OT: Elections/Politics thread, part 4

[matthewk]

Great to have you back Rob!

[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

At least this one has remained civil (so far).

So if some of us are on the right pissing left, and others are on the left pissing right, I guess that means PK is catching it all in the middle

Does that make me a urinal or a trough?

Seriously, I must hand it to you guys for your stamina with this thread. This thread nearly pushed me into a rubber room, so I walked away. I can only take so much partisan politics before I spontaneously combust like one of Spinal Tap's drummers.

Take care,
PK

[FatPitcher]

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).

Straw man. Obama and Ayers' CAC existed to push political indoctrination in grade schools, and by its own measure failed to improve quality of education. That says "ivory tower radical" to me, not "terrorist lover." Like it or not, CAC is a significant part of Obama's background, and like it or not Obama and Ayers are closely linked by it. It also means Obama was full of s*** when he tried to distance himself from Ayers by saying he was just a guy who lived in the same neighborhood.

[greggsand]

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

At least this one has remained civil (so far).

So if some of us are on the right pissing left, and others are on the left pissing right, I guess that means PK is catching it all in the middle

Does that make me a urinal or a trough?

Seriously, I must hand it to you guys for your stamina with this thread. This thread nearly pushed me into a rubber room, so I walked away. I can only take so much partisan politics before I spontaneously combust like one of Spinal Tap's drummers.

Take care,
PK

Yeah, I 'banned myself' from this thread - I was getting mental. Hey, wait a second. Does this count? Dammit!

[RobVarak]

They did leave out the coal comment...easily the most potentially damaging of the bunch, but I'm not sure that there's any video of it.

I guess there's video

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hT12O9bWUQw&co ... hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed>

[Jared]

Straw man. Obama and Ayers' CAC existed to push political indoctrination in grade schools, and by its own measure failed to improve quality of education. That says "ivory tower radical" to me, not "terrorist lover." Like it or not, CAC is a significant part of Obama's background, and like it or not Obama and Ayers are closely linked by it. It also means Obama was full of s*** when he tried to distance himself from Ayers by saying he was just a guy who lived in the same neighborhood.

Yes, that bunch of ivory tower radicals at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Why, when you look at the Board of Directors in 1998, for example (when Obama was on the board), you find such crazy leftist radicals such as Edward Bottom, head of Chase Franklin, Republican. Or Nancy Searle, who has contributed to Republicans. Or you could even look at Walter Annenberg himself, who according to his obituary was "a fervid patriot and Republican whose close friends included Presidents Richard M. Nixon and Ronald Reagan, to whom he gave considerable financial support."

[Jared]

More germaine to our discussion though, is Obama's actual role in the legislation and the reality behind it. Obama did not write the law. Obama played absolutely no role whatsoever in the content of the legislation, and Obama didn't even sign on as a sponsor for the bill until Emil Jones picked him to be the co-sponsor for the bill the day the bill was passed.

Much is made of Obama's skillfull ushering of the legislation through the vote, reaching across he aisle etc. (One example: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02262.html). That is not accurate. I worked for years with Senator Phil Rock, who was the President of the Illinois Senate for a record 7-terms. I've watched that body work very closely for 15 years, and I was watching it closely then. It passed 52-4! It was going to pass 52-4 if Satan himself had co-sponsored.

The accounts that I've read don't match up with your characterization about what happened. For example:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/po ... ted=3&_r=1

One of the first was campaign finance reform. Illinois had one of the least regulated campaign finance systems in the country and a history of corruption. Paul Simon, the former United States senator, was running a public policy institute at Southern Illinois University and asked each of the four legislative leaders to name a trusted lawmaker to work on a bipartisan ethics bill.

...

Mr. Obama entered the discussions favoring contribution limits, said Mike Lawrence, now director of the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University. But he realized they had no chance of passing. So the legislation, passed in 1998, banned most gifts by lobbyists, prohibited spending campaign money for legislators’ personal use and required electronic filing of campaign disclosure reports.

“I know he wanted to limit contributions by corporations or labor unions, and he certainly wanted to stop the transfers of huge amounts of money from the four legislative caucus leaders into rank-and-file members’ campaigns,” Mr. Dillard said. “But he knew that would never happen. So he got off that kick and thought disclosure was a more practical way to shine sunlight on what sometimes are unsavory practices.”

The disclosure requirement “revolutionized Illinois’s system,” said Cindi Canary, executive director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform. By giving journalists immediate access to a database of expenditures and contributions, it transformed political reporting. It also, she said, “put Senator Obama on a launching pad and put the mantle of ethics legislator on his crown.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/ ... 9157.shtml

Even when he was in the political minority, Obama sometimes played a critical role. He helped write one of the rare ethics laws in a state known for government corruption and worked on welfare reform with Republicans.

These sources don't make it seem, as you characterized it, as "absolutely no role whatsoever in the content of the legislation". Do you have any sources that support these claims?

Moreover, all the bill does is ban personal use of campaign funds, prohibit fundraising on public property and the tendering of personal payoffs and gifts to legislators by lobbyists and contractors. It did almost nothing to change the pay-to-play fundamentals of Illnois politics. How could it, that's Tony Rezko's bread and butter?

You forgot that it also required disclosure of expenditure and contributions, opening up the system to investigation by journalists and the like.

As for Feingold-Obama, the importance of that amendment and the role that Obama played in getting the billed passed are both exaggerted. Sound familiar? The amendment itself is summarized as follows:

With Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., proposed requiring senators to make full reimbursement for the market rate of corporate jet flights. Under old rules, senators reimbursed for the first-class commercial rate of the flight. In some cases, that meant paying $2,000 for a private jet flight that actually may have cost upwards of $20,000 per seat. The proposal was incorporated into a broader package of reforms.

Well, there's more to the bill than that. It also includes the following (from the Obama website, so let me know if this is wrong): "Full disclosure of who's sponsoring earmarks and for what purpose; additional restrictions to close the revolving door between public service and lobbying to ensure that public service isn't all about lining up a high-paying lobbying job; and requiring lobbyists to disclose the contributions that they "bundle" - that is, collect or arrange - for members of Congress, candidates, and party committees.

It'd be good to summarize all of the things that were introduced into the bill...

And then, to add more ethics and reform legislation sponsored or co-sponsored by Obama in the U.S. Senate, you have:

S. 2590, requiring a searchable web database for federal spending, opening up records, and co-sponsored by Obama.

He was the lead sponsor of an amendment "to require lobbyists to disclose the candidates, leadership PACs, or political parties for whom they collect or arrange contributions, and the aggregate amount of the contributions collected or arranged." (from the Obama site)

Or the three bills he sponsored (that didn't make it out of establish an committee) to "establish an Office of Public Integrity in the Congress and a Congressional Ethics Enforcement Commission" (S.2259), to "provide transparency and integrity in the earmark process" (S.2261), and S.2179, The Curtailing Lobbyist Effectiveness through Advance Notification, Updates, and Posting Act (The CLEAN UP Act), set up "require openness in conference committee deliberations and full disclosure of the contents of conference reports and all other legislation."

So you're saying that the laws, sponsored by Obama, that passed the Illinois and U.S. Senate, weren't meaningful reforms? (Because a lot of people disagree with you on that.) And that the bills he's sponsored aren't real attempts at reform?

[FatPitcher]

Straw man. Obama and Ayers' CAC existed to push political indoctrination in grade schools, and by its own measure failed to improve quality of education. That says "ivory tower radical" to me, not "terrorist lover." Like it or not, CAC is a significant part of Obama's background, and like it or not Obama and Ayers are closely linked by it. It also means Obama was full of s*** when he tried to distance himself from Ayers by saying he was just a guy who lived in the same neighborhood.

Yes, that bunch of ivory tower radicals at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Why, when you look at the Board of Directors in 1998, for example (when Obama was on the board), you find such crazy leftist radicals such as Edward Bottom, head of Chase Franklin, Republican. Or Nancy Searle, who has contributed to Republicans. Or you could even look at Walter Annenberg himself, who according to his obituary was "a fervid patriot and Republican whose close friends included Presidents Richard M. Nixon and Ronald Reagan, to whom he gave considerable financial support."

Oh, please. The agenda was not set by those people, it was set by Ayers, co-chairman of the agenda-setting arm of the CAC. Those people didn't chair the board of directors, Obama did. The agenda that came out of the CAC was ivory-tower radicalism, and it was driven by Ayers. All sort of extremist kooks, like Mike Klonsky, were connected to it. One Republican and one person who has contributed to Republicans at some point in their life on the board don't change that...but you already know that and are just throwing smoke.

Walter Annenberg is probably rolling in his grave because of funds from his foundation being so badly misused.

[wco81]

Palin's third interview, with Katie Couric:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/ ... ml?showall

[FatPitcher]

Palin's third interview, with Katie Couric:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/ ... ml?showall

Summary

"So, Sarah, everyone wants to know more about you. Instead, tell me details of John McCain's record."
"I dunno, here's some talking points though"

[wco81]

WSJ column on the tax plans of the candidates, including a chart from Deloitte Tax:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1222218 ... mod=djemPJ

[JackB1]

Interesting response by Obama. So what does McCain do now?

He'll do his job and go to work. They can debate next week.

Interesting way to look at it. Who's been doing his "job" all these months that he's been out on the campaign trail? And who are these guys...Batman and Robin? What exactly are they going to come in and do?

They can't take an hour or two off and debate? Seems to me like McCain wants to delay this thing a little bit since this financial crisis is hurting him more than Obama in the polls. Why not debate ABOUT this financial crisis and tell us what each plans to do. The gov't can't go on without these 2 guys? I think Obama should stick to his guns and insist on the debate. Makes McCain look like he wants to avoid discussing these issues right now while Americans are smarting from the recent financial setbacks.

[JackB1]

Palin's third interview, with Katie Couric:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/ ... ml?showall

Funny how she couldn't site ONE EXAMPLE of "pushing for more regulation".
She seems to answer in these memorized blurbs that don't always address the question and when pressed for more details...she gets all squirmy. Now I see why they have been so guarded with her and the media.

[FatPitcher]

Palin's third interview, with Katie Couric:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/ ... ml?showall

Funny how she couldn't site ONE EXAMPLE of "pushing for more regulation".
She seems to answer in these memorized blurbs that don't always address the question and when pressed for more details...she gets all squirmy. Now I see why they have been so guarded with her and the media.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hicZKvkPfAA

[FatPitcher]

Palin's third interview, with Katie Couric:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/ ... ml?showall

Funny how she couldn't site ONE EXAMPLE of "pushing for more regulation".
She seems to answer in these memorized blurbs that don't always address the question and when pressed for more details...she gets all squirmy. Now I see why they have been so guarded with her and the media.

She needs a cheat sheet: http://mobile.washingtonpost.com/detail ... &p=1&all=1

But Democratic leaders, who said they hope to approve the bailout plan by the end of the week, were having their own trouble rallying the rank and file. House Democrats summoned to a lunchtime meeting to discuss the proposal yesterday received a glossary of financial terms, such as "credit default swap" and "illiquid assets." Many nonetheless emerged unconvinced of the need for speed, comparing the administration's warnings that the economy will collapse unless Congress acts to warnings they received regarding the invasion of Iraq.

[RobVarak]

I'm not going to quote because it's late and I'd screw the formatting up.

With respect to the 1998 Illinois legislation. Those yarns that you cite are all well and good, but they're recent vintage and don't do even the most rudimentary journalistic lifting. They don't look at the law itself! If only such shoddiness were a surprise...

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisne ... B0672.html

Obama did not introduce the bill, he wasn't even a co-sponsor until the day the bill was sent to the House. He was brought in by Emil Jones on May 22, 1998. From that day until the day the bill was signed on August 8, 1998, nothing, NOTHING was amended, revised or changed. He picked the bill up on the one-yard line and carried it across the goal line. He couldn't change anything, as it was already before the House!!

I remember this particularly well because it was a very thoroughly covered story. (The bill, not Obama's invovlement) Unfortunately neither the Trib nor Times seemst to have anything freely available in their archives, but the fact of the matter was that it was Pate Phillip and Brent Hassert's baby.

But I'm sure all those journalists over the last year who went back to confirm the Obama talking points on the issue really pressed for the real story of the bill's passage. They wouldn't just talk to a satisfied "good government" group, grab a quote and call it a day, would they?

---
You're confusing things a bit on his US Senate work, probably because his website conflates and mingles elements of different bills together.

The Obama-Feingold Amendment only addressed the bundling of lobbyist contributions. (This is the part you or the website repeat as " He was the lead sponsor of an amendment "to require lobbyists to disclose the candidates, leadership PACs, or political parties for whom they collect or arrange contributions, and the aggregate amount of the contributions collected or arranged." (from the Obama site) "

Here's the text of the full Amendment

http://www.cleanupwashington.org/docume ... ndling.pdf

Those other elements they list are part of the wider Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, which Obama neither wrote nor sponsored. He did vote for it.

S. 2590 isn't really what I'd consider ethics reform except in the most broad defintion. It's more of a taxpayer rights issue, not the sort of thing that the Daleys would object to

Obviously the bills he sponsored or co-sponsored which didn't make it out of committee are not meaningful reforms. They haven't accomplished anything...which fits nicely with the ethics bills we've discussed LOL

I think my original point remains unchallenged. I began this exercise by explaining that he was not guilty of association with the Chicago machine. He is guilty of being a hypocritical machine apparatchik, and his record bears that out. Nothing you have laid out indicates that he has changed his stripes from his Illinois days...and he certainly still owes debts in these parts.

Pfew. Tomorrow, back to Ayers

[FatPitcher]

I'm not going to quote because it's late and I'd screw the formatting up.

With respect to the 1998 Illinois legislation. Those yarns that you cite are all well and good, but they're recent vintage and don't do even the most rudimentary journalistic lifting. They don't look at the law itself! If only such shoddiness were a surprise...

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisne ... B0672.html

Obama did not introduce the bill, he wasn't even a co-sponsor until the day the bill was sent to the House. He was brought in by Emil Jones on May 22, 1998. From that day until the day the bill was signed on August 8, 1998, nothing, NOTHING was amended, revised or changed. He picked the bill up on the one-yard line and carried it across the goal line. He couldn't change anything, as it was already before the House!!

I remember this particularly well because it was a very thoroughly covered story. (The bill, not Obama's invovlement) Unfortunately neither the Trib nor Times seemst to have anything freely available in their archives, but the fact of the matter was that it was Pate Phillip and Brent Hassert's baby.

But I'm sure all those journalists over the last year who went back to confirm the Obama talking points on the issue really pressed for the real story of the bill's passage. They wouldn't just talk to a satisfied "good government" group, grab a quote and call it a day, would they?

---
You're confusing things a bit on his US Senate work, probably because his website conflates and mingles elements of different bills together.

The Obama-Feingold Amendment only addressed the bundling of lobbyist contributions. (This is the part you or the website repeat as " He was the lead sponsor of an amendment "to require lobbyists to disclose the candidates, leadership PACs, or political parties for whom they collect or arrange contributions, and the aggregate amount of the contributions collected or arranged." (from the Obama site) "

Here's the text of the full Amendment

http://www.cleanupwashington.org/docume ... ndling.pdf

Those other elements they list are part of the wider Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, which Obama neither wrote nor sponsored. He did vote for it.

S. 2590 isn't really what I'd consider ethics reform except in the most broad defintion. It's more of a taxpayer rights issue, not the sort of thing that the Daleys would object to

Obviously the bills he sponsored or co-sponsored which didn't make it out of committee are not meaningful reforms. They haven't accomplished anything...which fits nicely with the ethics bills we've discussed LOL

I think my original point remains unchallenged. I began this exercise by explaining that he was not guilty of association with the Chicago machine. He is guilty of being a hypocritical machine apparatchik, and his record bears that out. Nothing you have laid out indicates that he has changed his stripes from his Illinois days...and he certainly still owes debts in these parts.

Pfew. Tomorrow, back to Ayers

Sorry to see you waste all that effort, but I think I'm just gonna go with the Obama website on this one. You're not exactly a reputable or objective source.

Edit: and let's face it, keeping up with detailed arguments is too much brain work. Usually when I see a Jared post, I just think to myself, "is this really worth 2 hours of my time to dig into this material?" I could just add water to some pre-made arguments, but what's the point? I have better links than you?

[FatPitcher]

Saw this on both Drudge and Instapundit:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... .recycling

I think it's one of those things where people behave morally because it makes them feel good, until something immoral comes along that makes them feel better. Plenty of other areas where that also applies.

I don't think cognitive dissonance is a problem for most people. "How can it be wrong when it feels so right?" should be the motto of the human race.

[Jackdog]

He'll do his job and go to work. They can debate next week.

Interesting way to look at it. Who's been doing his "job" all these months that he's been out on the campaign trail? And who are these guys...Batman and Robin? What exactly are they going to come in and do?

They can't take an hour or two off and debate? Seems to me like McCain wants to delay this thing a little bit since this financial crisis is hurting him more than Obama in the polls. Why not debate ABOUT this financial crisis and tell us what each plans to do. The gov't can't go on without these 2 guys? I think Obama should stick to his guns and insist on the debate. Makes McCain look like he wants to avoid discussing these issues right now while Americans are smarting from the recent financial setbacks.

Have you heard what financial experts are calling this? This isn't a time to call it in. Political move or not. It was the right thing to do. A 90 minute debate can wait until Monday. Like I posted before. Your party wanted McCain Tuesday. What happened on Wednesday?

Congressional Democrats have discovered another possible wrinkle in their negotiations with the Bush administration on the proposed $700 billion Wall Street bailout, and that wrinkle's name is John McCain.

Senior Democrats on the Hill are worried that Sen. McCain, R-Ariz., will "demagogue" the bill, continue to voice opposition to it, use it to run against both Wall Street and Congress, as well as to distance himself from the Bush White House. Democrats worry McCain will not only vote against the bill, he will provide cover for other Republicans to do so, leaving Democrats holding the bag for the Bush administration's deeply unpopular proposal.

A Democratic congressional leadership source says that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson went so far as to assure Democratic leaders that McCain "won't be a problem" -- in other words, that McCain will vote for the proposal.

This afternoon, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said, "I was told, yesterday afternoon, by the secretary of Treasury, that McCain was in favor of the program. We heard, all through the night, that he wasn't sure. And we don't know, this morning, where he stands on the issue."*

McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds says McCain has not made a decision one way or another.

"John McCain has been very clear that he has certain reservations about the details of the agreement that has been released at last notice," Bounds said. "There is no final agreement to review, but when there is, John McCain will weigh in responsibly and appropriately."

McCain has expressed concerns about the original proposal's lack of sufficient oversight. He has said whatever plan emerges should eliminate golden parachutes for executives, and protect homes, family savings, and student loans. McCain also expressed the view that executives of any company that receives government aid, should not be compensated more than the highest-paid government employee, which is the president, who makes $400,000 a year.

Wanting to go on with a debate looks just as bad as going to Hollywood for a fundraiser when the economy is heading into the dumper. Average Americans WILL GET IT.

[matthewk]

They can't take an hour or two off and debate? Seems to me like McCain wants to delay this thing a little bit since this financial crisis is hurting him more than Obama in the polls. Why not debate ABOUT this financial crisis and tell us what each plans to do. The gov't can't go on without these 2 guys? I think Obama should stick to his guns and insist on the debate. Makes McCain look like he wants to avoid discussing these issues right now while Americans are smarting from the recent financial setbacks.

McCain has been in politics for years. Do you really think he's he's not ready to debate? Over the past couple of days both McCain and Obama have been giving their thoughts on the issue, so the debate is not needed right this minute, given what is happening.

Although they could probably go on without Obama, who would just vote "present" anyways.

[Jared]

With respect to the 1998 Illinois legislation. Those yarns that you cite are all well and good, but they're recent vintage and don't do even the most rudimentary journalistic lifting. They don't look at the law itself! If only such shoddiness were a surprise...

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisne ... B0672.html

Obama did not introduce the bill, he wasn't even a co-sponsor until the day the bill was sent to the House. He was brought in by Emil Jones on May 22, 1998. From that day until the day the bill was signed on August 8, 1998, nothing, NOTHING was amended, revised or changed.

I'm still not buying it. Did a quick Lexis-Nexis search (although it doesn't seem to pull from Chicago papers, just news wires). From 2002:

"State Sen. Barack Obama, a Chicago Democrat who helped negotiate the 1998 legislation, praised the high court's decision."

The CBS and NYT articles I posted before also support the same narrative, so it seems odd that multiple sources would be reporting Obama's involvement (including some before his presidential run), yet he had nothing to do with it. Maybe he worked on it before he was officially brought on as a co-sponsor? That's what it sounds like...

Furthermore, the Mr. Dillard cited in the NYT about Obama's involvement in the bill is a Republican state senator. It's not just taking a source from good government groups and running with it...they got information directly from a Republican source. Again, I don't think your narrative holds up.

As for Obama-Feingold, you're totally right...I did get confused, and his amendment only addressed the bundling. Thanks!

As for S.2590, it is an openness in government bill in that it completely opens up data re: federal funding, thereby helping to prevent the misuse of funding. And no, those three bills haven't passed, but it's clear that he's writing bills with ethics reform as a focus.

Again, Obama has been involved in ethics reform, and until evidence is provided that Obama has acted unethically, I don't see how any of this is hypocritical.

[FatPitcher]

I thought that the conventional wisdom on the debates was that they were good for McCain, which is one reason why he had pushed for a series "town hall" debates, which Obama declined. In particular, the upcoming foreign policy debate seemed it would be to his advantage.

[FatPitcher]

Two fully extended middle fingers from B. Clinton to Obama campaign:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar ... on-do.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/200809 ... co/22073_1

Although I find his newfound respect for the Jewish holidays admirable, I'm sure Obama would rather have him "hustling up...the cracker vote" sooner rather than later.

I don't see how anyone can not love Bill Clinton the politician, regardless of what they thought of him as president. He's the P.T. Barnum of political gamesmanship.

[Teal]

Alcee Hastings, ladies and gentlemen...the latest in the dumbass parade:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar ... ngres.html

And all I'm going to say about the whole 'debate vs. actually do your f'ing job' flap is this: I don't need a couple of clowns running their mouths in politic mode friday night about an issue that isn't the central and most pressing issue-I need them actually doing their job. Debating tomorrow night is akin to fiddling while Rome burns, and it seems to me that that's precisely what Obama wants to do. He wants to be president too badly to worry about being a senator-of course, that's always been the case since Barry came to Washington, so it's of little surprise.

[Teal]

I thought that the conventional wisdom on the debates was that they were good for McCain, which is one reason why he had pushed for a series "town hall" debates, which Obama declined. In particular, the upcoming foreign policy debate seemed it would be to his advantage.

Obama wouldn't last 5 minutes in a town hall type debate, and he knows it.