September 26-29, 2008
Sep 26 09:06 Perhaps He Didn't Hear About Fannie & Freddie? Sep 27 01:57 El Tinklenberg's Shameless Mischaracterizations, Part II Sep 28 12:17 How To Judge Debate Winners & Losers Sep 28 19:18 Barney Frank's Quagmire? Sep 28 22:23 Helping Mary Kiffmeyer & Alison Krueger Win Sep 29 09:54 Missouri Brownshirts For Obama Sep 29 17:13 No Coal Plants In America?
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Perhaps He Didn't Hear About Fannie & Freddie?
Elwyn Tinklenberg has posted the nastiest cheapshot at Michele Bachmann I've ever seen on his blog. Here's teh title of his post:
Bachmann skips Scandia forum, tracker sent insteadHere's the opening paragraphs of the post:
Last night, concerned citizens and voters from northern Washington County gathered at the Scandia Community Center for a candidate forum. El Tinklenberg, DFL and Independence Party-endorsed candidate, was joined by Bob Anderson, Independent candidate.After reading that opening, I sent this email to Tanner Curl, El Tinklenberg's blogger:
Rep. Michele Bachmann did not attend. But the Republican Party did send a tracker (a low level staff member paid to video an opponent's public events).
Tanner, It's getting difficult, almost impossible really, to think of Mr. Tinklenberg as an honorable man after this childish post:Frankly, I've had it with Mr. Tinklenberg's cheapshots. He's whining that Michele was doing her job as our representative instead of attending a Tuesday night meeting in Scandia, MN? Give me a break. The vast majority of people in CD-6 would've been justifiably upset with Michele if she would've put a higher priority on attending a townhall meeting than on representing our interests in the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac crisis.Last night, concerned citizens and voters from northern Washington County gathered at the Scandia Community Center for a candidate forum. El Tinklenberg, DFL and Independence Party-endorsed candidate, was joined by Bob Anderson, Independent candidate.Perhaps you've heard that Congress is meeting in an attempt to find a remedy to the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac crisis. It's kind of a big deal. Hundreds of billions of dollars involved. Rep. Michele Bachmann is supposed to ignore that crisis & attend a forum at the Scandia Community Center?
Rep. Michele Bachmann did not attend. But the Republican Party did send a tracker (a low level staff member paid to video an opponent's public events).
How can you work for someone this desperate & this dishonorable? I used to think that Mr. Tinklenberg was a man of integrity. I won't make that mistake again.
Gary Gross
Fersonally, I'm furious with Mr. Tinklenberg. If he keeps whining because Michele is doing the people's business instead of attending townhall meetings, then I've got to question him. Is he whining for purely political purposes? If that's his motivation, then he's just a cheap political hack flailing in desperation.
Or is it that he puts a higher priority on attending townhall meetings than on solving the biggest crisis in the financial community since the S & L bailout? If that's his motivation, then he's a blithering idiot.
At this point, that's too close to call. It's time to get a coin out and see if it comes up heads or tails.
Posted Friday, September 26, 2008 5:10 PM
Comment 1 by Eva Young at 28-Sep-08 04:01 PM
Michele Bachmann could have sent a staffer to stand in for her. Instead she showed contempt for her constituents by skipping this forum altogether.
Her staff then told both the Twin Cities Republican Association AND the Elk River Chamber that she was in Washington last Saturday, when she was not.
Comment 2 by Eva Young at 28-Sep-08 04:17 PM
Also: Bachmann is playing no role in the negotiations to solve anything - the people in the room are the committee chairs, the ranking members, the President, Paulson, Bernanke. All Bachmann is doing is preening around on any national TV appearance she can get.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 28-Sep-08 07:39 PM
Talk about picking nits. You're a hateful human being, Eva.
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 28-Sep-08 09:53 PM
Actually, Eva, the people in the room today were Dodd & Frank for the Democrats & Rep. Blunt negotiating for the GOP.
Besides, Michele is needed to vote on any package that comes out. Or would you rather that she ignore that duty?
Comment 5 by Eva Young at 29-Sep-08 09:16 PM
Gary, It's good when Bachmann is actually doing her job in DC. Most of what she does is preen around on appearances on Larry King, OReilly and whatnot. What good does that do for her constituents?
Calling me a "hateful human being", when I point out that staff members misled the press, the Elk River Chamber and the Twin Cities Republican Association is an ad hominem argument. Remember that the Elk River event was on a Saturday - and there were no votes in DC then. Rather than addressing my point, you make a personal attack. I know you can do better when defending Bachmann.
Also, what good does it do the 6th District for Bachmann to serve on the "Sarah Palin truth squad"?
El Tinklenberg's Shameless Mischaracterizations, Part II
I pointed out here that I've given up on trusting El Tinklenberg being a man of integrity. Now I have additional proof that Mr. Tinklenberg isn't a man of integrity:
Already this week our Congresswoman has voted against healthcare for the mentally ill and consumer protections for people with credit card debt. Yesterday she blamed our financial crisis on bank loans made to poor people and people of color. Listening to Rep. Bachmann, it seems like the only people who do not share the blame for America's economic crisis are the bankers and brokers on Wall Street.That's a mischaracterization and Mr. Tinklenberg knows it. He knows it because the STrib published this op-ed that Rep. Bachmann wrote. Here's one thing that Rep. Bachmann said:
I began my career as a Methodist minister, and as a person of Christian faith I am appalled at Rep. Bachmann's claim that 'the least of these', the poor, the vulnerable, and the most marginalized people in our society, are responsible for the downfall of our financial institutions.
American taxpayers are being asked to clean up a mess they didn't create. Congress must not rush to judgment on this matter. It is a complicated issue, and the consequences could threaten generations of prosperity. We must not just stick a trillion-dollar Band-Aid on the problem; we must examine the root causes and seek to address the core issues. Otherwise, it's only a matter of time until we find ourselves here again.Perhaps Mr. Tinklenberg can explain how Rep. Bachmann "blamed our financial crisis on bank loans made to poor people and people of color" when she's written that "American taxpayers are being asked to clean up a mess they didn't create." What's Mr. Tinklenberg proof that Rep. Bachmann thinks that "the poor, the vulnerable, the most marginalized people in our society, are responsible for the downfall of our financial institutions"? Or is this just Mr. Tinklenberg's most recent cheapshot ?
The recklessness of government is a primary culprit here. For years, Congress has been pushing banks to make risky, subprime loans. Using the authority of the Community Reinvestment Act, the big push for subprime mortgages began in earnest during the Clinton years. Banks that didn't play ball were subject to serious fines and lawsuits, and regulatory obstacles were placed in their way. While expanding access to the American Dream is a worthy goal, by blindly pursuing that goal and allowing the end to justify any means, we put millions of Americans at financial risk.
I'd further point Mr. Tnklenberg to this Washington Post article :
In 2004, as regulators warned that subprime lenders were saddling borrowers with mortgages they could not afford, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development helped fuel more of that risky lending.This article seems to say that HUD's goal of putting more families into homes, part of President Bush's ownership society agenda, is a major contributor to the problem. That isn't the same as saying that poor people are to blame.
Eager to put more low-income and minority families into their own homes, the agency required that two government-chartered mortgage finance firms purchase far more "affordable" loans made to these borrowers. HUD stuck with an outdated policy that allowed Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to count billions of dollars they invested in subprime loans as a public good that would foster affordable housing.
Many of these regulations were signed into law by President Clinton. Many more of these regulations were passed at the insistance of Barney Frank.
I'd suggest to Mr. Tinklenberg take a few dozen deep breaths before making such unsubstantiated cheapshots at Rep. Bachmann. I know he's trying to win this election but saying things like that only shows his desperation.
Posted Saturday, September 27, 2008 1:57 AM
Comment 1 by Eva Young at 27-Sep-08 11:49 PM
Gary, she's on the record on the house floor making these statements:
http://dumpbachmann.blogspot.com/2008/09/bachmann-poor-minorities-caused.html
She was quoting from an article in the Investors Business Daily by Terry Jones - and now says these weren't her words, but she used these words to support her statement.
She made similar statements on Larry King:
http://dumpbachmann.blogspot.com/2008/09/michele-bachmann-blames-laws-against.html
Keith Ellison is rightly calling on her for her efforts to marginalize unpopular minorities for political gain.
This isn't the first time she has made such statements. A while back she talked about "sleeper cells" in North Minneapolis. As a resident of North Minneapolis, I'm rather offended by this.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 28-Sep-08 01:43 AM
Eva, You heard what wasn't there. You assumed that she was beating up on poor people because you hate her. That isn't what happened in her interview with Larry King. She talked about Democrats like Barney Frank requiring Fannie & Freddie to make loans to people who were bad credit risks.
While it's true that low income people can be bad credit risks, we both know that there are lots of people making solidly middle class wages who are awful credit risks.
We've both known people who've racked up huge credit card debts who were making $50,000 annual salaries.
It's also obvious from Michele's op-ed that she wasn't blaming poor people for defaulting on their mortgages. Her complaint was with legislation that required Fannie & Freddie to meet a quota of people getting into "affordable housing."
Home ownership is a positive thing but government pushing people who aren't equipped for home ownership is stupid.
That's why it's accurate to say that Michele was upset with the government, not the low income people. Government shouldn't have stuck its nose into this. PERIOD.
I'm sure you won't like that answer because it doesn't further your storyline but them's the facts.
Comment 3 by Eva Young at 28-Sep-08 03:59 PM
Gary, I follow very closely what Bachmann says - and get what she says from primary sources. Stating that I hate her is an ad hominem argument that doesn't address the issue - Bachmann's own words. I actually find Bachmann entertaining on TV, but don't think she belongs in political office. On Larry King, she blamed laws against redlining (which discriminated against poor and minority neighborhoods) for this crisis. When she spoke on the floor she quoted a Terry Jones IBD article into the record: "homeownership as a way to open the door for blacks and other minorities to enter the middle class". Bachmann's defense, after being called on this was, these were not her words. Well then why did she quote this article in support of her position. It's pretty clear what it says. Later in her speech she qualifies a bit more, but it's fairly clear she is scapegoating blacks and other minorities for causing the mortgage crisis. Keith Ellison was right to call her on this.
If Bachmann was just talking about loans to people who were bad credit risks, there wouldn't be a problem with her statements - the problem was she targeted her venom at the low income and blacks.
This is a pattern for Michele Bachmann. Last summer, she blamed the Cottonwood county bus accident on Sanctuary City laws in Minneapolis and St Paul. This was another example of how she was trying to marginalize an unpopular minority for political gain. Certainly there are undocumented immigrants who commit crimes, and who kill people in accidents. There are also American citizens who do the same. Bachmann's exploitation of that issue was ugly, and typical of her exploiting bigotry for political gain.
And I'm sure you've seen the prominent sign calling for "Death Penalty for Homosexuals" carried at her 2004 Bachmann amendment rally. There's also plenty of audio of Michele Bachmann hysterically screeching about gays causing the downfall of civilization.
How To Judge Debate Winners & Losers
I've read a bunch of analyses of who won Friday night's debate. Most, though not all, reviews had Sen. McCain winning. Saturday, Powerline's Paul Mirengoff wrote this post about judging victory. Here's the section that caught my attention:
Yet most of the early polls I saw indicated that the public viewed Obama as the winner. Why the apparent disconnect? Because, I think, while commentators tried to focus on how well the candidates debated their respective positions, the rest of the audience focused, naturally enough, on how much they liked those positions.I'd suggest that there's another way of judging who wins a debate, specifically, who uses his opponent's words against him. Less than 5 minutes after Friday's debate, McCain's campaign had a video out called John Is Right, highlighting the number of times Sen. Obama said that Sen. McCain was right. This is brilliant because it uses Sen. Obama's words against him.
And that's where those headwinds enter the picture. The ones McCain confronts have to do with unhappiness over the Iraq war and over the state of the economy. Thus, McCain may have hammered Obama over his opposition to the surge, but if voters think the decision to invade Iraq was more consequential than the decisions that finally seem to have enabled us to succeed there, then Obama will still have the edge. Similarly, no matter how well McCain debates the economy (and here his performance was not that strong), the justified perception that his economic views are closer than Obama's to those of President Bush's represent a built-in disadavntage.
Before going further, let's remember the first Kerry-Bush debate in 2004. After the debate, most people agreed that John Kerry had won the debate on what was supposedly President Bush's strength, foreign policy. It turned out that winning that night wasn't enough for Sen. Kerry. Towards the end of the debate, Sen. Kerry used the term "global test." President Bush beat Sen. Kerry over the head with that phrase every day the rest of the campaign.
Here's something that Sen. McCain can pound Sen. Obama on mercilessly:
OBAMA: My definition,here's what I can tell the American people: 95 percent of you will get a tax cut. And if you make less than $250,000, less than a quarter-million dollars a year, then you will not see one dime's worth of tax increase.I don't know how 95% of the American people can get tax cuts based on this Treasury Department document:
Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 90 percent of all individual income taxes. Since 2000, this group paid over 96 percent of the total. In fact, in 2005 they were paying 96.9 percent of all individual income taxes.Unless Sen. Obama is planning on cutting payroll taxes on the bottom 50% of wage earners, it isn't possible for him to give 95% of American income earners a tax cut. How can Sen. Obama give 95% of Americans tax relief when 50% of Americans pay only 3.1% of the taxes? Here's another exchange that I'd turn into a video:
LEHRER : But if I hear the two of you correctly neither one of you is suggesting any major changes in what you want to do as president as a result of the financial bailout? Is that what you're saying?I'd put together a video of Sen. Obama's interview with John Harwood where Sen. Obama said that $4 a gallon gas wasn't the problem, that the problem arose from it getting that high too quickly. I'd also include Sen. Obama's outlandish claim that filling our tires and "getting regular tune-ups" would save us as much oil as what we'd get from opening the OCS to drilling. I'd have the narrator ask Sen. Obama when he found this fondness for drilling. I just visited his campaign website and it doesn't mention drilling. Without drilling, there won't be any short-term relief at the pump or in home heating bills.
OBAMA : No. As I said before, Jim, there are going to be things that end up having to be ...
LEHRER : Like what?
OBAMA : ... deferred and delayed. Well, look, I want to make sure that we are investing in energy in order to free ourselves from the dependence on foreign oil. That is a big project. That is a multi-year project.
The [headwinds] McCain confronts have to do with unhappiness over the Iraq war and over the state of the economy. Thus, McCain may have hammered Obama over his opposition to the surge, but if voters think the decision to invade Iraq was more consequential than the decisions that finally seem to have enabled us to succeed there, then Obama will still have the edge. Similarly, no matter how well McCain debates the economy (and here his performance was not that strong), the justified perception that his economic views are closer than Obama's to those of President Bush's represent a built-in disadavntage.While it's true that McCain is confronting Iraq headwinds, Paul doesn't mention that Sen. Obama is facing the oil headwinds. People are justifiably upset with President Bush's prosecution of the war but the feelings about the Iraq war aren't as intense as the anger people feel about the price at the pump or their anxiety about how they'll heat their homes.
In the days to come, we'll see how things shift as Sen. McCain highlights Obama's flip-flops in his stump speeches. That's when we'll know who the real winner is.
Posted Sunday, September 28, 2008 12:17 PM
Comment 1 by diogenes at 28-Sep-08 12:27 PM
A presidential debate is not a forensics meet. The winner and loser isn't determined by "style points".
The fact is, more undecided voters believe Obama has the better positions on the issues they care about than does McBush. Mirenoff is right on this point. The insta-polls right after the debate had Obama the winner. The Gallup Daily poll today, Sunday (covering Thursday, Friday and Saturday) has Obama up 50% to 42%, and tomorrow's daily poll will likely be similar, if not even more decisively slanted towards Obama.
That doesn't mean Obama has it locked up, or that McBush has no chance of winning. But, if I were a betting man, I'd put my money on Obama.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 28-Sep-08 09:58 PM
And despite all that, Obama still hasn't flipped enough states to win. I wonder why.
Perhaps it's because it isn't about "the issues." Perhaps it's because voters are focused on a few hugely important issues.
I remember 1984. A poll came out the day before the election showing more people agreeing Mondale than with Reagan on 11 of the 13 issues. The only issues where Reagan led were the economy & national security, the 2 most important issues of the day.
Comment 3 by diogenes at 28-Sep-08 10:54 PM
"And despite all that, Obama still hasn't flipped enough states to win."
Wrong, again.
Take a look at fivethirtyeight.com, for example, if you need proof. They've got the electoral vote projection at 325.5 Obama, 212.5 McBush.
Now, I'm with you on the fact that the only meaningful poll is on Nov. 4.
If the two major issues are again the economy and national security, McBush may be in trouble. He hasn't and won't lead in economics, and at the very least, Obama has shown enough people that he can probably handle the job as commander-in-chief, even if many aren't willing to give im the nod over McBush in that area.
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 28-Sep-08 11:44 PM
Take a look at fivethirtyeight.com, for example, if you need proof. They've got the electoral vote projection at 325.5 Obama, 212.5 McBush.
fivethirtyeight.com is a joke. For Obama to get to 325 EV's, he'd have to flip Ohio, Virginia, Colorado & Florida. Obama isn't buying ads in Florida, which means that they're writing that state off. He's competitive in Virginia but the experts (Sabato, Rothenberg & the professor from Emory College whose name I can't remember) still expect McCain to win.
Anybody that thinks that religious blue collar voters in Ohio will vote with any regularity for Obama is a blithering idiot.
Blue collar voters abandoned Obama IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING the Wright tapes & his SF fundraising audio. They didn't return. He lost Kentucky & WVA by 30 points each. He got clobbered in Ohio & Pennsylvania. There's a better chance that McCain flips Michigan than Obama flips Ohio.
Comment 5 by Don at 23-Oct-08 06:20 PM
As represented by an out of touch candidate so many Republicans find themselves stumped by the inability to throw baseless charges and at best exaggerated facts as in previous elections. The difference is the truth is quickly gathered and sent around the world via the web and read by discerning voters who actually think about issues before they vote. If McCain/Bush were actually confident with their direction for the country they would speak to it, rather than the classic make the Democrate seem evil and risky. Good example is the phrase "Tax and Spend Democrate". Note that 70% of the National Debt is attributable to Republican presidents who I guess prefer "Borrow and Spend" Which of course is what the whole Financial metdown is all about. Republican turned Independent voting for Obama/Biden not McCain/Bush
Comment 6 by Gary Gross at 23-Oct-08 11:31 PM
Don, Blaming the national debt for the credit meltdown is idiotic. They don't have anything to do with the other.
Saying that President Bush & Sen. McCain are carbon copies of the other is repeating the DNC's talking points.
As such, I'm not buying your saying that you used to be a Republican, though I'll buy that you're voting for the most unqualified presidential candidate in American history.
Barney Frank's Quagmire?
According to Jeff Jacoby's column , Barney Frank's fingerprints are all over the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac crisis. Here's the money paragraph of the article:
All this was justified as a means of increasing homeownership among minorities and the poor. Affirmative-action policies trumped sound business practices. A manual issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston advised mortgage lenders to disregard financial common sense. "Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor," the Fed's guidelines instructed. Lenders were directed to accept welfare payments and unemployment benefits as "valid income sources" to qualify for a mortgage. Failure to comply could mean a lawsuit.This wasn't unforseeable:
But it didn't take a financial whiz to recognize that a day of reckoning would come. "What does it mean when Boston banks start making many more loans to minorities?" I asked in this space in 1995. "Most likely, that they are knowingly approving risky loans in order to get the feds and the activists off their backs...When the coming wave of foreclosures rolls through the inner city, which of today's self-congratulating bankers, politicians, and regulators plans to take the credit?"A columnist could see this coming but Barney Frank wouldn't admit what others could see:
Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant that "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis." When the White House warned of "systemic risk for our financial system" unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank complained that the administration was more concerned about financial safety than about housing.Times have changed and not for the better. What's worse is that Frank now chairs the House Financial Services Committee, which has oversight responsibility of banks.
Predictably, Frank is denying he's responsible for this mess. In fact, he's telling people that it's proof of the free market's disfunction. That's the audacity of an elitist socialist.
Jeff Jacoby isn't the only columnist taking Rep. Frank to the proverbial woodshed. John Fund delivers this tonguelashing :
We will look back on the failure of Congress to reform the government-sponsored enterprises at the heart of the mortgage meltdown as one of the most expensive derelictions of its duty ever. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac used their lobbying clout, political contributions and even charitable largesse to charm or bully anyone demanding reform in their lending practices.Barney Frank knew that there were problems with Fannie and Freddie. His higher priority was to provide more "affordable housing." Why was that his priority? Shouldn't Frank have put a higher priority on stabilizing Fannie and Freddie? Certainly, there were ample red flags to warrant investigation. Actually, there was ample justification to warrant reforming everything.
...Rep. Barney Frank, who now vilifies Republican House members for questioning a policy of throwing another $700 billion on the bonfire, insisted to the New York Times during the 2003 accounting scandal: "These two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."
That's why it's perfectly legitimate to call this Barney Frank's quagmire.
Posted Sunday, September 28, 2008 11:48 PM
No comments.
Helping Mary Kiffmeyer & Alison Krueger Win
I just got an email announcing a lit-dropping opportunity in SD-16 and in HD-16B. People are putting a lit drop for Saturday, Oct. 11. If you're interested in helping Alison Krueger and Mary Kiffmeyer win this November, I strongly urge you to volunteer.
If your candidate is in a tight race, that's obviously a higher priority. If your candidate isn't in a tight race, though, Mary and Alison would certainly appreciate your help.
It's vitally important that we keep the SD-16 seat and the HD-16B seat in GOP control.
If you're interested in helping these great ladies win, leave a comment at LFR. Make sure you include your email address so I can personally contact you with specifics.
Posted Sunday, September 28, 2008 10:23 PM
No comments.
Missouri Brownshirts For Obama
Last Thursday, Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit reported that St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce and St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch were forming an Obama truth squad:
St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce and St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch are threatening to bring libel charges against those who speak out falsely against Barack Obama.Now, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch is running this quote from Jennifer Joyce about the OTS:
KMOV aired a story last night, that stated that St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch and St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, both Obama supporters, are threatening to bring criminal libel charges against anyone who levels what turns out to be false criticisms of their chosen candidate for President.
As a citizen, I believe that elections should be about issues. I also have enormous respect for our First Amendment and freedom of speech. My sole purpose in participating in this initiative is about getting truthful information to the voters. This has never been or never will be about prosecuting people.Ms. Joyce's line that she has "enormous respect for our First Amendment" is downright laughable. Anyone threatening criminal prosecution of political speech, regardless of whether it's accurate or not, is intended to have a chilling effect on free speech. In this scenario, Ms. Joyce and Mr. McColloch determine what is or isn't false. Considering that they're Obama partisans, why should we think that they'd objectively examine statements? Isn't it more likely that they'd subjectively read things into statements that aren't there?
Clearly there are those who are attempting to twist the purpose of this initiative for their own benefit. This attack is a great example of how the truth is distorted in campaigns and what we're trying to stand up against.
Secondly, Ms. Joyce and Mr. McColloch are public servants. If they're going to go after statements against Sen. OBama that they believe are lies, it's only right that they prosecute people who say untruthful things about Sen. McCain. Why isn't it just as much their responsibility to go after liberals who tell whoppers? Here's what Ms. Joyce said in an interview with KMOV-TV:
We want to keep this campaign focused on issues. We don't want people to get distracted, and Missourians don't want to get distracted, by divisive character attacks. We're going to respond to any character attacks to set the record straight.Here's what Mr. McCulloch told KMOV-TV:
Whether it is directly attributable to the campaign or whether it's attributable to one of the soft money operations, if they're not going to tell the truth, then somebody's gotta step up and say 'Wait a minute. That's not the truth. This is the truth.'Reporter John Mills followed those quotes with this information:
Now the Obama campaign tells News 4 that others, prosecutors and sheriffs, are also part of the team, including some prosecutors from the Kansas City are and rural parts of Missouri. We were also told to expect Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyd to be part of the team.I refuse to believe that these partisans will be the least bit objective in determining what's truth or what isn't. I don't think that that's what this is about anyway. It's my belief that the purpose behind the Truth Squad operation is to tell people that they'll have an criminal arrest on their record if they speak out against their preferred candidate.
Obama's tactics go well beyond the norm. Most campaigns have war rooms to refute what they think are the other campaign's distortions of their record. By bringing law enforcement into this, the Obama campaign is telling people that they'll be subject to criminal prosecution if they say something they disagree with. That's the type of tactic that I'd expect from the KGB or other dictatorial thug organization.
That isn't the way the United States does things. In the United States, we don't threaten people with whom we disagree with prosecution. It's time for the Obama campaign to end this thuggish response. It's time that they proved that they won't use any available resource to annihilate their political opponents.
It's impossible to believe in hope and change with a boot pressing down against your throat.
Posted Monday, September 29, 2008 4:50 PM
Comment 1 by Michael Ejercito at 29-Sep-08 12:40 PM
The assertion that Bob McCulloch and Jennifer Joyce would bring criminal libel charges against Barack Obama's opponents was made by the reporter, John Mills, without quoting either of them. Mills subsequently clarified the report.
Of course, there should be no debate that McCulloch and Joyce, being prosecutors, should avoid the appearance of using their police powers to support a political campaign.
Comment 2 by Walter hanson at 29-Sep-08 08:06 PM
The Problem Gary is that these Democrats think the first amendment allows them to trash the country and Republicans. They think the first amendment doesn't give people the right to criticize them.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 29-Sep-08 09:43 PM
The First Amendment DOES ALLOWDemocrats to trash the country & Republicans. It also allows us to reciprocate.
No Coal Plants In America?
I don't know how I didn't spot this last week. ABCNews reported last week that Joe Biden was opposed to coal plants in America. Here's what Sen. Biden said:
"We're not supporting clean coal," Biden said. "Guess what? China is building two every week, two dirty coal plants. And it's polluting the United States, it's causing people to die."The McCain campaign has put together an ad highlighting Sen. Biden's comments. Here's the script for the ad:
"So will you support wind and solar and alternate technologies?" the woman questioned.
"Absolutely, before anybody did," came Biden's reply. "The first guy to introduce a global warming bill was me 22 years ago. The first guy to support solar energy was me 26 years ago. It came out of Delaware."
"But guess what?," he continued. "China's gonna burn 300 years of bad coal unless we figure out how to clean their coal up because it's gonna ruin your lungs and there's nothing we can do about it."
Clean Coal - PennsylvaniaI'll bet that this will change votes in Ohio and Pennsylvania. This might help with their environmentalist fringe base but it won't sit well with people concerned with rising heating and electric bills. I'm betting that there are more people worried about their electric bills and their jobs than there are people worried about saving the planet.
Announcer: Clean Coal is important to America. And to Pennsylvania.
For Pennsylvanians, coal means thousands of jobs.
Economic growth.
More affordable electricity.
For America, coal means energy independence.
And clean coal means cleaner air.
But Obama-Biden and their liberal allies oppose clean coal.
Listen to Joe Biden.
Biden: "No coal plants here in America". "We're not supporting clean coal".
Anncr: No coal plants in America?
No jobs in Pennsylvania?
No energy independence for America?
It's no surprise.
After all, Obama-Biden and their liberal allies opposed off-shore drilling.
Congressional liberals blocked off-shore drilling...
putting special interests, before our interests.
Obama-Biden and their liberal allies.
Too risky for our jobs...our economic future.
Anncr: Paid for by McCain-Palin 2008 and the Republican National Committee.
John McCain: I'm John McCain and I approved this message.
Here's why Biden's statements are big trouble for the Obama-Biden ticket:
No sooner had the video surfaced then Republicans pointed out that Biden's answer conflicted with Obama's speech at the Democratic National Convention last month when he proclaimed his ticket's support for clean coal development.Knowing that they had to respond quickly, the Obama campaign issued this feeble response:
"As president," said Obama, "I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology and find ways to safely harness nuclear power."
And Biden's remarks also stood in stark contrast to his own comments this weekend at the United Mine Workers of America annual fish fry in Castlewood, Virginia, when he told the miners that "we have enough coal in the United States of America to meet our needs domestically for the better part of the next 100 to 200 years."
"This is yet another false attack from a dishonorable campaign," said Biden spokesman David Wade. "Sen. McCain knows that Sen. Obama and Sen. Biden support clean coal technology. Sen. Biden's point is that China is building coal plants with outdated technology every day, and the United States needs to lead by developing clean coal technologies."Mr. Wade's childish diatribe notwithstanding, the best that can be said is that Sen. McCain originally thought that the Obama-Biden ticket supported clean coal technology but that they aren't certain following Sen. Biden's comments. It isn't like this would be the first time that the Obama campaign had changed their position on an issue.
I'd further suggest that Wade's claiming that this is "another false attack from a dishonorable campaign" is to disstract people's attention from Biden's contradictory statements. That's shameful. It's also predictable. Distracting people from a gaffe is Campaign 101.
Joe Biden's words will remind people that Barack Obama isn't wholly committed to increasing fossil fuel supplies. Let's remember this Sen. Obama quote :
"I remain skeptical that new offshore drilling will bring down gas prices in the short-term or significantly reduce our oil dependence in the long-term, though I do welcome the establishment of a process that will allow us to make future drilling decisions based on science and fact."Will Sen. Obama fight to increase fossil fuels if he's elected? Informed people know that that's fiction.
Posted Monday, September 29, 2008 5:13 PM
Comment 1 by Eddisionklein at 13-Nov-08 07:40 AM
There is one clean coal technologies you may not heard is Underground Coal Gasification.It Is an older technology.If we combine Clean Coal with carbon capture and storage in situ they will have found a way to keep burning coal and avoid the associated greenhouse gas emissions.
