Like, Totally Political, Dude!: campaign

Showing posts with label campaign. Show all posts

FILM THIN: Hollywood's Top Power Women Aren't Yet Excited about Hillary Clinton

MIA: Hollywood's Power Women for Hillary - Hollywood Reporter

Says one female executive (anonymous):

"Every woman I know who hasn't given to her feels guilty about it," says the industry dealmaker. "We all want a woman to be president — some of us just wish it were someone else."

Lara Bergthold, a campaign strategist at a group called RALLY, says:

The "fear factor" of the Republican field will drive donations from the notoriously liberal-leaning Hollywood. She says it is hard to imagine a Republican presidential candidate more likely to ignite anxiety in Hollywood than Donald Trump or Ted Cruz.

"The stakes are so high given the candidates on the other side," she says. "They're scary."

Not asked in the article: ARE YOU WAITING TILL THE OUTCOME OF FBI INVESTIGATION INTO HER MISUSE OF SECRET COMMUNICATIONS? Err, not even likely many of them are aware of the facts behind the email investigation, nor do they want to accept it. They're elitists just like Hillary. They probably still suspect Benghazi was actually due to a crappy video from a whack-job pastor. Or, they just don't care about such distractions since they have no direct or apparent impact on their lives.

- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Go on! Tell the world just how clueless you are! Fwd: I like Obamacare

Do you like Obamacare? Do you know what it is? How has it affected your healthcare costs?

The Obama campaign says it is just peachy. But only in an email to those signed up as supporters.

What should that tell you?

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Jim Messina, BarackObama.com" <info@barackobama.com>
Date: March 23, 2012
To: xxxxxxxx
Subject: I like Obamacare
Reply-To: info@barackobama.com

Today is the two-year anniversary of the Affordable Care Act.
Since then, the law that almost everyone calls Obamacare has been doing exactly what the other side has hoped it wouldn't do: It's been working.
It's about time we give it the love it deserves.
Let everyone know: "I like Obamacare."
Every single one of the other side's candidates for president has made overturning this law the central part of their campaign.

Did they bother to mention that barely a thing from it is kicked into gear yet? No.

Bait. For the misinformed. And for those whose goals are irresponsibility for themselves.

This is a very joyfully cynical campaign. I hope Obama fails. Come November, Americans have a lot to explain if they choose this ineffective bureaucrat a second time.

- jR

Posted via email from Like, Totally Political Dude! - posterous

From a site that is no fan of bad advertising, or foul political attitudes

This is just snide. Sad. Repugnant in its sheer bully, childish meanness.

Congratulations, Democrats. Now that we've seen this ad, nominations for Most Offensive Ad of the Year are closed and you have officially been declared the winners.

The Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party (that's what the Democrat Party calls itself in Minnesota) sent out this remarkably offensive "Ignore the Poor" anti-Catholic mailer.

How loud would they squeal if someone – anyone – would have run an ad this offensive about Muslims?

From the site ihatethemedia.com via gateway-pundit.com

- jR

Alan Grayson (Nut-job, FL District 8): Beck fans wore “sheets over their heads”

Alan Grayson: Glenn Beck fans wore "sheets over their heads"

(FROM ORLANDO SENTINEL'S Political Pulse]

Since his election two years ago, Orlando Democrat U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson's fame has multiplied exponentially with every inflammatory remark.

Every time he says something like the Republicans' health care plan is to "die quickly" or that Dick Cheney is a vampire who should "STFU," he becomes a bigger hero to liberals and a bigger target of conservatives. Now there's another addition to the list of Grayson's greatest hits.

During an appearance on the progressive talk-radio "Stephanie Miller Show" on Thursday — part of a regular segment called "Face the Grayson" — the congressman likened those who attended Glenn Beck's rally last week at the Lincoln Memorial to Ku Klux Klan members.

Miller: "The Glenn Beck thing — is that going to have an effect in November? To me, they were, I'm sorry, mostly old, white … mostly McCain-Palin leftovers, weren't they? These aren't new voters, these are people that have always voted Republican."

Grayson: "These are people who were wearing sheets over their heads 25 years ago."

The congressman also repeated one of his recent favorites: "You only have three friends in life: God, your mama, and the Democratic Party."

You can listen to the whole 12-minute, 18-second segment below, if you scroll down on this widget and click on the "Face the Grayson" segment.

UPDATE: The Grayson campaign wanted to respond to, well, Grayson's own comment. So, here's an addition from campaign spokesman Sam Drzymala: "[Grayson opponent] Dan Webster should prove Representative Grayson wrong by rejecting the endorsement of David Barton, a man who has spoken at two neo-Nazi rallies, denies the Holocaust, and has led the effort to rewrite history books with a narrative of hate, fear, and discrimination."

Hello, Orlando? Get this kook out of office. Florida already has enough nuts in office, doesn't need this one. Accepting an endorsement or not is far from being in the same court as that person. But Webster ought to reject that guy's endorsement, if the claims of his practices are true.

- jR

Rabid leftie activism by MoveOn.org, others, betraying U.S.

Slightly idiotic, some pro-Obama nonprofit groups are trying to help encourage the Obama budget into passing, with mean advertising. Sometimes, it is like learning a relative unknowingly named their child after a disease, when groups like MoveOn.org try to "help". Big government, PACs, activist groups with no class, leaders like Pelosi and Clyburn: does Obama really need your kind of "help"?

Campaign for Obama's budget is widening - Los Angeles Times

Sen. Evan Bayh, an Indiana Democrat, said that the TV advertising would not influence his vote. And he questioned whether the ads were consistent with the president's promise of collaboration. Obama has told lawmakers that they should not be "potted plants" -- passing his budget intact without raising questions -- Bayh said.

The president echoed that point at his prime-time news conference Tuesday, telling a national audience: "We never expected when we printed out our budget that they would simply Xerox it and vote on it."

If that's the case, Bayh asked, why are Obama allies running ads that effectively direct members to vote for the president's budget?

"The president has said this is a cooperative process," Bayh said in an interview. "Some of these groups running ads are not in sync with the president."

Members of Congress are sensitive about ads in their districts, and some say the MoveOn commercials strike a counterproductive partisan note.

One MoveOn ad, for example, is running in Democratic Rep. Christopher Carney's northeast Pennsylvania district. The district voted for Republican John McCain over Obama, and for President Bush over Democrat John F. Kerry four years earlier.

The MoveOn ad is critical of "Bush tax cuts." It urges support for "the Obama budget." In a conservative district like Carney's, an ad with an overt anti-Bush message could alienate voters, the congressman's office contends.

A Carney aide said: "This type of ultra-partisan rhetoric is not productive. There is a way to frame the budget that would pressure us, but this frame does not pressure us at all."

Carney, a member of the House's fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition, has not announced a position on Obama's budget.

Way to go, yet again, MoveOn.org. My, how pro-American, all-inclusive and progressive you are. Yet... again, showing your "caring" for the common good with your "forward-looking" (I think that's what I've seen them calling it before) ads.

It looks like smash and grab rather than giving a hand -- feel the love, America? Who's betrayed whom?

- jR aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

El Salvador's self-proclaimed Obama, a Marxist, wins top spot

A former CNN correspondent has won the presidency of El Salvador. The new leader campaigned, in his own words, as the Obama for El Salvador, to the chagrin of U.S. State Dept. He is considered a far leftist Marxist and was running on the ticket of a former guerrilla organization.

El Salvador Former Rebels Win Their First Presidential Election - Bloomberg.com

El Salvador’s former rebel party won its first presidential election, ending two decades of rule for one of the staunchest U.S. allies in Central America.

Mauricio Funes, the candidate of the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front, said he would usher in a new type of leadership for Central America’s smallest country.

“Thank you for choosing hope over fear,” Funes said in San Salvador late yesterday in a speech carried on CNN Espanol. “This is a victory for all of El Salvador.”

Rodrigo Avila of the National Republican Alliance conceded defeat after results from yesterday’s election showed he trailed Funes. It is the first presidential loss in two decades for the ruling party, which squared off against the Marxist rebel group in a 12-year civil war that ended in 1992 and has remained close to successive U.S. administrations.

Funes, 49, a former television journalist, said he is willing to work with U.S. President Barack Obama and other world leaders. He campaigned on a slogan of “hope is born,” saying he represents the same type of change as Obama.

...

The former rebel FMLN emerged as El Salvador’s second-largest political party after signing peace accords in 1992, ending a civil war with a U.S.-backed military government that left about 75,000 people dead.

...

Funes never took up arms for the FMLN. His vice-presidential candidate, Salvador Sanchez Ceren, is a former rebel commander.

...

The former rebels made their greatest electoral gains at the beginning of this year, picking up 35 of 84 congressional seats, three more than they held before. Arena candidates won 32 legislative spots, down from 34 in 2004 elections.

The conservative party for which Avila was candidate had been in charge for two decades.

There is a troubling facet of this election campaign, and this win, for Obama, and perhaps it is also a welcome parallel for Obama's political foes to exploit into the future. Seeing as El Salvador is a very small country, it might get no traction, in any way, here in the U.S. However, supposed Democratic Party and liberal philosophy wonks, such as the blow-hard too-dumb-to-know-he's-an-angry-socialist Sean Penn, and TV/radio host and socialist apologist and Castro fan Tavis Smiley, are likely rejoicing this win.

The leftist was patterning his campaign and self-identification with not some Marxist or socialist leader such as Castro, Chavez or even a French or Swedish leader, but with Barack Obama. While Obama claims to be no leftist nor interested in harming private sector determination of the economy in favor of government-controlled economics, he has some extremists identifying with him. This El Sal. guy proclaimed his blatant Marxism to be the Obama tactics for that country.

- jR

McCain's health plan is now that of some Democrats, sorta

Tennessee's Cooper and Oregon's Wyden are leading an effort to remove employers from the health coverage process.

Two Dems Want to Scrap Employer-Based Health Care - TIME

...though during the election campaign Obama criticized John McCain for proposing a plan that, like Wyden's, would make employer-provided health benefits taxable, the Administration has suggested in recent weeks that it is open to such an approach.

Still, Wyden and Cooper's plan is considered a long shot. The political wisdom in Washington suggests that for any proposal to actually stand a chance, it would have to build on the existing employer-based system.

One can whine about the hypocrisy of it, but I would rather see something CONCRETE done about the cost, burden and economic division of modern health care.

- jR

Politifact: Obama pushed through a budget that is contrary to campaign pledges

While it is weakened, potentially, by a deference to short-sighted mainstream sound-bite obsessed (hit and run, drive by, smash and grab, scratch and sniff, whatever you wish to nickname it) journalism, Politifact is also going the distance to reflect comments against the tell-tale mirror of -- of all things! -- recorded facts. Something that, for one thing, TV news rarely manages to accomplish (nighttime MSNBC chatter shows, most of all are guilty of this, I opine). It is an offshoot of the Poynter Institute, both based in St. Pete, Florida.

Here, Politifact nobly nails Pres. Obama for letting the pigs run wild out of the barn. So to speak.

PolitiFact | Spending bill wasn't candidate Obama's "type", Boehner points out

Boehner's spokesman, Michael Steel, said Boehner meant that Obama had broken his campaign pledges, referenced on the White House Web site, to "slash earmarks to no greater than 1994 levels and ensure all spending decisions are open to the public." That's a reasonable interpretation of what Boehner said.

Obama did indeed make those pledges during the campaign. Sen. John McCain, the Republican candidate, pledged to eliminate earmarks and "veto every earmark pork-barrel bill," and Obama, though stopping short of that, did pledge to get tough on them.

For example, here's Obama in the first presidential debate: "Absolutely, we need earmark reform. And when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."

Obama thoroughly proving himself contrary to who he pretended to be, on some levels, while his worst "toss-off" lines are more prophetic of his moves, it seems at this early date, than his detailed rhetoric or denials of allegations.

Are we in trouble, or WHAT?

- jR

In the end, did money win the White House?

Obama Spent Four Times as Much as McCain at Race End | Bloomberg.com

McCain spent $26.5 million in the final weeks of the campaign, with $9.5 million going for advertisements, $4.5 million for message phone calls and $2.2 million for salaries. He ended up with $4.9 million in bills still to be paid. McCain also had $25 million in his legal and accounting fund, which can cover expenses incurred during a mandatory FEC audit.

After Oct. 15, Obama reported spending at least $80 million on advertising, mostly on television. He listed another $14.5 million in expenses for travel and lodging, $7.9 million for “staging, sound, lighting,” $7.9 million for payroll and $4.3 million for telemarketing.

Obama also listed $14.7 million in contributions. As in the past, he made payments to state political parties. The Minnesota Democratic Party, for instance, got $350,000, and the Missouri Democratic Party got $550,000.

The vast difference in the finances of the get-out-the vote efforts -- in the end, it's all about getting votes -- suggests that the soon-to-be president is wise to not dance to the tune sung by his goofy worshipers. They are claiming that his election was a landslide. Landslide is a fun word that is often used by people unwittingly showing their own lack of logical, factual awareness (to be kind). Take Chris Matthews of MSNBC as an example.

First, it is absurd to presume that this was a landslide since the difference between the Dem and GOP takes were not even into double digits. So, no, not a landslide. Compare it to Reagan's 1984 victory, and his 1980 win, which was a solid win -- in double digits -- in both popular votes and states won. Second, it was simply not a landslide, if so much money was spent and they won by a very small margin.

Historically, even when Democrats lose, they spend more money than the GOP, in national elections. While this lends itself to a good joke about the difference in money and economic policy of the two parties, it also points out that, having won with such a small margin against a foe with such a small cash amount, that Obama ought to assure his victory is sweet by having it be a realist's victory, not an MSNBC-style, MoveOn.org-style, Karl Rove-style victory.

The Democrats will flaunt the win at their peril -- and are, evidenced by the blow-hard tactics of Sen. Chris Dodd (D, Conn.) in the midst of this economic crisis. Doddering Mr. Dodd has proclaimed quite loudly that it the fault of the Fed Reserve and Treasury that the banks -- which he oversees as a Congressional leader -- are not giving out loans with the money shoved at them.

- jR

Note: Have a look at this later post, for a more concise and easier to digest view of what the organizer and money-spender sides evoke in one little pontificater: http://totally-political.blogspot.com/2008/12/organizer-check-money-spender-check.html

The Democrats don't need you ... but they fooled you, three times

Look at all the blue donkeys!

Top All-Time Donors

See a trend? Look at the screenshot of top all-time donors (below). The story: the Democrats don't need your money!!

Click on the pic to it it full sized. Issue with the pic? See the actual page link: http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A

We're going to be entrusting our entire federal government to the Democratic Party if Obama is elected. To put it simply, that sucks. Executive and both ends of Congress run by the Masters of the Lobbyists -- or the Slaves to the Lobbyists, as it were. So, don't expect the lobby controls, the "new kind of politics" rhetoric to result in ANY changes. That would be politically inconvenient for Democrats, most of all.

Fooled you once.

The balance of MONEY is in Dems' favor in more than the prez race of 2008: It is in their favor historically. Yet, they are the party of the common man? Please. The party of BIG CORPORATE and UNION MONEY! The party of -- gag -- the union of state and local employees, for goodness sake. What's that about?!! These guys who work for states and counties and cities can't get fired unless they kill their boss, practically, and they give more money to politicians than ANYONE. So, unlike me, they could buy their job security, and apparently buy the prevention of government shrinkage, it would seem.

Do numbers lie, or is Obama and company feeding us a line? Assuming Obama is our next prez, is government going to expand? Yes that is a question, but WHY IS IT EVEN A QUESTION? It is a dumb question. There is a lack of discussion of this issue of smaller government. WHY? Smaller government is an unpopular idea with Dems -- no wonder!! Look at who sponsors them! So, anyone think government jobs -- expanded government without a crisis motivating it -- won't be the answer to employment woes when Obama gets in?!! Anyone?!!

Seeing as the Dems have generally spent more than GOP whether they won or lost (that's broad stroke, I am not saying every little race everywhere), I am amazed that Bush ever won once, let alone twice. (But then, Clinton's southern aw-shucks rhetoric and Al Gore's true roots, his Beltway roots, were vastly different impressions. Al Gore managed. How'd we do?) Discuss and debate....

It is not for this year, but for the past 20 years...

(Actual page link: http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A )

Surprise, surprise, surprise!

Goldman Sachs, they of course own the GOP and the Bush Admin, huh? After all, good old Treasury Sec Paulson's their guy! Or not. Yes, definitely not. See for yourself. Look at the screenshot, or go directly to this link: http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000085

Top Barack Obama contributor
Goldman Sachs dropped almost $800,000 on him. I guess that ruins the whole "the GOP ruined our economy by sucking up to their friends at Goldman Sachs" line of propaganda by the Dems, huh?

Fooled you twice.

Republicans are retiring. how bad will that be?

Since so many House seats are up for election, for a variety of reasons, that is going to change the landscape. It is a year for beating up on Republicans, I suppose because our president is ticking a lot of people off. But, retirement isn't helping things, either.

Retirements have put more than two dozen seats (27 or so) at clear risk for GOP to keep them. Maybe the change of faces will be a good thing, no matter what. Maybe there are going to be some more moderate Dems getting in. That's a good thing. That's not far-left liberals, at least.

Add to that this season of electoral blame-gaming, where the GOP is losing despite the economic problems not really being their fault at all. Republicans are expected to be booted (if they do not deserve it, for some demonstrable reason aside from childish spite, it's not a good thing). Why isn't Barney Frank being asked to leave, seeing as he is the biggest liar we have in the House, currently?

Fooled you three times.

Retiring at end of this session:

Wayne Allard (R) (Colorado Senate)
Larry Craig (R) (Idaho Senate)
Bud Cramer (D) (Alabama District 5)
Barbara Cubin (R) (Wyoming District 1)
Tom Davis (R) (Virginia District 11)
Pete V. Domenici (R) (New Mexico Senate)
John T. Doolittle (R) (California District 4)
Terry Everett (R) (Alabama District 2)
Mike Ferguson (R) (New Jersey District 7)
Vito Fossella (R) (New York District 13)
Chuck Hagel (R) (Nebraska Senate)
Dave Hobson (R) (Ohio District 7)
Darlene Hooley (D) (Oregon District 5)
Ray LaHood (R) (Illinois District 18)
Ron Lewis (R) (Kentucky District 2)
Jim McCrery (R) (Louisiana District 4)
Michael R. McNulty (D) (New York District 21)
John E. Peterson (R) (Pennsylvania District 5)
"Chip" Pickering Jr. (R) (Mississippi District 3)
Deborah Pryce (R) (Ohio District 15)
Jim Ramstad (R) (Minnesota District 3)
Ralph Regula (R) Ohio District 16)
Rick Renzi (R) (Arizona District 1)
Tom Reynolds (R) (New York District 26)
Jim Saxton (R) (New Jersey District 3)
James T. Walsh (R) (New York District 25)
John W. Warner (R) (Virginia Senate)
Dave Weldon (R) (Florida District 15)
Jerry Weller (R) (Illinois District 11)

See the full list online on the "Casualty" list (http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/casualties.php)

I won't even bother pointing out that, based on their way of doing campaigns, the Dems in particular are not exactly cost-effectiveness heroes.

following the money

Following the Money in the Hot House Races

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/10/hot-race-samples.html

McCAIN V OBAMA

Expenditures Breakdown - McCain

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/expend.php?id=N00006424&cycle2=2008&goButt2.x=9&goButt2.y=7&goButt2=Submit

McCain has been stressing media (as one would expect) and travel costs. Media is not even half his costs. It is about 33%, around 1/3.

Since that's not a big deal, the media has found something else to make fun of.

Somehow, the fact that Palin and her family needed $150,000 in suitable clothes to be in front of the media makes the top end of news for three days, when $1500 suits by man-of-the-people Obama does not take that non-story out of the mix? Gag. We are such patsies. Of course, trying to suggest Obama is an outright Socialist won't work, either. (However, the Socialists do back Obama. Go figure. That's a bit creepy to me -- socialism works in very few circumstances, and beyond those it becomes the USSR, Venezuela or North Korea.)

Expenditures Breakdown - Obama

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/expend.php?id=N00009638&cycle2=2008&goButt2.x=14&goButt2.y=4&goButt2=Submit

Obama, with the gobs of bucks from chiefly Hollywood and overseas, has spent virtually HALF, as a percentage and as a dollar amount more than McCain needless to say, on media. Just short of HALF his money goes to MEDIA! Yikes! Talk about buying opinions. This is around 220% of what McCain is putting into media, and it is even far more of a percentage than McCain is using.

A bit ironic, or creepy, that Obama is these days even more of a darling of mainstream, money-hungry media -- he's handed them a hefty $$$ amount in the past quarter alone! $187 million total, which I assume is across 20-22 months.

Obama also stresses salaries -- exceeding McCain's salaries, in dollars but also as a percentage, again. Obama-Biden obviously have a much larger organization, but oddly, while percentage is so high, the overall administrative is not even close to being twice McCain's. How? You won't hear this on the news, but there's talk on the street that Obama supporters are being paid to do what volunteers used to do. And no, this is not the same talk as that from which were borne the weird "Obama is a terrorist" or "Obama is a Muslim" chattering.

Strangely, TRAVEL costs for Obama are more than double McCain's dollar amount. I guess that personal logo-emblazoned jet gets expensive.

Open Secrets is always an interesting read.

Al Gore: My personal request to you

Al Gore is a buddy of MoveOn.org, and somehow that's OK.
My life currently sucks. This creepy kind of stuff just makes it suck more.

For all of you who thought any of the following:

#1. Al Gore deserves a Nobel Peace Prize

(Granted, he was second-billed, only SHARED it with a U.N. group,

but look who took all the P.R. from it. And media isn't liberal?

Please -- fine example right here of propagandizing for the left in mass media.)

#2. Al Gore cares about the environment, people, and things beyond politics

#3. Al Gore has some shame and/or sense of honor

#4. Al Gore never uses -- least of all, in writing -- wacky, inane scare tactics (See below, "science fiction movie")

#5. Al Gore is generally scary (see "rising up..." and "his vision of ... change")

#6. Al Gore should leave his elitist, expensively endowed, high-carbon-footprint mansion in Tennessee

MoveOn.org are the leftist propagandists of so-called progressive activist groups. Their idea of progress is lying about the enemy to get people not to just not vote for them, but to hate them -- thus, Obama has nothing to do with them (at least, as far as I recall). Thoroughly lying, not even bothering with exaggerating.

Who is their enemy? Conservatives. Republicans. Anyone who disagrees with Al Franken, Bill Maher, Michael Moore (and Bozo the Clown, I think, too -- seeing a pattern?).

And here's Al Gore, like Ted Kennedy before him, and -- funny this -- never Barack Obama, writing on behalf of MoveOn and Obama. Barack can't get his hands too dirty, though, since that would go against the Democratic trend toward protecting him from anything controversial, this professional candidate. Obviously one could never get to become presidential without being out there answering questions, etc., etc., rejecting -- at your leisure -- the paranoid, militarist crazy people who were your pastors, etc.

I wonder how all these people will feel when they recognize, theoretically, that Barack has been using, them like throwaway old dish towels, to get what blind ambition always wants: power. To be the end-all and be-all of -- well, of all. Al Gore has pretty much agreed to that, below.

Well, I hope it hurts very very bad, whenever that is. But, sadly, it is going to hurt for all of us, unless Obama proves to be a puppet and lets actual leaders do the job -- but he won't. Second thought, I doubt it will hurt at all, since they've got a belly full of Obama Kool-Aid already, swilling around, keeping them dopey, happy, sleepy and the rest of us grumpy.

Begin forwarded message: Dear MoveOn member,

I know something about what can happen in close elections. And we've only got 8 days left to make sure this isn't one of them.

We are witnessing history in the making. Millions of young people are getting involved in politics for the first time. A leader named Barack Obama is rising up to unite America behind his vision of progressive change. Yet we know from 2000 that progress is not inevitable. Victory can fall just out of reach. And the difference of a few thousand votes can put our country on a decidedly different path.

That's why I'm writing to you today to personally ask you to volunteer with the Obama campaign to help get out the vote this week. Everything we've worked for together hangs in the balance in these next few days. The Obama office in Orlando still needs more volunteers and I'm hoping you can help. Click here to sign up:

http://pol.moveon.org/obama/volunteer/?office_id=32&id=14722-6281706-wC3RYxx&t=1

I know that MoveOn members have the power to swing elections. In 2006, you made over 7 million calls—I made some myself—and together we won back both houses of Congress. And already this year, nearly 120,000 of you have signed up to volunteer for Obama in battleground states.

But the stakes this year are too great for any of us to sit it out. We're facing two wars and an economic meltdown. The climate crisis, in particular, is worsening more quickly than predicted and without strong leadership from the next president, we could face consequences right out of a science fiction movie.

Barack Obama will provide that leadership. But only if we all make sure he wins. Please sign up to volunteer today.

http://pol.moveon.org/obama/volunteer/?office_id=32&id=14722-6281706-wC3RYxx&t=2

Yes we can,

Al Gore

Want to support our work? We're entirely funded by our 4.2 million members—no corporate contributions, no big checks from CEOs (yeah, just George Soros). And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. ...

Diggy Duggy suggy Digg.com: comments, because Digg didn't seem to keep them.

I copied these comments, since Digg apparently forgets to post them sometimes. What a joke that is.

I am voting for McCain because I believe stubborn extremes in the GOP have distracted McCain, not the other way around.

Bush is not McCain, and that is the dirtiest tag that Obama's campaign has so sarcastically put on McCain. (Sadly, the same can be said the other way around, but at least they aren't calling him a Nancy Pelosi, or Jimmy Carter). I think the GOP has forced McCain out of his element, not that McCain has pulled the party from its core.

I think a McCain presidency will help set the GOP on a course away from a silver-spoon leadership (a curse, if you ask me) of GHW Bush and GW Bush toward more of a realist, common-man party as it had started out. Even if he loses, that change in the GOP has begun.

Or, I can only hope it has. That, or I will be registered Independent come the new national, the 2010, election. So, look out so-called mid-term politicians. Boogedy!

Orlando Sentinel endorses Barack Obama for president

Powered by ScribeFire.

Kool-Aid's good in Miami these days

I can't do this for all of the tasteless endorsements out there, but I can try to get through just one of these strange coming-out announcements by some one-sided newspapers. I've decided to pick on the Miami Herald. Actually, I think they forced me into it -- their endorsement of Obama is just so full of holes!

---

We are, as always, living in a time of mirrors which reflect the same facts to alternative opinions.

"Voters of all races and ages were drawn to his promise to discard the culture wars and seek pragmatic solutions for problems instead of relying on ideology and worn-out slogans."

So "Change we can believe in" is not worn out? How about the "hope" slogan - that was used since 1992 by the Democrats alone! This is just more "Yay for the mouths that keep talking" -- even though they say so little and are condescending and smug and incapable of humility of most any kind - and do so with a big, cheery smile! SUCKERS. You leftists deserve Obama's childish blind ambition and the higher taxes he'll bring with him. JUST leave me out of it. I don't have any wealth to share.

---
Again with the alternative mirror! "McCain has much experience in foreign policy and a hero's life story.... McCain was among the first to call for more troops [in Iraq]. He draws strength from the success of the 'surge.' Today, though, Iraq is stable, but the war itself remains a huge and costly error. The invasion was a strategic mistake; the surge a tactical success."

The Herald - shocking, seeing its partial role as an international newspaper -- has an utter lack of a realistic world view. (That, or is this horrifically dumbed down for elementary-level reading?) We all know that entering Iraq was a mistake - in retrospect. You apologists (what else can I call it?) for America's strength and actions are beyond ignorant beyond the fact that intelligence was wrong (and you cannot leave it at bad intel, accusing Bush of outright crime). Obama's magic wand (lacking a record and saying ANYTHING to be elected) will be put to the test, day one! Will you be there to test him?

---

Wow. Shocking. A note for those "brave" enough to track facts: Barack Obama was not a U.S. senator in 2002-2003, though he was likely running for U.S. Senate at the time.

"Sen. Obama's early dissent amid the war fever of 2002-03 took courage." That is some cheery wordplay by the Miami Herald. Since he was not a Florida state senator at the time, either, they ought to have been accurate. But why, when they can get by being half-accurate. Obama, however, was apparently running for U.S. Senate when he entered state senate in Illinois (1998?). He had political agents falling all over themselves to give him a boost, after all. A no-brainer.

"His insistence that U.S. power be focused on the conflict in Afghanistan -- which he rightly calls the central front of the war on terror -- represents a better, more effective use of military resources." So, since we got in there, and we were wrong, it would be right to exit, and let them tear each other apart. Who cares if after 30 years of a terrorist regime they would fall into total anarchy and be overtaken by Iran? Go for it, Iran - that's the Herald's stand.

With 90 percent of Americans telling pollsters that the nation is heading in the wrong direction, it is no surprise that both Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain have staked their presidential candidacies on the promise of delivering change. Both have qualities that qualify them to lead the country, but they differ significantly in temperament and on many issues. Even the way they have run their campaigns is indicative of their judgment, decision-making and leadership styles.

When he began his campaign in February of 2007, Sen. Obama was viewed as an upstart. He built his candidacy one victory at a time, aided by an excellent campaign staff and fueled by an impressive ability to raise funds on the Internet. He displayed inspiring eloquence and a sure grasp of detail on issues. Voters of all races and ages were drawn to his promise to discard the culture wars and seek pragmatic solutions for problems instead of relying on ideology and worn-out slogans.

Foreign policy differences

Sen. McCain also showed strength in the primaries. Deemed political roadkill at one time, he revived his fortunes with a strong showing in New Hampshire and clinched victory in Florida with straight talk and a surer feel for what voters wanted. A turning point came during the Republican convention, when he chose a long-shot for a running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, out of an apparent need to appease the right wing of the party. For all of her rhetorical skills on the campaign trail -- particularly in the attack mode -- Gov. Palin appears to know little about the issues and simply is not qualified to be commander in chief.Much has been made of Sen. Obama's relative inexperience, particularly in foreign policy. His résumé is thin, but he surrounds himself with experienced advisors -- as evidenced in his choice of Sen. Joe Biden to be vice president -- and with people who offer differing points of view. His style is to build consensus and seek workable, pragmatic solutions -- a refreshing change from the last eight years.

Because of the current administration's incompetence, arrogance -- or both -- American prestige abroad has never been as low. The effusive response from audiences during Sen. Obama's recent tour of Europe suggests he could help restore our lost influence. Clearly, traditional U.S. allies are more than ready to work with an American president who replaces unilateral policies and preemptive wars with vigorous diplomacy on behalf of common interests.

Sen. McCain has much experience in foreign policy and a hero's life story dating back to his days as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. An avid supporter of the war in Iraq, Sen. McCain was among the first to call for more troops. He draws strength from the success of the ''surge.'' Today, though, Iraq is stable, but the war itself remains a huge and costly error. The invasion was a strategic mistake; the surge a tactical success.

Sen. Obama's early dissent amid the war fever of 2002-03 took courage. It reflects a clear-eyed appreciation for the proper use of U.S firepower and a cool temperament that rejects employing military force except as a last, necessary resort. His insistence that U.S. power be focused on the conflict in Afghanistan -- which he rightly calls the central front of the war on terror -- represents a better, more effective use of military resources.

Sen. McCain has long been an outspoken supporter of Israel, and so has Sen. Biden, whose selection as a running mate for Sen. Obama should erase any doubts about where the Illinois senator stands on this important issue.

Closer to home, Sen. McCain strongly supports Bush administration policies on Cuba. Sen. Obama also supports the embargo, but would be more likely to dissolve recently imposed restraints on travel and remittances to Cuba. On Latin America, the biggest concern with Mr. Obama's policies involves his failure to support the Colombia free-trade pact, which Sen. McCain champions. Anti-trade rhetoric and protectionist policies are not going to help the United States overcome the current economic crisis.

That crisis overshadows all other concerns, domestic and foreign. Sen. Obama deserves credit for supporting the administration's rescue package instead of siding with some Democrats who draped themselves in the mantle of Main Street populism and refused to go along. Well before this crisis developed, he called for regulatory reform and demonstrated a clear sense that the economy was headed over a cliff.

A clear choice

Indeed, the way the two candidates responded to the economic meltdown offers a lesson in contrasting styles of leadership. Both have put forth a series of worthwhile policy options, but where Sen. Obama was calm, Sen. McCain was frantic. He first put his campaign ''on hold'' and suggested he would cancel the first debate, and then suddenly decided to take part even as the first bailout deal cratered. He said the fundamentals of the economy were strong, then a few days later vowed to ''name the names'' of those responsible for the financial crisis.

In other elections, voters have complained of having to make a choice between two bad candidates. That is not the case this time. The nation is fortunate to have good candidates and a clear choice. Sen. Obama represents the best chance for America to make a clean break with the culture wars and failed policies of the past, and begin to restore the hope and promise of America as the world's greatest democracy.

And he smiles nice, too. If only presidencies were suitably made in Hollywood, this would be a good endorsement. But in the real world, this fawning over a professional candidate who is auditioning, at great expense, for world adoration, is worthy of campy fiction. I knew the Herald had liberal leanings, and not the good kind. This endorsement emphasizes it.

- jR

Judicial Watch Calls on Barack Obama to Disclose Names of Donors

This is an important piece of news -- I hope I am right, but it gives me the creeps, too.

This stinks -- why doesn't anyone go after the Obama campaign on this?! This is breaking the law. This is being "above the law". Forget Bill Ayers, forget ACORN, DON'T forget the whole "spreading the wealth" attack!, DON'T let up on Obama for not giving a damn that his surrogates and Democrats attack McCain and Palin as if they are George Wallace (and the similar creepiness), but add this troubling news to the speeches and statements. Worth it, isn't it?!!

THE ESSENCE:

Illegal foreign contributions are flooding into Obama's campaign ... Senator Obama refuses to divulge the names of all of his donors. ... Spokesperson David Axelrod said, "We're probably more forthcoming about disclosure than anyone." ... Not true. ... John McCain has had problems of his own [but] ... McCain does publish the names of all donors to his presidential campaign on his Internet site.

---

Judicial Watch Calls on Barack Obama to Disclose Names of Donors

Written by Tom Fitten

Last week, I told you about allegations of massive voter fraud involving ACORN, a radical leftist organization with deep ties to Senator Barack Obama. (At last count, I believe authorities are investigating voter fraud allegations against ACORN in 14 states. Now, the FBI is also investigating.) But so far, another scandal involving the Obama campaign has flown a bit under the radar. And it is equally disturbing. According to The Associated Press:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has raised about $3.3 million from contributors who did not list a home state or who designated their state with an abbreviation that did not match one of the 50 states or U.S. territories, according to records provided by the Federal Election Commission…

The $3.3 million total does not include donors who have given less than $200 and whose contributions do not have to be itemized. Some of that money could also have come from overseas. About half of Obama's $455 million in contributions so far are unitemized. The campaign does not identify those donors.

In other words, while the evidence suggests illegal foreign contributions are flooding into Obama's campaign coffers, we have no idea as to the extent of the problem because Senator Obama refuses to divulge the names of all of his donors. When asked about the decision to keep these donor names secret, Obama campaign spokesperson David Axelrod said, "We're probably more forthcoming about disclosure than anyone."

Not true.

While John McCain has had problems of his own for allegedly accepting foreign donations - see Judicial Watch FEC complaint here - to his credit, Senator McCain does publish the names of all donors to his presidential campaign on his Internet site, regardless of the size of the contribution.

Here's the bottom line: The Obama campaign appears to be playing fast and loose with campaign finance laws and it has to stop. The FEC should immediately investigate these allegations. And, of course, in the interest of transparency, the Obama campaign should publicly list the source of every single campaign contribution. Frankly, it is suspicious that these names have not already been made public.

There is something deeply unsettling about the fact that foreign nationals can so easily corrupt our presidential election through illegal contributions, while American service men and women stationed overseas may be deprived of the opportunity to even vote (see above).

---

This needs to enter the campaign speeches, don't you think? To hide the money sources means the campaign is hiding a whole lot more about the money. Why, pray tell, WHY is this only NOW coming out? To add to my shock, I am not hearing about this on TV news; the Houston Chronicle site had a link to it -- the Judicial Watch statement. Where else is it? It should be coming out of the mouths of GOP campaigners, true?

I don't understand the major malfunction -- Obama's campaign is all over themselves about race-baiting this, negative campaign that, and lookee -- for Obama's team it is all about the money. (I don't mean saving our money, either: not watching our tax dollars and the nation's economy.) That's their dirtiest little secret, it would appear.

Secrecy and money are not savory friends. ESPECIALLY in politics. Isn't this a free country? Isn't this a place where politicians have been expected to divulge donors -- for a long time? The cronyism and "boss" systems mostly pushed out for something that better resembles the democracy the Founding Fathers preferred? I know Obama is from the political world of Chicago, but this is not Chicago, but national and world politics.

In Chicago, Democratic influentials have openly have said that they saw great things for Obama and thus kept him away from anything (their word!) "controversial." Oh, boy. Obama has a short-time national career, still hiding from controversy, and then becomes president? Please, no!

He is driven NOT by an ambition to serve, but by BLIND AMBITION. That's it. How else does he get a party to dump a Clinton or a longtime senator like Edwards (the naughty boy : ) ) and throw him up to the top as "the ONE"? He won the primary fair and square, true. But what about the machinations that kept him out of anything controversial in Illinois State Senate? The fog of campaigns: it is like the fog of war. Creepy.

So? Stealing the election with money, is he? In more ways than one, I should note -- mighty expert way that Congressional leaders have dumped the whole bag of the mortgage crisis on the Executive Branch. So, the money crisis and the moneybags are all in Obama's favor, and who's he doing any favors for? We'll never know, since he won't divulge the names of his benefactors to the White House. IF he wins.

Another comment:

Obama cannot win! ... Pelosi, Reid and Obama, this is a triumvirate I want nowhere near tax money! We already have enough problems with taxes and spending. It is time to stop the "war on the middle class" -- but it makes no sense to go from that to a war on reinvestment in small businesses. That's what Obama will offer with his tax approach, which is guaranteed to be the Pelosi and Reid approach, too.

Find it at the site:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/

'Taking care of (Obama's) business, every day...'

I get twisted up when I think that a professional candidate, a man who has run for three and held two offices in a period less than three presidential terms, may be president. It just has an air of deception to it -- not on Obama's part, while his being disingenuous certainly has a hand in it.

It is a shame that it comes down to him and a long-time leader and individual-thinker -- McCain (I can still hope for the maverick to be there, in his soul, can't I?), because Obama is no dummy and I have genuinely liked him, in hits and misses, during the campaigning. His smug language, and his smug grins, I can do without; his glib brushing off of credible criticisms, and refusal to take a stand on any number of things, I do not appreciate. He is no world-class leader, in short.

Obama has enjoyed the crudest of attacks on McCain, Palin, and even "Joe the Plumber" by surrogates who are falling all over themselves to be insulting and outrageous and insulting for him, so he need not say anything controversial. The media is doing it for him. By contrast, where's the attack machine that makes fun of Biden the flake, and Obama the indecisive and naive? Not on TV, folks. Not even on Fox News!

That Obama avoids anything controversial is nothing new. How he will avoid candid and awkward face time when the heat gets turned up if he becomes president, I cannot be sure. If he wins, perhaps he will redefine the job an elected honorable chairmanship: staff and surrogates would do all of the tricky work and make all the statements he thinks might dirty his reputation, or he would simply move to something less controversial (just like the old days in the state senate). Won't miss those great chats at the podium, though, with foreign leaders. Just what those will be about -- who knows! Redistribution of wealth? Eek!

It seems, based on what people who worked with him have said, that the party gave Obama lots of protection, going all the way back to his first state senate run. He didn't only cover himself with it, he didn't bat an eye to use that cover against anyone to get where he wanted to be. That's called blind ambition. Ambition is admirable to a point, but me-thinks Obama has taken it too far. Politicians who are given too much coverage to travel within without the friction usually given are not generous in their leadership, they are often autocratic. Hitler was given a role in government, and then some added power, then he took more. I am not trying to say he is in other ways similar to Hitler, such as ideologically or in mental stability, most people understand that Hitler came to power because they were trying to shut him up. Obama is not the same deal, but I lack another example of such a sheltered political rise, frankly. He takes a position, then changes it, and has not even got a voting record to fall back on. He is a perfect candidate in one sense: he has little shame and is not bothered by not having a long record of consistency or of voting, period.

Obama has been given a lot of latitude in his political career. He used it, calculatingly, and coolly, and he is handling this campaign with excellence. He has also been given some golden advantages. The economic crisis, while hardly the fault of the GOP, nor GW Bush, and certainly not McCain, is like the final gift for Obama in his campaign against GW Bush. Too bad McCain cannot also campaign against GW Bush, however inaccurate it is in any case.

Obama talks of how the election is about all of us, that it is not about him. Well, it seems to be about him an awful lot. He cannot even define the change he made the center of his campaign. Sadly, change from eight years of GW Bush is all a lot of people care about. But for what? Spreading the wealth? No thanks. I know how business works, and good businesses want to expand, not sit on their butts, so they will invest back into their business, which means more jobs. In his world, that investment would instead go to the government, in the form of taxes, for all but the smallest of small businesses. That's bad economics.

This campaign, such as it is with this giant financial "gift", is only the prologue, though. What about after the campaign? Where is the sign of the excellence while in office? He lacks a record of doing much other than campaigning and speaking and writing books about -- himself. But this campaign is not about him, it is about "us."

Barack Obama is going to make things change. Because change is always good. Just ask 1977-1980 what they thought of Jimmy Carter's work as president. That was quite a change. Twenty-one percent loan rates and Billy Carter. Change, change, and more change. And less change in your pockets.

Obama canvassing suggests socialism is the hope he offers

As I noted in another post tonight, I am doing keyword searches for Obama information. Someone so new to the national stage can be a good thing, sure; it is a fool who thinks he could not JUST AS EASILY be a disaster on many fronts. This is not American Idol he's auditioning for in stump speeches all over the country.

Eerily, I quickly stumbled across the following highly obscure post using these words: Obama, reliable, George Soros. (Soros is amazingly wealthy, a renowned liberal and clearly a supporter of Obama, and the Dems in general.) These are not right wing conspiracy terms.

In light of this campaigner's stupid arrogance, and the zealous lawbreaking of ACORN, etc., I am a bit concerned that Obama is far from being a black American candidate, but a leftist autocrat candidate. His bluster nearly matches this campaigner's, told of in this fresh blog of a fifty-something conservative.

Vans-15: USSA

This young man was canvassing our neighborhood about 3:30 PM when he knocked on our door, and when my wife and son answered, he proceeded to ask them to support Senator Obama's candidacy. When my wife told him that we are registered Republicans and that we intend to vote for Senator McCain, the young man retorted that "we're headed for socialism" and refused to obey my wife's instructions to leave immediately. After my wife called for me and I repeated her order to leave, the young man continued to hover on our front walk and stated that "we're headed for socialism" twice more in a triumphant tone of voice before finally moving on....

This incident gets under my skin for a couple of reasons. First, the kid wouldn't shove off when we told him to do so, as if defying us would convince us to change our minds and support his candidate: Liberals have a problem with private property, after all.

The door-knocker who was so enthusiastic for Obama yesterday was guilty of being young - ignorant, inexperienced, more energy than sense. But the candidate he represents has given him a rather evil hope, that we can be transformed into the United Socialist States of America, and I will resist that hope with all the strength I can muster.

This is troubling, and sad. And frightening. The U.S. liberals' ideals are far more holding to "knowing" they are "correct". The worst traits in their political draw include baiting the least fortunate (as evidenced by the Clinton-era passing of the subprime mortgages for those who could barely afford them in good times, and only temporarily afford them at all), and their policy of big government and high taxes is far more fascist-leaning than the conservative (not Bush, the jackass, but real conservatives), smaller government and free markets political history.

Still, I cannot let worst-case scenarios affect me. I will be looking for more such similar posts, but others as well, not so troubling.

One never knows: we could be headed for another revolution, and it could be a socialist one. I know I am ripe for revolution, while fascism is not exactly the direction I want to go. I understand Naziism, the Holocaust, I've met victims. I am outraged by Darfur. I recall the USSR, unlike the kids who are so sure Obama's the "One". It all smells a bit like a friendly sort of fascism, which would be so fitting in this "cheerleader" culture we seem to embrace.

Keywording: Obama's dirty secrets or right wing assaults?

Fairly convinced at the moment that Obama will take the White House, I set myself to doing keyword searches to try to understand where things are going after January 2009. This conclusion comes to my regret as I have supported McCain for a broad group of reasons that have nothing to do with the BS this campaign has dumped in his lap, as far back into 1999.

Obama is overconfident, embraces inaction coated by colorful rhetoric (like Bill Clinton), and waits to drop his cards last. I don't like that, but I am perhaps going to have to live with it. So I figure I'd better try to figure out the deeper influences on this professional politician with hardly any real leadership experience who cannot even clearly express his reasons for attending a church for 20 years.

Thankfully, he has smarts, but that is only the wild card; I hope he has the humility and philosophical vibe to be more Kennedy than Clinton, more Eisenhower than GW Bush, more Reagan than Carter.

We'll see how this goes.

MSNBC struggles with political coverage reality, and liberal monotony loses

'Olbermonotony' crisis has been greatly reduced, according to MSNBC report

The place: MSNBC.

The issue: major election and political news anchoring.

The jilted gabbers:
> Chris "I do not act just like that guy on SNL" Matthews
> Keith "I used to be on ESPN just like Craig Kilborn!" Olbermann

Yes, in a disturbingly conscientious move that can only be categorized as FUNNY for all conservatives and respectable journalists, these two bigmouths have been tossed from the political landscape: One is an egotistical and demented blusterer of extreme liberal bias and wagon-circling who seems to be OK with publicly obsessing over Bill O'Reilly, the other is a likeable and less embarrassing candle bearer for Democrats who is recently being dragged down to the first one's level.

Thus, two of the most important opinion-shapers ever to put on makeup, fiddle with earpieces, get a little too friendly with Ariana Huffington during an interview, and make millions per year while shoving their childish opinions in viewers' faces, have been displaced. That these two were ever put behind the same huge desk is comparable to Hepburn and Tracy, or Dumb and Dumber, depending on your criteria.

If your criteria is jouralism, then MSNBC made the right move.

If your criteria is entertainment, then you are sorely disappointed by this move. You consolement can be found on Internet replays of his "best" stuff.

If you are Keith Olbermann's significant other or dog, you are in for a very rough week of paranoid ranting coming from the bed, shower, hall closet, and kitchen pantry.

This could be a promising boost for Chris Matthews. Considered a respectable yet liberally biased newsman -- until he was given the seat next to his now-former co-anchor Olbermann-- Matthews began to speak like a junior high "Most Popular" candidate trying to win over his shinier-faced pal when he was with the glassy-eyed ESPN alumna. I hope Matthews has enough sense to count his blessings in this turn of events.

Aside from when Fox News Channel launched -- touting its fair and balanced claims though they are generally leaning right -- this unselfish act by MSNBC of admitting bias and slightly downgrading its cause may be the most notable thing to happen since CNN first put out a signal that said "look out major networks, it's a 24-hour news world out there, and we're going to give you at least three hours of it!"

On the other hand, Microsoft just launched a major new advertising campaign, and the MS in MSNBC is of course meaing Microsoft ... so this could be all part of Microsoft's master plan to become a more likable, affable and tolerable provider of consumer and business technology.

Related articles

Head count