PHOENIX - In the race for U.S. Senate, J.D. Hayworth is accusing John McCain of flip-flopping on the issue of illegal immigration.
Does McCain want border security or a path to citizenship for illegals -- or both? McCain once championed comprehensive immigration reform that would allow people here illegally a path to citizenship.
"The present situation with broken borders and 11 million people that are in America without citizenship is unacceptable," he said on the campaign trail.
Now McCain says border security must come first before tackling what to do with the 12 million illegals already living in the u.s..
Fox 10 News obtained a letter from McCain's office dated April 16 of this year. In it McCain writes... "Let me be clear, I do not support amnesty. We can't reward lawbreakers, but we also have to deal with the reality of this enormous undocumented population." The letter goes on to say... "We must provide these individuals with incentives to come forward, complete security background checks, pay any owed taxes and stiff penalties for breaking the law, learn to speak English, and regularize their status.
"We asked McCain's office what the term "regularize" means. McCain's aide Brooke Buchanan says "regularize means follow the law."McCain's primary opponent JD Hayworth thinks it means something else."Basically for all these years he's tried to use the poll-driven term comprehensive immigration reform. But now we have a new term in the McCain vocabulary -- regularization," says Hayworth.Hayworth also claims the response from the McCain camp falls short."For the McCain people to say it means follow the law… No, regularization means amnesty plain and simple."It should be noted, Hayworth's position on illegal immigration has also changed over the years. Back in 2001 he favored more guest workers and a path to citizenship. But he says that all changed after the 9/11 attacks.
Foxnews10 Arizona
Custom Search
Showing posts with label John McCain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John McCain. Show all posts
Friday, July 16, 2010
Sunday, November 09, 2008
Exit Polls Reveal Conservatives Abandoned McCain
Fox news Reports
Democrat Barack Obama garnered a surprising 20 percent of the vote from conservatives who cast ballots on Election Day, top-ranked radio-talker Rush Limbaugh told listeners.
Citing exit polls, Limbaugh also said on Wednesday that Republican John McCain lost independents and moderates by a margin of 60 percent to 39 percent.
“McCain only got 89 percent of the Republican vote,” Limbaugh said. “He only got 80 percent of the conservative vote.
“And therein lies the tale, the recipe offered up by the wizards of smart in the Republican Party and on our side — for whatever reason we have to abandon our base, and we’ve gotta broaden our base . . .
“I have nothing against going out and getting Democrats and independents to vote for you. But not by behaving like a Democrat or independent.”
Fox News commissioned extensive exit polling on Election Day. Some highlights:
75 percent of voters said the U.S. is headed in the wrong direction, and these voters went solidly for Obama — 62 percent to McCain’s 36 percent.
63 percent of voters said the economy was the most important issue facing the nation, and they backed Obama, 53 percent to 44 percent.
48 percent said they are “very worried” that the economic crisis will hurt their family’s finances in the coming year, and they voted for Obama,
60 percent to 38 percent.
Voters who said they wanted a president who can bring about change overwhelmingly went for Obama, 89 percent to 9 percent.
Despite predictions that the 2008 election would bring a sharp increase
in the number of young voters, people under age 30 comprised just
18 percent of all voters, up from 17 percent in the past three presidential elections and down from 21 percent in 1992. These voters went for Obama, 66 percent to 32 percent.
Among the 11 percent of voters who were casting ballots in a presidential election for the first time, 68 percent voted for Obama and 31 percent chose McCain.
18 percent of voters who supported President Bush in 2004 defected from the GOP and supported Obama this year.
Women chose Obama over the McCain-Palin ticket by a margin of 56 percent to 43 percent.
52 percent of white Catholics voted for McCain, compared to 47 percent
for Obama.
Black voters comprised 13 percent of the electorate and 95 percent of them backed Obama. White voters favored McCain by a 12-point margin.
Hispanics helped Obama win the battleground state of Florida, voting for the Democrat over the Republican, 57 percent to 42 percent. In 2004, President Bush garnered 56 percent of the Hispanic vote.
In Pennsylvania, 20 percent of Democrats who voted for Hillary Clinton over Obama in the primary voted for McCain on Tuesday.
Democrat Barack Obama garnered a surprising 20 percent of the vote from conservatives who cast ballots on Election Day, top-ranked radio-talker Rush Limbaugh told listeners.
Citing exit polls, Limbaugh also said on Wednesday that Republican John McCain lost independents and moderates by a margin of 60 percent to 39 percent.
“McCain only got 89 percent of the Republican vote,” Limbaugh said. “He only got 80 percent of the conservative vote.
“And therein lies the tale, the recipe offered up by the wizards of smart in the Republican Party and on our side — for whatever reason we have to abandon our base, and we’ve gotta broaden our base . . .
“I have nothing against going out and getting Democrats and independents to vote for you. But not by behaving like a Democrat or independent.”
Fox News commissioned extensive exit polling on Election Day. Some highlights:
75 percent of voters said the U.S. is headed in the wrong direction, and these voters went solidly for Obama — 62 percent to McCain’s 36 percent.
63 percent of voters said the economy was the most important issue facing the nation, and they backed Obama, 53 percent to 44 percent.
48 percent said they are “very worried” that the economic crisis will hurt their family’s finances in the coming year, and they voted for Obama,
60 percent to 38 percent.
Voters who said they wanted a president who can bring about change overwhelmingly went for Obama, 89 percent to 9 percent.
Despite predictions that the 2008 election would bring a sharp increase
in the number of young voters, people under age 30 comprised just
18 percent of all voters, up from 17 percent in the past three presidential elections and down from 21 percent in 1992. These voters went for Obama, 66 percent to 32 percent.
Among the 11 percent of voters who were casting ballots in a presidential election for the first time, 68 percent voted for Obama and 31 percent chose McCain.
18 percent of voters who supported President Bush in 2004 defected from the GOP and supported Obama this year.
Women chose Obama over the McCain-Palin ticket by a margin of 56 percent to 43 percent.
52 percent of white Catholics voted for McCain, compared to 47 percent
for Obama.
Black voters comprised 13 percent of the electorate and 95 percent of them backed Obama. White voters favored McCain by a 12-point margin.
Hispanics helped Obama win the battleground state of Florida, voting for the Democrat over the Republican, 57 percent to 42 percent. In 2004, President Bush garnered 56 percent of the Hispanic vote.
In Pennsylvania, 20 percent of Democrats who voted for Hillary Clinton over Obama in the primary voted for McCain on Tuesday.
Saturday, November 01, 2008
Now it's swinging polls not hanging chads that scare Democrats
Barack Obama is deploying an awesome battery of firepower to blow out a faint flicker of hope in John McCain's campaign that he can yet pull off an unlikely comeback in the final days of this election.
The Democratic nominee spent yesterday hopscotching through battleground states where he hammered home his message on the economy, the issue of greatest concern to voters and on which some polls suggest that McCain has begun to close the gap.
He told a rally in Sarasota, Florida: “John McCain has stood with President Bush every step of the way. And you've got to ask yourself: why would we keep on driving down this dead-end street?”
On Wednesday night he blanketed TV networks with a half-hour commercial designed to allay concerns about electing an inexperienced — and black — president. The advert drew 26.4 million viewers to three major networks, according to Nielsen Media Research.
How America's presidents rated
The Times has ranked all 42 US presidents - was Bush Jr. bottom? Did JFK beat Abraham Lincoln?
Related Links
Obama lays plans to deaden expectations
Republican civil war breaks out behind McCain
Later, at a midnight rally with 35,000 people in Kissimmee, he took the stage with Bill Clinton, who declared: “Folks, we can't fool with this. Our country is hanging in the balance. This man should be our president.”
The heavy Democratic bombardment of Florida will continue tomorrow when Al Gore campaigns in the state that, by the narrowest of margins, destroyed his presidential dream eight years ago.
Republicans selectively point to national polls that show Mr Obama's lead is as low as 3 per cent, although others suggest it is five times larger. Mr McCain declared in the city of Defiance, Ohio, yesterday: “We're a few points behind but we're coming back.”
One explanation for the wide disparity in surveys is that polling organisations make different assumptions about “likely voters”, with those who give Mr Obama a large lead believing that there will be a surge in turnout among African-Americans and young people. Figures for early voting in key states including Iowa, North Carolina, Florida, Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada, suggest that the Democrat candidate is already benefiting.
But Mr McCain's chief pollster, Bill McInturff, issued a memo this week, arguing: “All signs say we are headed to an election that may easily be too close to call.” He said that expected gains for Mr Obama among black and young people would be offset by increased turnout among rural and less-educated voters. “Wal-Mart women” with no education and household incomes below $60,000 (£36,400) are “swinging back, solidly,” he claimed.
Some Republicans also say that polls tend to overestimate support for black candidates — notably Tom Bradley, who lost a 1982 race for Governor of California — when they are up against white opponents.
David Axelrod, Mr Obama's chief strategist, said: “It's unreasonable to expect anyone to win this race by more than three to five points. It will tighten, that is the nature of these contests. But do I see what the Republicans claim to be seeing? No. State by state this is going very well.”
Mr McCain has widened his attacks on Mr Obama in recent days to complain that The Los Angeles Times is withholding publication of a video tape showing his rival meeting a Palestinian activist, Rashid Khalidi. At the same time Republicans have launched a new TV advert, with Middle Eastern music playing in the background, highlighting Mr Obama's stated wish to hold talks with Iranian leaders. This is being seen as a possible nudge to voters who still believe false rumours that he is a Muslim.
But Mr McCain has told CNN that race would not decide this election and focused his attention yesterday firmly on economic issues such as Mr Obama's proposed tax increases, which the Republican has suggested are reminiscent of socialism.
Mr Obama is showing signs of sensitivity on this issue, telling his rally in Florida: “I love rich people, I want all of you to be rich.” He added: “I don't know what's next. By the end of the week, he'll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten.”
Reported by The Times
The Democratic nominee spent yesterday hopscotching through battleground states where he hammered home his message on the economy, the issue of greatest concern to voters and on which some polls suggest that McCain has begun to close the gap.
He told a rally in Sarasota, Florida: “John McCain has stood with President Bush every step of the way. And you've got to ask yourself: why would we keep on driving down this dead-end street?”
On Wednesday night he blanketed TV networks with a half-hour commercial designed to allay concerns about electing an inexperienced — and black — president. The advert drew 26.4 million viewers to three major networks, according to Nielsen Media Research.
How America's presidents rated
The Times has ranked all 42 US presidents - was Bush Jr. bottom? Did JFK beat Abraham Lincoln?
Related Links
Obama lays plans to deaden expectations
Republican civil war breaks out behind McCain
Later, at a midnight rally with 35,000 people in Kissimmee, he took the stage with Bill Clinton, who declared: “Folks, we can't fool with this. Our country is hanging in the balance. This man should be our president.”
The heavy Democratic bombardment of Florida will continue tomorrow when Al Gore campaigns in the state that, by the narrowest of margins, destroyed his presidential dream eight years ago.
Republicans selectively point to national polls that show Mr Obama's lead is as low as 3 per cent, although others suggest it is five times larger. Mr McCain declared in the city of Defiance, Ohio, yesterday: “We're a few points behind but we're coming back.”
One explanation for the wide disparity in surveys is that polling organisations make different assumptions about “likely voters”, with those who give Mr Obama a large lead believing that there will be a surge in turnout among African-Americans and young people. Figures for early voting in key states including Iowa, North Carolina, Florida, Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada, suggest that the Democrat candidate is already benefiting.
But Mr McCain's chief pollster, Bill McInturff, issued a memo this week, arguing: “All signs say we are headed to an election that may easily be too close to call.” He said that expected gains for Mr Obama among black and young people would be offset by increased turnout among rural and less-educated voters. “Wal-Mart women” with no education and household incomes below $60,000 (£36,400) are “swinging back, solidly,” he claimed.
Some Republicans also say that polls tend to overestimate support for black candidates — notably Tom Bradley, who lost a 1982 race for Governor of California — when they are up against white opponents.
David Axelrod, Mr Obama's chief strategist, said: “It's unreasonable to expect anyone to win this race by more than three to five points. It will tighten, that is the nature of these contests. But do I see what the Republicans claim to be seeing? No. State by state this is going very well.”
Mr McCain has widened his attacks on Mr Obama in recent days to complain that The Los Angeles Times is withholding publication of a video tape showing his rival meeting a Palestinian activist, Rashid Khalidi. At the same time Republicans have launched a new TV advert, with Middle Eastern music playing in the background, highlighting Mr Obama's stated wish to hold talks with Iranian leaders. This is being seen as a possible nudge to voters who still believe false rumours that he is a Muslim.
But Mr McCain has told CNN that race would not decide this election and focused his attention yesterday firmly on economic issues such as Mr Obama's proposed tax increases, which the Republican has suggested are reminiscent of socialism.
Mr Obama is showing signs of sensitivity on this issue, telling his rally in Florida: “I love rich people, I want all of you to be rich.” He added: “I don't know what's next. By the end of the week, he'll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten.”
Reported by The Times
Wide Disparities Between Polls Makes Careful Interpretation Necessary
As the presidential candidates travel from state to state trying to win over voters, pollsters across the country are just as relentless in reflecting the public's opinion of the candidate's efforts.
While recent polls indicate Democratic nominee Barack Obama has a lead over Republican rival John McCain, there has been wide disparity in the numbers, with some showing the gap as narrow as 4 percentage points and others putting it at as wide at 14 points.
With wide disparities between two polls, how do analysts truly see which candidate is in the lead?
Careful interpretation is the expert's answer. Billionaire investor Warren Buffett once said that "A public-opinion poll is no substitute for thought." However, for those who make their living giving thought to the numbers, public-opinion polls are not a substitute for, but rather food for thought. For election forecasters, they are a central component of a tricky formula.
In an interview with RTTNews, Professor James Campbell of the State University at Buffalo in New York, who has his own election forecasting model, outlined some of the inherent flaws of polls. One such discrepancy has to do with the difference between surveying registered voters and likely voters.
"Most of the polls have tried to measure what registered voters are thinking and that is different than what registered voters are thinking of that time," he said. "I think that the history of that attempt has not been very good and I think the pollsters acknowledge that."
Typically, there are more registered Democrats then registered Republicans, making them overrepresented in polls of registered voters, Campbell said. He suggests focusing on likely voters, or at least separating the results of likely and registered voter polls.
However, lacking that separation, Campbell said he thinks that polls will lean in Obama's favor.
Specifically, Campbell cited a CBS/New York Times poll from earlier in the week that showed Obama with a 14 percentage point lead over rival John McCain.
"I think the CBS/NY Times Poll has always been on the high side for Democrats…a little bit erratic too," he said.
While there will be sampling errors in any poll, and "even by the same organization or the same method is going to yield a little bit different results," Campbell said that it is good to take a look at the average. For his election forecast he relied on Gallup.
Averaging various polls is also recommended by Professor Robert Erikson of Columbia University, who along with Temple University Professor Christopher Wlezien works on election forecasting. Speaking with RTTNews, Erikson said that in his forecast he and Wlezien used all polls, or "whatever was available."
When asked how to reconcile the differences between polls, Erikson said that there is no real way to know if one poll is better than another.
"You don't know which ones are the bad ones," he said. "We just pick an average."
That average came from 30 or 40 polls per month, Erikson said.
Both Campbell and Erikson's early predictors are models that take into account a wide variety of factors. However, their forecasts selected different candidates. Not taking into account the events of the past few weeks, Campbell's model predicted a McCain victory, while the Erikson- Wlezien predicted Obama.
Although Campbell's forecast selected McCain to win the popular vote, there was an unforeseen event that has been the equivalent of "a meteor hitting the campaign." That event - the financial crisis - has seemed to help Obama, boosting the Illinois senator in the polls in the last few weeks.
"Nobody was anticipating this, none of the forecasting model," Campbell said. Calling it an "extremely unusual case," he said that the election has been greatly changed due to the market meltdown.
Erikson said that there is a clear correlation to the decline in the economy and the increase in support for Obama.
"The economy has gone downward the last month, Obama support has gone up," Erikson said.
Overall, Erikson expects Obama to win 52 or 53 percent of the two party vote. He gives McCain a less than 1 in 10 chance for a comeback, but greater than 1 in 20.
Despite his election forecasting model's prediction, the financial crisis has led Campbell to also predict Obama as the victor on November 4th. When asked he thinks McCain can engineer a comeback, Campbell said it was a long shot.
"Probably not, but his only chance is to try," he said.
Campbell referenced the 1948 presidential election, when incumbent president Harry Truman orchestrated a stunning upset of rival Thomas Dewey. However, the financial shock is the economic equivalent of a terrorist attack the size of September 11th in the middle of the campaign, he said, making this a "very pro-Democratic year."
Erikson concedes that although McCain has a considerable obstacle, it is "not impossible to overcome."
Reported by RTTNews
While recent polls indicate Democratic nominee Barack Obama has a lead over Republican rival John McCain, there has been wide disparity in the numbers, with some showing the gap as narrow as 4 percentage points and others putting it at as wide at 14 points.
With wide disparities between two polls, how do analysts truly see which candidate is in the lead?
Careful interpretation is the expert's answer. Billionaire investor Warren Buffett once said that "A public-opinion poll is no substitute for thought." However, for those who make their living giving thought to the numbers, public-opinion polls are not a substitute for, but rather food for thought. For election forecasters, they are a central component of a tricky formula.
In an interview with RTTNews, Professor James Campbell of the State University at Buffalo in New York, who has his own election forecasting model, outlined some of the inherent flaws of polls. One such discrepancy has to do with the difference between surveying registered voters and likely voters.
"Most of the polls have tried to measure what registered voters are thinking and that is different than what registered voters are thinking of that time," he said. "I think that the history of that attempt has not been very good and I think the pollsters acknowledge that."
Typically, there are more registered Democrats then registered Republicans, making them overrepresented in polls of registered voters, Campbell said. He suggests focusing on likely voters, or at least separating the results of likely and registered voter polls.
However, lacking that separation, Campbell said he thinks that polls will lean in Obama's favor.
Specifically, Campbell cited a CBS/New York Times poll from earlier in the week that showed Obama with a 14 percentage point lead over rival John McCain.
"I think the CBS/NY Times Poll has always been on the high side for Democrats…a little bit erratic too," he said.
While there will be sampling errors in any poll, and "even by the same organization or the same method is going to yield a little bit different results," Campbell said that it is good to take a look at the average. For his election forecast he relied on Gallup.
Averaging various polls is also recommended by Professor Robert Erikson of Columbia University, who along with Temple University Professor Christopher Wlezien works on election forecasting. Speaking with RTTNews, Erikson said that in his forecast he and Wlezien used all polls, or "whatever was available."
When asked how to reconcile the differences between polls, Erikson said that there is no real way to know if one poll is better than another.
"You don't know which ones are the bad ones," he said. "We just pick an average."
That average came from 30 or 40 polls per month, Erikson said.
Both Campbell and Erikson's early predictors are models that take into account a wide variety of factors. However, their forecasts selected different candidates. Not taking into account the events of the past few weeks, Campbell's model predicted a McCain victory, while the Erikson- Wlezien predicted Obama.
Although Campbell's forecast selected McCain to win the popular vote, there was an unforeseen event that has been the equivalent of "a meteor hitting the campaign." That event - the financial crisis - has seemed to help Obama, boosting the Illinois senator in the polls in the last few weeks.
"Nobody was anticipating this, none of the forecasting model," Campbell said. Calling it an "extremely unusual case," he said that the election has been greatly changed due to the market meltdown.
Erikson said that there is a clear correlation to the decline in the economy and the increase in support for Obama.
"The economy has gone downward the last month, Obama support has gone up," Erikson said.
Overall, Erikson expects Obama to win 52 or 53 percent of the two party vote. He gives McCain a less than 1 in 10 chance for a comeback, but greater than 1 in 20.
Despite his election forecasting model's prediction, the financial crisis has led Campbell to also predict Obama as the victor on November 4th. When asked he thinks McCain can engineer a comeback, Campbell said it was a long shot.
"Probably not, but his only chance is to try," he said.
Campbell referenced the 1948 presidential election, when incumbent president Harry Truman orchestrated a stunning upset of rival Thomas Dewey. However, the financial shock is the economic equivalent of a terrorist attack the size of September 11th in the middle of the campaign, he said, making this a "very pro-Democratic year."
Erikson concedes that although McCain has a considerable obstacle, it is "not impossible to overcome."
Reported by RTTNews
Friday, October 24, 2008
No Big Party Planned for McCain on election-night
AP - Republican John McCain is not going to make his election night remarks in the traditional style — at a podium standing in front of a sea of campaign workers jammed into a hotel ballroom.
Oh, the throng of supporters will hold the usual election night party at the Biltmore Hotel in Phoenix on the evening of Nov. 4.
But the Republican presidential nominee plans to address another group of supporters and a small group of reporters on the hotel lawn; his remarks will be simultaneously piped electronically to the party inside and other reporters in a media filing center, aides said.
Aides said Thursday that the arrangement was the result of space limitations and that McCain might drop by the election watch party at some other point.
Only a small press "pool" — mostly those who have traveled regularly with the candidate on his campaign plane, plus a few local Arizona reporters and other guests — will be physically present when McCain speaks.
Thomas Patterson, a government professor at Harvard's Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, called the arrangement "unusual" but said the campaign may simply be bowing to the reality that the candidate's remarks are geared toward the televised audience rather than those in the hall.
"Addressing your supporters election night is one of those traditions in politics, like where you choose to launch your campaign," Patterson said. "Why wouldn't you want the energy of the crowd? And if you're going to lose, you almost need it even more."
With just 12 days left in the presidential contest, most polls show the Arizona senator trailing Democrat Barack Obama nationally and in most battleground states, although a new AP-GfK poll showed the race tightening a bit in the last few days.
Obama, by contrast, plans to address a giant outdoor celebration election night in Chicago's Grant Park. The event is free and open to the public, but the campaign was charging media organizations a hefty fee for close-in spots on the camera risers and platforms and for cable and wireless Internet at those spots.
Police Prepare for Unrest (and Riots Come Election Day)
by kristinn
Police departments in cities across the country are beefing up their ranks for Election Day, preparing for possible civil unrest and riots after the historic presidential contest.
Public safety officials said in interviews with The Hill that the election, which will end with either the nation’s first black president or its first female vice president, demanded a stronger police presence.
Some worry that if Barack Obama loses and there is suspicion of foul play in the election, violence could ensue in cities with large black populations. Others based the need for enhanced patrols on past riots in urban areas (following professional sports events) and also on Internet rumors.
Democratic strategists and advocates for black voters say they understand officers wanting to keep the peace, but caution that excessive police presence could intimidate voters.
Sen. Obama (Ill.), the Democratic nominee for president, has seen his lead over rival Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) grow in recent weeks, prompting speculation that there could be a violent backlash if he loses unexpectedly.
Cities that have suffered unrest before, such as Detroit, Chicago, Oakland and Philadelphia, will have extra police deployed.
In Oakland, the police will deploy extra units trained in riot control, as well as extra traffic police, and even put SWAT teams on standby.
“Are we anticipating it will be a riot situation? No. But will we be prepared if it goes awry? Yes,” said Jeff Thomason, spokesman for the Oakland Police Department.
“I think it is a big deal — you got an African-American running and [a] woman running,” he added, in reference to Obama and GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin. “Whoever wins it, it will be a national event. We will have more officers on the street in anticipation that things may go south.”
The Oakland police last faced big riots in 2003 when the Raiders lost to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in the Super Bowl. Officials are bracing themselves in case residents of Oakland take Obama’s loss badly.
Political observers such as Hilary Shelton and James Carville fear that record voter turnout could overload polling places on Election Day and could raise tension levels.
Shelton, the director of the NAACP’s Washington bureau, said inadequate voting facilities is a bigger problem in poor communities with large numbers of minorities.
“What are local election officials doing to prepare for what people think will be record turnout at the polls?” said Shelton, who added that during the 2004 election in Ohio voters in predominantly black communities had to wait in line six to eight hours to vote.
“On Election Day, if this continues, you may have some tempers flare; we should be prepared to deal with that but do it without intimidation,” said Shelton, who added that police have to be able to maintain order at polling stations without scaring voters, especially immigrants from “police states.”
Carville, who served as a senior political adviser to former President Bill Clinton, said that many Democrats would be very angry if Obama loses. He noted that many Democrats were upset by Sen. John Kerry’s (D-Mass.) loss to President Bush in the 2004 election, when some Democrats made allegations of vote manipulation in Ohio, the state that ultimately decided the race.
Experts estimated that thousands of voters did not vote in Ohio because of poor preparation and long lines. Carville said Democratic anger in 2004 “would be very small to what would happen in 2008” if the same problems arose.
Carville said earlier this month that “it would be very, very, very dramatic out there” if Obama lost, a statement some commentators interpreted as predicting riots. In an interview Tuesday, however, Carville said he did not explicitly predict rioting.
“A lot of Democrats would have a great deal of angst and anger,” said Carville, who predicted that on Election Day “the voting system all around the country is going to be very stressed because there’s going to be enormous turnout.”
Other commentators have made such bold predictions.
“If [Obama] is elected, like with sports championships, people may go out and riot,” said Bob Parks, an online columnist and black Republican candidate for state representative in Massachusetts. “If Barack Obama loses there will be another large group of people who will assume the election was stolen from him….. This will be an opportunity for people who want to commit mischief.”
Speculation about Election-Day violence has spread on the Internet, especially on right-wing websites.
This has caught the attention of police departments in cities such as Cincinnati, which saw race riots in 2001 after police shot a young black man.
“We’ve seen it on the Internet and we’ve heard that there could be civil unrest depending on the outcome of [the election,]” said Lt. Mark Briede of the Cincinnati Police Department. “We are prepared to respond in the case of some sort of unrest or some sort of incident.”
Briede, like other police officials interviewed, declined to elaborate on plans for Election Day. Many police departments have policies prohibiting public discussion of security plans.
James Tate, second deputy chief of Detroit’s police department, said extra manpower would be assigned to duty on Election Night. He said problems could flare whichever candidate wins.
“Either party will make history and we want to prepare for celebrations that will be on a larger scale than for our sports teams,” Tate said.
He noted that police had to control rioters who overturned cars after the Tigers won the 1984 World Series.
“We’re prepared for the best-case scenario, we’re prepared for the worst-case scenario,” he said. “The worst-case scenario could be a situation that requires law enforcement.”
But Tate declined to describe what the worst-case scenario might look like, speaking gingerly like other police officials who are wary of implying that black voters are more likely than other voting groups to cause trouble.
Shelton, of the NAACP, said he understands the need for police to maintain order. But he is also concerned that some political partisans may point their finger at black voters as potential troublemakers because the Democratic nominee is black.
Shelton said any racial or ethnic group would get angry if they felt disenfranchised because of voting irregularities.
Police officials in Chicago, where Obama will hold a Nov. 4 rally, and Philadelphia are also preparing for Election Day.
“The Chicago Police Department has been meeting regularly to coordinate our safety and security plans and will deploy our resources accordingly,” said Monique Bond, of the Chicago Police Department.
Frank Vanore, of the Philadelphia Police Department, said officials were planning to mobilize to control exuberant or perhaps angry demonstrations after the World Series, which pits the Phillies against the Tampa Bay Rays.
He said the boosted police activity would “spill right over to the election.”
Police departments in cities across the country are beefing up their ranks for Election Day, preparing for possible civil unrest and riots after the historic presidential contest.
Public safety officials said in interviews with The Hill that the election, which will end with either the nation’s first black president or its first female vice president, demanded a stronger police presence.
Some worry that if Barack Obama loses and there is suspicion of foul play in the election, violence could ensue in cities with large black populations. Others based the need for enhanced patrols on past riots in urban areas (following professional sports events) and also on Internet rumors.
Democratic strategists and advocates for black voters say they understand officers wanting to keep the peace, but caution that excessive police presence could intimidate voters.
Sen. Obama (Ill.), the Democratic nominee for president, has seen his lead over rival Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) grow in recent weeks, prompting speculation that there could be a violent backlash if he loses unexpectedly.
Cities that have suffered unrest before, such as Detroit, Chicago, Oakland and Philadelphia, will have extra police deployed.
In Oakland, the police will deploy extra units trained in riot control, as well as extra traffic police, and even put SWAT teams on standby.
“Are we anticipating it will be a riot situation? No. But will we be prepared if it goes awry? Yes,” said Jeff Thomason, spokesman for the Oakland Police Department.
“I think it is a big deal — you got an African-American running and [a] woman running,” he added, in reference to Obama and GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin. “Whoever wins it, it will be a national event. We will have more officers on the street in anticipation that things may go south.”
The Oakland police last faced big riots in 2003 when the Raiders lost to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in the Super Bowl. Officials are bracing themselves in case residents of Oakland take Obama’s loss badly.
Political observers such as Hilary Shelton and James Carville fear that record voter turnout could overload polling places on Election Day and could raise tension levels.
Shelton, the director of the NAACP’s Washington bureau, said inadequate voting facilities is a bigger problem in poor communities with large numbers of minorities.
“What are local election officials doing to prepare for what people think will be record turnout at the polls?” said Shelton, who added that during the 2004 election in Ohio voters in predominantly black communities had to wait in line six to eight hours to vote.
“On Election Day, if this continues, you may have some tempers flare; we should be prepared to deal with that but do it without intimidation,” said Shelton, who added that police have to be able to maintain order at polling stations without scaring voters, especially immigrants from “police states.”
Carville, who served as a senior political adviser to former President Bill Clinton, said that many Democrats would be very angry if Obama loses. He noted that many Democrats were upset by Sen. John Kerry’s (D-Mass.) loss to President Bush in the 2004 election, when some Democrats made allegations of vote manipulation in Ohio, the state that ultimately decided the race.
Experts estimated that thousands of voters did not vote in Ohio because of poor preparation and long lines. Carville said Democratic anger in 2004 “would be very small to what would happen in 2008” if the same problems arose.
Carville said earlier this month that “it would be very, very, very dramatic out there” if Obama lost, a statement some commentators interpreted as predicting riots. In an interview Tuesday, however, Carville said he did not explicitly predict rioting.
“A lot of Democrats would have a great deal of angst and anger,” said Carville, who predicted that on Election Day “the voting system all around the country is going to be very stressed because there’s going to be enormous turnout.”
Other commentators have made such bold predictions.
“If [Obama] is elected, like with sports championships, people may go out and riot,” said Bob Parks, an online columnist and black Republican candidate for state representative in Massachusetts. “If Barack Obama loses there will be another large group of people who will assume the election was stolen from him….. This will be an opportunity for people who want to commit mischief.”
Speculation about Election-Day violence has spread on the Internet, especially on right-wing websites.
This has caught the attention of police departments in cities such as Cincinnati, which saw race riots in 2001 after police shot a young black man.
“We’ve seen it on the Internet and we’ve heard that there could be civil unrest depending on the outcome of [the election,]” said Lt. Mark Briede of the Cincinnati Police Department. “We are prepared to respond in the case of some sort of unrest or some sort of incident.”
Briede, like other police officials interviewed, declined to elaborate on plans for Election Day. Many police departments have policies prohibiting public discussion of security plans.
James Tate, second deputy chief of Detroit’s police department, said extra manpower would be assigned to duty on Election Night. He said problems could flare whichever candidate wins.
“Either party will make history and we want to prepare for celebrations that will be on a larger scale than for our sports teams,” Tate said.
He noted that police had to control rioters who overturned cars after the Tigers won the 1984 World Series.
“We’re prepared for the best-case scenario, we’re prepared for the worst-case scenario,” he said. “The worst-case scenario could be a situation that requires law enforcement.”
But Tate declined to describe what the worst-case scenario might look like, speaking gingerly like other police officials who are wary of implying that black voters are more likely than other voting groups to cause trouble.
Shelton, of the NAACP, said he understands the need for police to maintain order. But he is also concerned that some political partisans may point their finger at black voters as potential troublemakers because the Democratic nominee is black.
Shelton said any racial or ethnic group would get angry if they felt disenfranchised because of voting irregularities.
Police officials in Chicago, where Obama will hold a Nov. 4 rally, and Philadelphia are also preparing for Election Day.
“The Chicago Police Department has been meeting regularly to coordinate our safety and security plans and will deploy our resources accordingly,” said Monique Bond, of the Chicago Police Department.
Frank Vanore, of the Philadelphia Police Department, said officials were planning to mobilize to control exuberant or perhaps angry demonstrations after the World Series, which pits the Phillies against the Tampa Bay Rays.
He said the boosted police activity would “spill right over to the election.”
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Woman Attacked At ATM, Assailant Carves Letter Into Her Face because she is a McCain supporter
PITTSBURGH -- A 20-year-old woman who was robbed at an ATM in Bloomfield was also maimed by her attacker, police said.
Pittsburgh police spokeswoman Diane Richard tells Channel 4 Action News that the victim was robbed at knifepoint on Wednesday night outside of a Citizens Bank near Liberty Avenue and Pearl Street just before 9 p.m.
Richard said the robber took $60 from the woman, then became angry when he saw a McCain bumper sticker on the victim's car. The attacker then punched and kicked the victim, before using the knife to scratch the letter "B" into her face, Richard said.
Richard said the woman refused medical treatment after the assault, which happened outside the view of the bank's surveillance cameras.
The robber is described as a dark-skinned black man, 6 feet 4 inches tall, 200 pounds with a medium build, short black hair and brown eyes. The man was wearing dark colored jeans, a black undershirt and black shoes.
Pittsburgh police spokeswoman Diane Richard tells Channel 4 Action News that the victim was robbed at knifepoint on Wednesday night outside of a Citizens Bank near Liberty Avenue and Pearl Street just before 9 p.m.
Richard said the robber took $60 from the woman, then became angry when he saw a McCain bumper sticker on the victim's car. The attacker then punched and kicked the victim, before using the knife to scratch the letter "B" into her face, Richard said.
Richard said the woman refused medical treatment after the assault, which happened outside the view of the bank's surveillance cameras.
The robber is described as a dark-skinned black man, 6 feet 4 inches tall, 200 pounds with a medium build, short black hair and brown eyes. The man was wearing dark colored jeans, a black undershirt and black shoes.
Giuliani gets tough on Obama in new robocall
Rudy Giuliani is the star of a new robocall from the McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee that seeks to portray Barack Obama as soft on crime.
In the new call, to be blasted to voters in several swing states, the former federal prosecutor and New York City mayor says Obama opposes "mandatory prison sentences for sex offenders, drug dealers, and murderers."
"You need to know that Barack Obama opposes mandatory prison sentences for sex offenders, drug dealers, and murderers," Giuliani says in the call. "It's true, I read Obama's words myself. And recently, congressional liberals introduced a bill to eliminate mandatory prison sentences for violent criminals — trying to give liberal judges the power to decide whether criminals are sent to jail or set free."
"With priorities like these, we just can't trust the inexperience and judgment of Barack Obama and his liberal allies," Giuliani says.
Listen: Giuliani narrates the McCain/RNC's latest robocall
From CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney
In the new call, to be blasted to voters in several swing states, the former federal prosecutor and New York City mayor says Obama opposes "mandatory prison sentences for sex offenders, drug dealers, and murderers."
"You need to know that Barack Obama opposes mandatory prison sentences for sex offenders, drug dealers, and murderers," Giuliani says in the call. "It's true, I read Obama's words myself. And recently, congressional liberals introduced a bill to eliminate mandatory prison sentences for violent criminals — trying to give liberal judges the power to decide whether criminals are sent to jail or set free."
"With priorities like these, we just can't trust the inexperience and judgment of Barack Obama and his liberal allies," Giuliani says.
Listen: Giuliani narrates the McCain/RNC's latest robocall
From CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney
Police Prepare for Unrest (and Riots Come Election Day)
by kristinn
Police departments in cities across the country are beefing up their ranks for Election Day, preparing for possible civil unrest and riots after the historic presidential contest.
Public safety officials said in interviews with The Hill that the election, which will end with either the nation’s first black president or its first female vice president, demanded a stronger police presence.
Some worry that if Barack Obama loses and there is suspicion of foul play in the election, violence could ensue in cities with large black populations. Others based the need for enhanced patrols on past riots in urban areas (following professional sports events) and also on Internet rumors.
Democratic strategists and advocates for black voters say they understand officers wanting to keep the peace, but caution that excessive police presence could intimidate voters.
Sen. Obama (Ill.), the Democratic nominee for president, has seen his lead over rival Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) grow in recent weeks, prompting speculation that there could be a violent backlash if he loses unexpectedly.
Cities that have suffered unrest before, such as Detroit, Chicago, Oakland and Philadelphia, will have extra police deployed.
In Oakland, the police will deploy extra units trained in riot control, as well as extra traffic police, and even put SWAT teams on standby.
“Are we anticipating it will be a riot situation? No. But will we be prepared if it goes awry? Yes,” said Jeff Thomason, spokesman for the Oakland Police Department.
“I think it is a big deal — you got an African-American running and [a] woman running,” he added, in reference to Obama and GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin. “Whoever wins it, it will be a national event. We will have more officers on the street in anticipation that things may go south.”
The Oakland police last faced big riots in 2003 when the Raiders lost to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in the Super Bowl. Officials are bracing themselves in case residents of Oakland take Obama’s loss badly.
Political observers such as Hilary Shelton and James Carville fear that record voter turnout could overload polling places on Election Day and could raise tension levels.
Shelton, the director of the NAACP’s Washington bureau, said inadequate voting facilities is a bigger problem in poor communities with large numbers of minorities.
“What are local election officials doing to prepare for what people think will be record turnout at the polls?” said Shelton, who added that during the 2004 election in Ohio voters in predominantly black communities had to wait in line six to eight hours to vote.
“On Election Day, if this continues, you may have some tempers flare; we should be prepared to deal with that but do it without intimidation,” said Shelton, who added that police have to be able to maintain order at polling stations without scaring voters, especially immigrants from “police states.”
Carville, who served as a senior political adviser to former President Bill Clinton, said that many Democrats would be very angry if Obama loses. He noted that many Democrats were upset by Sen. John Kerry’s (D-Mass.) loss to President Bush in the 2004 election, when some Democrats made allegations of vote manipulation in Ohio, the state that ultimately decided the race.
Experts estimated that thousands of voters did not vote in Ohio because of poor preparation and long lines. Carville said Democratic anger in 2004 “would be very small to what would happen in 2008” if the same problems arose.
Carville said earlier this month that “it would be very, very, very dramatic out there” if Obama lost, a statement some commentators interpreted as predicting riots. In an interview Tuesday, however, Carville said he did not explicitly predict rioting.
“A lot of Democrats would have a great deal of angst and anger,” said Carville, who predicted that on Election Day “the voting system all around the country is going to be very stressed because there’s going to be enormous turnout.”
Other commentators have made such bold predictions.
“If [Obama] is elected, like with sports championships, people may go out and riot,” said Bob Parks, an online columnist and black Republican candidate for state representative in Massachusetts. “If Barack Obama loses there will be another large group of people who will assume the election was stolen from him….. This will be an opportunity for people who want to commit mischief.”
Speculation about Election-Day violence has spread on the Internet, especially on right-wing websites.
This has caught the attention of police departments in cities such as Cincinnati, which saw race riots in 2001 after police shot a young black man.
“We’ve seen it on the Internet and we’ve heard that there could be civil unrest depending on the outcome of [the election,]” said Lt. Mark Briede of the Cincinnati Police Department. “We are prepared to respond in the case of some sort of unrest or some sort of incident.”
Briede, like other police officials interviewed, declined to elaborate on plans for Election Day. Many police departments have policies prohibiting public discussion of security plans.
James Tate, second deputy chief of Detroit’s police department, said extra manpower would be assigned to duty on Election Night. He said problems could flare whichever candidate wins.
“Either party will make history and we want to prepare for celebrations that will be on a larger scale than for our sports teams,” Tate said.
He noted that police had to control rioters who overturned cars after the Tigers won the 1984 World Series.
“We’re prepared for the best-case scenario, we’re prepared for the worst-case scenario,” he said. “The worst-case scenario could be a situation that requires law enforcement.”
But Tate declined to describe what the worst-case scenario might look like, speaking gingerly like other police officials who are wary of implying that black voters are more likely than other voting groups to cause trouble.
Shelton, of the NAACP, said he understands the need for police to maintain order. But he is also concerned that some political partisans may point their finger at black voters as potential troublemakers because the Democratic nominee is black.
Shelton said any racial or ethnic group would get angry if they felt disenfranchised because of voting irregularities.
Police officials in Chicago, where Obama will hold a Nov. 4 rally, and Philadelphia are also preparing for Election Day.
“The Chicago Police Department has been meeting regularly to coordinate our safety and security plans and will deploy our resources accordingly,” said Monique Bond, of the Chicago Police Department.
Frank Vanore, of the Philadelphia Police Department, said officials were planning to mobilize to control exuberant or perhaps angry demonstrations after the World Series, which pits the Phillies against the Tampa Bay Rays.
He said the boosted police activity would “spill right over to the election.”
Police departments in cities across the country are beefing up their ranks for Election Day, preparing for possible civil unrest and riots after the historic presidential contest.
Public safety officials said in interviews with The Hill that the election, which will end with either the nation’s first black president or its first female vice president, demanded a stronger police presence.
Some worry that if Barack Obama loses and there is suspicion of foul play in the election, violence could ensue in cities with large black populations. Others based the need for enhanced patrols on past riots in urban areas (following professional sports events) and also on Internet rumors.
Democratic strategists and advocates for black voters say they understand officers wanting to keep the peace, but caution that excessive police presence could intimidate voters.
Sen. Obama (Ill.), the Democratic nominee for president, has seen his lead over rival Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) grow in recent weeks, prompting speculation that there could be a violent backlash if he loses unexpectedly.
Cities that have suffered unrest before, such as Detroit, Chicago, Oakland and Philadelphia, will have extra police deployed.
In Oakland, the police will deploy extra units trained in riot control, as well as extra traffic police, and even put SWAT teams on standby.
“Are we anticipating it will be a riot situation? No. But will we be prepared if it goes awry? Yes,” said Jeff Thomason, spokesman for the Oakland Police Department.
“I think it is a big deal — you got an African-American running and [a] woman running,” he added, in reference to Obama and GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin. “Whoever wins it, it will be a national event. We will have more officers on the street in anticipation that things may go south.”
The Oakland police last faced big riots in 2003 when the Raiders lost to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in the Super Bowl. Officials are bracing themselves in case residents of Oakland take Obama’s loss badly.
Political observers such as Hilary Shelton and James Carville fear that record voter turnout could overload polling places on Election Day and could raise tension levels.
Shelton, the director of the NAACP’s Washington bureau, said inadequate voting facilities is a bigger problem in poor communities with large numbers of minorities.
“What are local election officials doing to prepare for what people think will be record turnout at the polls?” said Shelton, who added that during the 2004 election in Ohio voters in predominantly black communities had to wait in line six to eight hours to vote.
“On Election Day, if this continues, you may have some tempers flare; we should be prepared to deal with that but do it without intimidation,” said Shelton, who added that police have to be able to maintain order at polling stations without scaring voters, especially immigrants from “police states.”
Carville, who served as a senior political adviser to former President Bill Clinton, said that many Democrats would be very angry if Obama loses. He noted that many Democrats were upset by Sen. John Kerry’s (D-Mass.) loss to President Bush in the 2004 election, when some Democrats made allegations of vote manipulation in Ohio, the state that ultimately decided the race.
Experts estimated that thousands of voters did not vote in Ohio because of poor preparation and long lines. Carville said Democratic anger in 2004 “would be very small to what would happen in 2008” if the same problems arose.
Carville said earlier this month that “it would be very, very, very dramatic out there” if Obama lost, a statement some commentators interpreted as predicting riots. In an interview Tuesday, however, Carville said he did not explicitly predict rioting.
“A lot of Democrats would have a great deal of angst and anger,” said Carville, who predicted that on Election Day “the voting system all around the country is going to be very stressed because there’s going to be enormous turnout.”
Other commentators have made such bold predictions.
“If [Obama] is elected, like with sports championships, people may go out and riot,” said Bob Parks, an online columnist and black Republican candidate for state representative in Massachusetts. “If Barack Obama loses there will be another large group of people who will assume the election was stolen from him….. This will be an opportunity for people who want to commit mischief.”
Speculation about Election-Day violence has spread on the Internet, especially on right-wing websites.
This has caught the attention of police departments in cities such as Cincinnati, which saw race riots in 2001 after police shot a young black man.
“We’ve seen it on the Internet and we’ve heard that there could be civil unrest depending on the outcome of [the election,]” said Lt. Mark Briede of the Cincinnati Police Department. “We are prepared to respond in the case of some sort of unrest or some sort of incident.”
Briede, like other police officials interviewed, declined to elaborate on plans for Election Day. Many police departments have policies prohibiting public discussion of security plans.
James Tate, second deputy chief of Detroit’s police department, said extra manpower would be assigned to duty on Election Night. He said problems could flare whichever candidate wins.
“Either party will make history and we want to prepare for celebrations that will be on a larger scale than for our sports teams,” Tate said.
He noted that police had to control rioters who overturned cars after the Tigers won the 1984 World Series.
“We’re prepared for the best-case scenario, we’re prepared for the worst-case scenario,” he said. “The worst-case scenario could be a situation that requires law enforcement.”
But Tate declined to describe what the worst-case scenario might look like, speaking gingerly like other police officials who are wary of implying that black voters are more likely than other voting groups to cause trouble.
Shelton, of the NAACP, said he understands the need for police to maintain order. But he is also concerned that some political partisans may point their finger at black voters as potential troublemakers because the Democratic nominee is black.
Shelton said any racial or ethnic group would get angry if they felt disenfranchised because of voting irregularities.
Police officials in Chicago, where Obama will hold a Nov. 4 rally, and Philadelphia are also preparing for Election Day.
“The Chicago Police Department has been meeting regularly to coordinate our safety and security plans and will deploy our resources accordingly,” said Monique Bond, of the Chicago Police Department.
Frank Vanore, of the Philadelphia Police Department, said officials were planning to mobilize to control exuberant or perhaps angry demonstrations after the World Series, which pits the Phillies against the Tampa Bay Rays.
He said the boosted police activity would “spill right over to the election.”
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Health care: What they're proposing vs. what will pass
McCain and Obama agree we need health care reform, but neither of their plans is likely to pass Congress without drastic changes.
In his Democratic convention acceptance speech sixteen years ago, Bill Clinton declared that as one of the first initiatives of his administration, he would "take on the health care profiteers and make health care affordable for every family."
Two years later, his "Health Security Act" was dead, never having gotten even as far as a vote in Congress.
Nearly two decades of soaring premiums and reduced coverage later, health care is again at the top of the reform agenda in Washington. Barack Obama and John McCain have each issued their own plans for sweeping reform: Obama's would rely on a new National Health Insurance Exchange to allow more businesses and individuals to access cheaper pool coverage, while McCain's would replace the tax deductibility of employer-sponsored coverage with a flat-rate $2,500 per person, per year tax break to be used toward health insurance.
If history proves anything, though, it's that sweeping reforms seldom look the same after going through the crucible of Washington politics - especially when the subject is a highly contentious issue like health care reform. The McCain and Obama plans are just "watercolors," says Len Nichols, health policy director for the New America Foundation, a Washington think tank. What the candidates are proposing, and what will actually pass into law, are likely to look very different.
"Unlike in 1993, Congress is going to own this debate," he predicts. "The president is going to make a speech, and then Congressional committees will do what they're supposed to do - which will make it much more likely to actually work."
The good news, says Nichols, is that there's already been significant bipartisan activity in Congress on health care, making it more likely that reform can move forward without getting bogged down in the kind of partisan battles that doomed the Clinton plan.
For small business owners, action can't come too soon. One upcoming study by Mercer Consulting, according to the National Federation of Independent Businesses, projects that small business health costs will rise 10% next year; a Kaiser Family Foundation survey last year found that the percentage of small firms covering health care had fallen from 68% to 59% since 2000.
NFIB has made health insurance reform a priority this year, co-sponsoring a set of ads starring "Harry and Louise," the fictional couple that the insurance industry used to help defeat Clinton's health plan. (Yes, they even brought back the same actors from the early '90s.)
NFIB legislative policy manager Michelle Dimarob notes that her group hasn't taken a position on either of the candidates' plans: "There's interesting components in both, but there's probably more unanswered questions."
Instead, her organization has focused more on backing broad principles for reform. Its wish list: Increased access to insurance pools, market reforms such as preventing insurance companies from hiking premiums for firms with one employee in poor health, and targeted tax incentives for the small-group and individual market.
After years of talk about reform, Washington observers say the time finally seems right for action. "There is pretty broad interest in doing something to help small employers and workers in small firms because they do have such a high rate of uninsured," says Urban Institute economist Linda Blumberg.
The plans
Whatever legislation eventually emerges will probably have its roots in the various Congressional bills already under consideration. One NFIB's Dimarob singles out as especially promising is the Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) Act, which would allow statewide or nationwide small-business insurance pools, ban rating based on health status, and provide a $1,000 per employee tax credit for small businesses that pay at least 60% of their employees' health premiums.
Introduced in the Senate last year by two Democrats and two Republicans, the SHOP Act has bipartisan support and the backing of several influential lobbying groups, such as the Service Employees International Union and the National Association of Realtors.
Another bill kicking around, the Small Business "Cooperative for Healthcare Options to Improve Coverage for Employees" (Small Business CHOICE) Act, would provide a refundable tax credit of 65% of the cost of premiums, plus allow for increased pooling.
A more ambitious bill that's attracted bipartisan attention is the Healthy Americans Act, introduced in the Senate by Ron Wyden, D-Ore, and Bob Bennett, R-Utah, and in the House by Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla. and Jo Ann Emerson, R-Mo. The HAA features elements similar to both candidates' plans: Like Obama's, it would create new insurance pools to reduce premiums and administrative costs; like McCain's, it would get rid of the health care tax deduction for employees.
The HAA's sweeping plan would eliminate employer-based insurance entirely. In its place, all Americans would be required to purchase a Healthy Americans Private Insurance (HAPI) plan through new state-run "Health Help Agencies," which would mandate minimum coverage and outlaw discrimination on the basis of preexisting conditions. Subsidies would be available for anyone earning less than 400% of the federal poverty level, and everyone below a designated income level would receive a standard deduction on their taxes.
Individuals would be required to pay for their insurance premiums themselves, but businesses don't get off scot-free: They'll have to help subsidize the system through a new tax, collected by the IRS and then routed back to the state Health Help Agencies. The size of the tax varies based on the size of the business, with small companies paying a fraction of the percentage charged to larger companies. Employers will also be required to "cash out" their current health care payments for the first two years of the new system, converting the money they would have otherwise spent on health insurance premiums directly to wages paid to employees, to compensate them for the loss of employer-provided health benefits. (The new tax would be waived for the first two years for employers making "cash out" payments.)
The HAA got a boost earlier this year when the Congressional Budget Office projected it could be budget-neutral - in other words, pay for itself - within six years. But some wonder if its massive restructuring of the how businesses pay for health care would be too complex. In particular, Blumberg worries, trying to determine how much employers should cough up for their "cash out" payments could be extremely messy: "I applaud the notion, because it's very consistent with economic theory, but I think implementation might cause difficulties."
"It's more structurally sound than the Clinton plan, but it is a very big hill to climb," admits Nichols, who likes the plan.
Expensive changes
The wild card here, as with all other plans for a new administration, is the economy, and what it will mean for sweeping programs that are likely to require new government expenditures. "Comprehensive health care reform takes a comprehensive amount of dollars," notes NFIB's Dimarob. She believes this could make plans like the SHOP Act, which are more narrowly targeted to small businesses and the self-employed, more feasible in the short term.
Others, though, say it's unlikely Congress will pass incremental reforms until the larger issues are resolved.
"If there's going to be health reform, you would think it would be folded into something much bigger," says Kaiser Family Foundation vice-president Gary Claxton. "It seems unlikely that small business stuff will go first, until they at least take a shot at more comprehensive reform. If comprehensive reform doesn't happen, then various pieces could break off" - though without broader reform, he notes, it's going to be hard to find money to pay for any kind of subsidies for small-business coverage.
Nichols is buoyed by the fact that the day after the initial Wall Street bailout plan failed, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., held a press conference to stress the need for immediate health reform, regardless of the economic situation. With businesses staggering under rising costs and more Americans going without insurance, the health care situation has grown dire enough that politicians can't postpone taking action much longer.
That said, Nichols predicts it will likely be "a two-year conversation" before anything is resolved.
Claxton, meanwhile, believes that reading tea leaves at this point is a fool's errand: "I don't think the bills that will be primarily discussed have probably been introduced yet."
By Neil deMause
October 22, 2008:
In his Democratic convention acceptance speech sixteen years ago, Bill Clinton declared that as one of the first initiatives of his administration, he would "take on the health care profiteers and make health care affordable for every family."
Two years later, his "Health Security Act" was dead, never having gotten even as far as a vote in Congress.
Nearly two decades of soaring premiums and reduced coverage later, health care is again at the top of the reform agenda in Washington. Barack Obama and John McCain have each issued their own plans for sweeping reform: Obama's would rely on a new National Health Insurance Exchange to allow more businesses and individuals to access cheaper pool coverage, while McCain's would replace the tax deductibility of employer-sponsored coverage with a flat-rate $2,500 per person, per year tax break to be used toward health insurance.
If history proves anything, though, it's that sweeping reforms seldom look the same after going through the crucible of Washington politics - especially when the subject is a highly contentious issue like health care reform. The McCain and Obama plans are just "watercolors," says Len Nichols, health policy director for the New America Foundation, a Washington think tank. What the candidates are proposing, and what will actually pass into law, are likely to look very different.
"Unlike in 1993, Congress is going to own this debate," he predicts. "The president is going to make a speech, and then Congressional committees will do what they're supposed to do - which will make it much more likely to actually work."
The good news, says Nichols, is that there's already been significant bipartisan activity in Congress on health care, making it more likely that reform can move forward without getting bogged down in the kind of partisan battles that doomed the Clinton plan.
For small business owners, action can't come too soon. One upcoming study by Mercer Consulting, according to the National Federation of Independent Businesses, projects that small business health costs will rise 10% next year; a Kaiser Family Foundation survey last year found that the percentage of small firms covering health care had fallen from 68% to 59% since 2000.
NFIB has made health insurance reform a priority this year, co-sponsoring a set of ads starring "Harry and Louise," the fictional couple that the insurance industry used to help defeat Clinton's health plan. (Yes, they even brought back the same actors from the early '90s.)
NFIB legislative policy manager Michelle Dimarob notes that her group hasn't taken a position on either of the candidates' plans: "There's interesting components in both, but there's probably more unanswered questions."
Instead, her organization has focused more on backing broad principles for reform. Its wish list: Increased access to insurance pools, market reforms such as preventing insurance companies from hiking premiums for firms with one employee in poor health, and targeted tax incentives for the small-group and individual market.
After years of talk about reform, Washington observers say the time finally seems right for action. "There is pretty broad interest in doing something to help small employers and workers in small firms because they do have such a high rate of uninsured," says Urban Institute economist Linda Blumberg.
The plans
Whatever legislation eventually emerges will probably have its roots in the various Congressional bills already under consideration. One NFIB's Dimarob singles out as especially promising is the Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) Act, which would allow statewide or nationwide small-business insurance pools, ban rating based on health status, and provide a $1,000 per employee tax credit for small businesses that pay at least 60% of their employees' health premiums.
Introduced in the Senate last year by two Democrats and two Republicans, the SHOP Act has bipartisan support and the backing of several influential lobbying groups, such as the Service Employees International Union and the National Association of Realtors.
Another bill kicking around, the Small Business "Cooperative for Healthcare Options to Improve Coverage for Employees" (Small Business CHOICE) Act, would provide a refundable tax credit of 65% of the cost of premiums, plus allow for increased pooling.
A more ambitious bill that's attracted bipartisan attention is the Healthy Americans Act, introduced in the Senate by Ron Wyden, D-Ore, and Bob Bennett, R-Utah, and in the House by Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla. and Jo Ann Emerson, R-Mo. The HAA features elements similar to both candidates' plans: Like Obama's, it would create new insurance pools to reduce premiums and administrative costs; like McCain's, it would get rid of the health care tax deduction for employees.
The HAA's sweeping plan would eliminate employer-based insurance entirely. In its place, all Americans would be required to purchase a Healthy Americans Private Insurance (HAPI) plan through new state-run "Health Help Agencies," which would mandate minimum coverage and outlaw discrimination on the basis of preexisting conditions. Subsidies would be available for anyone earning less than 400% of the federal poverty level, and everyone below a designated income level would receive a standard deduction on their taxes.
Individuals would be required to pay for their insurance premiums themselves, but businesses don't get off scot-free: They'll have to help subsidize the system through a new tax, collected by the IRS and then routed back to the state Health Help Agencies. The size of the tax varies based on the size of the business, with small companies paying a fraction of the percentage charged to larger companies. Employers will also be required to "cash out" their current health care payments for the first two years of the new system, converting the money they would have otherwise spent on health insurance premiums directly to wages paid to employees, to compensate them for the loss of employer-provided health benefits. (The new tax would be waived for the first two years for employers making "cash out" payments.)
The HAA got a boost earlier this year when the Congressional Budget Office projected it could be budget-neutral - in other words, pay for itself - within six years. But some wonder if its massive restructuring of the how businesses pay for health care would be too complex. In particular, Blumberg worries, trying to determine how much employers should cough up for their "cash out" payments could be extremely messy: "I applaud the notion, because it's very consistent with economic theory, but I think implementation might cause difficulties."
"It's more structurally sound than the Clinton plan, but it is a very big hill to climb," admits Nichols, who likes the plan.
Expensive changes
The wild card here, as with all other plans for a new administration, is the economy, and what it will mean for sweeping programs that are likely to require new government expenditures. "Comprehensive health care reform takes a comprehensive amount of dollars," notes NFIB's Dimarob. She believes this could make plans like the SHOP Act, which are more narrowly targeted to small businesses and the self-employed, more feasible in the short term.
Others, though, say it's unlikely Congress will pass incremental reforms until the larger issues are resolved.
"If there's going to be health reform, you would think it would be folded into something much bigger," says Kaiser Family Foundation vice-president Gary Claxton. "It seems unlikely that small business stuff will go first, until they at least take a shot at more comprehensive reform. If comprehensive reform doesn't happen, then various pieces could break off" - though without broader reform, he notes, it's going to be hard to find money to pay for any kind of subsidies for small-business coverage.
Nichols is buoyed by the fact that the day after the initial Wall Street bailout plan failed, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., held a press conference to stress the need for immediate health reform, regardless of the economic situation. With businesses staggering under rising costs and more Americans going without insurance, the health care situation has grown dire enough that politicians can't postpone taking action much longer.
That said, Nichols predicts it will likely be "a two-year conversation" before anything is resolved.
Claxton, meanwhile, believes that reading tea leaves at this point is a fool's errand: "I don't think the bills that will be primarily discussed have probably been introduced yet."
By Neil deMause
October 22, 2008:
McCain Campaign Plays Hardball With NBC News, Media
John McCain campaign criticizes NBC News for its 'apparent refusal' to air Joe Biden's comments that Barack Obama would face a crisis if elected
John McCain's campaign seems to be playing a little hardball with the media in the final two weeks of the presidential race.
The campaign on Tuesday issued a statement decrying NBC News for its "apparent refusal" to air Joe Biden's controversial remarks that Barack Obama would face a "generated crisis" early on if he is elected.
"Biden's remarks capture perfectly the message of this campaign: Barack Obama is too risky, too inexperienced, to serve as commander in chief -- that his election by itself will provoke our enemies, and that his brief record raises serious questions as to how an Obama administration would respond to such a challenge," McCain spokesman Michael Goldfarb said in the written statement.
"This campaign highlighted Biden's remarks throughout the day yesterday," he continued. "Yet on NBC Nightly News last night, when Andrea Mitchell reported on Biden's remarks, she failed to play the relevant portion -- the portion that this campaign and a variety of news outlets had found controversial, or revealing as the case may be."
A representative from NBC News could not be reached for comment.
The Atlantic also posted an expletive-laced interview with McCain adviser Mark Salter on its Web site Monday in which Salter assailed the media for their treatment of the Republican ticket.
"I think, starting with the Democratic primary, there has been a different standard for Obama than there has been for any candidate running against Barack Obama. And maybe this should have set off more warning bells with me," he said. "I think much of the media has a thumb on the scale for Obama. I think the thumb has been there the entire time."
Salter added that "the press has been harsh consistently" on the McCain campaign.
The Politico also reported that Time columnist Joe Klein, who has been critical of the McCain campaign, has been unable to snag a seat on the McCain and Sarah Palin campaign planes for months.
"I've done nine presidential campaigns and this is the first time this has ever happened to me," Klein told Politico.
"My understanding is that his request came in too late," Palin spokesperson Tracey Schmitt said.
Fox News Reported
John McCain's campaign seems to be playing a little hardball with the media in the final two weeks of the presidential race.
The campaign on Tuesday issued a statement decrying NBC News for its "apparent refusal" to air Joe Biden's controversial remarks that Barack Obama would face a "generated crisis" early on if he is elected.
"Biden's remarks capture perfectly the message of this campaign: Barack Obama is too risky, too inexperienced, to serve as commander in chief -- that his election by itself will provoke our enemies, and that his brief record raises serious questions as to how an Obama administration would respond to such a challenge," McCain spokesman Michael Goldfarb said in the written statement.
"This campaign highlighted Biden's remarks throughout the day yesterday," he continued. "Yet on NBC Nightly News last night, when Andrea Mitchell reported on Biden's remarks, she failed to play the relevant portion -- the portion that this campaign and a variety of news outlets had found controversial, or revealing as the case may be."
A representative from NBC News could not be reached for comment.
The Atlantic also posted an expletive-laced interview with McCain adviser Mark Salter on its Web site Monday in which Salter assailed the media for their treatment of the Republican ticket.
"I think, starting with the Democratic primary, there has been a different standard for Obama than there has been for any candidate running against Barack Obama. And maybe this should have set off more warning bells with me," he said. "I think much of the media has a thumb on the scale for Obama. I think the thumb has been there the entire time."
Salter added that "the press has been harsh consistently" on the McCain campaign.
The Politico also reported that Time columnist Joe Klein, who has been critical of the McCain campaign, has been unable to snag a seat on the McCain and Sarah Palin campaign planes for months.
"I've done nine presidential campaigns and this is the first time this has ever happened to me," Klein told Politico.
"My understanding is that his request came in too late," Palin spokesperson Tracey Schmitt said.
Fox News Reported
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Thinking about the elections in November with todays Polls
Thinking about the elections in November
Most Americans who listened to radio or surfed the Internet on Election Day in 2004 sat down to watch the evening television coverage thinking John Kerry won the election. Anchor people were discussing whom Kerry would choose for his cabinet, Exit polls showed him ahead in nearly every battleground state, in many cases by sizable margins. Two factors seemed to explain Kerry’s edge: turnout was very high, good news for Democrats, and as in every US presidential election with an incumbent over the past quarter-century, undecided voters broke heavily toward the challenger Out of 7 polls during this period had John Kerry leading ( 5 )over Bush ( 2 ). So when I see the polls today they really mean nothing due to how the questions in the polls are asked and the number of responders spilt between Democrat and Republican. Example I read a CNN poll that show 1,000 responders but the poll has almost 2 to 1 democrats over Republicans asked questions, so the poll means nothing, it showed Obama 52% by McCain 42%. Below are the polls from the 2004 election.
If the election for president were held today and the candidates were Republican George Bush and the Democrat John Kerry, for whom would you vote: George Bush or John Kerry? October 24-25, 2004
Kerry 49%
Bush 47%
Nader 1%
Other 1%
Unsure 1%
margin of error: 3.1%
source: Democracy Corps Poll
If the presidential election were being held today... Would you vote for Kerry and Edwards, the Democrats, Bush and Cheney, the Republicans, or Nader and Camejo, the independent candidates?October 22-24, 2004
Bush 51%
Kerry 46%
Nader 1%
Other -%
Unsure 2%
margin of error: 3%
source: Gallup
If the election for president were held today, for whom would you vote? October 23-25, 2004
Bush 49%
Kerry 46%
Nader 1%
Badnarik -%
Peroutka -%
Cobb -%
Other 4%
margin of error: 2.9%
source: Zogby International
If the election for president were held today, for whom would you vote? October 22-24, 2004
Kerry 50%
Bush 48%
Other/Undecided 2%
margin of error: 3.7%
source: Survey USA
If the election for president were held today, for whom would you vote? October 23-25, 2004
John Kerry 49%
George W. Bush 46%
Ralph Nader 1%
Undecided 4%
margin of error: 4%
source: American Research Group
If the election for president and vice president were being held today and the names on the ballot included George W. Bush for President and Dick Cheney for Vice President, the Republicans, and John Kerry for President and John Edwards for Vice President, the Democrats, for whom would you vote - Bush, Kerry, or someone else? October 21-24, 2004
Kerry 47%
Bush 45%
Other 1.5%
Undecided 6%
margin of error: 4.1%
source: Zogby International
If the election for president and vice president were being held today and the names on the ballot included George W. Bush for President and Dick Cheney for Vice President, the Republicans, and John Kerry for President and John Edwards for Vice President, the Democrats, for whom would you vote - Bush, Kerry, or someone else? October 23-25, 2004
Kerry 50%
Bush 47%
Other/Undecided 3%
margin of error: 4%
source: American Research Group
Most Americans who listened to radio or surfed the Internet on Election Day in 2004 sat down to watch the evening television coverage thinking John Kerry won the election. Anchor people were discussing whom Kerry would choose for his cabinet, Exit polls showed him ahead in nearly every battleground state, in many cases by sizable margins. Two factors seemed to explain Kerry’s edge: turnout was very high, good news for Democrats, and as in every US presidential election with an incumbent over the past quarter-century, undecided voters broke heavily toward the challenger Out of 7 polls during this period had John Kerry leading ( 5 )over Bush ( 2 ). So when I see the polls today they really mean nothing due to how the questions in the polls are asked and the number of responders spilt between Democrat and Republican. Example I read a CNN poll that show 1,000 responders but the poll has almost 2 to 1 democrats over Republicans asked questions, so the poll means nothing, it showed Obama 52% by McCain 42%. Below are the polls from the 2004 election.
If the election for president were held today and the candidates were Republican George Bush and the Democrat John Kerry, for whom would you vote: George Bush or John Kerry? October 24-25, 2004
Kerry 49%
Bush 47%
Nader 1%
Other 1%
Unsure 1%
margin of error: 3.1%
source: Democracy Corps Poll
If the presidential election were being held today... Would you vote for Kerry and Edwards, the Democrats, Bush and Cheney, the Republicans, or Nader and Camejo, the independent candidates?October 22-24, 2004
Bush 51%
Kerry 46%
Nader 1%
Other -%
Unsure 2%
margin of error: 3%
source: Gallup
If the election for president were held today, for whom would you vote? October 23-25, 2004
Bush 49%
Kerry 46%
Nader 1%
Badnarik -%
Peroutka -%
Cobb -%
Other 4%
margin of error: 2.9%
source: Zogby International
If the election for president were held today, for whom would you vote? October 22-24, 2004
Kerry 50%
Bush 48%
Other/Undecided 2%
margin of error: 3.7%
source: Survey USA
If the election for president were held today, for whom would you vote? October 23-25, 2004
John Kerry 49%
George W. Bush 46%
Ralph Nader 1%
Undecided 4%
margin of error: 4%
source: American Research Group
If the election for president and vice president were being held today and the names on the ballot included George W. Bush for President and Dick Cheney for Vice President, the Republicans, and John Kerry for President and John Edwards for Vice President, the Democrats, for whom would you vote - Bush, Kerry, or someone else? October 21-24, 2004
Kerry 47%
Bush 45%
Other 1.5%
Undecided 6%
margin of error: 4.1%
source: Zogby International
If the election for president and vice president were being held today and the names on the ballot included George W. Bush for President and Dick Cheney for Vice President, the Republicans, and John Kerry for President and John Edwards for Vice President, the Democrats, for whom would you vote - Bush, Kerry, or someone else? October 23-25, 2004
Kerry 50%
Bush 47%
Other/Undecided 3%
margin of error: 4%
source: American Research Group
Friday, October 17, 2008
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Obama wins debate with Charisma
It’s a fact Obama has great charisma when comes to speaking with the Voters and media, but that only goes so far. Supporters of Obama don’t care about having no record when it comes to legislation, all they want is change.
Obama has no record:
Obama was sworn in as a senator on January 4, 2005 his first sponsor of legislation was 1/31/07 with no legislation passed see below and go to the website maybe I missed one or two.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery
He has 129 of Sponsored or Co-Sponsored Legislation with nothing passed, anybody can write legislation or jump on the bandwagon and co-sponsor legislation, but a leader needs to bring people together to pass legislation. Obama Has not done that.
As for John McCain he is no Ronald Reagan. He has no charisma and doesn’t look very well on T.V, which is most of his problem. He is the wrong candidate to be running up against Obama. Although he does have a track record of crossing the isle and working with both sides to pass legislation. We all know John McCain’s record good or bad.
This election will go to Obama
Monday, October 06, 2008
Thank you McCain and Obama for making the wrong decision
The 700-billon bail out vote appears to have created more of a mess throughout the world then restoring confidence with the markets. Friday after the vote for the bail out markets on wall street reacted by dropping further which continued Monday morning by further dropping 329 points by 7:11 am PST. As I have stated before this bill was a bad bill, and that it only would create more panic throughout all markets. The bill has only reassured the bigger problem that throwing money out there to purchase bad debt doesn’t restore confidence but lets us know that we don’t understand the problem fully. There was only one good thing that happen in this bill, that our senators were allowed to add more pork for stupid programs that had nothing to do with the crisis. John McCain made the biggest blunder of life by voting for a bill that would not restore confidence but create more havoc in the markets. It has been well known the distain John McCain had for the bush administration but Obama has successfully has linked the two together by showing his voting record over the last 8 years to be 95%, but since the 2006 election McCain has not linked Obama to bush by voting 86% of his short time in the senate. Being a bipartisan senator doesn’t pay when you don’t stand with citizens of your country when making the important decisions.
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
McCain-Feingold didn’t fix the problem of campaign finance reforms of 2002
McCain going against his party with McCain-Feingold which was truly a bad Bill gets pay back when the Obama Campaign receives the largest pool of unidentified money that has ever flooded into the U.S. election system. Obama easily could outpace McCain by $50 million to $100 million or more in new donations before Election Day, thanks to a legion of small contributors whose names and addresses have been kept secret. Unlike the McCain campaign, which has made its complete donor database available online, the Obama campaign has not identified donors for nearly half the amount he has raised, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP). Because Federal law does not require the campaigns to identify donors who give less than $200 during the election cycle. However, it does require that campaigns calculate running totals for each donor and report them once they go beyond the $200 mark. Surprisingly, the great majority of Obama donors never break the $200 threshold. The FEC breakdown of the Obama campaign has identified a staggering $222.7 million as coming from contributions of $200 or less. Only $39.6 million of that amount comes from donors the Obama campaign has identified.
Under campaign finance laws, an individual can donate $2,300 to a candidate for federal office in both the primary and general election, for a total of $4,600. If a donor has topped the limit in the primary, the campaign can “redesignate” the contribution to the general election on its books.
In a letter dated June 25, 2008, the FEC asked the Obama campaign to verify a series of $25 donations from a contributor identified as “Will, Good” from Austin, Texas. Mr. Good Will listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You.” In total, Mr. Good Will gave $17,375
Similarly, a donor identified as “Pro, Doodad,” from “Nando, NY,” gave $19,500 in 786 separate donations, most of them for $25. For most of these donations, Mr. Doodad Pro listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You,” just as Good Will had done.
The FEC has compiled a separate database of potentially questionable overseas donations that contains more than 11,500 contributions totaling $33.8 million. More than 520 listed their “state” as “IR,” often an abbreviation for Iran. Another 63 listed it as “UK,” the United Kingdom.
More than 1,400 of the overseas entries clearly were U.S. diplomats or military personnel, who gave an APO address overseas. Their total contributions came to just $201,680
But others came from places as far as Abu Dhabi, Addis Ababa, Beijing, Fallujah, Florence, Italy, and a wide selection of towns and cities in France.
Until recently, the Obama Web site allowed a contributor to select the country where he resided from the entire membership of the United Nations, including such friendly places as North Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Unlike McCain’s or Sen. Hillary Clinton’s online donation pages, the Obama site did not ask for proof of citizenship until just recently. Clinton’s presidential campaign required U.S. citizens living abroad to actually fax a copy of their passport before a donation would be accepted.
With such lax vetting of foreign contributions, the Obama campaign may have indirectly contributed to questionable fundraising by foreigners.
“While FEC practice is to do a post-election review of all presidential campaigns, given their sluggish metabolism, results can take up to three or four years,” to finish there investigations.
I Believe Obama again would say I agree with Senator McCain on McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms was a good bill.
Under campaign finance laws, an individual can donate $2,300 to a candidate for federal office in both the primary and general election, for a total of $4,600. If a donor has topped the limit in the primary, the campaign can “redesignate” the contribution to the general election on its books.
In a letter dated June 25, 2008, the FEC asked the Obama campaign to verify a series of $25 donations from a contributor identified as “Will, Good” from Austin, Texas. Mr. Good Will listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You.” In total, Mr. Good Will gave $17,375
Similarly, a donor identified as “Pro, Doodad,” from “Nando, NY,” gave $19,500 in 786 separate donations, most of them for $25. For most of these donations, Mr. Doodad Pro listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You,” just as Good Will had done.
The FEC has compiled a separate database of potentially questionable overseas donations that contains more than 11,500 contributions totaling $33.8 million. More than 520 listed their “state” as “IR,” often an abbreviation for Iran. Another 63 listed it as “UK,” the United Kingdom.
More than 1,400 of the overseas entries clearly were U.S. diplomats or military personnel, who gave an APO address overseas. Their total contributions came to just $201,680
But others came from places as far as Abu Dhabi, Addis Ababa, Beijing, Fallujah, Florence, Italy, and a wide selection of towns and cities in France.
Until recently, the Obama Web site allowed a contributor to select the country where he resided from the entire membership of the United Nations, including such friendly places as North Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Unlike McCain’s or Sen. Hillary Clinton’s online donation pages, the Obama site did not ask for proof of citizenship until just recently. Clinton’s presidential campaign required U.S. citizens living abroad to actually fax a copy of their passport before a donation would be accepted.
With such lax vetting of foreign contributions, the Obama campaign may have indirectly contributed to questionable fundraising by foreigners.
“While FEC practice is to do a post-election review of all presidential campaigns, given their sluggish metabolism, results can take up to three or four years,” to finish there investigations.
I Believe Obama again would say I agree with Senator McCain on McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms was a good bill.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Obama, McCain Debate was a “TIE”
This was not a very good debate by either Presidential Candidate; there were a lot of sound bits as answers but no real substance. McCain should have done better with Foreign Affairs questions but didn’t, and Obama didn’t really do well with domestic issues either. Both candidates got a little flustered with each other it showed with Obama face turning red and McCain face changing shape and twitching. Both candidate’s raised good questions about there opponent but neither one of them addressed those concerns.
Obama on a question of him not holding hearing on Afghanistan referred to Joe biden being better equipped to handle foreign policy was a bad answer. John McCain referring to Governor Palin as the person that understands foreign policy was also a bad answer. I believe, as mush as I don’t like to say it, that Hillary Clinton would be a better President then these two people. Neither one of these two candidates get it.
Obama on a question of him not holding hearing on Afghanistan referred to Joe biden being better equipped to handle foreign policy was a bad answer. John McCain referring to Governor Palin as the person that understands foreign policy was also a bad answer. I believe, as mush as I don’t like to say it, that Hillary Clinton would be a better President then these two people. Neither one of these two candidates get it.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Suspending their Presidential Campaign to work on the financial Crisis
So why hasn’t Obama suspended his campaign, well he says a President should be able to walk and chew gum at the same. But this issue isn’t just any issue it’s a melt down on our financial markets. Harry Reed yesterday asked John McCain to come back to Washington to work with the Republicans caucus in passing a bill. Speaker of the house Nancy Polosi has stated that they will not stand alone on voting for this proposal, that they wanted the Republicans to vote on this bill as well. So John McCain today has made the decision to go back to Washington and spend a few days off the campaign trail to do the peoples work. Warren Buffet an Obama supporter in good faith of this bill put his own 5 billion in to Goldman Sachs but that could be off the table if the congress can’t come together on this legislation. I do agree with Obama that the debates should go on as scheduled if Obama doesn’t go back to Washington, then John McCain could have the upper hand when answering questions regarding the financial crisis not second but first hand knowledge. This isn’t the first time John McCain has postpone an event. When Gustav hit Texas he shortened the Republican National Convention by one day. I am not a McCain fan by any means and have questions about his judgment regarding several liberal bill legislations he has put forth over the years. But this financial Crisis is like no other since the Great Depression it needs everybody’s attention.
Keeping the Promise?
The Senate Oath of Office:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
A Senator is responsible to the Citizens of his state, the people who elected him to represent them in Washington. Staying on the campaign trail in a financial Crisis and relying on other senators to do his job isn’t what the Citizens of Illinois asked him to do. The Citizens elected Barack Obama to the senate they did not elect him to run for President.
Keeping the Promise?
The Senate Oath of Office:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
A Senator is responsible to the Citizens of his state, the people who elected him to represent them in Washington. Staying on the campaign trail in a financial Crisis and relying on other senators to do his job isn’t what the Citizens of Illinois asked him to do. The Citizens elected Barack Obama to the senate they did not elect him to run for President.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Text of S. 190 [109th]: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005
In a speech back in 2005 Sen. McCain took on his party and democrats pleading with them the need to reform Fannie Mae, the bill never passed.
Sen. John McCain [R-AZ]: Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines (current Obama advisor), Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.
The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.
For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.
Quick Info
S. 190 [109th]: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005
Last Action: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Status: Dead
I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.
Maybe if we had put more effort into fixing Fannie Mae and Freddie then just my be we would have been in a better position today to deal with the Banking Industry.
Sen. John McCain [R-AZ]: Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines (current Obama advisor), Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.
The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.
For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.
Quick Info
S. 190 [109th]: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005
Last Action: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Status: Dead
I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.
Maybe if we had put more effort into fixing Fannie Mae and Freddie then just my be we would have been in a better position today to deal with the Banking Industry.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
The Movie Review of FAITH OF MY FATHERS ABOUT John McCain
I have done a lot of research about John McCain over the past year and although I personally believe some of his views tend to be on the more liberal side. His service to our country on the other hand showed us courage and strength, which was so inspiring. This man has made many tough choices in his life. Although the movie didn’t go as far as it should have on telling the whole story, it gave me enough to think about once the movie ended. John McCain served his country with honor like so many before him and after him. But, this story tells me a lot about the person, the man who is running for President it goes to his convictions. Whether you agree with him or not on the issues you know where he stands when it comes to love of country. When the Obama Campaign runs an ad stating that John McCain is out of touch because he can’t Email, that’s pretty much one of the most sick and insensitive things you could say about someone who has a disability caused from the torture he received as a POW, everyone knows this man can not raise his arms above his shoulders and the disability doesn’t allow him to have the skills in regards to the use of a Key board for typing. I know campaigns can be tough on both sides when it comes to stretching the truth. But saying someone is out of touch because of the views on our economy is one thing but making fun of a disability is another. Right or wrong John McCain has been his own man when it comes to the issues he cares about most. He has stood up against his party many times over and doesn’t care what they think or say about him, he is tough. This movie is a must see for all people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
