SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (37866)8/4/2008 10:14:00 PM
From: puborectalis  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224750
 
From: stockman_scott Read Replies (1) of 27092

early polls don't mean that much - the numbers bounce all over the place...wait until the conventions and the debates...Obama's team has to be more focussed and go after McCain in a more targeted way but I still think Obama will win in November...this will be "a change election" and it will be difficult for Obama to lose unless he makes some big mistakes or the votes aren't counted accurately.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (37866)8/4/2008 10:16:21 PM
From: Ann Corrigan  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 224750
 
Memento:Obama Energy Plan Tire Gauge...only $25--you need one Ken..buy one for each member of your family as Christmas stocking stuffers: johnmccain.com



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (37866)8/4/2008 10:22:02 PM
From: puborectalis  Respond to of 224750
 
McCain security ousts reporter
By Paul Flemming
FLORIDA CAPITAL BUREAU

Tallahassee Democrat senior writer Stephen Price on Friday was singled out and asked to leave a media area at the Panama City rally of presidential candidate Sen. John McCain.

Price was among at least three other reporters, and the only black reporter, surrounding McCain's campaign bus — Gov. Charlie Crist and his fiancee, Carole Rome, were already aboard — when a member of the Arizona senator's security detail asked the reporter to identify himself. Price had shown his media credentials to enter the area.


Price showed his employee identification as well as his credentials for the Friday event.

"I explained I was with the state press, but the Secret Service man said that didn't matter and that I would have to go," Price said.

When another reporter asked why Price was being removed, she too was led out of the area. Other state reporters remained.

Jonathan Block does advance work for McCain's campaign. He was in Panama City on Friday but was not present when reporter Stephen Price was asked to move from a restricted area.

"Access to the senator is tightly controlled," Block said. "I would first express regret that your reporter was moved, and I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that race had nothing to do with it."

Tallahassee Democrat Executive Editor Bob Gabordi said the incident was unwarranted.

"We're deeply concerned and disturbed that our reporter — of all of those in that area — was asked to move," Gabordi said. "My understanding is that Stephen was the only reporter approached and asked to leave the area, and the only reporter in that area who is black. Another reporter who stood up for Stephen was then asked to leave."

A Panama City police officer approached while Price was speaking to the security member. Panama City police were unavailable for comment Friday night.

Block said the area where Price was standing was restricted to members of the traveling national press corps that accompanies McCain on the campaign trail.

"At the end of the day, your reporter was in the wrong place. I do not know why the other reporters were not moved. The rest of the local press should have been moved as well," Block said.

The campaign advance man said there were many reasons that could have prompted Price being asked to move, depending on how visible his press identification was, whether he had a bag and possibly information about McCain's movement, which could have prompted the security person to move people in one area and not in another.

"It's really like a pressure cooker with security," Block said.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (37866)8/4/2008 10:23:28 PM
From: puborectalis  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224750
 
August 5, 2008
G.O.P. Drops in Voting Rolls in Many States
By JENNIFER STEINHAUER
Well before Senators Barack Obama and John McCain rose to the top of their parties, a partisan shift was under way at the local and state level. For more than three years starting in 2005, there has been a reduction in the number of voters who register with the Republican Party and a rise among voters who affiliate with Democrats and, almost as often, with no party at all.

While the implications of the changing landscape for Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain are far from clear, voting experts say the registration numbers may signal the beginning of a move away from Republicans that could affect local, state and national politics over several election cycles. Already, there has been a sharp reversal for Republicans in many statehouses and governors’ mansions.

In several states, including the traditional battlegrounds of Nevada and Iowa, Democrats have surprised their own party officials with significant gains in registration. In both of those states, there are now more registered Democrats than Republicans, a flip from 2004. No states have switched to the Republicans over the same period, according to data from 26 of the 29 states in which voters register by party. (Three of the states did not have complete data.)

In six states, including Iowa, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania, the Democratic piece of the registration pie grew more than three percentage points, while the Republican share declined. In only three states — Kentucky, Louisiana and Oklahoma — did Republican registration rise while Democratic registration fell, but the Republican increase was less than a percentage point in Kentucky and Oklahoma. Louisiana was the only state to register a gain of more than one percentage point for Republicans as Democratic numbers declined.

Over the same period, the share of the electorate that registers as independent has grown at a faster rate than Republicans or Democrats in 12 states. The rise has been so significant that in states like Arizona, Colorado and North Carolina, nonpartisan voters essentially constitute a third party.

Swings in party registration are not uncommon from one year to the next, or even over two years. Registration, moreover, often has no impact on how people actually vote, and people sometimes switch registration to vote in a primary, then flip again come Election Day.

But for a shift away from one party to sustain itself — the current registration trend is now in its fourth year — is remarkable, researchers who study voting patterns say. And though comparable data are not available for the 21 states where voters do not register by party, there is evidence that an increasing number of voters in those states are also moving away from the Republican Party based on the results of recent state and Congressional elections, the researchers said.

“This is very suggestive that there is a fundamental change going on in the electorate,” said Michael P. McDonald, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and an associate professor of political science at George Mason University who has studied voting patterns.

Mr. McDonald added that, more typically, voting and registration patterns tended to even out or revert to the opposing party between elections.

Dick Armey, the former House majority leader and one of the designers of the so-called Republican Revolution of 1994, said: “Obviously, these are not good numbers for the party to be looking at. Democrats have always had extremely broad multifaceted registration programs.”

But in terms of the presidential election, Mr. Armey said the tea leaves were harder to read.

“I think the key in this one is, where do all these new independent voters break?” he said. “I think right now, you’ve got a guy in western Pennsylvania saying, ‘I am really disgusted right now and I’m not going to register as a Republican anymore, but I really don’t want this guy Obama elected.’ ”

Those in charge of state Democratic parties cite a national displeasure with the Bush administration as an impetus for the changing numbers, which run counter to a goal of Karl Rove, President Bush’s former top adviser, to create a permanent realignment in favor of Republicans.

“I think nationally and here, people are kind of tired of the way this administration has been conducting the policies of this country,” said Pat Waak, chairwoman of the Colorado Democratic Party.

Yet while an unpopular war, a faltering economy and a president held in low esteem have certainly combined to hurt the Republican Party, Democrats are also benefiting from demographic changes, including the rise in the number of younger voters and the urbanization of suburbs, which has resulted in a different political flavor there, voting and campaign experts said. The party has also been helped by a recent willingness to run more pragmatic candidates, who have helped make the party more appealing to a broader swath of the electorate.

Among the 26 states with registration data, the percentage of those who have signed on with Democrats has risen in 15 states since 2004, and the percentage for Republicans has risen in six, according to state data. The number of registered Democrats fell in 11 states, compared with 20 states where Republican registration numbers fell.

In the 26 states and the District of Columbia where registration data were available, the total number of registered Democrats increased by 214,656, while the number of Republicans fell by 1,407,971.

The unsettled political ground has manifested itself in state and local elections. Twenty-three state legislatures are controlled by Democrats and 14 by Republicans, with 12 states with divided chambers (Nebraska has a nonpartisan legislature). After the 2000 election, 16 state legislatures were dominated by Democrats, and 17 by Republicans, with 16 divided.

It is a similar story in governors’ mansions. After the 2004 election, there were 28 Republican governors and 22 Democrats; those numbers are now reversed. After the 2000 election, there were only 19 Democratic governors.

Elected Democrats have made significant inroads even in places where Republicans have enjoyed a generation of dominance. In Colorado, for example, Democrats control the governorship and both houses of the Legislature for the first time in over four decades. Last year, Virginia Democrats gained a 21-to-19 majority over Republicans in the State Senate, the first time the party has controlled that body in a decade.

In New Hampshire, Democrats are in control of both the legislative and executive branches for the first time since 1874. In Iowa, Democrats have taken over that statehouse for the first time in a generation.

The changes in state government could have broad implications for Congressional redistricting and on policies like immigration, health care reform and environmental regulation, which are increasingly decided at the state level.

In many states, Democrats have benefited from a rise in younger potential voters, after declines or small increases in the number of those voters in the 1980s and ’90s. The population of 18- to 24-year-olds rose from about 27 million in 2000 to nearly 30 million in 2006, according to Census figures.

Mr. Obama’s candidacy has drawn many young people to register to vote, and some of the recent gains by Democrats have no doubt been influenced by excitement over his campaign. But even before Mr. Obama’s ascendancy among Democrats, younger voters were moving toward the Democratic Party, demographers said.

Dowell Myers, a professor of policy, planning and development at the University of Southern California, also noted that a younger, native-born generation of Latinos who have a tendency to support Democrats is coming of age.

Further, young Americans have migrated in recent years to high-growth states that have traditionally been dominated by Republicans, like Arizona, Colorado and Nevada, which may have had an impact on the changing registration numbers in those places.

The changing face of many American suburbs has also had in impact both in voter registration and voting patterns. In many major metropolitan areas, suburbs that were once largely white and Republican have become more mixed, as people living in cities have been priced out into surrounding areas, and exurban regions have absorbed those residents who once favored the close-in suburbs of cities.

“What we speculate is that density attracts Democrats,” said Robert Lang, director of the Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech who has researched voting patterns. “It is not that people move to those areas and change positions. It tends now to be a self-selection of singles, childless couples,” who tend to vote Democrat more than their married with children counterparts.

In the nation’s 50 largest metropolitan areas, Democrats carried nearly 60 percent of the Congressional vote in 2006 in inner suburbs, up from about 53 percent in 2002, according to Mr. Lang’s research.

This trend is particularly evident in places like St. Louis, southern Pennsylvania and Fairfax County, Va., which President Bush won in 2000 but lost in 2004.

Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat of Missouri, who won her seat in 2006, picked up the large majority of voters in the St. Louis and Kansas City metropolitan areas, and Senator Jim Webb, also a Democrat, won his seat in a similar manner in Virginia, which has not voted for a Democrat for president since 1964.

Democrats have also succeeded, at least in part, by running centrist candidates where they are most needed. Bill Ritter, the Democratic governor of Colorado and former district attorney of Denver, opposes abortion rights. Among the men who flipped three of Indiana’s eight Congressional seats in the midterm election in 2006, two also oppose both abortion rights and gun control.

What the demographers, political scientists and party officials wonder now is whether the shift of the last few years will be sustained.

“Major political realignment is not just controlling the branches of government,” said Mr. McDonald of the Brookings Institution. “It is when you decisively do it. We haven’t seen that in modern generations.”

Rebecca Cathcart contributed reporting.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (37866)8/4/2008 10:28:53 PM
From: puborectalis  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224750
 
The way McCain orchestrated the roll-out of his energy policy is a good indication of how firmly he's fallen into the Cheney bear hug.

The roll-out began with a scare tactic to soften up the public -- the spreading of a false rumor that China is drilling for oil off the coast of Florida – in the territorial waters of fellow communists in Cuba.

If the Chinese are drilling in our waters, why shouldn't we? That was precisely the point of an uber-masculine Wall Street Journal opinion piece titled Drill! Drill! Drill! that followed punctually in the disciplined message orchestration. It supplied the mantra for the McCain energy policy and rallied the faithful.

That set the stage for McCain to announce his policy in Houston last week, where he called for oil drilling in US coastal waters and for the development of US oil shale in the American West.

And lest there be any doubt that McCain was donning the mantle and embracing the legacy of the Bush administration, the President also issued his own statement in the Rose Garden, the cherry on top. Here's a link to the fact sheet of what Bush called for. Top 2 items? Drilling offshore and development of oil shale.

There's nothing new in this energy policy, although McCain and Bush tried to sell it as a brand new cure for high gas prices. It's neither brand new, nor a cure. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) -- the arm of the government responsible for official energy statistics -- said so.

It was merely the endless fossil future repackaged to suit this moment of $4 gas, which everybody knows is not going away. But maybe pain at the pump and fear of communists in our waters might pave the way for wishful thinking that relies on development of oil shale and other unconventional fuels. And continued denial of global warming.

That's squarely where the future of the oil industry rests. Take a look at this organization chart of the Strategic Unconventional Fuels Task Force and you'll see how this effort is being managed out of the Department of Energy's Office of Petroleum Reserves.

Reporting into that office are the three working groups of the Task Force: Oil Shale and Tar Sands; Enhanced Oil Recovery and Heavy Oil; Coal-to-Liquid Fuels. It gets hard to breathe just reading the names of those three working groups.

And here is what it says in the Executive Summary of the report the Task Force prepared for the President and Congress:

The days of cheap oil are likely over. As discovery and production of conventional oil becomes more difficult and costly..... the world and ur nation must now begin a transition to the next most economic and energy efficient set of energy resources. As it may take 20 years or more to achieve an industry capable of producing significant volumes of unconventional fuels, urgent action to initiate the transition is needed.

Our nation is endowed with a wealth of resources that can be converted to fuels for transportation, home heating, and other uses. These include coal, heavy oil, and oil producible by carbon dioxide enhanced recovery....

Oil sands development success in the Province of Alberta, Canada provides a laudable example of industry, government, and stakeholder collaboration that could be emulated.....

The oil sands "a laudable example that could be emulated?" OMFG. The full report is available here, and it makes for chilling reading.

It is the Cheney blueprint of the fossil future, now embraced by McCain. It calls for massive government support for a 20 year project to develop these carbon-heavy unconventional fuels.

Solar, wind, geothermal -- weren't those supposed to be the unconventional fuels of the future? Not in the vision of Dick Cheney, now embraced by John McCain.

If elected, who will he turn to help him manage his energy

policy?
solveclimate.com



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (37866)8/4/2008 11:43:21 PM
From: puborectalis  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224750
 
Basra latest.......http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article4461023.ece



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (37866)8/4/2008 11:45:30 PM
From: Ruffian  Respond to of 224750
 
Obama thinks he's better than you
Posted: August 04, 2008
1:00 am Eastern

© 2008

The more I observe the great illusionist Barack Obama, the more I am convinced that if he is able to dupe enough voters into putting him in charge it will be the most entertaining presidency in the history of the office. Is there really any sane person who believes this guy would make a good president?

Forget for a moment the people with whom he associates. Look past the bomber, mad preacher, angry wife and crooked slumlord. They are merely distractions. Forget the lack of experience or substantive legislation during his short stint in the Senate. Just focus on his current actions.

One would think when millions of Americans campaign for and contribute to a virtually unknown commodity like Obama, it would create within the candidate a sense of awe: A humility that would overwhelm the average person, an outpouring of love and support which might bring a mere mortal to tears, a heart so filled with gratitude the candidate would thank the American people for the vote of confidence.

Not Obama – quite the opposite.

When he takes the stage, there is an air of arrogance I have never sensed from anyone else in a similar situation. There is a tone of pompousness and entitlement. One gets the sense that Obama feels he is doing his attendees a favor for allowing them in his presence. His body language screams, "I am better than you." His confidence is not quiet. His soaring rhetoric is accompanied by the dropping of the final syllable or vowel. His almost preacher-like twang is devoid of even the slightest shred of modesty.

He fills stadiums at the mere mention of his coming. He is the source of neurological shutdowns as women faint at his utterances. Words flow like the healing waters of Fatima to the parched plebes yearning for the one with the answer to all of their problems. His audiences whisper to one another, "He is the one."

But make no mistake about it. He is not the one. He is ever the illusionist.

All good magicians make their audience's eyes and minds play tricks on them. They can make them believe in something that does not exist outside of the imagination. They see a rabbit disappear or a woman sawed in half, but both are an illusion. And when the show is over, the audience leaves entertained, but the world they left for a few brief moments to enjoy the show remains just as it was.

And so it will be with the presidency of Barack Obama. It will be entertaining. He will have us believe the world is perfect now that he is here. He will tell us that there is no war or rumors of war. Starvation and disease will have ceased to exist. Every man and woman from every nation and tongue will appear to be living in perfect harmony, helping each other in perfect love.

But it will be an illusion. For the world is far more complex than Barack has come to understand in the few short years he has been on Earth. And since his election to the Senate, he has yet to perform even a hint of a miracle, no less the miracles he promises for all those who dare believe.

(Column continues below)

I rest rather well knowing that whether it is voting for mayor, congressman, senator, president or even American Idol contestants, Americans always get it right. They are not easily deceived. They know a trick when they see one. They can smell a phony a mile away. And while the illusionist assistants in the media are working overtime to convince America their man, Barack, can lead the country to a new world, they know better. Americans are far more intelligent than the media understands, and this November they are going to get a huge lesson on that intelligence.

America wants a leader with humility, honesty, integrity and experience, not smoke and mirrors. It wants a leader who has been tested by the fires of life – a leader who will not promise the world and deliver Hoboken, but one who will under-promise and over-deliver. America understands that the only free lunch in the world is found in the fantasy of socialist thinking. America wants a leader to tell the truth about where we are and what we have to do to get to where we want to be.

Many of the challenges we face as a nation have no easy fix. We can't just raise taxes and pay all the obligations that are on the way in the years to come. Properly inflating our tires and keeping our cars tuned are not the answer to the energy crunch. Sending a $1,000 check to every American and sending the bill to Exxon is not an energy policy. Printing money to bail out banks and stop foreclosures is not the answer to bad decisions.

Government is not the answer to our problems; government is the problem. The sooner an honest politician declares so and puts forth legislation to shrink government, the better off we will all be.

America has a lot of bad, but far more good. This is, and will always be, a great country because of the American people. Most are hardworking, honest, loyal and dedicated people who love their families, country and God. They know the future will not be easy but also realize greatness never comes easily. They just want a president who will tell the truth and work hard on their behalves to do what is right – not what is easy. "Easy-way-out" thinking is half the problem.

So if you have watched the great Obami's master illusion show and now fear that illusion could destroy your country ... relax. The media can claim him the president, but that doesn't make it so. As we get closer to November, expect to see Obama either grow in his arrogance and lose, or humble himself and still have a chance.

I am putting my money on his ego. Therefore, I rest comfortably knowing Barack will soon go back to the Senate where he can do little to no damage to the nation. America will elect a president with experience, backbone and the understanding that humility always trumps arrogance. He will not be perfect. But he understands the value of speaking softly and carrying a big stick.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (37866)8/5/2008 6:13:09 AM
From: TideGlider  Respond to of 224750
 
LOL so what? Maybe he would do better just paying his taxes.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (37866)8/5/2008 8:22:12 AM
From: lorne  Respond to of 224750
 
Illegal Obama donors: Middle Eastern Arabs
Gazan brothers' illicit contributions listed in government campaign filings

August 04, 2008
By Aaron Klein
worldnetdaily.com

JERUSALEM – Palestinian brothers inside the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip are listed in government election filings as having donated $29,521.54 to Sen. Barack Obama's campaign.

Donations of this nature would violate election laws, including prohibitions on receiving contributions from foreigners and guidelines against accepting more than $2,300 from one individual during a single election, Bob Biersack, a spokesman for the Federal Election Commission, told WND in response to a query.

The contributions also raise numerous questions about the Obama campaign's lax online donation form, which apparently allows for the possibility of foreign contributions.

Last week, the Atlas Shrugs blog outlined a series of donations in 2007 made to Obama's campaign from two individuals, Monir Edwan and Hosam Edwan, totaling $29,521.54.

In an online form on Obama's campaign site, the Edwans listed their street as "Tal Esaltan," which they wrote was located in "Rafah, GA."

Rafah is not a city in Georgia. The Atlas blog immediately raised concerns that the money may have been donated from the Gaza Strip town of Rafah.

The Edwans' donations are listed in both FEC filings and other election filing sites, such as CampaignMoney and donordata.org.

Monir made 20 donations ranging from $717 to $2017.50 from October through November 2007. His donations totaled $24321.41. Hosam made seven donations ranging from $508.63 to $1725.96, totaling $5,200.13, all in October 2007.

A WND investigation tracked down the Edwans, who are brothers living in the Tal Esaltan neighborhood of Rafah, a large refugee camp in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.

The Edwans are a large clan that include top Hamas supporters.

Speaking to WND, the two brothers praised Obama and admitted giving the money online to his campaign. They said they are not U.S. citizens or green card holders but are citizens of "Palestine."

The Edwans denied they are affiliated with Hamas. Palestinian sources in Gaza confirmed the Edwans in question are secular, but could not say whether they supported Hamas.

Monir and Hasam Edwan denied their financial transactions online – listed as donations in U.S. government election filings – were actual donations to Obama's campaign. Instead they claimed they purchased about $30,000 in Obama T-shirts from the presidential candidate's online store – a contention that did not hold up during a WND interview, when they changed their story several times.

"My brother Hosam and I knew that Obama will be a big hit even before he became a candidate. We knew the guy would be a celebrity in Gaza so we decided to invest the amount of $29,000 to buy Obama T-shirts from his website and sell them in Gaza," Monir Edwan told WND, speaking by cell phone from Gaza.

"I know on the back of this story Obama rivals will present our business as a donation and they will try to use this story to let Obama fall, but I'm telling you, we bought T-shirts," Edwan maintained.

Edwan said any profit made from purportedly selling the Obama T-shirts was not returned to the Obama campaign.

"We have nothing to do with the Obama campaign. We just like Obama and believe he will be the best for the Palestinians and for the world."

At first Monir Edwan claimed he sold the T-shirts in Gaza for around $9 and that a profit was made.

"Some young men even bought the T-shirts for 60 shekel ($17.29), which is a lot to spend in Gaza on a T-shirt, but that is how much Gazans like Obama," Edwan claimed.

But it was pointed out to Edwan the T-shirts for sale on Obama's website are listed as $20.08 and that selling the merchandise for less would not yield a profit.

"Maybe we sold the shirts for a lot more. I can't remember now," said Edwan.

Asked why he would purchase T-shirts at such a high rate and pay the cost of shipping when he could pay a company to produce T-shirts for less, Edwan replied, "We wanted the shirts to come from the campaign."

But Edwan could not explain how he managed to get shipments of T-shirts into the Gaza Strip during the months he claimed to have purchased the merchandise, since Israel imposed a tight closure of the Gaza Strip starting in June 2007 that lasted until June 2008, when the Israeli government agreed to a cease-fire with Hamas in Gaza.

"We don't want to cause any damage to Obama's campaign," was Edwan's reply.

Edwan said he wants Obama to be president.

"Not just the people in Gaza but people from all over the world are rooting for this great man," he told WND.

FEC spokesman Biersack told WND contributions from overseas are allowed if the donations are coming from U.S. citizens or green card carriers. But he said accepting money from foreigners would violate election provisions.

He said there are strict guidelines against accepting more than $2,300 from one individual during a single election.

"I am not familiar with the particulars of the case, so I am commenting in general. The FEC will have to examine all the circumstances before determining any wrongdoing," Biersack clarified.

Obama's campaign did not return WND phone calls or e-mail queries.

That the Edwans were able to contribute any money to Obama's campaign from Gaza opens questions into the methods used by the presidential candidate's website to accept online donations.

The website donation form asks each donor to affirm he or she is a U.S. citizen and is above the age of 16 but doesn't require donors to prove their citizenship status, such as providing a social security number. The form further requires the donor to affirm the contribution is not coming from a corporation, political action committee or lobby group.