All Things Barack Obama

Straining A Point
July 16, 2008
An Obama ad says he has a "fast track alternative" to imported oil. Actually, it's a 10-year proposal with no guarantees.
Summary
Obama released a national ad saying he has "fast-track alternatives" to imported oil. On closer examination, those turn out to be his proposal to spend $150 billion over the coming decade on energy research. Ten years doesn't sound all that "fast" to us, and there's no guarantee that the research will result in less oil being imported.

Full article cross posted at

factcheckdotorg

4 comments|Leave a comment

[Jul. 18th, 2008|09:36 pm]

McCain's Small-Business Bunk

Questionable Quotes

July 18, 2008

Vets for Freedom ad attributes CIA chief's viewpoint to a critical newspaper.

Summary

Vets for Freedom, a group made up of veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, launched a new ad this week that falsely attributes a quote to the Washington Post. The ad gives the impression that the Post was a critic of the surge in Iraq and is now admitting it was wrong. But the words the group uses are the views of the head of the CIA, not the newspaper.

Analysis

The independent group Vets for Freedom released its second in a pair of ads about the presidential campaign on July 16, saying it will air in Ohio, Michigan, Virginia, Pennsylvania, New Mexico and in some cable markets. The organization earlier launched two Web ads in May that were critical of Sen. Barack Obama and the fact that he hadn't visited Iraq since January 2006. Vets for Freedom calls itself a nonpartisan organization that supports both Democrats and Republicans "who have stood behind our great generation of American warriors on the battlefield." But its chairman also conceded to the Washington Post that the message in its ads is nearly identical to what McCain has been saying in his campaign. McCain supporters Sen. Joe Lieberman and Sen. Lindsey Graham also stepped down from the group's board of advisers in May, citing "McCain campaign guidelines."

Neither of the two recent ads mention presidential candidates by name. They both feature several veterans saying that "the surge worked" and that "we need to finish the job" in Iraq "no matter who is president." Several quotes are also displayed on screen. But in one case, the ads misrepresent the words of the Washington Post.

Vets for Freedom Ad: "Some in Washington"

Veteran 1: Some in Washington told us the war was lost.
On screen: "I believe ... that this war is lost," Senator Harry Reid. CBS/AP 4/19/07
Veteran 2: Others said the surge would fail
On screen: "It is a course that will not succeed," Senator Barack Obama. Huffington Post 9/13/07
Veteran 3: But while they argued
On screen: "[The Surge] ... is wrong," Senator Chuck Hagel. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing 1/11/07
Veteran 4: We continued to fight
Veteran 5: Today, even the harshest critics agree, the surge worked
Veteran 6: the surge worked
Veteran 7: Al Qaeda has been decimated ...
On screen: Washington Post 5/31/08 "essentially defeated."
Veteran 3: and the Iraqi government grows stronger each day.
Veteran 4: These are the facts
Veteran 1: They cannot be denied
Veteran 3: While some many not like this war
Veteran 7: Those that fought it
Veteran 5: know we can't afford to lose
Veteran 1: We need to finish the job
Veteran 4: We need to finish the job
Announcer: No matter who is president.

In the most recent ad, one of the veterans says, "Today, even the harshest critics agree, the surge worked," and another repeats, "The surge worked." Then, the quote "essentially defeated" appears on screen, attributed to the Washington Post, as another veteran adds, "al Qaeda has been decimated." But the Post never said that al Qaeda had been "essentially defeated." Those are the paraphrased words of CIA Chief Michael Hayden.

The newspaper described Hayden's remarks in an interview with the Post in late May. (Actually, the story ran May 30, not May 31 as the ad says.):

Washington Post, May 30: Less than a year after his agency warned of new threats from a resurgent al-Qaeda, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden now portrays the terrorist movement as essentially defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and on the defensive throughout much of the rest of the world, including in its presumed haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

The ad gives viewers the impression that the Post had been one of the "harshest critics" of the surge and that the paper had recently confessed it was wrong. But the quote the ad uses is not the assessment of the newspaper – it's the view of the head of the CIA.

Filching the credibility of news organizations isn't a new tactic: We've taken issue with it before, most recently in parsing ads that ran in both the Republican and Democratic primaries.

For those who might be curious, in the same story, the Post included differing views on the condition of al Qaeda:

Washington Post: The sense of shifting tides in the terrorism fight is shared by a number of terrorism experts, though some caution that it is too early to tell whether the gains are permanent. Some credit Hayden and other U.S. intelligence leaders for going on the offensive against al-Qaeda in the area along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, where the tempo of Predator strikes has dramatically increased from previous years. But analysts say the United States has caught some breaks in the past year, benefiting from improved conditions in Iraq, as well as strategic blunders by al-Qaeda that have cut into its support base.

Obama Quote

One of the veterans in the ad also says that politicians "said the surge would fail," as a quote from Obama – "It is a course that will not succeed" – is displayed. But Obama wasn't predicting that the surge would fail to reduce the level of violence. His words actually referred to Bush's stewardship of the war overall. The words that are quoted were said in September 2007, eight months after the president announced the surge plan. Here's the quote in context:

Obama: So, I think it is fair to say that the president has simply tried to gain another six months to continue on the same course that he's been on for several years now. It is a course that will not succeed. It is a course that is exacting an enormous toll on the American people, enormous toll on our troops who have performed brilliantly and done everything that's been asked of them and is not making us more safe.

– by Justin Bank, with Lori Robertson

Sources

"Mashup Transcript: Barack Obama." Huffington Post, 13 Sept. 2007.

Warrick, Joby. "U.S. Cites Big Gains Against Al-Qaeda." Washington Post, 30 May 2008.

He claims 23 million small-business owners would pay higher tax rates under Obama. He's wrong. The vast majority would see no change, and many would get a cut.

AFL-CIO Falsely Attacks McCain

It runs an ad claiming McCain voted "against increasing health care benefits for veterans," when he actually voted repeatedly to increase them.

Copyright © 2003 - 2008, Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania
FactCheck.org's staff, not the Annenberg Center, is responsible for this material.

1 comment|Leave a comment

Jon Stewart on the recent Obama cartoon/media response

[Jul. 16th, 2008|02:35 pm]

Good stuff, this.

1 comment|Leave a comment

[Jul. 15th, 2008|01:43 am]

AFL-CIO Falsely Attacks McCain

McCain's Small-Business Bunk

July 14, 2008

He claims 23 million small-business owners would pay higher tax rates under Obama. He's wrong. The vast majority would see no change, and many would get a cut.

Summary

McCain has repeatedly claimed that Obama would raise tax rates for 23 million small-business owners. It's a false and preposterously inflated figure.

We find that the overwhelming majority of those small-business owners would see no increase, because they earn too little to be affected. Obama's tax proposal would raise rates only on couples making more than $250,000 or singles earning more than $200,000.

McCain argues that Obama's proposed increase is a job-killer. He has a point. It's true that increasing taxes on those at the top would leave them less money for other purposes, including investment and hiring in the case of business owners. But the number of business owners who would see their rates go up would be only a small fraction of what McCain says. Many would see their taxes go down.

Analysis

Sen. John McCain has been making this false claim over and over, starting with a July 7 speech announcing his "jobs for America" plan:

McCain, July 7: Senator Obama's tax increases will hurt the economy even more, and destroy jobs across this country. If you are one of the 23 million small-business owners in America who files as an individual rate payer, Senator Obama is going to raise your tax rates.

He repeated it in an address to the League of United Latin American Citizens the next day:

McCain, July 8: Keeping individual rates low isn't intended as a favor to wealthy Americans. 23 million small-business owners pay those rates, and taking more money from them deprives them of the capital they need to invest and grow and hire.

He said it again at a campaign event July 9:

McCain, July 9: If you are one of the 23 million small-business owners in America who files as an individual rate payer, Senator Obama is willing to raise your tax rates.

And he repeated it in the first of a planned series of radio addresses July 12:

McCain, July 12: If you are one of the 23 million small-business owners who files as an individual rate payer, watch out – because as your business grows, my opponent proposes to raise your taxes.

But repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true. McCain's 23 million claim is a bogus figure.

Outdated, Inflated, Inapplicable

To justify the 23 million figure, McCain spokesman Brian Rogers referred us to a press release by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which refers to "23 million small business owners" without citing a source. That is actually an outdated count of all the businesses in the United States, produced by the U.S. Census for 2002, when the Economic Census counted a total of 23,343,821 business firms of all sizes. Of those, 16,845 firms employed 500 persons or more, which still leaves just over 23.3 million classified as "small" by the widely accepted definition that we will use here.

That figure is six years out of date. The U.S. Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy estimates the total number of "small" firms with fewer than 500 workers reached 26.8 million in 2006. That's the most recent estimate. But it is also inflated. Since the total U.S. population was just under 300 million in 2006, it would mean that one in every 11 Americans – men, women and children – is a "small-business owner."

It turns out, SBA's estimate includes more than 20 million "nonemployer" firms, an unknown number of them sideline or hobby businesses run by persons who actually make their living some other way. Census and SBA count as a "small business" anyone who reported as little as $1,000 of business receipts. By that very broad definition, John McCain himself is a "small-business owner," because his tax return shows Schedule C income from book royalties. For that matter, Barack Obama would also be a small-business owner, by virtue of his book income. As would President Bush and Vice President Cheney, as we pointed out in 2004. Of the 26.8 million that SBA counts as "small businesses," fewer than 6 million are actually "employer firms" with any payroll.

From this, we must conclude that to arrive at his 23 million figure, McCain is counting mostly "business owners" with no workers, including those who simply report small amounts of income from sideline or freelance work. McCain is arguing that Obama's tax increase would "destroy jobs," but he's counting mostly firms that don't produce any.

That in itself is seriously misleading. If McCain wants to focus on the effects of Obama's plan on employment, he would do better to confine his count to employers – the just under 6 million firms that actually have workers. And even that figure wouldn't be applicable because Obama's tax increase wouldn't fall on all employers, only on those in the top two income tax brackets.

McCain Campaign's Statement

1. These small businesses are subject to Sen. Obama's pay or play health care plan: The tax will either be in the form of health insurance to
workers or cash to the government.

2. Further, even giving Obama the benefit of the doubt, if they make
over $250,000 and file as individuals or have capital gain or dividends, their taxes go up, as Obama has promised.

Note US Chamber cites 23 million figure: "The U.S. Chamber is proud to pay special tribute to some of its most valued constituents: America's
23 million small business owners"

McCain's Non-explanation

McCain cannot justify his 23 million claim. We asked McCain spokesman Brian Rogers for substantiation and received the statement that we reprint here. We find it simply won't do.

Rogers starts by saying that Obama's health care proposal to provide coverage for uninsured workers would amount to a "tax," either in the form of higher costs for covering employees or "cash to the government." But McCain was talking about income tax rates, not higher business costs. That's not justifying McCain's claim; that's trying to change the subject.

Furthermore – as we've just seen – the vast majority of those that McCain is counting as small-business owners have no employees and wouldn't encounter any added costs for covering workers. Obama's plan wouldn't apply to every small employer, either. It says: "Small employers that meet certain revenue thresholds will be exempt." Also, after Rogers sent his message, Obama announced July 13 that he is proposing to grant $6 billion per year in tax credits for small businesses that provide health insurance plans, covering up to half the cost of premiums paid to cover employees.

As for actual income tax rates, which is what McCain keeps talking about, Rogers says "if they make over $250,000 and file as individuals ... their taxes go up." But this leaves out all but a very small fraction of those McCain counts as small-business owners. Rogers also says taxes will go up if small-business owners "have capital gains or dividends," but Obama's proposal would not increase rates on capital gains or dividends for couples making under $250,000, or singles making under about $200,000, regardless of whether they are classified as small-business owners or not.

How Many Would Actually Pay More?

McCain is right about one thing. Many small-business owners would indeed see their taxes go up if Obama is elected and raises the top income-tax rates. According to a survey from the National Federation of Independent Businesses, about eight out of 10 small-business owners responding to the poll report that they are organized legally in a way that would require them to pay taxes on their business income as individuals, rather than as a corporation. But since Obama's plan wouldn't affect those making less than $250,000 for couples, or about $200,000 for singles, we need to estimate how many would fall into those high-income categories.

Obama's plan, according to his economic policy director Jason Furman, would return the top two federal income-tax rates to what they were before Bush lowered them. In addition, Obama would adjust the income-tax brackets to ensure that no married couple making under $250,000 or single filer making under $200,000 would pay the top rates.

The actual number of business owners who would be affected turns out to be well under a million, and the number of employers would be even less. Based on the number of taxpayers who now report any sort of business income on their returns, the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center projects that 663,608 taxpayers with business income, or business losses, will fall into the top two tax brackets in 2009, when any Obama tax changes would first take effect. Not all of those can properly be called "small-business owners," however. Some are farmers. Many are lawyers, accountants or other professionals who get some of their income in the form of partnership distributions. Others may be passive investors in real-estate partnerships or similar investment arrangements and not really persons who own and manage a business.

It is also not clear how many who report business income actually employ any workers. In 2004, the Tax Policy Center found that hundreds of thousands of individual taxpayers who had business income from partnerships or subchapter-S corporations (whose owners pay taxes as individuals) did not claim any tax deductions for employee expenses. For all these reasons we judge that the actual number of small-business employers who would face higher tax rates under Obama is probably far below 663,608, and certainly a far cry from McCain's ridiculously inflated 23 million figure.

Lower Taxes for Many

While Obama's plan would raise rates at the top, it also would grant what he calls a “Making Work Pay” tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family. Since this credit would not begin to phase down for couples making less than $150,000, we judge it likely that many, if not most of the 23 million that McCain counts as "small-business owners" would likely get tax reductions.

An Echo of Bush

McCain's claim struck us as wildly improbable the first time we heard it because we debunked a much less expansive claim that President Bush made about John Kerry in 2004. Bush ran a TV ad saying that Kerry's proposal to raise taxes on persons making more than $200,000 a year would affect 900,000 small-business owners. We found Bush's number to be far too high. We noted that Bush was counting as a "small-business owner" anyone who reported even $1 of business or partnership income, regardless of how the taxpayer made their living. At that time, the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center estimated that a total of 471,000 small-business employers could be affected.

– by Brooks Jackson

Sources

John McCain 2008. "Remarks By John McCain On His Jobs For America Economic Plan," 7 July 2008.

CQ Transcripts. "McCain Addresses the League of United Latin American Citizens." washingtonpost.com, 8 July 2008.

John McCain 2008. "Remarks by John McCain at his Ohio Town Hall Meeting," 9 July 2008.

John McCain 2008. "John McCain's Weekly Radio Address," 12 July 2008.

U.S. Census Bureau. "Statistics about Business Size (including Small Business) from the U.S. Census Bureau," Web site accessed 14 July 2008.

Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration. "Frequently Asked Questions; How many small businesses are there?" Web site accessed 14 July 2008.

Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration. "Private Firms, Establishments, Employment, Annual Payroll and Receipts by Firm Size, 1988-2005," accessed 14 July 2008.

U.C. Census Bureau. "Nonemployer statistics: Coverage and Methodology," accessed 14 July 2008.

Claudia Parsons. "Obama proposes small business tax credits for health." Reuters, 14 July 2008.

Table T08-0164 "Distribution of Tax Units with Business Income by Statutory Marginal Tax Rate, Assuming Extension and Indexation of the 2007 AMT Patch, 2009" Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, 20 May 2008.

"Kerry tax plan and small business." Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, 14 Sept. 2004.

It runs an ad claiming McCain voted "against increasing health care benefits for veterans," when he actually voted repeatedly to increase them.

The $32,000 Question

The McCain campaign falsely claims that Obama voted to raise income taxes on individuals earning "as little as $32,000 per year."

Tax Tally Trickery

Republicans claim Obama "voted 94 times for higher taxes." But their count is inflated and misleading.

Copyright © 2003 - 2008, Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania
FactCheck.org's staff, not the Annenberg Center, is responsible for this material.

2 comments|Leave a comment

Obama's Op-Ed about Iraq in today's New York Times

[Jul. 14th, 2008|09:12 am]

My Plan for Iraq (Barack Obama, 7/14/08, New York Times)

CHICAGO — The call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity. We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States.

The differences on Iraq in this campaign are deep. Unlike Senator John McCain, I opposed the war in Iraq before it began, and would end it as president. I believed it was a grave mistake to allow ourselves to be distracted from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban by invading a country that posed no imminent threat and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Since then, more than 4,000 Americans have died and we have spent nearly $1 trillion. Our military is overstretched. Nearly every threat we face — from Afghanistan to Al Qaeda to Iran — has grown.

In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge, our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda — greatly weakening its effectiveness.

But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we’ve spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted. Iraq’s leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge.

The good news is that Iraq’s leaders want to take responsibility for their country by negotiating a timetable for the removal of American troops. Meanwhile, Lt. Gen. James Dubik, the American officer in charge of training Iraq’s security forces, estimates that the Iraqi Army and police will be ready to assume responsibility for security in 2009.

Only by redeploying our troops can we press the Iraqis to reach comprehensive political accommodation and achieve a successful transition to Iraqis’ taking responsibility for the security and stability of their country. Instead of seizing the moment and encouraging Iraqis to step up, the Bush administration and Senator McCain are refusing to embrace this transition — despite their previous commitments to respect the will of Iraq’s sovereign government. They call any timetable for the removal of American troops “surrender,” even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government.

But this is not a strategy for success — it is a strategy for staying that runs contrary to the will of the Iraqi people, the American people and the security interests of the United States. That is why, on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war.

As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal.

In carrying out this strategy, we would inevitably need to make tactical adjustments. As I have often said, I would consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government to ensure that our troops were redeployed safely, and our interests protected. We would move them from secure areas first and volatile areas later. We would pursue a diplomatic offensive with every nation in the region on behalf of Iraq’s stability, and commit $2 billion to a new international effort to support Iraq’s refugees.

Ending the war is essential to meeting our broader strategic goals, starting in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the Taliban is resurgent and Al Qaeda has a safe haven. Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and it never has been. As Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently pointed out, we won’t have sufficient resources to finish the job in Afghanistan until we reduce our commitment to Iraq.

As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan. We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there. I would not hold our military, our resources and our foreign policy hostage to a misguided desire to maintain permanent bases in Iraq.

In this campaign, there are honest differences over Iraq, and we should discuss them with the thoroughness they deserve. Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea, and would redeploy our troops out of Iraq and focus on the broader security challenges that we face. But for far too long, those responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy have ignored useful debate in favor of making false charges about flip-flops and surrender.

It’s not going to work this time. It’s time to end this war.

1 comment|Leave a comment

[Jul. 13th, 2008|02:08 pm]

German row over Obama speech plan

A leading German politician is the latest to criticise a tentative plan by Barack Obama to speak at Berlin's historic Brandenburg Gate.

Erwin Huber, the leader of one of the main governing parties, said the Democratic White House hopeful had played no part in German reunification.

Chancellor Angela Merkel earlier said it was "a bit odd" that Mr Obama should speak at the Cold War landmark.

Mr Obama is to visit Europe and the Middle East in late July.

His campaign team said the Brandenburg Gate was one of several locations they had inquired about as the venue for a speech.

Political row

"Obama didn't do anything for German unification," Mr Huber said.

"That's not a criticism, but as a result there is no reason to grant him such a privilege," he told the Welt am Sonntag newspaper.

Mr Huber is the head of the Christian Social Union (CSU), the sister party to Mrs Merkel's conservative Christian Democratic Union. The leader of the CSU traditionally plays a prominent role on the national political scene in Germany.

Mr Obama's suggestion has created a political row in Germany.

Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, of the centre-left Social Democrats, has welcomed the idea of Mr Obama speaking at the gate.

Mr Steinmeier and Mrs Merkel are likely to face each other in an election next year.

Berlin city officials have also said they would be delighted if Mr Obama spoke at the Brandenburg Gate. They would have the ultimate say over whether to grant him permission.

Mrs Merkel said earlier in the week that she would not like to see the historical landmark used for "electioneering".

But a spokesman for the chancellor said "we are confident that we will reach a mutual and good solution which does justice to the interests of all involved".

Her office, meanwhile, has denied media reports that the White House put pressure on German officials to reject the speech plan.

The Brandenburg Gate became a symbol of Germany's division - and later reunification - when it was cut off by the Berlin Wall that East Germany's Communist leaders built in the 1960s.

It was the backdrop for a famous speech by former US President Ronald Reagan in 1987, when he called on the Soviet Union to tear down the Berlin Wall.

Several other US presidents, including John F Kennedy and Bill Clinton, have delivered major speeches in Berlin.

2 comments|Leave a comment

[Jul. 11th, 2008|02:44 pm]

ideasmith

For My Politically Active Friends, I present to you, the Barack Obama Line From me... they and others can be found at www.lightgreentee.com

[Jul. 9th, 2008|10:51 pm]

Obama Polishes His Resume

A False Accusation About Energy

July 9, 2008

An RNC ad claims Obama has "no new solutions" to the energy problem, when he actually proposes $150 billion worth.

Summary

A new ad from the Republican National Committee claims Barack Obama proposes "no new solutions" for the energy and climate crises. In fact, the Illinois senator has proposed $150 billion in spending over 10 years for biofuels, plug-in hybrids, low-emission coal plants and the rapid commercialization of other new, clean energy technologies. The ad also recycles the misleading claim that Obama has said "no" to nuclear. Obama said he is open to nuclear if it is clean and safe.

And while the ad correctly says that Obama is against lifting the gas tax and against more production "here at home" (read: lifting the federal ban on more offshore oil drilling), neither of those steps is likely to be a "solution" for the problems at hand.

Analysis

The RNC made a $3 million buy for its ad, titled "Balance," which is airing in the battleground states of Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. It began airing July 5 and is scheduled to run through July 15.

“No New Solutions”?

RNC Ad: "Balance"

Announcer: Record gas prices. A climate in crisis. John McCain says solve it now with a balanced plan: Alternative energy, conservation, suspending the gas tax and more production here at home. He’s pushing his own party to face climate change. But Barack Obama? For conservation, but he just says no to lower gas taxes, no to nuclear, no to more production. no new solutions. Barack Obama: Just the party line. The RNC is responsible for the content of this message.

The ad's most misleading claim is that Obama proposes "no new solutions" to the intertwined climate change and energy crises. In fact, Obama has an entire Web page dedicated to his proposals for the future of energy policy. One is a 10-year, $150 billion spending plan that would go toward clean coal technology; further development of plug-in hybrid cars; and commercialization of wind, solar and other renewable fuels. The RNC and McCain may not like all of Obama's ideas, just as Obama may not support all of McCain’s, but that doesn’t mean that they don't exist. While McCain recently proposed The Lexington Project, which includes spending $2 billion annually toward clean coal technology advancement, McCain doesn't have a plan comparable to Obama's in scale of spending. In addition, Obama's spending proposal predates McCain's Lexington Project by over six months.

No to "Nuclear"?

We’ve been through this. Obama has not said a flat-out "no" to nuclear, as the ad claims. Instead he has said he is in favor of nuclear energy if it is clean and safe, saying in his energy plan that "it is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power from the table." But it’s true McCain is more aggressive in his support of nuclear power, giving it a prominent place in his energy plan, with the goal of creating 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030 and as many as 100 total. Obama’s energy plan contains no such initiative.

No to "Lower Gas Taxes"?

The ad claims Obama is against lowering the gas tax, which is true enough. However, McCain’s original proposal to eliminate the federal tax for consumers would only have covered a portion of this year – from Memorial Day to Labor Day – and much of that period is already past. Obama and many independent analysts have argued that such a plan would do little to lower costs for average consumers and, if it did, would only lead to higher demand, leading in turn to higher prices down the road.

No to "More Production"?

It’s also true Obama is against lifting the ban on increasing drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf, and it's worth noting that both McCain and Obama oppose drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). As for the Outer Continental shelf, more drilling could indeed produce more oil, but not right away. The Energy Information Administration says that there are "substantial resources of crude oil" offshore. However, it also notes that both time and money would be required to produce any oil from areas that are currently off-limits. Specifically, it estimates that no production would begin until 2017 and that it would take until 2030 to reach peak production, increasing total domestic production by 3 percent.

And even then, the EIA study says, "Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant."

Any notion that drilling could start more quickly than EIA estimates should be weighed against the fact that there is a shortage of drill ships. According to a New York Times article published last month, existing rigs are booked solid for the next five years. While shipyards have begun work on new ships, it will be some time before there are enough to accelerate the pace of offshore exploration, whether or not new areas are opened.

McCain's "Pushing" on Climate Change

The ad's right when it says McCain is "pushing his own party to face climate change." His efforts date back to 2000, when he first acknowledged that he was concerned by the "mounting evidence" presented by members of the scientific community. In 2003 he joined with Sen. Joe Lieberman, then a Democrat, to introduce a bill to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions.

–by Emi Kolawole

Sources

"Climate Change: McCain Expresses Global Warming Worries." Greenwire, 18 May 2000.

Cohn, Peter. "McCain Sets Three Hearings for First Week of New congress." Congressional Quarterly Daily Monitor, 23 Dec. 2002.

"McCain, Lieberman Introduce Plan to Cut Greenhouse Emissions." The Bulletin's Frontrunner, 9 Jan. 2003.

Republican Party ad assails Obama on energy. 6 Jul. 2008. The Associated Press, 8 Jul. 2008.

Mouwad, Jad. Economists Weigh McCain's Gas-Tax Plan. 37 Apr. 2008. The Caucus: The New York Times Politics Blog, 8 Jul. 2008.

Impact of Increased Access to Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Lower 48 Federal Outer Continental Shelf. The Energy Information Administration, 2007.

Distorting Obama

McCain's new Web ad misrepresents some of the Democrat's positions on energy.

His first ad of the post-primary season puffs up his legislative accomplishments.

Obama's Lame Claim About McCain's Money

Obama says McCain is "fueled" by money from lobbyists and PACs, but those sources account for less than 1.7 percent of McCain's money.

McCain's Power Outage

Contradictions and misstatements short-circuit McCain's energy policy pronouncements.

Copyright © 2003 - 2008, Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania
FactCheck.org's staff, not the Annenberg Center, is responsible for this material.

1 comment|Leave a comment

[Jul. 8th, 2008|04:54 pm]

Just thought some people might be interested in Obama coverage in the UK.

US candidates spar over economy

US presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama have laid out rival economic plans as they attempt to woo voters on the campaign trail.

Mr McCain, the Republican contender, said that Democratic rival Barack Obama wanted voters to pay more taxes.

Mr Obama accused Mr McCain of offering a plan that would benefit only big corporations and multi-millionaires.

The comments came as his team said that his convention speech this summer will be given in a 76,000 capacity stadium.

Slow economy

The two candidates are both focusing their campaigns on economic issues this week.

Mr McCain has been in Denver, where he launched his "Jobs for America" plan.

Unveiling his proposals, the Arizona senator accepted that the economy was "slowing", and accused Mr Obama of favouring policies that would be economically harmful.

[Mr McCain's] policies would actually add more than $2 or $3 trillion to the national debt over the next decade
Barack Obama

"If you believe you should pay more taxes... Senator Obama is your man," he said

"I will cut them where I can."

Mr McCain called for a cut in estate tax and an increase in the tax deduction Americans with children receive, as well as for an expansion in free trade agreements and a review of government spending.

And he said that Mr Obama's plan to oblige employers to provide healthcare schemes for employees would stifle small businesses and halt job growth.

Mr Obama had planned to outline his economic plan in North Carolina, but after his plane made an unscheduled landing because of a malfunction, he was forced to deliver his remarks in St Louis, Missouri.

He said that Mr McCain's proposals were "very much the same as those we have seen from the Bush Administration", and that his rival's tax-cut plans would "add more than $2 or $3 trillion to the national debt over the next decade and weaken our economy even further".

And he pledged to introduce a stimulus package to help Americans struggling with current economic conditions, on top of "a middle-class tax cut that will provide $1,000 of relief to 95% of workers and their families", funded by closing down "corporate loopholes and tax havens".

As Mr Obama prepared to unveil his economic plan, his campaign team revealed that the last night of this summer's Democratic National Convention, when the Illinois senator is set to make his speech accepting the Democratic presidential nomination, will be staged at a 76,000 capacity sports stadium.

The first three days of the Convention will be held as planned at a Denver convention centre, but the finale will be moved to the Invesco Field at Mile High Stadium, home to the Denver Broncos American Football team.

Obama = smart McCain= Dumb

[Jul. 8th, 2008|02:20 pm]

It's really smart of Obama to bring back some great ideas that he was for and McCain was against a few years ago that today seem like obvious policy moves. I mean, who is going to vote against helping people in the military who might lose their homes because of their national service? Oh, right, McCain would...

War Room
By Alex Koppelman
Tuesday, July 8, 2008 10:01 EDT
Obama proposes bankruptcy relief
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/?last_story=/politics/war_room/2008/07/08/obama_bankruptcy/
Reuters reports that Barack Obama will propose modifications of a controversial 2005 bankruptcy "reform" law in remarks today at a town hall meeting in an Atlanta suburb.

This is Day Two of the presidential campaign's latest Economy Week, and Obama's Atlanta speech will propose an overhaul of bankruptcy laws "to ease their impact on people unable to pay their bills because of medical expenses or military service."

It appears that Obama's proposal will track some key amendments to the 2005 law that were voted down in the Senate, with Obama supporting them and McCain in opposition. Obama voted against final passage of the new law, and McCain supported it.
( Read more... )

want proof that the media is NOT going easy on obama?

[Jul. 4th, 2008|03:08 pm]

McCain gets busy, the media gets spun, and Obama gets screwed (7/4/08)

The more the presidential campaign unfolds, the more it resembles a Twilight Zone episode in which reality has no meaning at all.

For over a year, Barack Obama’s position on Iraq has been entirely consistent — a flexible withdrawal timeline, over 16 months, with one to two brigades a month. He would consult with commanders on the ground about how best to execute this policy, and would consider conditions on the ground, but Obama is committed to a withdrawal policy. He’s said this over and over again.

In fact, conditions-based flexibility has always been a hallmark of Obama’s policy. Asked earlier this year if he’d refine the timeline based on events on the ground, Obama said he would. Asked if he’d guarantee that all the troops would be out of Iraq, no matter, what 2013, Obama demurred.

So, yesterday, when Obama repeated the exact same policy he’s emphasized for over a year, the McCain campaign and the national political media — the distinctions between McCain and his “base” continue to blur — pounced. Obama, they said without evidence or connection to reality, had changed his policy.

The problem, of course, is that McCain and the traditional media outlets had already picked the narrative in advance. Republicans decided recently that Obama would change his Iraq policy. Why? Because they said so, and proceeded to repeat the claim, incessantly, over the last 10 days. Major news outlets, demonstrating 2000-like levels of professional malpractice, bought into it. Why? Because Republicans told them to like the “move to the center” narrative, and the media is anxious to acquiesce.

As such, when Obama explained yesterday morning that he’d continue to take reality into account when shaping the details of his withdrawal policy, the Republican National Committee issued a statement that said, “There appears to be no issue that Barack Obama is not willing to reverse himself on for the sake of political expedience.” The RNC assumed — or at least, hoped — that professional journalists at major media outlets are blisteringly stupid.

At which point, the professional journalists at major media outlets sought to prove the RNC right. They started the week royally screwing up the Wesley Clark story, and they ended the week royally screwing up Obama’s Iraq policy story.

The AP, which has basically been running McCain campaign press releases as news articles, said Obama had “opened the door … to altering his plan to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq in 16 months.” That hadn’t, you know, actually happened, but the RNC said it had, and that was good enough for the Associated Press. Other news outlets followed suit, as did the cable news networks.

Almost immediately, it became accepted fact — Obama had reversed course. “Everyone” knew it was going to happen, and then “everyone” knew that it had happened. That Obama’s policy hadn’t changed at all was irrelevant, and frankly, inconvenient. McCain and the media had what they wanted, and they were running with it.

So, Obama, visibly frustrated, held another press conference to say, again, that his policy has not changed.

Remind me again why any mentally healthy individual would argue that the national media is going easy on Obama?
( Read more... )

[Jul. 4th, 2008|04:33 pm]

Tax Tally Trickery
July 3, 2008
Republicans claim Obama "voted 94 times for higher taxes." But their count is inflated and misleading.
Summary
The McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee both claim that Obama has voted 94 times “for higher taxes.” We find that their count is padded.

After looking at every one of the 94 votes that the RNC includes in its tally, we find:

Twenty-three were for measures that would have produced no tax increase at all; they were against proposed tax cuts.

Seven of the votes were in favor of measures that would have lowered taxes for many, while raising them on a relative few, either corporations or affluent individuals.

Eleven votes the GOP is counting would have increased taxes on those making more than $1 million a year – in order to fund programs such as Head Start and school nutrition programs, or veterans’ health care.

The GOP sometimes counted two, three and even four votes on the same measure. We found their tally included a total of 17 votes on seven measures, effectively padding their total by 10.

The majority of the 94 votes – 53 of them, including some mentioned above – were on budget measures, not tax bills, and would not have resulted in any tax change. Four other votes were non-binding motions related to conference report negotiations.

It's true that most of the votes the GOP counts would either have increased taxes for some, or set budget targets calling for such increases. But by repeating their inflated 94-vote figure, the McCain campaign and the GOP falsely imply that Obama has pushed indiscriminately to raise taxes for nearly everybody. A closer look reveals that he's voted consistently to restore higher tax rates on upper-income taxpayers but not on middle- or low-income workers. That's consistent with what he's said he'd do as president, which is to raise taxes only on those making more than $250,000 a year.

Analysis
In a June 9 press release, Tucker Bounds, spokesman for Sen. John McCain's campaign said that "during just three years in the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama has already voted 94 times for higher taxes." The same day, the RNC, which researched Obama’s votes and is the original source of the claim, issued its own release, saying "Obama Voted At Least 94 Times For Higher Taxes" and that he had voted "For A Tax Increase Approximately Once Every Five Days Congress Has Been In Session." A few days later, McCain adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin and other campaign staffers repeated the charge, which was quoted in various news stories. We suspect we'll be hearing this figure a lot more as the campaign wears on.

If this type of claim sounds familiar, it’s because George W. Bush's campaign used a similar refrain against John Kerry in 2004, charging that Kerry voted for "higher taxes" a whopping 350 times. We found that claim to be incorrect as well. This time around, Republicans are using some of the same tricky accounting to beef up the number of votes.

Higher Than My Taxes Are Now?

By our count, about a quarter of these votes for "higher taxes" – 23 to be exact – are votes Obama cast against changing tax rates from what they were at the time. Taxes would not have gone up. They would have been "higher" only compared to the cuts being proposed.

The RNC admits as much in its documentation on the 94 votes, faulting Obama for voting nine times against lowering the capital gains tax rate, seven times against implementing tax incentives for small businesses, six times against lowering the estate tax and three times against repealing a more than decade-old increase in taxes on Social Security benefits, among other votes. The RNC counts these as votes "for higher taxes" even though Obama voted to keep taxes right where they were.

Win Some, Lose Some

Seven votes on the RNC's list were votes Obama cast for measures that called for lowering certain taxes broadly and would have paid for the cuts by raising taxes on high-income individuals or corporations. The RNC didn't give Obama credit for voting for the lower taxes, of course.

Two votes were in favor of a "windfall profit tax" on oil companies and handing out the revenue in the form of rebate checks or nonrefundable tax credits to the public. Another favored giving tax benefits to areas affected by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma and extending several other tax relief provisions, all of it financed by closing corporate and individual "loopholes" and extending Superfund taxes on corporations, used to pay for toxic waste cleanups. Obama also voted for a refundable tax credit for farmers, paid for by closing a loophole that gives a foreign income tax credit to oil companies. Yet another of these pieces of legislation, an amendment to the 2007 energy bill, would have extended and expanded all kinds of renewable energy tax credits and covered the cost by increasing taxes on oil companies. All of the measures were rejected.

Raising Taxes? Or Wages?

Along the same lines, two of the items the RNC calls votes "against tax incentives for small businesses" were actually votes against Republican counter-measures to Democratic efforts to raise the minimum wage. While Democrats were voting for a measure to raise the minimum wage to $7.25, for example, Republicans offered a substitute that would have held the increase to $6.25 and thrown in a bundle of tax breaks for small businesses as well. Because Obama favored the higher wage package over the Republican alternative, the GOP and McCain count his vote against the GOP alternative as one for "higher taxes."

Higher Taxes for Whom? And for What?

Several of Obama's votes did indeed favor raising taxes above current levels. But in most cases these increases would have fallen on upper-income individuals or on corporations. And in many cases, the legislation in question called for increasing taxes in order to fund popular programs, a fact not mentioned by the Republican opposition researchers. One such amendment by Sen. Christopher Dodd to a 2006 bill, for example, proposed the creation of a "veterans hospital improvement fund," financed by increasing the capital gains and dividend tax rates on those earning $1 million a year or more. An amendment to a 2009 budget resolution called for restoring the income tax rate on million-dollar-a-year incomes to pre-2001 levels to fund children's education efforts, such as Head Start and school nutrition programs. Amendments to a 2007 budget resolution (S. Con. Res. 83) aimed to set aside $5 billion for emergency responders' communication equipment or funds for port security, both of which said they would be offset by "closing tax loopholes." Others called for increasing funding for a low-income home energy assistance program or restoring cuts slated for vocational education and student loan programs, paid for by closing "corporate tax loopholes."

What do you call a vote to raise taxes on couples earning more than $1 million a year in order to set up a fund to help children in poverty? We counted it, along with all of the other votes mentioned in the last paragraph, as a vote to increase taxes. But it was, of course, more than that.

Double, Triple and Quadruple Counting

The 94-vote list includes 17 votes that applied to only seven separate measures, effectively padding the GOP's list by 10. Two or three votes on the same measure are not uncommon in the Senate. The most egregious example is a series of four votes on amendment No. 4189 to a Senate budget resolution (S. Con. Res. 70) in March of this year. First, the Senate voted on the amendment (vote #45), and it was rejected. Then, it voted on a motion to table a motion to reconsider vote #45 (that's vote #46), and then voted on the actual motion to reconsider vote #45 (we're up to vote #47 now). And finally, the Senate voted on the same amendment again (vote #48). It was still rejected.

The RNC counts these as four separate votes for "higher taxes."

Non-Binding Votes

Worth noting is that most of the votes on the RNC's list could not have resulted by themselves in raising taxes. Of the total, 53 votes were on amendments to budget resolutions or the resolutions themselves. Budget resolutions merely set targets for tax-writing and appropriations committees and don't alter the tax code directly. Another four votes were on motions to instruct House-Senate conferees, which aren't binding either, and are seldom followed.

We agree that many of Obama's votes on these budget measures were clear statements of approval for increased taxes. But those 57 non-binding votes wouldn't have raised anybody's taxes.

The Final Tally

Cataloging some of these votes isn't cut-and-dried, and the exercise underscores how easily a campaign can spin the opponent's record. In the end, we listed votes on 54 measures under the "for higher taxes" category (and another seven votes in favor of lowering some taxes and increasing others); but even if the RNC used that figure in its claim, we'd have plenty to say about it. As we mentioned, most of those were measures to tax the rich or corporations; many aimed to fund government programs; and most didn’t actually raise taxes in and of themselves.

The standard we use is fairly generous to the GOP. Twelve votes by Obama in the RNC's list favored extending tax cuts that were slated to expire. We counted those as votes for increasing taxes, since taxpayers would see their rates increase as a result of failing to pass the legislation. Many Democrats argue that such a vote would not raise taxes above what current law provides, and therefore should not be counted as a vote for a tax increase. However, taxpayers aren’t privy to such philosophical legislative discussions and would indeed see their taxes increase if the cuts aren’t extended.

-by Lori Robertson
Sources
Sources for this article include THOMAS.gov, GovTrack.us and the Congressional Record for all 94 votes in question.
Related Articles
Obama's Work Claim
His new ad says he "worked his way" through college and law school. His campaign says he had two summer jobs.
Distorting Obama
McCain's new Web ad misrepresents some of the Democrat's positions on energy.
Obama's Lame Claim About McCain's Money
Obama says McCain is "fueled" by money from lobbyists and PACs, but those sources account for less than 1.7 percent of McCain's money.
McCain's Power Outage
Contradictions and misstatements short-circuit McCain's energy policy pronouncements.

Copyright © 2003 - 2008, Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania
FactCheck.org's staff, not the Annenberg Center, is responsible for this material.

1 comment|Leave a comment

wtf

[Jul. 2nd, 2008|12:07 pm]

Okay, I'm none too happy about some of Obama's recent "moves toward the center" (for lack of a better phrase), but this article from today's Wall Street Journal is rather ridiculous:

Bush's Third Term? Obama is Running for It (Wall Street Journal)

-------

Obviously the writer is biased - he speaks of the so-called 'surge' in Iraq as "working wonders" and states Obama now sees the need to offer telecoms immunity in order to further prevent terrorist attacks (which is NOT obama's position, but rather a bitter pill he's swallowing to enable the FISA courts to get up and running legally again - a position I don't agree with, but can at least understand)...so you have to take it with a grain of salt. But remember, a whole lot of people just read stuff like this and take it at face value rather than doing the leg work of actually reading what Obama says in his speeches.

2 comments|Leave a comment

Whenever I hear criticisms about how centrist Obama is, I think, compared to who?

[Jul. 1st, 2008|01:20 pm]

I mean, is Obama running against some idea you are holding in your head or is he running against a real person with their own policy positions you should be comparing him to? I disagreed with a number of things Gore stood for, but do I wish he was elected? Hell Ya! I disliked a number of things about Kerry, but did I want him to be elected? What do you think? If you want to shoot someone down, go to

anti_mccain and aim at the correct person. Lets learn from Obama to be pragmatic and actually get some good stuff done!

Where was Bush and McCain while Katrina drowned New Orleans? Many forget they were celebrating McCains birthday (I believe he turned a thousand that day, so I guess it was special).

When you post these "concerns" in an Obama community, it just makes me think of this:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/concern_troll
I am not saying that is what anybody is, but there are more and more of these out there...

1 comment|Leave a comment

An important article/point: Why Obama Shouldn't Become More Centrist

[Jun. 30th, 2008|03:29 pm]

The Baseless, and Failed, "Move to the Center" Cliche (Salon.com)

...So what, then, is the basis for the almost-unanimously held Beltway conventional view that Democrats generally, and Barack Obama particularly, will be politically endangered unless they adopt the Bush/Cheney approach to Terrorism and National Security, which -- for some reason -- is called "moving to the Center"? There doesn't appear to be any basis for that view. It's just an unexamined relic from past times, the immovable, uncritical assumption of Beltway strategists and pundits who can't accept that it isn't 1972 anymore -- or even 2002.

Beyond its obsolescence, this "move-to-the-center" cliché ignores the extraordinary political climate prevailing in this country, in which more than 8 out of 10 Americans believe the Government is fundamentally on the wrong track and the current President is one of the most unpopular in American history, if not the most unpopular. The very idea that Bush/Cheney policies are the "center," or that one must move towards their approach in order to succeed, ignores the extreme shifts in public opinion generally regarding how our country has been governed over the last seven years.

One could argue that national security plays a larger role in presidential elections than in Congressional races, and that very well may be. But was John Kerry's narrow 2004 loss to George Bush due to the perception that Kerry -- who ran as fast as he could towards the mythical Center -- was Soft on Terrorism? Or was it due to the understandable belief that his rush to the Center meant that he stood for nothing, that he was afraid of his own views -- the real hallmark, the very definition, of weakness?

Bush's ability to project "Strength" came not from advocacy of specific policies, but from his claim to stand by his beliefs even when they were politically unpopular.

For that reason, isn't the perception that Obama is abandoning his own core beliefs -- or, worse, that he has none -- a much greater political danger than a failure to move to the so-called "Center" by suddenly adopting Bush/Cheney Terrorism policies? As a result of Obama's reversal on FISA, his very noticeable change in approach regarding Israel, his conspicuous embrace of the Scalia/Thomas view in recent Supreme Court cases, and a general shift in tone, a very strong media narrative is arising that Obama is abandoning his core beliefs for political gain. That narrative -- that he's afraid to stand by his own beliefs -- appears far more likely to result in a perception that Obama is "Weak" than a refusal to embrace Bush/Cheney national security positions.

What's most amazing about the unexamined premise that Democrats must "move to the Center" (i.e., adopt GOP views) is that this is the same advice Democrats have been following over and over and which keeps leading to their abject failure. It's the advice Kerry followed in 2004. It's why Democrats rejected Howard Dean and chose John Kerry instead.

And in 2002, huge numbers of Congressional Democrats voted to authorize the attack on Iraq based on this same premise that doing so would enable them to avoid looking Weak on National Security. The GOP then based its whole 2002 campaign on attacking Democrats as Weak on National Security and the Democrats were crushed -- because, having accepted rather than debated the GOP premises, there was no way to challenge GOP National Security arguments. What makes Democrats look weak is their patent fear of standing by their own views. A Washington Post article last week on Obama's move to the center included this insight:

"American voters tend to reward politicians who take clear stands," said David Sirota, a former Democratic aide on Capitol Hill and author of the new populist-themed book "The Uprising." "When Obama takes these mushy positions, it could speak to a character issue. Voters that don't pay a lot of attention look at one thing: 'Does the guy believe in something?' They may be saying the guy is afraid of his own shadow."

The central problem is that if Democrats embrace the GOP framework of National Security -- that "Strength" means what the GOP says it means -- then that framework gets enforced and perpetuated, and it's a framework within which Democrats can't possibly win, because Republicans will always "out-Strength" Democrats within that framework. It's only by challenging and disputing the underlying premises can Democrats change the way that "strength" and "weakness" are understood.

The Democrats had such a smashing victory in 2006 because -- for the first time in a long time, and really despite themselves -- there was a perception (rightly or wrongly) that they actually stood for something different than the GOP in National Security (an end to the War in Iraq). Drawing a clear distinction with the deeply unpopular GOP is how Democrats look strong. The advice that they should "move to the center" and copy Republicans is guaranteed to make them look weak -- because it is weak. It's the definition of weakness.

The most distinctive and potent -- one could even say exciting -- aspect of Obama's campaign had been his aggressive refusal to accept GOP pieties on National Security, his insistence that the GOP would lose -- and should lose -- debates over who is "stronger" and more "patriotic" and who will keep us more safe. The widely-celebrated foreign policy memo written by Obama's adviser, Samantha Power, heaped scorn on Washington's national security "conventional wisdom," emphasizing how weak and vulnerable it has made the U.S. When Obama took that approach, he appeared to be, and in fact was, resolute and unapologetic in defending his own views -- the very attributes that define "strength."

The advice he's getting, and apparently beginning to follow, is now the opposite: that he should shed his prior beliefs in favor of the amorphous, fuzzy, conventional GOP-leaning Center, that he should cease to insist on a re-examination of National Security premises and instead live within the GOP framework. That's likely to lead to many things, but a perception of strength isn't one of them. One of the very few things in the universe with a worse track record than America's dominant Foreign Policy Community is the central religious belief of the Democratic consultant class and Beltway punditry that Democrats, to be successful, must shed their own beliefs and "move to the Center."

Don't know if you've seen this, but

[Jun. 30th, 2008|09:10 am]

proleptic_fancy

General Wesley Clark supports Obama on Face the Nation, calls out McCain.

( Video under cut )

Obama/Clark has been my dream ticket for a while. What do you guys think?

3 comments|Leave a comment

I stll can't fathom it...

[Jun. 29th, 2008|09:12 pm]

Hey guys, I know this has already been discussed a bit, but what do you think of Hillary people who still just HATE Obama even now that Hillary has come our for him?

I tried to mention that clearly an Obama presidency will be good not only for Hillary and her political career, but also for basically everything she stands for.

They say things like, "I would rather than 4 sucky years and vote for McCain and get Hillary later" and when I point out that friends said the same thing in 2000 about Gore being the same as Bush and they REALLY do not say that anymore. WTF? How may "sucky" years do they think is worth it?

I know that this is such a small minority of the vote that it might not matter, but I just don't understand the psychology of it. They say they are not just being spiteful and bitter, yet I still can not fathom their reasoning. Do you?

5 comments|Leave a comment

How much does Obama kick ass over other politicians???

[Jun. 29th, 2008|01:12 pm]

Obama Read Zimbabwe Right... More Than a Year Ago
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/1333208;_ylt=AhTyRuLwWiqj2DXW0NU1UeVhr7sF
John Nichols Sun Jun 29, 12:19 AM ET

The Nation -- The world is paying attention this week to the democratic crisis in Zimbabwe, where strongman President Robert Mugabe has used violence and intimidation to prevent the competitive election that would surely have forced him from office.

Even President Bush, who is not exactly been a leader when it comes to matters of Africa or democracy, has stepped up to condemn Mugabe's use of military, police and paramilitary thugs to impose a result that could not have been secured by the electorate.

Bush is right to be making noise now. And he may even be right to propose sanctions against the Mugabe government, although sanctions always seem to fall harder on innocent citizens than upon the dictators they are supposed to target.

But, as usual, even when Bush gets a foreign-policy issue, he does so after he might have been able to avert murder and mayhem.

The same goes for Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who can barely be bothered to pay attention to African affairs.

And what of Barack Obama, who critics, including McCain, suggest is inexperienced and inept when it comes to scanning the globe for trouble-spots and responding to their challenges?

The likely Democratic nominee, far from having to play catch-up, is in the forefront.

Most than a year ago, the senator from Illinois, won unanimous Senate support for a resolution condemning Mugabe's disregard for democratic processes and calling for U.S. action to prevent the degeneration of circumstances on the ground in Zimbabwe.

Obama's resolution condemning violent acts by the Zimbabwe government, serves as a powerful reminder that some officials get it while others get lost.
( Read more... )

new moveon.org petition

[Jun. 27th, 2008|07:31 pm]

Dear MoveOn member,
Right now, FOX is trying to paint Barack Obama as foreign, un-American, suspicious, and scary. They're trying to send Americans the message that our country's first viable black candidate for President is not "one of us."

We've seen this before from FOX. They won't stop until it becomes too painful to continue—until the public calls them out and advertisers start getting worried.

Now is the time to draw a line in the sand by putting FOX on notice that their behavior won't be tolerated. Nearly 100,000 Americans have already expressed their outrage. Can you express yours by adding your name to this message?

"FOX must stop injecting racism, prejudice, and fear into our political dialogue. We intend to hold FOX, its advertisers, and its personalities accountable for FOX's attempts to smear the Obamas."

Clicking here will sign the petition:

http://pol.moveon.org/stopthesmears/o.pl?id=13009-7279794-WdFqhux&t=5

FOX's longtime pattern of smearing Obama and the black community is well documented.1 But the outrageous moments have increased in the last month.

First, a paid FOX commentator accidentally confused "Obama" with "Osama" and then joked on the air about killing Obama.2 Next, a FOX anchor said a playful fist bump by Barack and Michelle Obama could be a "terrorist fist jab."3 And then, FOX called Michelle Obama "Obama's baby mama"—slang for an unmarried mother of a man's child, and a clear attempt to associate the Obamas with negative stereotypes about black people.4

If you know others who'd find FOX's recent actions despicable, please ask them to sign the petition too. The more people who sign, the bigger our impact will be.

Our friends at ColorOfChange.org—an online advocacy group focused on the issues of importance to the black community—are leading this charge. They have already collected nearly 100,000 names to deliver as a group to FOX's headquarters (in front of other media cameras, so FOX feels more heat). Here's how they describe the situation:

After each of the incidents mentioned [above], FOX issued some form of weak apology. But what does it mean when you slap someone in the face, apologize the next day, then slap them again? It means the apology is meaningless.
Now is the time to call out FOX for these attacks and their fake apologies. The first stop is FOX. Next will be their advertisers and the FCC. If we don't push back now, we will see more of the same from now until November. Please join us to demand that FOX answer for its behavior:

Add your name to this important cause by clicking here—then tell your friends:

http://pol.moveon.org/stopthesmears/o.pl?id=13009-7279794-WdFqhux&t=6

Thanks for all you do.

–Adam G., Peter, Anna, Justin, and the rest of the team

Sources:

1. "Fox Attacks Obama." Brave New Films at FoxAttacks.com, February 2007
http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/573-fox-attacks-obama

"Fox Attacks: Black America," Brave New Films at FoxAttacks.com, June 2007
http://foxattacks.com/blog/572-fox-attacks-black-america

"Fox Attacks: Obama, Part 2," Brave New Films at FoxAttacks.com, March 2008
http://foxattacks.com/blog/32376-fox-attacks-obama-part-2

2. "Fox News Jokes About Killing Obama," YouTube video posted May 25, 2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjYpkvcmog0

3. "Fox News' E.D. Hill teased discussion of Obama dap: "A fist bump? A pound? A terrorist fist jab?" Media Matters, June 6, 2008
http://mediamatters.org/items/200806060007?f=h_clips

4. "Fox News in trouble again over Obama smear: 'baby mama'" Los Angeles Times, June 12, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3855&id=13009-7279794-WdFqhux&t=7

Want to support our work? We're entirely funded by our 3.2 million members—no corporate contributions, no big checks from CEOs. And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. Chip in here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PAID FOR BY MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION, http://pol.moveon.org/. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. This email was sent to Megan Gregory on June 27, 2008. To change your email address or update your contact info, click here. To remove yourself from this list, click here.

does it REALLY surprise anyone that they eventually came around?

[Jun. 26th, 2008|02:15 pm]