Best McCain ad yet

[ajmccarrell]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nVQaHpOnO8

I love it! :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Is this for real?

If so, McCain is sunk as this ad reeks of desparation.

[BombaySapphire3]

hmm could be that gramps is losing his bearings again!:laugh:

[Musicman408]

You've got to be kidding me. This can't be serious, can it?:shrug:

[ajmccarrell]

I think it's pretty funny and points out the lunacy of some of the people like Will.I.Am that chant his name, or Scarlett Johanssen that chant his speeches. How about that column in the LA Times that described when the writer (Olsen) "came to HIM", meaning Obama. There's also the groups that have started up how they describe how Obama has changed their lives. I mean, the guy has a Messiah complex and some of the people that follow him as a messianic figure are deluded and this shows that Obama is deliberately feeding into it. How about the fainting at every speech he gave for a while, until it was pointed out that the fainting happened every time and he said the same thing? The guy is a sideshow! I just think that a lot of people are so sick of Bush that they'll believe anything, including a snake oil salesmen like this guy.
Here's an article that describes a lot of the weirdness and Obama as a cult leader. http://townhall.com/Columnists/MichaelMedved/2008/07/16/the_candidate_as_cult_leader

[strandinthewind]

^^^

Then ehy not say this is what I want to do to help America. This is what my opponent wants to do. This is why I believe I am right and he is wrong. Then, soeak the truth.

Sadly, McCain is doing none of that. Again, it smacks of desparation because if the McCain camp had anything substantive to attack Obama with, they'd be doing it instead of pushing these ridiculous attacks, the former of which was flat out untrue.

Do you actually support this tactic?

[ajmccarrell]

^^^

Then ehy not say this is what I want to do to help America. This is what my opponent wants to do. This is why I believe I am right and he is wrong. Then, soeak the truth.

Sadly, McCain is doing none of that. Again, it smacks of desparation because if the McCain camp had anything substantive to attack Obama with, they'd be doing it instead of pushing these ridiculous attacks, the former of which was flat out untrue.

Do you actually support this tactic?

McCain has made his positions clear as to what he wants to do. Did you miss the press coverage of the release of his economic plan two weeks ago? Probably because the press barely covered it. They've been too busy covering the bowel movements of The Obamessiah. McCain also challenged to debate Obama at ten townhall debates, which Obama rescinded after accepting, as he found out there would be no teleprompter. McCain also repeatedly challenged Obama to talk to the leaders in the middle east before he formed policy, which Obama eventually did after it made him look bad and repeated ads from troops that he refused to see. You'd see more substance if Obama would talk about it, but he does the same thing. He accused McCain of racism just yesterday and back in June. He has his surrogates attack McCain, like Wesley Clark, then disavows what they said, as if they had changed and Obama didn't know. Obama has been playing dirty for a while and I thought he was going to bury McCain in negativity because he's too nice to hit back, like when he wouldn't attack Romney. Yes, I do support this tactic and I'm damn glad McCain grew a set. :]

[strandinthewind]

^^

So, you support lies and character assasinations by association to people the victim has nothing in common with.

I think you are better than that :shrug:

[BombaySapphire3]

^^

So, you support lies and character assasinations by association to people the victim has nothing in common with.

I think you are better than that :shrug:

You know I used to find McCain one of the most palatable of all Republicans but the fact that he is taking the low road here in light of the what the Rove smear machine did to him in 2000 is just despicable ..this anything to win is part of what cost Hillary the nomination I believe and I hope it has the same effect with McCain.

[strandinthewind]

. . . this anything to win is part of what cost Hillary the nomination I believe and I hope it has the same effect with McCain.

I am unsure. Remember, Hillary garnered millions of actual votes as opposed to caususes. There is a difference.

In the end though, it is this type of BS that I think leaves bad tastes in peoples' mouths.

McCain is smart if inappropriate in that these uncalled for and mostly false (the quotes in "The One" are all taken out of context :rolleyes: ) are puting McCain in the public eye, which formerly had been undeviatingly on Obama. I think it will backfire on his though as it just solidifies McCain's image as same ole politics that people are sick of. I think that reason is the reason Hillary "lost."

[strandinthewind]

Obama's response:

Obama campaign spokesman Hari Sevugan dismissed the ad as a juvenile stunt.

"It's downright sad that on a day when we learned that 51,000 Americans lost their jobs, a candidate for the presidency is spending all of his time and the powerful platform he has on these sorts of juvenile antics," he said in a statement. "Senator McCain can keep telling everyone how 'proud' he is of these political stunts which even his Republican friends and advisors have called'childish', but Barack Obama will continue talking about his plan to jumpstart our economy by giving working families $1,000 of immediate relief."

_____________________

Somewhat smart to try to shift the focus. But, the focus will remain on this for awhile. Obama must find a way to counter that.

Imagine if Obama ran an ad with skin cancer patients dying of chemo, horrible images of radical skin cancer disfiguting people, families at funerals, etc. -- and then placing this text on the screen - "Sen. McCain has this disease in his veins and it's only a matter of time for the 71 year old man." "Does he have the medical time to lead this country?" Clearly McCain's skin cancer is a legitimate campaign issue. I think, though, that the McCain campaign would be horrified by such an ad. Yet, they run the same kind of tripe.

[strandinthewind]

Of course, McCain learned from the best :rolleyes:


Bush Waged Nasty Smear Campaign Against McCain in 2000

Bush Supporters Called McCain “The Fag Candidate.” In South Carolina, Bush supporters circulated church fliers that labeled McCain “the fag candidate.” Columnist Frank Rich noted that the fliers were distributed “even as Bush subtly reinforced that message by indicating he wouldn’t hire openly gay people for his administration.”

McCain Slurs Included Illegitimate Children, Homosexuality And A Drug-Addict Wife.

Among the rumors circulated against McCain in 2000 in South Carolina was that his adopted Bangladeshi daughter was actually black, that McCain was both gay and cheated on his wife, and that his wife Cindy was a drug addict.”

Bush Campaign Used Code Words to Question McCain’s Temper.

“A smear campaign of the ugliest sort is now coursing through the contest for the presidency in 2000. Using the code word "temper," a group of Senate Republicans, and at least some outriders of the George W. Bush campaign, are spreading the word that John McCain is unstable. The subtext, also suggested in this whispering campaign, is that he returned from 5 1/2 years as a POW in North Vietnam with a loose screw. And it is bruited about that he shouldn't be entrusted with nuclear weapons.”

Bush Supporters Questioned McCain’s Sanity.

“Some of George W. Bush's supporters have questioned Republican presidential candidate John McCain's fitness for the White House, suggesting that his five years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam drove him insane at the time.”

Bush Supporters Spread Racist Rumors About McCain’s Daughter.

Bush supporters in South Carolina made race-baiting phone calls saying that McCain had a “black child.” The McCains’ daughter, Bridget, was adopted from Mother Teresa’s orphanage in Bangladesh. In August 2000, columnist Maureen Dowd wrote that the McCains “are still seething about Bush supporters in South Carolina spreading word of their dark-skinned adopted daughter.”

Rove Suggests Former POW McCain Committed Treason and Fathered Child With Black Prostitute.

In 2000, McCain operatives in SC accused Rove of spreading rumors against McCain, such as “suggestions that McCain had committed treason while a prisoner of war, and had fathered a child by a black prostitute,” according to the New Yorker.

After Rove Denied Role In McCain Whisper Campaign, Reporters Concluded He Was Behind It.

A December 1999 Dallas Morning News linked Rove to a series of campaign dirty tricks, including his College Republican efforts, allegedly starting a whisper campaign about Ann Richard being too gay-friendly, spreading stories about Jim Hightower’s involvement in a kickback scheme and leaking the educational history of Lena Guerrero. The article also outlined current dirty tricks and whisper campaigns against McCain in South Carolina, including that “McCain may be unstable as a result of being tortured while a prisoner of war in North Vietnam.” (DMN, 12/2/99) After the article was published, Rove blasted Slater in the Manchester, NH airport, “nose to nose” according to one witness, with Rove claiming Slater had “harmed his reputation,” Slater later noted. But according to one witness, “What was interesting then is that everyone on the campaign charter concluded that Rove was responsible for rumors about McCain.”

Rove Was In Close Touch With McConnell, McCain-Feingold’s Chief Opponent.

Senior White House adviser Karl Rove was in close contact with Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) during McConnell’s effort to fight the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Bill in the U.S. Senate. According to Newsweek, though Rove and Bush have publicly kept their distance from McConnell on the issue, “sources tell Newsweek that Rove is, in fact, in close touch with McConnell as GOP experts study the bill for hidden land mines.”

Bush Campaign Accused of Using Push Polls Against McCain.

College of Charleston student Suzette Latsko said she received a telephone call from a woman who identified herself as an employee of Voter/Consumer Research, and that the caller misrepresented McCain’s positions and asked if Latsko knew McCain had been reprimanded for interfering with federal regulators in the savings and loan scandal. Voter/Consumer Research is listed as a polling contractor on Bush’s Federal Election Commission filings; the Bush campaign has paid Voter/Consumer Research $93,000 through December 31, 1999. Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer denied the call was a push poll, but said it was important that the Republican Party remember McCain’s role in the S&L crisis.

Bush Campaign Acknowledged Making Phone Calls.

Tucker Eskew, Bush’s South Carolina spokesman, acknowledged the Bush campaign made such calls, but claimed they were not “push polls.” Eskew added, “Show me a baseless comment in those questions.”

Bush Used Fringe Veterans Group to Attack McCain as “Manchurian Candidate.”

“In the case of Ted Sampley, the same guy who did Bush's dirty work in going after Sen. John McCain in the 2000 Republican primaries is doing the job against Kerry this year. Sampley dared compare McCain, who spent five years as a Vietnam POW, with ‘the Manchurian Candidate.’”

Sampley Called McCain a “Coward” and a Traitor.

“Sampley… accused McCain of being a weak-minded coward who had escaped death by collaborating with the enemy. Sampley claimed that McCain had first been compromised by the Vietnamese, then recruited by the Soviets.”

___________________________

And all this a decorated POW. Then again, Bush was MIA for years during Vietnam and Cheney "had better things to do" than go to Vietnam. And they clearly devalue hinorable service as they did the same thing to Max Cleland and John Kerry. If I had been Kerry and W started the Swift Boat crap with me, I would have walked over to his podium during a debate and said "listen, at least I voluntered to go you fukcing pu$$y." Then again, they value human life and the brave American soldiers so much that they lied to get us into a war and refused to provide enough soldiers to win that war or enough money at home to take care of the wounded. They make me sick. Now, McCain is continuing the path.

[ajmccarrell]

Obama's response:

Obama campaign spokesman Hari Sevugan dismissed the ad as a juvenile stunt.

"It's downright sad that on a day when we learned that 51,000 Americans lost their jobs, a candidate for the presidency is spending all of his time and the powerful platform he has on these sorts of juvenile antics," he said in a statement. "Senator McCain can keep telling everyone how 'proud' he is of these political stunts which even his Republican friends and advisors have called'childish', but Barack Obama will continue talking about his plan to jumpstart our economy by giving working families $1,000 of immediate relief."

_____________________

Somewhat smart to try to shift the focus. But, the focus will remain on this for awhile. Obama must find a way to counter that.

Imagine if Obama ran an ad with skin cancer patients dying of chemo, horrible images of radical skin cancer disfiguting people, families at funerals, etc. -- and then placing this text on the screen - "Sen. McCain has this disease in his veins and it's only a matter of time for the 71 year old man." "Does he have the medical time to lead this country?" Clearly McCain's skin cancer is a legitimate campaign issue. I think, though, that the McCain campaign would be horrified by such an ad. Yet, they run the same kind of tripe.

So, it isn't wasteful or distracting to spend donors money on trips to countries where they can't vote in the election? McCain's doctors disagree with you, so what makes you smarter than they are? Just crack any economics textbook, even those by Paul Krugman, and even he admits these rebates are totally inefficient and do not work. Last time it was tried was back in the Carter era and it didn't work then either. What Obama won't tell you is that if he taxes the oil companies at the rate he wants to and gives us all $1,000.00, it won't outweigh the price increases we will have to suffer as a result of his misguided policy, or the effects from the rising deficit by using the government to do what the market can do more efficiently. Someone open a damn textbook, will ya?! I would actually suggest Paul Krugman's texts, because he uses specific examples of the failures of these types of rehashed 70's energy policies that result in shortages and higher prices. Doesn't anyone remember this? Good lord.

[ajmccarrell]

Of course, McCain learned from the best :rolleyes:


Bush Waged Nasty Smear Campaign Against McCain in 2000

Bush Supporters Called McCain “The Fag Candidate.” In South Carolina, Bush supporters circulated church fliers that labeled McCain “the fag candidate.” Columnist Frank Rich noted that the fliers were distributed “even as Bush subtly reinforced that message by indicating he wouldn’t hire openly gay people for his administration.”

McCain Slurs Included Illegitimate Children, Homosexuality And A Drug-Addict Wife.

Among the rumors circulated against McCain in 2000 in South Carolina was that his adopted Bangladeshi daughter was actually black, that McCain was both gay and cheated on his wife, and that his wife Cindy was a drug addict.”

Bush Campaign Used Code Words to Question McCain’s Temper.

“A smear campaign of the ugliest sort is now coursing through the contest for the presidency in 2000. Using the code word "temper," a group of Senate Republicans, and at least some outriders of the George W. Bush campaign, are spreading the word that John McCain is unstable. The subtext, also suggested in this whispering campaign, is that he returned from 5 1/2 years as a POW in North Vietnam with a loose screw. And it is bruited about that he shouldn't be entrusted with nuclear weapons.”

Bush Supporters Questioned McCain’s Sanity.

“Some of George W. Bush's supporters have questioned Republican presidential candidate John McCain's fitness for the White House, suggesting that his five years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam drove him insane at the time.”

Bush Supporters Spread Racist Rumors About McCain’s Daughter.

Bush supporters in South Carolina made race-baiting phone calls saying that McCain had a “black child.” The McCains’ daughter, Bridget, was adopted from Mother Teresa’s orphanage in Bangladesh. In August 2000, columnist Maureen Dowd wrote that the McCains “are still seething about Bush supporters in South Carolina spreading word of their dark-skinned adopted daughter.”

Rove Suggests Former POW McCain Committed Treason and Fathered Child With Black Prostitute.

In 2000, McCain operatives in SC accused Rove of spreading rumors against McCain, such as “suggestions that McCain had committed treason while a prisoner of war, and had fathered a child by a black prostitute,” according to the New Yorker.

After Rove Denied Role In McCain Whisper Campaign, Reporters Concluded He Was Behind It.

A December 1999 Dallas Morning News linked Rove to a series of campaign dirty tricks, including his College Republican efforts, allegedly starting a whisper campaign about Ann Richard being too gay-friendly, spreading stories about Jim Hightower’s involvement in a kickback scheme and leaking the educational history of Lena Guerrero. The article also outlined current dirty tricks and whisper campaigns against McCain in South Carolina, including that “McCain may be unstable as a result of being tortured while a prisoner of war in North Vietnam.” (DMN, 12/2/99) After the article was published, Rove blasted Slater in the Manchester, NH airport, “nose to nose” according to one witness, with Rove claiming Slater had “harmed his reputation,” Slater later noted. But according to one witness, “What was interesting then is that everyone on the campaign charter concluded that Rove was responsible for rumors about McCain.”

Rove Was In Close Touch With McConnell, McCain-Feingold’s Chief Opponent.

Senior White House adviser Karl Rove was in close contact with Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) during McConnell’s effort to fight the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Bill in the U.S. Senate. According to Newsweek, though Rove and Bush have publicly kept their distance from McConnell on the issue, “sources tell Newsweek that Rove is, in fact, in close touch with McConnell as GOP experts study the bill for hidden land mines.”

Bush Campaign Accused of Using Push Polls Against McCain.

College of Charleston student Suzette Latsko said she received a telephone call from a woman who identified herself as an employee of Voter/Consumer Research, and that the caller misrepresented McCain’s positions and asked if Latsko knew McCain had been reprimanded for interfering with federal regulators in the savings and loan scandal. Voter/Consumer Research is listed as a polling contractor on Bush’s Federal Election Commission filings; the Bush campaign has paid Voter/Consumer Research $93,000 through December 31, 1999. Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer denied the call was a push poll, but said it was important that the Republican Party remember McCain’s role in the S&L crisis.

Bush Campaign Acknowledged Making Phone Calls.

Tucker Eskew, Bush’s South Carolina spokesman, acknowledged the Bush campaign made such calls, but claimed they were not “push polls.” Eskew added, “Show me a baseless comment in those questions.”

Bush Used Fringe Veterans Group to Attack McCain as “Manchurian Candidate.”

“In the case of Ted Sampley, the same guy who did Bush's dirty work in going after Sen. John McCain in the 2000 Republican primaries is doing the job against Kerry this year. Sampley dared compare McCain, who spent five years as a Vietnam POW, with ‘the Manchurian Candidate.’”

Sampley Called McCain a “Coward” and a Traitor.

“Sampley… accused McCain of being a weak-minded coward who had escaped death by collaborating with the enemy. Sampley claimed that McCain had first been compromised by the Vietnamese, then recruited by the Soviets.”

___________________________

And all this a decorated POW. Then again, Bush was MIA for years during Vietnam and Cheney "had better things to do" than go to Vietnam. And they clearly devalue hinorable service as they did the same thing to Max Cleland and John Kerry. If I had been Kerry and W started the Swift Boat crap with me, I would have walked over to his podium during a debate and said "listen, at least I voluntered to go you fukcing pu$$y." Then again, they value human life and the brave American soldiers so much that they lied to get us into a war and refused to provide enough soldiers to win that war or enough money at home to take care of the wounded. They make me sick. Now, McCain is continuing the path.

So glad you brought this up! It certainly counters the notion of "McBush" as you would like to portray. Thanks for doing my job for me! :laugh: I always had a problem with Bush for the way he went after McCain. It was sleazy.

[strandinthewind]

So glad you brought this up! It certainly counters the notion of "McBush" as you would like to portray. Thanks for doing my job for me! :laugh: I always had a problem with Bush for the way he went after McCain. It was sleazy.

And equating Obama to a mentally unbalanced blond girl and convicted felon and porn star blond girl is :shrug: Not to mention the conclusions asserted in that ad a patently false, i.e. McCain lied in the ad. Same shiitte - different day :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

So, it isn't wasteful or distracting to spend donors money on trips to countries where they can't vote in the election?

I am unclear what you are asserting. Are you asserting that a US Senator, much less one on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - cannot go to Iraq and Europe. Are you actually asserting that. I mean even McCain said he should go :shrug:

. . . McCain's doctors disagree with you, so what makes you smarter than they are?

You missed the point. The point is McCain lied in his attack ads and you condone it. Would you feel the same way if the tables were turned.

Just crack any economics textbook, even those by Paul Krugman, and even he admits these rebates are totally inefficient and do not work. Last time it was tried was back in the Carter era and it didn't work then either. What Obama won't tell you is that if he taxes the oil companies at the rate he wants to and gives us all $1,000.00, it won't outweigh the price increases we will have to suffer as a result of his misguided policy, or the effects from the rising deficit by using the government to do what the market can do more efficiently. Someone open a damn textbook, will ya?! I would actually suggest Paul Krugman's texts, because he uses specific examples of the failures of these types of rehashed 70's energy policies that result in shortages and higher prices. Doesn't anyone remember this? Good lord.

I am talking about the ads specific reference to drilling for our oil and how that will somehow reduce the price of gas ostensibly now -- that is a lie and a patent one at that :shrug: Do you not acknowledge that was a lie?

[strandinthewind]

So glad you brought this up! It certainly counters the notion of "McBush" as you would like to portray. Thanks for doing my job for me! :laugh: I always had a problem with Bush for the way he went after McCain. It was sleazy.

Oh why not :laugh:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nV3ia_aFsOY&fs=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nV3ia_aFsOY&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Sure sounds like Bush to me --

Transcript:

QUESTION: Are there other signs you see that are encouraging to you...

MCCAIN: Oh yeah. A lot of the fundraisers from other camps are coming on board. And yeah we're seeing that coming together really well. We're seeing it.

[Inaudible]

MCCAIN: Who?

QUESTION: Karl Rove?


MCCAIN: Oh I, listen, he ah. Nobody denies he's one of the smartest political minds in America. I'd be glad to get his advice. I get advice from a lot of people. I'd be happy to have his advice.

QUESTION: I was wondering about that, right....

MCCAIN: He beat me. I certainly would be glad to get his advice. I don't think I'd want to revisit how he did it. And I mean that. Not about South Carolina. I mean I don't feel like reliving my defeat.

QUESTION: Are you worried about, he uses very aggressive tactics is that something that--



MCCAIN: I've always respected Karl Rove as one of the smart great political minds I think in American politics. I've always respected him. We never had any ill will after the initial South Carolina thing. After we had the meeting with President Bush we moved on. I've seen Karl Rove many times when I've been over at the White House. We've always had pleasant conversations.



QUESTION: His tactics don't, you don't disapprove of them? They don't make you nervous?

MCCAIN: It's not so much whether I approve of his tactics or not. It's that he has a very good, great political mind. Any information or advice and council he can give us, I'd be glad to have. I don't think anybody denies his talents. So I'd be glad to get any advice and council. We would obviously decide whether to accept it or not.

[strandinthewind]

And - since you brough up Krigman as a source - here he is proving that McCain's assertion that Obama's refusal to support drilling for oil is an outright lie.

(emphasis supplied)

August 1, 2008

Op-Ed Columnist

Can This Planet Be Saved?

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Recently the Web site The Politico asked Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, why she was blocking attempts to tack offshore drilling amendments onto appropriations bills. “I’m trying to save the planet; I’m trying to save the planet,” she replied.

I’m glad to hear it. But I’m still worried about the planet’s prospects.

True, Ms. Pelosi’s remark was a happy reminder that environmental policy is no longer in the hands of crazy people. Remember, less than two years ago Senator James Inhofe — a conspiracy theorist who insists that global warming is a “gigantic hoax” perpetrated by the scientific community — was the chairman of the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee.

Beyond that, Ms. Pelosi’s response shows that she understands the deeper issues behind the current energy debate.

Most criticism of John McCain’s decision to follow the Bush administration’s lead and embrace offshore drilling as the answer to high gas prices has focused on the accusation that it’s junk economics — which it is.

A McCain campaign ad says that gas prices are high right now because “some in Washington are still saying no to drilling in America.” That’s just plain dishonest: the U.S. government’s own Energy Information Administration says that removing restrictions on offshore drilling wouldn’t lead to any additional domestic oil production until 2017, and that even at its peak the extra production would have an “insignificant” impact on oil prices.
What’s even more important than Mr. McCain’s bad economics, however, is what his reversal on this issue — he was against offshore drilling before he was for it — says about his priorities.

Back when he was cultivating a maverick image, Mr. McCain portrayed himself as more environmentally aware than the rest of his party. He even co-sponsored a bill calling for a cap-and-trade system to limit greenhouse gas emissions (although his remarks on several recent occasions suggest that he doesn’t understand his own proposal). But the lure of a bit of political gain, it turns out, was all it took to transform him back into a standard drill-and-burn Republican.

And the planet can’t afford that kind of cynicism.

In themselves, limits on offshore drilling are only a modest-sized issue. But the skirmish over drilling is the opening stage of a much bigger fight over environmental policy. What’s at stake in that fight, above all, is the question of whether we’ll take action against climate change before it’s utterly too late.

It’s true that scientists don’t know exactly how much world temperatures will rise if we persist with business as usual. But that uncertainty is actually what makes action so urgent. While there’s a chance that we’ll act against global warming only to find that the danger was overstated, there’s also a chance that we’ll fail to act only to find that the results of inaction were catastrophic. Which risk would you rather run?

Martin Weitzman, a Harvard economist who has been driving much of the recent high-level debate, offers some sobering numbers. Surveying a wide range of climate models, he argues that, over all, they suggest about a 5 percent chance that world temperatures will eventually rise by more than 10 degrees Celsius (that is, world temperatures will rise by 18 degrees Fahrenheit). As Mr. Weitzman points out, that’s enough to “effectively destroy planet Earth as we know it.” It’s sheer irresponsibility not to do whatever we can to eliminate that threat.

Now for the bad news: sheer irresponsibility may be a winning political strategy.

Mr. McCain’s claim that opponents of offshore drilling are responsible for high gas prices is ridiculous — and to their credit, major news organizations have pointed this out. Yet Mr. McCain’s gambit seems nonetheless to be working: public support for ending restrictions on drilling has risen sharply, with roughly half of voters saying that increased offshore drilling would reduce gas prices within a year.

Hence my concern: if a completely bogus claim that environmental protection is raising energy prices can get this much political traction, what are the chances of getting serious action against global warming? After all, a cap-and-trade system would in effect be a tax on carbon (though Mr. McCain apparently doesn’t know that), and really would raise energy prices.

The only way we’re going to get action, I’d suggest, is if those who stand in the way of action come to be perceived as not just wrong but immoral. Incidentally, that’s why I was disappointed with Barack Obama’s response to Mr. McCain’s energy posturing — that it was “the same old politics.” Mr. Obama was dismissive when he should have been outraged.

So as I said, I’m very glad to know that Nancy Pelosi is trying to save the planet. I just wish I had more confidence that she’s going to succeed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/01/opinion/01krugman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

[ajmccarrell]

I am unclear what you are asserting. Are you asserting that a US Senator, much less one on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - cannot go to Iraq and Europe. Are you actually asserting that. I mean even McCain said he should go :shrug:



You missed the point. The point is McCain lied in his attack ads and you condone it. Would you feel the same way if the tables were turned.



I am talking about the ads specific reference to drilling for our oil and how that will somehow reduce the price of gas ostensibly now -- that is a lie and a patent one at that :shrug: Do you not acknowledge that was a lie?

It is a lie in that no one ever said it. The problem will just simply be worse later. Also, the Army Corps of engineers estimates are that we could extract more oil inside of 3 years, not 10. The best thing to do is drill now and also invest in alternative fuels, which is what McCain's plan is. Bush first proposed drilling at the beginning of his first term and the situation now vindicates him, does it not?! The fact is that WE are responsible for high gas prices because we keep electing people who are opposed to it.

As far as the rest goes, Obama lies about McCain every day. I didn't see anything in either ad that was false, just humourous. The ad I just posted was mostly Obama's own words.

The fact is that Obama had no intention of going to Iraq and Europe until McCain pressured him into doing it because he looked bad developing policies on subjects he knew nothing relavent about.

[ajmccarrell]

And - since you brough up Krigman as a source - here he is proving that McCain's assertion that Obama's refusal to support drilling for oil is an outright lie.

(emphasis supplied)

August 1, 2008

Op-Ed Columnist

Can This Planet Be Saved?

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Recently the Web site The Politico asked Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, why she was blocking attempts to tack offshore drilling amendments onto appropriations bills. “I’m trying to save the planet; I’m trying to save the planet,” she replied.

I’m glad to hear it. But I’m still worried about the planet’s prospects.

True, Ms. Pelosi’s remark was a happy reminder that environmental policy is no longer in the hands of crazy people. Remember, less than two years ago Senator James Inhofe — a conspiracy theorist who insists that global warming is a “gigantic hoax” perpetrated by the scientific community — was the chairman of the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee.

Beyond that, Ms. Pelosi’s response shows that she understands the deeper issues behind the current energy debate.

Most criticism of John McCain’s decision to follow the Bush administration’s lead and embrace offshore drilling as the answer to high gas prices has focused on the accusation that it’s junk economics — which it is.

A McCain campaign ad says that gas prices are high right now because “some in Washington are still saying no to drilling in America.” That’s just plain dishonest: the U.S. government’s own Energy Information Administration says that removing restrictions on offshore drilling wouldn’t lead to any additional domestic oil production until 2017, and that even at its peak the extra production would have an “insignificant” impact on oil prices.
What’s even more important than Mr. McCain’s bad economics, however, is what his reversal on this issue — he was against offshore drilling before he was for it — says about his priorities.

Back when he was cultivating a maverick image, Mr. McCain portrayed himself as more environmentally aware than the rest of his party. He even co-sponsored a bill calling for a cap-and-trade system to limit greenhouse gas emissions (although his remarks on several recent occasions suggest that he doesn’t understand his own proposal). But the lure of a bit of political gain, it turns out, was all it took to transform him back into a standard drill-and-burn Republican.

And the planet can’t afford that kind of cynicism.

In themselves, limits on offshore drilling are only a modest-sized issue. But the skirmish over drilling is the opening stage of a much bigger fight over environmental policy. What’s at stake in that fight, above all, is the question of whether we’ll take action against climate change before it’s utterly too late.

It’s true that scientists don’t know exactly how much world temperatures will rise if we persist with business as usual. But that uncertainty is actually what makes action so urgent. While there’s a chance that we’ll act against global warming only to find that the danger was overstated, there’s also a chance that we’ll fail to act only to find that the results of inaction were catastrophic. Which risk would you rather run?

Martin Weitzman, a Harvard economist who has been driving much of the recent high-level debate, offers some sobering numbers. Surveying a wide range of climate models, he argues that, over all, they suggest about a 5 percent chance that world temperatures will eventually rise by more than 10 degrees Celsius (that is, world temperatures will rise by 18 degrees Fahrenheit). As Mr. Weitzman points out, that’s enough to “effectively destroy planet Earth as we know it.” It’s sheer irresponsibility not to do whatever we can to eliminate that threat.

Now for the bad news: sheer irresponsibility may be a winning political strategy.

Mr. McCain’s claim that opponents of offshore drilling are responsible for high gas prices is ridiculous — and to their credit, major news organizations have pointed this out. Yet Mr. McCain’s gambit seems nonetheless to be working: public support for ending restrictions on drilling has risen sharply, with roughly half of voters saying that increased offshore drilling would reduce gas prices within a year.

Hence my concern: if a completely bogus claim that environmental protection is raising energy prices can get this much political traction, what are the chances of getting serious action against global warming? After all, a cap-and-trade system would in effect be a tax on carbon (though Mr. McCain apparently doesn’t know that), and really would raise energy prices.

The only way we’re going to get action, I’d suggest, is if those who stand in the way of action come to be perceived as not just wrong but immoral. Incidentally, that’s why I was disappointed with Barack Obama’s response to Mr. McCain’s energy posturing — that it was “the same old politics.” Mr. Obama was dismissive when he should have been outraged.

So as I said, I’m very glad to know that Nancy Pelosi is trying to save the planet. I just wish I had more confidence that she’s going to succeed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/01/opinion/01krugman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

I was discussing Obama's rebates and you are switching the subject. Krugman is an authority on economic policy, not on oil drilling. The rebate policy, according to Krugman's own textbooks, outright state that rebates do not work. I used Krugman to specifically refute Obama's tax and rebate policy and not drilling, which Krugman is NOT an expert on.

Here's a list of books by Krugman, all of which contain specific chapters on the failues of Obama's rebates.

http://www.worthpublishers.com/krugmanwells/

[ajmccarrell]

I have to change a previous position. I DO think that development and drilling now would change the prices somewhat immediately. Here's why: oil prices are partially driven by futures markets. Long term futures prices would likely decrease, causing a slowing demand in the bidding for crude. This would create excess supply in the long term, meaning more than one year. It would convince speculators that we are serious about increasing long term supply, which would lower the demand curve to meet at a lower clearing point, resulting in lower prices for processed crude. Secondly, it would put us in a much better bargaining position with OPEC, which would either build more capacity themselves to meet our demand, or start lowering prices to keep us happy in the long term. So, there are two basically sound theories that would predict a modest drop in the price if congress authorized drilling today.

[strandinthewind]

It is a lie in that no one ever said it. The problem will just simply be worse later. Also, the Army Corps of engineers estimates are that we could extract more oil inside of 3 years, not 10. The best thing to do is drill now and also invest in alternative fuels, which is what McCain's plan is. Bush first proposed drilling at the beginning of his first term and the situation now vindicates him, does it not?! The fact is that WE are responsible for high gas prices because we keep electing people who are opposed to it.

No, it is a lie. Please see the above cited report from W's Energy Dept.

As far as the rest goes, Obama lies about McCain every day.

Let's see these lies.

I didn't see anything in either ad that was false, just humourous. The ad I just posted was mostly Obama's own words . . . .

They took his words out of context and turned them into hyperbole. It is disingenuous at best and IMO lying. But, you hate Obama - therefore you approve the ads. Again, if Obama ran the ad I mentioned, would you not be outraged. Yet, that ad is actually truer than the ads McCain posted in that McCain actually had skin cancer, is still monitored for it as malignant melanoma is deadliest form of skin cancer, and his has come back at least once.

In the end, I think both ads would be despicable, though the underlying issues are worthy of better discussion. How come I can admit that, but you are loathe to?

[strandinthewind]

I was discussing Obama's rebates and you are switching the subject. Krugman is an authority on economic policy, not on oil drilling. The rebate policy, according to Krugman's own textbooks, outright state that rebates do not work. I used Krugman to specifically refute Obama's tax and rebate policy and not drilling, which Krugman is NOT an expert on.

Here's a list of books by Krugman, all of which contain specific chapters on the failues of Obama's rebates.

http://www.worthpublishers.com/krugmanwells/

I have always been talking about the drilling. That is why I was unclear what you were talkling about.

But, Krugman's expertise need not apply to the drilling because W's own Dept. of Energy (clearly experts :shrug: ) solidly supports Krugman's comments, which is why Krugman cited it. Are you refuting the DOE's report?

[strandinthewind]

I have to change a previous position. I DO think that development and drilling now would change the prices somewhat immediately. Here's why: oil prices are partially driven by futures markets. Long term futures prices would likely decrease, causing a slowing demand in the bidding for crude. This would create excess supply in the long term, meaning more than one year. It would convince speculators that we are serious about increasing long term supply, which would lower the demand curve to meet at a lower clearing point, resulting in lower prices for processed crude. Secondly, it would put us in a much better bargaining position with OPEC, which would either build more capacity themselves to meet our demand, or start lowering prices to keep us happy in the long term. So, there are two basically sound theories that would predict a modest drop in the price if congress authorized drilling today.

With respect, there is no futures market I now of that goes ten or 20 years in the future :shrug:

Also, OPEC likely would laugh in our face because the negligible production is a decade or more off and even if it happened now, OPEC would likely just sell more to China and other countries.

Anyway, you cannot win that point, so let's move on shall we.

Why are you so opposed to trying to save the environment and producing alt. energy sources. Clearly we could do it if COngress ignored the oil lobby :shrug: My goodness, Brazil (a relatively poor country) beat the US at it's own supposed game. That is mind alternatingly ridiculous.

[strandinthewind]

Oh Well - I guess you like Obama now :wavey:

Obama shifts, says he may back offshore drilling

By MIKE GLOVER, Associated Press Writer

38 minutes ago

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Friday he would be willing to support limited additional offshore oil drilling if that's what it takes to enact a comprehensive policy to foster fuel-efficient autos and develop alternate energy sources.
Shifting from his previous opposition to expanded offshore drilling, the Illinois senator told a Florida newspaper he could get behind a compromise with Republicans and oil companies to prevent gridlock over energy.

Republican rival John McCain, who earlier dropped his opposition to offshore drilling, has been criticizing Obama on the stump and in broadcast ads for clinging to his opposition as gasoline prices topped $4 a gallon. Polls indicate these attacks have helped McCain gain ground on Obama.

"My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices," Obama said in an interview with The Palm Beach Post.

"If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage — I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done."

Asked about Obama's comment, McCain said, "We need oil drilling and we need it now offshore. He has consistently opposed it. He has opposed nuclear power. He has opposed reprocessing. He has opposed storage." The GOP candidate said Obama doesn't have a plan equal to the nation's energy challenges.

In Congress, both parties have fought bitterly over energy policy for weeks, with Republicans pressing for more domestic oil drilling and Democrats railing about oil company profits. Despite hundreds of hours of House and Senate floor debate, lawmakers will leave Washington for their five-week summer hiatus this week with an empty tank.

"The Republicans and the oil companies have been really beating the drums on drilling," Obama said in the Post interview. "And so we don't want gridlock. We want to get something done."

Later, Obama issued a written statement warmly welcoming a proposal sent to Senate leaders Friday by 10 senators — five from each party. Their proposal seeks to break the impasse over offshore oil development and is expected to be examined more closely in September after Congress returns from its summer recess.

The so-called Gang of 10 plan would lift drilling bans in the eastern Gulf of Mexico within 50 miles of Florida's beaches and in the South Atlantic off Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia, but only if a state agrees to the oil and gas development along its coast. The states would share in revenues from oil and gas development.

Drilling bans along the Pacific coast and the Northeast would remain in place under this compromise.

The plan also includes energy initiatives Obama has endorsed. "It would repeal tax breaks for oil companies so that we can invest billions in fuel-efficient cars, help our automakers re-tool, and make a genuine commitment to renewable sources of energy like wind power, solar power, and the next generation of clean, affordable biofuels," Obama noted.

"Like all compromises, it also includes steps that I haven't always supported," Obama conceded. "I remain skeptical that new offshore drilling will bring down gas prices in the short-term or significantly reduce our oil dependence in the long-term, though I do welcome the establishment of a process that will allow us to make future drilling decisions based on science and fact."

Nevertheless, Obama said the plan, put forward by mostly moderates and conservatives led by Sens. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., "represents a good faith effort at a new bipartisan beginning."

Earlier in the day, Obama pushed for a windfall profits tax to fund $1,000 emergency rebate checks for consumers besieged by high energy costs, a counter to McCain's call for more offshore drilling.

The pitch for putting some of the economic burden of $4-a-gallon gasoline on the oil industry served a dual purpose for Obama: It allowed him to talk up an economic issue, seen by many as a strength for Democrats and a weakness for Republicans, and at the same time respond to criticism from McCain that Obama's opposition to offshore drilling leads to higher prices at the pump.

In linking McCain to the unpopular President Bush, Obama struck a theme from Ronald Reagan's successful 1980 campaign against President Jimmy Carter by asking a town-hall audience in St. Petersburg: "Do you think you are better off than you were four years ago or eight years ago? If you aren't better off, can you afford another four years?"

Obama primed the crowd by noting new government figures showing 51,000 jobs lost last month and citing 460,000 jobs lost over the last seven months. He tied other bad economic news from the Bush administration to McCain and offered his energy program as one route to relief.

"This rebate will be enough to offset the increased cost of gas for a working family over the next four months," Obama said during a two-day campaign swing in Florida. "It will be enough to cover the entire increase in your heating bills. Or you could use the rebate for any of your other bills, or even to pay down your own debt."

www.yahoo.com

[ajmccarrell]

Oh Well - I guess you like Obama now :wavey:

Obama shifts, says he may back offshore drilling

By MIKE GLOVER, Associated Press Writer

38 minutes ago

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Friday he would be willing to support limited additional offshore oil drilling if that's what it takes to enact a comprehensive policy to foster fuel-efficient autos and develop alternate energy sources.
Shifting from his previous opposition to expanded offshore drilling, the Illinois senator told a Florida newspaper he could get behind a compromise with Republicans and oil companies to prevent gridlock over energy.

Republican rival John McCain, who earlier dropped his opposition to offshore drilling, has been criticizing Obama on the stump and in broadcast ads for clinging to his opposition as gasoline prices topped $4 a gallon. Polls indicate these attacks have helped McCain gain ground on Obama.

"My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices," Obama said in an interview with The Palm Beach Post.

"If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage — I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done."

Asked about Obama's comment, McCain said, "We need oil drilling and we need it now offshore. He has consistently opposed it. He has opposed nuclear power. He has opposed reprocessing. He has opposed storage." The GOP candidate said Obama doesn't have a plan equal to the nation's energy challenges.

In Congress, both parties have fought bitterly over energy policy for weeks, with Republicans pressing for more domestic oil drilling and Democrats railing about oil company profits. Despite hundreds of hours of House and Senate floor debate, lawmakers will leave Washington for their five-week summer hiatus this week with an empty tank.

"The Republicans and the oil companies have been really beating the drums on drilling," Obama said in the Post interview. "And so we don't want gridlock. We want to get something done."

Later, Obama issued a written statement warmly welcoming a proposal sent to Senate leaders Friday by 10 senators — five from each party. Their proposal seeks to break the impasse over offshore oil development and is expected to be examined more closely in September after Congress returns from its summer recess.

The so-called Gang of 10 plan would lift drilling bans in the eastern Gulf of Mexico within 50 miles of Florida's beaches and in the South Atlantic off Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia, but only if a state agrees to the oil and gas development along its coast. The states would share in revenues from oil and gas development.

Drilling bans along the Pacific coast and the Northeast would remain in place under this compromise.

The plan also includes energy initiatives Obama has endorsed. "It would repeal tax breaks for oil companies so that we can invest billions in fuel-efficient cars, help our automakers re-tool, and make a genuine commitment to renewable sources of energy like wind power, solar power, and the next generation of clean, affordable biofuels," Obama noted.

"Like all compromises, it also includes steps that I haven't always supported," Obama conceded. "I remain skeptical that new offshore drilling will bring down gas prices in the short-term or significantly reduce our oil dependence in the long-term, though I do welcome the establishment of a process that will allow us to make future drilling decisions based on science and fact."

Nevertheless, Obama said the plan, put forward by mostly moderates and conservatives led by Sens. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., "represents a good faith effort at a new bipartisan beginning."

Earlier in the day, Obama pushed for a windfall profits tax to fund $1,000 emergency rebate checks for consumers besieged by high energy costs, a counter to McCain's call for more offshore drilling.

The pitch for putting some of the economic burden of $4-a-gallon gasoline on the oil industry served a dual purpose for Obama: It allowed him to talk up an economic issue, seen by many as a strength for Democrats and a weakness for Republicans, and at the same time respond to criticism from McCain that Obama's opposition to offshore drilling leads to higher prices at the pump.

In linking McCain to the unpopular President Bush, Obama struck a theme from Ronald Reagan's successful 1980 campaign against President Jimmy Carter by asking a town-hall audience in St. Petersburg: "Do you think you are better off than you were four years ago or eight years ago? If you aren't better off, can you afford another four years?"

Obama primed the crowd by noting new government figures showing 51,000 jobs lost last month and citing 460,000 jobs lost over the last seven months. He tied other bad economic news from the Bush administration to McCain and offered his energy program as one route to relief.

"This rebate will be enough to offset the increased cost of gas for a working family over the next four months," Obama said during a two-day campaign swing in Florida. "It will be enough to cover the entire increase in your heating bills. Or you could use the rebate for any of your other bills, or even to pay down your own debt."

www.yahoo.com

I would like him if he supported it wholeheartedly, but in typicaly Obama fashion, he doesn't really commit to it. Just more double talk from the "Messiah".

[omigodstevie]

I think McCain's just too senile these days to realize what a messed up ad that was.

[ajmccarrell]

I think McCain's just too senile these days to realize what a messed up ad that was.

LOL! That's what the media would have you believe. Obama says there are 57 states, he says he's a member of the Committee of Banking, Housing, And Urban Affairs and The U.S. Senate Banking Committee, when he is a member of neither. He also messed up the name of Brownsville, TN, Sunshine, FL, Sioux Cit, SD, and too many other places to list. He said his father served in World War II and that his uncle liberated Auschwitz. Neither of which is true. He believes that there is a "Defense Against Marriage Act" He keeps forgetting to ask for donations to pay off Hillary's debt and has to go back out on stage. He says that American forces are just "air rading villages and killing civilians" in Afghanistan. The South Florida Sun Sentinel reported on an Obama rally, "It wasn't clear if Barack Obama knew where he was Friday Afternoon..." He stated that he wasn't doing well in Kentucky because of nearby Arkansas, whereas Arkansas doesn't border Kentucky, Illinois does. He stated he won the Michigan Primary, when he wasn't even on the ballot. He said that Israel is a strong friend of Israel, he confused the two langauges of Iraq and Afghanistan, he also incorrectly stated that we were sending aid to AIraq that should go to Afghanistan, which wasn't true. He confused Iran and Israel on numerous occasions. He criticised China for criticising remarks he made that he already apologized for and retracted. He has said he would remove all troops, then later say he would leave troops behind to protect our interests. He has referred to the Prime Minister of Canada as "president". He has cited bills that he "wrote" that he had no part of. He said that if obesity rates were at 1980's levels that the US would save "1 trillion". He said crimes against hispanics doubled in the previous year, when they had not. Basically, he makes Bush look halfway intelligent.

I mean, this is only the campaign and these represent only half of the gaffe's that have been reported in the news. Yet, we see more coverage of McCain being confused, when Obama is obviously confused as well. No one is senile. Chalk it up to the fact that these two men are absolutely exhausted. How many of us could keep our own names straight with all the traveling and campaigning these two guys have to endure.

[omigodstevie]

LOL! That's what the media would have you believe. Obama says there are 57 states, he says he's a member of the Committee of Banking, Housing, And Urban Affairs and The U.S. Senate Banking Committee, when he is a member of neither. He also messed up the name of Brownsville, TN, Sunshine, FL, Sioux Cit, SD, and too many other places to list. He said his father served in World War II and that his uncle liberated Auschwitz. Neither of which is true. He believes that there is a "Defense Against Marriage Act" He keeps forgetting to ask for donations to pay off Hillary's debt and has to go back out on stage. He says that American forces are just "air rading villages and killing civilians" in Afghanistan. The South Florida Sun Sentinel reported on an Obama rally, "It wasn't clear if Barack Obama knew where he was Friday Afternoon..." He stated that he wasn't doing well in Kentucky because of nearby Arkansas, whereas Arkansas doesn't border Kentucky, Illinois does. He stated he won the Michigan Primary, when he wasn't even on the ballot. He said that Israel is a strong friend of Israel, he confused the two langauges of Iraq and Afghanistan, he also incorrectly stated that we were sending aid to AIraq that should go to Afghanistan, which wasn't true. He confused Iran and Israel on numerous occasions. He criticised China for criticising remarks he made that he already apologized for and retracted. He has said he would remove all troops, then later say he would leave troops behind to protect our interests. He has referred to the Prime Minister of Canada as "president". He has cited bills that he "wrote" that he had no part of. He said that if obesity rates were at 1980's levels that the US would save "1 trillion". He said crimes against hispanics doubled in the previous year, when they had not. Basically, he makes Bush look halfway intelligent.

I mean, this is only the campaign and these represent only half of the gaffe's that have been reported in the news. Yet, we see more coverage of McCain being confused, when Obama is obviously confused as well. No one is senile. Chalk it up to the fact that these two men are absolutely exhausted. How many of us could keep our own names straight with all the traveling and campaigning these two guys have to endure.


haha! I didn't know most of those. Except the Michigan primary one, because I live in Michigan and he definitely was not on that ballot. I don't think either one of them are going to make a good president. If I had to choose, I'd still vote for Obama, though. He wants troops out of Iraq, and McCain doesn't. I'm just a big peace, love, rock n roll kind of girl. :o

[iamnotafraid]

The Politico asked Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, why she was blocking attempts to tack offshore drilling amendments onto appropriations bills. “I’m trying to save the planet; I’m trying to save the planet,” she replied.


I wonder what type of super hero suit she's going to wear while saving the planet?
Will it include a cape? And more importantly will the movie based on her heroics
beat out Batman at the box office?

[ajmccarrell]

That reminds me of a Robot Chicken sketch where they had a delusional Ted Turner as Captain Planet killing polluters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVzLzClY2E8

[strandinthewind]

I wonder what type of super hero suit she's going to wear while saving the planet?
Will it include a cape? And more importantly will the movie based on her heroics
beat out Batman at the box office?

No one can beat off Batman -- I mean - errr :o

[strandinthewind]

I would like him if he supported it wholeheartedly . . . .

Because you want to save $0.04 a gallon like 20 years from now :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

Can't say I really disagree with this guy -- I really thought McCain was better than this. But, I suppose when no one is listening to what you are saying, you have to do something to dim the mega wattage of the opponent who is eclisping you. Sadly, McCain resorted to lies, baseless conmparisons, the race card, unsupported innuendo, and sound bytes taken out of context, to wit:

August 2, 2008

Op-Ed Columnist

Running While Black

By BOB HERBERT

Gee, I wonder why, if you have a black man running for high public office — say, Barack Obama or Harold Ford — the opposition feels compelled to run low-life political ads featuring tacky, sexually provocative white women who have no connection whatsoever to the black male candidates.

Spare me any more drivel about the high-mindedness of John McCain. You knew something was up back in March when, in his first ad of the general campaign, Mr. McCain had himself touted as “the American president Americans have been waiting for.”

There was nothing subtle about that attempt to position Senator Obama as the Other, a candidate who might technically be American but who remained in some sense foreign, not sufficiently patriotic and certainly not one of us — the “us” being the genuine red-white-and-blue Americans who the ad was aimed at.

Since then, Senator McCain has only upped the ante, smearing Mr. Obama every which way from sundown. On Wednesday, The Washington Post ran an extraordinary front-page article that began:

“For four days, Senator John McCain and his allies have accused Senator Barack Obama of snubbing wounded soldiers by canceling a visit to a military hospital because he could not take reporters with him, despite no evidence that the charge is true.”

Evidence? John McCain needs no evidence. His campaign is about trashing the opposition, Karl Rove-style. Not satisfied with calling his opponent’s patriotism into question, Mr. McCain added what amounted to a charge of treason, insisting that Senator Obama would actually prefer that the United States lose a war if that would mean that he — Senator Obama — would not have to lose an election.

Now, from the hapless but increasingly venomous McCain campaign, comes the slimy Britney Spears and Paris Hilton ad. The two highly sexualized women (both notorious for displaying themselves to the paparazzi while not wearing underwear) are shown briefly and incongruously at the beginning of a commercial critical of Mr. Obama.

The Republican National Committee targeted Harold Ford with a similarly disgusting ad in 2006 when Mr. Ford, then a congressman, was running a strong race for a U.S. Senate seat in Tennessee. The ad, which the committee described as a parody, showed a scantily clad woman whispering, “Harold, call me.”

Both ads were foul, poisonous and emanated from the upper reaches of the Republican Party. (What a surprise.) Both were designed to exploit the hostility, anxiety and resentment of the many white Americans who are still freakishly hung up on the idea of black men rising above their station and becoming sexually involved with white women.

The racial fantasy factor in this presidential campaign is out of control. It was at work in that New Yorker cover that caused such a stir. (Mr. Obama in Muslim garb with the American flag burning in the fireplace.) It’s driving the idea that Barack Obama is somehow presumptuous, too arrogant, too big for his britches — a man who obviously does not know his place.

Mr. Obama has to endure these grotesque insults with a smile and heroic levels of equanimity. The reason he has to do this — the sole reason — is that he is black.

So there he was this week speaking evenly, and with a touch of humor, to a nearly all-white audience in Missouri. His goal was to reassure his listeners, to let them know he’s not some kind of unpatriotic ogre.

Mr. Obama told them: “What they’re going to try to do is make you scared of me. You know, he’s not patriotic enough. He’s got a funny name. You know, he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills, you know. He’s risky.”

The audience seemed to appreciate his comments. Mr. Obama was well-received.

But John McCain didn’t appreciate them. RACE CARD! RACE CARD! The McCain camp started bellowing, and it hasn’t stopped since. With great glee bursting through their feigned outrage, the campaign’s operatives and the candidate himself accused Senator Obama of introducing race into the campaign — playing the race card, as they put it, from the very bottom of the deck.

Whatever you think about Barack Obama, he does not want the race issue to be front and center in this campaign. Every day that the campaign is about race is a good day for John McCain. So I guess we understand Mr. McCain’s motivation.

Nevertheless, it’s frustrating to watch John McCain calling out Barack Obama on race. Senator Obama has spoken more honestly and thoughtfully about race than any other politician in many years. Senator McCain is the head of a party that has viciously exploited race for political gain for decades.

He’s obviously more than willing to continue that nauseating tradition.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/02/opinion/02herbert.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
___________________________________________

Perhaps McCain fellates Rove in some way to get these ideas out of the playbook :rolleyes:

[strandinthewind]

And, just in case anyone thinks Obama is all about appeasing the blacks (emphasis supplied) -

Obama says he opposes slavery reparations, apology

By CHRISTOPHER WILLS, Associated Press Writer

13 minutes ago

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama opposes offering reparations to the descendants of slaves, putting him at odds with some black groups and leaders.
The man with a serious chance to become the nation's first black president argues that government should instead combat the legacy of slavery by improving schools, health care and the economy for all.

"I have said in the past — and I'll repeat again — that the best reparations we can provide are good schools in the inner city and jobs for people who are unemployed," the Illinois Democrat said recently.

Some two dozen members of Congress are co-sponsors of legislation to create a commission that would study reparations — that is, payments and programs to make up for the damage done by slavery.

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People supports the legislation, too. Cities around the country, including Obama's home of Chicago, have endorsed the idea, and so has a major union, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

Obama has worked to be seen as someone who will bring people together, not divide them into various interest groups with checklists of demands. Supporting reparations could undermine that image and make him appear to be pandering to black voters.

"Let's not be naive. Sen. Obama is running for president of the United States, and so he is in a constant battle to save his political life," said Kibibi Tyehimba, co-chair of the National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America. "In light of the demographics of this country, I don't think it's realistic to expect him to do anything other than what he's done."

But this is not a position Obama adopted just for the presidential campaign. He voiced the same concerns about reparations during his successful run for the Senate in 2004.

There's enough flexibility in the term "reparations" that Obama can oppose them and still have plenty of common ground with supporters.

The NAACP says reparations could take the form of government programs to help struggling people of all races. Efforts to improve schools in the inner city could also aid students in the mountains of West Virginia, said Hilary Shelton, director of the NAACP's Washington bureau.

"The solution could be broad and sweeping," Shelton said.

The National Urban League — a group Obama is to address Saturday — avoids the word "reparations" as too vague and highly charged. But the group advocates government action to close the gaps between white America and black America.

Urban League President Marc Morial said he expects his members to press Obama on how he intends to close those gaps and what action he would take in the first 100 days of his presidency.

"What steps should we take as a nation to alleviate the effects of racial exclusion and racial discrimination?" Morial asked.

The House voted this week to apologize for slavery. The resolution, which was approved on a voice vote, does not mention reparations, but past opponents have argued that an apology would increase pressure for concrete action.

Obama says an apology would be appropriate but not particularly helpful in improving the lives of black Americans. Reparations could also be a distraction, he said.

In a 2004 questionnaire, he told the NAACP, "I fear that reparations would be an excuse for some to say, 'We've paid our debt,' and to avoid the much harder work."

Taking questions Sunday at a conference of minority journalists, Obama said he would be willing to talk to American Indian leaders about an apology for the nation's treatment of their people.

Pressed for his position on apologizing to blacks or offering reparations, Obama said he was more interested in taking action to help people struggling to get by. Because many of them are minorities, he said, that would help the same people who would stand to benefit from reparations.

"If we have a program, for example, of universal health care, that will disproportionately affect people of color, because they're disproportionately uninsured," Obama said. "If we've got an agenda that says every child in America should get — should be able to go to college, regardless of income, that will disproportionately affect people of color, because it's oftentimes our children who can't afford to go to college."

One reparations advocate, Vernellia Randall, a law professor at the University of Dayton, bluntly responded: "I think he's dead wrong."

She said aid to the poor in general won't close the gaps — poor blacks would still trail poor whites, and middle-class blacks would still lag behind middle-class whites. Instead, assistance must be aimed directly at the people facing the after-effects of slavery and Jim Crow laws, she said.

"People say he can't run and get elected if he says those kinds of things," Randall said. "I'm like, well does that mean we're really not ready for a black president?"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080802/ap_on_el_pr/obama_slavery_reparations
______________________________________________

I personally think reparations, much less to one group, are absurd.

[ajmccarrell]

Can't say I really disagree with this guy -- I really thought McCain was better than this. But, I suppose when no one is listening to what you are saying, you have to do something to dim the mega wattage of the opponent who is eclisping you. Sadly, McCain resorted to lies, baseless conmparisons, the race card, unsupported innuendo, and sound bytes taken out of context, to wit:

August 2, 2008

Op-Ed Columnist

Running While Black

By BOB HERBERT

Gee, I wonder why, if you have a black man running for high public office — say, Barack Obama or Harold Ford — the opposition feels compelled to run low-life political ads featuring tacky, sexually provocative white women who have no connection whatsoever to the black male candidates.

Spare me any more drivel about the high-mindedness of John McCain. You knew something was up back in March when, in his first ad of the general campaign, Mr. McCain had himself touted as “the American president Americans have been waiting for.”

There was nothing subtle about that attempt to position Senator Obama as the Other, a candidate who might technically be American but who remained in some sense foreign, not sufficiently patriotic and certainly not one of us — the “us” being the genuine red-white-and-blue Americans who the ad was aimed at.

Since then, Senator McCain has only upped the ante, smearing Mr. Obama every which way from sundown. On Wednesday, The Washington Post ran an extraordinary front-page article that began:

“For four days, Senator John McCain and his allies have accused Senator Barack Obama of snubbing wounded soldiers by canceling a visit to a military hospital because he could not take reporters with him, despite no evidence that the charge is true.”

Evidence? John McCain needs no evidence. His campaign is about trashing the opposition, Karl Rove-style. Not satisfied with calling his opponent’s patriotism into question, Mr. McCain added what amounted to a charge of treason, insisting that Senator Obama would actually prefer that the United States lose a war if that would mean that he — Senator Obama — would not have to lose an election.

Now, from the hapless but increasingly venomous McCain campaign, comes the slimy Britney Spears and Paris Hilton ad. The two highly sexualized women (both notorious for displaying themselves to the paparazzi while not wearing underwear) are shown briefly and incongruously at the beginning of a commercial critical of Mr. Obama.

The Republican National Committee targeted Harold Ford with a similarly disgusting ad in 2006 when Mr. Ford, then a congressman, was running a strong race for a U.S. Senate seat in Tennessee. The ad, which the committee described as a parody, showed a scantily clad woman whispering, “Harold, call me.”

Both ads were foul, poisonous and emanated from the upper reaches of the Republican Party. (What a surprise.) Both were designed to exploit the hostility, anxiety and resentment of the many white Americans who are still freakishly hung up on the idea of black men rising above their station and becoming sexually involved with white women.

The racial fantasy factor in this presidential campaign is out of control. It was at work in that New Yorker cover that caused such a stir. (Mr. Obama in Muslim garb with the American flag burning in the fireplace.) It’s driving the idea that Barack Obama is somehow presumptuous, too arrogant, too big for his britches — a man who obviously does not know his place.

Mr. Obama has to endure these grotesque insults with a smile and heroic levels of equanimity. The reason he has to do this — the sole reason — is that he is black.

So there he was this week speaking evenly, and with a touch of humor, to a nearly all-white audience in Missouri. His goal was to reassure his listeners, to let them know he’s not some kind of unpatriotic ogre.

Mr. Obama told them: “What they’re going to try to do is make you scared of me. You know, he’s not patriotic enough. He’s got a funny name. You know, he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills, you know. He’s risky.”

The audience seemed to appreciate his comments. Mr. Obama was well-received.

But John McCain didn’t appreciate them. RACE CARD! RACE CARD! The McCain camp started bellowing, and it hasn’t stopped since. With great glee bursting through their feigned outrage, the campaign’s operatives and the candidate himself accused Senator Obama of introducing race into the campaign — playing the race card, as they put it, from the very bottom of the deck.

Whatever you think about Barack Obama, he does not want the race issue to be front and center in this campaign. Every day that the campaign is about race is a good day for John McCain. So I guess we understand Mr. McCain’s motivation.

Nevertheless, it’s frustrating to watch John McCain calling out Barack Obama on race. Senator Obama has spoken more honestly and thoughtfully about race than any other politician in many years. Senator McCain is the head of a party that has viciously exploited race for political gain for decades.

He’s obviously more than willing to continue that nauseating tradition.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/02/opinion/02herbert.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
___________________________________________

Perhaps McCain fellates Rove in some way to get these ideas out of the playbook :rolleyes:

I don't see where he has played the race card, but the guy who just took over his campaign has a reputation for being an SOB that the opponents usually hate. Sadly, I think Rove really lost his touch the last election. It's REALLY time to let some new guys take the helm now. Rove should join Carville and make their own version of "Crossfire". There's a show I'd love to watch!

[ajmccarrell]

And, just in case anyone thinks Obama is all about appeasing the blacks (emphasis supplied) -

Obama says he opposes slavery reparations, apology

By CHRISTOPHER WILLS, Associated Press Writer

13 minutes ago

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama opposes offering reparations to the descendants of slaves, putting him at odds with some black groups and leaders.
The man with a serious chance to become the nation's first black president argues that government should instead combat the legacy of slavery by improving schools, health care and the economy for all.

"I have said in the past — and I'll repeat again — that the best reparations we can provide are good schools in the inner city and jobs for people who are unemployed," the Illinois Democrat said recently.

Some two dozen members of Congress are co-sponsors of legislation to create a commission that would study reparations — that is, payments and programs to make up for the damage done by slavery.

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People supports the legislation, too. Cities around the country, including Obama's home of Chicago, have endorsed the idea, and so has a major union, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

Obama has worked to be seen as someone who will bring people together, not divide them into various interest groups with checklists of demands. Supporting reparations could undermine that image and make him appear to be pandering to black voters.

"Let's not be naive. Sen. Obama is running for president of the United States, and so he is in a constant battle to save his political life," said Kibibi Tyehimba, co-chair of the National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America. "In light of the demographics of this country, I don't think it's realistic to expect him to do anything other than what he's done."

But this is not a position Obama adopted just for the presidential campaign. He voiced the same concerns about reparations during his successful run for the Senate in 2004.

There's enough flexibility in the term "reparations" that Obama can oppose them and still have plenty of common ground with supporters.

The NAACP says reparations could take the form of government programs to help struggling people of all races. Efforts to improve schools in the inner city could also aid students in the mountains of West Virginia, said Hilary Shelton, director of the NAACP's Washington bureau.

"The solution could be broad and sweeping," Shelton said.

The National Urban League — a group Obama is to address Saturday — avoids the word "reparations" as too vague and highly charged. But the group advocates government action to close the gaps between white America and black America.

Urban League President Marc Morial said he expects his members to press Obama on how he intends to close those gaps and what action he would take in the first 100 days of his presidency.

"What steps should we take as a nation to alleviate the effects of racial exclusion and racial discrimination?" Morial asked.

The House voted this week to apologize for slavery. The resolution, which was approved on a voice vote, does not mention reparations, but past opponents have argued that an apology would increase pressure for concrete action.

Obama says an apology would be appropriate but not particularly helpful in improving the lives of black Americans. Reparations could also be a distraction, he said.

In a 2004 questionnaire, he told the NAACP, "I fear that reparations would be an excuse for some to say, 'We've paid our debt,' and to avoid the much harder work."

Taking questions Sunday at a conference of minority journalists, Obama said he would be willing to talk to American Indian leaders about an apology for the nation's treatment of their people.

Pressed for his position on apologizing to blacks or offering reparations, Obama said he was more interested in taking action to help people struggling to get by. Because many of them are minorities, he said, that would help the same people who would stand to benefit from reparations.

"If we have a program, for example, of universal health care, that will disproportionately affect people of color, because they're disproportionately uninsured," Obama said. "If we've got an agenda that says every child in America should get — should be able to go to college, regardless of income, that will disproportionately affect people of color, because it's oftentimes our children who can't afford to go to college."

One reparations advocate, Vernellia Randall, a law professor at the University of Dayton, bluntly responded: "I think he's dead wrong."

She said aid to the poor in general won't close the gaps — poor blacks would still trail poor whites, and middle-class blacks would still lag behind middle-class whites. Instead, assistance must be aimed directly at the people facing the after-effects of slavery and Jim Crow laws, she said.

"People say he can't run and get elected if he says those kinds of things," Randall said. "I'm like, well does that mean we're really not ready for a black president?"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080802/ap_on_el_pr/obama_slavery_reparations
______________________________________________

I personally think reparations, much less to one group, are absurd.

The ONE and ONLY area where I admire Obama is here. He is into using those bootstraps that God gave you, no matter what color you are. It's refreshing to hear someone besides Bill Cosby saying that if you want better, you have to do better. He's a refreshing antidote from Racism, Inc. that has taken over the black community leadership since the death of the Great Dr. King. He's the closest thing we've had to a Dr. King since then. I kinda wish he'd take over for Jesse Jackson more than run for president. I think that is one place where he could really work wonders. I don't see him being an effective president, but I do see him pulling up the black community.

[strandinthewind]

What an interesting article from Ms. Dowd.

August 3, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
Mr. Darcy Comes Courting
By MAUREEN DOWD
WASHINGTON

It is a truth universally acknowledged that Barack Obama must continue to grovel to Hillary Clinton’s dead-enders, some of whom mutter darkly that they will not only not vote for him, they will never vote for a man again.

Obama met for an hour Tuesday with three dozen top Hillaryites at a hotel here, seeking their endorsement and beguiling their begrudging. He opened the session by saying that he knew there had been frustration about what they saw as sexism during the primary.

The Los Angeles Times reported that Hillary die-hards want to enshrine a whine in the Democratic platform about how the primaries “exposed pervasive gender bias in the media” and call on party leaders to take “immediate and public steps” to denounce any perceived bias in the future. That is one nutty idea.

Perhaps it is because feminists are still so busy cataloging past slights to Hillary that they have failed to mount a vivid defense of Michelle Obama, who has taken over from Hillary as the one conservatives like to paint as a harridan.

Before the Obama campaign even had a chance to denounce Ludacris, one of the rappers on the senator’s iPod, Hillary Inc. started to mobilize. Susie Tompkins Buell, a former Clinton bundler, told The New York Observer that Obama had to distance himself, given Ludacris’s new song rooting for Obama to “paint the White House black” and calling Hillary the b-word.

Despite Obama’s wooing, some women aren’t warming. As Carol Marin wrote in The Chicago Sun-Times, The Lanky One is like an Alice Waters organic chicken — “sleek, elegant, beautifully prepared. Too cool” — when what many working-class women are craving is mac and cheese.

In The Wall Street Journal, Amy Chozick wrote that Hillary supporters — who loved their heroine’s admission that she was on Weight Watchers — were put off by Obama’s svelte, zero-body-fat figure.

“He needs to put some meat on his bones,” said Diana Koenig, a 42-year-old Texas housewife. Another Clinton voter sniffed on a Yahoo message board: “I won’t vote for any beanpole guy.”

The odd thing is that Obama bears a distinct resemblance to the most cherished hero in chick-lit history. The senator is a modern incarnation of the clever, haughty, reserved and fastidious Mr. Darcy.

Like the leading man of Jane Austen and Bridget Jones, Obama can, as Austen wrote, draw “the attention of the room by his fine, tall person, handsome features, noble mien. ...he was looked at with great admiration for about half the evening, till his manners gave a disgust which turned the tide of his popularity; for he was discovered to be proud, to be above his company, and above being pleased.”

The master of Pemberley “had yet to learn to be laught at,” and this sometimes caused “a deeper shade of hauteur” to “overspread his features.”

The New Hampshire debate incident in which Obama condescendingly said, “You’re likable enough, Hillary,” was reminiscent of that early scene in “Pride and Prejudice” when Darcy coldly refuses to dance with Elizabeth Bennet, noting, “She is tolerable; but not handsome enough to tempt me.”

Indeed, when Obama left a prayer to the Lord at the Western Wall in Jerusalem, a note that was snatched out and published, part of his plea was to “help me guard against pride.”

If Obama is Mr. Darcy, with “his pride, his abominable pride,” then America is Elizabeth Bennet, spirited, playful, democratic, financially strained, and caught up in certain prejudices. (McCain must be cast as Wickham, the rival for Elizabeth’s affections, the engaging military scamp who casts false aspersions on Darcy’s character.)

In this political version of “Pride and Prejudice,” the prejudice is racial, with only 31 percent of white voters telling The New York Times in a survey that they had a favorable opinion of Obama, compared with 83 percent of blacks.

And the prejudice is visceral: many Americans, especially blue collar, still feel uneasy about the Senate’s exotic shooting star, and he is surrounded by a miasma of ill-founded and mistaken premises.

So the novelistic tension of the 2008 race is this: Can Obama overcome his pride and Hyde Park hauteur and win America over?

Can America overcome its prejudice to elect the first black president? And can it move past its biases to figure out if Obama’s supposed conceit is really just the protective shield and defense mechanism of someone who grew up half white and half black, a perpetual outsider whose father deserted him and whose mother, while loving, sometimes did so as well?

Can Miss Bennet teach Mr. Darcy to let down his guard, be more sportive, and laugh at himself?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/opinion/03dowd.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
________________________________________________

As an aside, I think it is hysterical that people vote on the way people look. IMO, unless they are porcine, unbathed, and disheveled (which I think would be a character flaw in that they have no respect for themselves so how can they have any for the country) -- then what the hell does physical stature have to do with it? Yet, if Hillary had been a hottie, it certainly could not have hurt her.

[ajmccarrell]

What an interesting article from Ms. Dowd.

August 3, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
Mr. Darcy Comes Courting
By MAUREEN DOWD
WASHINGTON

It is a truth universally acknowledged that Barack Obama must continue to grovel to Hillary Clinton’s dead-enders, some of whom mutter darkly that they will not only not vote for him, they will never vote for a man again.

Obama met for an hour Tuesday with three dozen top Hillaryites at a hotel here, seeking their endorsement and beguiling their begrudging. He opened the session by saying that he knew there had been frustration about what they saw as sexism during the primary.

The Los Angeles Times reported that Hillary die-hards want to enshrine a whine in the Democratic platform about how the primaries “exposed pervasive gender bias in the media” and call on party leaders to take “immediate and public steps” to denounce any perceived bias in the future. That is one nutty idea.

Perhaps it is because feminists are still so busy cataloging past slights to Hillary that they have failed to mount a vivid defense of Michelle Obama, who has taken over from Hillary as the one conservatives like to paint as a harridan.

Before the Obama campaign even had a chance to denounce Ludacris, one of the rappers on the senator’s iPod, Hillary Inc. started to mobilize. Susie Tompkins Buell, a former Clinton bundler, told The New York Observer that Obama had to distance himself, given Ludacris’s new song rooting for Obama to “paint the White House black” and calling Hillary the b-word.

Despite Obama’s wooing, some women aren’t warming. As Carol Marin wrote in The Chicago Sun-Times, The Lanky One is like an Alice Waters organic chicken — “sleek, elegant, beautifully prepared. Too cool” — when what many working-class women are craving is mac and cheese.

In The Wall Street Journal, Amy Chozick wrote that Hillary supporters — who loved their heroine’s admission that she was on Weight Watchers — were put off by Obama’s svelte, zero-body-fat figure.

“He needs to put some meat on his bones,” said Diana Koenig, a 42-year-old Texas housewife. Another Clinton voter sniffed on a Yahoo message board: “I won’t vote for any beanpole guy.”

The odd thing is that Obama bears a distinct resemblance to the most cherished hero in chick-lit history. The senator is a modern incarnation of the clever, haughty, reserved and fastidious Mr. Darcy.

Like the leading man of Jane Austen and Bridget Jones, Obama can, as Austen wrote, draw “the attention of the room by his fine, tall person, handsome features, noble mien. ...he was looked at with great admiration for about half the evening, till his manners gave a disgust which turned the tide of his popularity; for he was discovered to be proud, to be above his company, and above being pleased.”

The master of Pemberley “had yet to learn to be laught at,” and this sometimes caused “a deeper shade of hauteur” to “overspread his features.”

The New Hampshire debate incident in which Obama condescendingly said, “You’re likable enough, Hillary,” was reminiscent of that early scene in “Pride and Prejudice” when Darcy coldly refuses to dance with Elizabeth Bennet, noting, “She is tolerable; but not handsome enough to tempt me.”

Indeed, when Obama left a prayer to the Lord at the Western Wall in Jerusalem, a note that was snatched out and published, part of his plea was to “help me guard against pride.”

If Obama is Mr. Darcy, with “his pride, his abominable pride,” then America is Elizabeth Bennet, spirited, playful, democratic, financially strained, and caught up in certain prejudices. (McCain must be cast as Wickham, the rival for Elizabeth’s affections, the engaging military scamp who casts false aspersions on Darcy’s character.)

In this political version of “Pride and Prejudice,” the prejudice is racial, with only 31 percent of white voters telling The New York Times in a survey that they had a favorable opinion of Obama, compared with 83 percent of blacks.

And the prejudice is visceral: many Americans, especially blue collar, still feel uneasy about the Senate’s exotic shooting star, and he is surrounded by a miasma of ill-founded and mistaken premises.

So the novelistic tension of the 2008 race is this: Can Obama overcome his pride and Hyde Park hauteur and win America over?

Can America overcome its prejudice to elect the first black president? And can it move past its biases to figure out if Obama’s supposed conceit is really just the protective shield and defense mechanism of someone who grew up half white and half black, a perpetual outsider whose father deserted him and whose mother, while loving, sometimes did so as well?

Can Miss Bennet teach Mr. Darcy to let down his guard, be more sportive, and laugh at himself?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/opinion/03dowd.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
________________________________________________

As an aside, I think it is hysterical that people vote on the way people look. IMO, unless they are porcine, unbathed, and disheveled (which I think would be a character flaw in that they have no respect for themselves so how can they have any for the country) -- then what the hell does physical stature have to do with it? Yet, if Hillary had been a hottie, it certainly could not have hurt her.

LOL! I couldn't agree more. Appearance has nothing to do with a person's qualifications. It is as discriminating as only hiring attractive hotties. An election is basically a hiring process.

[omigodstevie]

That reminds me of a Robot Chicken sketch where they had a delusional Ted Turner as Captain Planet killing polluters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVzLzClY2E8

best. sketch. ever.

[rubytuesday]

As an aside, I think it is hysterical that people vote on the way people look. IMO, unless they are porcine, unbathed, and disheveled (which I think would be a character flaw in that they have no respect for themselves so how can they have any for the country) -- then what the hell does physical stature have to do with it? Yet, if Hillary had been a hottie, it certainly could not have hurt her.

I want a president with a beard.

[strandinthewind]

I want a president with a beard.

A gay male with a female companion for show while the lover is at home?

:p:p:p

[BTFLCHLD]

A gay male with a female companion for show while the lover is at home?

:p:p:p pretty sure we all know what 'beard' is by now strand... hehe

Has McCain been to Berlin?

Here is Barack's Berlin speech:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/berlinvideo/

[ajmccarrell]

I think McCain is focusing on campaigning to people who can vote in the US... :laugh:

I heard his Berlin speech and was outraged by some of the America bashing he did. I think Obama ought to run for President of Germany instead, they love him there!

[BTFLCHLD]

I think McCain is focusing on campaigning to people who can vote in the US... :laugh: yep...he will need every vote he can get.

[strandinthewind]

I think McCain is focusing on campaigning to people who can vote in the US... :laugh:

I heard his Berlin speech and was outraged by some of the America bashing he did. I think Obama ought to run for President of Germany instead, they love him there!


1. Apparently, he is beloved here as well :shrug:

2. What exactly is wrong with visiting a US ally, esp. when you are on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee?

3. Exactly, what was the "America bashing" he did? Please be specific :wavey: Here's the text:

BERLIN, Germany -- Thank you to the citizens of Berlin and to the people of Germany. Let me thank Chancellor Merkel and Foreign Minister Steinmeier for welcoming me earlier today. Thank you Mayor Wowereit, the Berlin Senate, the police, and most of all thank you for this welcome.

I come to Berlin as so many of my countrymen have come before. Tonight, I speak to you not as a candidate for President, but as a citizen - a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world.

I know that I don't look like the Americans who've previously spoken in this great city. The journey that led me here is improbable. My mother was born in the heartland of America, but my father grew up herding goats in Kenya. His father - my grandfather - was a cook, a domestic servant to the British.

At the height of the Cold War, my father decided, like so many others in the forgotten corners of the world, that his yearning - his dream - required the freedom and opportunity promised by the West. And so he wrote letter after letter to universities all across America until somebody, somewhere answered his prayer for a better life.

That is why I'm here. And you are here because you too know that yearning. This city, of all cities, knows the dream of freedom. And you know that the only reason we stand here tonight is because men and women from both of our nations came together to work, and struggle, and sacrifice for that better life.

Ours is a partnership that truly began sixty years ago this summer, on the day when the first American plane touched down at Templehof.

On that day, much of this continent still lay in ruin. The rubble of this city had yet to be built into a wall. The Soviet shadow had swept across Eastern Europe, while in the West, America, Britain, and France took stock of their losses, and pondered how the world might be remade.

This is where the two sides met. And on the twenty-fourth of June, 1948, the Communists chose to blockade the western part of the city. They cut off food and supplies to more than two million Germans in an effort to extinguish the last flame of freedom in Berlin.

The size of our forces was no match for the much larger Soviet Army. And yet retreat would have allowed Communism to march across Europe. Where the last war had ended, another World War could have easily begun. All that stood in the way was Berlin.

And that's when the airlift began - when the largest and most unlikely rescue in history brought food and hope to the people of this city.

The odds were stacked against success. In the winter, a heavy fog filled the sky above, and many planes were forced to turn back without dropping off the needed supplies. The streets where we stand were filled with hungry families who had no comfort from the cold.

But in the darkest hours, the people of Berlin kept the flame of hope burning. The people of Berlin refused to give up. And on one fall day, hundreds of thousands of Berliners came here, to the Tiergarten, and heard the city's mayor implore the world not to give up on freedom. "There is only one possibility," he said. "For us to stand together united until this battle is won . . . The people of Berlin have spoken. We have done our duty, and we will keep on doing our duty. People of the world: now do your duty. . . People of the world, look at Berlin!"

People of the world - look at Berlin!

Look at Berlin, where Germans and Americans learned to work together and trust each other less than three years after facing each other on the field of battle.

Look at Berlin, where the determination of a people met the generosity of the Marshall Plan and created a German miracle; where a victory over tyranny gave rise to NATO, the greatest alliance ever formed to defend our common security.

Look at Berlin, where the bullet holes in the buildings and the somber stones and pillars near the Brandenburg Gate insist that we never forget our common humanity.

People of the world - look at Berlin, where a wall came down, a continent came together, and history proved that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one.

Sixty years after the airlift, we are called upon again. History has led us to a new crossroad, with new promise and new peril. When you, the German people, tore down that wall - a wall that divided East and West; freedom and tyranny; fear and hope - walls came tumbling down around the world. From Kiev to Cape Town, prison camps were closed, and the doors of democracy were opened. Markets opened too, and the spread of information and technology reduced barriers to opportunity and prosperity. While the 20th century taught us that we share a common destiny, the 21st has revealed a world more intertwined than at any time in human history.

The fall of the Berlin Wall brought new hope. But that very closeness has given rise to new dangers - dangers that cannot be contained within the borders of a country or by the distance of an ocean.

The terrorists of September 11th plotted in Hamburg and trained in Kandahar and Karachi before killing thousands from all over the globe on American soil.

As we speak, cars in Boston and factories in Beijing are melting the ice caps in the Arctic, shrinking coastlines in the Atlantic, and bringing drought to farms from Kansas to Kenya.

Poorly secured nuclear material in the former Soviet Union, or secrets from a scientist in Pakistan could help build a bomb that detonates in Paris. The poppies in Afghanistan become the heroin in Berlin. The poverty and violence in Somalia breeds the terror of tomorrow. The genocide in Darfur shames the conscience of us all.

In this new world, such dangerous currents have swept along faster than our efforts to contain them. That is why we cannot afford to be divided. No one nation, no matter how large or powerful, can defeat such challenges alone. None of us can deny these threats, or escape responsibility in meeting them. Yet, in the absence of Soviet tanks and a terrible wall, it has become easy to forget this truth. And if we're honest with each other, we know that sometimes, on both sides of the Atlantic, we have drifted apart, and forgotten our shared destiny.

In Europe, the view that America is part of what has gone wrong in our world, rather than a force to help make it right, has become all too common. In America, there are voices that deride and deny the importance of Europe's role in our security and our future. Both views miss the truth - that Europeans today are bearing new burdens and taking more responsibility in critical parts of the world; and that just as American bases built in the last century still help to defend the security of this continent, so does our country still sacrifice greatly for freedom around the globe.

Yes, there have been differences between America and Europe. No doubt, there will be differences in the future. But the burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together. A change of leadership in Washington will not lift this burden. In this new century, Americans and Europeans alike will be required to do more - not less. Partnership and cooperation among nations is not a choice; it is the one way, the only way, to protect our common security and advance our common humanity.

That is why the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another.

The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down.

We know they have fallen before. After centuries of strife, the people of Europe have formed a Union of promise and prosperity. Here, at the base of a column built to mark victory in war, we meet in the center of a Europe at peace. Not only have walls come down in Berlin, but they have come down in Belfast, where Protestant and Catholic found a way to live together; in the Balkans, where our Atlantic alliance ended wars and brought savage war criminals to justice; and in South Africa, where the struggle of a courageous people defeated apartheid.

So history reminds us that walls can be torn down. But the task is never easy. True partnership and true progress requires constant work and sustained sacrifice. They require sharing the burdens of development and diplomacy; of progress and peace. They require allies who will listen to each other, learn from each other and, most of all, trust each other.

That is why America cannot turn inward. That is why Europe cannot turn inward. America has no better partner than Europe. Now is the time to build new bridges across the globe as strong as the one that bound us across the Atlantic. Now is the time to join together, through constant cooperation, strong institutions, shared sacrifice, and a global commitment to progress, to meet the challenges of the 21st century. It was this spirit that led airlift planes to appear in the sky above our heads, and people to assemble where we stand today. And this is the moment when our nations - and all nations - must summon that spirit anew.

This is the moment when we must defeat terror and dry up the well of extremism that supports it. This threat is real and we cannot shrink from our responsibility to combat it. If we could create NATO to face down the Soviet Union, we can join in a new and global partnership to dismantle the networks that have struck in Madrid and Amman; in London and Bali; in Washington and New York. If we could win a battle of ideas against the communists, we can stand with the vast majority of Muslims who reject the extremism that leads to hate instead of hope.

This is the moment when we must renew our resolve to rout the terrorists who threaten our security in Afghanistan, and the traffickers who sell drugs on your streets. No one welcomes war. I recognize the enormous difficulties in Afghanistan. But my country and yours have a stake in seeing that NATO's first mission beyond Europe's borders is a success. For the people of Afghanistan, and for our shared security, the work must be done. America cannot do this alone. The Afghan people need our troops and your troops; our support and your support to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda, to develop their economy, and to help them rebuild their nation. We have too much at stake to turn back now.

This is the moment when we must renew the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. The two superpowers that faced each other across the wall of this city came too close too often to destroying all we have built and all that we love. With that wall gone, we need not stand idly by and watch the further spread of the deadly atom. It is time to secure all loose nuclear materials; to stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to reduce the arsenals from another era. This is the moment to begin the work of seeking the peace of a world without nuclear weapons.

This is the moment when every nation in Europe must have the chance to choose its own tomorrow free from the shadows of yesterday. In this century, we need a strong European Union that deepens the security and prosperity of this continent, while extending a hand abroad. In this century - in this city of all cities - we must reject the Cold War mind-set of the past, and resolve to work with Russia when we can, to stand up for our values when we must, and to seek a partnership that extends across this entire continent.

This is the moment when we must build on the wealth that open markets have created, and share its benefits more equitably. Trade has been a cornerstone of our growth and global development. But we will not be able to sustain this growth if it favors the few, and not the many. Together, we must forge trade that truly rewards the work that creates wealth, with meaningful protections for our people and our planet. This is the moment for trade that is free and fair for all.

This is the moment we must help answer the call for a new dawn in the Middle East. My country must stand with yours and with Europe in sending a direct message to Iran that it must abandon its nuclear ambitions. We must support the Lebanese who have marched and bled for democracy, and the Israelis and Palestinians who seek a secure and lasting peace. And despite past differences, this is the moment when the world should support the millions of Iraqis who seek to rebuild their lives, even as we pass responsibility to the Iraqi government and finally bring this war to a close.

This is the moment when we must come together to save this planet. Let us resolve that we will not leave our children a world where the oceans rise and famine spreads and terrible storms devastate our lands. Let us resolve that all nations - including my own - will act with the same seriousness of purpose as has your nation, and reduce the carbon we send into our atmosphere. This is the moment to give our children back their future. This is the moment to stand as one.

And this is the moment when we must give hope to those left behind in a globalized world. We must remember that the Cold War born in this city was not a battle for land or treasure. Sixty years ago, the planes that flew over Berlin did not drop bombs; instead they delivered food, and coal, and candy to grateful children. And in that show of solidarity, those pilots won more than a military victory. They won hearts and minds; love and loyalty and trust - not just from the people in this city, but from all those who heard the story of what they did here.

Now the world will watch and remember what we do here - what we do with this moment. Will we extend our hand to the people in the forgotten corners of this world who yearn for lives marked by dignity and opportunity; by security and justice? Will we lift the child in Bangladesh from poverty, shelter the refugee in Chad, and banish the scourge of AIDS in our time?

Will we stand for the human rights of the dissident in Burma, the blogger in Iran, or the voter in Zimbabwe? Will we give meaning to the words "never again" in Darfur?

Will we acknowledge that there is no more powerful example than the one each of our nations projects to the world? Will we reject torture and stand for the rule of law? Will we welcome immigrants from different lands, and shun discrimination against those who don't look like us or worship like we do, and keep the promise of equality and opportunity for all of our people?

People of Berlin - people of the world - this is our moment. This is our time.

I know my country has not perfected itself. At times, we've struggled to keep the promise of liberty and equality for all of our people. We've made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions.

But I also know how much I love America. I know that for more than two centuries, we have strived - at great cost and great sacrifice - to form a more perfect union; to seek, with other nations, a more hopeful world. Our allegiance has never been to any particular tribe or kingdom - indeed, every language is spoken in our country; every culture has left its imprint on ours; every point of view is expressed in our public squares.

What has always united us - what has always driven our people; what drew my father to America's shores - is a set of ideals that speak to aspirations shared by all people: that we can live free from fear and free from want; that we can speak our minds and assemble with whomever we choose and worship as we please.

Those are the aspirations that joined the fates of all nations in this city. Those aspirations are bigger than anything that drives us apart. It is because of those aspirations that the airlift began. It is because of those aspirations that all free people - everywhere - became citizens of Berlin. It is in pursuit of those aspirations that a new generation - our generation - must make our mark on history.

People of Berlin - and people of the world - the scale of our challenge is great. The road ahead will be long. But I come before you to say that we are heirs to a struggle for freedom. We are a people of improbable hope. Let us build on our common history, and seize our common destiny, and once again engage in that noble struggle to bring justice and peace to our world.

________________________________________

I don't think America can possibly recover from all that bashing :shrug:

My word, no one has aided and abetted OBL and Al-Q since the Dixie Chicks all but delivered a burning America to the former by saying they were ashamed the Pres. of US was from Texas :rolleyes:

Of course, W was bood in Europe because he and his cronied openly lied about an emminent threat soo they could preemptively invading a country that presented no such threat to the US or her allies. Go figure the Europeans might need a little comforting with America after that "event."

[ajmccarrell]

Fortunately, his tactics are paying off. Last polls showed Obama's 9 point lead has completely evaporated. Then again, that's for those of you who believe polls. The polls for 1984 and 2004 showed both Democratic candidates with solid 11 point leads or more. The 1984 election turned out to be an unprecedented 49 state landslide for Reagan. The exit polling for 2004 was something of a scandal as well, as it was so dreadfully inaccurate. Rasmussen has been the only poll to correctly represent the last several elections and it shows Obama with a mere 1 point lead right now, with his support steadily evaporating since March. In January, Rasmussen had Obama with a 76% of winning the White House. That has dropped to 60%. If you think about it, any candidate challenging the incumbent party right now should have a solid victory because of how unpopular Bush has been. It's a real statement about the candidate that the election is this close before the nomination is even secure. I'm not particularly worried about McCain's chances.

[ajmccarrell]

1. Apparently, he is beloved here as well :shrug:

2. What exactly is wrong with visiting a US ally, esp. when you are on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee?

3. Exactly, what was the "America bashing" he did? Please be specific :wavey: Here's the text:

BERLIN, Germany -- Thank you to the citizens of Berlin and to the people of Germany. Let me thank Chancellor Merkel and Foreign Minister Steinmeier for welcoming me earlier today. Thank you Mayor Wowereit, the Berlin Senate, the police, and most of all thank you for this welcome.

I come to Berlin as so many of my countrymen have come before. Tonight, I speak to you not as a candidate for President, but as a citizen - a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world.

I know that I don't look like the Americans who've previously spoken in this great city. The journey that led me here is improbable. My mother was born in the heartland of America, but my father grew up herding goats in Kenya. His father - my grandfather - was a cook, a domestic servant to the British.

At the height of the Cold War, my father decided, like so many others in the forgotten corners of the world, that his yearning - his dream - required the freedom and opportunity promised by the West. And so he wrote letter after letter to universities all across America until somebody, somewhere answered his prayer for a better life.

That is why I'm here. And you are here because you too know that yearning. This city, of all cities, knows the dream of freedom. And you know that the only reason we stand here tonight is because men and women from both of our nations came together to work, and struggle, and sacrifice for that better life.

Ours is a partnership that truly began sixty years ago this summer, on the day when the first American plane touched down at Templehof.

On that day, much of this continent still lay in ruin. The rubble of this city had yet to be built into a wall. The Soviet shadow had swept across Eastern Europe, while in the West, America, Britain, and France took stock of their losses, and pondered how the world might be remade.

This is where the two sides met. And on the twenty-fourth of June, 1948, the Communists chose to blockade the western part of the city. They cut off food and supplies to more than two million Germans in an effort to extinguish the last flame of freedom in Berlin.

The size of our forces was no match for the much larger Soviet Army. And yet retreat would have allowed Communism to march across Europe. Where the last war had ended, another World War could have easily begun. All that stood in the way was Berlin.

And that's when the airlift began - when the largest and most unlikely rescue in history brought food and hope to the people of this city.

The odds were stacked against success. In the winter, a heavy fog filled the sky above, and many planes were forced to turn back without dropping off the needed supplies. The streets where we stand were filled with hungry families who had no comfort from the cold.

But in the darkest hours, the people of Berlin kept the flame of hope burning. The people of Berlin refused to give up. And on one fall day, hundreds of thousands of Berliners came here, to the Tiergarten, and heard the city's mayor implore the world not to give up on freedom. "There is only one possibility," he said. "For us to stand together united until this battle is won . . . The people of Berlin have spoken. We have done our duty, and we will keep on doing our duty. People of the world: now do your duty. . . People of the world, look at Berlin!"

People of the world - look at Berlin!

Look at Berlin, where Germans and Americans learned to work together and trust each other less than three years after facing each other on the field of battle.

Look at Berlin, where the determination of a people met the generosity of the Marshall Plan and created a German miracle; where a victory over tyranny gave rise to NATO, the greatest alliance ever formed to defend our common security.

Look at Berlin, where the bullet holes in the buildings and the somber stones and pillars near the Brandenburg Gate insist that we never forget our common humanity.

People of the world - look at Berlin, where a wall came down, a continent came together, and history proved that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one.

Sixty years after the airlift, we are called upon again. History has led us to a new crossroad, with new promise and new peril. When you, the German people, tore down that wall - a wall that divided East and West; freedom and tyranny; fear and hope - walls came tumbling down around the world. From Kiev to Cape Town, prison camps were closed, and the doors of democracy were opened. Markets opened too, and the spread of information and technology reduced barriers to opportunity and prosperity. While the 20th century taught us that we share a common destiny, the 21st has revealed a world more intertwined than at any time in human history.

The fall of the Berlin Wall brought new hope. But that very closeness has given rise to new dangers - dangers that cannot be contained within the borders of a country or by the distance of an ocean.

The terrorists of September 11th plotted in Hamburg and trained in Kandahar and Karachi before killing thousands from all over the globe on American soil.

As we speak, cars in Boston and factories in Beijing are melting the ice caps in the Arctic, shrinking coastlines in the Atlantic, and bringing drought to farms from Kansas to Kenya.

Poorly secured nuclear material in the former Soviet Union, or secrets from a scientist in Pakistan could help build a bomb that detonates in Paris. The poppies in Afghanistan become the heroin in Berlin. The poverty and violence in Somalia breeds the terror of tomorrow. The genocide in Darfur shames the conscience of us all.

In this new world, such dangerous currents have swept along faster than our efforts to contain them. That is why we cannot afford to be divided. No one nation, no matter how large or powerful, can defeat such challenges alone. None of us can deny these threats, or escape responsibility in meeting them. Yet, in the absence of Soviet tanks and a terrible wall, it has become easy to forget this truth. And if we're honest with each other, we know that sometimes, on both sides of the Atlantic, we have drifted apart, and forgotten our shared destiny.

In Europe, the view that America is part of what has gone wrong in our world, rather than a force to help make it right, has become all too common. In America, there are voices that deride and deny the importance of Europe's role in our security and our future. Both views miss the truth - that Europeans today are bearing new burdens and taking more responsibility in critical parts of the world; and that just as American bases built in the last century still help to defend the security of this continent, so does our country still sacrifice greatly for freedom around the globe.

Yes, there have been differences between America and Europe. No doubt, there will be differences in the future. But the burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together. A change of leadership in Washington will not lift this burden. In this new century, Americans and Europeans alike will be required to do more - not less. Partnership and cooperation among nations is not a choice; it is the one way, the only way, to protect our common security and advance our common humanity.

That is why the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another.

The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down.

We know they have fallen before. After centuries of strife, the people of Europe have formed a Union of promise and prosperity. Here, at the base of a column built to mark victory in war, we meet in the center of a Europe at peace. Not only have walls come down in Berlin, but they have come down in Belfast, where Protestant and Catholic found a way to live together; in the Balkans, where our Atlantic alliance ended wars and brought savage war criminals to justice; and in South Africa, where the struggle of a courageous people defeated apartheid.

So history reminds us that walls can be torn down. But the task is never easy. True partnership and true progress requires constant work and sustained sacrifice. They require sharing the burdens of development and diplomacy; of progress and peace. They require allies who will listen to each other, learn from each other and, most of all, trust each other.

That is why America cannot turn inward. That is why Europe cannot turn inward. America has no better partner than Europe. Now is the time to build new bridges across the globe as strong as the one that bound us across the Atlantic. Now is the time to join together, through constant cooperation, strong institutions, shared sacrifice, and a global commitment to progress, to meet the challenges of the 21st century. It was this spirit that led airlift planes to appear in the sky above our heads, and people to assemble where we stand today. And this is the moment when our nations - and all nations - must summon that spirit anew.

This is the moment when we must defeat terror and dry up the well of extremism that supports it. This threat is real and we cannot shrink from our responsibility to combat it. If we could create NATO to face down the Soviet Union, we can join in a new and global partnership to dismantle the networks that have struck in Madrid and Amman; in London and Bali; in Washington and New York. If we could win a battle of ideas against the communists, we can stand with the vast majority of Muslims who reject the extremism that leads to hate instead of hope.

This is the moment when we must renew our resolve to rout the terrorists who threaten our security in Afghanistan, and the traffickers who sell drugs on your streets. No one welcomes war. I recognize the enormous difficulties in Afghanistan. But my country and yours have a stake in seeing that NATO's first mission beyond Europe's borders is a success. For the people of Afghanistan, and for our shared security, the work must be done. America cannot do this alone. The Afghan people need our troops and your troops; our support and your support to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda, to develop their economy, and to help them rebuild their nation. We have too much at stake to turn back now.

This is the moment when we must renew the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. The two superpowers that faced each other across the wall of this city came too close too often to destroying all we have built and all that we love. With that wall gone, we need not stand idly by and watch the further spread of the deadly atom. It is time to secure all loose nuclear materials; to stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to reduce the arsenals from another era. This is the moment to begin the work of seeking the peace of a world without nuclear weapons.

This is the moment when every nation in Europe must have the chance to choose its own tomorrow free from the shadows of yesterday. In this century, we need a strong European Union that deepens the security and prosperity of this continent, while extending a hand abroad. In this century - in this city of all cities - we must reject the Cold War mind-set of the past, and resolve to work with Russia when we can, to stand up for our values when we must, and to seek a partnership that extends across this entire continent.

This is the moment when we must build on the wealth that open markets have created, and share its benefits more equitably. Trade has been a cornerstone of our growth and global development. But we will not be able to sustain this growth if it favors the few, and not the many. Together, we must forge trade that truly rewards the work that creates wealth, with meaningful protections for our people and our planet. This is the moment for trade that is free and fair for all.

This is the moment we must help answer the call for a new dawn in the Middle East. My country must stand with yours and with Europe in sending a direct message to Iran that it must abandon its nuclear ambitions. We must support the Lebanese who have marched and bled for democracy, and the Israelis and Palestinians who seek a secure and lasting peace. And despite past differences, this is the moment when the world should support the millions of Iraqis who seek to rebuild their lives, even as we pass responsibility to the Iraqi government and finally bring this war to a close.

This is the moment when we must come together to save this planet. Let us resolve that we will not leave our children a world where the oceans rise and famine spreads and terrible storms devastate our lands. Let us resolve that all nations - including my own - will act with the same seriousness of purpose as has your nation, and reduce the carbon we send into our atmosphere. This is the moment to give our children back their future. This is the moment to stand as one.

And this is the moment when we must give hope to those left behind in a globalized world. We must remember that the Cold War born in this city was not a battle for land or treasure. Sixty years ago, the planes that flew over Berlin did not drop bombs; instead they delivered food, and coal, and candy to grateful children. And in that show of solidarity, those pilots won more than a military victory. They won hearts and minds; love and loyalty and trust - not just from the people in this city, but from all those who heard the story of what they did here.

Now the world will watch and remember what we do here - what we do with this moment. Will we extend our hand to the people in the forgotten corners of this world who yearn for lives marked by dignity and opportunity; by security and justice? Will we lift the child in Bangladesh from poverty, shelter the refugee in Chad, and banish the scourge of AIDS in our time?

Will we stand for the human rights of the dissident in Burma, the blogger in Iran, or the voter in Zimbabwe? Will we give meaning to the words "never again" in Darfur?

Will we acknowledge that there is no more powerful example than the one each of our nations projects to the world? Will we reject torture and stand for the rule of law? Will we welcome immigrants from different lands, and shun discrimination against those who don't look like us or worship like we do, and keep the promise of equality and opportunity for all of our people?

People of Berlin - people of the world - this is our moment. This is our time.

I know my country has not perfected itself. At times, we've struggled to keep the promise of liberty and equality for all of our people. We've made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions.

But I also know how much I love America. I know that for more than two centuries, we have strived - at great cost and great sacrifice - to form a more perfect union; to seek, with other nations, a more hopeful world. Our allegiance has never been to any particular tribe or kingdom - indeed, every language is spoken in our country; every culture has left its imprint on ours; every point of view is expressed in our public squares.

What has always united us - what has always driven our people; what drew my father to America's shores - is a set of ideals that speak to aspirations shared by all people: that we can live free from fear and free from want; that we can speak our minds and assemble with whomever we choose and worship as we please.

Those are the aspirations that joined the fates of all nations in this city. Those aspirations are bigger than anything that drives us apart. It is because of those aspirations that the airlift began. It is because of those aspirations that all free people - everywhere - became citizens of Berlin. It is in pursuit of those aspirations that a new generation - our generation - must make our mark on history.

People of Berlin - and people of the world - the scale of our challenge is great. The road ahead will be long. But I come before you to say that we are heirs to a struggle for freedom. We are a people of improbable hope. Let us build on our common history, and seize our common destiny, and once again engage in that noble struggle to bring justice and peace to our world.

________________________________________

I don't think America can possibly recover from all that bashing :shrug:

My word, no one has aided and abetted OBL and Al-Q since the Dixie Chicks all but delivered a burning America to the latter by saying they were ashamed the Pres. of US was from Texas :rolleyes:

Of course, W was bood in Europe because he and his cronied openly lied about an emminent threat soo they could preemptively invading a country that presented no such threat to the US or her allies. Go figure the Europeans might need a little comforting with America after that "event."

It's more about context and feeding into the European superiority complex. Here's a great article about it. He also introduced himself as a "citizen of the World" and not as an "American." What's wrong with being American? How about, "I know my country has not perfected itself. We’ve made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions" Why not just be from a great country without a disclaimer? Can anyone recall another time when an American who is not president has gone overseas and asked another country for its troops? It's clear he has a degree of disdain for our country.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/obamas_berlin_moment.html

Also, according to Rasmussen, "McCain is currently viewed favorably by 55% of the nation’s voters, Obama by 51%. That is the lowest rating for Obama since he wrapped up the nomination. Obama is viewed favorably by 83% of Democrats, 22% of Republicans, and 47% of unaffiliated voters. For McCain, the numbers are 87% favorable among Republicans, 26% among Democrats, and 61% among unaffiliated voters. " A 51% favorable rating is hardly "beloved"!

Also, Rasmussen is the only polling agency to have predicted the last few elections correctly. As of today, the lead flipped to McCain.

[strandinthewind]

It's more about context and feeding into the European superiority complex. Here's a great article about it. He also introduced himself as a "citizen of the World" and not as an "American." What's wrong with being American? How about, "I know my country has not perfected itself. We’ve made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions" Why not just be from a great country without a disclaimer? Can anyone recall another time when an American who is not president has gone overseas and asked another country for its troops? It's clear he has a degree of disdain for our country.

Do you honestly think America is above reproach?

Do you think America is perfect?

Do you think America has no superiority complex?

Do you really think most politicians who visit Germany do not refer to WWII?

Do you not get that Germany and Europe are our allies and W screwed them over with the whole Iraq fiasco and they are more than a little pissed about it?

Finally, did you not read the next few sentences or the preceding paragraphs wherein he praises America for coming to the aid of Germany even though a few months before Germany was trying to kill us?

I mean come on, you have said some crazy things before, but this likely takes the cake :laugh:

Of course and as an aside, W has a special connection to Nazi Germany as his GrandPappy Prescott Sheldon Bush collaborated with the Nazis before war broke out and through the year after Pearl Harbor ( http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0925-01.htm ):laugh: They made lots of money that way. Who hated America then, much less the poor Jews?


Also, according to Rasmussen, "McCain is currently viewed favorably by 55% of the nation’s voters, Obama by 51%. That is the lowest rating for Obama since he wrapped up the nomination. Obama is viewed favorably by 83% of Democrats, 22% of Republicans, and 47% of unaffiliated voters. For McCain, the numbers are 87% favorable among Republicans, 26% among Democrats, and 61% among unaffiliated voters. " A 51% favorable rating is hardly "beloved"!

I thought you did not believe in polls?

But and to answer your "hardly 'beloved"" comment, I said he is "beloved here," which he is and by many. I never said it was some vast majority :shrug:

As for who will win, speculating now is pissing in the wind as far as I am concerned.

[ajmccarrell]

The Brown Brothers Harriman charge has been disputed many times. There was no Prescott Bush link to the Nazi's. What little of a link there was has been disproven, but it doesn't stop people like you from slandering a genuine American hero.

I don't think America is perfect, but I do think that European chauvenism is without any foundation. I do think that America has picked up after Germany time and again and Obama has no business apologizing for America overseas, especially in Germany. Most of the rest of what you said was a red herring designed to distract, so I won't bother responding.

I said "if you believe polling data" and it is VERY flawed, due to methodology, ideology, timing and other problems. However, I also said that Rasmussen was the only polling organization to be on the money in the last few elections. They are the one polling organization I make an exception for, as they seem to be legitimately neutral. When other polling orgs consistently come out on the side of democrats, only to be proven wrong, it seems there is a bias. Wouldn't you agree?

Beloved implies a large favorable rating, which Obama doesn't have, despite what the media would have you believe. I mean, come on, if even SNL can point out the media's affair with Obama, I would think that an intelligent guy like you would see through the media's Obama colored glasses. As far as pissing in the wind, I do agree. My point is that the media, Europe and even the majority of people have thought that the election is a foregone conclusion. AOL did a straw poll where 65% of respondants supported McCain, but some 85% thought Obama would win. That shows a certain degree of Goebbles like media coverage. Not to say the media are Nazi's, but Goebbles was successful because he repeated his lies often enough that everyone accepted them as truth, as the old-media does today.

[strandinthewind]

The Brown Brothers Harriman charge has been disputed many times. There was no Prescott Bush link to the Nazi's. What little of a link there was has been disproven, but it doesn't stop people like you from slandering a genuine American hero . . . .

Wow - when you google "bush nazi debunked" the cites just come out of the wood work :laugh:

Are you actually suggesting that UBC's assetsd were not seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act :eek:

In any event:

How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power

Rumours of a link between the US first family and the Nazi war machine have circulated for decades.

Now the Guardian can reveal how repercussions of events that culminated in action under the Trading with the Enemy Act are still being felt by today's president

Ben Aris in Berlin and Duncan Campbell in Washington

The Guardian, Saturday September 25 2004

George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.
The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.

His business dealings, which continued until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy.

The evidence has also prompted one former US Nazi war crimes prosecutor to argue that the late senator's action should have been grounds for prosecution for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

The debate over Prescott Bush's behaviour has been bubbling under the surface for some time. There has been a steady internet chatter about the "Bush/Nazi" connection, much of it inaccurate and unfair. But the new documents, many of which were only declassified last year, show that even after America had entered the war and when there was already significant information about the Nazis' plans and policies, he worked for and profited from companies closely involved with the very German businesses that financed Hitler's rise to power. It has also been suggested that the money he made from these dealings helped to establish the Bush family fortune and set up its political dynasty.

Remarkably, little of Bush's dealings with Germany has received public scrutiny, partly because of the secret status of the documentation involving him. But now the multibillion dollar legal action for damages by two Holocaust survivors against the Bush family, and the imminent publication of three books on the subject are threatening to make Prescott Bush's business history an uncomfortable issue for his grandson, George W, as he seeks re-election.

While there is no suggestion that Prescott Bush was sympathetic to the Nazi cause, the documents reveal that the firm he worked for, Brown Brothers Harriman (BBH), acted as a US base for the German industrialist, Fritz Thyssen, who helped finance Hitler in the 1930s before falling out with him at the end of the decade. The Guardian has seen evidence that shows Bush was the director of the New York-based Union Banking Corporation (UBC) that represented Thyssen's US interests and he continued to work for the bank after America entered the war.

Tantalising


Bush was also on the board of at least one of the companies that formed part of a multinational network of front companies to allow Thyssen to move assets around the world.

Thyssen owned the largest steel and coal company in Germany and grew rich from Hitler's efforts to re-arm between the two world wars. One of the pillars in Thyssen's international corporate web, UBC, worked exclusively for, and was owned by, a Thyssen-controlled bank in the Netherlands. More tantalising are Bush's links to the Consolidated Silesian Steel Company (CSSC), based in mineral rich Silesia on the German-Polish border. During the war, the company made use of Nazi slave labour from the concentration camps, including Auschwitz. The ownership of CSSC changed hands several times in the 1930s, but documents from the US National Archive declassified last year link Bush to CSSC, although it is not clear if he and UBC were still involved in the company when Thyssen's American assets were seized in 1942.

Three sets of archives spell out Prescott Bush's involvement. All three are readily available, thanks to the efficient US archive system and a helpful and dedicated staff at both the Library of Congress in Washington and the National Archives at the University of Maryland.

The first set of files, the Harriman papers in the Library of Congress, show that Prescott Bush was a director and shareholder of a number of companies involved with Thyssen.

The second set of papers, which are in the National Archives, are contained in vesting order number 248 which records the seizure of the company assets. What these files show is that on October 20 1942 the alien property custodian seized the assets of the UBC, of which Prescott Bush was a director. Having gone through the books of the bank, further seizures were made against two affiliates, the Holland-American Trading Corporation and the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation. By November, the Silesian-American Company, another of Prescott Bush's ventures, had also been seized.

The third set of documents, also at the National Archives, are contained in the files on IG Farben, who was prosecuted for war crimes.

A report issued by the Office of Alien Property Custodian in 1942 stated of the companies that "since 1939, these (steel and mining) properties have been in possession of and have been operated by the German government and have undoubtedly been of considerable assistance to that country's war effort".

Prescott Bush, a 6ft 4in charmer with a rich singing voice, was the founder of the Bush political dynasty and was once considered a potential presidential candidate himself. Like his son, George, and grandson, George W, he went to Yale where he was, again like his descendants, a member of the secretive and influential Skull and Bones student society. He was an artillery captain in the first world war and married Dorothy Walker, the daughter of George Herbert Walker, in 1921.

In 1924, his father-in-law, a well-known St Louis investment banker, helped set him up in business in New York with Averill Harriman, the wealthy son of railroad magnate E H Harriman in New York, who had gone into banking.

One of the first jobs Walker gave Bush was to manage UBC. Bush was a founding member of the bank and the incorporation documents, which list him as one of seven directors, show he owned one share in UBC worth $125.

The bank was set up by Harriman and Bush's father-in-law to provide a US bank for the Thyssens, Germany's most powerful industrial family.

August Thyssen, the founder of the dynasty had been a major contributor to Germany's first world war effort and in the 1920s, he and his sons Fritz and Heinrich established a network of overseas banks and companies so their assets and money could be whisked offshore if threatened again.

By the time Fritz Thyssen inherited the business empire in 1926, Germany's economic recovery was faltering. After hearing Adolf Hitler speak, Thyssen became mesmerised by the young firebrand. He joined the Nazi party in December 1931 and admits backing Hitler in his autobiography, I Paid Hitler, when the National Socialists were still a radical fringe party. He stepped in several times to bail out the struggling party: in 1928 Thyssen had bought the Barlow Palace on Briennerstrasse, in Munich, which Hitler converted into the Brown House, the headquarters of the Nazi party. The money came from another Thyssen overseas institution, the Bank voor Handel en Scheepvarrt in Rotterdam.

By the late 1930s, Brown Brothers Harriman, which claimed to be the world's largest private investment bank, and UBC had bought and shipped millions of dollars of gold, fuel, steel, coal and US treasury bonds to Germany, both feeding and financing Hitler's build-up to war.

Between 1931 and 1933 UBC bought more than $8m worth of gold, of which $3m was shipped abroad. According to documents seen by the Guardian, after UBC was set up it transferred $2m to BBH accounts and between 1924 and 1940 the assets of UBC hovered around $3m, dropping to $1m only on a few occasions.

In 1941, Thyssen fled Germany after falling out with Hitler but he was captured in France and detained for the remainder of the war.

There was nothing illegal in doing business with the Thyssens throughout the 1930s and many of America's best-known business names invested heavily in the German economic recovery. However, everything changed after Germany invaded Poland in 1939. Even then it could be argued that BBH was within its rights continuing business relations with the Thyssens until the end of 1941 as the US was still technically neutral until the attack on Pearl Harbor. The trouble started on July 30 1942 when the New York Herald-Tribune ran an article entitled "Hitler's Angel Has $3m in US Bank". UBC's huge gold purchases had raised suspicions that the bank was in fact a "secret nest egg" hidden in New York for Thyssen and other Nazi bigwigs. The Alien Property Commission (APC) launched an investigation.

There is no dispute over the fact that the US government seized a string of assets controlled by BBH - including UBC and SAC - in the autumn of 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy act. What is in dispute is if Harriman, Walker and Bush did more than own these companies on paper.

Erwin May, a treasury attache and officer for the department of investigation in the APC, was assigned to look into UBC's business. The first fact to emerge was that Roland Harriman, Prescott Bush and the other directors didn't actually own their shares in UBC but merely held them on behalf of Bank voor Handel. Strangely, no one seemed to know who owned the Rotterdam-based bank, including UBC's president.

May wrote in his report of August 16 1941: "Union Banking Corporation, incorporated August 4 1924, is wholly owned by the Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart N.V of Rotterdam, the Netherlands. My investigation has produced no evidence as to the ownership of the Dutch bank. Mr Cornelis [sic] Lievense, president of UBC, claims no knowledge as to the ownership of the Bank voor Handel but believes it possible that Baron Heinrich Thyssen, brother of Fritz Thyssen, may own a substantial interest."

May cleared the bank of holding a golden nest egg for the Nazi leaders but went on to describe a network of companies spreading out from UBC across Europe, America and Canada, and how money from voor Handel travelled to these companies through UBC.

By September May had traced the origins of the non-American board members and found that Dutchman HJ Kouwenhoven - who met with Harriman in 1924 to set up UBC - had several other jobs: in addition to being the managing director of voor Handel he was also the director of the August Thyssen bank in Berlin and a director of Fritz Thyssen's Union Steel Works, the holding company that controlled Thyssen's steel and coal mine empire in Germany.

Within a few weeks, Homer Jones, the chief of the APC investigation and research division sent a memo to the executive committee of APC recommending the US government vest UBC and its assets. Jones named the directors of the bank in the memo, including Prescott Bush's name, and wrote: "Said stock is held by the above named individuals, however, solely as nominees for the Bank voor Handel, Rotterdam, Holland, which is owned by one or more of the Thyssen family, nationals of Germany and Hungary. The 4,000 shares hereinbefore set out are therefore beneficially owned and help for the interests of enemy nationals, and are vestible by the APC," according to the memo from the National Archives seen by the Guardian.

Red-handed


Jones recommended that the assets be liquidated for the benefit of the government, but instead UBC was maintained intact and eventually returned to the American shareholders after the war. Some claim that Bush sold his share in UBC after the war for $1.5m - a huge amount of money at the time - but there is no documentary evidence to support this claim. No further action was ever taken nor was the investigation continued, despite the fact UBC was caught red-handed operating a American shell company for the Thyssen family eight months after America had entered the war and that this was the bank that had partly financed Hitler's rise to power.

The most tantalising part of the story remains shrouded in mystery: the connection, if any, between Prescott Bush, Thyssen, Consolidated Silesian Steel Company (CSSC) and Auschwitz.

Thyssen's partner in United Steel Works, which had coal mines and steel plants across the region, was Friedrich Flick, another steel magnate who also owned part of IG Farben, the powerful German chemical company.

Flick's plants in Poland made heavy use of slave labour from the concentration camps in Poland. According to a New York Times article published in March 18 1934 Flick owned two-thirds of CSSC while "American interests" held the rest.

The US National Archive documents show that BBH's involvement with CSSC was more than simply holding the shares in the mid-1930s. Bush's friend and fellow "bonesman" Knight Woolley, another partner at BBH, wrote to Averill Harriman in January 1933 warning of problems with CSSC after the Poles started their drive to nationalise the plant. "The Consolidated Silesian Steel Company situation has become increasingly complicated, and I have accordingly brought in Sullivan and Cromwell, in order to be sure that our interests are protected," wrote Knight. "After studying the situation Foster Dulles is insisting that their man in Berlin get into the picture and obtain the information which the directors here should have. You will recall that Foster is a director and he is particularly anxious to be certain that there is no liability attaching to the American directors."

But the ownership of the CSSC between 1939 when the Germans invaded Poland and 1942 when the US government vested UBC and SAC is not clear.

"SAC held coal mines and definitely owned CSSC between 1934 and 1935, but when SAC was vested there was no trace of CSSC. All concrete evidence of its ownership disappears after 1935 and there are only a few traces in 1938 and 1939," says Eva Schweitzer, the journalist and author whose book, America and the Holocaust, is published next month.

Silesia was quickly made part of the German Reich after the invasion, but while Polish factories were seized by the Nazis, those belonging to the still neutral Americans (and some other nationals) were treated more carefully as Hitler was still hoping to persuade the US to at least sit out the war as a neutral country. Schweitzer says American interests were dealt with on a case-by-case basis. The Nazis bought some out, but not others.

The two Holocaust survivors suing the US government and the Bush family for a total of $40bn in compensation claim both materially benefited from Auschwitz slave labour during the second world war.

Kurt Julius Goldstein, 87, and Peter Gingold, 85, began a class action in America in 2001, but the case was thrown out by Judge Rosemary Collier on the grounds that the government cannot be held liable under the principle of "state sovereignty".

Jan Lissmann, one of the lawyers for the survivors, said: "President Bush withdrew President Bill Clinton's signature from the treaty [that founded the court] not only to protect Americans, but also to protect himself and his family."

Lissmann argues that genocide-related cases are covered by international law, which does hold governments accountable for their actions. He claims the ruling was invalid as no hearing took place.

In their claims, Mr Goldstein and Mr Gingold, honorary chairman of the League of Anti-fascists, suggest the Americans were aware of what was happening at Auschwitz and should have bombed the camp.

The lawyers also filed a motion in The Hague asking for an opinion on whether state sovereignty is a valid reason for refusing to hear their case. A ruling is expected within a month.

The petition to The Hague states: "From April 1944 on, the American Air Force could have destroyed the camp with air raids, as well as the railway bridges and railway lines from Hungary to Auschwitz. The murder of about 400,000 Hungarian Holocaust victims could have been prevented."

The case is built around a January 22 1944 executive order signed by President Franklin Roosevelt calling on the government to take all measures to rescue the European Jews. The lawyers claim the order was ignored because of pressure brought by a group of big American companies, including BBH, where Prescott Bush was a director.

Lissmann said: "If we have a positive ruling from the court it will cause [president] Bush huge problems and make him personally liable to pay compensation."

The US government and the Bush family deny all the claims against them.

In addition to Eva Schweitzer's book, two other books are about to be published that raise the subject of Prescott Bush's business history. The author of the second book, to be published next year, John Loftus, is a former US attorney who prosecuted Nazi war criminals in the 70s. Now living in St Petersburg, Florida and earning his living as a security commentator for Fox News and ABC radio, Loftus is working on a novel which uses some of the material he has uncovered on Bush. Loftus stressed that what Prescott Bush was involved in was just what many other American and British businessmen were doing at the time.

"You can't blame Bush for what his grandfather did any more than you can blame Jack Kennedy for what his father did - bought Nazi stocks - but what is important is the cover-up, how it could have gone on so successfully for half a century, and does that have implications for us today?" he said.

"This was the mechanism by which Hitler was funded to come to power, this was the mechanism by which the Third Reich's defence industry was re-armed, this was the mechanism by which Nazi profits were repatriated back to the American owners, this was the mechanism by which investigations into the financial laundering of the Third Reich were blunted," said Loftus, who is vice-chairman of the Holocaust Museum in St Petersburg.

"The Union Banking Corporation was a holding company for the Nazis, for Fritz Thyssen," said Loftus. "At various times, the Bush family has tried to spin it, saying they were owned by a Dutch bank and it wasn't until the Nazis took over Holland that they realised that now the Nazis controlled the apparent company and that is why the Bush supporters claim when the war was over they got their money back. Both the American treasury investigations and the intelligence investigations in Europe completely bely that, it's absolute horse****. They always knew who the ultimate beneficiaries were."

"There is no one left alive who could be prosecuted but they did get away with it," said Loftus. "As a former federal prosecutor, I would make a case for Prescott Bush, his father-in-law (George Walker) and Averill Harriman [to be prosecuted] for giving aid and comfort to the enemy. They remained on the boards of these companies knowing that they were of financial benefit to the nation of Germany."

Loftus said Prescott Bush must have been aware of what was happening in Germany at the time. "My take on him was that he was a not terribly successful in-law who did what Herbert Walker told him to. Walker and Harriman were the two evil geniuses, they didn't care about the Nazis any more than they cared about their investments with the Bolsheviks."

What is also at issue is how much money Bush made from his involvement. His supporters suggest that he had one token share. Loftus disputes this, citing sources in "the banking and intelligence communities" and suggesting that the Bush family, through George Herbert Walker and Prescott, got $1.5m out of the involvement. There is, however, no paper trail to this sum.

The third person going into print on the subject is John Buchanan, 54, a Miami-based magazine journalist who started examining the files while working on a screenplay. Last year, Buchanan published his findings in the venerable but small-circulation New Hampshire Gazette under the headline "Documents in National Archives Prove George Bush's Grandfather Traded With the Nazis - Even After Pearl Harbor". He expands on this in his book to be published next month - Fixing America: Breaking the Stranglehold of Corporate Rule, Big Media and the Religious Right.

In the article, Buchanan, who has worked mainly in the trade and music press with a spell as a muckraking reporter in Miami, claimed that "the essential facts have appeared on the internet and in relatively obscure books but were dismissed by the media and Bush family as undocumented diatribes".

Buchanan suffers from hypermania, a form of manic depression, and when he found himself rebuffed in his initial efforts to interest the media, he responded with a series of threats against the journalists and media outlets that had spurned him. The threats, contained in e-mails, suggested that he would expose the journalists as "traitors to the truth".

Unsurprisingly, he soon had difficulty getting his calls returned. Most seriously, he faced aggravated stalking charges in Miami, in connection with a man with whom he had fallen out over the best way to publicise his findings. The charges were dropped last month.

Biography


Buchanan said he regretted his behaviour had damaged his credibility but his main aim was to secure publicity for the story. Both Loftus and Schweitzer say Buchanan has come up with previously undisclosed documentation.

The Bush family have largely responded with no comment to any reference to Prescott Bush. Brown Brothers Harriman also declined to comment.

The Bush family recently approved a flattering biography of Prescott Bush entitled Duty, Honour, Country by Mickey Herskowitz. The publishers, Rutledge Hill Press, promised the book would "deal honestly with Prescott Bush's alleged business relationships with Nazi industrialists and other accusations".

In fact, the allegations are dealt with in less than two pages. The book refers to the Herald-Tribune story by saying that "a person of less established ethics would have panicked ... Bush and his partners at Brown Brothers Harriman informed the government regulators that the account, opened in the late 1930s, was 'an unpaid courtesy for a client' ... Prescott Bush acted quickly and openly on behalf of the firm, served well by a reputation that had never been compromised. He made available all records and all documents. Viewed six decades later in the era of serial corporate scandals and shattered careers, he received what can be viewed as the ultimate clean bill."

The Prescott Bush story has been condemned by both conservatives and some liberals as having nothing to do with the current president. It has also been suggested that Prescott Bush had little to do with Averill Harriman and that the two men opposed each other politically.

However, documents from the Harriman papers include a flattering wartime profile of Harriman in the New York Journal American and next to it in the files is a letter to the financial editor of that paper from Prescott Bush congratulating the paper for running the profile. He added that Harriman's "performance and his whole attitude has been a source of inspiration and pride to his partners and his friends".

The Anti-Defamation League in the US is supportive of Prescott Bush and the Bush family. In a statement last year they said that "rumours about the alleged Nazi 'ties' of the late Prescott Bush ... have circulated widely through the internet in recent years. These charges are untenable and politically motivated ... Prescott Bush was neither a Nazi nor a Nazi sympathiser."

However, one of the country's oldest Jewish publications, the Jewish Advocate, has aired the controversy in detail.

More than 60 years after Prescott Bush came briefly under scrutiny at the time of a faraway war, his grandson is facing a different kind of scrutiny but one underpinned by the same perception that, for some people, war can be a profitable business.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar
____________________________________

Interestingly, ole Prescott would be hated by the current R party because he was involved with the American Birth Control League as early as 1942, and served as the treasurer of the first national capital campaign of Planned Parenthood in 1947. He was also an early supporter of the United Negro College Fund, serving as chairman of the Connecticut branch in 1951 - which back then was something outlandishly liberal.

[BombaySapphire3]

How anyone could still be an apologist for Bush and co. is beyond the scope of my imagining ..People voted out of fear,nationalism and xenophobia and look where it has gotten us..a ruinous imbecile in the White House and now someone who used to consider himself a "maverick" apparently intent on continuing many of those myopic policies even praising his former nemesis Karl Rove and his odious smear tactics.I for one am happy to vote for someone that offers a promise of healing our wrecked international reputation ..The quality that made America great was it's ability to embrace change and to take chances and an opportunity to embrace those ideals again are why I will be voting for Barack Obama in November.

[strandinthewind]

^^^

Well, there's that, but at least the fags and baby killers will continue to be shunned if four more years happen :rolleyes:

[strandinthewind]

. . . He also introduced himself as a "citizen of the World" and not as an "American." What's wrong with being American? . . .

Actually, he said:

I come to Berlin as so many of my countrymen have come before. Tonight, I speak to you not as a candidate for President, but as a citizen - a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world.

He did not solely refer to himself as a citizen of the world and he specifically referred to himself also as a proud citizen of the US. How is that demeaning to the US or in any way suggestive of disdain for America?

[ajmccarrell]

^^^

Well, there's that, but at least the fags and baby killers will continue to be shunned if four more years happen :rolleyes:


When you run out ideas you just resort to labelling. This is just plain offensive.

[ajmccarrell]

Actually, he said:

I come to Berlin as so many of my countrymen have come before. Tonight, I speak to you not as a candidate for President, but as a citizen - a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world.

He did not solely refer to himself as a citizen of the world and he specifically referred to himself also as a proud citizen of the US. How is that demeaning to the US or in any way suggestive of disdain for America?

That isn't what he said. You made that up. Besides, when you are a candidate for president of the US, you are a citizen of the US. What makes Obama a citizen of the world? I mean, he visited Kenya for an extended period of time. That doesn't exactly make him widely travelled. He hadn't travelled to most of these places until now, but he wants to be a citizen of the world!?

[strandinthewind]

. . . How about, "I know my country has not perfected itself. We’ve made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions" Why not just be from a great country without a disclaimer? . . . .

Well, the US, the great country, made a rather large mistake with Iraq and the whole pesky prematurely stopping the renewed inspections, lying about the Niger yellowcake for the exigency issue, and then the complete absence of the WMD we asserted we knew for sure were there.

Don't you think we owed Europe and explanation of why things went wrong and why what we told the world was there was not - after all, they were asked by us to send troops and aid us in other ways and many did?

I think not to explain the US' mistakes would be lying.

So, I do not see this as America bashing as opposed to telling the truth.

[ajmccarrell]

How anyone could still be an apologist for Bush and co. is beyond the scope of my imagining ..People voted out of fear,nationalism and xenophobia and look where it has gotten us..a ruinous imbecile in the White House and now someone who used to consider himself a "maverick" apparently intent on continuing many of those myopic policies even praising his former nemesis Karl Rove and his odious smear tactics.I for one am happy to vote for someone that offers a promise of healing our wrecked international reputation ..The quality that made America great was it's ability to embrace change and to take chances and an opportunity to embrace those ideals again are why I will be voting for Barack Obama in November.

I'm not sure how you can blame him for everything either. Most of what goes wrong is our own fault, but we blame the president because we blame him for not saving us from our own stupidity. WE are responsible for inflation and rising costs, WE are responsbile for rising gas prices, WE are responsible for our own economy, yet we blame someone because we don't understand that our own problems are the net sum of our own personal decisions. Take some responsibility for yourself. If you vote for Obama because of a "promise of change" a promise is all you will get. He reverses himself on some key position every week because he finds out that it isn't popular.

He has reversed himself on:
Drilling
Troop Withdrawal
Campaign Funding
Debates

and God knows what else. He is now FOR drilling and continuing the war and even going back if we're needed further. How is that change?

[strandinthewind]

That isn't what he said. You made that up . . . .

Um - I quoted that from the text of the speech above :shrug:

[ajmccarrell]

Wow - when you google "bush nazi debunked" the cites just come out of the wood work :laugh:

Are you actually suggesting that UBC's assetsd were not seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act :eek:

In any event:

How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power

Rumours of a link between the US first family and the Nazi war machine have circulated for decades.

Now the Guardian can reveal how repercussions of events that culminated in action under the Trading with the Enemy Act are still being felt by today's president

Ben Aris in Berlin and Duncan Campbell in Washington

The Guardian, Saturday September 25 2004

George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.
The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.

His business dealings, which continued until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy.

The evidence has also prompted one former US Nazi war crimes prosecutor to argue that the late senator's action should have been grounds for prosecution for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

The debate over Prescott Bush's behaviour has been bubbling under the surface for some time. There has been a steady internet chatter about the "Bush/Nazi" connection, much of it inaccurate and unfair. But the new documents, many of which were only declassified last year, show that even after America had entered the war and when there was already significant information about the Nazis' plans and policies, he worked for and profited from companies closely involved with the very German businesses that financed Hitler's rise to power. It has also been suggested that the money he made from these dealings helped to establish the Bush family fortune and set up its political dynasty.

Remarkably, little of Bush's dealings with Germany has received public scrutiny, partly because of the secret status of the documentation involving him. But now the multibillion dollar legal action for damages by two Holocaust survivors against the Bush family, and the imminent publication of three books on the subject are threatening to make Prescott Bush's business history an uncomfortable issue for his grandson, George W, as he seeks re-election.

While there is no suggestion that Prescott Bush was sympathetic to the Nazi cause, the documents reveal that the firm he worked for, Brown Brothers Harriman (BBH), acted as a US base for the German industrialist, Fritz Thyssen, who helped finance Hitler in the 1930s before falling out with him at the end of the decade. The Guardian has seen evidence that shows Bush was the director of the New York-based Union Banking Corporation (UBC) that represented Thyssen's US interests and he continued to work for the bank after America entered the war.

Tantalising


Bush was also on the board of at least one of the companies that formed part of a multinational network of front companies to allow Thyssen to move assets around the world.

Thyssen owned the largest steel and coal company in Germany and grew rich from Hitler's efforts to re-arm between the two world wars. One of the pillars in Thyssen's international corporate web, UBC, worked exclusively for, and was owned by, a Thyssen-controlled bank in the Netherlands. More tantalising are Bush's links to the Consolidated Silesian Steel Company (CSSC), based in mineral rich Silesia on the German-Polish border. During the war, the company made use of Nazi slave labour from the concentration camps, including Auschwitz. The ownership of CSSC changed hands several times in the 1930s, but documents from the US National Archive declassified last year link Bush to CSSC, although it is not clear if he and UBC were still involved in the company when Thyssen's American assets were seized in 1942.

Three sets of archives spell out Prescott Bush's involvement. All three are readily available, thanks to the efficient US archive system and a helpful and dedicated staff at both the Library of Congress in Washington and the National Archives at the University of Maryland.

The first set of files, the Harriman papers in the Library of Congress, show that Prescott Bush was a director and shareholder of a number of companies involved with Thyssen.

The second set of papers, which are in the National Archives, are contained in vesting order number 248 which records the seizure of the company assets. What these files show is that on October 20 1942 the alien property custodian seized the assets of the UBC, of which Prescott Bush was a director. Having gone through the books of the bank, further seizures were made against two affiliates, the Holland-American Trading Corporation and the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation. By November, the Silesian-American Company, another of Prescott Bush's ventures, had also been seized.

The third set of documents, also at the National Archives, are contained in the files on IG Farben, who was prosecuted for war crimes.

A report issued by the Office of Alien Property Custodian in 1942 stated of the companies that "since 1939, these (steel and mining) properties have been in possession of and have been operated by the German government and have undoubtedly been of considerable assistance to that country's war effort".

Prescott Bush, a 6ft 4in charmer with a rich singing voice, was the founder of the Bush political dynasty and was once considered a potential presidential candidate himself. Like his son, George, and grandson, George W, he went to Yale where he was, again like his descendants, a member of the secretive and influential Skull and Bones student society. He was an artillery captain in the first world war and married Dorothy Walker, the daughter of George Herbert Walker, in 1921.

In 1924, his father-in-law, a well-known St Louis investment banker, helped set him up in business in New York with Averill Harriman, the wealthy son of railroad magnate E H Harriman in New York, who had gone into banking.

One of the first jobs Walker gave Bush was to manage UBC. Bush was a founding member of the bank and the incorporation documents, which list him as one of seven directors, show he owned one share in UBC worth $125.

The bank was set up by Harriman and Bush's father-in-law to provide a US bank for the Thyssens, Germany's most powerful industrial family.

August Thyssen, the founder of the dynasty had been a major contributor to Germany's first world war effort and in the 1920s, he and his sons Fritz and Heinrich established a network of overseas banks and companies so their assets and money could be whisked offshore if threatened again.

By the time Fritz Thyssen inherited the business empire in 1926, Germany's economic recovery was faltering. After hearing Adolf Hitler speak, Thyssen became mesmerised by the young firebrand. He joined the Nazi party in December 1931 and admits backing Hitler in his autobiography, I Paid Hitler, when the National Socialists were still a radical fringe party. He stepped in several times to bail out the struggling party: in 1928 Thyssen had bought the Barlow Palace on Briennerstrasse, in Munich, which Hitler converted into the Brown House, the headquarters of the Nazi party. The money came from another Thyssen overseas institution, the Bank voor Handel en Scheepvarrt in Rotterdam.

By the late 1930s, Brown Brothers Harriman, which claimed to be the world's largest private investment bank, and UBC had bought and shipped millions of dollars of gold, fuel, steel, coal and US treasury bonds to Germany, both feeding and financing Hitler's build-up to war.

Between 1931 and 1933 UBC bought more than $8m worth of gold, of which $3m was shipped abroad. According to documents seen by the Guardian, after UBC was set up it transferred $2m to BBH accounts and between 1924 and 1940 the assets of UBC hovered around $3m, dropping to $1m only on a few occasions.

In 1941, Thyssen fled Germany after falling out with Hitler but he was captured in France and detained for the remainder of the war.

There was nothing illegal in doing business with the Thyssens throughout the 1930s and many of America's best-known business names invested heavily in the German economic recovery. However, everything changed after Germany invaded Poland in 1939. Even then it could be argued that BBH was within its rights continuing business relations with the Thyssens until the end of 1941 as the US was still technically neutral until the attack on Pearl Harbor. The trouble started on July 30 1942 when the New York Herald-Tribune ran an article entitled "Hitler's Angel Has $3m in US Bank". UBC's huge gold purchases had raised suspicions that the bank was in fact a "secret nest egg" hidden in New York for Thyssen and other Nazi bigwigs. The Alien Property Commission (APC) launched an investigation.

There is no dispute over the fact that the US government seized a string of assets controlled by BBH - including UBC and SAC - in the autumn of 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy act. What is in dispute is if Harriman, Walker and Bush did more than own these companies on paper.

Erwin May, a treasury attache and officer for the department of investigation in the APC, was assigned to look into UBC's business. The first fact to emerge was that Roland Harriman, Prescott Bush and the other directors didn't actually own their shares in UBC but merely held them on behalf of Bank voor Handel. Strangely, no one seemed to know who owned the Rotterdam-based bank, including UBC's president.

May wrote in his report of August 16 1941: "Union Banking Corporation, incorporated August 4 1924, is wholly owned by the Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart N.V of Rotterdam, the Netherlands. My investigation has produced no evidence as to the ownership of the Dutch bank. Mr Cornelis [sic] Lievense, president of UBC, claims no knowledge as to the ownership of the Bank voor Handel but believes it possible that Baron Heinrich Thyssen, brother of Fritz Thyssen, may own a substantial interest."

May cleared the bank of holding a golden nest egg for the Nazi leaders but went on to describe a network of companies spreading out from UBC across Europe, America and Canada, and how money from voor Handel travelled to these companies through UBC.

By September May had traced the origins of the non-American board members and found that Dutchman HJ Kouwenhoven - who met with Harriman in 1924 to set up UBC - had several other jobs: in addition to being the managing director of voor Handel he was also the director of the August Thyssen bank in Berlin and a director of Fritz Thyssen's Union Steel Works, the holding company that controlled Thyssen's steel and coal mine empire in Germany.

Within a few weeks, Homer Jones, the chief of the APC investigation and research division sent a memo to the executive committee of APC recommending the US government vest UBC and its assets. Jones named the directors of the bank in the memo, including Prescott Bush's name, and wrote: "Said stock is held by the above named individuals, however, solely as nominees for the Bank voor Handel, Rotterdam, Holland, which is owned by one or more of the Thyssen family, nationals of Germany and Hungary. The 4,000 shares hereinbefore set out are therefore beneficially owned and help for the interests of enemy nationals, and are vestible by the APC," according to the memo from the National Archives seen by the Guardian.

Red-handed


Jones recommended that the assets be liquidated for the benefit of the government, but instead UBC was maintained intact and eventually returned to the American shareholders after the war. Some claim that Bush sold his share in UBC after the war for $1.5m - a huge amount of money at the time - but there is no documentary evidence to support this claim. No further action was ever taken nor was the investigation continued, despite the fact UBC was caught red-handed operating a American shell company for the Thyssen family eight months after America had entered the war and that this was the bank that had partly financed Hitler's rise to power.

The most tantalising part of the story remains shrouded in mystery: the connection, if any, between Prescott Bush, Thyssen, Consolidated Silesian Steel Company (CSSC) and Auschwitz.

Thyssen's partner in United Steel Works, which had coal mines and steel plants across the region, was Friedrich Flick, another steel magnate who also owned part of IG Farben, the powerful German chemical company.

Flick's plants in Poland made heavy use of slave labour from the concentration camps in Poland. According to a New York Times article published in March 18 1934 Flick owned two-thirds of CSSC while "American interests" held the rest.

The US National Archive documents show that BBH's involvement with CSSC was more than simply holding the shares in the mid-1930s. Bush's friend and fellow "bonesman" Knight Woolley, another partner at BBH, wrote to Averill Harriman in January 1933 warning of problems with CSSC after the Poles started their drive to nationalise the plant. "The Consolidated Silesian Steel Company situation has become increasingly complicated, and I have accordingly brought in Sullivan and Cromwell, in order to be sure that our interests are protected," wrote Knight. "After studying the situation Foster Dulles is insisting that their man in Berlin get into the picture and obtain the information which the directors here should have. You will recall that Foster is a director and he is particularly anxious to be certain that there is no liability attaching to the American directors."

But the ownership of the CSSC between 1939 when the Germans invaded Poland and 1942 when the US government vested UBC and SAC is not clear.

"SAC held coal mines and definitely owned CSSC between 1934 and 1935, but when SAC was vested there was no trace of CSSC. All concrete evidence of its ownership disappears after 1935 and there are only a few traces in 1938 and 1939," says Eva Schweitzer, the journalist and author whose book, America and the Holocaust, is published next month.

Silesia was quickly made part of the German Reich after the invasion, but while Polish factories were seized by the Nazis, those belonging to the still neutral Americans (and some other nationals) were treated more carefully as Hitler was still hoping to persuade the US to at least sit out the war as a neutral country. Schweitzer says American interests were dealt with on a case-by-case basis. The Nazis bought some out, but not others.

The two Holocaust survivors suing the US government and the Bush family for a total of $40bn in compensation claim both materially benefited from Auschwitz slave labour during the second world war.

Kurt Julius Goldstein, 87, and Peter Gingold, 85, began a class action in America in 2001, but the case was thrown out by Judge Rosemary Collier on the grounds that the government cannot be held liable under the principle of "state sovereignty".

Jan Lissmann, one of the lawyers for the survivors, said: "President Bush withdrew President Bill Clinton's signature from the treaty [that founded the court] not only to protect Americans, but also to protect himself and his family."

Lissmann argues that genocide-related cases are covered by international law, which does hold governments accountable for their actions. He claims the ruling was invalid as no hearing took place.

In their claims, Mr Goldstein and Mr Gingold, honorary chairman of the League of Anti-fascists, suggest the Americans were aware of what was happening at Auschwitz and should have bombed the camp.

The lawyers also filed a motion in The Hague asking for an opinion on whether state sovereignty is a valid reason for refusing to hear their case. A ruling is expected within a month.

The petition to The Hague states: "From April 1944 on, the American Air Force could have destroyed the camp with air raids, as well as the railway bridges and railway lines from Hungary to Auschwitz. The murder of about 400,000 Hungarian Holocaust victims could have been prevented."

The case is built around a January 22 1944 executive order signed by President Franklin Roosevelt calling on the government to take all measures to rescue the European Jews. The lawyers claim the order was ignored because of pressure brought by a group of big American companies, including BBH, where Prescott Bush was a director.

Lissmann said: "If we have a positive ruling from the court it will cause [president] Bush huge problems and make him personally liable to pay compensation."

The US government and the Bush family deny all the claims against them.

In addition to Eva Schweitzer's book, two other books are about to be published that raise the subject of Prescott Bush's business history. The author of the second book, to be published next year, John Loftus, is a former US attorney who prosecuted Nazi war criminals in the 70s. Now living in St Petersburg, Florida and earning his living as a security commentator for Fox News and ABC radio, Loftus is working on a novel which uses some of the material he has uncovered on Bush. Loftus stressed that what Prescott Bush was involved in was just what many other American and British businessmen were doing at the time.

"You can't blame Bush for what his grandfather did any more than you can blame Jack Kennedy for what his father did - bought Nazi stocks - but what is important is the cover-up, how it could have gone on so successfully for half a century, and does that have implications for us today?" he said.

"This was the mechanism by which Hitler was funded to come to power, this was the mechanism by which the Third Reich's defence industry was re-armed, this was the mechanism by which Nazi profits were repatriated back to the American owners, this was the mechanism by which investigations into the financial laundering of the Third Reich were blunted," said Loftus, who is vice-chairman of the Holocaust Museum in St Petersburg.

"The Union Banking Corporation was a holding company for the Nazis, for Fritz Thyssen," said Loftus. "At various times, the Bush family has tried to spin it, saying they were owned by a Dutch bank and it wasn't until the Nazis took over Holland that they realised that now the Nazis controlled the apparent company and that is why the Bush supporters claim when the war was over they got their money back. Both the American treasury investigations and the intelligence investigations in Europe completely bely that, it's absolute horse****. They always knew who the ultimate beneficiaries were."

"There is no one left alive who could be prosecuted but they did get away with it," said Loftus. "As a former federal prosecutor, I would make a case for Prescott Bush, his father-in-law (George Walker) and Averill Harriman [to be prosecuted] for giving aid and comfort to the enemy. They remained on the boards of these companies knowing that they were of financial benefit to the nation of Germany."

Loftus said Prescott Bush must have been aware of what was happening in Germany at the time. "My take on him was that he was a not terribly successful in-law who did what Herbert Walker told him to. Walker and Harriman were the two evil geniuses, they didn't care about the Nazis any more than they cared about their investments with the Bolsheviks."

What is also at issue is how much money Bush made from his involvement. His supporters suggest that he had one token share. Loftus disputes this, citing sources in "the banking and intelligence communities" and suggesting that the Bush family, through George Herbert Walker and Prescott, got $1.5m out of the involvement. There is, however, no paper trail to this sum.

The third person going into print on the subject is John Buchanan, 54, a Miami-based magazine journalist who started examining the files while working on a screenplay. Last year, Buchanan published his findings in the venerable but small-circulation New Hampshire Gazette under the headline "Documents in National Archives Prove George Bush's Grandfather Traded With the Nazis - Even After Pearl Harbor". He expands on this in his book to be published next month - Fixing America: Breaking the Stranglehold of Corporate Rule, Big Media and the Religious Right.

In the article, Buchanan, who has worked mainly in the trade and music press with a spell as a muckraking reporter in Miami, claimed that "the essential facts have appeared on the internet and in relatively obscure books but were dismissed by the media and Bush family as undocumented diatribes".

Buchanan suffers from hypermania, a form of manic depression, and when he found himself rebuffed in his initial efforts to interest the media, he responded with a series of threats against the journalists and media outlets that had spurned him. The threats, contained in e-mails, suggested that he would expose the journalists as "traitors to the truth".

Unsurprisingly, he soon had difficulty getting his calls returned. Most seriously, he faced aggravated stalking charges in Miami, in connection with a man with whom he had fallen out over the best way to publicise his findings. The charges were dropped last month.

Biography


Buchanan said he regretted his behaviour had damaged his credibility but his main aim was to secure publicity for the story. Both Loftus and Schweitzer say Buchanan has come up with previously undisclosed documentation.

The Bush family have largely responded with no comment to any reference to Prescott Bush. Brown Brothers Harriman also declined to comment.

The Bush family recently approved a flattering biography of Prescott Bush entitled Duty, Honour, Country by Mickey Herskowitz. The publishers, Rutledge Hill Press, promised the book would "deal honestly with Prescott Bush's alleged business relationships with Nazi industrialists and other accusations".

In fact, the allegations are dealt with in less than two pages. The book refers to the Herald-Tribune story by saying that "a person of less established ethics would have panicked ... Bush and his partners at Brown Brothers Harriman informed the government regulators that the account, opened in the late 1930s, was 'an unpaid courtesy for a client' ... Prescott Bush acted quickly and openly on behalf of the firm, served well by a reputation that had never been compromised. He made available all records and all documents. Viewed six decades later in the era of serial corporate scandals and shattered careers, he received what can be viewed as the ultimate clean bill."

The Prescott Bush story has been condemned by both conservatives and some liberals as having nothing to do with the current president. It has also been suggested that Prescott Bush had little to do with Averill Harriman and that the two men opposed each other politically.

However, documents from the Harriman papers include a flattering wartime profile of Harriman in the New York Journal American and next to it in the files is a letter to the financial editor of that paper from Prescott Bush congratulating the paper for running the profile. He added that Harriman's "performance and his whole attitude has been a source of inspiration and pride to his partners and his friends".

The Anti-Defamation League in the US is supportive of Prescott Bush and the Bush family. In a statement last year they said that "rumours about the alleged Nazi 'ties' of the late Prescott Bush ... have circulated widely through the internet in recent years. These charges are untenable and politically motivated ... Prescott Bush was neither a Nazi nor a Nazi sympathiser."

However, one of the country's oldest Jewish publications, the Jewish Advocate, has aired the controversy in detail.

More than 60 years after Prescott Bush came briefly under scrutiny at the time of a faraway war, his grandson is facing a different kind of scrutiny but one underpinned by the same perception that, for some people, war can be a profitable business.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar
____________________________________

Interestingly, ole Prescott would be hated by the current R party because he was involved with the American Birth Control League as early as 1942, and served as the treasurer of the first national capital campaign of Planned Parenthood in 1947. He was also an early supporter of the United Negro College Fund, serving as chairman of the Connecticut branch in 1951 - which back then was something outlandishly liberal.

Simple! Bush owned 1 share of stock in Brown Brothers and he started work there in 1942 and they stopped doing business with the nazi's in 1939, as the German company head was imprisoned by Hitler by then. Not to mention Jack Kennedy did vastly more business in Germany then. Do you want to call Ted Kennedy on the carpet for what his father may have done? Even if everything you said is true, how is it relevent in any way? Bush isn't on the ticket for this November, now is he!
Besides, quoting the British is quite reliable, huh?! The people who deny the existence of Winston Churchill, but think Sherlock Holmes was a real person. The Guardian also published 9/11 conspiracy theories as news. They believe Bush was behind Al Queda. I'll take my news from sources that don't deserve straight-jackets, thank you.

[strandinthewind]

When you run out ideas you just resort to labelling. This is just plain offensive.

So why exactly again did the R's fight so long and hard to put the marriage amendments on the ballots of the 2004 elections?

Why run away from the truth about the R party, which is they have demonized Gay people and abortion rights supporters in the last two elections for political gain. Do you actually think they have not :eek:

[strandinthewind]

. . . He is now FOR drilling and continuing the war and even going back if we're needed further. How is that change?

No, you are not quoting him truthfully.

He said he is against drilling but would vote for it in a limited capacity as a compromise, to wit:

If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well-thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage -- I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/01/AR2008080103199.html

That is wildly different than your statement that he if for drilling.

As for the war -- Obama has always said the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability. If you can find any quotes to the contrary, I'd like to see them.

[ajmccarrell]

So why exactly again did the R's fight so long and hard to put the marriage amendments on the ballots of the 2004 elections?

Why run away from the truth about the R party, which is they have demonized Gay people and abortion rights supporters in the last two elections for political gain. Do you actually think they have not :eek:

There is a difference between trying to "define marriage" and "demonizing" gay people. Besides, we already agree on this subject, so why bring it up again. McCain also said he didn't support the amendment. We also have a democrat congress. This is a non-issue.

I do support restrictions on abortion. I think it's horrible. I also think Roe V. Wade was horrible law. An "emanation of a penumbra"? Puhleeaaase. To quote Fred Thompson, "legal hocus pocus." If abortion were dealt with on a state to state basis, I'd have no problem with it. It was the liberals who decided it was a national issue based on the commerce clause. Why not leave it up to the states? If congress voted for it, I'd have less of an issue. They didn't. It was forced upon the rest of us by 9 judges in black robes.

Here's just one quote from Googling Obama on Troop Withdrawal on the first page. It took all of 1 minute to find. There's nothing about security here. Troops would already be gone if he had gotten what he wanted. I'm finding out more and more that the Obama worshippers don't know their own candidate. Do you want a napkin for that egg?

http://www.kwtx.com/nationalnews/headlines/9746492.html

[strandinthewind]

Simple! Bush owned 1 share of stock in Brown Brothers and he started work there in 1942 and they stopped doing business with the nazi's in 1939, as the German company head was imprisoned by Hitler by then . . . .

Um - no -- he was on the board :shrug:

Again, UBC was cited for violating the Trading with the Enemy Act in 1942.

. . . Not to mention Jack Kennedy did vastly more business in Germany then. Do you want to call Ted Kennedy on the carpet for what his father may have done?

I do not now and have not ever called W out for Prescott's actions. W is in no way responsible for them. Moreover, I readily agree all US companies helped re-arm Germany and there was nothing illegal about it, save for UBC's actions noted above. I merely said

Of course and as an aside, W has a special connection to Nazi Germany as his GrandPappy Prescott Sheldon Bush collaborated with the Nazis before war broke out and through the year after Pearl Harbor ( http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0925-01.htm ) They made lots of money that way. Who hated America then, much less the poor Jews?

That is true, W does have a special connection. I never said he was to blame for it.

Even if everything you said is true, how is it relevent

That is why I said "as an aside"

pay attention :wavey:

Besides, quoting the British is quite reliable, huh?! The people who deny the existence of Winston Churchill, but think Sherlock Holmes was a real person. The Guardian also published 9/11 conspiracy theories as news. They believe Bush was behind Al Queda. I'll take my news from sources that don't deserve straight-jackets, thank you.

Once again, you concentrate too much on the actual sources and not the quotes in it, which, again, usually is why I cite them. In other words, it is more succinct.

[strandinthewind]

There is a difference between trying to "define marriage" and "demonizing" gay people.

The one and only reason that issue was even on the states' ballot was so the far right would turn out and vote because they hate gay people and would sooner die than allow them any of the rights afforded to heterosexual people based solely on religion. And, it worked based on that pemise.

Clearly you know that. Here is an article from Fox News:

Gay Marriage: A Campaign Wedge Issue
Tuesday , October 05, 2004

By Peter Brownfeld

WASHINGTON —

Editor's note: This article is the third in a series on issues in the 2004 presidential campaign.

Gay marriage is a wedge issue that many voters care about, and for some heading to the polls on Nov. 2, it is the key issue. If the election is decided by a razor-thin margin, the candidates' stark differences on gay marriage (search) could be the reason for victory or defeat.

President Bush wants a constitutional amendment barring gay marriage; John Kerry wants to leave the decision up to the states. Bush's position has helped solidify his position among Christian conservatives, and his political operatives say they hope it helps boost turnout among this voting bloc. But gay Republicans and others in the community vow Bush will lose a significant number of the gay votes he received in 2000.

Bush's reasons for coming out so strongly against gay marriage are clear, say gay activists. "The hope that it will energize the far right base. it's very unclear whether that strategy will actually work," said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (search), which describes itself as the oldest national organization working to eliminate prejudice against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

"When you poll the American public about what are the most important issues facing the country, same-sex marriage is at the bottom of the list. It's just not a burning issue for most people," Foreman said.

Conservatives say they have been happy about Bush's leadership on this issue and his stance favors the president in the election.

"He is clearly seen as a candidate that is championing marriage," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council (search).

Many homosexuals are not happy with John Kerry for his unwillingness to support gay marriage, but see him as a better champion of their cause. Kerry has said he would oppose a consitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, and would leave the decision up to the states. Gay groups praise his positions on other issues they are concerned about like anti-discrimination and hate crime legislation, and say while the Massachusetts senator is far from ideal, he will capture their vote because of the aggressively anti-gay stance of the president.

"I think most of us are disappointed about John Kerry and John Edwards' stand on this issue. At the same time, there are a lot of important issues in addition to marriage," such as service in the military, domestic partnership, HIV prevention and others, Foreman said.

"Kerry and Edwards are not there on marriage, but they are there on all those other issues. ... On balance we wish they would be better on marriage equality but there is just no comparing on a factual level the position of the two presidential candidates," Foreman added.

In 2000, 1 million gay Americans voted for Bush. But that number could drop this year. The board of directors of the Log Cabin Republicans (search), the GOP's largest gay group, voted 22 to 2 last month to withhold its endorsement for Bush, calling him "disloyal" to the homosexuals who supported his candidacy in 2000. Log Cabin Republicans endorsed Bob Dole in 1996 and Bush in 2000.

"There is a battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party, and that fight is bigger than one platform, one convention, or even one president," Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director Patrick Guerriero said in a statement.

In a Los Angeles Times editorial following the vote, Guerriero charged that Bush's stance is part of a calculation by presidential adviser Karl Rove that "4 million evangelicals stayed home in 2000. As a result, the 2004 campaign has focused on energizing the far right while ignoring mainstream Republicans."

Perkins said if the issue is a true motivator for voters, Bush has nothing but gains to make.

"When you factor in that homosexuals make up 3 percent of the population and evangelicals a little over a quarter," the issue will benefit Bush more than Kerry, he said. "This is an issue that has been brewing for some time. This is an issue that will have significant implications for the presidential election."

"I think it's helped Bush energize his base," added Terry Madonna, director of Franklin & Marshall College's Center for Politics and Public Affairs (search).

However, Madonna was still wary about the overall impact of this wedge issue. "This is not an election that will be largely won or lost on the cultural issues," he said. Instead, the most important subjects would be homeland security, war and the economy.

"At this point I do not see these [cultural] issues as defining the nature of the campaign. Is it possible they could influence some people at the margins and maybe because the election is so close make the difference? Yeah, it's possible."

As for McCain, he said he would not vote for the Fed. Marriage amendment. I believe he is for the individual states banning it.

. . . It was the liberals who decided it was a national issue based on the commerce clause. Why not leave it up to the states? If congress voted for it, I'd have less of an issue. They didn't. It was forced upon the rest of us by 9 judges in black robes.

Actually, the Commerce Clause was the civil rights stuff. See generally Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964)(holding the U.S. Congress could use its Commerce Clause power to fight discrimination).

The abortion issues were more under Roe's holding that most laws against abortion in the United States violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Here's just one quote from Googling Obama on Troop Withdrawal on the first page. It took all of 1 minute to find. There's nothing about security here. Troops would already be gone if he had gotten what he wanted. I'm finding out more and more that the Obama worshippers don't know their own candidate. Do you want a napkin for that egg?

1. I do not in any way worship Obama. I rather dislike him. I thought I had mentioned that about 500 times.

2. Obama has always said that he was for the withdrawal of the troops in that time frame and based on the security of the troops :shrug:

As for http://www.kwtx.com/nationalnews/headlines/9746492.html -- perhaps the whole text of the speech will be enlightening and dispositive of my point (emphasis supplied) :

Remarks of Senator Barack Obama: Turning the Page in Iraq

Clinton, IA | September 12, 2007

A few months ago, I met a woman who told me her nephew was leaving for Iraq. As she started to tell me about how much she'd miss him and how worried she was about him, she began to cry. "I can't breathe,' she said. "I want to know when I am going to be able to breathe again.'

I have her on my mind when I think about what we've gone through as a country and where we need to go. Because we've been holding our breath over Iraq for five years. As we go through yet another debate about yet another phase of this misguided war, we've got a familiar feeling. Again, we're told that progress is upon us. Again, we're asked to hold our breath a little longer. Again, we're reminded of what's gone wrong with our policies and our politics.

It was five years ago today - on September 12, 2002 - that President Bush made his case for war at the United Nations. Standing in front of a world that stood with us after 9/11, he said, "In the attacks on America a year ago, we saw the destructive intentions of our enemies.' Then he talked about Saddam Hussein - a man who had nothing to do with 9/11. But citing the lesson of 9/11, he and others said we had to act. "To suggest otherwise,' the President said, "is to hope against the evidence.'

George Bush was wrong. The people who attacked us on 9/11 were in Afghanistan, not Iraq. Al Qaeda in Iraq didn't exist before our invasion. The case for war was built on exaggerated fears and empty evidence - so much so that Bob Graham, the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, decided to vote against the war after he read the National Intelligence Estimate.

But conventional thinking in Washington lined up for war. The pundits judged the political winds to be blowing in the direction of the President. Despite - or perhaps because of how much experience they had in Washington, too many politicians feared looking weak and failed to ask hard questions. Too many took the President at his word instead of reading the intelligence for themselves. Congress gave the President the authority to go to war. Our only opportunity to stop the war was lost.

I made a different judgment. I thought our priority had to be finishing the fight in Afghanistan. I spoke out against what I called "a rash war' in Iraq. I worried about, "an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences.' The full accounting of those costs and consequences will only be known to history. But the picture is beginning to come into focus.

Nearly 4,000 Americans have been killed in Iraq. Five times that number have suffered horrible wounds, seen and unseen. Loved ones have been lost, dreams denied. Children will grow up without fathers and mothers. Parents have outlived their children. That is a cost of this war.

When all is said and done, the price-tag will run over a trillion dollars. A trillion dollars. That's money not spent on homeland security and counter-terrorism; on providing health care to all Americans and a world-class education to every child; on investments in energy to save ourselves and our planet from an addiction to oil. That is a cost of this war.

The excellence of our military is unmatched. But as a result of this war, our forces are under pressure as never before. Our National Guard and reserves have half of the equipment they need to respond to emergencies at home and abroad. Retention among West Point graduates is down. Our powers of deterrence and influence around the world are down. That is a cost of this war.

America's standing has suffered. Our diplomacy has been compromised by a refusal to talk to people we don't like. Our alliances have been compromised by bluster. Our credibility has been compromised by a faulty case for war. Our moral leadership has been compromised by Abu Ghraib. That is a cost of this war.

Perhaps the saddest irony of the Administration's cynical use of 9/11 is that the Iraq War has left us less safe than we were before 9/11. Osama bin Ladin and his top lieutenants have rebuilt a new base in Pakistan where they freely train recruits, plot new attacks, and disseminate propaganda. The Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan. Iran has emerged as the greatest strategic challenge to America in the Middle East in a generation. Violent extremism has increased. Terrorism has increased. All of that is a cost of this war.

After 9/11, instead of the politics of unity, we got a political strategy of division with the war in Iraq as its centerpiece. The only thing we were asked to do for our country was support a misguided war. We lost that sense of common purpose as Americans. And we're not going to be a truly united and resolute America until we can stop holding our breath, until we can come together to reclaim our foreign policy and our politics and end this war that has cost us so much.

So there is something unreal about the debate that's taking place in Washington.

With all that our troops and their families have sacrificed, with all this war has cost us, and with no discernible end in sight, the same people who told us we would be greeted as liberators, about democracy spreading across the Middle East, about striking a decisive blow against terrorism, about an insurgency in its last throes - those same people are now trumpeting the uneven and precarious containment of brutal sectarian violence as if it validates all of their failed decisions.

The bar for success is so low that it is almost buried in the sand.

The American people have had enough of the shifting spin. We've had enough of extended deadlines for benchmarks that go unmet. We've had enough of mounting costs in Iraq and missed opportunities around the world. We've had enough of a war that should never have been authorized and should never have been waged.

I opposed this war from the beginning. I opposed the war in 2002. I opposed it in 2003. I opposed it in 2004. I opposed it in 2005. I opposed it in 2006. I introduced a plan in January to remove all of our combat brigades by next March. And I am here to say that we have to begin to end this war now.

My plan for ending the war would turn the page in Iraq by removing our combat troops from Iraq's civil war; by taking a new approach to press for a new accord on reconciliation within Iraq; by talking to all of Iraq's neighbors to press for a compact in the region; and by confronting the human costs of this war.

First, we need to immediately begin the responsible removal of our troops from Iraq's civil war. Our troops have performed brilliantly. They brought Saddam Hussein to justice. They have fought for over four years to give Iraqis a chance for a better future. But they cannot - and should not - bear the responsibility for resolving the grievances at the heart of Iraq's civil war.

Recent news only confirms this. The Administration points to selective statistics to make the case for staying the course. Killings and mortar attacks and car bombs in certain districts are down from the highest levels we've seen. But they're still at the same horrible levels they were at 18 months ago or two years ago. Experts will tell you that the killings are down in some places because the ethnic cleansing has already taken place. That's hardly a cause for triumphalism.

The stated purpose of the surge was to enable Iraq's leaders to reconcile. But as the recent report from the Government Accountability Office confirms, the Iraqis are not reconciling. Our troops fight and die in the 120 degree heat to give Iraq's leaders space to agree, but they aren't filling it. They are not moving beyond their centuries-old sectarian conflicts, they are falling further back into them.

We hear a lot about how violence is down in parts of Anbar province. But this has little to do with the surge - it's because Sunni tribal leaders made a political decision to turn against al Qaeda in Iraq. This only underscores the point - the solution in Iraq is political, it is not military.

Violence is contained in some parts of Baghdad. That's no surprise. Our troops have cleared these neighborhoods at great costs. But our troops cannot police Baghdad indefinitely - only Iraqis can. Rather than use our presence to make progress, the Iraqi government has put off taking responsibility - that's the finding of a Commission headed by General Jim Jones. And our troop presence cannot be sustained without crippling our military's ability to respond to other contingencies.

Let me be clear: there is no military solution in Iraq, and there never was. The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year - now.

We should enter into talks with the Iraqi government to discuss the process of our drawdown. [B]We must get out strategically and carefully, removing troops from secure areas first, and keeping troops in more volatile areas until later. But our drawdown should proceed at a steady pace of one or two brigades each month. If we start now, all of our combat brigades should be out of Iraq by the end of next year.

We will need to retain some forces in Iraq and the region. We'll continue to strike at al Qaeda in Iraq. We'll protect our forces as they leave, and we will continue to protect U.S. diplomats and facilities. If - but only if - Iraq makes political progress and their security forces are not sectarian, we should continue to train and equip those forces. But we will set our own direction and our own pace, and our direction must be out of Iraq. The future of our military, our foreign policy, and our national purpose cannot be hostage to the inaction of the Iraqi government.

Removing our troops is part of applying real pressure on Iraq's leaders to end their civil war. Some argue that we should just replace Prime Minister Maliki. But that wouldn't solve the problem. We shouldn't be in the business of supporting coups. And remember - before Maliki, we said that we just needed to replace the last Prime Minister to make everything all right. It didn't work.

The problems in Iraq are bigger than one man. Iraq needs a new Constitutional convention that would include representatives from all levels of Iraqi society - in and out of government. The United Nations should play a central role in convening and participating in this convention, which should not adjourn until a new accord on national reconciliation is reached. To reconcile, the Iraqis must also meet key political benchmarks outside of the Constitutional process, including new local elections and revising debaathification.

Now the Iraqis may come out of this process choosing some kind of soft partition into three regions - one Sunni, one Shia, one Kurd. But it must be their choice. America should not impose the division of Iraq.

While we change the dynamic within Iraq, we must surge our diplomacy in the region.

At every stage of this war, we have suffered because of disdain for diplomacy. We have not brought allies to the table. We have refused to talk to people we don't like. And we have failed to build a consensus in the region. As a result, Iraq is more violent, the region is less stable, and America is less secure.

We need to launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent history to reach a new compact in the region. This effort should include all of Iraq's neighbors, and we should also bring in the United Nations Security Council. All of us have a stake in Iraq's stability. It's time to make this less about what America is trying to do for Iraq, and more about what the world can do with Iraq.

This compact must secure Iraq's borders, keep neighbors from meddling, isolate al Qaeda, and support Iraq's unity. That means helping our Turkish and Kurdish friends reach an understanding. That means pressing Sunni states like Saudi Arabia to stop the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq, increase their financial support of reconstruction efforts, and encourage Iraqi Sunnis to reconcile with their fellow Iraqis. And that means turning the page on the Bush-Cheney policy of not talking to Syria and Iran.

Conventional thinking in Washington says Presidents cannot lead this diplomacy. But I think the American people know better. Not talking doesn't make us look tough - it makes us look arrogant. And it doesn't get results. Strong Presidents tell their adversaries where they stand, and that's what I would do. That's how tough and principled diplomacy works. And that's what we need to press Syria and Iran to stop being part of the problem in Iraq.

Iran poses a grave challenge. It builds a nuclear program, supports terrorism, and threatens Israel with destruction. But we hear eerie echoes of the run-up to the war in Iraq in the way that the President and Vice President talk about Iran. They conflate Iran and al Qaeda, ignoring the violent schism that exists between Shiite and Sunni militants. They issue veiled threats. They suggest that the time for diplomacy and pressure is running out when we haven't even tried direct diplomacy. Well George Bush and Dick Cheney must hear - loud and clear - from the American people and the Congress: you don't have our support, and you don't have our authorization for another war.

George Bush suggests that there are two choices with regard to Iran. Stay the course in Iraq or cede the region to the Iran. I reject this choice. Keeping our troops tied down in Iraq is not the way to weaken Iran - it's precisely what has strengthened it. President Ahmadinejad may talk about filling a vacuum in the region after an American drawdown, but he's badly mistaken. It's time for a new and robust American leadership. And that should begin with a new cooperative security framework with all of our friends and allies in the Persian Gulf.

Now is the time for tough and sustained diplomacy backed by real pressure. It's time to rally the region and the world to our side. And it's time to deliver a direct message to Tehran. America is a part of a community of nations. America wants peace in the region. You can give up your nuclear ambitions and support for terror and rejoin the community of nations. Or you will face further isolation, including much tighter sanctions. As we deliver this message, we will be stronger - not weaker - if we are disengaging from Iraq's civil war.

The final part of my plan is a major international initiative to address Iraq's humanitarian crisis.

President Bush likes to warn of the dire consequences of ending the war. He warns of rising Iranian influence, but that has already taken place. He warns of growing terrorism, but that has already taken place. And he warns of huge movements of refugees and mass sectarian killing, but that has already taken place. These are not the consequences of a future withdrawal. They are the reality of Iraq's present. They are a direct consequence of waging this war. Two million Iraqis are displaced in their own country. Another two million Iraqis have fled as refugees to neighboring countries. This mass movement of people is a threat to the security of the Middle East and to our common humanity. We have a strategic interest - and a moral obligation - to act.

The President would have us believe there are two choices: keep all of our troops in Iraq or abandon these Iraqis. I reject that choice. We cannot continue to put this burden on our troops alone. I'm tired of this notion that we either fight foolish wars or retreat from the world. We are better than that as a nation.

There's no military solution that can reunite a family or resettle an orphaned child. It's time to form an international working group with the countries in the region, our European and Asian friends, and the United Nations. The State Department says it has invested $183 million on displaced Iraqis this year -- but that is not nearly enough. We can and must do more. We should up our share to at least $2 billion to support this effort; to expand access to social services for refugees in neighboring countries; and to ensure that Iraqis displaced inside their own country can find safe-haven.

Iraqis must know that those who engage in mass violence will be brought to justice. We should lead in forming a commission at the U.N. to monitor and hold accountable perpetrators of war crimes within Iraq. We must also put strict conditions on U.S. assistance to direct our support to those who want to hold Iraq together - not those who are tearing it apart. The risk of greater atrocities in the short-term cannot deter us from doing what we must to minimize violence in the long-term. Yet as we drawdown, we must declare our readiness to intervene with allies to stop genocidal violence.

We must also keep faith with Iraqis who kept faith with us. One tragic outcome of this war is that the Iraqis who stood with America - the interpreters, embassy workers, and subcontractors - are being targeted for assassination. An Iraqi named Laith who worked for an American organization told a journalist, "Sometimes I feel like we're standing in line for a ticket, waiting to die.' And yet our doors are shut. In April, we admitted exactly one Iraqi refugee - just one!

That is not how we treat our friends. That is not how we take responsibility for our own actions. That is not who we are as Americans. It's time to at least fill the 7,000 slots that we pledged to Iraqi refugees and to be open to accepting even more Iraqis at risk. It's also time to go to our friends and allies - and all the members of our original coalition in Iraq - to find homes for the many Iraqis who are in desperate need of asylum.

Keeping this moral obligation is a key part of how we turn the page in Iraq. Because what's at stake is bigger than this war - it's our global leadership. Now is a time to be bold. We must not stay the course or take the conventional path because the other course is unknown. To quote Dr. Brzezinski - we must not allow ourselves to become "prisoners of uncertainty.'

George Bush is afraid of this future. That is why all he can do is drag up the past. After all the flawed justifications for his failed policy, he now invokes Vietnam as a reason to stay in Iraq. Let's put aside the strange reasoning - that all would have been well if we had just stayed the course in Vietnam. Let's put it aside and leave it where it belongs - in the past.

Now is not the time to reargue the Vietnam War - we did that in the 2004 election, and it wasn't pretty. I come from a new generation of Americans. I don't want to fight the battles of the 1960s. I want to reclaim the future for America, because we have too many threats to face and too many opportunities to seize. Just think about what we can accomplish together when we end this war.

When we end this war in Iraq, we can finally finish the fight in Afghanistan. That is why I propose stepping up our commitment there, with at least two additional combat brigades and a comprehensive program of aid and support to help Afghans help themselves.

When we end this war in Iraq, we can more effectively tackle the twin demons of extremism and hopelessness that threaten the peace of the world and the security of America. That is why I have proposed a program to spread hope - not hate - in the Islamic world, to build schools that teach young people to build and not destroy, to support the rule of law and economic development, and to launch a program of outreach to the Islamic world that I will lead as President.

When we end this war in Iraq, we can once again lead the world against the common challenges of the 21st century. Against the spread of nuclear weapons and climate change. Against genocide in Darfur. Against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair. When we end this war, we can reclaim the cause of freedom and democracy. We can be that beacon of hope, that light to all the world.

When we end this war, we can recapture our unity of effort as Americans. The American people have the right instincts on Iraq. It's time to heed their judgment. It's time to move beyond Iraq so that we can move forward together. I will be a President who listens to the American people, not a President who ignores them.

And when we end the war in Iraq, we can come together to give our full attention to advancing the cause of health care for every American, an energy policy that does not bankroll hostile nations while we melt the polar ice caps, and a world class education for our children. Above all, we can turn the page to a new kind of politics of unity, not division; of hope, not fear.

You know, I welcome all of the folks who have changed their position on the war over these last months and years. And we need more of those votes to change if we're going to change the direction of this war. That is why I will keep speaking directly to my colleagues in the Congress, both Republican and Democratic. Historically, we have come together in a bipartisan way to deal with our most monumental challenges. We should do so again. We have the power to do this - not as Republicans or Democrats, but as Americans. We don't have to wait until George Bush is gone from office - we can begin to end this war today, right now.

But if we have learned anything from Iraq, it is that the judgment that matters most is the judgment that is made first.

Martin Luther King once stood up at Riverside Church and said, "In this unfolding conundrum of life and history, there is such a thing as being too late.' We are too late to stop a war that should never have been fought; too late to undo the pain of battle, the anguish of so many families, or the price of the fight; too late to redo the years of division and distraction at home and abroad.

But I'm here today because it's not too late to come together as Americans. Because we're not going to be able to deal with the challenges that confront us until we end this war. What we can do is say that we will not be prisoners of uncertainty. That we reject the conventional thinking that led us into Iraq and that didn't ask hard questions until it was too late. What we can say is that we are ready for something new and something bold and something principled.

It's time for us to breathe again. That begins with ending this war - but it does not end there. It's time reclaim our foreign policy. It's time to reclaim our politics. And it's time to lead this country - and this world - again, to a new dawn of peace and unity.

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/09/12/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_23.php

[BTFLCHLD]

I thought I had mentioned that about 500 times. :lol: :lol: you're so funny strand :xoxo:

[chiliD]

It was forced upon the rest of us by 9 judges in black robes.

So was George Bush in 2000, he clearly lost the election, but, he was given the Presidency by that same faction of the government.

The protection of "checks & balances" failed miserably. Hence the subsequent "downfall of America".

[gretchen]

Oh no, The Shat's coming again to boot some ass! :laugh:

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q104/gretch_014/shatner_webpreview_m1-1.jpg

[strandinthewind]

http://abc.go.com/daytime/theview/index

Obama on The View, which is smart because that demographic is important to him.

[strandinthewind]

Expert's on Obama's Energy Plan:

Putting Obama's energy plan to the test
Obama's proposed release of 70 million barrels of oil from the strategic reserve could lower crude prices, experts say. But the impact of his broader overhaul is less clear.
By Aaron Smith, CNNMoney.com staff writer
Last Updated: August 4, 2008: 5:07 PM EDT
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Monday that he feels Americans' pain from rising energy costs and laid out his plan to break the country's "addiction" to oil.

Much of Obama's energy plan had been outlined before. But some of his ideas - such as tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and allowing a "limited amount" of offshore drilling - were new to his campaign.

Overall, analysts welcomed Obama's plan, which included both short-term and long-term proposals. But they stressed that for the plan would need bipartisan support to succeed.

Obama said a short-term proposal, like selling crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, "has lowered gas prices within two weeks" in the past.

For his proposed 10-year, $150 billion overhaul of the nation's energy system to get bipartisan support, he's willing to compromise on his earlier stance against offshore drilling by allowing a "limited amount" of drilling.

His proposal also includes retooling the U.S. auto industry to build more fuel-efficient cars, doubling the use of renewable resources by 2012, improving the safety and environmental impact of nuclear power and reducing the use of electricity, among other ideas.

Tapping the reserve
In order to quickly bring down the price of oil and provide relief for American drivers, Obama wants to sell 70 million barrels of crude from the SPR.

Currently, the U.S. strategic reserves stand at more than 700 million barrels of oil in giant salt caverns along the Gulf of Mexico. The reserve was established in the 1970s after the first oil embargo to provide a buffer against future disruptions. Since 2001, the Bush administration has poured 70,000 barrels a day into the reserve, with the intention of expanding it to its full capacity of 727 million barrels, and possibly expanding the reserve to 1.5 billion barrels.

Peter Beutel, an analyst with energy risk management firm Cameron Hanover, downplayed the impact that Obama's SPR release would have on oil prices. Beutel said that 70 million barrels represent only about three-and-a-half days of U.S. fuel consumption and would have a limited impact on prices, driving them down by $5 to $10 a barrel.

However, Beutel also suggests that the government could have a dramatic impact on consumer prices if it sells its oil at a substantially lower price to the refineries - in a type of deal known as a "netback."

In netback deals, the price of crude is calculated by subtracting the costs of refining, marketing, and transportation, along with profits, from the market price of the end products.

"If he sells it under a netback deal, it would fall under $100 [a barrel] very quickly, and maybe under $80," said Beutel. That kind of reduction could lead to a decline of up to 80 cents per gallon of unleaded gasoline.

Fadel Gheit, a senior energy analyst for Oppenheimer, projected a more dramatic reduction in oil prices, noting that Obama's SPR plan could "cut prices in half."

Gheit said that prior releases from the SPR during the administrations of former Presidents Bush and Clinton during the 1990s were "knock-out punches" that caused oil prices to drop dramatically. He said that to maximize the impact, which is primarily psychological, Obama should not provide hard numbers to make it harder for speculators to project future prices.

"We should not have a limit on what we will release," said Gheit. "That is the best way to keep speculators off balance."

The $150 billion plan
Analysts had a tougher time gauging the impact of Obama's sweeping proposal to overhaul the nation's reliance on non-U.S. fossil fuels by investing in alternative fuels. But they did praise the plan as a positive step forward.

"I think we need to implement everything [from Democrats and Republicans]," said Beutel of Cameron Hanover. "If we pick a plan and stick with it and devote ourselves to it for more than a headline cycle, then we're going to move forward."

Analysts agreed that the best way to overhaul energy creation and consumption in America is to not abandon the long-term plan as the situation changes in America.

"We never had an energy policy," said Gheit of Oppenheimer. "We talk about [it] when energy prices are high, but we clog the highways with SUVs when energy prices are low."

Obama's Republican rival, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, is set to discuss his energy plan on Tuesday.

First Published: August 4, 2008: 4:22 PM EDT

Find this article at:
http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/04/news/economy/obama_energy/index.htm?cnn=yes

[ajmccarrell]

The one and only reason that issue was even on the states' ballot was so the far right would turn out and vote because they hate gay people and would sooner die than allow them any of the rights afforded to heterosexual people based solely on religion. And, it worked based on that pemise.

Clearly you know that. Here is an article from Fox News:

Gay Marriage: A Campaign Wedge Issue
Tuesday , October 05, 2004

By Peter Brownfeld

WASHINGTON —

Editor's note: This article is the third in a series on issues in the 2004 presidential campaign.

Gay marriage is a wedge issue that many voters care about, and for some heading to the polls on Nov. 2, it is the key issue. If the election is decided by a razor-thin margin, the candidates' stark differences on gay marriage (search) could be the reason for victory or defeat.

President Bush wants a constitutional amendment barring gay marriage; John Kerry wants to leave the decision up to the states. Bush's position has helped solidify his position among Christian conservatives, and his political operatives say they hope it helps boost turnout among this voting bloc. But gay Republicans and others in the community vow Bush will lose a significant number of the gay votes he received in 2000.

Bush's reasons for coming out so strongly against gay marriage are clear, say gay activists. "The hope that it will energize the far right base. it's very unclear whether that strategy will actually work," said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (search), which describes itself as the oldest national organization working to eliminate prejudice against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

"When you poll the American public about what are the most important issues facing the country, same-sex marriage is at the bottom of the list. It's just not a burning issue for most people," Foreman said.

Conservatives say they have been happy about Bush's leadership on this issue and his stance favors the president in the election.

"He is clearly seen as a candidate that is championing marriage," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council (search).

Many homosexuals are not happy with John Kerry for his unwillingness to support gay marriage, but see him as a better champion of their cause. Kerry has said he would oppose a consitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, and would leave the decision up to the states. Gay groups praise his positions on other issues they are concerned about like anti-discrimination and hate crime legislation, and say while the Massachusetts senator is far from ideal, he will capture their vote because of the aggressively anti-gay stance of the president.

"I think most of us are disappointed about John Kerry and John Edwards' stand on this issue. At the same time, there are a lot of important issues in addition to marriage," such as service in the military, domestic partnership, HIV prevention and others, Foreman said.

"Kerry and Edwards are not there on marriage, but they are there on all those other issues. ... On balance we wish they would be better on marriage equality but there is just no comparing on a factual level the position of the two presidential candidates," Foreman added.

In 2000, 1 million gay Americans voted for Bush. But that number could drop this year. The board of directors of the Log Cabin Republicans (search), the GOP's largest gay group, voted 22 to 2 last month to withhold its endorsement for Bush, calling him "disloyal" to the homosexuals who supported his candidacy in 2000. Log Cabin Republicans endorsed Bob Dole in 1996 and Bush in 2000.

"There is a battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party, and that fight is bigger than one platform, one convention, or even one president," Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director Patrick Guerriero said in a statement.

In a Los Angeles Times editorial following the vote, Guerriero charged that Bush's stance is part of a calculation by presidential adviser Karl Rove that "4 million evangelicals stayed home in 2000. As a result, the 2004 campaign has focused on energizing the far right while ignoring mainstream Republicans."

Perkins said if the issue is a true motivator for voters, Bush has nothing but gains to make.

"When you factor in that homosexuals make up 3 percent of the population and evangelicals a little over a quarter," the issue will benefit Bush more than Kerry, he said. "This is an issue that has been brewing for some time. This is an issue that will have significant implications for the presidential election."

"I think it's helped Bush energize his base," added Terry Madonna, director of Franklin & Marshall College's Center for Politics and Public Affairs (search).

However, Madonna was still wary about the overall impact of this wedge issue. "This is not an election that will be largely won or lost on the cultural issues," he said. Instead, the most important subjects would be homeland security, war and the economy.

"At this point I do not see these [cultural] issues as defining the nature of the campaign. Is it possible they could influence some people at the margins and maybe because the election is so close make the difference? Yeah, it's possible."

As for McCain, he said he would not vote for the Fed. Marriage amendment. I believe he is for the individual states banning it.



Actually, the Commerce Clause was the civil rights stuff. See generally Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964)(holding the U.S. Congress could use its Commerce Clause power to fight discrimination).

The abortion issues were more under Roe's holding that most laws against abortion in the United States violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.



1. I do not in any way worship Obama. I rather dislike him. I thought I had mentioned that about 500 times.

2. Obama has always said that he was for the withdrawal of the troops in that time frame and based on the security of the troops :shrug:

As for http://www.kwtx.com/nationalnews/headlines/9746492.html -- perhaps the whole text of the speech will be enlightening and dispositive of my point (emphasis supplied) :

Remarks of Senator Barack Obama: Turning the Page in Iraq

Clinton, IA | September 12, 2007

A few months ago, I met a woman who told me her nephew was leaving for Iraq. As she started to tell me about how much she'd miss him and how worried she was about him, she began to cry. "I can't breathe,' she said. "I want to know when I am going to be able to breathe again.'

I have her on my mind when I think about what we've gone through as a country and where we need to go. Because we've been holding our breath over Iraq for five years. As we go through yet another debate about yet another phase of this misguided war, we've got a familiar feeling. Again, we're told that progress is upon us. Again, we're asked to hold our breath a little longer. Again, we're reminded of what's gone wrong with our policies and our politics.

It was five years ago today - on September 12, 2002 - that President Bush made his case for war at the United Nations. Standing in front of a world that stood with us after 9/11, he said, "In the attacks on America a year ago, we saw the destructive intentions of our enemies.' Then he talked about Saddam Hussein - a man who had nothing to do with 9/11. But citing the lesson of 9/11, he and others said we had to act. "To suggest otherwise,' the President said, "is to hope against the evidence.'

George Bush was wrong. The people who attacked us on 9/11 were in Afghanistan, not Iraq. Al Qaeda in Iraq didn't exist before our invasion. The case for war was built on exaggerated fears and empty evidence - so much so that Bob Graham, the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, decided to vote against the war after he read the National Intelligence Estimate.

But conventional thinking in Washington lined up for war. The pundits judged the political winds to be blowing in the direction of the President. Despite - or perhaps because of how much experience they had in Washington, too many politicians feared looking weak and failed to ask hard questions. Too many took the President at his word instead of reading the intelligence for themselves. Congress gave the President the authority to go to war. Our only opportunity to stop the war was lost.

I made a different judgment. I thought our priority had to be finishing the fight in Afghanistan. I spoke out against what I called "a rash war' in Iraq. I worried about, "an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences.' The full accounting of those costs and consequences will only be known to history. But the picture is beginning to come into focus.

Nearly 4,000 Americans have been killed in Iraq. Five times that number have suffered horrible wounds, seen and unseen. Loved ones have been lost, dreams denied. Children will grow up without fathers and mothers. Parents have outlived their children. That is a cost of this war.

When all is said and done, the price-tag will run over a trillion dollars. A trillion dollars. That's money not spent on homeland security and counter-terrorism; on providing health care to all Americans and a world-class education to every child; on investments in energy to save ourselves and our planet from an addiction to oil. That is a cost of this war.

The excellence of our military is unmatched. But as a result of this war, our forces are under pressure as never before. Our National Guard and reserves have half of the equipment they need to respond to emergencies at home and abroad. Retention among West Point graduates is down. Our powers of deterrence and influence around the world are down. That is a cost of this war.

America's standing has suffered. Our diplomacy has been compromised by a refusal to talk to people we don't like. Our alliances have been compromised by bluster. Our credibility has been compromised by a faulty case for war. Our moral leadership has been compromised by Abu Ghraib. That is a cost of this war.

Perhaps the saddest irony of the Administration's cynical use of 9/11 is that the Iraq War has left us less safe than we were before 9/11. Osama bin Ladin and his top lieutenants have rebuilt a new base in Pakistan where they freely train recruits, plot new attacks, and disseminate propaganda. The Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan. Iran has emerged as the greatest strategic challenge to America in the Middle East in a generation. Violent extremism has increased. Terrorism has increased. All of that is a cost of this war.

After 9/11, instead of the politics of unity, we got a political strategy of division with the war in Iraq as its centerpiece. The only thing we were asked to do for our country was support a misguided war. We lost that sense of common purpose as Americans. And we're not going to be a truly united and resolute America until we can stop holding our breath, until we can come together to reclaim our foreign policy and our politics and end this war that has cost us so much.

So there is something unreal about the debate that's taking place in Washington.

With all that our troops and their families have sacrificed, with all this war has cost us, and with no discernible end in sight, the same people who told us we would be greeted as liberators, about democracy spreading across the Middle East, about striking a decisive blow against terrorism, about an insurgency in its last throes - those same people are now trumpeting the uneven and precarious containment of brutal sectarian violence as if it validates all of their failed decisions.

The bar for success is so low that it is almost buried in the sand.

The American people have had enough of the shifting spin. We've had enough of extended deadlines for benchmarks that go unmet. We've had enough of mounting costs in Iraq and missed opportunities around the world. We've had enough of a war that should never have been authorized and should never have been waged.

I opposed this war from the beginning. I opposed the war in 2002. I opposed it in 2003. I opposed it in 2004. I opposed it in 2005. I opposed it in 2006. I introduced a plan in January to remove all of our combat brigades by next March. And I am here to say that we have to begin to end this war now.

My plan for ending the war would turn the page in Iraq by removing our combat troops from Iraq's civil war; by taking a new approach to press for a new accord on reconciliation within Iraq; by talking to all of Iraq's neighbors to press for a compact in the region; and by confronting the human costs of this war.

First, we need to immediately begin the responsible removal of our troops from Iraq's civil war. Our troops have performed brilliantly. They brought Saddam Hussein to justice. They have fought for over four years to give Iraqis a chance for a better future. But they cannot - and should not - bear the responsibility for resolving the grievances at the heart of Iraq's civil war.

Recent news only confirms this. The Administration points to selective statistics to make the case for staying the course. Killings and mortar attacks and car bombs in certain districts are down from the highest levels we've seen. But they're still at the same horrible levels they were at 18 months ago or two years ago. Experts will tell you that the killings are down in some places because the ethnic cleansing has already taken place. That's hardly a cause for triumphalism.

The stated purpose of the surge was to enable Iraq's leaders to reconcile. But as the recent report from the Government Accountability Office confirms, the Iraqis are not reconciling. Our troops fight and die in the 120 degree heat to give Iraq's leaders space to agree, but they aren't filling it. They are not moving beyond their centuries-old sectarian conflicts, they are falling further back into them.

We hear a lot about how violence is down in parts of Anbar province. But this has little to do with the surge - it's because Sunni tribal leaders made a political decision to turn against al Qaeda in Iraq. This only underscores the point - the solution in Iraq is political, it is not military.

Violence is contained in some parts of Baghdad. That's no surprise. Our troops have cleared these neighborhoods at great costs. But our troops cannot police Baghdad indefinitely - only Iraqis can. Rather than use our presence to make progress, the Iraqi government has put off taking responsibility - that's the finding of a Commission headed by General Jim Jones. And our troop presence cannot be sustained without crippling our military's ability to respond to other contingencies.

Let me be clear: there is no military solution in Iraq, and there never was. The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year - now.

We should enter into talks with the Iraqi government to discuss the process of our drawdown. [B]We must get out strategically and carefully, removing troops from secure areas first, and keeping troops in more volatile areas until later. But our drawdown should proceed at a steady pace of one or two brigades each month. If we start now, all of our combat brigades should be out of Iraq by the end of next year.

We will need to retain some forces in Iraq and the region. We'll continue to strike at al Qaeda in Iraq. We'll protect our forces as they leave, and we will continue to protect U.S. diplomats and facilities. If - but only if - Iraq makes political progress and their security forces are not sectarian, we should continue to train and equip those forces. But we will set our own direction and our own pace, and our direction must be out of Iraq. The future of our military, our foreign policy, and our national purpose cannot be hostage to the inaction of the Iraqi government.

Removing our troops is part of applying real pressure on Iraq's leaders to end their civil war. Some argue that we should just replace Prime Minister Maliki. But that wouldn't solve the problem. We shouldn't be in the business of supporting coups. And remember - before Maliki, we said that we just needed to replace the last Prime Minister to make everything all right. It didn't work.

The problems in Iraq are bigger than one man. Iraq needs a new Constitutional convention that would include representatives from all levels of Iraqi society - in and out of government. The United Nations should play a central role in convening and participating in this convention, which should not adjourn until a new accord on national reconciliation is reached. To reconcile, the Iraqis must also meet key political benchmarks outside of the Constitutional process, including new local elections and revising debaathification.

Now the Iraqis may come out of this process choosing some kind of soft partition into three regions - one Sunni, one Shia, one Kurd. But it must be their choice. America should not impose the division of Iraq.

While we change the dynamic within Iraq, we must surge our diplomacy in the region.

At every stage of this war, we have suffered because of disdain for diplomacy. We have not brought allies to the table. We have refused to talk to people we don't like. And we have failed to build a consensus in the region. As a result, Iraq is more violent, the region is less stable, and America is less secure.

We need to launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent history to reach a new compact in the region. This effort should include all of Iraq's neighbors, and we should also bring in the United Nations Security Council. All of us have a stake in Iraq's stability. It's time to make this less about what America is trying to do for Iraq, and more about what the world can do with Iraq.

This compact must secure Iraq's borders, keep neighbors from meddling, isolate al Qaeda, and support Iraq's unity. That means helping our Turkish and Kurdish friends reach an understanding. That means pressing Sunni states like Saudi Arabia to stop the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq, increase their financial support of reconstruction efforts, and encourage Iraqi Sunnis to reconcile with their fellow Iraqis. And that means turning the page on the Bush-Cheney policy of not talking to Syria and Iran.

Conventional thinking in Washington says Presidents cannot lead this diplomacy. But I think the American people know better. Not talking doesn't make us look tough - it makes us look arrogant. And it doesn't get results. Strong Presidents tell their adversaries where they stand, and that's what I would do. That's how tough and principled diplomacy works. And that's what we need to press Syria and Iran to stop being part of the problem in Iraq.

Iran poses a grave challenge. It builds a nuclear program, supports terrorism, and threatens Israel with destruction. But we hear eerie echoes of the run-up to the war in Iraq in the way that the President and Vice President talk about Iran. They conflate Iran and al Qaeda, ignoring the violent schism that exists between Shiite and Sunni militants. They issue veiled threats. They suggest that the time for diplomacy and pressure is running out when we haven't even tried direct diplomacy. Well George Bush and Dick Cheney must hear - loud and clear - from the American people and the Congress: you don't have our support, and you don't have our authorization for another war.

George Bush suggests that there are two choices with regard to Iran. Stay the course in Iraq or cede the region to the Iran. I reject this choice. Keeping our troops tied down in Iraq is not the way to weaken Iran - it's precisely what has strengthened it. President Ahmadinejad may talk about filling a vacuum in the region after an American drawdown, but he's badly mistaken. It's time for a new and robust American leadership. And that should begin with a new cooperative security framework with all of our friends and allies in the Persian Gulf.

Now is the time for tough and sustained diplomacy backed by real pressure. It's time to rally the region and the world to our side. And it's time to deliver a direct message to Tehran. America is a part of a community of nations. America wants peace in the region. You can give up your nuclear ambitions and support for terror and rejoin the community of nations. Or you will face further isolation, including much tighter sanctions. As we deliver this message, we will be stronger - not weaker - if we are disengaging from Iraq's civil war.

The final part of my plan is a major international initiative to address Iraq's humanitarian crisis.

President Bush likes to warn of the dire consequences of ending the war. He warns of rising Iranian influence, but that has already taken place. He warns of growing terrorism, but that has already taken place. And he warns of huge movements of refugees and mass sectarian killing, but that has already taken place. These are not the consequences of a future withdrawal. They are the reality of Iraq's present. They are a direct consequence of waging this war. Two million Iraqis are displaced in their own country. Another two million Iraqis have fled as refugees to neighboring countries. This mass movement of people is a threat to the security of the Middle East and to our common humanity. We have a strategic interest - and a moral obligation - to act.

The President would have us believe there are two choices: keep all of our troops in Iraq or abandon these Iraqis. I reject that choice. We cannot continue to put this burden on our troops alone. I'm tired of this notion that we either fight foolish wars or retreat from the world. We are better than that as a nation.

There's no military solution that can reunite a family or resettle an orphaned child. It's time to form an international working group with the countries in the region, our European and Asian friends, and the United Nations. The State Department says it has invested $183 million on displaced Iraqis this year -- but that is not nearly enough. We can and must do more. We should up our share to at least $2 billion to support this effort; to expand access to social services for refugees in neighboring countries; and to ensure that Iraqis displaced inside their own country can find safe-haven.

Iraqis must know that those who engage in mass violence will be brought to justice. We should lead in forming a commission at the U.N. to monitor and hold accountable perpetrators of war crimes within Iraq. We must also put strict conditions on U.S. assistance to direct our support to those who want to hold Iraq together - not those who are tearing it apart. The risk of greater atrocities in the short-term cannot deter us from doing what we must to minimize violence in the long-term. Yet as we drawdown, we must declare our readiness to intervene with allies to stop genocidal violence.

We must also keep faith with Iraqis who kept faith with us. One tragic outcome of this war is that the Iraqis who stood with America - the interpreters, embassy workers, and subcontractors - are being targeted for assassination. An Iraqi named Laith who worked for an American organization told a journalist, "Sometimes I feel like we're standing in line for a ticket, waiting to die.' And yet our doors are shut. In April, we admitted exactly one Iraqi refugee - just one!

That is not how we treat our friends. That is not how we take responsibility for our own actions. That is not who we are as Americans. It's time to at least fill the 7,000 slots that we pledged to Iraqi refugees and to be open to accepting even more Iraqis at risk. It's also time to go to our friends and allies - and all the members of our original coalition in Iraq - to find homes for the many Iraqis who are in desperate need of asylum.

Keeping this moral obligation is a key part of how we turn the page in Iraq. Because what's at stake is bigger than this war - it's our global leadership. Now is a time to be bold. We must not stay the course or take the conventional path because the other course is unknown. To quote Dr. Brzezinski - we must not allow ourselves to become "prisoners of uncertainty.'

George Bush is afraid of this future. That is why all he can do is drag up the past. After all the flawed justifications for his failed policy, he now invokes Vietnam as a reason to stay in Iraq. Let's put aside the strange reasoning - that all would have been well if we had just stayed the course in Vietnam. Let's put it aside and leave it where it belongs - in the past.

Now is not the time to reargue the Vietnam War - we did that in the 2004 election, and it wasn't pretty. I come from a new generation of Americans. I don't want to fight the battles of the 1960s. I want to reclaim the future for America, because we have too many threats to face and too many opportunities to seize. Just think about what we can accomplish together when we end this war.

When we end this war in Iraq, we can finally finish the fight in Afghanistan. That is why I propose stepping up our commitment there, with at least two additional combat brigades and a comprehensive program of aid and support to help Afghans help themselves.

When we end this war in Iraq, we can more effectively tackle the twin demons of extremism and hopelessness that threaten the peace of the world and the security of America. That is why I have proposed a program to spread hope - not hate - in the Islamic world, to build schools that teach young people to build and not destroy, to support the rule of law and economic development, and to launch a program of outreach to the Islamic world that I will lead as President.

When we end this war in Iraq, we can once again lead the world against the common challenges of the 21st century. Against the spread of nuclear weapons and climate change. Against genocide in Darfur. Against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair. When we end this war, we can reclaim the cause of freedom and democracy. We can be that beacon of hope, that light to all the world.

When we end this war, we can recapture our unity of effort as Americans. The American people have the right instincts on Iraq. It's time to heed their judgment. It's time to move beyond Iraq so that we can move forward together. I will be a President who listens to the American people, not a President who ignores them.

And when we end the war in Iraq, we can come together to give our full attention to advancing the cause of health care for every American, an energy policy that does not bankroll hostile nations while we melt the polar ice caps, and a world class education for our children. Above all, we can turn the page to a new kind of politics of unity, not division; of hope, not fear.

You know, I welcome all of the folks who have changed their position on the war over these last months and years. And we need more of those votes to change if we're going to change the direction of this war. That is why I will keep speaking directly to my colleagues in the Congress, both Republican and Democratic. Historically, we have come together in a bipartisan way to deal with our most monumental challenges. We should do so again. We have the power to do this - not as Republicans or Democrats, but as Americans. We don't have to wait until George Bush is gone from office - we can begin to end this war today, right now.

But if we have learned anything from Iraq, it is that the judgment that matters most is the judgment that is made first.

Martin Luther King once stood up at Riverside Church and said, "In this unfolding conundrum of life and history, there is such a thing as being too late.' We are too late to stop a war that should never have been fought; too late to undo the pain of battle, the anguish of so many families, or the price of the fight; too late to redo the years of division and distraction at home and abroad.

But I'm here today because it's not too late to come together as Americans. Because we're not going to be able to deal with the challenges that confront us until we end this war. What we can do is say that we will not be prisoners of uncertainty. That we reject the conventional thinking that led us into Iraq and that didn't ask hard questions until it was too late. What we can say is that we are ready for something new and something bold and something principled.

It's time for us to breathe again. That begins with ending this war - but it does not end there. It's time reclaim our foreign policy. It's time to reclaim our politics. And it's time to lead this country - and this world - again, to a new dawn of peace and unity.

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/09/12/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_23.php

Gay people currently have EXACTLY the same rights as I do. I can't marry a guy either. LOL! I don't care why a lot of Republican's did that. I didn't support it then and I don't support it now. I already said I agreed with you on the gay marriage issue. There is no reason to bring it up. I'm sure you don't agree with the dems on some issues too. Just because I don't agree with the party on gay marriage doesn't mean I'm going to suddenly switch parties. It isn't a big deal to me.

[ajmccarrell]

http://abc.go.com/daytime/theview/index

Obama on The View, which is smart because that demographic is important to him.

It's preaching to the choir. They are already in the tank for him. That's also a stereotypical and sexist statement. Not all women like or watch The View. Maybe about half.

[ajmccarrell]

The one and only reason that issue was even on the states' ballot was so the far right would turn out and vote because they hate gay people and would sooner die than allow them any of the rights afforded to heterosexual people based solely on religion. And, it worked based on that pemise.

Clearly you know that. Here is an article from Fox News:

Gay Marriage: A Campaign Wedge Issue
Tuesday , October 05, 2004

By Peter Brownfeld

WASHINGTON —

Editor's note: This article is the third in a series on issues in the 2004 presidential campaign.

Gay marriage is a wedge issue that many voters care about, and for some heading to the polls on Nov. 2, it is the key issue. If the election is decided by a razor-thin margin, the candidates' stark differences on gay marriage (search) could be the reason for victory or defeat.

President Bush wants a constitutional amendment barring gay marriage; John Kerry wants to leave the decision up to the states. Bush's position has helped solidify his position among Christian conservatives, and his political operatives say they hope it helps boost turnout among this voting bloc. But gay Republicans and others in the community vow Bush will lose a significant number of the gay votes he received in 2000.

Bush's reasons for coming out so strongly against gay marriage are clear, say gay activists. "The hope that it will energize the far right base. it's very unclear whether that strategy will actually work," said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (search), which describes itself as the oldest national organization working to eliminate prejudice against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

"When you poll the American public about what are the most important issues facing the country, same-sex marriage is at the bottom of the list. It's just not a burning issue for most people," Foreman said.

Conservatives say they have been happy about Bush's leadership on this issue and his stance favors the president in the election.

"He is clearly seen as a candidate that is championing marriage," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council (search).

Many homosexuals are not happy with John Kerry for his unwillingness to support gay marriage, but see him as a better champion of their cause. Kerry has said he would oppose a consitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, and would leave the decision up to the states. Gay groups praise his positions on other issues they are concerned about like anti-discrimination and hate crime legislation, and say while the Massachusetts senator is far from ideal, he will capture their vote because of the aggressively anti-gay stance of the president.

"I think most of us are disappointed about John Kerry and John Edwards' stand on this issue. At the same time, there are a lot of important issues in addition to marriage," such as service in the military, domestic partnership, HIV prevention and others, Foreman said.

"Kerry and Edwards are not there on marriage, but they are there on all those other issues. ... On balance we wish they would be better on marriage equality but there is just no comparing on a factual level the position of the two presidential candidates," Foreman added.

In 2000, 1 million gay Americans voted for Bush. But that number could drop this year. The board of directors of the Log Cabin Republicans (search), the GOP's largest gay group, voted 22 to 2 last month to withhold its endorsement for Bush, calling him "disloyal" to the homosexuals who supported his candidacy in 2000. Log Cabin Republicans endorsed Bob Dole in 1996 and Bush in 2000.

"There is a battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party, and that fight is bigger than one platform, one convention, or even one president," Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director Patrick Guerriero said in a statement.

In a Los Angeles Times editorial following the vote, Guerriero charged that Bush's stance is part of a calculation by presidential adviser Karl Rove that "4 million evangelicals stayed home in 2000. As a result, the 2004 campaign has focused on energizing the far right while ignoring mainstream Republicans."

Perkins said if the issue is a true motivator for voters, Bush has nothing but gains to make.

"When you factor in that homosexuals make up 3 percent of the population and evangelicals a little over a quarter," the issue will benefit Bush more than Kerry, he said. "This is an issue that has been brewing for some time. This is an issue that will have significant implications for the presidential election."

"I think it's helped Bush energize his base," added Terry Madonna, director of Franklin & Marshall College's Center for Politics and Public Affairs (search).

However, Madonna was still wary about the overall impact of this wedge issue. "This is not an election that will be largely won or lost on the cultural issues," he said. Instead, the most important subjects would be homeland security, war and the economy.

"At this point I do not see these [cultural] issues as defining the nature of the campaign. Is it possible they could influence some people at the margins and maybe because the election is so close make the difference? Yeah, it's possible."

As for McCain, he said he would not vote for the Fed. Marriage amendment. I believe he is for the individual states banning it.



Actually, the Commerce Clause was the civil rights stuff. See generally Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964)(holding the U.S. Congress could use its Commerce Clause power to fight discrimination).

The abortion issues were more under Roe's holding that most laws against abortion in the United States violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.



1. I do not in any way worship Obama. I rather dislike him. I thought I had mentioned that about 500 times.

2. Obama has always said that he was for the withdrawal of the troops in that time frame and based on the security of the troops :shrug:

As for http://www.kwtx.com/nationalnews/headlines/9746492.html -- perhaps the whole text of the speech will be enlightening and dispositive of my point (emphasis supplied) :

Remarks of Senator Barack Obama: Turning the Page in Iraq

Clinton, IA | September 12, 2007

A few months ago, I met a woman who told me her nephew was leaving for Iraq. As she started to tell me about how much she'd miss him and how worried she was about him, she began to cry. "I can't breathe,' she said. "I want to know when I am going to be able to breathe again.'

I have her on my mind when I think about what we've gone through as a country and where we need to go. Because we've been holding our breath over Iraq for five years. As we go through yet another debate about yet another phase of this misguided war, we've got a familiar feeling. Again, we're told that progress is upon us. Again, we're asked to hold our breath a little longer. Again, we're reminded of what's gone wrong with our policies and our politics.

It was five years ago today - on September 12, 2002 - that President Bush made his case for war at the United Nations. Standing in front of a world that stood with us after 9/11, he said, "In the attacks on America a year ago, we saw the destructive intentions of our enemies.' Then he talked about Saddam Hussein - a man who had nothing to do with 9/11. But citing the lesson of 9/11, he and others said we had to act. "To suggest otherwise,' the President said, "is to hope against the evidence.'

George Bush was wrong. The people who attacked us on 9/11 were in Afghanistan, not Iraq. Al Qaeda in Iraq didn't exist before our invasion. The case for war was built on exaggerated fears and empty evidence - so much so that Bob Graham, the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, decided to vote against the war after he read the National Intelligence Estimate.

But conventional thinking in Washington lined up for war. The pundits judged the political winds to be blowing in the direction of the President. Despite - or perhaps because of how much experience they had in Washington, too many politicians feared looking weak and failed to ask hard questions. Too many took the President at his word instead of reading the intelligence for themselves. Congress gave the President the authority to go to war. Our only opportunity to stop the war was lost.

I made a different judgment. I thought our priority had to be finishing the fight in Afghanistan. I spoke out against what I called "a rash war' in Iraq. I worried about, "an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences.' The full accounting of those costs and consequences will only be known to history. But the picture is beginning to come into focus.

Nearly 4,000 Americans have been killed in Iraq. Five times that number have suffered horrible wounds, seen and unseen. Loved ones have been lost, dreams denied. Children will grow up without fathers and mothers. Parents have outlived their children. That is a cost of this war.

When all is said and done, the price-tag will run over a trillion dollars. A trillion dollars. That's money not spent on homeland security and counter-terrorism; on providing health care to all Americans and a world-class education to every child; on investments in energy to save ourselves and our planet from an addiction to oil. That is a cost of this war.

The excellence of our military is unmatched. But as a result of this war, our forces are under pressure as never before. Our National Guard and reserves have half of the equipment they need to respond to emergencies at home and abroad. Retention among West Point graduates is down. Our powers of deterrence and influence around the world are down. That is a cost of this war.

America's standing has suffered. Our diplomacy has been compromised by a refusal to talk to people we don't like. Our alliances have been compromised by bluster. Our credibility has been compromised by a faulty case for war. Our moral leadership has been compromised by Abu Ghraib. That is a cost of this war.

Perhaps the saddest irony of the Administration's cynical use of 9/11 is that the Iraq War has left us less safe than we were before 9/11. Osama bin Ladin and his top lieutenants have rebuilt a new base in Pakistan where they freely train recruits, plot new attacks, and disseminate propaganda. The Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan. Iran has emerged as the greatest strategic challenge to America in the Middle East in a generation. Violent extremism has increased. Terrorism has increased. All of that is a cost of this war.

After 9/11, instead of the politics of unity, we got a political strategy of division with the war in Iraq as its centerpiece. The only thing we were asked to do for our country was support a misguided war. We lost that sense of common purpose as Americans. And we're not going to be a truly united and resolute America until we can stop holding our breath, until we can come together to reclaim our foreign policy and our politics and end this war that has cost us so much.

So there is something unreal about the debate that's taking place in Washington.

With all that our troops and their families have sacrificed, with all this war has cost us, and with no discernible end in sight, the same people who told us we would be greeted as liberators, about democracy spreading across the Middle East, about striking a decisive blow against terrorism, about an insurgency in its last throes - those same people are now trumpeting the uneven and precarious containment of brutal sectarian violence as if it validates all of their failed decisions.

The bar for success is so low that it is almost buried in the sand.

The American people have had enough of the shifting spin. We've had enough of extended deadlines for benchmarks that go unmet. We've had enough of mounting costs in Iraq and missed opportunities around the world. We've had enough of a war that should never have been authorized and should never have been waged.

I opposed this war from the beginning. I opposed the war in 2002. I opposed it in 2003. I opposed it in 2004. I opposed it in 2005. I opposed it in 2006. I introduced a plan in January to remove all of our combat brigades by next March. And I am here to say that we have to begin to end this war now.

My plan for ending the war would turn the page in Iraq by removing our combat troops from Iraq's civil war; by taking a new approach to press for a new accord on reconciliation within Iraq; by talking to all of Iraq's neighbors to press for a compact in the region; and by confronting the human costs of this war.

First, we need to immediately begin the responsible removal of our troops from Iraq's civil war. Our troops have performed brilliantly. They brought Saddam Hussein to justice. They have fought for over four years to give Iraqis a chance for a better future. But they cannot - and should not - bear the responsibility for resolving the grievances at the heart of Iraq's civil war.

Recent news only confirms this. The Administration points to selective statistics to make the case for staying the course. Killings and mortar attacks and car bombs in certain districts are down from the highest levels we've seen. But they're still at the same horrible levels they were at 18 months ago or two years ago. Experts will tell you that the killings are down in some places because the ethnic cleansing has already taken place. That's hardly a cause for triumphalism.

The stated purpose of the surge was to enable Iraq's leaders to reconcile. But as the recent report from the Government Accountability Office confirms, the Iraqis are not reconciling. Our troops fight and die in the 120 degree heat to give Iraq's leaders space to agree, but they aren't filling it. They are not moving beyond their centuries-old sectarian conflicts, they are falling further back into them.

We hear a lot about how violence is down in parts of Anbar province. But this has little to do with the surge - it's because Sunni tribal leaders made a political decision to turn against al Qaeda in Iraq. This only underscores the point - the solution in Iraq is political, it is not military.

Violence is contained in some parts of Baghdad. That's no surprise. Our troops have cleared these neighborhoods at great costs. But our troops cannot police Baghdad indefinitely - only Iraqis can. Rather than use our presence to make progress, the Iraqi government has put off taking responsibility - that's the finding of a Commission headed by General Jim Jones. And our troop presence cannot be sustained without crippling our military's ability to respond to other contingencies.

Let me be clear: there is no military solution in Iraq, and there never was. The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year - now.

We should enter into talks with the Iraqi government to discuss the process of our drawdown. [B]We must get out strategically and carefully, removing troops from secure areas first, and keeping troops in more volatile areas until later. But our drawdown should proceed at a steady pace of one or two brigades each month. If we start now, all of our combat brigades should be out of Iraq by the end of next year.

We will need to retain some forces in Iraq and the region. We'll continue to strike at al Qaeda in Iraq. We'll protect our forces as they leave, and we will continue to protect U.S. diplomats and facilities. If - but only if - Iraq makes political progress and their security forces are not sectarian, we should continue to train and equip those forces. But we will set our own direction and our own pace, and our direction must be out of Iraq. The future of our military, our foreign policy, and our national purpose cannot be hostage to the inaction of the Iraqi government.

Removing our troops is part of applying real pressure on Iraq's leaders to end their civil war. Some argue that we should just replace Prime Minister Maliki. But that wouldn't solve the problem. We shouldn't be in the business of supporting coups. And remember - before Maliki, we said that we just needed to replace the last Prime Minister to make everything all right. It didn't work.

The problems in Iraq are bigger than one man. Iraq needs a new Constitutional convention that would include representatives from all levels of Iraqi society - in and out of government. The United Nations should play a central role in convening and participating in this convention, which should not adjourn until a new accord on national reconciliation is reached. To reconcile, the Iraqis must also meet key political benchmarks outside of the Constitutional process, including new local elections and revising debaathification.

Now the Iraqis may come out of this process choosing some kind of soft partition into three regions - one Sunni, one Shia, one Kurd. But it must be their choice. America should not impose the division of Iraq.

While we change the dynamic within Iraq, we must surge our diplomacy in the region.

At every stage of this war, we have suffered because of disdain for diplomacy. We have not brought allies to the table. We have refused to talk to people we don't like. And we have failed to build a consensus in the region. As a result, Iraq is more violent, the region is less stable, and America is less secure.

We need to launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent history to reach a new compact in the region. This effort should include all of Iraq's neighbors, and we should also bring in the United Nations Security Council. All of us have a stake in Iraq's stability. It's time to make this less about what America is trying to do for Iraq, and more about what the world can do with Iraq.

This compact must secure Iraq's borders, keep neighbors from meddling, isolate al Qaeda, and support Iraq's unity. That means helping our Turkish and Kurdish friends reach an understanding. That means pressing Sunni states like Saudi Arabia to stop the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq, increase their financial support of reconstruction efforts, and encourage Iraqi Sunnis to reconcile with their fellow Iraqis. And that means turning the page on the Bush-Cheney policy of not talking to Syria and Iran.

Conventional thinking in Washington says Presidents cannot lead this diplomacy. But I think the American people know better. Not talking doesn't make us look tough - it makes us look arrogant. And it doesn't get results. Strong Presidents tell their adversaries where they stand, and that's what I would do. That's how tough and principled diplomacy works. And that's what we need to press Syria and Iran to stop being part of the problem in Iraq.

Iran poses a grave challenge. It builds a nuclear program, supports terrorism, and threatens Israel with destruction. But we hear eerie echoes of the run-up to the war in Iraq in the way that the President and Vice President talk about Iran. They conflate Iran and al Qaeda, ignoring the violent schism that exists between Shiite and Sunni militants. They issue veiled threats. They suggest that the time for diplomacy and pressure is running out when we haven't even tried direct diplomacy. Well George Bush and Dick Cheney must hear - loud and clear - from the American people and the Congress: you don't have our support, and you don't have our authorization for another war.

George Bush suggests that there are two choices with regard to Iran. Stay the course in Iraq or cede the region to the Iran. I reject this choice. Keeping our troops tied down in Iraq is not the way to weaken Iran - it's precisely what has strengthened it. President Ahmadinejad may talk about filling a vacuum in the region after an American drawdown, but he's badly mistaken. It's time for a new and robust American leadership. And that should begin with a new cooperative security framework with all of our friends and allies in the Persian Gulf.

Now is the time for tough and sustained diplomacy backed by real pressure. It's time to rally the region and the world to our side. And it's time to deliver a direct message to Tehran. America is a part of a community of nations. America wants peace in the region. You can give up your nuclear ambitions and support for terror and rejoin the community of nations. Or you will face further isolation, including much tighter sanctions. As we deliver this message, we will be stronger - not weaker - if we are disengaging from Iraq's civil war.

The final part of my plan is a major international initiative to address Iraq's humanitarian crisis.

President Bush likes to warn of the dire consequences of ending the war. He warns of rising Iranian influence, but that has already taken place. He warns of growing terrorism, but that has already taken place. And he warns of huge movements of refugees and mass sectarian killing, but that has already taken place. These are not the consequences of a future withdrawal. They are the reality of Iraq's present. They are a direct consequence of waging this war. Two million Iraqis are displaced in their own country. Another two million Iraqis have fled as refugees to neighboring countries. This mass movement of people is a threat to the security of the Middle East and to our common humanity. We have a strategic interest - and a moral obligation - to act.

The President would have us believe there are two choices: keep all of our troops in Iraq or abandon these Iraqis. I reject that choice. We cannot continue to put this burden on our troops alone. I'm tired of this notion that we either fight foolish wars or retreat from the world. We are better than that as a nation.

There's no military solution that can reunite a family or resettle an orphaned child. It's time to form an international working group with the countries in the region, our European and Asian friends, and the United Nations. The State Department says it has invested $183 million on displaced Iraqis this year -- but that is not nearly enough. We can and must do more. We should up our share to at least $2 billion to support this effort; to expand access to social services for refugees in neighboring countries; and to ensure that Iraqis displaced inside their own country can find safe-haven.

Iraqis must know that those who engage in mass violence will be brought to justice. We should lead in forming a commission at the U.N. to monitor and hold accountable perpetrators of war crimes within Iraq. We must also put strict conditions on U.S. assistance to direct our support to those who want to hold Iraq together - not those who are tearing it apart. The risk of greater atrocities in the short-term cannot deter us from doing what we must to minimize violence in the long-term. Yet as we drawdown, we must declare our readiness to intervene with allies to stop genocidal violence.

We must also keep faith with Iraqis who kept faith with us. One tragic outcome of this war is that the Iraqis who stood with America - the interpreters, embassy workers, and subcontractors - are being targeted for assassination. An Iraqi named Laith who worked for an American organization told a journalist, "Sometimes I feel like we're standing in line for a ticket, waiting to die.' And yet our doors are shut. In April, we admitted exactly one Iraqi refugee - just one!

That is not how we treat our friends. That is not how we take responsibility for our own actions. That is not who we are as Americans. It's time to at least fill the 7,000 slots that we pledged to Iraqi refugees and to be open to accepting even more Iraqis at risk. It's also time to go to our friends and allies - and all the members of our original coalition in Iraq - to find homes for the many Iraqis who are in desperate need of asylum.

Keeping this moral obligation is a key part of how we turn the page in Iraq. Because what's at stake is bigger than this war - it's our global leadership. Now is a time to be bold. We must not stay the course or take the conventional path because the other course is unknown. To quote Dr. Brzezinski - we must not allow ourselves to become "prisoners of uncertainty.'

George Bush is afraid of this future. That is why all he can do is drag up the past. After all the flawed justifications for his failed policy, he now invokes Vietnam as a reason to stay in Iraq. Let's put aside the strange reasoning - that all would have been well if we had just stayed the course in Vietnam. Let's put it aside and leave it where it belongs - in the past.

Now is not the time to reargue the Vietnam War - we did that in the 2004 election, and it wasn't pretty. I come from a new generation of Americans. I don't want to fight the battles of the 1960s. I want to reclaim the future for America, because we have too many threats to face and too many opportunities to seize. Just think about what we can accomplish together when we end this war.

When we end this war in Iraq, we can finally finish the fight in Afghanistan. That is why I propose stepping up our commitment there, with at least two additional combat brigades and a comprehensive program of aid and support to help Afghans help themselves.

When we end this war in Iraq, we can more effectively tackle the twin demons of extremism and hopelessness that threaten the peace of the world and the security of America. That is why I have proposed a program to spread hope - not hate - in the Islamic world, to build schools that teach young people to build and not destroy, to support the rule of law and economic development, and to launch a program of outreach to the Islamic world that I will lead as President.

When we end this war in Iraq, we can once again lead the world against the common challenges of the 21st century. Against the spread of nuclear weapons and climate change. Against genocide in Darfur. Against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair. When we end this war, we can reclaim the cause of freedom and democracy. We can be that beacon of hope, that light to all the world.

When we end this war, we can recapture our unity of effort as Americans. The American people have the right instincts on Iraq. It's time to heed their judgment. It's time to move beyond Iraq so that we can move forward together. I will be a President who listens to the American people, not a President who ignores them.

And when we end the war in Iraq, we can come together to give our full attention to advancing the cause of health care for every American, an energy policy that does not bankroll hostile nations while we melt the polar ice caps, and a world class education for our children. Above all, we can turn the page to a new kind of politics of unity, not division; of hope, not fear.

You know, I welcome all of the folks who have changed their position on the war over these last months and years. And we need more of those votes to change if we're going to change the direction of this war. That is why I will keep speaking directly to my colleagues in the Congress, both Republican and Democratic. Historically, we have come together in a bipartisan way to deal with our most monumental challenges. We should do so again. We have the power to do this - not as Republicans or Democrats, but as Americans. We don't have to wait until George Bush is gone from office - we can begin to end this war today, right now.

But if we have learned anything from Iraq, it is that the judgment that matters most is the judgment that is made first.

Martin Luther King once stood up at Riverside Church and said, "In this unfolding conundrum of life and history, there is such a thing as being too late.' We are too late to stop a war that should never have been fought; too late to undo the pain of battle, the anguish of so many families, or the price of the fight; too late to redo the years of division and distraction at home and abroad.

But I'm here today because it's not too late to come together as Americans. Because we're not going to be able to deal with the challenges that confront us until we end this war. What we can do is say that we will not be prisoners of uncertainty. That we reject the conventional thinking that led us into Iraq and that didn't ask hard questions until it was too late. What we can say is that we are ready for something new and something bold and something principled.

It's time for us to breathe again. That begins with ending this war - but it does not end there. It's time reclaim our foreign policy. It's time to reclaim our politics. And it's time to lead this country - and this world - again, to a new dawn of peace and unity.

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/09/12/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_23.php

All this means is that he says one thing one place and another one somewhere else. I never said he was consistent. In fact, I've said that he changes his view depending on who he is talking to and what time of day it is. Clearly his view has not been consistent. If you ask your average Obama parishioner or Obama worshipper, you will hear that they believe he will pull the troops out. Don't you recall his promise to do it within 18 months, when the generals were advising against it? Your statement is laughable.

[ajmccarrell]

So why exactly again did the R's fight so long and hard to put the marriage amendments on the ballots of the 2004 elections?

Why run away from the truth about the R party, which is they have demonized Gay people and abortion rights supporters in the last two elections for political gain. Do you actually think they have not :eek:


Like I already said. I don't think that the party has demonized gay people or abortion supporters. Some members certainly have, but the majority have not. Surely you can find someone somewhere that said something negative. At large, no they have not. They have said that they don't believe the behavior is right, but that's a far cry from party leaders calling gays "fags" as you call them, or abortionists "murderers". Maybe the kooks who hang out at clinics do, but those are our versions of the dems who lay down in front of convoys blocking supplies that throw feces at returning soldiers. Neither behavior is correct.

[ajmccarrell]

So was George Bush in 2000, he clearly lost the election, but, he was given the Presidency by that same faction of the government.

The protection of "checks & balances" failed miserably. Hence the subsequent "downfall of America".

Groan! How many independant recounts has Bush won now? Last count was about 3.

In the recounts, he actually won by a larger margin.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_watch/jan-june01/recount_4-3.html

There are also similar stories in the NY Times.

Anyway, the court just decided that a third recount would have done irreparable harm to the Bush campaign. Also, Gore lost the previous two recounts.

If you want to talk about a stolen election, look up Rossi v. Gregoire in 2004. That one actually WAS stolen and could not actually be certified. Gregoire lost 2 recounts and won the third and the election was certified by a margin of 150 votes. Many more votes were discovered hidden in a school that were never counted. I don't see democrats hopping mad over that one.

[strandinthewind]

Like I already said. I don't think that the party has demonized gay people or abortion supporters. Some members certainly have, but the majority have not. Surely you can find someone somewhere that said something negative. At large, no they have not. They have said that they don't believe the behavior is right, but that's a far cry from party leaders calling gays "fags" as you call them, or abortionists "murderers". Maybe the kooks who hang out at clinics do, but those are our versions of the dems who lay down in front of convoys blocking supplies that throw feces at returning soldiers. Neither behavior is correct.

The R deliberately brough the marriage issue into the public discourse because they knew it would fire up the religious crazies. If you chose to call that anything other than demonizing one group for political gain, I have a bridge in Brooklyn you'd likely buy -- are you really that naive or blind to these tactics?

Again, this is party that has fought to keep laws on the books that would put people in prison for private sexual activity. Yet, you made excuses for that as well.

But, if you want to blindly support that by wishing on a some star that it is not what is going on or somehow attempting to negate the actual activity by noting it was not as extreme as the most extreme activity, then you go right on ahead with that delusion. Just don't don't try to sell that BS around here.

[strandinthewind]

Groan! How many independant recounts has Bush won now? Last count was about 3.

In the recounts, he actually won by a larger margin.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_watch/jan-june01/recount_4-3.html

There are also similar stories in the NY Times.

Anyway, the court just decided that a third recount would have done irreparable harm to the Bush campaign. Also, Gore lost the previous two recounts . . . .


Once again and pay attention this time -- no one is talking about the recounts immediately after the election. They are talking about the state wide recount done much later. Please see the 100 other arguments about this for reference :rolleyes:

[ajmccarrell]

Once again and pay attention this time -- no one is talking about the recounts immediately after the election. They are talking about the state wide recount done much later. Please see the 100 other arguments about this for reference :rolleyes:

Bub, YOU weren't paying attention. The other arguments were from left wing conspiracy sites. Why bother? I am talking about the same recount, bozo! :laugh:
Here's another few articles for you to not read. This is a state recount after the election. It still shows Bush won, even if a hand recount had been conducted as Gore was asking.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0DEFDB163EF937A35757C0A9679C8B63

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a9a36841071.htm

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/lott200312100915.asp

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/footnotes/2005/08/miami_herald_ap_1.html Here's one that argues the other side, but it's all, "I feel like there were more votes" with no proof.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200101/ai_n8933254

[strandinthewind]

I am talking about the Media Consortium Statewide Count of "Undervotes" and "Overvotes," which proves Gore won under any standard.

Here is a bunch of info. on it http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=181

Note - I use that cite because the info is conolidated there.

[ajmccarrell]

I am talking about the Media Consortium Statewide Count of "Undervotes" and "Overvotes," which proves Gore won under any standard.

Here is a bunch of info. on it http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=181

Note - I use that cite because the info is conolidated there.

Funny how this site seems to know more about the results of the consortium recount STUDY (it was a study of the recounts, not an actual recount) than the papers who reported their own results. Again, if you look at the other crap on this site, it is twisting news stories and it presents conspiracy theories.

[strandinthewind]

Paris responds

<object width="464" height="388" classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000"><param name="movie" value="http://www2.funnyordie.com/public/flash/fodplayer.swf" /><param name="flashvars" value="key=64ad536a6d" /><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><embed width="464" height="388" flashvars="key=64ad536a6d" allowfullscreen="true" quality="high" src="http://www2.funnyordie.com/public/flash/fodplayer.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></embed></object><noscript>See <a href="http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/64ad536a6d">Paris Hilton Responds to McCain Ad</a> and more <a href="http://www.funnyordie.com">funny videos</a> on <a href="http://www.funnyordie.com">FunnyOrDie.com</a></noscript><div style="text-align:center;width:464px;">See more <a href="http://www.funnyordie.com">funny videos</a> at Funny or Die</div>''

Sadly, the notion of drilling now will not carry us over in any significant manner and when it does kick in, it will will be in the 2020's :laugh:

LOVE YOU PARIS!!!!!

[ajmccarrell]

Paris responds

<object width="464" height="388" classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000"><param name="movie" value="http://www2.funnyordie.com/public/flash/fodplayer.swf" /><param name="flashvars" value="key=64ad536a6d" /><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><embed width="464" height="388" flashvars="key=64ad536a6d" allowfullscreen="true" quality="high" src="http://www2.funnyordie.com/public/flash/fodplayer.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></embed></object><noscript>See <a href="http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/64ad536a6d">Paris Hilton Responds to McCain Ad</a> and more <a href="http://www.funnyordie.com">funny videos</a> on <a href="http://www.funnyordie.com">FunnyOrDie.com</a></noscript><div style="text-align:center;width:464px;">See more <a href="http://www.funnyordie.com">funny videos</a> at Funny or Die</div>''

Sadly, the notion of drilling now will not carry us over in any significant manner and when it does kick in, it will will be in the 2020's :laugh:

LOVE YOU PARIS!!!!!


I did see that, but again..... Drilling had been proposed from the mid-1990's on by Republicans and it was shot down by democrats every single time. So, what's your point? That the democrats were stupid and didn't allow drilling so we have high gas prices? :] We'd still be at under $2.00 a gallon and not dependant on the middle east if it weren't for your party. :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

I did see that, but again..... Drilling had been proposed from the mid-1990's on by Republicans and it was shot down by democrats every single time. So, what's your point? That the democrats were stupid and didn't allow drilling so we have high gas prices? :] We'd still be at under $2.00 a gallon and not dependant on the middle east if it weren't for your party. :laugh:

How exactly did you derive the $2.00 a gallon figure when, again, the R Dept. of Energy said, at most, the effect of extracting the US' oil and refining it into gasoline would be at $0.10 a gallon and it would take 20 years to get that benefit, regardless of whether we drill now or drilled then. Do you refute this fact or are you deliberately ignoring it by trying to say (with no logical basis) that D's are responsible for $4.00 to $5.00 a gallon gas now? What facts support you in any way given the Bush Administration's $0.10 figure?

Of course, you do not seem to mind that the R party routinely deceives the American public be implying immediate benefit from drilling in the US, when no facts support that case. In fact, you have repeatedlty perpetuated that lie here.

It seems to me that if getting off of our dep. on foreign oil was truly your desire, then you'd be for alternate fuels, like wind power. Anectdotal evidence demonstrates that can work because:

1. It is working;

2. It is far cheaper than oil exploration and refinement;

3. The supply is limitless, and;

4. It would create many new jobs to implement and maintain.

Where is the losing side of this proposition?

Once again, I say take all the oil out of the earth now, today. The sooner we do that the sooner we are rid of the blight of the oil lobby.

In any event, from now on, when you raise this assinine and incorrect "drilling now will reduce gas prices" argument, I will direct you to this and the like 500 other threads where you were proven wrong but just can't seem to face the facts and admit it.

[strandinthewind]

All this means is that he says one thing one place and another one somewhere else. I never said he was consistent. In fact, I've said that he changes his view depending on who he is talking to and what time of day it is. Clearly his view has not been consistent. If you ask your average Obama parishioner or Obama worshipper, you will hear that they believe he will pull the troops out. Don't you recall his promise to do it within 18 months, when the generals were advising against it? Your statement is laughable.

No.

I asked you to support that Obama has said the 18 month time line was absolute, etc. You cited that speech. That speech does not support that. Again, and for the last time as this post will be referred to in future rebuttals - Obama has consistently said the safety of the troops comes first and superceded their withdrawal. Once again, if you evidence to the contrary, let's see it.

[strandinthewind]

Gay people currently have EXACTLY the same rights as I do. I can't marry a guy either. LOL! I don't care why a lot of Republican's did that. I didn't support it then and I don't support it now. I already said I agreed with you on the gay marriage issue. There is no reason to bring it up. I'm sure you don't agree with the dems on some issues too. Just because I don't agree with the party on gay marriage doesn't mean I'm going to suddenly switch parties. It isn't a big deal to me.

LOL - you have gone from the R's would never do that and did not do that to "I don't care why a lot of Republican's did that."

And, it is not a big deal to you because your rights are safe and you are not being shunned based solely on a religious ideal, an act prohibited by the First Amendment of the US Const. and the Const.'s of every state.

Here is a cool quote demonstrating the framer's intent on religion and govt. mixing:

The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, written in 1779 by Thomas Jefferson, proclaimed (emphasis supplied):

"[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

Sounds to me like Thomas Jefferson likely would be appalled by the R's religious stance :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

McCain's response to the Paris Hilton video:

“It sounds like Paris Hilton supports John McCain’s ‘all of the above’ approach to America’s energy crisis - -including both alternatives and drilling. In reality, Paris Hilton may have a more substantive energy policy than Barack Obama,” spokesman Tucker Bounds said.
___________________________

Of course, once again McCain distorts the truth my inaccurately quoting the source.

Hilton said (emphasis supplied) :

“We can do limited offshore drilling with strict environmental oversight while creating tax incentives to get Detroit making hybrid and electric cars. That way the offshore drilling carries us until the new technologies kick-in which will then create new jobs and energy independence.

Energy crisis solved, I’ll see you at the debates, bitches!”

That is not the same as what McCain is for, which is unlimited drilling http://www.johnmccain.com//Informing/Issues/17671aa4-2fe8-4008-859f-0ef1468e96f4.htm

Also - McCain's site implies Obama's tire pressure suggestion to save gas is inaccurate. Once again, McCain's innuendo is misleading and false as this article explains (emphasis supplied) :

Monday, Aug. 04, 2008

The Tire-Gauge Solution: No Joke

By Michael Grunwald

How out of touch is Barack Obama? He's so out of touch that he suggested that if all Americans inflated their tires properly and took their cars for regular tune-ups, they could save as much oil as new offshore drilling would produce. Gleeful Republicans have made this their daily talking point; Rush Limbaugh is having a field day; and the Republican National Committee is sending tire gauges labeled "Barack Obama's Energy Plan" to Washington reporters.

But who's really out of touch? The Bush Administration estimates that expanded offshore drilling could increase oil production by 200,000 bbl. per day by 2030. We use about 20 million bbl. per day, so that would meet about 1% of our demand two decades from now. Meanwhile, efficiency experts say that keeping tires inflated can improve gas mileage 3%, and regular maintenance can add another 4%. Many drivers already follow their advice, but if everyone did, we could immediately reduce demand several percentage points. In other words: Obama is right.

In fact, Obama's actual energy plan is much more than a tire gauge. But that's not what's so pernicious about the tire-gauge attacks. Politics ain't beanbag, and Obama has defended himself against worse smears. The real problem with the attacks on his tire-gauge plan is that efforts to improve conservation and efficiency happen to be the best approaches to dealing with the energy crisis — the cheapest, cleanest, quickest and easiest ways to ease our addiction to oil, reduce our pain at the pump and address global warming. It's a pretty simple concept: if our use of fossil fuels is increasing our reliance on Middle Eastern dictators while destroying the planet, maybe we ought to use less.

The RNC is trying to make the tire gauge a symbol of unseriousness, as if only the fatuous believed we could reduce our dependence on foreign oil without doing the bidding of Big Oil. But the tire gauge is really a symbol of a very serious piece of good news: we can use significantly less energy without significantly changing our lifestyle. The energy guru Amory Lovins has shown that investment in "nega-watts" — reduced electricity use through efficiency improvements — is much more cost-effective than investment in new megawatts, and the same is clearly true of nega-barrels. It might not fit the worldviews of right-wingers who deny the existence of global warming and insist that reducing emissions would destroy our economy, or of left-wing Earth-firsters who insist that maintaining our creature comforts would destroy the world, but there's a lot of simple things we can do on the demand side before we start rushing to ratchet up supply.

We can use those twisty carbon fluorescent lightbulbs. We can unplug our televisions, computers and phone chargers when we're not using them. We can seal our windows, install more insulation and adjust our thermostats so that we waste less heat and air-conditioning. We can use more-efficient appliances, build more-efficient homes and drive more-efficient cars, preferably with government assistance. And, yes, we can inflate our tires and tune our engines, as Republican governors Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Charlie Crist of Florida have urged, apparently without consulting the RNC. While we're at it, we can cut down on idling, which can improve fuel economy another 5%, and cut down on speeding and unnecessary acceleration, which can increase mileage as much as 20%.

And that's just the low-hanging fruit. There are other ways to reduce demand for oil — more public transportation, more carpooling, more telecommuting, more recycling, less exurban sprawl, fewer unnecessary car trips, buying less stuff and eating less meat — that would require at least some lifestyle changes. But things like tire gauges can reduce gas bills and carbon emissions now, with little pain and at little cost and without the ecological problems and oil-addiction problems associated with offshore drilling. These are the proverbial win-win-win solutions, reducing the pain of $100 trips to the gas station by reducing trips to the gas station. And Americans are already starting to adopt them, ditching SUVs, buying hybrids, reducing overall gas consumption. It's hard to see why anyone who isn't affiliated with the oil industry would object to them.

Of course, in recent years, the Republican Party has been affiliated with the oil industry. It was the oilman Dick Cheney who dismissed conservation as a mere sign of "personal virtue," not a basis for energy policy. It was the oilman George W. Bush who resisted efforts to regulate carbon emissions. And most congressional Republicans have been even more reliable water carriers for the industry's interests.

John McCain has been a notable exception. He is not an oilman; he has pushed to regulate carbon emissions; and he opposed Bush's pork-stuffed energy bill, which Obama supported. He also opposed efforts to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and until recently opposed new offshore drilling. But now that gas prices have spiked, McCain is running for President on a drill-first platform, and polls suggest that most Americans agree with him. It's sad to see his campaign adopting the politics of the tire gauge, promoting the fallacy that Americans are powerless to address their own energy problems. Because the truth is: Yes, we can. We already are.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1829354,00.html

_______________________________________

Again, if it works, why would the R party and its mouthpieces lambaste it as laughable. It would save more fuel than drilling for untapped American oil could possibly provide. This is a page directly out of Rove's "repeat the lie until people believe it" playbook.

[SuzeQuze]

Paris responds

<object width="464" height="388" classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000"><param name="movie" value="http://www2.funnyordie.com/public/flash/fodplayer.swf" /><param name="flashvars" value="key=64ad536a6d" /><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><embed width="464" height="388" flashvars="key=64ad536a6d" allowfullscreen="true" quality="high" src="http://www2.funnyordie.com/public/flash/fodplayer.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></embed></object><noscript>See <a href="http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/64ad536a6d">Paris Hilton Responds to McCain Ad</a> and more <a href="http://www.funnyordie.com">funny videos</a> on <a href="http://www.funnyordie.com">FunnyOrDie.com</a></noscript><div style="text-align:center;width:464px;">See more <a href="http://www.funnyordie.com">funny videos</a> at Funny or Die</div>''

Sadly, the notion of drilling now will not carry us over in any significant manner and when it does kick in, it will will be in the 2020's :laugh:

LOVE YOU PARIS!!!!!

Best political ad ever. :thumbsup:

[ajmccarrell]

McCain's response to the Paris Hilton video:

“It sounds like Paris Hilton supports John McCain’s ‘all of the above’ approach to America’s energy crisis - -including both alternatives and drilling. In reality, Paris Hilton may have a more substantive energy policy than Barack Obama,” spokesman Tucker Bounds said.
___________________________

Of course, once again McCain distorts the truth my inaccurately quoting the source.

Hilton said (emphasis supplied) :

“We can do limited offshore drilling with strict environmental oversight while creating tax incentives to get Detroit making hybrid and electric cars. That way the offshore drilling carries us until the new technologies kick-in which will then create new jobs and energy independence.

Energy crisis solved, I’ll see you at the debates, bitches!”

That is not the same as what McCain is for, which is unlimited drilling http://www.johnmccain.com//Informing/Issues/17671aa4-2fe8-4008-859f-0ef1468e96f4.htm

Also - McCain's site implies Obama's tire pressure suggestion to save gas is inaccurate. Once again, McCain's innuendo is misleading and false as this article explains (emphasis supplied) :

Monday, Aug. 04, 2008

The Tire-Gauge Solution: No Joke

By Michael Grunwald

How out of touch is Barack Obama? He's so out of touch that he suggested that if all Americans inflated their tires properly and took their cars for regular tune-ups, they could save as much oil as new offshore drilling would produce. Gleeful Republicans have made this their daily talking point; Rush Limbaugh is having a field day; and the Republican National Committee is sending tire gauges labeled "Barack Obama's Energy Plan" to Washington reporters.

But who's really out of touch? The Bush Administration estimates that expanded offshore drilling could increase oil production by 200,000 bbl. per day by 2030. We use about 20 million bbl. per day, so that would meet about 1% of our demand two decades from now. Meanwhile, efficiency experts say that keeping tires inflated can improve gas mileage 3%, and regular maintenance can add another 4%. Many drivers already follow their advice, but if everyone did, we could immediately reduce demand several percentage points. In other words: Obama is right.

In fact, Obama's actual energy plan is much more than a tire gauge. But that's not what's so pernicious about the tire-gauge attacks. Politics ain't beanbag, and Obama has defended himself against worse smears. The real problem with the attacks on his tire-gauge plan is that efforts to improve conservation and efficiency happen to be the best approaches to dealing with the energy crisis — the cheapest, cleanest, quickest and easiest ways to ease our addiction to oil, reduce our pain at the pump and address global warming. It's a pretty simple concept: if our use of fossil fuels is increasing our reliance on Middle Eastern dictators while destroying the planet, maybe we ought to use less.

The RNC is trying to make the tire gauge a symbol of unseriousness, as if only the fatuous believed we could reduce our dependence on foreign oil without doing the bidding of Big Oil. But the tire gauge is really a symbol of a very serious piece of good news: we can use significantly less energy without significantly changing our lifestyle. The energy guru Amory Lovins has shown that investment in "nega-watts" — reduced electricity use through efficiency improvements — is much more cost-effective than investment in new megawatts, and the same is clearly true of nega-barrels. It might not fit the worldviews of right-wingers who deny the existence of global warming and insist that reducing emissions would destroy our economy, or of left-wing Earth-firsters who insist that maintaining our creature comforts would destroy the world, but there's a lot of simple things we can do on the demand side before we start rushing to ratchet up supply.

We can use those twisty carbon fluorescent lightbulbs. We can unplug our televisions, computers and phone chargers when we're not using them. We can seal our windows, install more insulation and adjust our thermostats so that we waste less heat and air-conditioning. We can use more-efficient appliances, build more-efficient homes and drive more-efficient cars, preferably with government assistance. And, yes, we can inflate our tires and tune our engines, as Republican governors Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Charlie Crist of Florida have urged, apparently without consulting the RNC. While we're at it, we can cut down on idling, which can improve fuel economy another 5%, and cut down on speeding and unnecessary acceleration, which can increase mileage as much as 20%.

And that's just the low-hanging fruit. There are other ways to reduce demand for oil — more public transportation, more carpooling, more telecommuting, more recycling, less exurban sprawl, fewer unnecessary car trips, buying less stuff and eating less meat — that would require at least some lifestyle changes. But things like tire gauges can reduce gas bills and carbon emissions now, with little pain and at little cost and without the ecological problems and oil-addiction problems associated with offshore drilling. These are the proverbial win-win-win solutions, reducing the pain of $100 trips to the gas station by reducing trips to the gas station. And Americans are already starting to adopt them, ditching SUVs, buying hybrids, reducing overall gas consumption. It's hard to see why anyone who isn't affiliated with the oil industry would object to them.

Of course, in recent years, the Republican Party has been affiliated with the oil industry. It was the oilman Dick Cheney who dismissed conservation as a mere sign of "personal virtue," not a basis for energy policy. It was the oilman George W. Bush who resisted efforts to regulate carbon emissions. And most congressional Republicans have been even more reliable water carriers for the industry's interests.

John McCain has been a notable exception. He is not an oilman; he has pushed to regulate carbon emissions; and he opposed Bush's pork-stuffed energy bill, which Obama supported. He also opposed efforts to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and until recently opposed new offshore drilling. But now that gas prices have spiked, McCain is running for President on a drill-first platform, and polls suggest that most Americans agree with him. It's sad to see his campaign adopting the politics of the tire gauge, promoting the fallacy that Americans are powerless to address their own energy problems. Because the truth is: Yes, we can. We already are.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1829354,00.html

_______________________________________

Again, if it works, why would the R party and its mouthpieces lambaste it as laughable. It would save more fuel than drilling for untapped American oil could possibly provide. This is a page directly out of Rove's "repeat the lie until people believe it" playbook.

Again, Strand, you are quoting a source without reading it. McCain has always supported Cap and Trade, which IS limited drilling by definition. Hilton's plan is much the same as McCain's, which is go for everything all at once. No one said the tire guage plan doesn't work, but it won't save us the 3-4% Obama is saying. That would only be the case if EVERYONE's tires were underinflated. Most people either have newer tires that don't need inflation or they inflate them regularly. Doing that saves as much as 3 or 4 mpg, which is not the same as 3-4%, unless we're still ALL driving cars that get 10 mpg. Basic math here.

Also, reducing urban sprawl is part of why we have the housing mess. More houses means cheaper houses, simple supply and demand here. The average wage is $47,000.00 and the average home prices is $380,000.00, hardly tenable. People were stretching themselves ridiculously thin to buy homes, then when their cheap rates expired, they couldn't afford them. Again, your DNC policy of no expansion will lead to further problems. We forget that major national problems start locally with local regulation. We have urban sprawl regulation here in Washington, which is why only the richest can afford homes near cities. The same house near seattle goes for $600,000.00 or more (I mean a 3 bedroom rambler) that you could buy in Houston for less than 100K. I'm currently buying a house an hour outside seattle and it is still $311,000.00 for a house I could buy in Texas for $125,000.00.

[strandinthewind]

Again, Strand, you are quoting a source without reading it. McCain has always supported Cap and Trade, which IS limited drilling by definition. Hilton's plan is much the same as McCain's, which is go for everything all at once.

McCain's plan says (emphasis supplied) :

Expanding Domestic Oil And Natural Gas Exploration And Production

John McCain Will Commit Our Country To Expanding Domestic Oil Exploration. The current federal moratorium on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf stands in the way of energy exploration and production. John McCain believes it is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions and to put our own reserves to use. There is no easier or more direct way to prove to the world that we will no longer be subject to the whims of others than to expand our production capabilities. We have trillions of dollars worth of oil and gas reserves in the U.S. at a time we are exporting hundreds of billions of dollars a year overseas to buy energy. This is the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind. We should keep more of our dollars here in the U.S., lessen our foreign dependency, increase our domestic supplies, and reduce our trade deficit - 41% of which is due to oil imports. John McCain proposes to cooperate with the states and the Department of Defense in the decisions to develop these resources.

http://www.johnmccain.com//Informing/Issues/17671aa4-2fe8-4008-859f-0ef1468e96f4.htm

I do not see any limits in the phrase "John McCain believes it is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions and to put our own reserves to use" or anywhere in that paragraph.

Moreover, his statement "[t]here is no easier or more direct way to prove to the world that we will no longer be subject to the whims of others than to expand our production capabilities" is 100% against the DOE's report for a possible 10% 20 years from now. Moreover, it completely ignores the wind power used in much of the country, which is working and vastly cheaper and more sustainable.

Why doesn't McCain embrace that idea? Instead, he touts nuclear energy, which, though clean as far as production, has the possibility for terrorist attacks, which would contaminate huge areas whereas knocking down a wind machine might kill something on the ground in the immediate area :shrug:

As for the cap and trade, McCain says this (emphasis original) :

Protecting Our Environment And Addressing Climate Change: A Sound Energy Strategy Must Include A Solid Environmental Foundation

John McCain Proposes A Cap-And-Trade System That Would Set Limits On Greenhouse Gas Emissions While Encouraging The Development Of Low-Cost Compliance Options. A climate cap-and-trade mechanism would set a limit on greenhouse gas emissions and allow entities to buy and sell rights to emit, similar to the successful acid rain trading program of the early 1990s. The key feature of this mechanism is that it allows the market to decide and encourage the lowest-cost compliance options.

How Does A Cap-And-Trade System Work?

A cap-and-trade system harnesses human ingenuity in the pursuit of alternatives to carbon-based fuels. Market participants are allotted total permits equal to the cap on greenhouse gas emissions. If they can invent, improve, or acquire a way to reduce their emissions, they can sell their extra permits for cash. The profit motive will coordinate the efforts of venture capitalists, corporate planners, entrepreneurs, and environmentalists on the common motive of reducing emissions.

Greenhouse Gas Emission Targets And Timetables:

2012: Return Emissions To 2005 Levels (18 Percent Above 1990 Levels)
2020: Return Emissions To 1990 Levels (15 Percent Below 2005 Levels)
2030: 22 Percent Below 1990 Levels (34 Percent Below 2005 Levels)
2050: 60 Percent Below 1990 Levels (66 Percent Below 2005 Levels)

The Cap-And-Trade System Would Allow For The Gradual Reduction Of Emissions. The cap-and-trade system would encompass electric power, transportation fuels, commercial business, and industrial business - sectors responsible for just under 90 percent of all emissions. Small businesses would be exempt. Initially, participants would be allowed to either make their own GHG reductions or purchase "offsets" - financial instruments representing a reduction, avoidance, or sequestration of greenhouse gas emissions practiced by other activities, such as agriculture - to cover 100 percent of their required reductions. Offsets would only be available through a program dedicated to ensure that all offset GHG emission reductions are real, measured and verifiable. The fraction of GHG emission reductions permitted via offsets would decline over time.

I am unsure how that plan is "limited drilling by definition," esp. given the fact that he says on the same page that "The current federal moratorium on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf stands in the way of energy exploration and production. John McCain believes it is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions and to put our own reserves to use." But, I agree that eventually, it will reduce drilling assuming the alt. stuff takes over. But, that is different than Hilton's statement "[w]e can do limited offshore drilling with strict environmental oversight while creating tax incentives to get Detroit making hybrid and electric cars. That way the offshore drilling carries us until the new technologies kick-in which will then create new jobs and energy independence.

Energy crisis solved, I’ll see you at the debates, bitches!"

Therefore, McCain's statement that Hilton adopted his plan is untrue and misleading.

No one said the tire guage plan doesn't work . . . .

Under the "Obama Tire Gauge" link on http://www.johnmccain.com/ -- the following picture appears

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v602/strandinthewind/obama_tire.jpg

res ipsa loquitor :shrug:

but it won't save us the 3-4% Obama is saying. That would only be the case if EVERYONE's tires were underinflated. Most people either have newer tires that don't need inflation or they inflate them regularly. Doing that saves as much as 3 or 4 mpg, which is not the same as 3-4%, unless we're still ALL driving cars that get 10 mpg. Basic math here. .

No, that is not what most experts say, including, once again, W's Department. of Energy, which estimated that drivers can improve gas mileage by as much as 3.3 percent by keeping car tires property inflated. The agency also says the impact would be immediate, resulting in savings of as much as 12 cents per gallon. New oil drilling could also lower gas prices, but the U.S. Energy Information Administration predicts it would take seven to 10 years to get new oil out of the ground. Moreover, according to W's Department of Energy, "every pound per square inch of tire underinflation wastes 4 million gallons of gas daily in the U.S." Survey information from W's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration shows that 27% of the cars on the road have a significantly under-inflated tires.

Other voices supporting the tire gauge idea:

-- Sen. Joe Lieberman, independent-Connecticut, who in 2001 argued against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, saying that "increasing the fuel efficiency of replacement tires for our cars to the same level as those sold on new automobiles will save drivers $90 in fuel costs over the lifetime of the tires and will save the U.S. more than 70 times the amount of oil we might find in the refuge.'"

-- Republican California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who made a public appeal to state residents to take steps to keep engines tuned and tires properly inflated to maximize energy efficiency. "We all do have the power. Let's not wait for government," Schwarzenegger said. "Energy prices are not going back to the good old days."

Here are some blurbs on how the tire pressure thing works:

The majority of US drivers do not consistently monitor the tire pressures in their vehicles. The 2000 TREAD Act, which requires automakers to gradually provide tire pressure monitoring systems for vehicles sold in the US will correct this problem for new vehicles. This law does not impact the problem in previously deployed vehicles, which have a turnover time of 20 years. A solution is provided here to address under-inflated tires on the current 220 million vehicles and the concomitant wasted energy due to increased rolling resistance in the US automobile fleet. This communication reports on a preliminary study of tire pressures in randomly chosen vehicles, which were undergoing oil changes at a combined retail/auto-care facility. The study indicates that substantial benefits would accrue if car care facilities systematically offered complimentary tire pressure checks with oil changes including: (i) increased safety by decreasing all crashes and saving more than 100 lives per year, (ii) reduced petroleum consumption by over a billion gallons/year, which would (iia) provide over $4 billion in economic savings for US consumers that could in part be recouped in retail/auto-care facilities, (iib) reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 13.5 million tons and automobile pollution and (iic) enhance national security.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V2W-4KWTFM8-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f948d8c8782911e143d07e195e91c93a

With gas prices now hovering around $3, smart drivers care. Savvy consumers are seeking to increase fuel economy and the life of their tires by paying more attention to those rubber objects that are attached to their vehicle . . . .

Nearly ninety percent of drivers don't check their tire inflation properly. However, this percentage is starting to drop as gas prices underinflate consumer pocketbooks.

With escalating fuel prices, the time is now for drivers to focus on simple things like proper tire pressure to maximize tire performance and increase fuel economy.


http://www.nascar.com/2006/auto/07/25/tires/ (and NASCAR are screaming liberals :laugh: )

So, I say why not embrace the idea instead of mocking it :shrug:

Also, why insinuate that the tire gauge is the only plan Obama has, when that is untrue as noted here http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/

I am unsure how you actually can bring yourself to defend McCain on this issue.

Also, reducing urban sprawl is part of why we have the housing mess. More houses means cheaper houses, simple supply and demand here. The average wage is $47,000.00 and the average home prices is $380,000.00, hardly tenable. People were stretching themselves ridiculously thin to buy homes, then when their cheap rates expired, they couldn't afford them. Again, your DNC policy of no expansion will lead to further problems. We forget that major national problems start locally with local regulation. We have urban sprawl regulation here in Washington, which is why only the richest can afford homes near cities. The same house near seattle goes for $600,000.00 or more (I mean a 3 bedroom rambler) that you could buy in Houston for less than 100K. I'm currently buying a house an hour outside seattle and it is still $311,000.00 for a house I could buy in Texas for $125,000.00.

I am unsure why you are bringing this up. I did not see anywhere where Obama said bedroom communities had to cease to exist :shrug: But, i agree, poor urban planning at the local level has caused a serious strain on oil consumption. The Fed. Govt. could help more with that by providing greater incentives to bring public transportation out to the burbs. Sadly, the people in the burbs do not want it because they think, understandably in some instances, that crime will increase.

Also and as an interesting aside, the Bush Admin. and Sen. McCain have known for years about the housing bubble and absolutely nothing about it :shrug: They couldn't because that drive the economy and helped secure the financing for W's insane spending and bloodthirst for war.

[strandinthewind]

I get that this is an opinion, but I agree with what she says in that McCain has chosen to take the low road - a pity if you ask me:

August 6, 2008

Op-Ed Columnist

McCain’s Green-Eyed Monster


By MAUREEN DOWD
WASHINGTON

Not since Iago and Othello obsessed on the comely Cassio, not since Richard of Gloucester killed his two nephews, not since Nixon and Johnson glowered at the glittering J.F.K., has there been such an unseemly outpouring of boy envy.

Bill Clinton, Jesse Jackson and John Edwards have all been crazed with envy over the ascendance of the new “It” guy, Barack Obama.

Unlike his wife, Bill Clinton — the master of fake sincerity — still continues to openly begrudge his party’s betrothed.

Asked by Kate Snow of ABC News in Africa whether Obama was ready to be president, Clinton gave a classic Clintonian answer: “You could argue that no one’s ever ready to be president.”

As always, the Big Dog was more concerned with himself — asserting that he’s not a racist — than his party. Bill Clinton is not a racist. We can posit that. But he did play subtle racial politics in the primary. It’s way past time for him to accept the fact that there’s a new wunderkind in town.

Just as Bill Clinton looks at Obama and sees his own oblivion, so does Jesse Jackson. As Shelby Steele wrote in The Wall Street Journal, Jackson and his generation of civil rights leaders “made keeping whites ‘on the hook’ the most sacred article of the post-’60s black identity,” equality pursued by manipulating white guilt.

Now John McCain is pea-green with envy. That’s the only explanation for why a man who prides himself on honor, a man who vowed not to take the low road in the campaign, having been mugged by W. and Rove in South Carolina in 2000, is engaging in a festival of juvenilia.

The Arizona senator who built his reputation on being a brave proponent of big solutions is running a schoolyard campaign about tire gauges and Paris Hilton, childishly accusing his opponent of being too serious, too popular and not patriotic enough.

Even his own mother, the magical 96-year-old Roberta McCain, let slip that she thought the Paris Hilton-Britney Spears ad was “kinda stupid.”

McCain’s 2000 strategist, John Weaver, was equally blunt with Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter: “It’s hard to imagine America responding to ‘small ball’ when we have all these problems.”

Some of McCain’s old pals in the Senate are cringing at what they see as his soulless transformation into what he once scorned.

“John’s eaten up with envy,” said one. “His image of himself was always the handsome, celebrity flyboy.

“Now somebody else is the celebrity,” the colleague continued, while John looks in the mirror and sees his face marred by skin cancer and looks at the TV and sees his dashing self-image replaced by visions of William Frawley, with Letterman jokes about his membership in the ham radio club and adventures with wagon trains.

For McCain, being cool meant being a rogue, not a policy wonk; but Obama manages to be a cool College Bowl type, which must irk McCain, who liked to play up his bad-boy cool. Now the guy in the back of the class is shooting spitballs at the class pet and is coming off as more juvenile than daring.

Around the McCain campaign, they grouse that Obama “hasn’t bled.” He hasn’t bled literally, in military service, just like W., the last holder of an E-ZPass who sped past McCain. And he hasn’t paid his dues in the Senate, since he basically just stopped by for directions to the Oval Office.

As a new senator, Obama was not only precocious enough to pounce on turf that McCain had invested years in, such as campaign finance lobbying, ethics reform and earmarks. When Obama did reach across the aisle for a mentor, it was to the staid Richard Lugar of Indiana, not to the salty Republican of choice for Democrats, McCain.

When the Illinois freshman took back a private promise to join McCain’s campaign finance reform effort, McCain told his aide Mark Salter to “brush him back.” Salter sent an over-the-top vituperative letter to Obama. “I guess I beaned him instead,” Salter told Newsweek’s Howard Fineman.

McCain could dismiss W. as a lightweight, but he knows Obama’s smart. Obama wrote his own books, while McCain’s were written by Salter. McCain knows he’s the affirmative action scion of admirals who might not have gotten through Annapolis without being a legacy. Obama didn’t even tell Harvard Law School that he was black on his application.

McCain upbraids Obama for being a poppet, while he’s becoming a puppet. His mouth is moving but the words coming out belong to his new hard-boiled strategist, Steve Schmidt, a Rove protégé, nicknamed “The Bullet” for his bald pate.

Schmidt has turned Mr. Straight Talk into Mr. Desperate Straits. It’s not a good trade.



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/06/opinion/06dowd.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

[ajmccarrell]

I get that this is an opinion, but I agree with what she says in that McCain has chosen to take the low road - a pity if you ask me:

August 6, 2008

Op-Ed Columnist

McCain’s Green-Eyed Monster


By MAUREEN DOWD
WASHINGTON

Not since Iago and Othello obsessed on the comely Cassio, not since Richard of Gloucester killed his two nephews, not since Nixon and Johnson glowered at the glittering J.F.K., has there been such an unseemly outpouring of boy envy.

Bill Clinton, Jesse Jackson and John Edwards have all been crazed with envy over the ascendance of the new “It” guy, Barack Obama.

Unlike his wife, Bill Clinton — the master of fake sincerity — still continues to openly begrudge his party’s betrothed.

Asked by Kate Snow of ABC News in Africa whether Obama was ready to be president, Clinton gave a classic Clintonian answer: “You could argue that no one’s ever ready to be president.”

As always, the Big Dog was more concerned with himself — asserting that he’s not a racist — than his party. Bill Clinton is not a racist. We can posit that. But he did play subtle racial politics in the primary. It’s way past time for him to accept the fact that there’s a new wunderkind in town.

Just as Bill Clinton looks at Obama and sees his own oblivion, so does Jesse Jackson. As Shelby Steele wrote in The Wall Street Journal, Jackson and his generation of civil rights leaders “made keeping whites ‘on the hook’ the most sacred article of the post-’60s black identity,” equality pursued by manipulating white guilt.

Now John McCain is pea-green with envy. That’s the only explanation for why a man who prides himself on honor, a man who vowed not to take the low road in the campaign, having been mugged by W. and Rove in South Carolina in 2000, is engaging in a festival of juvenilia.

The Arizona senator who built his reputation on being a brave proponent of big solutions is running a schoolyard campaign about tire gauges and Paris Hilton, childishly accusing his opponent of being too serious, too popular and not patriotic enough.

Even his own mother, the magical 96-year-old Roberta McCain, let slip that she thought the Paris Hilton-Britney Spears ad was “kinda stupid.”

McCain’s 2000 strategist, John Weaver, was equally blunt with Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter: “It’s hard to imagine America responding to ‘small ball’ when we have all these problems.”

Some of McCain’s old pals in the Senate are cringing at what they see as his soulless transformation into what he once scorned.

“John’s eaten up with envy,” said one. “His image of himself was always the handsome, celebrity flyboy.

“Now somebody else is the celebrity,” the colleague continued, while John looks in the mirror and sees his face marred by skin cancer and looks at the TV and sees his dashing self-image replaced by visions of William Frawley, with Letterman jokes about his membership in the ham radio club and adventures with wagon trains.

For McCain, being cool meant being a rogue, not a policy wonk; but Obama manages to be a cool College Bowl type, which must irk McCain, who liked to play up his bad-boy cool. Now the guy in the back of the class is shooting spitballs at the class pet and is coming off as more juvenile than daring.

Around the McCain campaign, they grouse that Obama “hasn’t bled.” He hasn’t bled literally, in military service, just like W., the last holder of an E-ZPass who sped past McCain. And he hasn’t paid his dues in the Senate, since he basically just stopped by for directions to the Oval Office.

As a new senator, Obama was not only precocious enough to pounce on turf that McCain had invested years in, such as campaign finance lobbying, ethics reform and earmarks. When Obama did reach across the aisle for a mentor, it was to the staid Richard Lugar of Indiana, not to the salty Republican of choice for Democrats, McCain.

When the Illinois freshman took back a private promise to join McCain’s campaign finance reform effort, McCain told his aide Mark Salter to “brush him back.” Salter sent an over-the-top vituperative letter to Obama. “I guess I beaned him instead,” Salter told Newsweek’s Howard Fineman.

McCain could dismiss W. as a lightweight, but he knows Obama’s smart. Obama wrote his own books, while McCain’s were written by Salter. McCain knows he’s the affirmative action scion of admirals who might not have gotten through Annapolis without being a legacy. Obama didn’t even tell Harvard Law School that he was black on his application.

McCain upbraids Obama for being a poppet, while he’s becoming a puppet. His mouth is moving but the words coming out belong to his new hard-boiled strategist, Steve Schmidt, a Rove protégé, nicknamed “The Bullet” for his bald pate.

Schmidt has turned Mr. Straight Talk into Mr. Desperate Straits. It’s not a good trade.



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/06/opinion/06dowd.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

It's been effective. He's now tied with Obama on most polls. That is, if you consider polls trustworthy. Reality usually swings a little further to the right than polls would indicate, as a brief comparison of polls to election results would show. Most conservatives have been shown to hang up the phone or not want to talk to pollsters. When I took statistics, we even studied that conservatives tend not to answer polling questions, or are not at home during times when a lot of polls are conducted. Most of them are not foaming at the mouth, waiting to express an opinion like I am. :nod:

[strandinthewind]

It's been effective . . . .

I do not think anyone is arguiong that. I certainly am not. I am saying that McCain has sunk to a low to achieve that effectiveness. Sadly, McCain could not do it on the issues or with statesman like poise, which he had maintained up until now. Now, he is no better than Rove, and that is saying alot and it makes McCain onbe step closer to W than he already is.

Do you actually advocate the use of these untrue associations in an attempt to smear someone with no regard to their actual stance on issues? If you do, that, to me, is very sad.

And, I would call out Obama or anyone else if he did this kind of cowardly behaviour.

I truly have lost the respect I had for McCain and I had a bunch.

To see one selling their soul to the devil for, in the end, vanity, is never pretty :shrug:

[ajmccarrell]

I do not think anyone is arguiong that. I certainly am not. I am saying that McCain has sunk to a low to achieve that effectiveness. Sadly, McCain could not do it on the issues or with statesman like poise, which he had maintained up until now. Now, he is no better than Rove, and that is saying alot and it makes McCain onbe step closer to W than he already is.

Do you actually advocate the use of these untrue associations in an attempt to smear someone with no regard to their actual stance on issues? If you do, that, to me, is very sad.

And, I would call out Obama or anyone else if he did this kind of cowardly behaviour.

I truly have lost the respect I had for McCain and I had a bunch.

To see one selling their soul to the devil for, in the end, vainity, is never pretty :shrug:

I don't see anything untrue there at all. What has McCain said in his ads that isn't true? Obama isn't experienced, he is tied to Hollywood, he does have a Messiah complex. I mean, Obama does like to be fawned over. He accused a reporter that challenged his position of being a schill for McCain. He loses his temper when media figures don't gaze into his eyes lovingly and bow at his feet. :xoxo: The guy really is the height of arrogance. He's also spending the day of the Republican convention in Europe with Clooney and other celebrities. He is tied into Hollywood and sadly Paris Hilton has a more comprehensive energy plan than he does. It's actually the same as McCain's.

I don't blame McCain for doing what he did at all because he needs the coverage. We all know what color Obama's bowel movements were every day and McCain states a position and gets no coverage. So.... You just want him to lay over and let Obama's official campaign headquarters at NBC steamroll him?

It's also not know if McCain could beat him on the issues or not because Obama refused to debate them, time and time again, but only after agreeing to debate. :laugh:

I agree though. Obama is a new kind of candidate. Most candidates and wafflers pick one side at a time. Obama manages to be on both sides of an issue at the same time. :]

Oh yeah, and I like Karl Rove. :p

[strandinthewind]

I don't see anything untrue there at all. What has McCain said in his ads that isn't true? . . . .

Please see the aove posts regarding the immediate effets of oil lies.

Also, the ad was, once again, a clear insult to Obama, comparing him to two white girls who are widely regarded as idiots, one with mental and legal problems and one with a criminal record. That implication was clear. In other words, the same point could have been made by using non-criminal and/or mentally challenged stars like George Clooney, Will Smith, etc. Yet, McCain chose the Rove method od putting the black guy against the blond hotties. That to me is pathetic and it ought to be to you too.

But, I really do not feel like arguing it anymore. So, I will refer to this post and the 100 or so before it for future reference.

That you like Rove is not a compliment to you. The man used lies and innuendo to destroy honorable people.

[ajmccarrell]

Please see the aove posts regarding the immediate effets of oil lies.

Also, the ad was, once again, a clear insult to Obama, comparing him to two white girls who are widely regarded as idiots, one with mental and legal problems and one with a criminal record. That implication was clear. In other words, the same point could have been made by using non-criminal and/or mentally challenged stars like George Clooney, Will Smith, etc. Yet, McCain chose the Rove method od putting the black guy against the blond hotties. That to me is pathetic and it ought to be to you too.

But, I really do not feel like arguing it anymore. So, I will refer to this post and the 100 or so before it for future reference.

That you like Rove is not a compliment to you. The man used lies and innuendo to destroy honorable people.

I think it was more of comparing Obama to two women that the press obsess over was more the point. We know more about Paris Hilton and Britney Spears than we would like to.

However, Obama isn't exactly squeaky. The comparison to someone who went to jail isn't exactly unfair either. There are those from his college days that accuse him of selling drugs to finance his own habits of "coke & blow". From reading his book, I'm not really concerned about that at this point, as it was so long ago. He was a different person back then and I think that what people do as kids or very young adults shouldn't be held against them, when they have obviously compensated for it. My opinion is "who cares, look at what he's done now". Still...... looking even currently, he's morphed into something a little more insidious than a college pot pusher. Criminal activity creeps up in Obama's own more recent campaigns in Illinois and for President. We all know about Obama's connection to Bill Ayers and Tony Rezco, right? Rezco gave Obama a sweet deal on his house and put it in his own name as a favor to Obama. Ayers admits being involved in domestic terrorist plots. Obama made his plans to announce his candidacy in Ayers house. Rezco is in prison and Ayers certainly belongs there, and both have traded favors with Obama. No one has accused Obama of anything outright illegal (yet), but it certainly is on the par with what Ted Stevens is accused of, or for that matter, Tom Delay, both of which are also inexcusable human beings who abused their positions. It demonstrates EXTREMELY poor judgement in either case.