Obama, Biden, Pelosi, and Reed

Obama, Biden, Pelosi, and Reed not a moderate amongst them; this will be who is running the American government if Senator Obama is elected in November. This shouldn't only concern conservatives and Republicans, but should be on the minds of moderates and independents too. There frequently is a desire to answer lopsided power on one side with an imbalanced push for lopsided power on the other side. However, a stable sound government is often best achieved from the middle. Swings left or right are normal and to be expected, but a far left or far right government doesn't truly serve or reflect the American people. The beauty of a McCain presidency is that the government would be balanced. Even the most optimistic Republican doesn't think Democrats will lose control of the Congress. That means the executive branch would be controlled by a Republican who has a history of working in a bipartisan manner with the Democrats who would control the legislative branch. This is the sort of practical reasonable government that turns down the volume on the bitterly partisan rhetoric of the last couple decades, and gives America a government more reflective of the mixed red, blue, and purple worlds most of us live in.

Obama, Biden, Pelosi, and Reed

Obama Website Asks People to Pray for Clinton and Her Supporters

Original at http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/communityservice/4spx. Click image for a larger screen grab.
The prayer request is for...

From 6/1-8/6 Watching the spectical on Sat. at the rules meeting breaks my heart. We can't wait for HRC to see the light on her own, we need to begin praying for her and her supporters now. Please commit to praying for them daily to 1) stop trying to hurt the Obama's and the Democratic party. 2) Pray God will speak to them all and change their hearts so their only pursuit will be party unity and whole heartedly backing Sen. Obama.

Wow, not too condecending is it? So what should we all be praying for today? World peace? An end to violence against children? Religious harmony? Nope. We' should all get on our knees an pray that Hillary Clinton and Hillary Clinton supporters see the light (or the one) and stop picking on poor little Barack Obama.

--Don't worry it counts as Community Service.

Obama Website Asks People to Pray for Clinton and Her Supporters

Commander-in-Chief test McCain Wins in a Landslide

In the latest ABC poll when people were asked about which candidate would make a good Commander-in-Chief, Senator McCain won in a landslide. 72% believe he would be a good Commander-in-Chief, and only 48% believe Senator Obama would be a good Commander-in-Chief.



Senator Clinton agrees, and explains why...

Mr. Bilingual

Blocked Sites and A Recommendation for Google

First off a confession; I like Google. I've used many of their services over the years and have found that they offer a number of useful free services along with a number of affordable business services that help small businesses. That being said Google has some explaining to do. A series of pro-Hillary or anti-Obama were blocked recently. The authors locked out unable to post and being sent an email saying that spam-bots had determined these sites were spammers. Now, Google has returned service to most of these blogs, but has yet to adequately explain itself. There are two reasons Google should provide the users explanations. First, manners. You shut someone out then you return service with no explanation it's bad form not to provide a reason. Second, rumors. The internet is rumor prone even when there are no mitigating factors. When you combine actions that appear to be intended to silence a particular group of people, with reports that Google employees are among the top Obama donators, then rumors fly. If there was no wrong doing then explain what happened, if there was wrong doing fess-up and fix it. Google has a history of being a good company, don't tarnish that record through poor communication or poor business practices.
From NYT Bits Blog

Did Google use its network of online services to silence critics of Barack Obama? That was the question buzzing on a corner of the blogosphere over the last few days, after several anti-Obama bloggers were unable to update their sites, which are hosted on Google’s Blogger service.
The bloggers in question, most of them supporters of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, and all of them opposed to Senator Obama, received a notice from Google last week saying that their sites had been identified as potential “spam” blogs. “You will not be able to publish posts to your blog until we review your site and confirm that it is not a spam blog,” the Google e-mail read.

If so, that would be an embarrassment for Google. On its Web page explaining the “flag” feature, Google says that “it can’t be manipulated by angry mobs. Political dissent? Incendiary opinions? Just plain crazy? Bring it on.”

From David Brooks NYT

When you break it out by individual companies, you find that employees of Goldman Sachs gave more to Obama than workers of any other employer. The Goldman Sachs geniuses are followed by employees of the University of California, UBS, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, National Amusements, Lehman Brothers, Harvard and Google. At many of these workplaces, Obama has a three- or four-to-one fund-raising advantage over McCain.

Muddled Foreign Policy or Clear Foreign Policy

This clip, which has been posted before as a part of the 'Susan Rice False Statements' story, shows Senator Obama agreeing to meet foreign dictators with no precondidtions; followed by Senator Clinton and Edwards disagreeing with that strategy. The reason why this comes up repeated is that this isn't just about a change in position, it is about knowing your stuff. There is a reality, that despite many people's unhappiness with the current administration's choices, we are a country at war. Picking a leader with experience and understanding of foreign policy matters, and it matters greatly.


This shows Senator McCain's reaction to an Obama change in policy regarding Israel...


Finally, here are parts Senator McCain's speach AIPAC...

The Trust Candidate V The Change Candidate

David Jamaal at DoneDems.com, a site for Clinton supporters who are not supporting Obama, makes an excellent point about candidate authenticity. Obama’s monicker of change has weakened as he has shown the willingness to flip his positions on issues such as public financing, gun control, and free trade for political expediency. Conversely, Senator McCain has a history of putting his country and his word before politics, therefor making him the quintessential trust candidate.

"Mr. Obama’s disappointing and persistent inconsistency has destroyed both his own brand and the notion that this is a “change” election. Change is a stale narrative and in Obama’s case, a false one.

This election will turn on trust.

Is there a third party candidate you trust to win and to serve competently?

Do you trust Sen. McCain, who puts country before Party, who has shown bravery in risking bold bipartisan positions , and who is quickly making energy independence central to his campaign while Mr. Obama offers nothing but ‘no’ to every new idea?"

Obama Flips on Guns

Certainly part of the issue here is Senator Obama's position on gun control, but possibly even more important is the fact that he build a laundry list issues where he's flipped positions to enhance his campaign...

---

Obama's record on gun control is clear - he's for it. He's supported handgun bans, and even answered a questionaire stating he would support banning the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns. Now that he is running for president, and the Supreme Court struck down the DC gun ban, Senator Obama has changed his mind saying that, "The second ammendment does mean something".From Hot Air

---

From Yahoo/Politico
Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has worked to assure uneasy gun owners that he believes the Constitution protects their rights and that he doesn’t want to take away their guns. But before he became a national political figure, he sat on the board of a Chicago-based foundation that doled out at least nine grants totaling nearly $2.7 million to groups that advocated the opposite positions.The foundation funded legal scholarship advancing the theory that the Second Amendment does not protect individual gun owners’ rights, as well as two groups that advocated handgun bans. And it paid to support a book called “Every Handgun Is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns.”

---

Earned Media Reports
SEPTEMBER 1996: In Response To A 1996 Independent Voters Of Illinois Questionnaire, Obama Indicated That He Supported Banning The "Manufacture, Sale And Possession Of Handguns." Question: "Do you support state legislation to ... ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?" Obama's Response: "Yes." (Independent Voters Of Illinois Independent Precinct Organization 1996 General Candidate Questionnaire, Barack Obama Responses, 9/9/96)

Obama's Unrealistic Promise of Equal Pay

The Obama solution to the pay discrepancy between men and women is lawsuits. His argument that the Supreme Court should not have made it more difficult to sue their employer is fair. However, the idea that there are many women in the position to sue their employer shows a lack of understanding of the real world. First problem, most people need their jobs. Suing an employer will result in a lost job. Even if legislation protects against firings based on litigation, there is reality that is being overlooked. Employers may give another cause for the dismissal, or that job may simply become unbearable. This leaves these sort of lawsuits for only a select few who can afford to be with out a job, and have the time to be tied up with legal matters.

Obama Equates his Public Financing Lie to the Declaration of Independence

You have to give the Obama campaign points for hutzpah. Granted Obama's decision to bypass public financing after he signed a pledge to take it is probably smart politics. However, his web site is now marketting that broken promise as a declaration of, "Independence from a broken system". I suppose stating 'I lied, but please send me money anyways' would not be that effective a fundraiser, but it certainly would be more honest than pretending that this was some sort of noble decision. Referencing the Declaration of Independence to cover up this old school political maneuver is clever and shady.

Graphic on entry page at BarackObama.com

Oops! Obama's Faux Presidential Podium

At best this is bad form to 'play president' behind a spin off of the presidential seal. At worst it is illegal as laws state,

Whoever, except as authorized under regulations promulgated by the President and published in the Federal Register, knowingly manufactures, reproduces, sells, or purchases for resale, either separately or appended to any article manufactured or sold, any likeness of the seals of the President or Vice President, or any substantial part thereof, except for manufacture or sale of the article for the official use of the Government of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

Now I don't think anyone is going to put Obama in the klink for this one, but he and his campaign may be getting a little full of themselves to think it is appropriate to use iconography in this way.

"The Two Obama's" NYT Op-Ed

David Brook's excellent article The Two Obama's does an excellent job laying out how Senator Obama talks reform and inspiration, but plays old school politics as well as anyone out there...

"God, Republicans are saps. They think that they’re running against some academic liberal who wouldn’t wear flag pins on his lapel, whose wife isn’t proud of America and who went to some liberationist church where the pastor damned his own country. They think they’re running against some naïve university-town dreamer, the second coming of Adlai Stevenson..."

"...But as recent weeks have made clear, Barack Obama is the most split-personality politician in the country today. On the one hand, there is Dr. Barack, the high-minded, Niebuhr-quoting speechifier who spent this past winter thrilling the Scarlett Johansson set and feeling the fierce urgency of now. But then on the other side, there’s Fast Eddie Obama, the promise-breaking, tough-minded Chicago pol who’d throw you under the truck for votes..."

Brooks goes on to explain Obama's history of old school politics. That he is smart and calculating, and has laid out a path for himself that any old-school Chigago politician would be proud of...

"...Back when he was in the Illinois State Senate, Dr. Barack could have taken positions on politically uncomfortable issues. But Fast Eddie Obama voted “present” nearly 130 times. From time to time, he threw his voting power under the truck.

Dr. Barack said he could no more disown the Rev. Jeremiah Wright than disown his own grandmother. Then the political costs of Rev. Wright escalated and Fast Eddie Obama threw Wright under the truck.

Dr. Barack could have been a workhorse senator. But primary candidates don’t do tough votes, so Fast Eddie Obama threw the workhorse duties under the truck.

Dr. Barack could have changed the way presidential campaigning works. John McCain offered to have a series of extended town-hall meetings around the country. But favored candidates don’t go in for unscripted free-range conversations. Fast Eddie Obama threw the new-politics mantra under the truck.

And then on Thursday, Fast Eddie Obama had his finest hour. Barack Obama has worked on political reform more than any other issue. He aspires to be to political reform what Bono is to fighting disease in Africa. He’s spent much of his career talking about how much he believes in public financing. In January 2007, he told Larry King that the public-financing system works. In February 2007, he challenged Republicans to limit their spending and vowed to do so along with them if he were the nominee. In February 2008, he said he would aggressively pursue spending limits. He answered a Midwest Democracy Network questionnaire by reminding everyone that he has been a longtime advocate of the public-financing system.

Full David Brook's article The Two Obama's

Ironic McCain Defends Clinton but Obama Doesn't Bother

Seems ironic that Senator McCain comes to Senator Clinton's defense and Senator Obama doesn't. The statements out of the Obama camp adds doubt to Senator Obama's claim that he's a uniter. Senator Obama's statement expressed disappointment at the divisive remarks, but what about rebutting the content of the statement? The Clinton's have been criticized for decades, but even the most strident Clinton-hater has never suggested that Senator Clinton is a white supremist. This is really nasty stuff. Candidates I'm sure realize that when they decide to run they'll be criticized, be the but of jokes, and even be attacked (possibly unjustly) for things they do or say. However, this statement is slander and it's odd that the media and the Obama campaign aren't treating it as such. Senator Clinton has done nothing to warrant claims of racism/white entitlement/white supremacy. What she is entitled to at minimum, is an appology beyond the 'it you were offended, I'm sorry' drivel that Pastor Pfleger put out. This is the type of politics people are sick of; the I can say anything about the opposition to gain votes strategy.

Pastor Pfleger's Rant


Senator McCain's Reaction...

Capital Gains Tax

Not neccessarily the most exciting of topics, the Capital Gains Tax illustrates an important difference between Senator McCain and the Democrats. There is proof that a low capital gains tax helps spur growth in the economy across the different economic levels. Senator McCain’s plan states, “John McCain will keep the current rates on dividends and capital gains and fight anti-growth efforts by Democrats.” The trouble is that Senator Obama all but promised to raise capital gains taxes at the last debate. While many Americans may think since they aren’t heavily invested in stocks and bonds that this tax increase is not a big deal. Others may think that since people with these investments tend to be better off financially its only fair to increase these taxes. The problem with this type of thinking, particularly from a politician like Senator Obama, is that it is not sound economics. An increase in the capital gains tax will slow the economy, and in a time when the economy is already struggling this is a terrible idea. While it’s understandable that many may not see the connection between the capital gains tax and the overall economy, it’s the candidates job to know these issues and understand cause and effect of tax increases. Senator McCain has shown an understanding of how the economy works, while the Democrats have missed the boat.

http://blogs4mccain.com/2008/04/18/capital-gains-tax/

The Service to America Tour

On a blogger call today the McCain campaign announced the upcoming 'Service to America Tour'. It features stops in places, such as McCain field in Mississippi, Anapollis, and Pensacola Florida that were important places in the Senator McCain's life. Senator McCain is re-introducing himself to the American people through a bio tour that enuciates the roll service has played in his life.

Steve Schmidt, from the campaign, also answered several question about issues and the race. In reference to a question asked about Israel and foreign policy, Mr. Schmidt stated that it is unique situation that the the Democrat candidates have ignored the stated intention of the enemy, as the destruction of Israel has been explicitly stated as a goal by extremists. Also the economy came up, as Senator Obama recently stated that he planned to raise taxes only on the wealthy then classified the wealthy as anyone making more than $75,000 a year. Mr. Schmidt explained the burden that would put on middle class families and how tax hikes could devistate the economy. As Senator Obama recently made attacks against Senator McCain's economic policies, Mr. Schmidt noted that there is a detachment between the actions of Senator Obama and his rhetoric, as the style of attacks is classic old school politics, as opposed to the change in political discourse that his speeches promise. He pointed out that Senator McCain has the experience and the history of actually following through on real change that goes beyond rhetoric.

The Idea of Obama Versus the Actual Candidate

The problem with the Obama candidacy is that the public doesn’t know much about him. We know he’s an excellent speaker, a charismatic and charming guy; but we don’t know much about him of substance. To his credit his campaign has brilliantly utilized this by featuring change as a theme. The change theme promises something new and different without really having to say what that change is. The question becomes are people going to be satisfied with the promise of change without any real clue to what that change entails.

I have to admit that I’m one of the people that started out simply liking the idea of a President Obama. I love the idea of a non-white and/or non-male president. It promotes the idea that anything is possible and it shows that the country is showing signs of growing up and getting beyond past prejudices. Senator Obama’s message of unity is also very appealing to many of us who are fed up with political divisiveness and bickering. However, there is a lot more to being president than broad concepts. There has been little focus on the who’s, what’s, where’s, why’s, and how’s of change. Understandably some people have been caught up in the grand speeches and broad concepts, but responsible voters need to also consider the policies and experience of a candidate.

The reality is that Senator Obama would have a difficult time being a ‘uniter and not a divider’ because he is so liberal. He’s ranked as the most liberal senator and his positions reflect that. Whether it is health care or taxes, his positions are not ones that engender compromise. In foreign policy, it appears that Democrats have taken to pandering to the far left, and forgotten to listen to the experts. Withdrawal plans put forward have not only been unwise, but functionally impossible. The lack of knowledge and experience in foreign policy matters is problematic. The presidency is not for beginners, and while Senator Obama has tremendous promise, earning ones stripes as president is risky at best as it leaves citizen hoping we won’t need another change candidate.

American Extremism

One of the reasons I am an Independent is because I feel the far edges of the two parties are hurting both their party and their country. The recent attacks on Senator McCain by some conservative talk show hosts have illustrated this point. Ann Coulter in particular has made such over the top statements that she shows how absurdity has afflicted the extremes of both parties. Her remark that Senator McCain, “has no honor” is the clearest example of this. Now, I’ll always defend Ms. Coulter’s right to make outrageous remarks, but ‘no honor’? Really? I’m not going to go down the list of reasons why I think Senator McCain deserves be considered an honorable person, because it’s not necessary. To me this just illustrates how some have lost touch with reality. Whether it is the extreme left implying that General Petraeus is a traitor, or the far right having a melt down over the potential McCain nomination, this is not what your party needs and this is not what your country needs.

One of the reasons I think both Senator McCain and Senator Obama have generated excitement and support has nothing to do with policy. Their policies differ dramatically, but the idea that we can have this debate in a civil manner, and actually put loyalty to ones country above loyalty to ones party is truly exciting to many of us who can’t stomach all this nasty partisanship. I have to believe that I am not the only one who lives in a world that isn’t all red or isn't all blue. If we can have this election in a manner that is respectful to people with all different opinions that could be very healing to a country that has been gripped by bitter partisanship as I don’t believe that represents the true character of America.

McCain and the Media

I have a bone to pick with the media. I recently wrote an article about the lack of substance in the media titled, “Why Do I Know that Barack Obama Lost His American Flag Lapel Pin?” However, this latest dust up with CNN and Rick Sanchez has highlighted not only the media’s lack of substance, but their poor reporting, their sensationalism, and their bias. Now this is nothing new, but amazingly Mr. Sanchez was able to display all these shortcomings in one segment. Since this has become the most overanalyzed video clip in recent history, I’ll keep it short.

1. Poor Reporting – The clip should have been showed in its entirety, and breaking down phrases and expressions without context is simply poor reporting.
2. Sensationalism – The ‘Is this the end of John McCain’ remark is about as over-the-top as it gets.
3. Lack of Substance – What’s this all about again? Inappropriate laughter? Not scolding a questioner? Not saying loudly enough that he respects Senator Clinton?
4. Bias – I’ve been to several town hall meeting and I guarantee you this is not the first inappropriate question this or any other candidate has heard. Yet I haven’t seen other candidates taken to task when a questioner asks a nasty question about George Bush.

Now I’m less inclined to claim liberal bias, and more inclined to simply claim bias. I think everyone knows which networks slant left and which one slants right, but I’m disappointed in CNN because I used to think they tried to remain neutral. Yet this isn’t their first mistake. They reported Senator McCain would be dropping out of the presidential race last summer, which clearly he didn’t. Their coverage of Iraq is full of commentary and short on reporting. I still like watching Wolf Blitzer on Sundays because I think he’s an even-handed journalist, but I hope CNN will rethink its programming and follow the lead of journalists like Mr. Blitzer, instead of degrading itself for ratings with showmen like Mr. Sanchez.

Cross Posted from http://blogs4mccain.com/2007/11/15/mccain-and-the-media/