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 (45410)9/8/2008 10:01:47 PM
From: Bearcatbob4 Recommendations  Respond to of 224841
 
"I was wrong about him being a tycoon but not deliberately. I was repeating something I read."

I give you credit for admitting the obvious about a week after the fact. I have seen this liberal tactic before. If it is in print it is true - if it fits your needs. The key is basic intelligence to know crap when you see it and the basic knowledge of a news savy person to know what is really going on.

Ken - you did not question the obvious and you apparently do not know anything about what is going on. You continue to discredit yourself as a commentator but remain a useful fool tool of the left.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (45410)9/8/2008 10:34:31 PM
From: puborectalis  Respond to of 224841
 
Gotcha!
youtube.com



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (45410)9/8/2008 10:45:05 PM
From: puborectalis  Respond to of 224841
 
Interesting............April 22, 2008
A Developer, His Deals and His Ties to McCain
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and JIM RUTENBERG
Donald R. Diamond, a wealthy Arizona real estate developer, was racing to snap up a stretch of virgin California coast freed by the closing of an Army base a decade ago when he turned to an old friend, Senator John McCain.

When Mr. Diamond wanted to buy land at the base, Fort Ord, Mr. McCain assigned an aide who set up a meeting at the Pentagon and later stepped in again to help speed up the sale, according to people involved and a deposition Mr. Diamond gave for a related lawsuit. When he appealed to a nearby city for the right to develop other property at the former base, Mr. Diamond submitted Mr. McCain’s endorsement as “a close personal friend.”

Writing to officials in the city, Seaside, Calif., the senator said, “You will find him as honorable and committed as I have.”

Courting local officials and potential partners, Mr. Diamond’s team promised that he could “help get through some of the red tape in dealing with the Department of the Army” because Mr. Diamond “has been very active with Senator McCain,” a partner said in a deposition.

For Mr. McCain, the Arizona Republican who has staked two presidential campaigns on pledges to avoid even the appearance of dispensing an official favor for a donor, Mr. Diamond is the kind of friend who can pose a test.

A longtime political patron, Mr. Diamond is one of the elite fund-raisers Mr. McCain’s current presidential campaign calls Innovators, having raised more than $250,000 so far. At home, Mr. Diamond is sometimes referred to as “The Donald,” Arizona’s answer to Donald Trump — an outsized personality who invites public officials aboard his flotilla of yachts (the Ace, King, Jack and Queen of Diamonds), specializes in deals with the government, and unabashedly solicits support for his business interests from the recipients of his campaign contributions.

Mr. McCain has occasionally rebuffed Mr. Diamond’s entreaties as inappropriate, but he has also taken steps that benefited his friend’s real estate empire. Their 26-year relationship illuminates how Mr. McCain weighs requests from a benefactor against his vows, adopted after a brush with scandal two decades ago, not to intercede with government authorities on behalf of a donor or take other official action that serves no clear public interest.

In California, the McCain aide’s assistance with the Army helped Mr. Diamond complete a purchase in 1999 that he soon turned over for a $20 million profit. And Mr. McCain’s letter of recommendation reinforced Mr. Diamond’s selling point about his McCain connections as he pursued — and won in 2005 — a potentially much more lucrative deal to develop a resort hotel and luxury housing.

In Arizona, Mr. McCain has helped Mr. Diamond with matters as small as forwarding a complaint in a regulatory skirmish over the endangered pygmy owl, and as large as introducing legislation remapping public lands. In 1991 and 1994, Mr. McCain sponsored two laws sought by Mr. Diamond that resulted in providing him millions of dollars and thousands of acres in exchange for adding some of his properties to national parks. The Arizona senator co-sponsored a third similar bill now before the Senate.

A spokeswoman for Mr. McCain, Jill Hazelbaker, said the senator, now the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, “had done nothing for Mr. Diamond that he would not do for any other Arizona citizen.”

The campaign said in a statement that the Arizona land exchanges had broad support from local governments and environmentalists seeking to expand a federal park.

For the California projects, the campaign said the McCain aide arranged the introduction to an Army official for Mr. Diamond’s team as “a constituent matter.” The campaign said it had no knowledge of the aide helping to expedite the sale.

In Mr. Diamond’s other project at Fort Ord, the campaign initially said that the senator “would not have issued” the letter vouching for Mr. Diamond “if he knew at the time it would be used to favor any particular party in the course of a pending competition.” Later, the campaign described the letter as “a character reference” and said it was included only at a “pre-competition” stage in the selection process. The campaign also noted that two other members of the Arizona Congressional delegation provided similar letters.

Mr. Diamond, for his part, said Mr. McCain had only done his job. “I think that is what Congress people are supposed to do for constituents,” he said. “When you have a big, significant businessman like myself, why wouldn’t you want to help move things along? What else would they do? They waste so much time with legislation.”

He said he often complained to Mr. McCain that he was “too straight” about refusing to provide federal help for Arizona businessmen. “I tell him, ‘You are an Arizona senator besides being the world senator. Loosen up, kid!’ ”

‘A Love Fest’

Mr. Diamond, 80, met Mr. McCain when he was a former prisoner of war running for Congress in 1982. “I liked him right away because I respected what he went through in Vietnam,” Mr. Diamond recalled. When he got to know Mr. McCain and his wife, Cindy, Mr. Diamond said, “it became a love fest.”

Mr. Diamond was already a major player in Arizona real estate and Republican politics. A tenacious dealmaker who once visited a Mexican jail to close a sale with an inmate, Mr. Diamond had made a first fortune on Wall Street before turning his trader’s eye to the Arizona desert in 1965. He eventually became one of the state’s biggest landowners, picking up trophies that included the 12,000-acre Howard Hughes estate, stakes in two of Arizona’s professional sports teams, the Diamondbacks and the Suns, and, for a time, a Tucson television station.

Over the years, Mr. Diamond and his wife, Joan, visited the McCains at their ranch in Sedona, Ariz., and entertained them in their Tucson home and in the Bahamas, where Mr. Diamond sometimes keeps his 134-foot yacht, the Queen of Diamonds. In 2001, the two men attended a Yankees-Diamondback World Series game together. “He is just very, very good company,” Mr. Diamond said of Mr. McCain. “I knew all his people and the staff.”

Mr. Diamond and his family have given more than $55,000 to Mr. McCain’s campaigns (and more than $600,000 to other federal candidates). More significantly, the developer has collected (or “bundled”) hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions from others, and is now serving as a national co-chairman of the finance committee for Mr. McCain’s current presidential run. In the spring of 2000, when Mr. Diamond was in the thick of the negotiations for his California deals, he traveled with Mr. McCain through the early Republican primaries. Mr. Diamond was on the campaign trail again this year.

In building his empire, Mr. Diamond said he had struggled with local elected officials over land use and zoning issues just like any other developer. “They are a pain in the ‘you-know-what,’ ” he said.

But associates say he revels in his ability to “work the system,” as his friend and sometimes partner, Stanley Abrams, put it: “Nobody is as connected as Donald.”

Mr. Diamond is close to most of Arizona’s Congressional delegation and is candid about his expectations as a fund-raiser. “I want my money back, for Christ’s sake. Do you know how many cocktail parties I have to go to?”

To raise money for Mr. McCain, Mr. Diamond invites local Republicans to make fund-raising calls from his Tucson office. Ray Carroll, a member of the council that controls zoning in Pima County, Ariz., said Mr. Diamond followed up on one fund-raising session with a thank-you note “on behalf of Mr. McCain,” sending a copy to the senator.

“To reciprocate, if you need any zoning in the county, let me know,” Mr. Diamond wrote. (Mr. Diamond said it was the kind of joke he often made.)

Mr. McCain has campaigned as a critic of the corrupting influence of money and politics, saying he had learned a lesson from a late 1980s scandal over his part in an intervention with banking regulators examining a savings and loan controlled by a patron, Charles Keating. Since then, Mr. McCain vowed to embrace ethics standards that set him apart from many colleagues.

“I have carefully avoided situations that might even tangentially be construed as a less than proper use of my office,” he wrote in his memoir, “Worth the Fighting For” (Random House, 2002).

Mr. McCain once publicly criticized Mr. Diamond as lobbying too hard for his own financial interests. In 1995, Mr. McCain called it “unheard of” that Mr. Diamond had hired a Washington lobbyist to try to block construction of a federal building in Tucson that threatened to take away some of his rental income. “I didn’t talk to him for one year,” Mr. Diamond said of Mr. McCain. “I was annoyed.”

Legislating Land Deals

Mr. McCain has been willing, though, to help sponsor bills authorizing federal land exchanges that Mr. Diamond sought. Former Representative Jim Kolbe, another Arizona Republican close to Mr. Diamond, said Mr. Diamond often proposed such deals and impressed lawmakers with his frankness about the potential sensitivities, Mr. Kolbe said.

“He would tell you, ‘I don’t think you should get on this one, this one is too close to where you live, let another member of the delegation work on this one,’ ” Mr. Kolbe said. “He never tried to flim-flam you.”

Such exchanges can serve a public interest by expanding parks or wilderness areas. But many environmentalists and other analysts have also concluded that such trades almost invariably give private developers a profitable bargain at public expense. Although federal rules stipulate that public land can be traded for private land only of “equal value,” appraisals of unusual property or in fast-growing areas are highly variable and developers often apply political pressure to get favorable terms.

A study in 2000 by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office cited “inherent difficulties” and “fundamental inefficiencies” in such exchanges and urged Congress to discontinue them.

The first two swaps involving Mr. Diamond that Mr. McCain helped sponsor were initially supported by local governments and conservationists, and Mr. Diamond argues the land would be worth far more today. But many Arizona conservationists later protested that the federal deals gave away too much.

“Don Diamond has done very well through these land exchanges,” said Sandy Bahr, director of the Arizona chapter of the Sierra Club. “It is the public that got shortchanged.”

The McCain campaign noted that the bills left the terms of any acquisitions to the Interior Department, but environmentalists argued that the legislation set the parameters.

“It’s not like there is some market mechanism at work,” Ms. Bahr said.

The laws expanded what is now the Saguaro National Park just outside Tucson to insulate it from proposed Diamond projects, including one to build 10,000 houses and four resorts on the 4,400-acre Rocking K Ranch nearby. Mr. Diamond had bought the ranch for less than $10 million in 1979.

In the first deal, Mr. McCain was the sole Senate sponsor of a 1991 law authorizing the Department of the Interior to acquire about 2,000 acres of the ranch, which local environmentalists valued at about $5 million but Mr. Diamond and parks appraisers put at around $30 million.

Over the next five years, the government paid him more than $23 million for the land and traded him two parcels of about 50 acres in upscale Scottsdale, Ariz. And the expanded Saguaro also added to the value of the remaining Rocking K land, where Mr. Diamond is still planning to build 3,000 houses along with resorts and golf courses.

When The Arizona Republic linked Mr. McCain’s support for the bill to Mr. Diamond’s fund-raising, Mr. McCain called the implication “outrageous and disgusting.”

In 1994, Mr. McCain sponsored, along with a Senate colleague at the time, Dennis DeConcini, Democrat of Arizona, another law expanding the park by again acquiring land from Mr. Diamond. To carry out the expansion, the Interior Department has so far taken over about 630 acres from Mr. Diamond in exchange for about 4,300 acres near Phoenix.

Last year, Mr. McCain co-sponsored another bill with Senator Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, that would grant Mr. Diamond about 1,250 acres south of Tucson in exchange for requiring him to contribute about 2,500 acres to other conservation areas — a scaled-back version of a 2003 proposal that collapsed under protests that it was too generous to Mr. Diamond. A Senate committee passed it to the floor this month.

A Deal and a Lawsuit

In the mid-1990s, Mr. Diamond set his sights on Monterey County, Calif., where the Army was closing Fort Ord. It was a dream property — hundreds of undeveloped acres and two golf courses in the ocean-misted hills overlooking Monterey Bay, one of California’s great tourist destinations.

Tipped off by a fellow Tucson developer, Mr. Diamond had snapped up a housing complex there that had been built on land leased from the Army, giving him the inside track to buying the land when the base shut down.

After the Army did so in 1994, Mr. Diamond asked Mr. McCain, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, for an introduction with an Army official who could work out a sale. Mr. McCain’s legislative aide, Ann Sauer, arranged a meeting with Paul W. Johnson, a deputy assistant secretary, a Diamond executive involved in the deal said.

When the talks stalled over price and water supply, Ms. Sauer interceded with the Army, according to Mr. Diamond’s deposition and others involved. “She showed up and got the thing resolved,” Mr. Diamond said.

Mr. McCain’s campaign aides said in a statement they did not believe Ms. Sauer’s involvement went beyond setting up the Pentagon meeting. Ms. Sauer, who no longer works for Mr. McCain, said she could not recall details of her role. A spokesman for the Army declined to comment.

Mr. Diamond finally bought the land for $250,000 in 1999. He obtained an unusual guarantee from the Army that provided a generous water allowance outside the standard allocation process — a bonus that continues to rankle municipal officials on the dry Monterey Peninsula.

“Those guys got a sweetheart deal,” said Michael Keenan, whose family bought the housing complex from Mr. Diamond for nearly $30 million two years later. Mr. Diamond acknowledged turning a profit of $20 million.

Even before he completed his negotiations with the Army, Mr. Diamond had begun turning his attention to an even bigger prize: the two Fort Ord golf courses, which had been sold to the city of Seaside.

Mr. Diamond and his partners imagined building high-end condominiums and a luxury hotel by the links, a project they described in an internal memorandum as a “World Series, final game, out of the park, grand slam home run.”

When Seaside solicited submissions in 1998 from bidders competing to develop a world-class resort, Mr. Diamond sought to exploit his Washington connections. His package included the laudatory letters from Mr. McCain, Mr. Kyl and Mr. Kolbe.

“The folks that were there at the time were sort of, like, star struck: ‘God, these people really know some high-up people,’ ” said a former senior Seaside official, who requested anonymity to speak candidly.

Mr. Diamond acknowledged that, as court papers show, he tried more than once to enlist Mr. McCain in assisting the city on other matters as the selection process continued. “I don’t mind trying,” he said. For instance, in 2002, Mr. Diamond forwarded to Mr. McCain an article from The Monterey Herald about Seaside’s problems in a water dispute. “As per our conversation today,” he wrote, “I would appreciate it if you would follow up and drop a line to the city manager of Seaside.”

He added in a postscript, “Sorry you can’t make it to the Yankees series,”

Daniel E. Keen, the former Seaside city manager, recalled: “Diamond had a relationship with McCain. He was offering to help.”

Mr. McCain rejected that request as “inappropriate at that time” because he was poised to regain the chairmanship of the Senate Commerce Committee, Mr. Diamond said in the deposition. “John said that he would rather not get involved. He didn’t think that it was right.”

Mr. Diamond’s courtship of Seaside almost unraveled the next year when a rival developer, Danny Bakewell Sr., a civil rights activist, filed a lawsuit charging that Mr. Diamond had conspired to rig the selection process. The company running the former Army golf courses, BSL Golf, was acting as the city’s agent to pick a developer, and Mr. Bakewell’s lawyers presented documents showing that Mr. Diamond offered to give BSL a stake in the resort in exchange for helping him win the project. Mr. Diamond and BSL denied any wrongdoing and settled the suit for an undisclosed sum in 2004.

Though Mr. McCain helped with the Fort Ord deals, Mr. Diamond said, he still thinks that Mr. McCain is too worried about avoiding any appearance of a favor. “He doesn’t bring home enough for the state,” Mr. Diamond said. “It is a sore subject between us.”

Kitty Bennett and Barclay Walsh contributed research.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (45410)9/8/2008 11:01:56 PM
From: puborectalis  Respond to of 224841
 
September 8, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
Real Wars and the U.S. Culture War
By ROGER COHEN
The culture-war surge in the U.S election campaign has come at the expense of meaningful debate about the real wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. That’s dangerous because they stand at critical junctures.

We’ve had Sarah Palin at the Republican National Convention setting a new low for foreign policy with her attempt to mock Barack Obama’s approach to international terrorists: “He’s worried that someone won’t read them their rights.”

I’m sorry, Ms. Palin, but out there in Alaska, between moose shoots, did you hear about Bagram, Abu Ghraib, renditions, waterboarding, Guantánamo and the rest?

John McCain knows what happens when those rights disappear. He described his Vietnamese nightmare the next night: “They worked me over harder than they ever had before. For a long time. And they broke me.”

A man remembers getting broken: that’s why McCain fought the use of torture by the Bush administration. His condoning of those words from his vice-presidential candidate is appalling. Foreign policy be damned if you can score a God-fearing-macho-versus-liberal-constitutionalist point.

But the bloody wars, seven years after 9/11, have not paused for this sterile U.S. cultural battle. With some 180,000 troops in the two theaters, U.S. reserve capacity is stretched to the limit — something Iran knows when it keeps the centrifuges turning and Russia knows when it grabs Georgia.

In Afghanistan, a Taliban-led insurgency is growing in reach and effectiveness. There’s talk of a mini-surge in U.S. troops there — now about 34,000 — to counter the threat, but little serious reflection on what precise end perhaps 12,000 additional forces would serve. Until that’s clarified, I’m against the mini-surge.

France, which just mini-surged in Afghanistan, is now embroiled in an agonizing debate over the slaying of 10 soldiers, mostly paratroopers, east of Kabul on Aug. 18. At least one had his throat slit. Photos in Paris Match of Taliban forces with uniforms of the Frenchmen have enflamed the national mood.

Hervé Morin, the Defense Minister, has called for “national unity” in fighting a threat “from the Middle Ages.” But polls suggest a majority of the French favor withdrawal. A furor is building over suggestions the paratroopers were abandoned.

These French rumblings are a reminder that the NATO coalition in Afghanistan is fragile and that sending more forces is no remedy in itself.

Obama has been right to say Iraq exacted a price on the Afghan campaign — something McCain airily denies. But his calls to send “at least two additional combat brigades” to Afghanistan and his promise in Denver to “finish the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan” are rash.

After 30 years of war, the Afghan struggle won’t be finished for another 30. It’s a weak country, sandwiched between Iran and Pakistan, two far stronger ones that do not wish it well. The Afghan-Pakistani border cannot be sealed, although it can be better policed; the jihadi traffic across it will continue.

None of this means the United States is condemned to having tens of thousands of troops there for decades — although I’d say that’s more likely than victory in four years.

On the day the French were attacked, a large American military base — Camp Salerno in eastern Khost province — came under sustained Taliban assault. I spoke to a U.S. official who’s just ended an 18-month assignment in Khost.

He sees the exclusive focus on more troops as wrong-headed. The priority must be “an Afghan surge.” Get the Afghan national army to 120,000 troops as a priority, from about half that level today. If more U.S. troops do go, training Afghans should be their first task. Only Afghans can win this.

Pour money into Afghan army salaries (now about $100 a month). Keep buying loyalty with US cash in the provinces, where it counts. Make a big push on human capital — “engineering minds is becoming far more important these days than engineering more roads.” If the best brains leave, the country’s lost.

Rethink policy toward schools. Getting madrassahs registered with the government — and so gaining some control over curricula — is smarter than stigmatizing them and pushing students over the border into Waziri zealotry. Get serious about the national reconciliation program, designed to bring ex-Taliban moderates into politics. Focus on Pakistan.

Absent such cornerstones of a strategy — and absent realistic expectations — surging in Afghanistan is a mistake.

As for Iraq, gains are real but fragile. I don’t see how Obama’s “responsible” withdrawal squares with his 16-month time frame for it. If we don’t want Sunni Iraq to remarry Al Qaeda — and that’s a paramount strategic aim — we’re going to have to play buffer against the dominant Shia for several years. That won’t require the current 146,000 troops, but will require many tens of thousands through the next presidency.

Two intractable wars should preclude the culture war McCain has just so shamelessly embraced. He loves the word “fight.” So fight on the issues — and let the people decide.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (45410)9/8/2008 11:37:59 PM
From: puborectalis  Respond to of 224841
 
September 8, 2008
Obama objects to severance for ousted CEOs
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 11:14 p.m. ET

FARMINGTON HILLS, Mich. (AP) -- Barack Obama objected to reports Monday that the ousted heads of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may receive lucrative severance packages and asked the Bush administration to ensure their ''poor leadership'' isn't rewarded.

''Under no circumstances should the executives of these institutions earn a windfall at a time when the U.S. Treasury has taken unprecedented steps to rescue these companies with taxpayer resources,'' Obama said in a letter to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Housing Finance Agency Director James Lockhart. ''I urge you immediately to clarify that the agreement with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac voids any such inappropriate windfall payments to outgoing CEOs and senior management.''

Obama was reacting to a report Monday in The New York Times on a consulting firm's analysis that found departing Fannie Mae head Daniel Mudd stands to collect $9.3 million in severance pay, retirement benefits and deferred compensation under the terms of his employment contract, provided his dismissal is deemed to be ''without cause.''

Treasury spokeswoman Brookly McLaughlin said Treasury would have no immediate response to Obama's letter.

Obama said Congress explicitly gave the Treasury Department authority to block any severance packages as part of a takeover.

''It would be a gross violation of the public trust to fail to use this authority now, while American taxpayers and American homeowners, already struggling in a weak economy, are being asked to accept an historic intervention to rescue these institutions,'' he said.

Paulson announced Sunday that the government would take control of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, temporarily putting them in a government conservatorship, replacing their CEOs and taking a financial stake in the companies. The move could end up costing taxpayers billions of dollars.

The two companies together own or guarantee more than $5 trillion in mortgages.

Obama said he recognizes government intervention was necessary to help solve the housing crisis, and asked Paulson and Lockhart to report back on ''what steps are being taken to ensure that the agreement is responsible and that Fannie and Freddie can continue to fulfill their important missions without wasting taxpayer dollars or rewarding poor leadership.''

------

AP Economics Writer Martin Crutsinger in Washington contributed to this report.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (45410)9/9/2008 6:27:19 AM
From: tonto3 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224841
 
Kenneth, you deliberately posted a lie about Palin because you were in such a rush to harm someone from a party other than the democratic party that you went to a blog and posted a comment by an irresponsible stranger and then decided not to correct your lie until you were pressured to do so. You made it very clear to us that you do not care about honesty, you are on a destruction mission in your little mind. Your plan is silly and juvenile.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (45410)9/9/2008 10:44:29 AM
From: longnshort  Respond to of 224841
 
Labor fears bias may hurt Obama
Sean Lengell (Contact)
Monday, September 8, 2008

Labor leader Gerald W. McEntee has a simple plea to white blue-collar workers - don't be afraid to vote for Sen. Barack Obama because he is black.

"There are some of our local union presidents who are afraid - that's the word, afraid - to give out literature for Barack Obama," Mr. McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, told a gathering of Illinois delegates at the Democratic National Convention last month.

"You can't vote for Barack Obama because he's black? That's the color of his skin, and that is [irrelevant]."

Mr. McEntee's concern is shared by other union leaders, who in recent weeks have made unflinching public calls to shame white members to cast aside prejudice and vote for the Illinois senator, who has the overwhelming endorsement of organized labor.

International Brotherhood of Teamsters President James P. Hoffa said unions leaders must confront racism head-on to ensure their members support Mr. Obama.

"There are people who are not going to vote for him because he's black, and we've got to hope that we can educate people to put aside their racism and to put their own interests No. 1," Mr. Hoffa said at the Democratic convention in Denver.

While organized labor nationwide has become more racially mixed in recent years, 12.5 million union members were white, 2.2 million black and 1.8 million Hispanic in 2007, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Organized labor historically has been a loyal and crucial voting bloc for the Democratic Party. In the 2004 presidential elections, Democratic Sen. John Kerry received 65 percent of the union vote, compared with 33 percent for President Bush, according to a survey by the AFL-CIO labor federation.

COLOR BARRIER?: Labor leader Gerald W. McEntee urges white union members to vote for Sen. Barack Obama. (Agence France-Presse/Getty Images)

Unions have a heavy investment in the November elections, expecting to spend about $400 million promoting issues and candidates - almost all Democrats - this election cycle. The AFL-CIO federation alone has said it will spend more than $200 million.

Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain has strong appeal among many white blue-collar workers. So Obama strategists last week scrapped their initial 50-state plan to focus on key battleground states, such as Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania - all union strongholds.

"The Republican Party has used things such as guns and gays and God in relationship in trying to get to some blue-collar members of unions," Mr. McEntee said. "They're going to use patriotism. They're going to use some things in some kind of racial connotation in regard to Obama."

Polls show Mr. Obama leading Mr. McCain. But potential voters often mask racial prejudice in pre-election surveys, which pollsters call the "Bradley effect," after former Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, a black Democrat who led by double digits in polls during his 1982 gubernatorial bid but lost on Election Day.

Adding to Mr. Obama's difficulty in wooing some union members was organized labor's initial support of New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton during in the Democratic primaries.

But Mr. McEntee, whose union first supported Mrs. Clinton but now endorses Mr. Obama, said the shift to the Illinois senator has been "relatively seamless."

"There's not a hangover in regards to the candidacy of Obama," he said.

AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Richard Trumka, while speaking to the United Steelworkers convention in Las Vegas in July, said Mr. Obama is the only candidate left in the presidential race who is on the side of working people.

"There's not a single good reason for any worker - especially any union member - to vote against Barack Obama," he said. "There's only one really bad reason to vote against him: because he's not white."

Chris Chafe, executive director of the Change to Win labor federation, which includes the Teamsters and the Service Employees International Union, said he doesn't think Mr. Obama's race will be a factor when his members go to the polls in November.

"My experience has always been, and polling proves it out, that union members vote overwhelming in support of the candidate who is going to do the most to help them hold on to the middle class," he said. "It's no different in this election than in any other."

• This article is based in part on wire service reports.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (45410)9/9/2008 12:38:49 PM
From: Brumar894 Recommendations  Respond to of 224841
 
Where did you read he was a tycoon?