Political Machine

McCain Chief Black Was Helms Adviser

Tommy Christopher — 2008-07-04T20:34:00+00:00

Filed under: Republicans, John McCain, 2008 President

They say that politics make strange bedfellows. Sometimes, however, the bedfellows are completely unsurprising. Politico has had some research leaked to them that links McCain chief strategist Charlie Black to very-recently deceased race-baiter Jesse Helms. From Ben Smith:

...here's a nice bit of quickly Neixised oppo. from the proverbial sources-who-have-requested-to-remain-nameless recalling McCain chief strategist's Charlie Black's work for Helms, and tying him to some of the former Senator's more racially charged, to put it nicely, campaign tactics. Here's the full memo, which was sent our way with the remark, "The connection is Charlie."

The piece goes on to explain that Black worked on several of Helms' re-election campaigns, and defended the infamous 1990 "Hands" ad.

There are some who would see a story like this as an attempt to paint Charlie Black, and by extension, John McCain, as racist. Indeed, I have written before about John McCain's complicated relationship with race issues. The fact is, many Republicans view the race-baiting wing of their party as an unavoidable, but shameful, corner of the Big Tent. Others stand a bit closer.

In McCain's case, I have no doubt that he stands far away from this in his heart. I would have a very hard time believing that John McCain was a racist. He has always struck me as a fundamentally reasonable man.

But, like many Republicans, McCain is all too happy to benefit from it. To believe that John McCain is not a racist, you must also believe that his opposition to the Martin Luther King holiday, the Civil Rights Act of 1990, and his on-again, off-again defense of the Confederate flag are motivated by craven political calculation.

The fact that Black, and McCain, would often find common cause with the likes of Helms, or David Duke, says less about Black and McCain than it does about the Republican Party. Yes, most Republicans are decent people who reject racism out of hand. Apparently, however, there are not enough of them to retire the "Southern Strategy" for good.

I have to say, Smith does a pretty lousy job of protecting his source. Having said that, it wouldn't be a tough guess, anyway. For future reference, "source," you know I would never do you like that.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Obama to Refine Iraq Position

Dave — 2008-07-04T11:00:00+00:00

Filed under: Democrats, Barack Obama, Iraq, 2008 President

I guess that Team Obama decided the Fourth of July weekend would be a great time to float the idea of refining his Iraq position. The idea is that most Americans (and hopefully media reporters) are too busy to pay attention to a very substantial shift in his Iraq stance.

GOPublius lays out the unfortunate choices of Mr. Obama:

John McCain has set a trap for Barack Obama, and its one Obama may find hard to avoid. Obama owes his current candidacy and his position at the top of 2008 Democratic ticket to his uncompromising anti-war stance. Through the fall and spring, Obama's position on the war was unmistakable, "Let me be clear: there is no military solution in Iraq and there never was...the best way to protect our security is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months, or one year - now!" As a regular part of Obama's stump speech, the freshman Illinois senator pledged, "I will end this war in 2009." Such a position worked well with the left-wing base of the Democratic Party, but over the course of the past year a funny thing has happened in Iraq - the U.S. has employed an increasingly successful military strategy, and its primary public proponent has been Senator John McCain.
...

...Will Obama campaign as the man who wishes to singlehandedly snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq, or the man who flip-flopped on the central issue of his campaign and embraced Bush? ...

A year ago conventional wisdom told us that McCain's position on Iraq would surely doom him as a candidate in the general election. It now appears that being one of the few politicians that has stood firm on a single position that turned out to be correct might be his saving grace!

Which is another example of why I hold conventional wisdom with such a low regard. CW and $3 will buy you a very small (but tasty) coffee at Starbucks.

Hillary might have fared better, had she been the nominee, but unfortunately for her and the Democrats, she's not the nominee, and even if she was Obama and the left roots pulled her so far into the anti-war camp that her earlier strong position on the war in Iraq had been quibbled into meaninglessness.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Who Will Win?

David Knowles — 2008-07-04T10:37:00+00:00

Filed under: Barack Obama, John McCain, 2008 President, Polls

View Poll

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

The World's 2nd Oldest Profession

Greg McNeilly — 2008-07-03T14:39:00+00:00

Filed under: Barack Obama, 2008 President

What do you call it when elected officials - local, state or federal - get special perks, privileges and deals in exchange for their services, er votes?

Democratic corruption has become so frequent, its often pushed off the front page. (Try reading the Detroit News or Free Press and you'll see what I mean.) It's commonplace. It's routine. It's everywhere. It's passe.

But it is newsworthy when its party's standard bearer is exposed for getting special treatment and deals.

Let's look at the issue of Barack Obama's housing arrangement.

This self-declared "man of the people," Harvard educated and all, this champion of the people, snoozes in a six-bedroom, five and half bathrooms (including steam shower and marble powder room (presumably for Michelle)) four fireplace, four-car garage Chicago mansion.

Of course, the Obamas make about $500,000 a year. One of the neat things about their salary is the connection.

Barack Obama injected an "earmark" (pork barrel spending) into the federal budget for his wife Michelle's workplace. Unconnected, presumably, shortly thereafter she got a pay raise.

Nifty. Can you do that for your spouse?

Now before people bemoan that raising these issues is mean spirited or bad in some overly sensitive mocked-up moral tone, I suggest such whiners refute them, not label them.

So back to the Obama homestead. The palatial palace was purchased in 2005 for $300,000 under its asking price ($1.95 million). This fact has already been infamous because the day they closed this deal, the recently convicted Obama fundraiser Tony Rezko bought the adjoining parcel for $650,000. Obama noted, on the record, that Rezko bought it at an above market price. This lot has been idle, preventing development next to the Obama home, essentially giving them an extra large yard.

The Boston Globe reports that Rezko used subsides Obama supported in the U.S. Senate to redevelop hundreds of apartments in and near Obama's neighborhood. After pocketing the tax-dollars, Rezko then let the properties lapse into inhabitable states.

Do you have friends like this who throw you fundraisers?

But I'm sure Obamacons will tell you this is all circumstantial or a misunderstanding. Like the definition of "is." And of course, to simply note these facts and occurrences and insist upon answers to still unanswered questions is against the prevailing orthodoxy.

The Washington Post uncovered a special deal Obama got on this glitzy home in addition to the adjacent lot issue.

Calling it a "super super jumbo" $1.32 million mortgage from the Illinois Northern Trust. Obama secured a special rate below the average consumer rate. The paper estimates the $300 savings per month special deal - is a "savings" of $110,000 - over the lifetime of the loan.

Makes you wonder, whose wallet is Barack Obama in?

How many working class families get such special treatment? Did anyone Obama "performed community organizing for" get such sweetheart deals? Or is profiteering off of the public trust purely a private matter?

Oh...and of course, $71,000 has been funneled from Northern Trust employees to the Obama for President campaign. Obama's campaign, to date, has received more corporate CEO dollars than any campaign in U.S. history. This includes, as Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) often noted, substantial cash from big oil executives.

So when, in this election cycle, did the new politics simply become the old politics?

The culture of corruption has an abundant supply of hope - based upon Obama's record - that its gravy train of special interests fueled by looting the taxpayers will not end with an Obama Presidency.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Daily Kos Founder: No Dough for O

Tommy Christopher — 2008-07-03T14:08:00+00:00

Filed under: Democrats, Barack Obama, 2008 President, Fundraising

Influential blogger and Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas caused a first-class kerfuffle on an economy-class budget, announcing that he would be withholding his $2300.00 donation from Barack Obama's campaign until he sees some "good behavior." From Daily Kos:

First, he reversed course and capitulated on FISA, not just turning back on the Constitution, but on the whole concept of "leadership". Personally, I like to see presidents who 1) lead, and 2) uphold their promises to protect the Constitution.

Then, he took his not-so-veiled swipe at MoveOn in his "patriotism" speech.

Finally, he reinforced right-wing and media talking points that Wes Clark had somehow impugned McCain's military service when, in reality, Clark had done no such thing.

Markos goes to great pains to explain that he still supports Obama, but that he won't be anyone's "water carrier."

He also tries to downplay the importance of his donation (with a 739-word story on the most popular blog in the universe.)

I applaud Markos for not being a water-carrier now, but it makes me wonder where he's been this whole campaign.

Let me start by saying that I am not trashing Markos Moulitsas. The guy has done more for progressive voices in the media than I can even dream of.

I have to confess, I don't read Kos religiously, so he might already know all of this, but he doesn't let on in his anti-donation "minifesto," so here goes, anyway.

Number one, Obama was never a leader on stripping FISA of the telecomm immunity provision. Neither was Hillary Clinton, or any other presidential candidate, save Chris Dodd. Like it or not, Obama's position on this is pretty consistent. He was more concerned with bringing the illegal program to an end. I don't like it, I think telecomm immunity is easy to defeat, but there are too many Democrats who wet themselves when a Republican says "weak on terror," so there you have it.

The "tin-foiler" in me wants him to stand fast on the Senate floor, vanquishing all comers with the lightsaber of truth, but the real guy who has lived through 7 years of disastrous Republican rule can live with Obama's position. He spoke out against it, said he'd try to get it stripped, but it didn't work out.

It's a little easier to live with knowing that criminal prosecutions for the telecomms who broke FISA are still on the table. I asked the Obama campaign about that last week, and they said, "No comment."

This is quiet encouragement. If it were really not on the table, what would they lose by saying that? They've already taken the hit for supporting the compromise.

Of course, Keith Olbermann laid out the whole super-secret plan during his "Special Comment" Monday night. Keith, next time you want to propose a stealth political maneuver, try sending an email. That's how I did it for Ron Paul.

As for the swipe at MoveOn's "General Betray Us" ad? Sorry, but he's right. They sacrificed all of the moral force of their argument for the sake of an obvious pun. It was stupid. At least when I do it, it's in service of a funny joke. ( I thought it was funny.)

On Clark, I agree with you that there was no attack, and he should be defended, but why should Obama put his hand into that dogfight? McCain already showed his jugular on that by hiring a Swift Boat Vet for Truth to be on his "Truth Squad." Why would Obama want to distract people from McCain stepping on rake after rake?

The "Babe in the Woods" routine goes into overdrive when Markos says his donation means very little. That is technically true, but when he writes about it, it becomes a hugely influential move. While his readers might still vote for Obama, it fuels the narrative that Obama is "shifting to the right," which is not helpful to him, or even true.

In any case, it is his money, but if he's not going to give his $2300.00 to Obama, why not throw some of it my way? I drive an hour each way to work every day, that would help out for a few weeks, at least.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Becoming Michelle Obama!

Mo Rocca — 2008-07-03T13:56:00+00:00

Filed under: Barack Obama, 2008 President

Talk about an historic election: both women running for First Lady are knockouts. Whichever woman prevails, millions will emulate her look.

But how easy is it to look like the next First Lady? Let's start with Michelle Obama. For some helpful hints, watch...

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Poll: Obama Up in Montana

David Knowles — 2008-07-03T10:36:00+00:00

Filed under: Barack Obama, John McCain, 2008 President

Back in 2004, George Bush defeated John Kerry by 20 points in the state of Montana, making it one of the reddest of red states. But a new Rasmussen poll, released today, shows a chameleon-like color change: Barack Obama leading John McCain by 5 points, 48-43.

As we've seen in other parts of the country, the age of the poll's respondents has a lot to do with which candidate is preferred:

Against McCain, Obama leads among voters under 50, including a twenty-seven point lead among voters under 30. McCain leads among those over 50.

Yes, lots can change between now and November, but if Obama can continue to bring out younger voters, and take a few formerly red states, he'll be looking at a substantial victory.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

'From His Heart' - New Radio Ad

Greg McNeilly — 2008-07-03T10:08:00+00:00

Filed under: Barack Obama, Ads, 2008 President

A new special interest 527 titled "Matthew 25" is airing a :60 radio spot titled "From His Heart" supporting Barack Obama on Christian radio formats.

The group, Matthew 25, is spearheaded by a former Kerry-Edwards staffer tasked with outreach to religious organizations.

It's a decent ad.

Regardless of sincerity, it's refreshing to see a national Democrat campaign that shows some tolerance and acceptance of people of faith and religious views.

It also fits nicely into the new narrative that Barack Obama's campaign is manufacturing. Namely, that Obama is Bush-lite. Obama now has the Bush position on the Supreme Court's gun rights case, Scalia's position on detainee rights. Obama and Bush back "Faith-based" initiatives. Obama wants to preserve the vast majority of Bush's tax-cuts. And Obama was the instrumental voice in the recent passage of the spy-court FISA provisions.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Gephardt for VP?

Dave — 2008-07-03T08:53:00+00:00

Filed under: 2008 President, Veepstakes

It's not as crazy as it sounds. Clinton is most likely out because A: She doesn't want it, and B: Obama doesn't want to give it to her. Edwards was out because he already tried that last time around. So, somebody else then.

Republican strategists trying to game Sen. Barack Obama's choice for a running mate are focusing more and more on the possibility that he might pick former House Majority Leader Dick Gephardt, a friend of labor and blue-collar workers. "Gephardt is the one we're most afraid of," said a key GOP strategist and Bush ally.

Gephardt has run for the presidency and scored well among the types of voters Obama is trying to reach out to--lower and middle-class workers, laborers, and minorities. Another strategist said that Gephardt presents a friendly face of liberalism that would be hard to attack. He also has a deep well of support among House Democrats, who they believe would rally around an Obama-Gephardt ticket, especially the allies of Sen. Hillary Clinton.

He could make up for many Obama weaknesses among the blue collared crowd, and could be the bridge between the new and old Democrats. So yes, it could be Gephardt. Also among those running in the Dem primary in 2004, Gephardt was the only one I was afraid of. I was relieved when they chose the grand dufus John Kerry. (Gephardt would never have made a cringeworthy moment like "reporting for duty")

Downsides to Gephardt? He generates little excitement and appears to have no eyebrows. Oh and also, he is apparently being picked by GOP strategists, so it could be a Republican dirty trick. Be careful.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

European Vacation

David Knowles — 2008-07-03T05:15:00+00:00

Filed under: Barack Obama, John McCain, Featured Stories, 2008 President

Just back from three weeks in what Donald Rumsfeld famously termed "Old Europe." And all over Holland, France and Germany, I heard the same question: Who is going to win the American election? Most of the people I talked to knew the general outline of race, but not the specifics. The day to day boxing match to determine who is more patriotic, Barack Obama or John McCain, is lost on them.

Of greater importance is an end to all things George W. Bush. There's a great sense that people are anxiously waiting for the present U.S. administration to be relegated to memory. In the same way that German citizens now wave their flags and sing "Super Deutschland!" at soccer matches-- oblivious or willfully ignoring what doing so 70 years ago meant--much of Europe is hungry to turn the page on the past eight years.

You see a lot of interest in Obama in Europe. A few campaign signs dot the windows of the bars in Amsterdam's Jordaan district. T-shirts with his likeness worn on the streets of Paris. German light rail trains featuring his image and quick commuter newsflashes. But not once did I spy McCain's likable mug.

Maybe I was being willful, too. "Transcendental," to use McCain's malapropism, in my support of his rival. But surveys show an overwhelming foreign preference for Obama, and it did seem palpable. The more Europeans I talked to, the more it became clear to me that McCain will probably lose this election. They're excited for the Democrat mainly because they see him as a stark departure from our current president. Simply put, what McCain's selling in this election just isn't as appealing as what Obama is. His brand is tried and not so true, while Obama's is new.

True, relying on foreign public opinion to prognosticate domestic elections is not the most scientific approach. Most Europeans were against the invasion of Iraq, for instance, so just because they show good judgment doesn't mean their desires will account for much of anything with Americans. On the other hand, it seems to me that on a very basic level a European and American consensus has been formed. Enough of the past eight years. It's time for a different direction. That's the fundamental problem for McCain.

For all the cacophony of the blogosphere and the 24-hour news cycle, sometimes you need to step away from that information screen to get a sense of what's really going on out there. Just ask Chevy Chase.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

'Columbia Trade' - New McCain Radio Ad

Greg McNeilly — 2008-07-02T21:28:00+00:00

Filed under: Ads, John McCain, 2008 President

John McCain's campaign started airing a Florida radio ad in Spanish today. The :60 second spot is titled "Columbia Trade."

Recent surveys show that the number one concern to Latino-American voters - like all voters - is jobs. Addressing economic policies in such a substantive fashion is courageous.

And different than the approach of his opponent.

Most political campaigns would simply pander and talk in condescending tones on these topics, to this audience.

In the past, that approach has proven successful. Only time will show if voters respond to John McCain's guts and new style of a straight-talk campaign or if they prefer the overly-staged substance-free pontifications of a professional huckster like Barack Obama.

The ad's English transcript reads:

TONY VILLAMIL: This is Tony Villamil speaking, ex-director of Tourism, Commerce and Economic Affairs of Florida.

When it comes to a strong economy for our state, commercial trade with Latin America is crucial. Three quarters of Florida's exports are with Latin America, and the Colombian Free Trade Agreement would create even more opportunity.

In this election, there are some that talk about revising the Free Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canada and oppose the Agreement with Colombia. This would hurt our economic future.

Last year Florida's exports to Latin America reached almost $45 billion dollars. Colombia is Florida's third most important export market and this trade agreement would create almost 5,000 new jobs

John McCain supports the Colombian Agreement, knows about our alliances with our hemisphere and understands our economy grows thanks to trade.

Remember who stands for prosperity in Florida, our country and our hemisphere. His name is John McCain.

JOHN MCCAIN: I'm John McCain and I approve this message.
ANNCR: Paid for by John McCain 2008.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Republican National Party Drops $3 Mil in OH

Dave — 2008-07-02T16:59:00+00:00

Filed under: Republicans, Ads, 2008 President

I have a front row seat I tell ya, but I do think by November, we're going to be tired of ads. From the Cleveland Plain Dealer Openers blog:

With Barack Obama poised to raise and spend money unencumbered by federal campaign finance limits, the Republican National Committee says it will help remedy any imbalance suffered by John McCain -- starting with a $3 million ad campaign to run in Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, according to an online news alert from Roll Call.

The independent expenditure ad campaign will highlight differences between the candidates' energy proposals. It will take advantage of the fact that the RNC has vastly more money than the Democratic National Committee: $53.5 million on hand for the RNC, compared with $4 million for the DNC.

"Following Barack Obama's decision to become the only major party presidential candidate in history to not adhere to campaign spending caps, the Republican National Committee has begun an independent expenditure campaign in accordance with FEC regulations," RNC I.E. consultant Brad Todd told Roll Call in a statement. Todd's firm, On Message Inc., produced the ad, which Roll Call says will run from this weekend through July 15.

It's a nice effort, but the problem is that the average age of the TV viewer is 50. And while they may be the most likely to actually vote, it appears that there is a whole new demographic that has quit watching TV. I just hope this isn't a portent that the GOP is fighting the last war with the last war's weapons.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Keeping 'Faith' in 'Faith-Based'

Tommy Christopher — 2008-07-02T16:31:00+00:00

Filed under: Democrats, Barack Obama, Breaking News, Religion, 2008 President

Barack Obama unveiled his vision for re-tooling George W. Bush's "Office of Faith-Based Initiative." From the AP:

Taking a page from President Bush, Democrat Barack Obama said Tuesday he wants to expand White House efforts to steer social service dollars to religious groups, risking protests in his own party with his latest aggressive reach for voters who usually vote Republican.

The AP originally reported, then corrected, the assertion that Obama's program would "support their ability to hire and fire based on faith."

The move has pundits drawing comparisons, mostly favorable, to George W. Bush, but is being characterized by some as a rightward shift by the candidate. The preferred narrative these days is that, now that the primaries are over, Obama is making a sharp, rightward turn for the general election.

While the merits of the program are debatable, this is unquestionably smart politics by Obama. The move is consistent with everything that people know about him, so the pandering charge won't stick, and his program fixes, and builds on, Bush's flawed program.

For my part, I find myself mostly in agreement with Andrew Sullivan on this one.

He's not as bad as Bush-style Christianism, but he's not in a different category either. If Obama could get religious institutions supportive of the Democratic party at the grass roots, he'd be thrilled, and his TUCC experience shows exactly that. There's liberal Christianism and conservative Christianism. I prefer my Gospel and my politics distinct - for the sake of each.

I agree with the separation part. As for how I take my gospel, that's between me and my bartender.

Still, separation of church and state has long been relegated to the status of the Pirate's Code, e.g. "...more like guidelines, really." People who have a hard time saying the entire "Lord's Prayer" without switching to the "Pledge of Allegiance" halfway through (and saying "invisible, with liberty...") will insist to pollsters, over and over, that they must have a Christian president, so I guess we deserve it.

Having said that, I would be interested to know how the "no proselytizing" provision will be enforced. Will an offender be set upon by rappelling feds, drawing down and shouting, "Drop the Sword! Get on your knees! But don't fold your hands!"

Senator Obama has long shown a tendency to tolerate, and even encourage, blurring of the line on this issue. It's one of the things that has given me pause about Obama in the past, and it renders ironic the notion that this is a shift for him. People just aren't listening. Here are a few examples, put together by CBN:

"Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation. Context matters,"

"It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase `under God."

"Having voluntary student prayer groups using school property to meet should not be a threat, any more than its use by the High School Republicans should threaten Democrats."

"Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering the public square."

When I heard that "under God" quote, I almost dashed off a sternly-worded letter.

Bush had the kernel of a good idea to harness the energy and infrastructure of grassroots churches, and Obama's plan improves on it, but neither seems to understand who the separation doctrine protects from whom.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

On Obamacons

Christopher Weber — 2008-07-02T15:58:00+00:00

Filed under: Republicans, Barack Obama, John McCain, Featured Stories, 2008 President, Media

Interesting column by Robert Novak on why the McCain camp may be worried about so-called "Obamacons," conservatives leaning towards Obama in '08. (Novak did not coin the term.) He names Chuck Hagel and Colin Powell as the most high profile members of the growing group, with people like Jack Kemp and noted supply-side economists Bruce Bartlett and Larry Hunter also possibly among the ranks.

So what is an Obamacon? Not what you think. They're not to be confused with the Obamamaniacs, those voters caught up in the primary frenzy, sporting buttons and spouting JFK comparisons. No, it's not that the Obamacons are so enthralled with the Illinois senator, and they don't even dislike John McCain. They're just so disgusted with the Republican Party and the Bush Administration that they believe the GOP deserves to be trounced in November. The idea I guess is to destroy all vestiges of the woeful Bush years and rebuild anew.

Explaining his support for the uncompromisingly liberal Obama, Hunter blogged on June 6: "The Republican Party is a dead rotting carcass with a few decrepit old leaders stumbling around like zombies in a horror version of 'Weekend With Bernie,' handcuffed to a corpse."

McCain should be concerned, Novak says, because on Election Day the "therapeutic electoral bloodbath could get out of control." What if Obamaconitis is catching and spreads throughout the party? What if Republicans by the throngs suddenly realize self-flagellation is the best way to repent for the sins of the past eight years?

Think that's unlikely? Here's something even more far-fetched. Novak ends the column by stating that Obamacons "should cause soul-searching at the Bush White House about who made the Republican Party so difficult a place for Republicans to stay." Soul-searching at the White House? That'll be the day.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Huckabee Doesn't Get It

Dave — 2008-07-02T13:13:00+00:00

Filed under: Featured Stories, Mike Huckabee, Primaries, 2008 President

I've been sympathetic to Huckabee during the nomination, but that's over now. All of those who were warning that Huckabee was a flim flam who would lead the GOP in the wrong direction, hear this loudly. You were absolutely right, and while McCain is another wrong direction, Huckabee would have been no better.

This all stems from this blog post at The Next Right detailing Huckabee standing up for Don Young, the pork king of Alaska (and sadly, a Republican). It concludes:

Huckabee's followers understand enough about fiscal / social conservative fusionism that you don't throw your weight behind an unelectable Republican whose "Bridge to Nowhere" branded the Congressional GOP as beyond redemption. And you don't do it by touting his ability to bring home highway funds!

I detected more than a little bit of anti-religious right bias in the opposition to Huckabee, but this goes to show that you don't need to distrust the religious light to conclude that Huckabee's no good. He doesn't understand conservative principles, he doesn't understand that the bridge to nowhere branded the 2004-2006 GOP as a bunch of corrupt pigs, and he is definitely not going to lead an effort to reform the GOP for the future. The faster we are rid of him, the better.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Obama, McCain: Pop Quiz, Hot Shots

Tommy Christopher — 2008-07-02T13:00:00+00:00

Filed under: Barack Obama, John McCain, Featured Stories, 2008 President, Terror

As I drove into work today, my thoughts wandered through the Proustian myriad of baseball games and long naps that is the dog days of summer. Filtered, as they are, by the writer in me, I landed on August 6, 2001. I don't remember what I was doing that day, but I can guess. I had just accepted a job offer, and was waiting to commence my employment by attending orientation on September 10 and 11, in Newark, NJ. In the interim, I probably watched a lot of "Jerry Springer."

President Bush, as we all know, was vacationing in Crawford, Texas, and getting ready to deliver an address on restricting embryonic stem cell research. He was also probably recovering from the writer's cramp he got from preparing a signing statement on August 3, renewing ILSA. Some highlights:

... we are strengthening our efforts with other countries, whose cooperation is essential to pursuing the most effective approaches to solving the problems of proliferation and terrorism...

With respect to Iran, we continue to have serious concerns over its support for terrorism, opposition to the Middle East peace process, and pursuit of weapons of mass destruction.

And, with terrorism fresh in his mind, there was that now-famous President's Daily Brief, "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US." Bush's response was to tell the briefer, "All right. You've covered your ass, now."

I think we can all agree that President Bush's reaction to the PDB was, at the least, inadequate. However, with the see-sawing arguments about our security during this election, experience vs. judgment, I would like to know what John McCain and Barack Obama would have done if either of them had received this memo.

It sounds like a softball, but I think an answer to that question would tell us a lot about the candidates.

It has become an accepted truism that, even had this warning been heeded, there is little chance the attacks of September 11, 2001, could have been stopped. Part of that acceptance is due to the fact that to believe otherwise would be sickening beyond measure.

I posed the question to both campaigns. I'll let you know if I get an answer, but in the meantime, I'd like to hear your thoughts on this. What steps would you want your next president to take in that situation?

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Obama Benefitted from Mortgage Discount

Mark Impomeni — 2008-07-02T11:15:00+00:00

Filed under: Barack Obama, Breaking News, 2008 President, Scandal

The Washington Post reports that the Obamas received a discounted rate on their personal mortgage from Northern Trust Bank. The loan was on the Obamas' Georgian-style mansion that has been the subject of some controversy for the campaign. Obama received a $1.32 million loan from Northern Trust at a discounted interest rate of 5.625%, approximately three tenths below the average rate for similar loans in the Chicago area at the time. The Post reports that the Obamas paid no extra fees or discount points for receiving the lower rate.

While there are no allegations that the Obamas did anything wrong or received any special treatment due to his status as a U.S. Senator, the revelation could be damaging to the Obama campaign. Last month it was revealed that two prominent Obama backers, Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT) and Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND), and a member of Obama's Vice-Presidential selection committee, Jim Johnson, received special deals from Countrywide Financial on their personal mortgages. Obama has spoken out against Countrywide and labeled the mortgage services giant, "the folks who are responsible for infecting the economy and creating, helping create a home foreclosure crisis."

The Obama campaign issued a statement on the matter saying that the Obamas received the discount from Northern Trust in response to a competitive loan offer from another bank and in anticipation of securing their future financial business. It worked. "The Obamas have since had as much as $3 million invested through Northern Trust," the statement said. Northern Trust vice-president John O'Connell confirmed that interpretation. "The bottom line is, this was a business proposition for us," he said. "Our business model is to service and pursue successful individuals, families and institutions."

Obama's home has been a continuing source of controversy for the campaign. The home purchase and Obama's partnership with convicted Chicago political fixer and financier Tony Rezko first raised eyebrows during the Democratic primary. Obama bought the home for $300,000 less than the asking price while Rezko's wife purchased an adjacent lot for full price. Rezko then sold a portion of the lot to Obama so that he could enlarge his back yard. The complicated transaction raised questions of political dealings between the two. No wrongdoing has been proved. Still, Obama's house purchase refuses to fade into the background.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

'Dig It' - New Viral Video

Greg McNeilly — 2008-07-02T09:14:00+00:00

Filed under: Barack Obama, 2008 President, Viral Video

Asking still unanswered questions, Princeton producer Paul Budline poses a fresh query into the personal relationship between Barack Obama and Chicago radicals Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn.

HT: Tigerhawk.

Maybe Obama needs to readdress his anti-American buddies by suspending - at least for the duration of his current political campaign - his friendship with them. After all, it seems to have worked for him and Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Election 2008 Theme Song

Liza Porteus Viana — 2008-07-02T08:49:00+00:00

Filed under: Democrats, Republicans, 2008 President, 2008 Senate, 2008 House

It often seems there are few things agreed on when it comes to politics. But this year - whether it be the historical support Barack Obama has received on the campaign trail, the distance John McCain is trying to put between himself and President Bush on many issues to convince us a vote for him is not a vote for "more of the same," or the ousting of many congressional incumbent Republicans around the country - I think we can all agree that "CHANGE" is a good a theme as any in this year's elections.

So if any of you Democratic or Republican convention planners need a good theme song this year, I've got one for you: "It's Your Life" by 23-year-old Francesca Battistelli.

Battistelli, a Native New Yorker who now lives in Nashville, is like a breath of fresh air amid a political process becoming more filled with rancor every day. "It's Your Life" was influenced, in part, by the importance of this year's election and the need for everyone to get up and get involved in changing their own lives and the state of our country. She has a debut performance in New York City Tuesday, July 8. Details after the jump.

Here's what Battistelli tells Political Machine:

"Voting is so important, and it distinguishes our country from others in the world where so many people don't have a voice. It's a way to be heard and contribute to creating a better future on a local and national level.

"We so often complain about one thing or another as far as the government is concerned, but many of us don't do anything about it. Health care, the environment, education--the list seems endless. But if you're not willing to stand up and make your voice heard by voting, you shouldn't really be complaining.

"'It's Your Life' is about using your voice, your abilities, and your life to stand for what you believe in. Your vote could turn the tide of the election. One small step could change the course of your life. It's your life, what are you going to do?"

Battistelli's debut performance will be next Tuesday, July 8, at 5 p.m. The full invitation can be found here. The live performance will also be webcast.

Will.i.am made a splash on the political scene with his "Yes We Can" song and video - the viral nature of the Internet had the video, which echoed Obama themes of hope and change, bouncing around thousands of home and work computers in no time. He also had star power on his side. Battistelli is on MySpace, Facebook, and everywhere else her handlers can promote her.

This reads like a promo, I know, but the song really is good, and she has a great voice. And, of course, it might be a nice change of pace from the usual U2, Bruce Springsteen (not that I don't love them) and other known quantities at this year's conventions. Listen to her. Show up next Tuesday. Make up your own mind.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

1972 or 1976

Dave — 2008-07-01T21:05:00+00:00

Filed under: Barack Obama, John McCain, 2008 President

I'm struggling to find within myself a gut feeling for how this election is going to shake out. This is odd for me. I usually have a definite opinion and people who know that I am into politics are used to receiving a definite answer. My problem is that I like reading about history, especially political history, and this election is really close to either 1972 or 1976, and it could shakeout either way depending on which context matches best.

In 1972 we had a ton of energy on the Democratic side, rallying around an antiwar candidate and having a lot of fun pointing out the inadequacies and lack of charisma of one Richard Nixon. Richard Nixon may have been unlikeable, but he was very much in tune with the mood of the country. By 1972 he had removed almost all American combat troops from Vietnam, ended the draft. and it wasn't nearly the issue McGovern had hoped it would be.

The silent majority spoke loudly and said they were perfectly fine with Richard Nixon.

But in 1976 there was also a moderate Republican and a lot of energy on the Democratic side, huge economic unrest and it helped push Jimmy Carter into office over Gerald Ford.

My problem in trying to make a prediction, is that I can see either of these scenarios playing out. Is Obama a 2nd Jimmy Carter? Able to tap into a huge mainstream of America that is ready for something new? Or is Obama a George McGovern? Lots of flash and sizzle, but no meat. Many high energy supporters, but many, many more who say, meh, I'll take the old Republican guy, he seems more stable.

If the Republicans had nominated anyone else but McCain, I'd say 1972 in a heartbeat and the Democrats are in for a heartbreak (again), but McCain is uncomfortably close to Gerald Ford, and it might be 1976 again. What's your gut feeling?

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments