OT: Elections/Politics thread, part 4

[matthewk]

As for the rape kit story, it's kind of a big deal for people that have been raped, or know someone that has been raped, or are interested in compassionate policies to those that have been raped...it's not the biggest story ever, but is worthy of front page news (especially when Palin is being shuttered from the press).

So we're being inconsiderate to rape victims and their families if we don't put this in the headlines of CNN? It's obvious that the reason the story showed up when and where it did was not for some compasion for rape victims and their families, but to try and make Palin look bad. And what does her being protected from the wolve.....er press have to do with posting this story?

And then the "murky" Obama background, which is this seven degrees of guilt by association crap. But quickly, this stuff has been reported by the press. And Obama has even talked about it (for example, see his 90 minute interview with the Tribune about Rezko, where he laid everything out). Again, it's another example of Republican whining about why won't the media report the way we want to spin things (Obama knew Ayers, therefore Obama luvs him some terrorists).

Seven degrees? Try 1 or 2. And I'm so glad that since Obama did an interview that we can just take him at his word and not investigate anything behind it.

Obama whines more than any politician I have seen. Maybe he should be a Republican

[matthewk]

CNN's Palin attack of the day:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/24/ ... index.html

The title: Bridge failed, but road to nowhere was built

Among the bulletpoints is that some of the $223 million in taxpayer money (via federal funding) was used. It's not until the second to last sentence where it states just how much of the $223 million was used......$26 million, or about 10%.

These things are subtle, but try and find anything all at like this in the headlines about Obama or Biden. They have more dirty laundry then Palin does, and yet these are the stories they choose to write.

I also noticed they had a short blurb in their political section titled "McCain old age ad only aired 6 times". Sites like CNN and the NY Times should include "Paid for by Obama for America" at the top.

[RobVarak]

The game is beginning in earnest now:

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dl ... /1055/NEWS

First voter suppression lawsuit. I figure that we'll see them in at least a half-dozen states on both sides, certainly in MI, NV, CO, VA and PA.

Lawyers are rounded up like phone bank operators since 2000. My best friend is a Democrat, and the two of us are contacted almost every day about working a battleground in the run-up. And in his case he lacks any experience at all in civil rights or electoral law. LOL They don't care as long as you're a warm body admitted to the bar.

This is one area that really needs to be simplified. There needs to be a consistent structure for registration that prevents fraud but eliminates the more byzantine laws that invite constant litigation.

[GTHobbes]

I was watching CNN last night and they had a piece on the Road to Nowhere. It is awfully embarrasing to have this 3 mile stretch of road built that absolutely no one will use. There wasn't a single car anywhere to be found, yet it cost something like $8 million per mile to build. Pisses me off to think how much money I pay in taxes every year and that some of it might have gone for this.

[Jared]

Matt,

The $223 million in funds for the Bridge to Nowhere was kept by Alaska, not returned to the federal gov't, even though the bridge was never built. ALL of the $223 million in federal funds set for the Bridge to Nowhere will be used by Alaska, with $26 million going to the road to nowhere, and the rest to other Alaskan projects.

This is a relevant story because of a) Palin's repeated obfuscation about her role w/the Bridge to Nowhere and b) because McCain previously used it as a prime example of pork barrel spending. Furthermore, there's nothing about that story that's not true.

Again, it's whining about a true story that is directly relevant to the race. I'm sure the Republican part would love the media to ignore every single negative Palin story, and that's why there's this whine campaign.

And again, as for Obama, if you give me evidence of his corruption, hey, that's really important. Put it out there! That's really important, relevant to the race, etc. If you give me "he worked with a corrupt politician", then that makes Obama just like any other politician. Just repeating "ties to corruption" or "murky connections" over and over doesn't turn the conjecture into evidence.

Furthermore, if you're pursuing the x degrees of corruption angle, then it's only fair to open it up to McCain (who wasn't just tangentially connected to corrpution, but was actually involved in a banking corruption scandal that was part of a greater bank collapse that ended with taxpayer bailouts).

[Jared]

This is one area that really needs to be simplified. There needs to be a consistent structure for registration that prevents fraud but eliminates the more byzantine laws that invite constant litigation.

Totally agreed.

[RobVarak]

Matt,
If you give me "he worked with a corrupt politician", then that makes Obama just like any other politician. Just repeating "ties to corruption" or "murky connections" over and over doesn't turn the conjecture into evidence.

This is becoming the Verdun of political issues, but...

He didn't just work with corrupt politicians. He was sponsored, supported and allied with corrupt politicians. That in itself would only be a slight issue for me if he weren't running as the reformer to end all reformers. He got money, advice and political patronage from crooked pols and did nothing substantial to reform the system. Why would he? He'd lose his patronage and alienate his patrons.

He's not guilty of anything by association. He's guilty of hypocrisy by claiming to be a reformer when he's nothing more than a traditional liberal partisan. He's guilty of lying about his past to distance himself from people, organizations and events that don't fit the creation myth narrative wherein he's supposed to be post-racial, post-partisan and transformative.

Furthermore, if you're pursuing the x degrees of corruption angle, then it's only fair to open it up to McCain (who wasn't just tangentially connected to corrpution, but was actually involved in a banking corruption scandal that was part of a greater bank collapse that ended with taxpayer bailouts).

That would be the case if McCain weren't so thoroughly exonerated and if he hadn't spent the intervening 20 years of his career fighting corruption and advocating for genuine reform of things like immigration, campaign finance, the GSE's etc.

If Obama had half the record of reform that McCain does he would be able to point out that he had rejected his former patrons, renounced the pay-to-play Illinois of his past and buried the Daley connections. But he didn't do any of that, so he can't.

[wco81]

Apparently the GSEs were the sole cause of this crisis and the fact that Obama took $125k from them. Actually it's not clear if it was from their lobbyists or their employees.

Conveniently, the people who want to point their fingers at Freddie and Fannie overlook that McCain employs at least a half-dozen staffers who were actual lobbyists for the GSEs.

Rick Davis, the campaign manager, got $2 million from them.

[Jared]

He didn't just work with corrupt politicians. He was sponsored, supported and allied with corrupt politicians. That in itself would only be a slight issue for me if he weren't running as the reformer to end all reformers. He got money, advice and political patronage from crooked pols and did nothing substantial to reform the system. Why would he? He'd lose his patronage and alienate his patrons.

So the man who, in the Senate, co-authored the Feingold-Obama Lobbying and Ethics Reform Act, who spearheaded campaign finance reform legislation in the Illinois state Senate (which, according to good government groups, resulted in "most ambitious campaign reform in nearly 25 years"), or when running for President urged Emil Jones to vote for an Illinois ethics reform bill...he's done nothing substantial to reform the system?

Obama's actually doing something about ethics reform (it's not just claims, as you make it out to be). But instead of mentioning any of this actual reform legislation, the strategy is to tar by association and ignore his actual policies and legislation.

McCain now got an ad out trying to tag Obama with the Chicago machine, using the same guilt by association strategy, which has been eviscerated by factcheck.org.

[wco81]

Lot of people may watch the debates, at least the first one and the VP one.

But will it really make a difference? Already 90% of voters have made up their minds.

So what's left is a show, a performance, which will be spun by both sides afterwards.

Most viewers will look only for information which confirms the beliefs and decisions they've already made.

And if by chance they're confronted with info. contrary to their views, it will only make them feel more convinced of their views:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/bigsor ... -hear.aspx

The analogy to football fans thinking the calls went against their team in the same game is a universal experience.

[matthewk]

How I am supposed to trust Obama as an ethics reformer when he's made so many bad choices with who he hangs out with? According to factcheck Obama admitted he made a "boneheaded" mistake in dealing with Resko, whom was under investigation at the time Obama was making the land deal with him. If he was such a reformer, why was he even hanging out with the guy?

Same goes for Wright, Phlaeger(?), Jones, Ayers etc.. He knew these people personally. Am we supposed to believe that all of these guys completely fool Obama as to who they really were? If he really didn't know what Resko was into or what Wright was preaching or what Ayers has done, how will he be able to deal with Putin and Achmedinajawawa? If he did know, then why did he wait until Resko was convicted, and the Wright tape came out before distancing himself from them? Either way I don't feel secure giving this guy the White House.

Side note: For the all the talk of how Palin could be 1 heartbeat away from being president, so could Biden. Imagine that for a moment.

[macsomjrr]

Lot of people may watch the debates, at least the first one and the VP one.

But will it really make a difference? Already 90% of voters have made up their minds.

Considering the last two presidential elections I'd say your hypothesized 10% swing vote is massive margin of voters for each candidate to be gunning for. So yeah, they're massively important. Considering how crappy Bush did in each of the last two though I'm still shocked he snuck his way into the WH...

...twice. Ugh.

[GTHobbes]

Lot of people may watch the debates, at least the first one and the VP one.

But will it really make a difference? Already 90% of voters have made up their minds.

So what's left is a show, a performance, which will be spun by both sides afterwards.

Most viewers will look only for information which confirms the beliefs and decisions they've already made.

And if by chance they're confronted with info. contrary to their views, it will only make them feel more convinced of their views:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/bigsor ... -hear.aspx

The analogy to football fans thinking the calls went against their team in the same game is a universal experience.

I agree with you, 100%.

[GTHobbes]

If he was such a reformer, why was he even hanging out with the guy?

Wish I knew how to link that picture of McCain hugging W like he was his poppa.

[GTHobbes]

Considering how crappy Bush did in each of the last two though I'm still shocked he snuck his way into the WH...

...twice. Ugh.

Really says a lot about the sad state of our country.

[Jared]

How I am supposed to trust Obama as an ethics reformer when he's made so many bad choices with who he hangs out with?

a) You could look at his legislation and see what his reforms have been and will be.
b) You could see if Obama actually "hangs out" with these people, or if these are exaggerated charges to smear Obama. For example, what are the ties between Obama and Phleger?
c) You could use the same argument against McCain or Palin (McCain has hung out and supported convicted criminals (G. Gordon Liddy), crazy preachers (Hagee), corrupt individuals (Keating Five), and those are just off the top of my head)...and then see that it's a silly argument that you can make about nearly ANYONE in politics. Come on...by your own argument, how on earth could you feel secure giving McCain the White House, given those associations?
d) You could judge the man by his policies, proposals, actions, etc.

I totally understand if people don't want to vote for Obama because they don't agree with his policy plans, proposals, etc. But using an argument that invalidates pretty much anyone from being President? Not so much.

[matthewk]

Fair enough, I'll go by Obamas and Biden's actions:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/23/ ... index.html

So GT, just how mad are you that Biden is getting $13 million for his own bridge that doesn't need immediate work?

Palin took a $400 million project and accomplished the same with $24 million. I'd say that's a pretty good use of our money considering they gave it to her to use. I am curious what the other $200 million was used for.

[Brando70]

I had told myself I would stay out of this thread, but the Ayers thing brought me back in.

The Ayers association is a predictable smear tactic, nothing more. It would be different if Obama had been buddies with him or had been in the Weathermen. But they simply know each other and have served on an educational board together. William Ayers associates with a lot of people. His actions were wrong and reprehensible, but he never hurt anyone and was never convicted of a crime.

Meanwhile, G. Gordon Liddy, a convicted felon, a man who once advised his radio listeners on the best ways to kill ATF agents, and a man who plotted the murder of journalist Jack Anderson, has a long association with McCain.

Do I think this tarnishes McCain's candidacy? No. Liddy knows a lot of people, and most folks seem to forgive him for his past crimes and overlook his fascist tendencies. Much in the same way Ayers was eventually allowed to return to civilized society.

Obama has ties to corrupt Chicago pols (an oxymoron if there ever was one), and I can see those concerns. However, John McCain had his tongue so far up Charles Keating's ass at one point that he could taste his breakfast before Keating could. McCain was guilty only of a lapse of judgment, but he was extremely close to a convicted con man who swindled investors out of nearly $300 million dollars. What does that say about his judgment? He openly covered for his buddy when Keating was bilking little old ladies out of their life savings.

The point is that most if not all politician have some s*** on their shoes. It's a dirty business, and the sheer fact that you associate with so many people means you're bound to have relationships with some folks acting unethically or even criminally. It's important to investigate those ties, but unless someone is actually shown to be acting illegally themselves, I don't put a lot of stock in it. Right now, I'm more concerned about getting out of the huge mess we have on our hands with our economy and with figuring out a viable solution for our involvement in Iraq.

[Teal]

Statement by Senator John McCain, May 25, 2006:

"Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation."


It was defeated, along strict partisan lines.

[Jared]

Matt,

First, I personally am not for or against the Bridge to Nowhere, as I think it's unfair to call it a bridge to nowhere (as it's a bridge to the local airport). I have no idea how many people use the airport, and whether the infrastructure outlay it's worth it or not. Nor am I against improving infrastructure (so Biden's story isn't a big deal...look at what happened to the bridge in Minnesota). What was a big story is Palin being for the bridge until it became a political land-mine, and then being "against" it when it was meaningless, and then being extremely dishonest about her role in this to the American public.

(And btw, she didn't accomplish the same w/$24 million, as no bridge to the island has been built.)

[RobVarak]

Wish I knew how to link that picture of McCain hugging W like he was his poppa.

So guilt by association is a problem, except when Obama's entire campaign is about associating McCain with Bush...


I'm just dropping in during lunch. I want to talk about Jared's response on the ethics reforms when I have more time later.

And Brando, don't stay away. How many Madden posts can you read without your eyes glossing over anyway

[matthewk]

What was a big story is Palin being for the bridge until it became a political land-mine, and then being "against" it when it was meaningless, and then being extremely dishonest about her role in this to the American public.

Dishonest? How? Any more dishonest than Obama has been on things, like, well like this? They have been hammering her on the Bridge to Nowhere, but never mentioned they both voted for it twice. That's moer dishonest than anything Plain has said or done.

Your quote should really be : "What should be a big story is Obama being for the bridge until it became a political land-mine, and then being "against" it when it was meaningless, and then being extremely dishonest about his role in this to the American public."

[Jared]

It was defeated, along strict partisan lines.

No. It never made it out of committee. And it was introduced in 2005, under a Republican congress, and a Republican committee, so I don't know how the Democrats can be blamed for this not making it out for a vote.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190

Also, interestingly, it doesn't seem like he championed the bill (s.190) until mid-2006, well after it was dead. When the 2007 version went up (s.1100), he wasn't a co-sponsor anymore.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1100

[pk500]

I must hand it to you guys: You have indefatigable bladders. This thread has become just as vigorous of a partisan pissing match as the prior politics thread.



Take care,
PK

[Jared]

Matt,

Has Obama made any statements against the Bridge itself? (I don't know of any, but that doesn't mean they're not out there.) If he hasn't done that, then how is he being dishonest? What I know Obama/Biden have been hammering her on is being dishonest about her position on the Bridge to Nowhere.