation passed in 2002. The amendment was adopted in a procedural move called "leave for attendance roll call" which is a courtesy that is afforded to bill sponsors in order to move committee hearings along in a timely fashion. Despite the fact that the bill then contained the same language as the federal law, it remained problematic because it still amended Illinois statutes regulating abortion, and it still was part of a package that included SB 1083. Senator Winkel presented SB 1082 to the committee and it failed on a vote of six members voting no (including Senator Obama) and four members voting yes. Chairman Obama asked Senator Winkel if he wished to present SB 1083. He declined. Senator Winkel did not present the bill because, due to the failure of SB 1082, SB 1083 lacked a definition of a "live born" fetus and, thus, was structurally flawed. SB 1082 and SB 1083 were not considered again that session.
Planned Parenthood states of the 2005 "compromise" bill that included legislative language making clear that the bill did not affect state abortion or medical practice law: "The enactment of HB 984 did not negatively impact access to abortion services in Illinois and medical care for pregnant women remains protected."
From Fund's column:
It turns out that while in the Illinois legislature, he [Obama] voted against a bill that would have defined a fully born baby who survived an abortion as a "person." The concept isn't that controversial even among liberal Democrats. Senator Barbara Boxer of California, the Senate's leading pro-choice champion, urged her fellow Democrats to vote for a federal version of the same concept back in 2001, saying such a provision did not impinge on the rights enshrined in the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion. The Born Alive Infants bill eventually passed the U.S. Senate by 98 to 0.
But in the Illinois Senate, when Mr. Obama chaired the Health and Human Services Committee, records show a bill consisting of exactly the same language two years later was voted down by six to four. Mr. Obama was one of the legislators opposing it.
From Freddoso's article:
Obama would speak against the born-alive protection bill once again when it was proposed in 2002, and he would kill the bill when it came before the committee he chaired in 2003, after Democrats had taken control of the Illinois General Assembly. His is a radical position that most abortion-choice advocates do not share.
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) does not share his position. In 2001, just three months after Obama inveighed against protecting premature babies in Illinois, the United States Senate voted on the language of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. It contained no significant legal differences from the Illinois bill, but it did contain even more specific and redundant language stating that the bill did not apply to the unborn, only those already born.
But in case there is any ambiguity, the federal bill was identical, word for word, to the bill that Obama voted to kill two years later in the Illinois senate health committee, which he chaired. Obama's work to kill the bill in 2003 has always been attested to by witnesses (committee records are poorly kept in Springfield), but yesterday the National Right to Life Committee found and revealed the document showing definitively that Obama had voted against it in committee -- against the exact same bill he is now falsely claiming on his own campaign website that he would have supported.
MYTH: Obama voted "present" on IL bill to avoid being the only senator to vote "no"
In The Obama Nation, Corsi falsely asserted that on March 30, 2001, Obama voted "present" on a bill amending the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975 that opponents said posed a threat to abortion rights because he didn't want to be the only state senator to vote against the bill. In fact, according to the transcript of the Senate's proceedings on the bill that day -- which Corsi himself cited -- the roll call for the vote was 34 voting aye, 6 voting no, and 12 voting present.
In The Obama Nation, Corsi wrote:
Not wanting to be the only Illinois state senator to vote against the bill, a move that Obama realized would be politically unpopular with his constituency, he took the easy way out and voted "Present." [Page 238]. [citing "State of Illinois, 92nd General Assembly, Regular Session, Senate Transcript, 20th Legislative Day, March 30, 2001, at http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf pp. 86-87"]
Pam Sutherland, the president and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, has reportedly said that Obama's "present" votes on "born alive" bills were part of a legislative strategy.
MYTH: Obama argued that protections for "a nine-month old fetus" would essentially "forbid abortions from taking place"
In his book, Corsi also falsely claimed that during the debate on the March 30, 2001, bill, "Obama rose to object that if the bill passed, and a nine-month-old fetus survived a late-term labor-induced abortion was deemed to be a person who had a right to live, then the law would "forbid abortions to take place" [Page 238]. In fact, Obama was not describing a "nine-month-old fetus," but rather specifically referring to "a previable fetus," asserting that defining it as a "person" under the law would "essentially bar abortions."
Fox News' Sean Hannity uncritically echoed Corsi's false claim on the August 15 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show.
—E.H.H., A.H.S., & R.S.K.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
A message from Joe Biden
I'd like to thank you for the warm welcome I've received as the newest member of this campaign. What Barack has accomplished over the past 19 months is incredible, and it's an honor to be part of it. I'm looking forward to rolling up my sleeves and getting involved.
This is no ordinary time, and this is no ordinary election. I plan to do everything I can to help Barack take back the White House.
I don't need to tell you that John McCain will just bring us another four years of the same. You can't change America when you supported George Bush's policies 95% of the time.
Barack Obama has the vision and the courage to bring real change to Washington.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Friday, August 22, 2008
McCain expects Obama to get 15 percent bump in polls
By Sam Youngman
Posted: 08/22/08
The Hill - Leading the News
Barack Obama may get a 15 percent bump in the polls from the announcement of his vice presidential pick and next week’s Democratic convention, according to a memo from John McCain's campaign.
The memo from campaign strategy director Sarah Simmons attempted to set expectations for the Democratic senator from Illinois, who has failed to break 50 percent in most polls since clinching the delegates necessary to win his party’s nomination. She also blamed what she predicted will be worshipful media coverage of Obama.
Simmons’s memo said that the media coverage surrounding Obama's acceptance speech will be so "effusive," the campaign thinks Obama will see a polling bump comparable to former President Bill Clinton's 16-point bump following his convention in 1992.
“Obama’s stadium address on Thursday — the 45th anniversary of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s 'I Have A Dream' speech — will result in effusive and overwhelming press coverage,” Simmons wrote in the Friday memo. “On Thursday, Obama will give a great speech, as has been his trademark. The press will sing his praises and remark on his historic address and Obama’s place in history.”
Simmons also said the McCain campaign anticipates that Obama will be able to use the convention to make strides in winning over disaffected supporters of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), and that will add to his bump.
She also said Obama's decision to delay announcing his choice of running mate until close to the convention could give him a bump. Such announcements usually result in a five-point bump that “dissipates” quickly, but Simmons said it could endure because of the nonstop media coverage that will follow from the announcement to Obama’s acceptance speech.
Simmons also acknowledged in the memo that the Democratic convention is a historic event, noting that "Democrats have just completed an incredibly compelling primary cycle that has both energized and divided the Democratic Party."
"We believe Obama will see a significant bump, and believe it is reasonable to expect nearly a 15-point bounce out of a convention in this political environment," Simmons wrote.
Posted: 08/22/08
The Hill - Leading the News
Barack Obama may get a 15 percent bump in the polls from the announcement of his vice presidential pick and next week’s Democratic convention, according to a memo from John McCain's campaign.
The memo from campaign strategy director Sarah Simmons attempted to set expectations for the Democratic senator from Illinois, who has failed to break 50 percent in most polls since clinching the delegates necessary to win his party’s nomination. She also blamed what she predicted will be worshipful media coverage of Obama.
Simmons’s memo said that the media coverage surrounding Obama's acceptance speech will be so "effusive," the campaign thinks Obama will see a polling bump comparable to former President Bill Clinton's 16-point bump following his convention in 1992.
“Obama’s stadium address on Thursday — the 45th anniversary of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s 'I Have A Dream' speech — will result in effusive and overwhelming press coverage,” Simmons wrote in the Friday memo. “On Thursday, Obama will give a great speech, as has been his trademark. The press will sing his praises and remark on his historic address and Obama’s place in history.”
Simmons also said the McCain campaign anticipates that Obama will be able to use the convention to make strides in winning over disaffected supporters of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), and that will add to his bump.
She also said Obama's decision to delay announcing his choice of running mate until close to the convention could give him a bump. Such announcements usually result in a five-point bump that “dissipates” quickly, but Simmons said it could endure because of the nonstop media coverage that will follow from the announcement to Obama’s acceptance speech.
Simmons also acknowledged in the memo that the Democratic convention is a historic event, noting that "Democrats have just completed an incredibly compelling primary cycle that has both energized and divided the Democratic Party."
"We believe Obama will see a significant bump, and believe it is reasonable to expect nearly a 15-point bounce out of a convention in this political environment," Simmons wrote.
Bernanke says economic troubles not over
By Klaus Marre
Posted: 08/22/08
The Hill - Leading the News
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on Friday said the country’s financial crisis is not yet over, noting that its effects on the broader economy are increasingly showing.
“Although we have seen improved functioning in some markets, the financial storm that reached gale force [about a year ago] has not yet subsided, and its effects on the broader economy are becoming apparent in the form of softening economic activity and rising unemployment,” Bernanke said at an economic symposium in Wyoming.
“Add to this mix a jump in inflation, in part the product of a global commodity boom, and the result has been one of the most challenging economic and policy environments in memory,” the Fed chairman stated.
However, Bernanke expressed optimism that inflation would moderate toward the end of the year and in 2009.
“Nevertheless, the inflation outlook remains highly uncertain, not least because of the difficulty of predicting the future course of commodity prices, and we will continue to monitor inflation and inflation expectations closely,” he stated.
Posted: 08/22/08
The Hill - Leading the News
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on Friday said the country’s financial crisis is not yet over, noting that its effects on the broader economy are increasingly showing.
“Although we have seen improved functioning in some markets, the financial storm that reached gale force [about a year ago] has not yet subsided, and its effects on the broader economy are becoming apparent in the form of softening economic activity and rising unemployment,” Bernanke said at an economic symposium in Wyoming.
“Add to this mix a jump in inflation, in part the product of a global commodity boom, and the result has been one of the most challenging economic and policy environments in memory,” the Fed chairman stated.
However, Bernanke expressed optimism that inflation would moderate toward the end of the year and in 2009.
“Nevertheless, the inflation outlook remains highly uncertain, not least because of the difficulty of predicting the future course of commodity prices, and we will continue to monitor inflation and inflation expectations closely,” he stated.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Limbaugh: Obama's nomination "goes back to the fact that nobody had the guts to stand up and say no to a black guy"
Here is yet another example of how Rush Limbaugh and the Republican right must make race an issue to scare people into voting for John McCain over Barak Obama. When it is not possible to win an election on issues or ideas, the right wing smear campaign needs appeal to the lowest common denominator of an individuals character to get their messages heard.
On the August 19 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh said that "it is striking how unqualified [Sen. Barack] Obama is and, and how this whole thing came about with, within the Democrat [sic] Party. I think it really goes back to the fact that nobody had the guts to stand up and say no to a black guy." Limbaugh went on to say: "I think this is a classic illustration here where affirmative action has reared its ugly head against them. It's the reverse of it. They've, they've ended up nominating and placing at the top of their ticket somebody who's not qualified, who has not earned it." Limbaugh added: "It's perfect affirmative action. And because of all this guilt and the historic nature of things, nobody had the guts to say, well, wait a minute, do we really want to do this?"
Click on the headline to see the actual transcript of Limbaugh's conversation with the caller courtesy of Media Matters
On the August 19 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh said that "it is striking how unqualified [Sen. Barack] Obama is and, and how this whole thing came about with, within the Democrat [sic] Party. I think it really goes back to the fact that nobody had the guts to stand up and say no to a black guy." Limbaugh went on to say: "I think this is a classic illustration here where affirmative action has reared its ugly head against them. It's the reverse of it. They've, they've ended up nominating and placing at the top of their ticket somebody who's not qualified, who has not earned it." Limbaugh added: "It's perfect affirmative action. And because of all this guilt and the historic nature of things, nobody had the guts to say, well, wait a minute, do we really want to do this?"
Click on the headline to see the actual transcript of Limbaugh's conversation with the caller courtesy of Media Matters
Discussing Obama, Limbaugh suggests Dems, media believe "you can't criticize the little black man-child"
Where have we heard this type of racial rhetoric before, can anyone tell me? I guess because Limbaugh is the voice of the conservative right he gets a pass because he didn't actually call Obama the "N" word, but he might as well have after these remarks
On the August 20 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh asserted of attacks by Sen. John McCain against Sen. Barack Obama: "[S]ee, there are Democrats -- the drive-bys" -- a term Limbaugh uses to denote the national media -- "are just so upset with these so-called 'ferocious attacks.' These have been benign. Even the Britney Spears/Paris Hilton ad was funny. It was benign." He later added: "It's -- you know, it's just -- it's just we can't hit the girl. I don't care how far feminism's saying, you can't hit the girl, and you can't -- you can't criticize the little black man-child. You just can't do it, 'cause it's just not right, It's not fair. He's such a victim."
Limbaugh previously claimed that "nobody criticizes [Sen.] Hillary [Clinton]. ... Well, you might say, 'No, Michelle Obama and Mrs. [Elizabeth] Edwards are out there criticizing her,' but, see, I finally figured this one out, too. You can't hit the girl. You just -- you can't hit the girl." He continued: "And for [former Democratic presidential candidate John] Edwards and Obama to go out there and criticize Hillary would -- she would -- she plays the victim better than anybody does, and she could make real hay out of that. So they've got their wives out there ripping her."
From the August 20 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: Quickly, L.A. Times poll: "More striking, however, is the drop in Obama's favorable rating. Obama's favorable rating has slid from 59 percent to 48 percent since June. At the same time his negative rating has risen from 27 to 35 percent. The bulk of that shift stems from Republicans souring on Obama amid ferocious attacks on the Democrat by McCain and his allies." That's it -- see, there are Democrats -- the drive-bys are just so upset with these so-called "ferocious attacks." These have been benign. Even the Britney Spears/Paris Hilton ad was funny. It was benign.
Obama's patriotism is not being attacked in an ad. McCain's just out there saying he's putting his own personal political ambition ahead of the country's. It's -- you know, it's just -- it's just we can't hit the girl. I don't care how far feminism's saying, you can't hit the girl, and you can't -- you can't criticize the little black man-child. You just can't do it, 'cause it's just not right. It's not fair. He's such a victim.
Thanks Media Matters
On the August 20 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh asserted of attacks by Sen. John McCain against Sen. Barack Obama: "[S]ee, there are Democrats -- the drive-bys" -- a term Limbaugh uses to denote the national media -- "are just so upset with these so-called 'ferocious attacks.' These have been benign. Even the Britney Spears/Paris Hilton ad was funny. It was benign." He later added: "It's -- you know, it's just -- it's just we can't hit the girl. I don't care how far feminism's saying, you can't hit the girl, and you can't -- you can't criticize the little black man-child. You just can't do it, 'cause it's just not right, It's not fair. He's such a victim."
Limbaugh previously claimed that "nobody criticizes [Sen.] Hillary [Clinton]. ... Well, you might say, 'No, Michelle Obama and Mrs. [Elizabeth] Edwards are out there criticizing her,' but, see, I finally figured this one out, too. You can't hit the girl. You just -- you can't hit the girl." He continued: "And for [former Democratic presidential candidate John] Edwards and Obama to go out there and criticize Hillary would -- she would -- she plays the victim better than anybody does, and she could make real hay out of that. So they've got their wives out there ripping her."
From the August 20 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: Quickly, L.A. Times poll: "More striking, however, is the drop in Obama's favorable rating. Obama's favorable rating has slid from 59 percent to 48 percent since June. At the same time his negative rating has risen from 27 to 35 percent. The bulk of that shift stems from Republicans souring on Obama amid ferocious attacks on the Democrat by McCain and his allies." That's it -- see, there are Democrats -- the drive-bys are just so upset with these so-called "ferocious attacks." These have been benign. Even the Britney Spears/Paris Hilton ad was funny. It was benign.
Obama's patriotism is not being attacked in an ad. McCain's just out there saying he's putting his own personal political ambition ahead of the country's. It's -- you know, it's just -- it's just we can't hit the girl. I don't care how far feminism's saying, you can't hit the girl, and you can't -- you can't criticize the little black man-child. You just can't do it, 'cause it's just not right. It's not fair. He's such a victim.
Thanks Media Matters
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Wednesday Weirdness Update:Turns out, Bigfoot was just a rubber gorilla suit
As the 'evidence' thawed, the claim began to unravel as a giant hoax
By Juanita Cousins
ATLANTA - Turns out Bigfoot was just a rubber suit. Two researchers on a quest to prove the existence of Bigfoot say that the carcass encased in a block of ice — handed over to them for an undisclosed sum by two men who claimed to have found it — was slowly thawed out, and discovered to be a rubber gorilla outfit.
The revelation comes just days after a much ballyhooed news conference held in California that proclaimed the remains of the creature, found in the North Georgia mountains, were the legendary man-ape.
Steve Kulls, executive director of squatchdetective.com and host of Squatchdetective Radio, says in a posting on a Web site run by Bigfoot researcher Tom Biscardi that as the "evidence" was thawed, the claim began to unravel as a giant hoax.
First, the hair sample was burned and "melted into a ball uncharacteristic of hair," Kulls said in the posting.
The thawing process was sped up and the exposed head was found to be "unusually hollow in one small section." An hour of thawing later and the feet were exposed — and they were found to be made of rubber.
Matt Whitton, an officer who has been on medical leave from the Clayton County Police Department, and Rick Dyer, a former Georgia corrections officer, announced the find in early July on YouTube videos and a Web site.
"Everyone who has talked down to us is going to eat their words," Whitton said at the time.
On Tuesday, Clayton County Police Chief Jeff Turner said he has not spoken to Whitton but processed paperwork to fire him.
"Once he perpetrated a fraud, that goes into his credibility and integrity," Turner said. "He has violated the duty of a police officer."
By Juanita Cousins
ATLANTA - Turns out Bigfoot was just a rubber suit. Two researchers on a quest to prove the existence of Bigfoot say that the carcass encased in a block of ice — handed over to them for an undisclosed sum by two men who claimed to have found it — was slowly thawed out, and discovered to be a rubber gorilla outfit.
The revelation comes just days after a much ballyhooed news conference held in California that proclaimed the remains of the creature, found in the North Georgia mountains, were the legendary man-ape.
Steve Kulls, executive director of squatchdetective.com and host of Squatchdetective Radio, says in a posting on a Web site run by Bigfoot researcher Tom Biscardi that as the "evidence" was thawed, the claim began to unravel as a giant hoax.
First, the hair sample was burned and "melted into a ball uncharacteristic of hair," Kulls said in the posting.
The thawing process was sped up and the exposed head was found to be "unusually hollow in one small section." An hour of thawing later and the feet were exposed — and they were found to be made of rubber.
Matt Whitton, an officer who has been on medical leave from the Clayton County Police Department, and Rick Dyer, a former Georgia corrections officer, announced the find in early July on YouTube videos and a Web site.
"Everyone who has talked down to us is going to eat their words," Whitton said at the time.
On Tuesday, Clayton County Police Chief Jeff Turner said he has not spoken to Whitton but processed paperwork to fire him.
"Once he perpetrated a fraud, that goes into his credibility and integrity," Turner said. "He has violated the duty of a police officer."
Middletown Republican again completely Misrepresents the facts with his letter
I usually take a look at the "Letters" section of the online newspaper Atlantic Highlands Herald each day to see what area residents are talking about. The Herald is quite often used by both the Middletown GOP and Democrats to express their opinions about the latest issues in town and as the campaign season heats up more and more false reteric gets thrown around by the Middletown Republicans.
Case in point; This moring when I logged on to the sight a letter was posted a few days ago that was written by one Michale Vitkansas.
Case in point; This moring when I logged on to the sight a letter was posted a few days ago that was written by one Michale Vitkansas.
Vitkansas is a Monmouth County Republican Committeeman who also happens to have been appointed to sit on the Middletown Community Affairs Council by the Republican controlled Township Committee. Vitkansas's point behind his letter is to try and score a few partisen point against Patrica Walsh, who happens to be one of the Democrats running for a seat on the Township Committee this year.
Vitkansas attacks her for being a member of the Middletown Board of Education for the past number of years and tries to argue in his letter that it is solely Walsh's fault as to why taxes in Middletown have been raised so much over the past few years.
Vitkansas attacks her for being a member of the Middletown Board of Education for the past number of years and tries to argue in his letter that it is solely Walsh's fault as to why taxes in Middletown have been raised so much over the past few years.
Like so many in the Republican party, when Vitkansas can't rely on the truth to attack an opponent he relies on completely false and misleading allegations.
So this morning when logged on the the AHH to check out the "Letters", I was pleasantly please to see a very rapid response by Paul Jansen. Jansen set the record straight.
Jansen correctly stated in his letter that Walsh is just 1 of 9 members of the BOE, and that the residents of Middletown have to approve of the budget before any tax increases are allowed. So to hold Walsh directly responsible for the increase in school taxes is a completely false allegation.
Please forgive me for speaking to Freeholder D'Amico
It seems as though Mr. Gallagher over at MoreMonmouthMisinformation and his anonymous buddy over at the Voice of Disinformation are a little upset with me for checking out their false statements about Amy Mallet and John D'Amico the other day. I am sorry that I upset them so!
Please forgive me for talking to Freeholder D'Amico personnally about this rather than leave it to a couple of Monmouth County Republican hacks that rely on rumor and innuendo to attack and defame people that they do not agree with politically.
Like true members of the GOP, when they are confronted with the truth but do not like what you have heard, the insults and name calling start to fly. It shows their true partisan colors.
There are no rumors floating around the Hall Of Records in Freehold that Democrats have not heard of already. Many times I have heard Freeholder McMorrow speak about the silliness that goes on in the hallways outside her office.
So, if I chose to believe Freeholder D'Amico's word rather than some anonymous blogger or partisan GOP County Committee person, that's my choice and I'm sticking to it.
Please forgive me for talking to Freeholder D'Amico personnally about this rather than leave it to a couple of Monmouth County Republican hacks that rely on rumor and innuendo to attack and defame people that they do not agree with politically.
Like true members of the GOP, when they are confronted with the truth but do not like what you have heard, the insults and name calling start to fly. It shows their true partisan colors.
There are no rumors floating around the Hall Of Records in Freehold that Democrats have not heard of already. Many times I have heard Freeholder McMorrow speak about the silliness that goes on in the hallways outside her office.
So, if I chose to believe Freeholder D'Amico's word rather than some anonymous blogger or partisan GOP County Committee person, that's my choice and I'm sticking to it.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Obama and veep choice to campaign on Saturday
The Associated Press is reporting that Barack Obama will be campaigning with his Veep choice on Saturday when both will appear together in front of the former state Capitol in Illinois where Abraham Lincoln once served.
So if this bit of information is true we should know who will be Obama's running mate shortly.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Freeholder D'Amico unequivocally denies MoreMonmouthMusing and Voice of Reason false allegations
More Monmouth Musings and the Voice of Disinformation have been going on recently about how Freeholder John D'Amico is calling on Democratic Freeholder Candidate Amy Mallet to be dropped from the party's ticket this fall and about how Freeholder D'Amico and fellow Democratic Freeholder Barbara McMorrow aren't getting along, insomuch as that McMorrow is considering not seeking re-election next year because she does not get along with D'Amico.
This interested me so much that I decided to call Freeholder D'Amico to see if there is any truth in these assertions. I got off the phone with Freeholder D'Amico just a little while ago and he made it clear there is no truth whatsoever in any statements that he has ever wanted or sought to have Amy Mallet dropped from the county's ticket. He also stated to me that there is absolutely no possibility that Mallet will be dropped.
This interested me so much that I decided to call Freeholder D'Amico to see if there is any truth in these assertions. I got off the phone with Freeholder D'Amico just a little while ago and he made it clear there is no truth whatsoever in any statements that he has ever wanted or sought to have Amy Mallet dropped from the county's ticket. He also stated to me that there is absolutely no possibility that Mallet will be dropped.
As for the false and vicious allegation that Freeholder D'Amico and Barbara McMorrow do not get along and that he treats her with such disrespect that she would not consider seeking re-election because she can't work with him any longer, D'Amico stated to me that "I have the utmost respect for Barbara McMorrow as a person and Freeholder and I look forward to working with her now and for many years to come".
Freeholder D'Amico added that he doesn't put any stock in More Monmouth Musings, Voice of Reason or any blogs like it, and he looks forward to working with both Amy Mallet and her running mate Glenn Mason, after their election to the Board of Choosen Freeholders this November.
So to the rumors mongers, who like to spread false allegations about Amy Mallet and others , I can say with authority that they are just that, rumors.
Freeholder D'Amico added that he doesn't put any stock in More Monmouth Musings, Voice of Reason or any blogs like it, and he looks forward to working with both Amy Mallet and her running mate Glenn Mason, after their election to the Board of Choosen Freeholders this November.
So to the rumors mongers, who like to spread false allegations about Amy Mallet and others , I can say with authority that they are just that, rumors.
Amy Mallet will not be dropped from Freeholder's ticket and there is no disharmony between D'Amico and fellow Freeholder McMorrow down at the Hall of Records
Legal cost issue should be about capping or in-house counsel
The following press release from the Middletown Democrats for Twsp. Committee, Patricia Walsh and Jim Grenafege, is in response to the recent articles that appeared in The Courier newpaper last week about the billing practice of Township Attorney Bernard Reilly.
Press Release
Aug. 18, 2008
POC: Democrats for Twsp. Committee
Patricia A. Walsh
Tel: (908) 601-1252/Email: awalsh386@aol.com
Or Jim Grenafege
Tel: (732) 872-0890/Email: j.grenafege@att.net
Legal cost issue should be about capping or in-house counsel
MIDDLETOWN TOWNSHIP (MONMOUTH COUNTY, NJ):I have always been an advocate of in-house counsel at the county level, said Middletown Democrat for Township Committee Jim Grenafege. So it makes sense that I am all for it here in Middletown.
Grenafege's running mate is Patricia A. Walsh. She said,"The school district caps legal expenses in the context of its annual budget. There is no reason to tolerate excessive legal spending on the municipal level from the numerous attorneys the township now employs.
Walsh said she recently saw a published report where Township Attorney Bernard Reilly is paid for 200-hour months and
15-18 hour days. More scrutiny must be given to each of these individual legal bills", she said.
However, Walsh said she believes a cap may work out better for the township than an in-house counsel, though she is convinced both hers and Mr. Grenafege's ideas should be discussed publicly once they are elected to the Township Committee and action taken.
Grenafege said a task force should be immediately formed, in January, with the mission of studying all aspects of legal staffing and activity within the township. "Are there any "best practices" that are utilized by other towns that Middletown can learn from?" Grenafege said. "It's worth a good look".
Grenafege said he read the county's study about this, though he characterized that study as "flawed" because it was prepared by one of the county's attorneys, who was an outside counsel on the county payroll.
"The days of letting attorneys run the show must come to an end. Our taxpayers are facing tough economic times and their tax money should not be wasted in any way," Walsh said."It is fiscally responsible for the committee to completely review what has taken place over the last 20 years, following the excesses of previous administrations."
Walsh said that previous administrations had closed their eyes to legal bill overruns, but it is not a way the township can do business in this century.
Grenafege said he supports an initiative favored by Middletown Committeeman Sean Byrnes whereby a financial professional would be brought in to examine the possibility of saving dollars and find new, constructive ways to save tax money.
Walsh said this measure is one that should be voted on by the committee. But, she said such an initiative would have to be examined closely before that vote, following recommendations by the task force formed for this purpose.
"There should be different ideas that come together with the underlying purpose of cutting spending and putting permanent fiscal controls in place in Middletown," Walsh concluded.
You can also read all about the billing practices of Mr. Reilly by reading Melissa Gaffney's blog SableMinded
Press Release
Aug. 18, 2008
POC: Democrats for Twsp. Committee
Patricia A. Walsh
Tel: (908) 601-1252/Email: awalsh386@aol.com
Or Jim Grenafege
Tel: (732) 872-0890/Email: j.grenafege@att.net
Legal cost issue should be about capping or in-house counsel
MIDDLETOWN TOWNSHIP (MONMOUTH COUNTY, NJ):I have always been an advocate of in-house counsel at the county level, said Middletown Democrat for Township Committee Jim Grenafege. So it makes sense that I am all for it here in Middletown.
Grenafege's running mate is Patricia A. Walsh. She said,"The school district caps legal expenses in the context of its annual budget. There is no reason to tolerate excessive legal spending on the municipal level from the numerous attorneys the township now employs.
Walsh said she recently saw a published report where Township Attorney Bernard Reilly is paid for 200-hour months and
15-18 hour days. More scrutiny must be given to each of these individual legal bills", she said.
However, Walsh said she believes a cap may work out better for the township than an in-house counsel, though she is convinced both hers and Mr. Grenafege's ideas should be discussed publicly once they are elected to the Township Committee and action taken.
Grenafege said a task force should be immediately formed, in January, with the mission of studying all aspects of legal staffing and activity within the township. "Are there any "best practices" that are utilized by other towns that Middletown can learn from?" Grenafege said. "It's worth a good look".
Grenafege said he read the county's study about this, though he characterized that study as "flawed" because it was prepared by one of the county's attorneys, who was an outside counsel on the county payroll.
"The days of letting attorneys run the show must come to an end. Our taxpayers are facing tough economic times and their tax money should not be wasted in any way," Walsh said."It is fiscally responsible for the committee to completely review what has taken place over the last 20 years, following the excesses of previous administrations."
Walsh said that previous administrations had closed their eyes to legal bill overruns, but it is not a way the township can do business in this century.
Grenafege said he supports an initiative favored by Middletown Committeeman Sean Byrnes whereby a financial professional would be brought in to examine the possibility of saving dollars and find new, constructive ways to save tax money.
Walsh said this measure is one that should be voted on by the committee. But, she said such an initiative would have to be examined closely before that vote, following recommendations by the task force formed for this purpose.
"There should be different ideas that come together with the underlying purpose of cutting spending and putting permanent fiscal controls in place in Middletown," Walsh concluded.
You can also read all about the billing practices of Mr. Reilly by reading Melissa Gaffney's blog SableMinded
Corsi: Critics of Obama might be "put ... in jail" if he's president
It is amazing what comes out of Jerome Corsi's mouth during an interview on C-Span this weekend. It's not bad enough that he has written a book that is basically a work of fiction, but now he says that Obama will jail anyone that disagrees with him if elected president!
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Unfit for Publication: Corsi's The Obama Nation filled with falsehoods
In its preface, Jerome Corsi compares his new book, The Obama Nation, to his 2004 book Unfit for Command. The comparison seems apt: Just as Unfit for Command contains false attacks on Sen. John Kerry's military service, a Media Matters review finds that The Obama Nation similarly contains numerous falsehoods about Sen. Barack Obama.
The Obama campaign has found so many inaccuracies in the book, they've put together a 41 page PDF document detailing all of them.
Click on the headline to read Media Matters account of some of the numerous falshoods that are printed in Corsi's book
The Obama campaign has found so many inaccuracies in the book, they've put together a 41 page PDF document detailing all of them.
Click on the headline to read Media Matters account of some of the numerous falshoods that are printed in Corsi's book
Friday, August 15, 2008
BARACK OBAMA FOLLOWED PENTAGON RULES WHEN HE CALLED WOUNDED SOLDIERS INSTEAD OF VISITING THEM
The following is from Truthfightsback.com
THE SMEAR:
The McCain campaign themselves pushed a smear very hard to try to say that Barack Obama snubbed wounded soldiers in Germany. They included the lie that the trip was canceled after the Pentagon said that cameras weren't allowed.
THE TRUTH:
This smear has been called "literally untrue" by Andrea Mitchell, as well as a number of other journalists. It was, at the time of airing, the most dishonest ad of the campaign Barack Obama, during a campaign-funded trip in Europe, planned to make an unannounced visit of wounded troops in Germany. This was always planned to be an unpublicized event, with no cameras brought along. However, since the trip was paid for by the campaign, the Pentagon told the Obama campaign that there were rules prohibiting a campaign from traveling on a military base in this fashion. So the Obama campaign cancelled the trip after the Pentagon decision, and Barack Obama called a number of troops at the base instead. Earlier in the trip, Obama had made a number of similar unpublicized visits of wounded troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. That earlier leg was an official Senate trip, so the campaign prohibitions did not apply. In addition, Obama has made a number of other quiet, unpublicized trips to Walter Reed Hospital near Washington. This smear from the McCain campaign is a lie.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Scharfenberger, Brightbill seek to destroy Human Rights Commission
To The Editor:
Carolyn Schwebel has been a dear friend of mine for many years. Carolyn serves on the Monmouth County Human Rights Commission and she is a former Chairperson of the Middletown Human Rights Commission.
Carolyn is no longer a member of the commission in Middletown anymore, and that is a shame. In fact, the commission is about ready to be shutdown by Mayor Gerard Scharfenberger and Deputy Mayor Pamela Brightbill. I don't know why, but it feels like retribution for doing the job she was appointed to do.
The Middletown Human Rights Commission had previously been working on issues relative to township housing and handicapped access issues. These issues, while challenging, should not be silenced with the wave of a bureaucratic wand, which I think Mayor Scharfenberger and Deputy Mayor Brightbill are doing.
The mayor recently tried to use the commission to accomplish his political retribution, but they stood above the fray and stayed true to their original mission. For this, commission members should be complimented.
The commission should never be forced to become political. But, some people want to use them as a political force even though they truly are trying to maintain their status as protecting human rights in Middletown. Just because Mr. Scharfenberger and Mrs. Brightbill can not control the commission, they have now decided to completely destroy it.
All I have to say is that, after I am elected as a Middletown committeewoman in November, regardless of what Mr. Scharfenberger or Mrs. Brightbill have done, I will not stop lobbying until this commission is back and bigger than ever.
I will also seek to fill all of the seats that have been left empty on the commission, which the mayor and deputy mayor have left vacant because they cannot find people that will tow their line. I do not need people to tow my line. I welcome diversity and input and neither myself or my running mate, Jim Grenafege, need to dictate what other people think in trying to help our community.
Patricia A. Walsh
Democrat for Twsp. Committee
Carolyn Schwebel has been a dear friend of mine for many years. Carolyn serves on the Monmouth County Human Rights Commission and she is a former Chairperson of the Middletown Human Rights Commission.
Carolyn is no longer a member of the commission in Middletown anymore, and that is a shame. In fact, the commission is about ready to be shutdown by Mayor Gerard Scharfenberger and Deputy Mayor Pamela Brightbill. I don't know why, but it feels like retribution for doing the job she was appointed to do.
The Middletown Human Rights Commission had previously been working on issues relative to township housing and handicapped access issues. These issues, while challenging, should not be silenced with the wave of a bureaucratic wand, which I think Mayor Scharfenberger and Deputy Mayor Brightbill are doing.
The mayor recently tried to use the commission to accomplish his political retribution, but they stood above the fray and stayed true to their original mission. For this, commission members should be complimented.
The commission should never be forced to become political. But, some people want to use them as a political force even though they truly are trying to maintain their status as protecting human rights in Middletown. Just because Mr. Scharfenberger and Mrs. Brightbill can not control the commission, they have now decided to completely destroy it.
All I have to say is that, after I am elected as a Middletown committeewoman in November, regardless of what Mr. Scharfenberger or Mrs. Brightbill have done, I will not stop lobbying until this commission is back and bigger than ever.
I will also seek to fill all of the seats that have been left empty on the commission, which the mayor and deputy mayor have left vacant because they cannot find people that will tow their line. I do not need people to tow my line. I welcome diversity and input and neither myself or my running mate, Jim Grenafege, need to dictate what other people think in trying to help our community.
Patricia A. Walsh
Democrat for Twsp. Committee
The Lies About Obama
Brent Budowsky, who was an aide to Sen. Lloyd Bentsen and to Rep. Bill Alexander when he was chief deputy whip of the House, sets the record straight on some of the lies and downright flasehoods that the McCain campaign has been smearing Barack Obama with for the past few weeks.
Budowsky takes exception with the news media for not checking their facts before blindly passing along McCain's concentrated attacks of smears, lies and innuendo as facts.
He does state that "There are ample grounds to fairly challenge and criticize Barack Obama, and all other candidates, on news and opinion pages. Obama should be challenged about whether his experience is sufficient for the presidency. Obama's policies can and should be challenged, dissected, debated, rebutted and criticized."
Click on the headline to read the article written by Brent Budowsky
Budowsky takes exception with the news media for not checking their facts before blindly passing along McCain's concentrated attacks of smears, lies and innuendo as facts.
He does state that "There are ample grounds to fairly challenge and criticize Barack Obama, and all other candidates, on news and opinion pages. Obama should be challenged about whether his experience is sufficient for the presidency. Obama's policies can and should be challenged, dissected, debated, rebutted and criticized."
Click on the headline to read the article written by Brent Budowsky
FCC Commissioner: Return of Fairness Doctrine Could Control Web Content
Bloggers beware!
There’s a huge concern among conservative talk radio hosts that reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine would all-but destroy the industry due to equal time constraints. But speech limits might not stop at radio. They could even be extended to include the Internet and “government dictating content policy.” FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell raised that as a possibility after talking with bloggers at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C
Commissioner McDowell told the Business and Media Institute that the Fairness Doctrine could be combined with the issue of net neutrality which could then lead to bloggers (Liberal or Conservative) having to give equal time to the issues that they write about or discuss.
Click on the headline to read the story and to see a video of Commissioner McDowell discussing the issue of the Fairness Doctrine
Race questions cast doubt on presidential polls
Can the polls be trusted? A central question about race and politics hasn't changed: Do white people lie — to pollsters or even to themselves — about their willingness to vote for black candidates? A good AP article posted on Yahoo News tries to answer this question.
The bottom line answer to these questions however is yes, whites do lie a little to pollsters when asked about their support for Africa-American candidates. The article does point out however that in this age of YouTube, voters are more racially tolerant then in previous years and are therefore more likely to tell the truth to pollsters when asked their voting preferences.
Click on the headline to read the article from Yahoo News
The bottom line answer to these questions however is yes, whites do lie a little to pollsters when asked about their support for Africa-American candidates. The article does point out however that in this age of YouTube, voters are more racially tolerant then in previous years and are therefore more likely to tell the truth to pollsters when asked their voting preferences.
Click on the headline to read the article from Yahoo News
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Wednesday Weirdness: "Bigfoot found"
Is this a hoax? it doesn't seem to be, but you can decide for yourself.
Fox News this morning interviewed Tom Biscardi, CEO of Searching for Bigfoot, Inc., who is in possession of the body.
Thanks to Youtube you can see a portion of the interview below:
Here are some of the vital statistics on the “Bigfoot” body:
*The creature is seven feet seven inches tall.
*It weighs over five hundred pounds.
*The creature looks like it is part human and part ape-like.
*It is male.
*It has reddish hair and blackish-grey eyes.
*It has two arms and two legs, and five fingers on each hand and
five toes on each foot.
*The feet are flat and similar to human feet.
*Its footprint is sixteen and three-quarters inches long and five and three-quarters inches wide at the heel.
*From the palm of the hand to the tip of the middle finger, its hands are
eleven and three-quarters inches long and six and one-quarter inches wide.
*The creatures walk upright. (Several of them were sighted on the same day that the body was found.)
*The teeth are more human-like than ape-like.
*DNA tests are currently being done and the current DNA and photo evidence will be presented at the press conference on Friday, August 15th.
The creature was found by Matthew Whitton and Rick Dyer (residents of Georgia) in the woods in northern Georgia. (The exact location is being kept secret to protect the creatures.)
Matthew Whitton and Rick Dyer will be flying in from Georgia to be at the press conference. Also present at the press conference will be Tom Biscardi, CEO of Searching for Bigfoot, Inc.
Whitton is a Clayton County, Georgia, police officer, who is currently on administrative leave after being wounded in the course of duty pursuing an alleged felon. Dyer is a former correctional officer. Whitton and Dyer are co-owners of bigfoottracker.com and Bigfoot Global LLC., a company that offers Bigfoot expeditions. Whitton and Dyer are working with Bigfoot hunter, Tom Biscardi, and Biscardi’s Searching for Bigfoot, Inc., to present and conduct the scientific study of the evidence and information on this body.
To see and read more about this Bigfoot creature click onto the headline or click here.
Fox News this morning interviewed Tom Biscardi, CEO of Searching for Bigfoot, Inc., who is in possession of the body.
Thanks to Youtube you can see a portion of the interview below:
Here are some of the vital statistics on the “Bigfoot” body:
*The creature is seven feet seven inches tall.
*It weighs over five hundred pounds.
*The creature looks like it is part human and part ape-like.
*It is male.
*It has reddish hair and blackish-grey eyes.
*It has two arms and two legs, and five fingers on each hand and
five toes on each foot.
*The feet are flat and similar to human feet.
*Its footprint is sixteen and three-quarters inches long and five and three-quarters inches wide at the heel.
*From the palm of the hand to the tip of the middle finger, its hands are
eleven and three-quarters inches long and six and one-quarter inches wide.
*The creatures walk upright. (Several of them were sighted on the same day that the body was found.)
*The teeth are more human-like than ape-like.
*DNA tests are currently being done and the current DNA and photo evidence will be presented at the press conference on Friday, August 15th.
The creature was found by Matthew Whitton and Rick Dyer (residents of Georgia) in the woods in northern Georgia. (The exact location is being kept secret to protect the creatures.)
Matthew Whitton and Rick Dyer will be flying in from Georgia to be at the press conference. Also present at the press conference will be Tom Biscardi, CEO of Searching for Bigfoot, Inc.
Whitton is a Clayton County, Georgia, police officer, who is currently on administrative leave after being wounded in the course of duty pursuing an alleged felon. Dyer is a former correctional officer. Whitton and Dyer are co-owners of bigfoottracker.com and Bigfoot Global LLC., a company that offers Bigfoot expeditions. Whitton and Dyer are working with Bigfoot hunter, Tom Biscardi, and Biscardi’s Searching for Bigfoot, Inc., to present and conduct the scientific study of the evidence and information on this body.
To see and read more about this Bigfoot creature click onto the headline or click here.
I have to warn you however that the website has been extremely busy and has been crashing all day so be patient, you won't be disappointed.
John the Maverick?
The Bob Barr Campaign released a video talking about John McCain’s ‘Maverick’ credentials. McCain doesn't sound like much of a maverick to me after taking a look at this video.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Veterans For America call for McCain to address the National Guard crisis in NJ
I was contacted today by Max Bernstein, who does blog outreach and press for the group Veterans for America.
He wanted everyone to be aware that John McCain was in New Jersey today and that the Veterans for America want him to address the National Guard crisis here in NJ.
" Half of the NJ National Guard is deployed or is at Ft. Bliss in TX preparing to deploy, and the effects on first-responder capabilities, local communities, and Guard families that has resulted from the emergency conversion of these weekend warriors into frontline soldiers has been palpable. We hope you help call attention to this issue - thanks!"
Thank you Max for contacting the MiddletownMike blog about this issue, I will try and keep everyone updated on the work that the Veterans for America is doing.
Blue Jersey has a good post about this today titled John McCain is in New Jersey Today. Half of NJ's National Guard Isn't.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Obama to announce Veep by Text Message, Email
The Obama campaign announced today that it will reveal their choice for the Vice-Presidential running mate sometime between now and the Convention by txt msg & email.
If you want to be one of the first people to find out who Obama's running mate will be you can Text VP to 62262 or visit http://my.barackobama.com/vp
I am wondering whether or not this is such a good idea,if you want maximum exposure I would think that you should hold a major press conference to make the announcement. If their idea is to build a frenzy of momentum by trying to be hip and relying on word of mouth it may not have the same impact.
The timing of the announcement would be critical for the Obama campaign so I would not expect a running mate to be announce during the Olympics, but that's my opinion, they may think differently.
Unfortunately, I am one of the last people to find out this type of stuff so I am sure that I'll wind up getting the information like the rest of you, from the news media hours after it has been announced.
If you want to be one of the first people to find out who Obama's running mate will be you can Text VP to 62262 or visit http://my.barackobama.com/vp
I am wondering whether or not this is such a good idea,if you want maximum exposure I would think that you should hold a major press conference to make the announcement. If their idea is to build a frenzy of momentum by trying to be hip and relying on word of mouth it may not have the same impact.
The timing of the announcement would be critical for the Obama campaign so I would not expect a running mate to be announce during the Olympics, but that's my opinion, they may think differently.
Unfortunately, I am one of the last people to find out this type of stuff so I am sure that I'll wind up getting the information like the rest of you, from the news media hours after it has been announced.
McCain can't be sure veterans will fall in behind him
The Disabled American Veterans's convention was held this weekend in Las Vegas and John McCain, who attended the gathering was greeted with a luke warm reponse, the LA Times reported this weekend.
Many of the vets do not consider McCain's military service to be key campaign issues. Their chief concerns, like most of us are the ailing economy and high gas prices.
The Disabled American Veterans said that in 2006, he voted for only one of the five spending bills the group considered most important -- 20%. The four he opposed would have increased funding for veterans' services and benefits.
Barack Obama on the other hand did not attend the convention, but addressed the convention with a video presentation, was rated at 80% by the group.
To read the article about the Disabled American Veterans convention from the LA Times click on the headline
Saturday, August 9, 2008
McCain the Antichrist?
I am note one of those right-wing, bible thumping, evangelical christians that seem to drive much of the right wing conservative agenda this days, and I never give them much thought, but they just maybe onto something here! It seems as though John McCain is the latest politician to fit the mold of the Antichrist.
"Biblical scholars in Colorado Springs have uncovered startling evidence that Senator John McCain may be the Antichrist. Their conclusions, while highly controversial, may have a dramatic impact on the 2008 elections, since many Bible-believing Christians have already expressed doubts about McCain’s fealty to Christianity."
Click onto the headline and read the story from The Nation
Friday, August 8, 2008
29 STATES FACED TOTAL BUDGET SHORTFALL
According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities at least 29 states plus the District of Columbia, including several of the nation’s largest states, faced an estimated $48 billion in combined shortfalls in their budgets for fiscal year 2009 (which began July 1, 2008 in most states.) At least three other states expect budget problems in fiscal year 2010.
The 29 states in which revenues were expected to fall short of the amount needed to support current services in fiscal year 2009 are Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin. In addition, the District of Columbia closed a shortfall in fiscal year 2009. The budget gaps totaled $47.6 to $49.2 billion, averaging 9.3 percent to 9.7 percent of these states’ general fund budgets. California — the nation’s largest state — faced the largest budget gap. The shortfalls that states other than California faced averaged 6.2 percent to 6.7 percent of these states’ general fund budgets.
New Jersey's budget shortfall is estimated to be $2.5 - $3.5 billion dollars or 7.6% - 10.6% of the FY 2008 General Fund.
Click on the headline to see the report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
The 29 states in which revenues were expected to fall short of the amount needed to support current services in fiscal year 2009 are Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin. In addition, the District of Columbia closed a shortfall in fiscal year 2009. The budget gaps totaled $47.6 to $49.2 billion, averaging 9.3 percent to 9.7 percent of these states’ general fund budgets. California — the nation’s largest state — faced the largest budget gap. The shortfalls that states other than California faced averaged 6.2 percent to 6.7 percent of these states’ general fund budgets.
New Jersey's budget shortfall is estimated to be $2.5 - $3.5 billion dollars or 7.6% - 10.6% of the FY 2008 General Fund.
Click on the headline to see the report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Is Art Gallagher one of the confused people we should embrace?
"Nevertheless, here's what I'm clear on: Many people struggle to understand why some blacks still call each other the n-word when the word's history and inherent ugliness make it offensive. Those are confused people we should embrace..."
So starts the final paragraph of Derrick K. Baker's opinion piece "Those who use the n-word must be accountable, regardless of race" which was published in The Philadelphia Inquirer last week.
So starts the final paragraph of Derrick K. Baker's opinion piece "Those who use the n-word must be accountable, regardless of race" which was published in The Philadelphia Inquirer last week.
Mr. Baker explains very well how the use of the N word makes him feel and how he perceives those who use it, whether it is Jesse Jackson, some Rap artist, or just some plain white folks that are confused.
Click on the headline to read Baker's opinion
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Senate to push apology as race issue looms
The following excerpt is from The Hill and was published today's "Leading the News" section;
"Congress is poised to approve a federal apology for slavery just weeks before voters consider electing the nation’s first black president. When the Senate takes up the issue in September, it could address a centuries-old wound at a time when the presidential contest is already focused on race... The House passed its version of the resolution on July 29 by voice vote. Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), a white lawmaker representing a majority-black district who faces a tough primary this week against a black challenger, is the lead sponsor of the resolution... lastweek, Obama made headlines when he announced his support for the apology, but not reparations paid to descendants of slaves...The best reparations we can provide are good schools in the inner city and jobs for people who are unemployed,” Obama told an Illinois audience last week in remarks reported by The Associated Press.
Click on the headline to read the full story
"Congress is poised to approve a federal apology for slavery just weeks before voters consider electing the nation’s first black president. When the Senate takes up the issue in September, it could address a centuries-old wound at a time when the presidential contest is already focused on race... The House passed its version of the resolution on July 29 by voice vote. Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), a white lawmaker representing a majority-black district who faces a tough primary this week against a black challenger, is the lead sponsor of the resolution... lastweek, Obama made headlines when he announced his support for the apology, but not reparations paid to descendants of slaves...The best reparations we can provide are good schools in the inner city and jobs for people who are unemployed,” Obama told an Illinois audience last week in remarks reported by The Associated Press.
Click on the headline to read the full story
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Walsh responds to "the Fibber" Fiore's COAH letter
Patricia Walsh, Democrat for Middletown Committee has issued a response to the letter that Tony "the fibber" Fiore sent to the Atlantic Highlands Herald and I am sure many others in the area that addressed the COAH issue in Middletown.
"Recently, the Republican candidate for Middletown Committee, Anthony Fiore, published a letter to the editor about COAH.
It is not the first time that Mr. Fiore has completely distorted the facts surrounding a subject, including his resume qualifications.
In fact, both republican candidates continue to use scare tactics while misstating the facts and figures regarding Middletown's COAH obligations. It was the committee GOP majority who was responsible for leasing our precious open space, to plant a massive development on Hwy. 36.
Fact No. 1 is that Middletown residents would not be facing this enormous impact were it not for the 23 years of complete mismanagement of our COAH obligations by the GOP. The Republican Party has lead us down a path to noncompliance and are the real reason Middletown is vulnerable to builder's remedy lawsuits that could cost taxpayers millions of dollars.
The Republican candidates have stated that the most effective way to make housing affordable is to cut taxes†then why did the GOP majority impose a tax increase of 7.1% in this years budget alone. As a candidate for elected office, Mr. Fiore is either ethically challenged or incompetent by misrepresenting the facts or not being able to grasp the true impact regarding the town's COAH obligations.
Mr. Fiore, Mrs. Brightbill and their GOP predecessors who have sat on the planning board and township committee have created this tax increase due to their negligence in handling our COAH obligations. Rather then paying a lower cost earlier, they have hit the taxpayers with a financial balloon payment that has come due on their watch.
Despite attempts to mislead the public, or place blame on others, what could have been taken care of years ago at a much lower cost and minimal impact will now hurt taxpayers at a time when they can least afford it."
Patricia Walsh
Democrat for Middletown Committee
"Recently, the Republican candidate for Middletown Committee, Anthony Fiore, published a letter to the editor about COAH.
It is not the first time that Mr. Fiore has completely distorted the facts surrounding a subject, including his resume qualifications.
In fact, both republican candidates continue to use scare tactics while misstating the facts and figures regarding Middletown's COAH obligations. It was the committee GOP majority who was responsible for leasing our precious open space, to plant a massive development on Hwy. 36.
Fact No. 1 is that Middletown residents would not be facing this enormous impact were it not for the 23 years of complete mismanagement of our COAH obligations by the GOP. The Republican Party has lead us down a path to noncompliance and are the real reason Middletown is vulnerable to builder's remedy lawsuits that could cost taxpayers millions of dollars.
The Republican candidates have stated that the most effective way to make housing affordable is to cut taxes†then why did the GOP majority impose a tax increase of 7.1% in this years budget alone. As a candidate for elected office, Mr. Fiore is either ethically challenged or incompetent by misrepresenting the facts or not being able to grasp the true impact regarding the town's COAH obligations.
Mr. Fiore, Mrs. Brightbill and their GOP predecessors who have sat on the planning board and township committee have created this tax increase due to their negligence in handling our COAH obligations. Rather then paying a lower cost earlier, they have hit the taxpayers with a financial balloon payment that has come due on their watch.
Despite attempts to mislead the public, or place blame on others, what could have been taken care of years ago at a much lower cost and minimal impact will now hurt taxpayers at a time when they can least afford it."
Patricia Walsh
Democrat for Middletown Committee
A word about last nights meeting in Middletown
I was reading Art Gallagher's impressions of what transpired last night at the Middletown Township Committee meeting last night and I generally agree with his assessment.
The meeting was very good and it was to seen the six new members of the police department sworn in with there families in attendance. While it was interesting to hear the presentation from the Middletown Health Department and all that they do, I found it a little long. After all, I was there to see a show and I was getting a bit antsy waiting.
When Art did get up to speak sometime after 10 pm, the Mayor seemed to be waiting for him because he immediately announce that there was going to be a 5 minute time limit on comments. The township clerk then literally set a time clock that went off after the 5 minutes. Art then had to rush through his comments to finish.
Art, as he mentioned did not get the great debate that he wanted, largely because no one showed up argue the point with him and because the debate did get sidetracked over who called for the Middletown Human Rights Commission to meet.
On this point, I have to take exception with Art Gallagher's perception on events. While Committeeman Short my have been trying to score political points by blaming Mayor Scharfenberger for the "unnoticed special meeting", it was Scharfenberger's denials and the seemingly apparent cover up by the Clerk, Township Administer and Attorney, about asking the commission to meet that lead to that confrontation.
One of the main issues that Committeeman Short takes exception to is "open and transparent government" and Mayor Scharfenberger knows that, so to try and cover up the fact was not the right course of action for him to take.
I was at the hastily called meeting of the MHRC Thursday night, I received the message off my answering machine late that day it. I am not sure how the person leaving the message found out about the meeting. I arrived late and left after the Commission decided to draft a resolution
against Art Gallagher's methods.
Now, why have I brought that up? because several times during the special session the Cindy Hoffman of the Human Rights Commission mentioned that the mayor asked her to look into the allegations and to convene a special meeting. When asked if Mayor Scharfenberger knew about the meeting taking place, she said that he was aware of it but she did not know if he would be attending.
So the only real fireworks that we got last night was the confrontation between Short and Scharfenberger.
And I really think that the issue for the Township is over, I just don't see the Human Rights Commission reconvening just to discuss this their resolution against Art and his blog. The meeting was called for after all, as a political ploy by the mayor against the Courier and not because he had concerns over what Art Gallagher wrote on his blog.
Monday, August 4, 2008
Editors' Note from RiseUp
Janice S. Ellis, Ph.D., Founder & Publisher of RiseUP publications has yet another insightful Editor's Note commentary on color and race relations in our society, that I thought I should share with everyone.
"Oh, how we carry on a love-hate relationship with color. Color, in all its vibrant variety, is one of the spices of life. It excites and stimulates the imagination. Painters and photographers capture it on canvas. It is captured on the printed page in poetry and prose.
We marvel at the awesome beauty and bounty of Nature’s parade of color — blossoms and flowers in spring and summer, the maple trees and evergreens in fall and winter.
And then, of course, we adorn our homes and bodies with colorful furnishings, fashions and works of art — yes, even body art.
Color, in all of its richness, is welcome in every aspect of our lives except when it comes to other human beings — of color, that is. When it comes to people, suddenly different colors and shades provoke closed-mindedness rather than openness, fear rather than friendliness, oppression rather than freedom, and the baseness within us rather than the beautiful.
Our schizophrenic relationship with color is age-old. We love color in things. We loathe it in human beings. History is replete with examples of humankind’s most unkind behavior toward other human beings who do not look like us, dress like us, talk like us, worship like us, live like us, and are not the same color as us. Through the ages, many have fought and paid the ultimate sacrifice to resist and change this ugliness, and the injustice, discrimination, and persecution perpetrated upon our fellow man because of differences in color.
Imagine the possibilities if we could — if we would — appreciate the richness of different colors in people, just as we appreciate the richness of color in nature and in our own creations.
Imagine if we understood that every child, white, black, brown or yellow has the same needs: caring parents, safe neighborhoods, good schools, an opportunity to dream and to become whatever they dream of becoming.
Imagine if it was natural — a matter of unconscious practice — that every human, no matter their color, was given the benefit of the doubt and treated equally when he or she applies for a job, submits an application for college, applies to buy a house or rent an apartment.
If people of different colors were regarded with the same reverence and respect as the colors in nature, there would be no need for affirmative action, equal rights, equal employment protection, fair housing and other laws. Imagine if we weren’t required by law to do the right thing toward each other, because it just came naturally.
The economic, social and educational caste systems created around color and because of color have done as much to imprison and deprive the perpetrators as the perpetrated.
Great strides and gains may be made if we would only try to better understand our conflicting feelings around color, beginning with the simple acknowledgment of the common color that runs through our veins and binds us all with the gift of life.
Just imagine what might happen if we ceased to allow insignificant differences in skin color to confuse and compromise the quality of life we share as neighbors, colleagues, fellow travelers on the world stage. Just imagine."
We marvel at the awesome beauty and bounty of Nature’s parade of color — blossoms and flowers in spring and summer, the maple trees and evergreens in fall and winter.
And then, of course, we adorn our homes and bodies with colorful furnishings, fashions and works of art — yes, even body art.
Color, in all of its richness, is welcome in every aspect of our lives except when it comes to other human beings — of color, that is. When it comes to people, suddenly different colors and shades provoke closed-mindedness rather than openness, fear rather than friendliness, oppression rather than freedom, and the baseness within us rather than the beautiful.
Our schizophrenic relationship with color is age-old. We love color in things. We loathe it in human beings. History is replete with examples of humankind’s most unkind behavior toward other human beings who do not look like us, dress like us, talk like us, worship like us, live like us, and are not the same color as us. Through the ages, many have fought and paid the ultimate sacrifice to resist and change this ugliness, and the injustice, discrimination, and persecution perpetrated upon our fellow man because of differences in color.
Imagine the possibilities if we could — if we would — appreciate the richness of different colors in people, just as we appreciate the richness of color in nature and in our own creations.
Imagine if we understood that every child, white, black, brown or yellow has the same needs: caring parents, safe neighborhoods, good schools, an opportunity to dream and to become whatever they dream of becoming.
Imagine if it was natural — a matter of unconscious practice — that every human, no matter their color, was given the benefit of the doubt and treated equally when he or she applies for a job, submits an application for college, applies to buy a house or rent an apartment.
If people of different colors were regarded with the same reverence and respect as the colors in nature, there would be no need for affirmative action, equal rights, equal employment protection, fair housing and other laws. Imagine if we weren’t required by law to do the right thing toward each other, because it just came naturally.
The economic, social and educational caste systems created around color and because of color have done as much to imprison and deprive the perpetrators as the perpetrated.
Great strides and gains may be made if we would only try to better understand our conflicting feelings around color, beginning with the simple acknowledgment of the common color that runs through our veins and binds us all with the gift of life.
Just imagine what might happen if we ceased to allow insignificant differences in skin color to confuse and compromise the quality of life we share as neighbors, colleagues, fellow travelers on the world stage. Just imagine."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)