October 25, 2008
Barack Obama has the character, judgment and temperament to lead the nation wisely through difficult times and restore America's standing in the world
October 25, 2008Today, America finds itself beset by challenges on all sides. At home, a faltering economy teeters on the edge of financial collapse. Abroad, some 175,000 U.S. troops are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet victory in the war on terror remains elusive. Russia and China vie for world leadership, while rogue states North Korea and Iran destabilize their regions with the threat of nuclear proliferation.
But Americans, many of whom have felt profoundly the heartache and anxiety of these uncertain times, have been energized by the historic, hard-fought campaign for president.
Both Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Democratic Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois have demonstrated admirable qualities that could qualify them for the nation's highest office. Senator McCain is the resolute warrior who has served his country honorably in peace and war and would move decisively to combat America's domestic and foreign ills. Senator Obama is the cerebral strategist and savvy coalition-builder who would harness the collective efforts of the nation and its allies to counter domestic and global threats. They are candidates who honor the country's past and recognize that America's future depends on its ability to reinvent itself.
But after considering each man's domestic and foreign policy agendas, his judgment and temperament, we believe that Senator Obama is the best choice for voters on Nov. 4.
Senator Obama's campaign has been extraordinarily open -- inclusive across generational, ethnic and class lines. His top advisers include Democrats and Republicans, giving substance to his promise of bipartisan leadership. He created a disciplined organization that raised record sums yet stayed within budget. Senator Obama's campaign testifies to his managerial skill and talent for surrounding himself with smart, hard-working people.
In his first term in Congress, Senator Obama cannot claim decades of Washington experience. But his steadiness and thoughtful approach to issues show he has the judgment and depth of knowledge to lead the country. His first major decision after winning the nomination was to name Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, a proven foreign policy hand, as his running mate. By contrast, Senator McCain's choice of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska called his judgment into question and has proved to be an unsettling distraction as she is woefully unprepared for the presidency.
On the wars, Senator Obama's pledge to withdraw combat forces from Iraq by 2010 reflects a reasoned appraisal of the still fragile situation there. Senator McCain's insistence on maintaining current troop levels until "victory" -- without specifying what such a victory might be -- reveals a lack of strategic clarity that easily could produce an indefinite occupation and hobble the fight against al-Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan.
On the economy, Senator Obama would augment the government's trillion-dollar Wall Street rescue plan with an economic stimulus package aimed at keeping Main Street afloat. Senator McCain relies on broadening the Bush administration tax cuts and freezing spending, which recalls President Herbert Hoover's inept response to the 1929 stock market crash that helped push the country into the Great Depression. Senator Obama would let the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 5 percent of Americans expire to give tax relief to the middle class. He would invest in health care, education and clean energy technologies that reduce America's dependence on oil, all measures vital to the nation's long-term security and global competitiveness.
With the likelihood of vacancies on the Supreme Court in coming years, the next president will have an opportunity to shape the judicial branch's liberal-conservative balance for a generation on such crucial questions as abortion, civil liberties and civil rights. We believe that unlike Senator McCain, who has said he would name justices sympathetic to the views of the court's most conservative members, Senator Obama would avoid ideologically driven appointments that further polarize the country on contentious social issues. Senator Obama is a relative newcomer on the national stage. But he has proved to be that rarest of public servants, an inspirational leader who would transcend any enduring racial barriers and call upon the best in the American character, a public servant who also possesses the finely honed political skills necessary to turn the nation's highest ideals into practical policies that benefit citizens.
That is why The Baltimore Sun endorses Barack Obama for president.
October 24, 2008
New York TImes Endorses Obama
Barack Obama for PresidentOctober 23, 2008
(Read the entire endorsement here)
Mr. Obama has withstood some of the toughest campaign attacks ever mounted against a candidate. He’s been called un-American and accused of hiding a secret Islamic faith. The Republicans have linked him to domestic terrorists and questioned his wife’s love of her country. Ms. Palin has also questioned millions of Americans’ patriotism, calling Republican-leaning states “pro-America.”
This politics of fear, division and character assassination helped Mr. Bush drive Mr. McCain from the 2000 Republican primaries and defeat Senator John Kerry in 2004. It has been the dominant theme of his failed presidency.
The nation’s problems are simply too grave to be reduced to slashing “robo-calls” and negative ads. This country needs sensible leadership, compassionate leadership, honest leadership and strong leadership. Barack Obama has shown that he has all of those qualities.
October 23, 2008
October 22, 2008
Despite GOP allegations of voter fraud, it's the Republican Party that has mastered, to an art form, screwing with the vote!
Block the VoteWill the GOP's campaign to deter new voters and discard Democratic ballots determine the next president?
ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR. & GREG PALAST | Oct 30, 2008 | Rolling Stone
These days, the old west rail hub of Las Vegas, New Mexico, is little more than a dusty economic dead zone amid a boneyard of bare mesas. In national elections, the town overwhelmingly votes Democratic: More than 80 percent of all residents are Hispanic, and one in four lives below the poverty line. On February 5th, the day of the Super Tuesday caucus, a school-bus driver named Paul Maez arrived at his local polling station to cast his ballot. To his surprise, Maez found that his name had vanished from the list of registered voters, thanks to a statewide effort to deter fraudulent voting. For Maez, the shock was especially acute: He is the supervisor of elections in Las Vegas.
Maez was not alone in being denied his right to vote. On Super Tuesday, one in nine Democrats who tried to cast ballots in New Mexico found their names missing from the registration lists. The numbers were even higher in precincts like Las Vegas, where nearly 20 percent of the county's voters were absent from the rolls. With their status in limbo, the voters were forced to cast "provisional" ballots, which can be reviewed and discarded by election officials without explanation. On Super Tuesday, more than half of all provisional ballots cast were thrown out statewide.
This November, what happened to Maez will happen to hundreds of thousands of voters across the country. In state after state, Republican operatives — the party's elite commandos of bare-knuckle politics — are wielding new federal legislation to systematically disenfranchise Democrats. If this year's race is as close as the past two elections, the GOP's nationwide campaign could be large enough to determine the presidency in November. "I don't think the Democrats get it," says John Boyd, a voting-rights attorney in Albuquerque who has taken on the Republican Party for impeding access to the ballot. "All these new rules and games are turning voting into an obstacle course that could flip the vote to the GOP in half a dozen states."
Suppressing the vote has long been a cornerstone of the GOP's electoral strategy. Shortly before the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, Paul Weyrich — a principal architect of today's Republican Party — scolded evangelicals who believed in democracy. "Many of our Christians have what I call the 'goo goo' syndrome — good government," said Weyrich, who co-founded Moral Majority with Jerry Falwell. "They want everybody to vote. I don't want everybody to vote. . . . As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."
Today, Weyrich's vision has become a national reality. Since 2003, according to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, at least 2.7 million new voters have had their applications to register rejected. In addition, at least 1.6 million votes were never counted in the 2004 election — and the commission's own data suggests that the real number could be twice as high. To purge registration rolls and discard ballots, partisan election officials used a wide range of pretexts, from "unreadability" to changes in a voter's signature. And this year, thanks to new provisions of the Help America Vote Act, the number of discounted votes could surge even higher.
Passed in 2002, HAVA was hailed by leaders in both parties as a reform designed to avoid a repeat of the 2000 debacle in Florida that threw the presidential election to the U.S. Supreme Court. The measure set standards for voting systems, created an independent commission to oversee elections, and ordered states to provide provisional ballots to voters whose eligibility is challenged at the polls.
But from the start, HAVA was corrupted by the involvement of Republican superlobbyist Jack Abramoff, who worked to cram the bill with favors for his clients. (Both Abramoff and a primary author of HAVA, former Rep. Bob Ney, were imprisoned for their role in the conspiracy.) In practice, many of the "reforms" created by HAVA have actually made it harder for citizens to cast a ballot and have their vote counted. In case after case, Republican election officials at the local and state level have used the rules to give GOP candidates an edge on Election Day by creating new barriers to registration, purging legitimate names from voter rolls, challenging voters at the polls and discarding valid ballots.
To justify this battery of new voting impediments, Republicans cite an alleged upsurge in voting fraud. Indeed, the U.S.-attorney scandal that resulted in the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales began when the White House fired federal prosecutors who resisted political pressure to drum up nonexistent cases of voting fraud against Democrats. "They wanted some splashy pre-election indictments that would scare these alleged hordes of illegal voters away," says David Iglesias, a U.S. attorney for New Mexico who was fired in December 2006. "We took over 100 complaints and investigated for almost two years — but I didn't find one prosecutable case of voter fraud in the entire state of New Mexico."
There's a reason Iglesias couldn't find any evidence of fraud: Individual voters almost never try to cast illegal ballots. The Bush administration's main point person on "ballot protection" has been Hans von Spakovsky, a former Justice Department attorney who has advised states on how to use HAVA to erect more barriers to voting. Appointed to the Federal Election Commission by Bush, von Spakovsky has suggested that voter rolls may be stuffed with 5 million illegal aliens. In fact, studies have repeatedly shown that voter fraud is extremely rare. According to a recent analysis by Lorraine Minnite, an expert on voting crime at Barnard College, federal courts found only 24 voters guilty of fraud from 2002 to 2005, out of hundreds of millions of votes cast. "The claim of widespread voter fraud," Minnite says, "is itself a fraud."
Allegations of voter fraud are only the latest rationale the GOP has used to disenfranchise voters — especially blacks, Hispanics and others who traditionally support Democrats. "The Republicans have a long history of erecting barriers to discourage Americans from voting," says Donna Brazile, chair of the Voting Rights Institute for the Democratic National Committee. "Now they're trying to spook Americans with the ghost of voter fraud. It's very effective — but it's ironic that the only way they maintain power is by using fear to deprive Americans of their constitutional right to vote." The recently enacted barriers thrown up to deter voters include:
1. Obstructing Voter-Registration Drives
Since 2004, the Bush administration and more than a dozen states have taken steps to impede voter registration. Among the worst offenders is Florida, where the Republican-dominated legislature created hefty fines — up to $5,000 per violation — for groups that fail to meet deadlines for turning in voter-application forms. Facing potentially huge penalties for trivial administrative errors, the League of Women Voters abandoned its voter-registration drives in Florida. A court order eventually forced the legislature to reduce the maximum penalty to $1,000. But even so, said former League president Dianne Wheatley-Giliotti, the reduced fines "create an unfair tax on democracy." The state has also failed to uphold a federal law requiring that low-income voters be offered an opportunity to register when they apply for food stamps or other public assistance. As a result, the annual number of such registrations has plummeted from more than 120,000 in the Clinton years to barely 10,000 today.
2. Demanding "Perfect Matches"
Under the Help America Vote Act, some states now reject first-time registrants whose data does not correspond to information in other government databases. Spurred by HAVA, almost every state must now attempt to make some kind of match — and four states, including the swing states of Iowa and Florida, require what is known as a "perfect match." Under this rigid framework, new registrants can lose the right to vote if the information on their voter-registration forms — Social Security number, street address and precisely spelled name, right down to a hyphen — fails to exactly match data listed in other government records.
There are many legitimate reasons, of course, why a voter's information might vary. Indeed, a recent study by the Brennan Center for Justice found that as many as 20 percent of discrepancies between voter records and driver's licenses in New York City are simply typing mistakes made by government clerks when they transcribe data. But under the new rules, those mistakes are costing citizens the right to vote. In California, a Republican secretary of state blocked 43 percent of all new voters in Los Angeles from registering in early 2006 — many because of the state's failure to produce a tight match. In Florida, GOP officials created "match" rules that rejected more than 15,000 new registrants in 2006 and 2007 — nearly three-fourths of them Hispanic and black voters. Given the big registration drives this year, the number could be five times higher by November.
3. Purging Legitimate Voters From the Rolls
The Help America Vote Act doesn't just disenfranchise new registrants; it also targets veteran voters. In the past, bipartisan county election boards maintained voter records. But HAVA requires that records be centralized, computerized and maintained by secretaries of state — partisan officials — who are empowered to purge the rolls of any voter they deem ineligible. Ironically, the new rules imitate the centralized system in Florida — the same corrupt operation that inspired passage of HAVA in the first place. Prior to the 2000 election, Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris and her predecessor, both Republicans, tried to purge 57,000 voters, most of them African-Americans, because their names resembled those of persons convicted of a crime. The state eventually acknowledged that the purges were improper — two years after the election.
Rather than end Florida-style purges, however, HAVA has nationalized them. Maez, the elections supervisor in New Mexico, says he was the victim of faulty list management by a private contractor hired by the state. Hector Balderas, the state auditor, was also purged from the voter list. The nation's youngest elected Hispanic official, Balderas hails from Mora County, one of the poorest in the state, which had the highest rate of voters forced to cast provisional ballots. "As a strategic consideration," he notes, "there are those that benefit from chaos" at the ballot box.
All told, states reported scrubbing at least 10 million voters from their rolls on questionable grounds between 2004 and 2006. Colorado holds the record: Donetta Davidson, the Republican secretary of state, and her GOP successor oversaw the elimination of nearly one of every six of their state's voters. Bush has since appointed Davidson to the Election Assistance Commission, the federal agency created by HAVA, which provides guidance to the states on "list maintenance" methods.
4. Requiring Unnecessary Voter ID's
Even if voters run the gauntlet of the new registration laws, they can still be blocked at the polling station. In an incident last May, an election official in Indiana denied ballots to 10 nuns seeking to vote in the Democratic primary because their driver's licenses or passports had expired. Even though Indiana has never recorded a single case of voter-ID fraud, it is one of two dozen states that have enacted stringent new voter-ID statutes.
On its face, the requirement to show a government-issued ID doesn't seem unreasonable. "I want to cash a check to pay for my groceries, I've got to show a little bit of ID," Karl Rove told the Republican National Lawyers Association in 2006. But many Americans lack easy access to official identification. According to a recent study for the Election Law Journal, young people, senior citizens and minorities — groups that traditionally vote Democratic — often have no driver's licenses or state ID cards. According to the study, one in 10 likely white voters do not possess the necessary identification. For African-Americans, the number lacking such ID is twice as high.
5. Rejecting "Spoiled" Ballots
Even intrepid voters who manage to cast a ballot may still find their vote discounted. In 2004, election officials discarded at least 1 million votes nationwide after classifying them as "spoiled" because blank spaces, stray marks or tears made them indecipherable to voting machines. The losses hit hardest among minorities in low-income precincts, who are often forced to vote on antiquated machines. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, in its investigation of the 2000 returns from Florida, found that African-Americans were nearly 10 times more likely than whites to have their ballots rejected, a ratio that holds nationwide.
Proponents of HAVA claimed the law would correct the spoilage problem by promoting computerized balloting. Yet touch-screen systems have proved highly unreliable — especially in minority and low-income precincts. A statistical analysis of New Mexico ballots by a voting-rights group called VotersUnite found that Hispanics who voted by computer in 2004 were nearly five times more likely to have their votes unrecorded than those who used paper ballots. In a close election, such small discrepancies can make a big difference: In 2004, the number of spoiled ballots in New Mexico — 19,000 — was three times George Bush's margin of victory.
6. Challenging "Provisional" Ballots
In 2004, an estimated 3 million voters who showed up at the polls were refused regular ballots because their registration was challenged on a technicality. Instead, these voters were handed "provisional" ballots, a fail-safe measure mandated by HAVA to enable officials to review disputed votes. But for many officials, resolving disputes means tossing ballots in the trash. In 2004, a third of all provisional ballots — as many as 1 million votes — were simply thrown away at the discretion of election officials.
Many voters are given provisional ballots under an insidious tactic known as "vote caging," which uses targeted mailings to disenfranchise black voters whose addresses have changed. In 2004, despite a federal consent order forbidding Republicans from engaging in the practice, the GOP sent out tens of thousands of letters to "confirm" the addresses of voters in minority precincts. If a letter was returned for any reason — because the voter was away at school or serving in the military — the GOP challenged the voter for giving a false address. One caging operation was exposed when an RNC official mistakenly sent the list to a parody site called GeorgeWBush.org — instead of to the official campaign site GeorgeWBush.com.
In the century following the Civil War, millions of black Americans in the Deep South lost their constitutional right to vote, thanks to literacy tests, poll taxes and other Jim Crow restrictions imposed by white officials. Add up all the modern-day barriers to voting erected since the 2004 election — the new registrations thrown out, the existing registrations scrubbed, the spoiled ballots, the provisional ballots that were never counted — and what you have is millions of voters, more than enough to swing the presidential election, quietly being detached from the electorate by subterfuge.
"Jim Crow was laid to rest, but his cousins were not," says Donna Brazile. "We got rid of poll taxes and literacy tests but now have a second generation of schemes to deny our citizens their franchise." Come November, the most crucial demographic may prove to be Americans who have been denied the right to vote. If Democrats are to win the 2008 election, they must not simply beat John McCain at the polls — they must beat him by a margin that exceeds the level of GOP vote tampering.
Contributing editor Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is one of the nation's leading voting-rights advocates. His article "Was the 2004 Election Stolen?" [RS 1002] sparked widespread scrutiny of vote tampering. Greg Palast, who broke the story on Florida's illegal voter purges in the 2000 election, is the author of "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy." For more information, visit No Voter Left Behind and Steal Back Your Vote.
October 21, 2008
Poll: Obama opens biggest lead over McCain
Dem leads rival by 10 points among registered voters in NBC/WSJ surveyBy Mark Murray | Deputy political director | NBC News | 10/21/08
WASHINGTON - With voters’ increased confidence in his ability to serve as commander in chief, as well as a majority who now believe he would do a good job as president, Barack Obama has opened up his biggest advantage over John McCain in the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.
With two weeks to go until Election Day, Obama now leads his Republican rival by 10 points among registered voters, 52 to 42 percent, up from 49 to 43 percent two weeks ago.
Obama’s current lead is also fueled by his strength among independent voters (topping McCain 49 to 37 percent), suburban voters (53 to 41), Catholics (50 to 44) and white women (49 to 45).
In early September, after the Republican National Convention, McCain was ahead with independents and Catholics, and narrowly trailed Obama among suburban voters.
“To me, the voters have reached a comfort level with Barack Obama,” says Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, who conducted the survey with Republican pollster Neil Newhouse. “The doubts and question marks have been erased.”
Newhouse adds, “Obama’s beginning to meet a threshold of acceptance among voters.”
Palin’s drag on the ticket?
That doesn’t appear to be the case with McCain’s running mate, Sarah Palin. Fifty-five percent of respondents say she’s not qualified to serve as president if the need arises, up five points from the previous poll.
In addition, for the first time, more voters have a negative opinion of her than a positive one. In the survey, 47 percent view her negatively, versus 38 percent who see her in a positive light.
That’s a striking shift since McCain chose Palin as his running mate in early September, when she held a 47 to 27 percent positive rating.
Now, Palin’s qualifications to be president rank as voters’ top concern about McCain’s candidacy - ahead of continuing President Bush’s policies, enacting economic policies that only benefit the rich and keeping too high of a troop presence in Iraq.
By comparison, voters’ top concerns about Obama include, in order:
• Being too inexperienced.
• Being too liberal.
• Raising taxes on some Americans.
• Being too influenced by people like his former pastor Jeremiah Wright and the ‘60s radical Bill Ayers.
Hart argues that voters have turned against Palin. The negative opinions of her have “reflected badly on McCain and essentially hurt the ticket dramatically.”
Obama’s strengthened standing
The poll — conducted of 1,159 registered voters from Oct. 17 to 20, and with an overall margin of error of plus-minus 2.9 percentage points — comes after the presidential debates and in the midst of Colin Powell’s public endorsement of Obama on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
Those events appear to have strengthened Obama’s standing with voters. Forty-eight percent say they have confidence in Obama serving as commander in chief, which is nearly identical to the 50 percent who said the same of McCain.
A month ago, however, just 42 percent said they were confident in Obama’s commander in chief abilities, compared with 53 percent for McCain.
Moreover, 56 percent say they are either “optimistic or confident” or “satisfied and hopeful” that Obama would do a good job as president. Only 44 percent say that of McCain.
And now 55 percent believe that Obama shares their background and values, which isn’t far off from the 57 percent who believe the same about McCain.
On the issues and candidate qualities
In the survey, Obama also holds commanding leads on the issues — especially economic ones. He has a 39-point advantage over McCain in handling health care (59 to 20 percent), a 21-point edge on improving the economy (49 to 28), a 21-point lead on the mortgage and housing crisis (45 to 24), a 17-point edge on dealing with the Wall Street crisis (42 to 25), a 14-point lead on taxes (48 to 34) and a 12-point advantage on energy and the cost of gas (44 to 32).
McCain, meanwhile, holds advantages on which candidate would do a better job in catching Osama bin Laden (39 to 19 percent) and handling the situation in Iraq (45 to 40).
McCain also narrowly leads in having strong leadership qualities needed to be president (40 to 36 percent). But Obama has the edge in offering hope and optimism (53 to 23), improving America’s standing in the world (51 to 31) and having the right temperament to be president (50 to 30).
One other key advantage for Democrats is the enthusiasm gap. Fifty-two percent of Obama voters in the poll say they’re excited to be voting for the Democratic presidential nominee.
That’s compared with just 26 percent of McCain voters who said that about the GOP nominee, a percentage that’s down eight points since the Republican convention in early September.
Winning the base, but losing the middle
Hart, the Democratic pollster, believes there is one good sign for McCain in the poll: The Arizona senator is holding on to the GOP base. McCain has a sizable advantage over Obama among evangelicals (76 to 20 percent), small town/rural voters (53 to 40), and those living in the South (54 to 40).
But what the poll shows is that McCain — with 14 days until Election Day — has lost ground with independent and swing voters, Hart says.
“If you don’t win the middle in America, you don’t win the election."
Land of the free, home of the brave ... we should all hang our heads in shame!
Bush won't close Gitmo: White HouseOctober 21, 2008
WASHINGTON (AFP) — US President George W. Bush will likely not close the Guantanamo Bay prison for suspected terrorists before handing his successor the keys to the White House in January, the White House said Tuesday.
"We've long said that it won't be closed before the end of the president's term," spokeswoman Dana Perino said of the facility, reviled around the world as a symbol of heavy-handed US "war on terrorism" tactics.
"The president and his administration are working to get to a position where Guantanamo could be closed -- and have been for some time," she said after The New York Times reported Bush had concluded he could not shutter the prison.
The chief challenge is where to put the detainees now held at the at the US Navy-run prison in Cuba, even as some of their home countries balk at taking them back and Washington says it fears other nations may not keep close enough tabs on them, or in other cases may mistreat their returning nationals.
Faced with human rights groups' charges of wrongly imprisoning people at Guantanamo Bay, or
in its secret network of prisons in Europe, Washington has emphasized the dangerous nature of some who have been released.
"While hundreds of detainees have left Gitmo since 2002, DOD (the US Defense Department) reports that about seven percent of those released have been picked up again -- oh, except for the one who blew himself up in a crowded market in Mosul, killing dozens of others as well," said Perino.
"That is a reminder that Gitmo holds some of the world's most dangerous people, including KSM," she said, using the shorthand for the prison's name and for Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the September 11, 2001 attacks.
The Bush administration has been locked in a bitter legal battle over the fate of 17 Chinese Muslim Uighurs, and Perino approvingly cited an appeals court ruling blocking a lower court's order that they be immediately released into the United States.
The group has been held in limbo at Guantanamo -- despite being cleared of "enemy combatant" status in 2003 and cleared for release in 2004 by the US government -- because officials cannot find a country willing to take them.
The men cannot be returned to China due to concerns they would be tortured there as political dissidents.
"We'll continue to work to find a place for the Uighurs," said Perino.
"We will continue to work to try the detainees in the military commission process, and we'll continue to work with countries to take back their own citizens who were picked up on the battlefield -- as long as we can be sure they aren't going to be allowed to hurt innocent people," she said.
October 20, 2008
Conservative Talk Show Host Endorses Obama: Head Strong: McCain fails the big five tests
Sun, Oct. 19, 2008 His aim is untrue in too many areas, so a longtime Republican is voting for Obama. I've decided.
My conclusion comes after reading the candidates' memoirs and campaign platforms, attending both party conventions, interviewing both men multiple times, and watching all primary and general-election debates.
John McCain is an honorable man who has served his country well. But he will not get my vote. For the first time since registering as a Republican 28 years ago, I'm voting for a Democrat for president. I may have been an appointee in the George H.W. Bush administration, and master of ceremonies for George W. Bush in 2004, but last Saturday I stood amid the crowd at an Obama event in North Philadelphia.
Five considerations have moved me:
Terrorism. The candidates disagree as to where to prosecute the war against Islamic fundamentalists. Barack Obama is correct in saying the front line in that battle is not Iraq, it's the Afghan-Pakistan border. Osama bin Laden crossed that border from Tora Bora in December 2001, and we stopped pursuit. The Bush administration outsourced the hunt for bin Laden and instead invaded Iraq.
No one in Iraq caused the death of 3,000 Americans on 9/11. Our invasion was based on a false predicate, so we have no business being there, regardless of whether the surge is working. Our focus must be the tribal-ruled FATA region in Pakistan. Only recently has our military engaged al-Qaeda there in operations that mirror those Obama was ridiculed for recommending in August 2007.
Last spring, Obama told me: "It's not that I was opposed to war [in Iraq]. It's that I felt we had a war that we had not finished." Even Sen. Joe Lieberman conceded to me last Friday that "the headquarters of our opposition, our enemies today" is the FATA.
Economy. We face economic problems that are incomprehensible to most Americans, certainly they are to me. This is a time to covet intellect, and that begins at the top. Jack Bogle, the legendary founder of the Vanguard Group, told me recently that McCain's assertion that the fundamentals of the economy were "strong" was the "stupidest statement of 2008." In light of the unprecedented volatility in the market, who can dispute Bogle's characterization and the lack of understanding that McCain's assessment portends?
VP. I opined here that Sarah Palin demonstrated the capacity to be president in her speech to the Republican convention. Sadly, there has been no further exhibition of her abilities, and she remains an unknown quantity. We are left questioning the judgment of a candidate who bypassed his reported preferred choices, Lieberman and former Gov. Tom Ridge, and instead yielded to the whims of the periphery of his party. With two wars and a crumbling economy, Palin is too big of a risk to be a heartbeat away from a presidency held by a 72-year-old man who has battled melanoma. Advantage Joe Biden.
Opportunity. In a speech delivered on Father's Day, Obama lamented that too many fathers are missing from the lives of too many children and mothers. Look no further than Philadelphia for proof that the nation has a fatherhood problem at the root of its firearms crisis. And no demographic is affected by this confluence of factors like the black community. Among the many elements needed to address this crisis are role models, individuals whom urban youth can aspire to emulate. Little more than a year ago, Charles Barkley told me: "I want young black kids to see Barack on television every day. . . . We need to see more blacks who are intelligent, articulate, and who carry themselves with great dignity." Obama can be that man.
Hope. Wednesday morning will come and an Obama presidency holds the greatest chance for unifying us here at home and restoring our prestige around the globe. The campaigns have foretold the kind of presidency we can expect from each candidate. Last Friday in Lakeville, Minn., McCain himself had to explain to a supporter who was "scared" of an Obama presidency that those fears were unfounded. Another told McCain that Obama was untrustworthy because he is an "Arab." Those exchanges were a predictable byproduct of ads against Obama featuring tag lines such as "Too Risky for America" and "Dangerous," and a failure to rein in individuals at McCain events who highlighted Obama's middle name, all against a background of Internet lore.
Last Saturday at Progress Plaza, I heard Obama say: "The American people aren't looking for somebody to divide this country; the American people are looking for someone to lead this country."
Eisenhower’s kin touts Obama in Sarasota
Sunday, October 19, 2008Democrats in Sarasota had a surprise guest at their fundraising dinner tonight.
Susan Eisenhower, the granddaughter of former President Dwight D. Eisenhower, surprised the crowd by making a surprise stop in Sarasota to talk about why she is supporting Barack Obama.
Eisenhower, a Republican, was one of the key speakers on the night Obama delivered his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention.
On Sunday in Sarasota, Eisenhower said Obama must be an exceptional individual to bring Republicans like herself, Colin Powell and Chris Buckley, the son of William F. Buckley, to support him.
She said Obama is going “to bring this nation together in a way that has never been brought together before.”
Eisenhower spoke just minutes before civil rights legend John Lewis took the microphone.
“Whenever I find out that John Lewis is going to be somewhere I screech on the break,” said said.
Eisenhower said she and Lewis had a “moving experience” a year ago when they met in Little Rock, Ark., to commemorate the 50th anniversary of when Eisenhower sent federal troops to Arkansas to ensure the admission of black students into Central High School.
“I’m very proud of that moment,” Eisenhower said of her grandfather.
Quote of the day ...
"The thought of Sarah Palin as president gives me acid reflux"Chris Buckley,
"Sorry, Dad, I'm Voting for Obama" The son of William F. Buckley has decided—shock!—to vote for a Democrat.
by Christopher BuckleyLet me be the latest conservative/libertarian/whatever to leap onto the Barack Obama bandwagon. It’s a good thing my dear old mum and pup are no longer alive. They’d cut off my allowance.
Or would they? But let’s get that part out of the way. The only reason my vote would be of any interest to anyone is that my last name happens to be Buckley—a name I inherited. So in the event anyone notices or cares, the headline will be: “William F. Buckley’s Son Says He Is Pro-Obama.” I know, I know: It lacks the throw-weight of “Ron Reagan Jr. to Address Democratic Convention,” but it’ll have to do.
I am—drum roll, please, cue trumpets—making this announcement in the cyberpages of The Daily Beast (what joy to be writing for a publication so named!) rather than in the pages of National Review, where I write the back-page column. For a reason: My colleague, the superb and very dishy Kathleen Parker, recently wrote in National Review Online a column stating what John Cleese as Basil Fawlty would call “the bleeding obvious”: namely, that Sarah Palin is an embarrassment, and a dangerous one at that. She’s not exactly alone. New York Times columnist David Brooks, who began his career at NR, just called Governor Palin “a cancer on the Republican Party.”
As for Kathleen, she has to date received 12,000 (quite literally) foam-at-the-mouth hate-emails. One correspondent, if that’s quite the right word, suggested that Kathleen’s mother should have aborted her and tossed the fetus into a Dumpster. There’s Socratic dialogue for you. Dear Pup once said to me sighfully after a right-winger who fancied himself a WFB protégé had said something transcendently and provocatively cretinous, “You know, I’ve spent my entire life time separating the Right from the kooks.” Well, the dear man did his best. At any rate, I don’t have the kidney at the moment for 12,000 emails saying how good it is he’s no longer alive to see his Judas of a son endorse for the presidency a covert Muslim who pals around with the Weather Underground. So, you’re reading it here first.
As to the particulars, assuming anyone gives a fig, here goes:
I have known John McCain personally since 1982. I wrote a well-received speech for him. Earlier this year, I wrote in The New York Times—I’m beginning to sound like Paul Krugman, who cannot begin a column without saying, “As I warned the world in my last column...”—a highly favorable Op-Ed about McCain, taking Rush Limbaugh and the others in the Right Wing Sanhedrin to task for going after McCain for being insufficiently conservative. I don’t—still—doubt that McCain’s instincts remain fundamentally conservative. But the problem is otherwise.
McCain rose to power on his personality and biography. He was authentic. He spoke truth to power. He told the media they were “jerks” (a sure sign of authenticity, to say nothing of good taste; we are jerks). He was real. He was unconventional. He embraced former anti-war leaders. He brought resolution to the awful missing-POW business. He brought about normalization with Vietnam—his former torturers! Yes, he erred in accepting plane rides and vacations from Charles Keating, but then, having been cleared on technicalities, groveled in apology before the nation. He told me across a lunch table, “The Keating business was much worse than my five and a half years in Hanoi, because I at least walked away from that with my honor.” Your heart went out to the guy. I thought at the time, God, this guy should be president someday.
A year ago, when everyone, including the man I’m about to endorse, was caterwauling to get out of Iraq on the next available flight, John McCain, practically alone, said no, no—bad move. Surge. It seemed a suicidal position to take, an act of political bravery of the kind you don’t see a whole lot of anymore.
But that was—sigh—then. John McCain has changed. He said, famously, apropos the Republican debacle post-1994, “We came to Washington to change it, and Washington changed us.” This campaign has changed John McCain. It has made him inauthentic. A once-first class temperament has become irascible and snarly; his positions change, and lack coherence; he makes unrealistic promises, such as balancing the federal budget “by the end of my first term.” Who, really, believes that? Then there was the self-dramatizing and feckless suspension of his campaign over the financial crisis. His ninth-inning attack ads are mean-spirited and pointless. And finally, not to belabor it, there was the Palin nomination. What on earth can he have been thinking?
All this is genuinely saddening, and for the country is perhaps even tragic, for America ought, really, to be governed by men like John McCain—who have spent their entire lives in its service, even willing to give the last full measure of their devotion to it. If he goes out losing ugly, it will be beyond tragic, graffiti on a marble bust.
As for Senator Obama: He has exhibited throughout a “first-class temperament,” pace Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.’s famous comment about FDR. As for his intellect, well, he’s a Harvard man, though that’s sure as heck no guarantee of anything, these days. Vietnam was brought to you by Harvard and (one or two) Yale men. As for our current adventure in Mesopotamia, consider this lustrous alumni roster. Bush 43: Yale. Rumsfeld: Princeton. Paul Bremer: Yale and Harvard. What do they all have in common? Andover! The best and the brightest.
I’ve read Obama’s books, and they are first-rate. He is that rara avis, the politician who writes his own books. Imagine. He is also a lefty. I am not. I am a small-government conservative who clings tenaciously and old-fashionedly to the idea that one ought to have balanced budgets. On abortion, gay marriage, et al, I’m libertarian. I believe with my sage and epigrammatic friend P.J. O’Rourke that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take it all away.
But having a first-class temperament and a first-class intellect, President Obama will (I pray, secularly) surely understand that traditional left-politics aren’t going to get us out of this pit we’ve dug for ourselves. If he raises taxes and throws up tariff walls and opens the coffers of the DNC to bribe-money from the special interest groups against whom he has (somewhat disingenuously) railed during the campaign trail, then he will almost certainly reap a whirlwind that will make Katrina look like a balmy summer zephyr.
Obama has in him—I think, despite his sometimes airy-fairy “We are the people we have been waiting for” silly rhetoric—the potential to be a good, perhaps even great leader. He is, it seems clear enough, what the historical moment seems to be calling for.
So, I wish him all the best. We are all in this together. Necessity is the mother of bipartisanship. And so, for the first time in my life, I’ll be pulling the Democratic lever in November. As the saying goes, God save the United States of America.
Will the old John McCain please stand up
by Lisa Van Dusen | 10/18/08
I miss John McCain. While this new creature of the same Republican brain trust McCain's pretending to run against huffed and puffed his way through the final presidential debate Wednesday night, the most powerful unseen presence at the table, other than Joe the Plumber, was the ghost of the old John McCain.
Watching McCain in full sarcastic, button- pushing, low-minded high dudgeon Wednesday night, it was hard not to be hit by a wave of nostalgia for the guy a lot of us wished had won the Republican nomination if not the White House in 2000: The one who seemed to have, all hotheadedness aside, a rare sense of perspective on the fact that some things are more important than winning an election and there are certainly worse things in life than losing one.
The old John McCain was the one who, in the 2000 South Carolina primary, had his reputation trashed in so many ridiculous smear sheets stuck under so many windshield wipers by the Bush campaign, but rose above and got over it.
Since his bewildering choice of Sarah Palin as running mate, the subsequent economic meltdown and his own slide in the polls, McCain has been acting in ways that make you think that not only did he not get over it, but that he's using the same tactics deployed by the same thinkers who deployed them against him as a way of exorcising his bitterness.
In all three presidential debates, there's been a gap between the immediate post-game analysis by pundits and the polling among debate watchers. People such as me who've seen campaigns from the front of the plane, the back of the plane or both tend to think McCain has done better than the public does. We're used to judging politicians' performances by a set of rules rendered obsolete by a player who refuses to play by them.
Based on the old rules, McCain looked like he did well in the final debate because he "landed more punches" on taxes, on separating himself from George Bush, on Bill Ayres the washed-up terrorist and by milking Joe the plumber. So why did voters think Obama, who could have engaged but didn't, beat Mc- Cain 58-31 in the CNN poll and 53-22 in the CBS poll?
Maybe they've made up their minds about which rules they prefer and now everything McCain does, from his running mate's terrorist talk to his broader embrace of the same tactics that won his predecessor the 2000 nomination over his own dead candidacy, only reinforces that judgment.
The media goodwill toward McCain in previous campaigns was based on the fact that reporters, like so many people, respect his record as a national hero and cannot begin to fathom what it must be like to spend five years in captivity. Anyone able to live through that starts out with a much higher integrity threshold and the benefit of the doubt that comes with it.
McCain built on that in his books, including Why Courage Matters and Character is Destiny, a compilation of true stories aimed at children that a lot of us slipped onto our kids' bedside tables.
"The most important thing I have learned, from my parents, from teachers, from my faith, from many good people I have been blessed to know, and from the lives of people whose stories we have included in this book," McCain wrote, "is to want what they had, integrity, and to feel the sting of my conscience when I have risked it for some selfish reason."
In a 2005 review, the Washington Post's E. J. Dionne wrote, "That is the central theme of this book. And if it turns out to be the theme of McCain's political career -- if his conscience really does have the capacity to be stung -- he will be remembered in a volume like this some day, whether he becomes president or not." Here's hoping.
October 19, 2008
Colin Powell Endorses Obama
With respect to the further dangerous movement of the right wing in this country, and the growing ethnic and religious intolerance, Colin Powell's comments on election 08, and his endorsement of Barack Obama offer wisdom worthy of Eisenhower's words about the military/industrial complex as he left office.Please send this powerful statement of what is best about America to everyone you can. Two weeks to go folks! - zjm
New York Daily News Endorses Obama
The need for a fresh start in America has grown markedly in the two years of this presidential campaign, and became imperative as the crippled financial system punishes workers, families and retirees in the country. The U.S. is in want of leadership that repairs a damaged economy, restores faith in government as an engine for the common good and returns competence to the White House after the spectacular failures of the Bush administration.
Barack Obama holds the greater promise of accomplishing the mission than does John McCain. The Daily News endorses the 47-year-old Democrat, the first black American to win a major party nomination, for President.
Even his detractors agree Obama is an extraordinary politician. His campaign elevated a freshman senator to preeminence with a message that he represents a chance to make fundamental change in Washington.
Gifted in oratory and gracefully bearing the mantle of history, Obama stood as the repudiation of the record of George W. Bush. No one capitalized on the blunders of the last eight years more skillfully than he did, while aligning a liberal Democratic agenda with the country's decided shift away from the status quo.
Obama has been called audacious, and he certainly is. But his confidence is supported by both a high intelligence and a clear-eyed pragmatism, qualities that enabled him to best more established competitors - now to stand within reach of breaking America's ultimate racial barrier.
A brilliant mind combined with practicality would well serve any President, and the reserves shown by Obama suggest he would bring nimbleness and judgment to the Oval Office. So does his crucial vow to reach across the aisle for solutions frozen in partisan gridlock
Obama has the potential to reinvigorate a nation fed up with the dysfunctional behavior of its leaders. But he would face tests - deciding, not speaking; governing, not campaigning - that dwarf any he encountered in his slim 12 years in the Illinois Legislature and the U.S. Senate.
The challenges are of historic proportions and growing.
The American standard of living is threatened with severe erosion from the global financial crisis. There's a war in Iraq to wind responsibly down, and there's a war in Afghanistan that demands smart new strategies. Iran is defiantly acquiring nuclear capability; Russia is flexing its muscles. Energy independence and global warming demand action.
And, never forget, the home shores must be protected.
The times call for boldness backed by expertise, not by ideology. We support Obama in the expectation that he would tap the brightest minds, regardless of political affiliation. He would need seasoned advice on every front, not least in adjusting from the rhetoric of a hasty Iraq withdrawal to the facts-on-the-ground duty of commander in chief.
We also expect that Obama would fulfill that oft-stated pledge to bring bipartisanship to the White House in forging solutions that work. That spirit will be essential to engaging the gears of government on issues that cannot wait. What Obama gives up - and some of his ideas must be tossed or refocused - would strengthen a presidency dedicated to the welcome notion of advancing the interests of the average Joe and Jane.
John McCain is an outstanding U.S. senator and a man of character. His courage in the face of torture and imprisonment as a Navy flier in North Vietnam met the highest standards of honor.
Typical for McCain, he fought his way to winning the nomination of a resistant party, and the Republicans are the better for it. In what was often predicted to be a Democratic blowout, McCain has kept the contest competitive.
His strongest suits are foreign affairs and the military. Tough-minded on both, he was dead-on regarding Iraq. From the start, he advocated more boots on the ground so the military could provide security to the Iraqi people, not just topple Saddam Hussein. Then, in the war's darkest hours, he held fast against overwhelming opposition to urge a bigger troop deployment.
Thus was born the surge that opened the way for Iraqis to begin building a civil society and pointed America toward withdrawal by the next President - perhaps, ironically, Obama.
McCain's insistence on persevering in Iraq - and on getting it right - reflects a core belief in promoting U.S. interests with a wise use of America's assets, from ideals to arsenal.
He has complemented global savvy with walk-the-walk bipartisanship. Among the highlights were battles for immigration and campaign finance reform, as well as a readiness to attack pork-barrel spending by both parties.
McCain's misfortune is that he is the standard-bearer of a party whose leadership, starting at the top, ran the U.S. onto the rocks.
There is no question he would bring change - but not as much as is needed after a presidency that enriched the wealthy over the working and middle classes with excessive tax cuts; gorged on spending; failed to address America's energy needs and global warming; undermined the credibility of U.S. military power, and got blindsided by the Wall Street meltdown, thanks in part to deregulatory zeal.
With the latest poll showing that fully 90% of Americans believe the country is headed in the wrong direction, the Republican Party has precious little credibility in laying claim to continued leadership. And the necessity of making a sharp break became all the more pressing with the sudden arrival of financial distress.
Unfortunately, a centerpiece of McCain's economic plan is an extension of Bush tax policy - a bad idea anytime, but horrible in these newly dire circumstances.
As the fates would have it, now is simply not the moment for this fine public servant.
Millions of Americans vest great hope in Barack Obama - and there is good reason why. It has been a long time since many have felt the government was in their corner. And here came an accomplished, fresh figure - a black man, at that - with plans for restoring the faith.
The agenda is sweeping, but the theme is clear. Whether on tax fairness or health care or the cost of college, Obama pushes the balance toward the working and middle classes and those farther down the ladder.
Still, reservations persist about specifics of his proposals.
On the international front, Obama faces tough calls regarding the war in Iraq. When he visited the country in July, Sunni leaders pleaded with him to drop the thought of pulling out before they and Shiite chiefs had forged working political relationships.
The Sunnis were right, because bringing the troops home prematurely could well unleash an upsurge in violence with disastrous consequences. Among them: an opening for Iran to play a dominant role in Iraq, the alienation of Sunni-led countries in the Mideast and a dramatic loss of credibility in Afghanistan.
Obama would have to recognize that combat troops must stay in Iraq at appropriate levels until the situation is resolved.
Domestically, Obama would have to shift to some more effective approaches while trimming sails to match fiscal realities.
It's a solid idea to raise the low tax rates enjoyed by the wealthy, but it would be counterproductive to increase capital gains levies. The first would boost revenue and fairness; the second would crimp investment.
Providing tax breaks to those at the low end is attractive, but Obama would achieve greater economic stimulus with aggressive spending on infrastructure projects, such as roads, bridges and, especially, mass transit.
Enabling homeowners to get relief from mortgage debt in bankruptcy court, as Obama proposes, would further disrupt housing finance. But directing the government to buy up troubled mortgages would help stabilize housing prices and bail out families, not just Wall Street.
In sum, we are banking on practicality trumping political dogma in an Obama White House. The fantasy that the U.S. can move toward energy independence without fully committing to domestic drilling and nuclear power must be banished. The reality that America can't make strides toward universal health care without fiscal discipline elsewhere must sink in.
At this critical juncture, the nation must elect a President who will renew bipartisanship and hard-headed pragmatism to rescue America's standard of living, secure the country from global threats, whether of arms or of climate, and lay a foundation to meet 21st century challenges.
That is our hope for Barack Obama.
Philadelphia Inquirer Endorses Obama
For President: Obama will lead The Inquirer's Endorsement
The situation facing the next American president may be the most dire since Franklin Roosevelt took over the job in 1933.
With the Great Depression holding the nation by its throat and as talk of another war in Europe lurched toward reality, FDR offered this country something better than money or guns - hope.
It's a commodity not to be discounted when a recession, if not another Depression, is knocking on our door. People need hope when their country is caught up in an unpopular war, and they know more soldiers must be sent to another theater. But hope is not enough.
If America is going to fight its way out of a worldwide economic crisis that has people fearful of losing not only their homes but also their jobs, and fearful of unending war, then it must have better leadership than it has had the past eight years.
There are those who say this election should not be a referendum on the incumbent. But the presidency of George W. Bush colors everything about America today. His mistakes must not be repeated.
Both major candidates are trying to avoid association with Bush's failed policies. But only one does so successfully. On every issue important to America, Barack Obama offers a plan that would pull this nation from the precipice built by bad Bush decisions. The Inquirer endorses BARACK OBAMA for president.
While John McCain also promises "change," it's hard to believe that's possible from someone who, by his own admission, has voted with Bush 90 percent of the time. On key issues such as campaign finance, pork-barrel spending, and humane interrogation of terrorism suspects, McCain has indeed been a "maverick." But mostly, he and Bush have been on the same page.More troubling was McCain's selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. This blatant overture to women voters and evangelical Christians who share her views on abortion backfired when Palin in interviews proved she is not prepared to be a heartbeat away from the presidency.
Over the past four months, this Editorial Board has compared the candidates' positions. In almost every case, Obama has a superior proposal for this nation. Consider:
Give McCain credit for supporting the successful "surge" of additional U.S. troops to Iraq. But McCain opposes a timetable for leaving Iraq, something even the Iraqi government wants. Obama wants a reasonable timetable for withdrawal, coordinated to protect U.S. troops, that would allow our focus to shift to the Afghanistan/Pakistan border area, where Osama bin Laden is holed up.
One of the most persistent deceptions in this campaign is McCain's claim that Obama proposes "painful tax increases on working American families." Obama would raise income taxes on households earning more than $250,000 per year. Most households - 81 percent - would receive a tax cut. The nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center has calculated that households earning between $37,595 and $66,354 a year would save $1,118 on their taxes annually under Obama's plan. McCain's proposal would save those same families, on average, $325.
On energy, both McCain and Obama favor alternatives such as wind, solar and biofuels to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. But McCain wrongly emphasizes offshore drilling, which will have minimal impact, and building more nuclear plants, which will take decades.
Obama would provide health insurance to more Americans. He would subsidize premiums for the working poor, mostly paid for by repealing the Bush tax cuts but also by requiring businesses that don't provide medical benefits to contribute. McCain's idea to provide medical tax credits of $2,500 per person and $5,000 for families would come at a hefty cost, ending the tax break given workers whose health care is paid for them at work.
Presidents can have their deepest and most lasting impact on American society through their appointments to the federal courts, especially the U.S. Supreme Court. Justices John Paul Stevens, 88, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 75, two of the more liberal justices, could retire soon. McCain has promised to nominate justices in the mold of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, both Bush appointees. That would shift the court to the far right, possibly threatening the Roe v. Wade decision. Obama appointments to replace the liberal justices would keep the court balanced.
McCain says he's committed to public education, but all he offers is more charter and voucher programs, saying competition is the best way to improve failing schools. Obama wisely wants $18 billion for an ambitious pre-K-to-12th agenda that includes more funding for early childhood education. He also would give tax credits to college students who in return would perform 100 hours of community service a year.
There's another reason to vote for Obama. It would tell the world that the melting-pot America of legend has finally become a reality - electing a biracial president whose black father was born in Kenya and white mother hailed from Kansas.
With his eloquent oratory, Obama has already taken big steps to bridge America's racial divide. In his gentle but resolute demeanor, people also see a man who can restore their faith in a national government that's been trapped in a tar pit of partisan sniping.
These times demand steady, focused leadership. Leadership that takes America far from the policies that have created so much fear. Leadership that says it's OK to hope, because hope properly directed yields results. Barack Obama is ready to provide that leadership.
