The Bin Laden Factor

NEWSWEEK

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: pearlbearx @ 10/23/2008 1:08:10 PM

    Bin Laden is definitely a "fake" character, utilized to manipulated world/ american beliefs that one guy in a small cave is the devil and can kill us all.
    However, I do suspect that a "Bin Laden" video might be released 4 days before our election, as THE ONLY WAY that McCain can win.
    I am hopeful that Obama's lead remains through election day, but a video like that would really challenge the poll numbers.
    I really hope I'm just paranoid and that our country has the wisdom to vote Obama into the presidency.
    Bless us all.

    • Posted By: varacefan @ 10/23/2008 4:17:35 PM

      I think you are correct but I don't think that will happen. The cave dwellers want Obama to win and if anyone doesn't believe that then you are completely out of touch. McCain would be their worst nightmare!

  • Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 10/23/2008 2:47:48 PM

    Hmm. Have not we heard this narrative before? Were not liberals accusing Republicans of dredging up ''bin Laden''in order to instill ''fear'' right around election time?[archival specimens from HUFFINGTON,TRUTHOUT,DAILY KOS and DEMOCRATIC UNDERGOUND all for October of 2004 show precisely this].

    But since it is Alters pontifications,and since it is The Expected One he is referring to,then the hypocrisy can be stashed deep in order to use it again the next time around.

  • Posted By: Daize @ 10/22/2008 12:30:10 PM

    That's not the October Surprise. He's not visiting his Grandmother, he's finding his birth certificate. Look up Berg v Obama, et al. I've got a feeling that it needs to be decided before election day.

    • Posted By: neocon @ 10/22/2008 12:45:49 PM

      Many seem to want to fall back on the great Americanism of "innocent until proven guilty". But this is not a criminal case. This is a simple certification. It is like registering to vote. It is like getting press credentials to cover an event. It is like getting a driver's license. The concept of guilt or innocence have no bearing. There is a designated process and you have to follow it. Until you complete the certification you are not eligible for the subject activity.

      So - UNTIL you do the certification you are not eligible. It doesn't mean you can't BECOME eligible or that you are inherently not certifiable. It just means you are not certified YET. So in that light, Barack Hussein Obama is NOT CURRENTLY CERTIFIED to stand as a candidate for president, and even if elected anyway is NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE US.

      So rather than the "burden of proof" being on the naysayers, the burden is on the candidate to satisfactorily complete the credentialing process. This is very simple. Isn't it?

      • Posted By: sjpersonal @ 10/22/2008 4:37:23 PM

        Qualifications to become a United States Senator

        Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution sets three qualifications for senators: 1) each senator must be at least 30 years old, 2) must have been a citizen of the United States for at least the past nine years, and 3) must be (at the time of the election) an inhabitant of the state they seek to represent. The age and citizenship qualifications for senators are more stringent than those for representatives. In Federalist No. 62, James Madison justified this arrangement by arguing that the "senatorial trust" called for a "greater extent of information and stability of character."

        link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate
        ******************************************************************************

        Qualifications for becoming a United States President

        Article Two of the Constitution sets the principal qualifications to be eligible for election as President. A Presidential candidate must:

        be a natural-born citizen of the United States;
        be at least thirty-five years old;
        have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.

        Additionally, the Constitution disqualifies some people from the Presidency. Under Article One of the United States Constitution, the Senate has the option, upon conviction, of disqualifying impeached individuals from holding other federal offices, including the Presidency.[4] Under the Twenty-Second Amendment, no one can be elected President more than twice. The Twenty-Second Amendment also specifies that anyone who serves more than two years as President or Acting President, of a term for which someone else was elected President, can only be elected President once. Under the Twelfth Amendment a person who is no longer eligible to be President may not be Vice President either.

        link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States
        ****************************************************************************

        Barack Obama was born on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Hawaii,

        The State of Hawaii was admitted to the Union on August 21, 1959, making it the 50th state


        WHAT IS YOUR POINT!

        • Posted By: rationalvoter @ 10/22/2008 5:55:34 PM

          Hey STupid! Don't you think before the Party would have allowed Barrack to run in the primaries they would know whether or not he's a US citizen.. Do you know how stupid you sound? I mean if you have a complaint on policies everyone's voice should be heard but this nonsense is really grating on my nerves!!!!!!!!!

          • Posted By: sjpersonal @ 10/23/2008 2:00:48 PM

            Ok, I will let the HEY STUPID pass because it is obvious that you replied to the wrong post. You either did not read my post or the one that I replied to or you hit the wrong reply button!

          • Posted By: sharenews @ 10/22/2008 6:42:02 PM



            The DNC is corrupt and in the tank from the get go I would not put anything past them - including covering up a scandal about BOs birth place. Watch this very well-made video below. It is pretty convincing. All Obama has to do is present the documentation to this lawyer that he requested and he will drop the lawsuit. So why doesnt he just do that and put this issue to bed? That is gets me about the whole thing:

            Here is a Professional documentary video - Interview with well-known attorney in Philadelphia, Philip J. Berg, Esq, who explains the concerns he has about Obama not being a natural born U.S. Citizen (making him ineligible for the presidency) and goes into much details as to WHY he believes this is the case:
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWTs1YyhFRg&feature=related


            BACKGROUND ON PHILIP J. BERG, ESQ.- Suing Barack Obama, the Democratic National Committee and the Federal Election Committee. Currently awaiting the judge???s response to said lawsuit filed. Mr. Berg is set to go in front of the U.S. Supreme Courth with this lawsuit if need be. My question is, why doesn???t Obama just present the necessary paperwork in front of this attorney he would not pursue a lawsuit. Why wont Obama just honor the request?

            Background on Attorney P.J. Berg:

            * Practicing Attorney for 37 years in State of Pennsylvania
            * Former Deputy Attorney General of Penn
            * Lifelong democratic 31 years as a committee person
            * Chairman of the Democratic Party Montgomery County, PA
            * Member of the Democratic State Committee for 8 years
            * Candidate on the Democratic ticket throughout Penn in the office of Governor and US Senate
            * Licensed to practice throughout the Commonwealth of Penn, including Supreme Court and the Federal * Court system which is the eastern district of PA and the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals and licensed to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court.

            • Posted By: neos @ 10/22/2008 6:54:17 PM

              Up to the old half truth tricks, I see. In the bio of Mr. Berg, did you mention the following about this gentleman? Probably not, huh?

              (Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania - 01/04/07) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, [Berg is a former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania; former candidate for Governor and U.S. Senate; an attorney with offices in Montgomery County, PA and an active practice in Philadelphia, PA, who prior hereto has filed a RICO lawsuit against Bush and others for the events of 9/11 and plans to re-file shortly] announced today that he was issuing a call for world leaders to arrest and try Bush and Cheney for the global crimes of 9/11/01.

              Philip J. Berg, Esquire stated in a letter to the nations throughout the world:

              "It is time for the nations of the world to come forth and take the leadership because of the failure of the United States Government and the States where crimes were committed on 09/11/01, where no thorough investigation and indictments occurred, to investigate, arrest and prosecute the people responsible for the murders on 9/11/01, specifically including George W. Bush and Richard Cheney."

              • Posted By: sharenews @ 10/22/2008 8:35:36 PM



                Still doesnt get away from the fact that Obama, the DNC and the FEC are being pursued in this lawsuit by a well-known, accomplished attorney. Like I said in my other post above, why doesnt Obama, et al, just present the requested document(s) to this attorney to review and it would all be dropped if the said docs are produced? I gotta say that it does make one doubt the legitimacy of his birthplace if he does not honor the request. What would be the harm? Guess we will see if all this will blow ove or not (he still plans on pursing it, following him into the White House if he wins). Say what you want to discredit him, but the judge has the case in his hands now and this guy will go to the US Supreme Court to pursue. Like I say, just shut this guy up and show him his official docs. That is all he needs to do.

                • Posted By: neos @ 10/22/2008 8:57:33 PM

                  Cut and paste, is it. OK

                  Well-known, accomplished attorney?? Well he is well known but not for being an accomplished attorney. LOL Got to give you an A for effort in ginning up his bio, but an F in ethics for being deceitful.. You knew all about his .looney toon past, didn't ya?
                  To answer your question with a question. Why don't Cheney and Bush turn themselves into a neutral country for trial as war criminals like Mr Nutjob desires. That way they could clear up the question of their guilt once and for all. Well.....
                  Keep chasing your tail on this one. Too funny really. In truth, I should be thanking you. It's conspiracy nuts like you that drive the independents and moderate repubs away from McCain's campaign..

    • Posted By: forte88 @ 10/22/2008 12:55:13 PM

      OH PLEASE!!!! SHUT UP!!! Here is the birth certificate.. It's been avaialable to the public for A LONG TIME!! Stop with your false nonsence. http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn227/Polarik/BO_Birth_Certificate.jpg

      • Posted By: forte88 @ 10/22/2008 12:57:45 PM

        Additionally, here is the link to Snopes.com that proves that the whole Birth Certificate issue is nonsense, and a non-issue. http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp

        • Posted By: forte88 @ 10/22/2008 1:07:27 PM

          Want more proof? Here's factcheck.org with proof. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

          • Posted By: neocon @ 10/22/2008 1:12:07 PM

            Obama has finally ACKNOWLEDGED dual US/Kenyan citizenship on his ???fight the smears??? website, thanks to the Berg Suit. Dual Citizenship is arguably SUFFICIENT to disqualify him from serving as POTUS, but he has not yet acknowledged that he held INDONESIAN citizenship under the name Barry Soetoro. There is documentary evidence of this. See

            http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/05/breaking-photo-documents-barry-soetoro-indonesian/.

            Indonesia did not recognize dual citizenship at the time, so to be an Indonesian citizen meant that he was NOT a US Citizen at the time. If he regained citizenship of the US at a later date, this would be thru naturalization, and naturalized citizens are explicitly NOT eligible to serve as POTUS!

            • Posted By: gpsn @ 10/22/2008 1:29:49 PM

              let's say that this is all true, what happens next? will that automatically put hillary as a candidate or biden?

              • Posted By: neocon @ 10/22/2008 1:34:09 PM

                The DNC would appoint a replacement.

                • Posted By: sjpersonal @ 10/22/2008 4:27:41 PM

                  You keep your hateful hope alive for McCain. He is STILL loosing!

            • Posted By: sjpersonal @ 10/22/2008 1:37:05 PM

              CORRECTION!

              Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his ??? Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.??? Read

              LINK: http://www.fightthesmears.com/search

              • Posted By: neocon @ 10/22/2008 1:54:53 PM

                Dunham married Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian, and moved to Indonesia sometime between 1966 and 1967.

                It was not clear whether Soetoro adopted Obama, either in Hawaii or in Indonesia, but there is strong circumstantial evidence that he did as far as Indonesian law was concerned.

                In Indonesia, which was under tight rule in 1967, Obama clearly took on the last name of his stepfather in school registration documents. All Indonesian students were required to carry government identity cards, or Karty Tanda Pendudaks, which needed to bear the student???s legal name, which should be matched in public school registration filings.

                Following his enrollment at the private Assisi school, Obama attended public schooling in Indonesia until he returned to Hawaii at age 10. According to Indonesian legal experts, it was difficult to enroll non-Indonesian citizens in public schooling.

                Obama arrived in Indonesia at about the age of five according to most accounts; although it was possible he arrived at the age of six, according to a few sources. If Lolo Soetoro adopted Obama at age five or younger, then Obama would automatically have become an Indonesian citizen according to the country???s laws in the 1960???s, which stipulated any child aged five or younger adopted by an Indonesian father is immediately granted Indonesian citizenship upon completion of the adoption process.

                Indonesian law at the time also did not recognize dual citizenship, meaning if Obama became Indonesian, then as far as that country was concerned, his U.S. citizenship was no longer recognized by Indonesia. But U.S. law would still recognize Obama as an American citizen.

                Obama last April disclosed he traveled as a college student to Pakistan in 1981.

                ???I traveled to Pakistan when I was in college - I knew what Sunni and Shia was [sic] before I joined the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,??? Obama reportedly stated at a fundraising event.

                The senator had not previously discussed any trip to Pakistan, either in his books or in scores of policy talks regarding Pakistan.

                Prompted by Obama???s statements, ABC News contacted the presidential candidate???s campaign, which affirmed that in 1981 - the year Obama transferred from Occidental College to Columbia University - Obama visited his mother and sister Maya in Indonesia. Obama then went on to Pakistan with a friend from college whose family was from that country, the campaign said.

                Obama was in Pakistan for about three weeks, said the campaign, staying with his friend???s family in Karachi.

                It was difficult for U.S. citizens to travel to the country without assistance. It would have been easier for someone to enter Pakistan on an Indonesian passport.

                Obama???s registration in Indonesia under the name ???Barry Soetoro??? also raises questions as to whether he adopted that name in the U.S. at any time. According to Illinois state filings, when Obama registered as an attorney in 1991, under the name Barack Obama, he stated he did not hav

    • Posted By: neocon @ 10/22/2008 1:02:43 PM

      You're also ignoring the Indonesian citizenship aspect to your stateement. He was using an Indonesian passport when he visited Pakistan at the age of 20 (which means he was an Indonesian citizen at the age of 20). This means that Lolo Soetoro adopted or acknowledged him. Indonesia does not recognize dual citizenships. Indonesia also didn't allow anyone but Indonesian citizens to attend schools in the country. Barack Obama was registered as "Barry Soetoro" at a school in Indonesia with his citizenship listed as such; thus proving his adoption or acknowledgement by Soetoro.

      Obama is only admitting so far that he was born with a dual Kenyan citizenship.

      There's also the fact that Obama's paternal grandmother, half-brother and half-sister claim to have been at the birth in Kenya. Stanley Ann Dunham was indeed in Kenya getting a divorce right before she gave birth. Airlines don't allow extremely pregnant women on planes.

  • Posted By: Kboogie @ 10/23/2008 12:26:03 PM

    Oh, HAPPY DAYS!!!!!

    "Most of the national polls -- including our NBC/WSJ survey -- are now showing Obama with a double-digit national lead. And here come a slew of brand-new state polls that also suggest Obama is in command of this presidential contest. The University of Wisconsin???s Big Ten Battleground polls have Obama up 10 points in Indiana (51%-41%), 13 points in Iowa (52%-39%), 22 in Michigan (58%-36%), 19 in Minnesota (57%-38%), 12 in Ohio (53%-41%), 11 in Pennsylvania (52%-41%), 13 in Wisconsin (53%-40%), and nearly 30 in Obama???s home state of Illinois (61%-32%). Meanwhile, there are new Quinnipiac surveys that show Obama up five points in Florida (49%-44%), 14 in Ohio (52%-38%), and 13 in Pennsylvania (53%-40%). And finally, new CNN/Time surveys find Obama ahead by five points among likely voters in Nevada (51%-46%), four points in North Carolina (51%-47%), four in Ohio (50%-46%), and 10 points in Virginia (54%-44%). The lone state survey that shows McCain ahead: CNN/Time???s West Virginia poll, where McCain???s nine (53%-44%). "

    I hope ALL of you are still here after election day. I'd love to continue blogging w/ you ALL.

    LOL!!!!!!!!!!

  • Posted By: NewsWkDickG @ 10/23/2008 12:22:05 PM

    Love to see McCain finally get truthful about something. It is about time to forget about the hypothetical 'Joe the Plumber' that never dealt with reality and focus on real people and the real issues that bother them. It is great to see McCain say that more of the same is neither going to work nor be acceptable. Desperation has McCain now strongly faulting GWBush and the Bush-Cheney eight year performance. Doesn't he understand that these acts of desperation now at the near end just confirm that the problems were always there, that he ignored them and even supported the actions that caused them and by flip-flopping now, he only confirms that he can't be trusted to do anything to turn anything around? Being McSame for eight years just totally contradicts ever being able to be a real McMaverick!

  • Posted By: neos @ 10/23/2008 10:56:09 AM

    In 2005, an average Chief Executive Officer (CEO) was paid 821 times as much as a minimum wage earner, who earns just $5.15 per hour. An average CEO earns more before lunchtime on the very first day of work in the year than a minimum wage worker earns all year. In 1965 the ratio was 51 times. In Japan the ratio is 11 to one.

    While running Lehmann Brothers into the ground, its CEO collected nearly 500 million dolllars from 2000-2008.

    Meanwhile Joe Six-Pack is being put out his home at the rate of 2700 per day.

    While no one will dispute that CEO's deserve higher compensation, this EXCESSIVE greed is what is ruining America.

    http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_20060627

    • Posted By: JON BROOKS @ 10/23/2008 11:44:20 AM

      Neos..was it Plato or Aristotle that said.."A king should never make more than 5 times his lowest subject"
      or words to that effect. You and I may be on different ends of the political spectrum..but this is one area where both of us agree.

  • Posted By: sjpersonal @ 10/23/2008 11:40:37 AM

    RNC On New Mexico "Voter Fraud": Never Mind

    As if you needed any more evidence that the Republican effort to tout voter fraud is less about legitimate claims and more about a political agenda, consider this sequence of events:

    Last week, as we noted at the time, the New Mexico GOP had publicly claimed that 28 people voted fraudulently in the Democratic primary, held in June, for a local race.

    Then this morning, the RNC sent out a press release announcing a 3pm conference call with reporters "on the recent developments in New Mexico regarding ACORN."

    But at 11am, ACORN -- the community organizing group that Republicans have been trying lately to turn into a voter fraud boogeyman -- held a conference call of its own, asserting that local election officials had confirmed that the 28 people in question, mostly low-income Latinos, were valid voters.

    So here at TPMmuckraker, we wondered what the RNC's response to this would be. And on the 3pm call, we asked party spokesman Danny Diaz.

    Diaz dodged the question. He talked about an incident with ACORN in Washington state, then referred us to an October 9th Wall Street Journal story, which did not address the allegation made last week by the state GOP about fraudulent voting in the Democratic primary. (Instead, it reported that the FBI had opened a preliminary investigation into thousands of fraudulent registration forms submitted in an area near an ACORN office.)

    When we tried to follow up, Diaz cut us off and shifted the discussion toward a general attack on ACORN for submitting fraudulent registrations.

    In other words, it looks like the RNC had scheduled a call to tout evidence of voter fraud -- not voter registration fraud, mind you, but actual voter fraud -- being perpetrated by ACORN in New Mexico. But when ACORN appeared to come up with compelling evidence that no such fraud had occurred, the RNC held the call anyway, simply shifting the focus to other vague allegations against ACORN -- then refused to address the New Mexico situation when asked

    link: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/rnc_on_new_mexico_voter_fraud.php

  • Posted By: JON BROOKS @ 10/23/2008 9:48:50 AM

    Electing Obambi will be like putting a large sign on america saying..."Gun Free Zone" Which we all know is like saying to would be criminals, felons, terrorists etc. stop and shop here. My advice to Republicans and Independents alike would be move out of the cities if obama wins because our terrorist buddies have a
    "heart-on" for those blue areas of our map. I am sure the obamatons will be glad to die for fearless talking leader. "And ya well GWB has spent blood and fortune and we'll be glad to see him go" yada yada yada
    "And there habven't been any attacks because they are scared of nancy pelosi" yada yada yada and they will gloat over you with their victories over John McCain yada yada yada. BUT if you aint in the blue cities when they finally get hit, you at least can have the last laugh.

  • Posted By: karo1958 @ 10/22/2008 4:54:27 PM

    Neocon, it's been said you can use statistics to prove anything - and then there's "lies, damn lies and statistics.". Your U.S. Treasury receipts increase is due entirely to INFLATION, not to any tax cuts - and you neglected to mention that the U.S. Treasury has report a deficit of $454.8 billion for 2008. This constant and unsupportable INFLATION that has occured under President George W Bush is part of what's responsible for our current market collapse. That and crooked banks and mortgage lenders, unregulated by Republicans who think that the market can regulate itself just like the fox can oversee the henhouse.

    And you know what? It's not "socialism" to understand that the middle class has been stripped to the bone, so that we can't afford any more taxes. It's time for the wealthy, who have been enriching themselves on OUR LABOR and not paying us fairly, to step up to the plate and bail us out of the mess that THEY CAUSED. It's not the $40,000 a year teacher, or even the $60,000 a year supervisor who got our country in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression - it was the wealthy players on Wall Street. So it's not socialism to say that the rich should pay the taxes to get us out of the crater - it's called RESPONSIBILITY!

    • Posted By: neocon @ 10/22/2008 5:22:55 PM

      ???That and crooked banks and mortgage lenders, unregulated by Republicans who think that the market can regulate itself just like the fox can oversee the henhouse.???

      President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted.

      2001April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity."

      2002May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

      2003September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.

      2005April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America.

      The aggressive approach to enforcing the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) started under Bill Clinton in 1998, and the seemingly endless appetite for paper by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had turned massive amounts of bad loans into mortgage-backed securities to spread their cancer throughout the system. In 2004, a year after the Bush administration tried to tighten regulation and oversight on Fannie and Freddie, Congress was told yet again that disaster loomed. The Democratic response is instructive to seeing who really sat back and allowed this collapse to occur.

      Maxine Waters: Through nearly a dozen hearings, we were frankly trying to fix something that wasn???t broke. Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and particularly at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Franklin Raines. (Franklin Raines, Obama???s economic advisor)

      Gregory Meeks: ??? I???m just pissed off at OFHEO [the regulators trying to warn Congress of insolvency at the GSEs], because if it wasn???t for you, I don???t think we???d be here in the first place. ??? There???s been nothing that indicated that???s wrong with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac has come up on its own ??? The question that then comes up is the competence that your agency has with reference to deciding and regulating these GSEs.

      Lacy Clay: This hearing is about the political lynching of Franklin Raines.

      Barney Frank: I don???t see anything in this report that raises safety and sound

      • Posted By: gpsn @ 10/22/2008 5:56:46 PM

        Thank you for taking the time to post all this. I doubt the Obama supporters will take the time to read this though because facts mean nothing to them.



        • Posted By: neos @ 10/22/2008 6:01:44 PM

          Correction. Cherry-picked facts are taken with a grain of salt.

          • Posted By: gpsn @ 10/22/2008 6:12:10 PM

            I challenge you to bring on facts to contradict all this. I have researched all the government websites and all the records and much to my dismay all of this is true. It sickens me. Research for yourself, dont take a bloggers word for it.

            • Posted By: neos @ 10/22/2008 6:17:16 PM

              Half a story does not a story tell.

              I can list 'fact' after 'fact' that will support any twist i choose. At the end of the day results are what matter. Repubs have broken this country with their voodoo economics and divisive politics and they don't have clue 1 as to how to fix it. All they have left is smear and name-calling. The American people can see clearly where the last 8 years have gotten us.

              • Posted By: neocon @ 10/22/2008 6:28:19 PM

                Give me the rest of the story. Nothing I have posted is false or mislead. Please show me I'm wrong or cherry picked facts.

                • Posted By: neos @ 10/22/2008 6:36:23 PM



                  "I am a deregulator. I believe in deregulation."

                  (Senator John McCain, July 13, 2003)

                  • Posted By: Shanshayla @ 10/23/2008 9:45:16 AM

                    Everybody on both sides of the aisle believed in deregulation, but it was Bush and McCain who saw the resulting mess we have on the horizon. Thank democrats Chis Dodd and Barney Frank for heading up the efforts to stop it. Bush started going to congress with this in 2001 for a total of 12 times, and McCain asking congress in 2005. These efforts are on record and are indisputable. So is Barney Frank's statement that "there's nothing wrong with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac" to the very end.

                    How many times did the democrats try to avert this mess? None.

                • Posted By: neos @ 10/22/2008 6:42:54 PM

                  President Bush inherited a unified budget surplus of $236 billion from President Clinton, the largest surplus in American history.[16] Budget surpluses were expected to continue for at least another ten years when President Bush took office in January 2001. By 2002, however, the unified federal budget had returned to a deficit of $160 billion and has since reached historic highs.[17] Last year, the budget deficit was $163 billion, or 1.2 percent of GDP.[18] And this year, the President has requested more than a trillion dollars in monies to help the nation recover from his Administration's own fiscal incompetence.



                  Simply put, President Bush is the most fiscally-irresponsible American president ever, having presided over the largest explosion of debt in our nation's history. Every year since taking office, President Bush requested that Congress increase the statutory debt limit, resulting in a $3.2 trillion, or 57 percent, increase.[19] At the end of 2007, the federal debt was $9.0 trillion or nearly $30,000 for every man, woman, and child in America.[20] The public debt currently stands at $9.4 trillion.[21] In order to finance record budget deficits, the United States has had to borrow at unprecedented rates from foreign countries. As of September 2007, the United States had accumulated $1.4 trillion more in debt to foreigners than this country had accumulated in its first 224 years.[22] By contrast, during the last three years of the Clinton Administration, the United States paid off more than $200 billion in debt to foreign countries.[23] Record federal deficits and debt create record interest costs for Americans. In 2006, interest costs on the federal debt amounted to $405.9 billion and this figure will grow to $645 billion by 2017.[24]

                  I admit that it's late in the season for cherry-picking, but cut and paste is so much fun!

                  • Posted By: Shanshayla @ 10/23/2008 9:38:12 AM

                    It's a well known fact Clinton did not have a "surplus." It is a myth.

                    http://www.letxa.com/articles/16

                  • Posted By: neocon @ 10/22/2008 7:02:16 PM

                    The claim is generally made that Clinton had a surplus of $69 billion in FY1998, $123 billion in FY1999 and $230 billion in FY2000 . In that same link, Clinton claimed that the national debt had been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years, presumably FY1998, FY1999, and FY2000--though, interestingly, $360 billion is not the sum of the alleged surpluses of the three years in question ($69B + $123B + $230B = $422B, not $360B).

                    While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it is aggravating seeing Clinton's record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the cold hard facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion.

                    Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government's fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), here's the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets. in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a budget surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the budget was almost balanced in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.

                    Keep in mind that President Bush took office in January 2001 and his first budget took effect October 1, 2001 for the year ending September 30, 2002 (FY2002). So the $133.29 billion deficit in the year ending September 2001 was Clinton's. Granted, Bush supported a tax refund where taxpayers received checks in 2001. However, the total amount refunded to taxpayers was $38 billion . So even if we assume that $38 billion of the FY2001 deficit was due to Bush's tax refunds which were not part of Clinton's last budget, that still means that Clinton's last budget produced a deficit of 133.29 - 38 = $95.29 billion.

                    Clinton clearly did not achieve a surplus and he didn't leave President Bush with a surplus.

                    • Posted By: neos @ 10/22/2008 7:09:03 PM

                      A wise person once said that if you torture sadistics(sic) enough, they will confess to anything. Clinton did have surpluses. I'm sorry if Rush won't let you believe it. But that's your problem.

                      President Bush's Budget for Fiscal Year 2002, A Blueprint for New Beginnings, (February 28, 2001).

                      http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/usbudget/blueprint/blueprint.pdf

                • Posted By: neocon @ 10/22/2008 7:40:44 PM

                  I'm still waiting for your reb.uttal of my fact. Oh, that's right you can you can just dodge and deny

                • Posted By: neos @ 10/22/2008 6:37:24 PM

                  "There was a lack of regulatory oversight during the Bush administration...that's one of the reasons we are in the mess that we are in...many bad mortgage loans and other loans were made in part because regulators were not empowered and were not playing their proper role." (Mark Zandi, NPR, 9/16/08) "Regulators and lawmakers allowed financial companies to police themselves while dismissing the need for rules to restrain the number of bad housing loans or the amount of debt Wall Street firms could take on. Banks and brokerage firms invented new, complex products - many of them exempt from regulatory controls - to support growing numbers of risky mortgages." (The Dallas Morning News, 9/21/08)

                  • Posted By: neocon @ 10/22/2008 7:09:07 PM

                    The Democrats want to distance themselves from the CRA as much as possible or spin it to look like it wasn???t a major contributor to the housing bubble. They are also looking to divert attention from the fact Fannie Mae was a major contributor to Obama as well as he chose former Fannie Mae CEO James Johnson, who was found to have cooked the books, to head his search for a vice president.

                • Posted By: neos @ 10/22/2008 6:38:19 PM

                  "In early 1995, after Republicans had taken control of Congress, [Senator] McCain promoted a moratorium on federal regulations of all kinds. He was quoted as saying that excessive regulations were 'destroying the American family, the American dream' and voters 'want these regulations stopped.' The moratorium measure was unsuccessful. 'I'm always for less regulation,' he told the Wall Street Journal last March, 'but I am aware of the view that there is a need for government oversight' in situations like the subprime lending crisis, the problem that has cascaded through Wall Street this year. He concluded, 'but I am fundamentally a deregulator.' Later that month, he gave a speech on the housing crisis in which he called for less regulation, saying, 'Our financial market approach should include encouraging increased capital in financial institutions by removing regulatory, accounting and tax impediments to raising capital.'" (New York Times, 9/20/08

                  • Posted By: neocon @ 10/22/2008 6:54:36 PM

                    He's right, less government is good government.

                • Posted By: neos @ 10/22/2008 6:37:51 PM

                  Beginning in 2000, the late, Democratic-appointed Federal Reserve Governor Ned Gramlich warned that predatory lending would "jeopardize the twin American dreams of owning a home and building wealth." (Governor Gramlich, 1/18/02) In 2006, Moody's Economy.com cautioned that "problems in the mortgage-backed market would spill over into the rest of the U.S. fixed income and stock markets... The turmoil in the U.S. financial markets would immediately reverberate around the world, engendering a global financial event." (Moody's Economy.com, October 2006) The Federal Reserve staff also noted a prolonged loosening of standards for mortgages starting in late 2003. (Federal Reserve staff briefing for Senate Banking Committee staff, 3/20/07)

                • Posted By: neos @ 10/22/2008 6:36:52 PM

                  The former Federal Reserve Chairman encouraged risky mortgages -- and did not "get it" until it was too late. In 2004, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, an avid champion of free markets and less regulation, continued to encourage higher-risk mortgages. "American consumers might benefit if lenders provided greater mortgage product alternatives to the traditional fixed-rate mortgage...the traditional fixed-rate mortgage may be an expensive method of financing a home." (Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan, 2/23/04) "Asked why he did not speak out, if he knew these practices were going on or even suspected that there was something illegal or shady, Greenspan admits, 'While I was aware a lot of these practices were going on, I had no notion of how significant they had become until very late. I didn't really get it until very late in 2005 and 2006.'" (CBS News, 9/13/07)

    • Posted By: gpsn @ 10/22/2008 5:03:57 PM

      I have accepted the fact that Obama will be our next president. In a couple of years from now we will be in the worst economic situation in history, that America will probably never elect another modern day democrat in decades to come. The true democrat doctrine is nowhere to be seen in the recent democrats and they will take America down, way down.

      • Posted By: neos @ 10/22/2008 5:12:39 PM

        It almost sounds like you want our country to fail, so your party will gain popularity. Now, now...

        True that Obama will inherit a terrible republican mess and it will take more than a few years to start digging ourselves out from beneath it. But there are those of us who believe that with hope, hard work and love of country we can restore America to its rightful place as the greatest nation on earth.

        • Posted By: gpsn @ 10/22/2008 5:51:10 PM

          And I actually hope and pray that you are right contrary to what you think I want to happen, which you couldnt be more wrong.
          I just dont think this was strictly a republican mess. Democrats played a vital role to where we are today. McCain to me is part republican liberal and conservative democrat which makes him a reformer. Obama supporters dont like that and they call it as him flip flopping. He is strong enough to stand up to either parties for the good of this country. It's time for a new type of politician and McCain is one of them. Obama is strictly far left liberal and I see no change there other than the changing of the guard from a republican president to a democrat. I think McCain can please both parties.

          • Posted By: neos @ 10/22/2008 6:08:01 PM

            What McCain was in 2000 is sadly not what McCain is in 2008. i once held a grudging respect for the old McCain. This 'new' type of politician has sold his soul to the far right fringe and has let loose on the3 American public Steve Schmidt, a direct disciple of Rove and the incredible shallow Sarah Palin. This style of divisive politics is being rejected and rightly so.
            So stay positive and TOGETHER we can achieve great things.

            • Posted By: gpsn @ 10/22/2008 6:37:08 PM


              That's what is great about this country!! We can respectively disagree and form our own opinions. The bottom line is that everyone will choose to vote for who they feel will better serve us. Some will vote on which issue matters to them, for example if health care is important to you, you will pick your candidate that will best suit your needs on that issue, if terrorism is important to you , again you will pick your candidate that you feel will best protect you, and so on and so on. Unforeseen events and issues always bring tough and sometime unpopular decisions. I have decided within the last month that McCain will be the best of the two during this economic crisis.That's my choice and my decision and I respect yours for choosing Obama. The difference might be that I will accept the fact that Obama will be our next president while more than likely you will not accept McCain. I will not be a sore loser because I feel that first and foremost, no one runs for president of a country to purposely ruin a country. McCain and Obama are both running for the good of the country .

              • Posted By: neos @ 10/22/2008 6:51:14 PM

                'The difference might be' but isn't I am a retired vet. i will salute the next president, whoever that may be and continue to march. I am an American first and political partisan second. Good luck!

                • Posted By: gpsn @ 10/22/2008 6:59:25 PM

                  I knew we would agree at something. :)

    • Posted By: neocon @ 10/22/2008 5:21:10 PM

      Let me take your points one by one

      ???Your U.S. Treasury receipts increase is due entirely to INFLATION, not to any tax cuts - and you neglected to mention that the U.S. Treasury has report a deficit of $454.8 billion for 2008.???

      Inflation rates

      United States 1995-2004 avg. 2.5 2005 3.4 2006 2.6 2007 2.85
      England 2.8 3.2 4.29

      Annualized Inflation rate 1995-2007

      US 2.60
      UK 2.76

      The inflation rates were not sufficient to account for the increase in tax revenue. The deficit for 2008 reflected the costs incurred in recent months for a $168 billion economic stimulus program that Congress passed at the beginning of this year in an effort to combat the economic slowdown. Those checks did give the economy a boost in the late spring and early summer.

  • Posted By: suedavies @ 10/23/2008 9:35:27 AM

    The notion that the Madrid bombings in 2004 directly influenced Spanish voters into electing a socialist government is entirely wrong. Since the attack, I???ve seen several American commenators make this basic error.

    Within hours of the bombings, it could clearly be seen that Spaniards were rallying behind the right-wing PP government, in the same way that Americans rushed to show support for George Bush post-9/11.
    Had things stayed that way there???s not much doubt that three days later the PP would have been returned, possibly with a landslide.
    What changed things rapidy was the PP???s sudden claim that ETA, the Basque terrorist organisation, was responsible (the PP had campaigned on a hardline attitude towards ETA so, if true, this claim would have suited their electoral chances).
    But to everone else this was nothing like ETA???s usual pattern and Islamic fundamentalists were the more likely suspects. The PP were accused of cynically trying to use the 193 deaths for political advantage and overnight the national mood changed.

    That is why the socialists were elected.

  • Posted By: suedavies @ 10/23/2008 9:33:33 AM

    The notion that the Madrid bombings in 2004 directly influenced Spanish voters into electing a socialist government is entirely wrong. Since the attack, I???ve seen several American commenators make this basic error.
    Within hours of the bombings, it could clearly be seen that Spaniards were rallying behind the right-wing PP government, in the same way that Americans rushed to show support for George Bush post-9/11.
    Had things stayed that way there???s not much doubt that three days later the PP would have been returned, possibly with a landslide.
    What changed things rapidy was the PP???s sudden claim that ETA, the Basque terrorist organisation, was responsible (the PP had campaigned on a hardline attitude towards ETA so, if true, this claim would have suited their electoral chances).
    But to everone else this was nothing like ETA???s usual pattern and Islamic fundamentalists were the more likely suspects. The PP were accused of cynically trying to use the 193 deaths for political advantage and overnight the national mood changed.
    That is why the socialists were elected.

  • Posted By: ynotquestion @ 10/23/2008 9:06:55 AM

    For those like this author Jonathan Alter who have not yet researched the fake Bin Laden Tapes,
    its easy to google. You'll quickly see that Bin Laden is a myth. Don't believe it? do the research.
    The tapes are fake.

  • Posted By: ynotquestion @ 10/23/2008 9:04:41 AM

    Is this Jonathan Alter for real? Hasn't he researched the Bin Laden tapes and seen they
    are faked? Amazing how the myth keeps spinning, with even the pres candidates buying into the charade.
    Do it, google Bin Laden fake tapes and start learning.

  • Posted By: Nins @ 10/22/2008 9:57:20 PM

    It turns out that RNC has spent $150,000 on clothes for Sarah Palin. They also spent $100 for a romper and hat for little Trig, which he wore on stage at the GOP convention.

    A hundred dollar onesie? (And these people are saying that Obama would be a profligate spender.)

    Did you know that the outfit Cindy McCain wore when she appeared at the convention cost $330,000?

    The RNC says that later Sarah's clothes will be donated to charity. OK, so some homeless person will get to wear this stuff on the streets of New Orleans. (Maybe this is the RNC's version of "trickle down spending.") But wouldn't the homeless be better served by $150,000 donation to a shelter or a food bank than by designer clothing?

    Fifteen years ago, McCain wrote an amendment to tighten the law on using campaign funds for personal items like clothing and stylists. In May of 1993, McCain said this on the Senate floor "The use of campaign funds for items which most Americans would consider to be strictly personal reasons, in my view, erodes public confidence and erodes it significantly."

    I guess he forgot what his prior position was. Again.

    Just like he forgot that he used to be pro-Choice and pro-gay marriage and pro-immigration reform. He also forgot that he used to be afiliated with ACORN, and with G. Gordon Liddy. If he is lying to cover up what his prior positions have been, shame on him. If he really can't remember, maybe the detractors who claim his mind is aging are correct.

    One last thought: is the GOP paying for Bristol Palin's maternity wear?

    • Posted By: sharenews @ 10/23/2008 2:54:40 AM

      Nins,

      It was always the intent that the clothing go to a charitable purpose after the campaign, s spokesman (Tracey Schmitt) from John McCain's campaign. I don???t understand the dedication of 6 pages in a Newsweek article about this subject, especially given it has been stated and planned from the get go to have all the clothes to go to charity or auctioned off.

      YOU SAID: The RNC says that later Sarahs clothes will be donated to charity. OK, so some homeless person will get to wear this stuff on the streets of New Orleans. (Maybe this is the RNCs version of trickle down spending.) But wouldn't the homeless be better served by $150,000 donation to a shelter or a food bank than by designer clothing?

      MY RESPONSE: Nins, I am surprised at you making this cynical (mean-spirited) comment in your blog below. I say this cuz you are a professional like myself and that you must know there are a great many organizations that Governor Palin could contribute this wardrobe to other than to ???homeless people???. Namely many organizations that help women by donating professional suits, blouses, shoes, etc. to aid them in getting into the workforce and/or furthering venture into a respectable career. Come on. . .really now, homeless people?

      SAMPLING OF CHARITIES:

      WARDROBE FOR OPPORTUNITY:

      Wardrobe for Opportunity is a non-profit organization that helps low-income women successfully transition into the workforce.
      http://www.wardrobe.org/

      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

      DRESS FOR SUCCESS

      Dress for Success is a non-profit organization that helps woman gain employment and journey towards self-sufficiency. This national organization distributes women's business suits and other professional clothing to women around the country. Women receive a business suit, shoes and accessories. Those who are hired receive work outfits. You can bring unwanted interview-appropriate suits, separates, shoes, accessories, unused undergarments and unopened cosmetics to a local Dress for Success affiliate. Some affiliates also accept coats.

      http://www.dressforsuccess.org/supportdfs_donate_clothing.aspx

      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

      SUITED FOR SUCCESS:

      Suited for Success, Inc. (SFS) is a nonprofit organization providing FREE interview attire for low-income men and women transitioning from social service agencies, domestic violence shelters and a number of job readiness programs.

      http://suitedforsuccessvirginia.org/

    • Posted By: sharenews @ 10/23/2008 2:53:09 AM

      Nins,

      It was always the intent that the clothing go to a charitable purpose after the campaign, s spokesman (Tracey Schmitt) from John McCain's campaign. I don???t understand the dedication of 6 pages in a Newsweek article about this subject, especially given it has been stated and planned from the get go to have all the clothes to go to charity or auctioned off.

      YOU SAID: The RNC says that later Sarahs clothes will be donated to charity. OK, so some homeless person will get to wear this stuff on the streets of New Orleans. (Maybe this is the RNCs version of trickle down spending.) But wouldn't the homeless be better served by $150,000 donation to a shelter or a food bank than by designer clothing?

      MY RESPONSE: Nins, I am surprised at you making this cynical (mean-spirited) comment in your blog below. I say this cuz you are a professional like myself and that you must know there are a great many organizations that Governor Palin could contribute this wardrobe to other than to ???homeless people???. Namely many organizations that help women by donating professional suits, blouses, shoes, etc. to aid them in getting into the workforce and/or furthering venture into a respectable career. Come on. . .really now, homeless people?

      SAMPLING OF CHARITIES:

      WARDROBE FOR OPPORTUNITY:

      Wardrobe for Opportunity is a non-profit organization that helps low-income women successfully transition into the workforce.
      http://www.wardrobe.org/

      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

      DRESS FOR SUCCESS

      Dress for Success is a non-profit organization that helps woman gain employment and journey towards self-sufficiency. This national organization distributes women's business suits and other professional clothing to women around the country. Women receive a business suit, shoes and accessories. Those who are hired receive work outfits. You can bring unwanted interview-appropriate suits, separates, shoes, accessories, unused undergarments and unopened cosmetics to a local Dress for Success affiliate. Some affiliates also accept coats.

      http://www.dressforsuccess.org/supportdfs_donate_clothing.aspx

      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

      SUITED FOR SUCCESS:

      Suited for Success, Inc. (SFS) is a nonprofit organization providing FREE interview attire for low-income men and women transitioning from social service agencies, domestic violence shelters and a number of job readiness programs.

      http://suitedforsuccessvirginia.org/

  • Posted By: Nins @ 10/22/2008 10:58:36 PM

    It turns out that RNC has spent $150,000 on clothes for Sarah Palin. They also spent $100 for a romper and hat for little Trig, which he wore on stage at the GOP convention.

    A hundred dollar onesie? (And these people are saying that Obama would be a profligate spender.)

    Did you know that the outfit Cindy McCain wore when she appeared at the convention cost $330,000?

    The RNC says that later Sarah's clothes will be donated to charity. OK, so some homeless person will get to wear this stuff on the streets of New Orleans. (Maybe this is the RNC's version of "trickle down spending.") But wouldn't the homeless be better served by $150,000 donation to a shelter or a food bank than by designer clothing?

    Fifteen years ago, McCain wrote an amendment to tighten the law on using campaign funds for personal items like clothing and stylists. In May of 1993, McCain said this on the Senate floor "The use of campaign funds for items which most Americans would consider to be strictly personal reasons, in my view, erodes public confidence and erodes it significantly."

    I guess he forgot what his prior position was. Again.

    Just like he forgot that he used to be pro-Choice and pro-gay marriage and pro-immigration reform. He also forgot that he used to be afiliated with ACORN, and with G. Gordon Liddy. If he is lying to cover up what his prior positions have been, shame on him. If he really can't remember, maybe the detractors who claim his mind is aging are correct.

    One last thought: is the GOP paying for Bristol Palin's maternity wear?

    • Posted By: sharenews @ 10/23/2008 2:50:00 AM


      Nins,

      It was always the intent that the clothing go to a charitable purpose after the campaign, s spokesman (Tracey Schmitt) from John McCain's campaign. I don???t understand the dedication of 6 pages in a Newsweek article about this subject, especially given it has been stated and planned from the get go to have all the clothes to go to charity or auctioned off.

      YOU SAID: The RNC says that later Sarahs clothes will be donated to charity. OK, so some homeless person will get to wear this stuff on the streets of New Orleans. (Maybe this is the RNCs version of trickle down spending.) But wouldn't the homeless be better served by $150,000 donation to a shelter or a food bank than by designer clothing?

      MY RESPONSE: Nins, I am surprised at you making this cynical (mean-spirited) comment in your blog below. I say this cuz you are a professional like myself and that you must know there are a great many organizations that Governor Palin could contribute this wardrobe to other than to ???homeless people???. Namely many organizations that help women by donating professional suits, blouses, shoes, etc. to aid them in getting into the workforce and/or furthering venture into a respectable career. Come on. . .really now, homeless people?

      SAMPLING OF CHARITIES:

      WARDROBE FOR OPPORTUNITY:

      Wardrobe for Opportunity is a non-profit organization that helps low-income women successfully transition into the workforce.
      http://www.wardrobe.org/

      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

      DRESS FOR SUCCESS

      Dress for Success is a non-profit organization that helps woman gain employment and journey towards self-sufficiency. This national organization distributes women's business suits and other professional clothing to women around the country. Women receive a business suit, shoes and accessories. Those who are hired receive work outfits. You can bring unwanted interview-appropriate suits, separates, shoes, accessories, unused undergarments and unopened cosmetics to a local Dress for Success affiliate. Some affiliates also accept coats.

      http://www.dressforsuccess.org/supportdfs_donate_clothing.aspx

      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

      SUITED FOR SUCCESS:

      Suited for Success, Inc. (SFS) is a nonprofit organization providing FREE interview attire for low-income men and women transitioning from social service agencies, domestic violence shelters and a number of job readiness programs.

      http://suitedforsuccessvirginia.org/

  • Posted By: Nins @ 10/22/2008 11:59:37 PM

    It turns out that RNC has spent $150,000 on clothes for Sarah Palin. They also spent $100 for a romper and hat for little Trig, which he wore on stage at the GOP convention.

    A hundred dollar onesie? (And these people are saying that Obama would be a profligate spender.)

    Did you know that the outfit Cindy McCain wore when she appeared at the convention cost $330,000?

    The RNC says that later Sarah's clothes will be donated to charity. OK, so some homeless person will get to wear this stuff on the streets of New Orleans. (Maybe this is the RNC's version of "trickle down spending.") But wouldn't the homeless be better served by $150,000 donation to a shelter or a food bank than by designer clothing?

    Fifteen years ago, McCain wrote an amendment to tighten the law on using campaign funds for personal items like clothing and stylists. In May of 1993, McCain said this on the Senate floor "The use of campaign funds for items which most Americans would consider to be strictly personal reasons, in my view, erodes public confidence and erodes it significantly."

    I guess he forgot what his prior position was. Again.

    Just like he forgot that he used to be pro-Choice and pro-gay marriage and pro-immigration reform. He also forgot that he used to be afiliated with ACORN, and with G. Gordon Liddy. If he is lying to cover up what his prior positions have been, shame on him. If he really can't remember, maybe the detractors who claim his mind is aging are correct.

    One last thought: is the GOP paying for Bristol Palin's maternity wear?

    • Posted By: sharenews @ 10/23/2008 2:40:51 AM



      It was always the intent that the clothing go to a charitable purpose after the campaign, s spokesman (Tracey Schmitt) from John McCain's campaign. I don???t understand the dedication of 6 pages in a Newsweek article about this subject, especially given it has been stated and planned from the get go to have all the clothes to go to charity or auctioned off.

      YOU SAID: The RNC says that later Sarahs clothes will be donated to charity. OK, so some homeless person will get to wear this stuff on the streets of New Orleans. (Maybe this is the RNCs version of trickle down spending.) But wouldn't the homeless be better served by $150,000 donation to a shelter or a food bank than by designer clothing?

      MY RESPONSE: Nins, I am surprised at you making this cynical (mean-spirited) comment in your blog below. I say this cuz you are a professional like myself and that you must know there are a great many organizations that Governor Palin could contribute this wardrobe to other than to ???homeless people???. Namely many organizations that help women by donating professional suits, blouses, shoes, etc. to aid them in getting into the workforce and/or furthering venture into a respectable career. Come on. . .really now, homeless people?

      SAMPLING OF CHARITIES:

      WARDROBE FOR OPPORTUNITY:

      Wardrobe for Opportunity is a non-profit organization that helps low-income women successfully transition into the workforce.
      http://www.wardrobe.org/

      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

      DRESS FOR SUCCESS

      Dress for Success is a non-profit organization that helps woman gain employment and journey towards self-sufficiency. This national organization distributes women's business suits and other professional clothing to women around the country. Women receive a business suit, shoes and accessories. Those who are hired receive work outfits. You can bring unwanted interview-appropriate suits, separates, shoes, accessories, unused undergarments and unopened cosmetics to a local Dress for Success affiliate. Some affiliates also accept coats.

      http://www.dressforsuccess.org/supportdfs_donate_clothing.aspx

      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

      SUITED FOR SUCCESS:

      Suited for Success, Inc. (SFS) is a nonprofit organization providing FREE interview attire for low-income men and women transitioning from social service agencies, domestic violence shelters and a number of job readiness programs.

      http://suitedforsuccessvirginia.org/

  • Posted By: LudwigVanBeet @ 10/23/2008 1:47:43 AM

    I REALLY ENVY JOE the PLUMBER, and all the Plumbers in America for this reason. As Joe the Plumbers of the world, work their Magic with Plungers, they get to hear the Dying, Gurgling, Deep Throated sounds of the Republicans as they depart this wonderful era of President Obama.. Good-bye cruel world,, FLUSH

  • Posted By: LudwigVanBeet @ 10/23/2008 1:38:25 AM

    HEY LISTEN UP ;Leave Joe the Plumber alone,can't you see he is busy all day long rescuing Republicans with his plunger. Afterwards they get to check out his CRACK.

  • Posted By: margie_bloom @ 10/22/2008 11:20:04 PM

    Oh yes, nice prediction --- however did you factor in that bin Laden might think McCain is more of a military challenge and therefore would prefer Obama as our next president - therefore he is not going to interfere. What a lame theory and I feel I read it elsewhere days ago.

  • Posted By: Ken Fischer @ 10/22/2008 11:05:58 PM

    Amazing, that this article covers every conceivable eventuality but the most obvious game changer of all. Bin Laden is caught or killed between now and the election. Better yet ............ the military has already caught Bin Laden and has him stashed somewhere. Bush flies in, and is filmed killing BL in hand to hand fight. He turns to the camera and says ..... "that's for the American people, and for the next president of the United States, John McCain." Bush redeems his entire 8 years and hands the torch to the next Republican president and says "finish the job for me John."

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse