GOP.com Blog

Barack Obama’s Halloween Costume

Liz Mair — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 10:20:58 GMT

It’s Halloween, but with just a few days until the presidential election, Barack Obama’s got to make the most of today, just like any other day. Stumping dressed up as a ghost, or Batman, or a vampire, or Elvis just isn’t going to cut it. Nope, Obama’s going as the candidate ready to lead America forward, through tough economic and national security challenges. Here’s his costume:

(as featured on Amazon.com)

John McCain, meanwhile, is hanging out with the Governator today.

Sticking It To The Dolphins

James Richardson — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 14:35:16 GMT

Barack Obama’s publicly noted interest in wealth redistribution extends far beyond his brief, but telling exchange with Joe ‘The Plumber’ Wurzelbacher. Since the fiercely contested Democratic primary, Obama has toed a consistently pro-tax, pro-spending line, and if you asked his campaign strategists, they’d probably say that helped pave the way to his victory. However, Obama’s positions on taxes have neither appealed to nor evidenced common sense in the eyes of everyone, for example ABC’s Charlie Gibson who moderated the Democratic debate in Philadelphia in April. Clearly unprepared for a night of intense questioning, Obama was unable to offer a viable explanation regarding his intention to raise the capital gains tax when Gibson noted that raising the capital gains tax does not increase government revenue, but instead does quite the opposite.

It turns out Charlie Gibson and the GOP haven’t been alone in querying the sensibility of Obama’s capital gains tax proposals, though. Today, the Wall Street Journal reports that Wayne Huizenga, owner of the Miami Dolphins, intends to sell up to half of his ownership in the NFL team for fear of excessive taxes. Barack Obama, he said to a Florida newspaper, "wants to double the capital gains tax, or almost double it. I'd rather give it to charity than to him.”

As Obama’s economic proposals state, he aims, in the spirit of “fairness,” to raise taxes, including, as the WSJ points out, the capital gains tax from 15% to 20%. And his plans to do so represent another way in which Obama’s economic proposals are wrong-headed. His redistributionist approach will penalize investments, risk jobs as businesses cope with skyrocketing taxes, and raise taxes on ordinary American citizens precisely when our nation needs the opposite. And, apparently, if you live in Miami, result in ownership changes to your local NFL franchise!

Obama’s Protectionism

Liz Mair — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 12:41:53 GMT

The WSJ has a(nother) great op-ed running today outlining the differences between John McCain and Barack Obama on trade. Here is a sampling:

Mr. McCain supports the bilateral pacts with Colombia, Panama and South Korea that have already been signed by the two governments. Colombia already enjoys preferential access to the U.S. market, and Mr. McCain stresses that opening Colombia to U.S. exports would be good for U.S. jobs and especially small and medium-sized businesses. He says it would help "a crucial democratic ally" in a region fraught with instability.

He has a similar view toward South Korea, which buys $50 billion of U.S. exports annually and has been a key ally in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Republican also favors renewing trade negotiating authority, which expired in 2007 and without which no new trade pact is likely to succeed on Capitol Hill.

Mr. Obama opposes the Colombia and South Korea agreements, for the same reasons cited by other Congressional Democrats. In the last presidential debate, Mr. Obama pointed to violence in Colombia against labor unions. The politically independent Colombian attorney general says violence against union members has come down sharply under President Alvaro Uribe, but Mr. Obama says that's insufficient.

He also opposes the South Korea pact, which would remove auto tariffs in both directions and end South Korea's use of nontariff barriers to protect its domestic markets. Mr. Obama says the U.S. buys "hundreds of thousands of cars" from South Korea and "we can get only 4,000-5,000 into South Korea." The Democrat wants assurances that the imbalance in auto sales will end. The Obama campaign declined to tell us whether he supports the Panama FTA or trade negotiating authority.

The more this subject gets discussed, the more it is clear: Obama doesn’t like trade, even though as the op-ed notes, “for most of the last 80 years a rough bipartisan consensus has held that free trade is in the American national interest.” The fact that Obama—who frankly has a virtually nonexistent record where bipartisan compromise is concerned-- can’t, or won’t, see that should be raising questions about his ability to lead us forward where economic issues are concerned, should he be elected next week.

Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

James Richardson — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 12:25:49 GMT

Tonight, Barack Obama will attempt, in a 30 minute, celebrific infomercial, to convince voters that he is, in fact, capable of leading the United States. In honor of Obama making his closing argument that yes, he is qualified to be our next Commander-in-Chief, I offer you this:

Questionable

Liz Mair — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 10:07:26 GMT

Is it just me, or does this seem a bit dubious? From today’s Chicago Sun-Times:

Dr. Eric Whitaker and Sen. Barack Obama go way back.

Their friendship began when they were graduate students at Harvard University. Now, Whitaker is one of Obama's closest advisers.

Whitaker, 43, of Chicago, often travels with the presidential hopeful on the campaign trail and has vacationed with him in Hawaii. There's talk Whitaker could be in line for a federal appointment if Obama becomes president.

Five years ago, Obama, then an Illinois state senator, gave a "glowing'' reference for Whitaker to Tony Rezko, the now-convicted political fixer who helped Gov. Blagojevich find people to run state agencies. Blagojevich hired Whitaker to be the state's public health director.

Obama has said that's the only time he can recall talking to Rezko -- who was a major campaign fund-raiser for him and for Blagojevich -- about getting anyone a state job. (my emphasis added)

It’s worth reiterating that Rezko was charged with committing a number of corruption offenses, and indeed convicted earlier this year on 16 counts.

For Blagojevich’s part, it was reported last month that investigators looking into the behavior of the man to whom Barack Obama apparently acted as a campaign adviser back in 2004 “believe they've established solid evidence of fraud and conspiracy.”

And Obama gave one of them a reference for a friend who was hired by the other for an important job.

If that doesn’t say change, I just don’t know what does.

On the Redistribution of Wealth

Liz Mair — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:00:56 GMT

Over the last few weeks, there’s been plenty of focus among the media and individual voters alike on Barack Obama’s statement that “when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.” That is especially so given that Obama has indicated that he does not regret making this comment in his now well-known conversation with Joe the Plumber.

Today, however, we gather that that conversation was not the first time where Obama had indicated an interest in wealth-redistribution. In an interview from 2001 that Obama did with Chicago radio station WBEZ (h/t Drudge), he seemed to signal his regret that the Supreme Court (and the Warren Court, specifically) “never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth.” Hmmm….

Setting aside Obama’s comment to Joe the Plumber, a quick glance at his economic proposals would indicate that as president, he’ll be ready to venture into the issue of redistribution of wealth. The New Hampshire Union Leader really called it when they wrote that Obama “proposes to use the power of the state to redistribute outcomes as he prefers to see them” and that his policies amount to “failed redistributionism wrapped in pretty new paper.”

Just something to bear in mind before you head to the polls next week, should you be one of the many Americans, including many members of the middle class, who does not want your wealth spread around by Mr. Hope-and-Change, aided by his allies, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid…

"A Dangerous Threesome"

Liz Mair — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 11:08:33 GMT

Politico’s Jonathan Martin notes comments made by John McCain this morning:

This election comes down to how you want your hard earned money spent. Do you want to keep it and invest it in your future, or have it taken by the most liberal person to ever run for the Presidency and the Democratic leaders who have been running congress for the past two years -- Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid?

No, I do not. Nor do I want the federal government to spend an additional $1.297 trillion over the next four years, which is another thing that Barack Obama promises to do as president.

ACORN’s Roots…

James Richardson — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 14:23:36 GMT

ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) recently has garnered national attention in connection with the issue of vote fraud. As you may know, in February ACORN’s political action committee endorsed Obama for president, and earlier this month found itself “implicated in voter-fraud schemes 15 states.”

While Obama’s ties to ACORN are troubling, he’s not the only prominent Democrat who has them. According to today’s Boston Herald, Governor Deval Patrick (D-MA), Obama’s national campaign co-chairman, represented the left-wing, scandal-plagued group in a 1993 law suit, and even went so far as to secure a $33,000 grant for the embattled organization’s Springfield branch this year.

It’s astounding Governor Patrick would even consider dolling out taxpayer funds to Obama’s friends at ACORN. It’s all the more concerning that he actually did it.

"I Am Joe"

James Richardson — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 13:36:36 GMT

Obama: Change Does Not Equal Transparency

James Richardson — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 11:54:07 GMT

Today, the RNC launched our newest site, www.RNCdonors.com, which allows access to a searchable database of un-itemized RNC donors – those who contributed less than $200 to the RNC from the time Sen. John McCain became the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.

Of course, Barack Obama, who reneged on his pledge to accept public financing, has yet to disclose the same information – and, according to recent media reports, has shown no apparent interest in doing so.

Openness and transparency is, sadly, nothing more than a quaint talking point for the Obama campaign.

If the Obama campaign is, as Barack Obama contends, the most transparent campaign in history, why not disclose the names of small donors? Surely giving the public access to information must be a higher priority than preventing other Democrats from hitting up one’s list.

Illinois’ junior senator would do well to learn transparency is more than an election buzz-word.

Improving America’s Image Abroad

Liz Mair — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:31:52 GMT

I’ve written here previously about Barack Obama’s positioning on trade and how it seems to sit rather badly with key leaders in allied countries, including Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and ex-EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson. Today brings news of another action taken by overseas leaders that suggests that they’re not on the same page as Obama when it comes to trade, and are unlikely to prove to be fans of his efforts to improve the US’ image abroad while taking a very trade-skeptical approach. From the WSJ:

Barack Obama's promise to unilaterally rewrite the North American Free Trade Agreement if Canada and Mexico won't go along with his ideas on labor and the environment has not gone unnoticed in Ottawa. If Canadians are going to have a tougher time selling their goods and services south of the border, who can blame them for looking east -- across the Atlantic to Europe.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and President Nicolas Sarkozy of France signed an agreement Friday to begin negotiations for a free trade pact between Canada and the European Union. A Canada-EU study released last week outlines the joint economic benefits of such a partnership, with two-way trade estimated to increase 22.9% by 2014.

[…]

At a news conference on Friday, Mr. Harper said, "We must stand against protectionism and work to lower and eliminate barriers."

I totally agree with Mr. Harper, but it’s fairly clear by now that Obama doesn’t. That’s too bad, because the US, like Canada, stands to benefit from more trade, not less. Mind you, sound economic policy has never been the cornerstone of Obama’s candidacy: This is the guy whose answer to our economic problems is not to grow the economy and expand the size of the pie so that everyone gets more crust and more filling, but rather to take money from ordinary Americans in pretty average economic circumstances, and “spread” it around—while of course putting plans in place for an additional $1.2 trillion in new spending over the course of just a single four-year term.

This is Interesting

Liz Mair — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 13:23:45 GMT

From the Washington Times this morning:

Former Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright said Thursday the Iraq war has created damaging consequences for U.S. diplomacy, but Washington should not agree to a specific deadline for withdrawing troops in the midst of conflict - something proposed last year by the candidate she now supports, Sen. Barack Obama.

"I never was for a date certain," Mrs. Albright told editors and reporters at The Washington Times. "In Bosnia, we gave a date certain, and then we couldn't get out and that undercut our credibility."

She was referring to the pullout of 20,000 U.S. troops from the war-torn Balkans. The troops were sent to help enforce the 1995 Dayton peace accords that ended the Bosnia war, following the breakup of the former Yugoslavia, but stayed beyond a 1996 deadline initially set by President Clinton.

Just a small reminder to Barack Obama…

Excuses, Excuses

Liz Mair — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 13:23:10 GMT

One of the things that most annoys me about Barack Obama is his apparent disdain for progressing (or even maintaining) any and all international trade, including with key allies, such as, say, Colombia. In Wednesday’s final presidential debate, he “explained” away his opposition to the Colombia Free Trade deal by referencing violence targeted against labor leaders in the South American country, supposedly “on a fairly consistent basis.” But as the Wall Street Journal notes, there are some problems with Obama’s “explanation” of his opposition to this agreement:

It is true that Colombia has a history of violence. But since President Álvaro Uribe took office in 2002, that violence has been substantially reduced. The homicide rate through the end of 2007 was down by 40.4% and the rate among union members was down almost 87%. There is nothing "consistent" about a drop to 26 union member murders in 2007 from 155 in 2000.

That does indeed make it sound like the notion of labor leaders being targeted for assassination on Obama’s “fairly consistent basis” is pulled from the past, not the present. Ditto his claim that “there have not been any prosecutions, actually”:

As for prosecutions: In union-member killings, there were zero convictions from 1991-2000 and one in 2001. But from 2002-2007, there were 80. According to the Colombian attorney general's office, 29% of those murders were "found to have been results of theft, petty crime and random violence unrelated to union activity." Mr. Uribe has nonetheless created a special investigative unit for crimes against union members, and he expanded a special government protection program for unions.

More broadly, in 2004 Mr. Uribe pushed through congress a judicial reform that has reduced the average time needed to issue an indictment for a homicide to 50 days from 493. He also increased the budget for the attorney general's office to $598 million in 2008, from $346 million in 2002 -- a 73% increase.

During the debate, John McCain indicated that Obama’s understanding of the importance of free trade to Colombia was lacking. It would seem that his talking points are, too. Perhaps his union endorsers should work some new ones up.

Obama’s “Born Alive” Record

James Richardson — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 22:56:24 GMT

Barack Obama’s record on the “Born Alive” issue is, to be sure, extreme.

Let’s be quite clear here: In the Illinois State Senate, Barack Obama voted at least six times against legislation that would protect the life of a child born alive during an abortion procedure. And while Obama says he would have supported the federal version of the “born alive” legislation, he voted against a “nearly identical” bill in Illinois.

Obama on Energy

Liz Mair — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 22:07:08 GMT

He says “no.. no.. no.”

No, really, he does!

On drilling, Obama said “Now the latest scheme is well, we're going to drill offshore.”

On developing a better car battery that would leapfrog commercially available hybrids and plug-ins, Obama said “In this campaign, John McCain is offering the same old gimmicks…” (This is the “no” I can never get over).

On nuclear power, Obama said “I am not a nuclear energy proponent.”

In essence, Obama doesn’t really have an energy plan. Does that mean the candidate of “change” is for the status quo?

More on the Debate

Liz Mair — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 22:04:02 GMT

Just a few points worth noting:

Per Politico’s Ben Smith, “In 1995, State Senator Alice Palmer introduced her chosen successor, Barack Obama, to a few of the district’s influential liberals at the home of two well known figures on the local left: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.” That sounds pretty much like the “political career launch” that John McCain described earlier.

ACORN’s political action committee endorsed Obama; per the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, “U.S. Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign paid more than $800,000 to an offshoot of the liberal Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now”; the Woods Fund, on whose board Obama sat, dished out grants of nearly $200,000 to ACORN; per the WSJ’s John Fund, “In 1992, Acorn hired Mr. Obama to run a voter registration effort. He later became a trainer for the group, as well as its lawyer in election law cases.” So that’s that on ACORN, then.

The Final Presidential Debate

Liz Mair — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 21:32:45 GMT

The final presidential debate is now underway. A couple of points worth noting about what Barack Obama has been saying:

Obama restates his claim that his tax plan will cut taxes for 95% of Americans. Per the WSJ’s Kimberley Strassel, though, “40% of Americans today don't pay income taxes.” That’s quite a distortion that Obama is pushing by continuing to make his “95%” claim.

Obama mentions energy. Not to sound like a broken record, but Obama voted for the 2005 energy bill, which gave $2.8 billion in subsidies away to oil and gas companies. John McCain did not (he just said that bill was “full of goodies”—quite right). That is worth noting.

Joe the Plumber got lots of attention at the outset of the debate. For the record, he doesn’t seem to like Obama’s tax plans very much. That’s not terribly surprising—I suspect there are plenty of small-business owners and would-be small-business owners who feel the same.

Re: the budget deficit: Obama doesn’t have much interest in reducing it. In fact, he said of the deficit in July that “I do not make a promise that we can reduce it by 2013 because I think it is important for us to make some critical investments right now in America's families.” Oh, by the way, Obama plans to increase federal spending by over $1 trillion over the course of just one four-year term alone. “Some” critical investments, indeed.

Today’s Must Read

Liz Mair — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 13:41:48 GMT

It’s been a busy day so far here at RNC HQ. As you’ll know, there’s a presidential debate tonight, and plenty else going on, too. So, I’m only belatedly drawing your attention to this op-ed by Peter Wallison in today’s Wall Street Journal.

It’s a definite must-read, because it succinctly debunks Democratic talking points regarding “Republican deregulation,” the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, and the association of both items with the current financial crisis. It also discusses the deregulation of Fannie and Freddie, and how that led to both GSEs’ own difficulties, and the development of the sub-prime mortgage market that is at the root of this whole mess. Most interestingly, it discusses Barack Obama’s possible complicity in allowing this situation to arise by failing to take key steps to rein in Fannie and Freddie:

In the summer of 2005, a bill emerged from the Senate Banking Committee that considerably tightened regulations on Fannie and Freddie, including controls over their capital and their ability to hold portfolios of mortgages or mortgage-backed securities. All the Republicans voted for the bill in committee; all the Democrats voted against it. To get the bill to a vote in the Senate, a few Democratic votes were necessary to limit debate. This was a time for the leadership Sen. Obama says he can offer, but neither he nor any other Democrat stepped forward.

Instead, by his own account, Mr. Obama wrote a letter to the Treasury Secretary, allegedly putting himself on record that subprime loans were dangerous and had to be dealt with. This is revealing; if true, it indicates Sen. Obama knew there was a problem with subprime lending -- but was unwilling to confront his own party by pressing for legislation to control it. As a demonstration of character and leadership capacity, it bears a strong resemblance to something else in Sen. Obama's past: voting present.

Democrats and Obama supporters won’t like reading this. Blaming the current mess on “Republican deregulation” is convenient and easy; looking at how one’s own actions may have contributed to what we’re now seeing is comparatively hard. But for anyone paying attention, the facts are clear. Never mind what the RNC has to say about it, Bill Clinton himself says of “Republican deregulation” effort Gramm-Leach-Bliley, “I don't see that signing that bill had anything to do with the current crisis”… though if Obama’s own account is to be believed, his proverbial “present” vote just might, and may be another indicator of why he’s just not quite up to the task of becoming president.

All Debate, All The Time

Liz Mair — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:33:36 GMT

The exchange between Barack Obama and John McCain on trade was particularly interesting to me, as someone who is personally very interested in the issue. For as much as Obama tried to not sound like the protectionist that he is, it’s worth noting that his positioning on trade has alienated leaders in Europe (UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband, ex-EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson), Canada (Prime Minister Stephen Harper) and Latin America (Colombian President Uribe). I would further note that this is not an exhaustive list.

Who Are Obama’s Donors?

Liz Mair — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 16:52:54 GMT

Tom Fitton, writing at The Hill, asks that question, and writes:

The Obama campaign has failed to release the names of donors responsible for approximately half of his campaign’s $426.9 million: those who have contributed less than $200.

In addition, press reports allege Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has accepted illegal online campaign contributions from this category of donors, which include funds allegedly donated by foreign nationals.

The Obama campaign appears to be selectively complying with campaign finance laws. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) should immediately investigate allegations of foreign campaign contributions made to the Obama campaign possibly corrupting this presidential election.

The McCain campaign, by contrast, has made its entire donor database available online.

In the interest of transparency the Obama campaign should publicly list the source of every single campaign contribution. The American people deserve to know for certain that all campaign finance laws are being followed.

Calculate the Future Value of Your 401(k)

Liz Mair — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 10:06:59 GMT

Given the mess on Wall Street these days, a lot of Americans are concerned about the value of our investments, and rightly so. Setting aside the economic crisis, the tax plans being proposed by John McCain and Barack Obama, respectively, differ quite a bit, and Americans for Tax Reform has created a 401(k) calculator to assess what your 401(k)’s value could be under four different tax scenarios. Here’s the calculator—try it out, and see for yourself whose plan is best for increasing the value of a key investment:

If you’re a blogger or a Facebook user, you can grab the code for the calculator widget or install the Facebook application by clicking here and following the links at the bottom of the page.

Obama Gets Ripped on Spending

Liz Mair — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 09:48:01 GMT

Today’s New York Post contains an editorial on Barack Obama’s spending plans that is definitely worth a read. Excerpts:

You'd think having to engineer a $700 billion Wall Street rescue would've taught Washington the importance of a sound bottom line.

Apparently not - especially if Democrats take full control of the nation next year.

That much was made plain yesterday, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi kicked off her push for an emergency "economic stimulus" package.

Though what, exactly, she plans to "stimulate" - besides government debt and long-term taxpayer obligations, of course - remains unclear.

Pelosi said last week that her plan's price tag could reach $150 billion - largely to expand government unemployment benefits and food-stamp programs.

That alone should give the lie to Barack Obama's pledge that everything in his vaunted economic plan is "paid for" - either in revenue savings or new taxes.

Not with free-spending allies like Pelosi on the Hill, it won't be.

Actually, Obama was up to many of the same tricks himself yesterday, calling for massive new government spending as part of a new "middle-class rescue plan."

Among his proposed goodies: cash payouts to states for infrastructure-rebuilding projects, expanded unemployment benefits and fast-tracked loans to the US auto industry.

"How will we pay for it?" he asked rhetorically. "You can't ask that when we're paying $10 billion a month to rebuild Iraq."

Notice how that's not an answer.

Yes, it’s not an answer, and I noticed. Obama is proposing new spending totaling $1 trillion or so over the course of just one four-year presidential term, and it really is about time that he started explaining how he will pay for it all, rather than just claiming that he will. The details matter.

"Guilt By Participation”

James Richardson — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:19:40 GMT

A Question of Judgment and Candor

James Richardson — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 16:39:21 GMT

After months of senior Obama advisors obfuscating regarding Barack Obama’s relationship with Bill Ayers, the McCain-Palin campaign released a new web ad today:

The ad highlights that Illinois’ junior senator launched his political career from the living room of Ayers, and that he voluntarily served alongside Ayers on the board of a foundation which doled out more than “$100 million to ideological allies with no discernible improvement in education” (and, I’d add, all this with Obama apparently having knowledge of Ayers having committed terrorist acts). But as the ad indicates, Obama’s relationship with Ayers isn’t the issue, his judgment and candor are. Obama may describe Ayers as “a guy who lives in my neighborhood,” but to people like John Murtagh, whose family and home were targets of Ayers’ Weather Underground, he is far more than that and questions—especially regarding Obama’s judgment, something quite separate to his political prowess--abound.

That shouldn’t be the case where a would-be president is concerned. It’s time for Obama, the de facto leader of the Democratic Party, to be upfront and honest about Ayers.

“Not a subject” Obama “Wants to spend days talking about”

Liz Mair — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 10:03:46 GMT

Earlier this week, the Obama campaign released an ad seemingly aimed at reassuring gun owners about their candidate’s stance on Second Amendment rights. They evidently did so without telling the national media, a decision that Politico’s Ben Smith attributed to the fact that gun rights are “not a subject the campaign particularly wants to spend days talking about.” Well, quite… Obama’s ad would never pass a credible fact check, and he is the most anti-gun presidential candidate in history—and the National Rifle Association knows it.

Today, arguably the most well-known group committed to defending Second Amendment rights announced that it is endorsing John McCain. NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre will be traveling to PA, MO, CO and NV—states where gun rights are kind of a big deal-- to draw attention to the endorsement; per the AP, the NRA has already spent more than $2.3 million opposing Barack Obama.

Clearly, the NRA feels that Obama can’t be trusted where defense of Second Amendment Rights is concerned. With Obama having voted for legislation that “would have banned most of the privately held hunting shotguns, target rifles, and black powder rifles” in Illinois in 2003, having voted against legislation “drafted to protect homeowners from prosecution in cases where they used a firearm to halt a home invasion” in 2004, having indicated in 1996 that he supported a ban on “the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns,” and having indicated this year that he supported the DC handgun ban, their read of Obama’s views on guns and gun rights is fairly understandable.

Spending…

Liz Mair — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 22:07:27 GMT

Irrespective of what Barack Obama may be saying tonight re: spending, here’s the relevant fact: He’s proposing $1.238 trillion in new spending over the course of a single White House term.

$1.238 trillion.

That is extraordinary. And not in a good way.

A Couple of Energy-related points Arising out of Tonight’s Debate

Liz Mair — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 22:03:07 GMT

We, at the RNC, are watching the presidential debate tonight. Energy was discussed a few minutes ago, and this is just a quick reminder of two points relevant to that discussion arising out of what was said:

Barack Obama, as we all know, voted for the 2005 energy bill, which gave away $2.8 billion in subsidies to the oil and gas industry. John McCain did not.

Barack Obama says he supports nuclear energy, but he didn’t say that when he had the chance at a town hall event last year. In fact, this is what he said in Iowa last December: "I start off with the premise that nuclear energy is not optimal. I am not a nuclear energy proponent." So that’s that, then.

John McCain Today...

James Richardson — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 15:33:59 GMT

From today's stop in Albuquerque, New Mexico:

Our current economic crisis is a good case in point. What was his actual record in the years before the great economic crisis of our lifetimes?

This crisis started in our housing market in the form of subprime loans that were pushed on people who could not afford them. Bad mortgages were being backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and it was only a matter of time before a contagion of unsustainable debt began to spread. This corruption was encouraged by Democrats in Congress, and abetted by Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has accused me of opposing regulation to avert this crisis. I guess he believes if a lie is big enough and repeated often enough it will be believed. But the truth is I was the one who called at the time for tighter restrictions on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that could have helped prevent this crisis from happening in the first place.

Senator Obama was silent on the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and his Democratic allies in Congress opposed every effort to rein them in. As recently as September of last year he said that subprime loans had been, quote, “a good idea.” Well, Senator Obama, that “good idea” has now plunged this country into the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

To hear him talk now, you’d think he’d always opposed the dangerous practices at these institutions. But there is absolutely nothing in his record to suggest he did. He was surely familiar with the people who were creating this problem. The executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have advised him, and he has taken their money for his campaign. He has received more money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac than any other senator in history, with the exception of the chairman of the committee overseeing them. Did he ever talk to the executives at Fannie and Freddie about these reckless loans? Did he ever discuss with them the stronger oversight I proposed? If Senator Obama is such a champion of financial regulation, why didn’t he support these regulations that could have prevented this crisis in the first place? He won’t tell you, but you deserve an answer.

This Doesn’t Sound Good…

Liz Mair — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 12:05:43 GMT

Sen. Barack Obama, who vows to change Washington by trimming wasteful spending and disclosing special-interest requests, wrote the Bush administration last year to seek a multimillion-dollar federal grant for a Chicago housing project that is behind schedule and whose development team includes a longtime political supporter.

Mr. Obama's letter, however, was never disclosed publicly. In fact, the letter was ghostwritten for him by a consultant for the Chicago Housing Authority, which wanted the money - a practice ethics watchdogs have frequently criticized.

The full story is quite long… you can read it all here.

Obama and Iran

Liz Mair — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 16:09:23 GMT

This speaks for itself.

On Coal

James Richardson — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 16:08:50 GMT

Senator Biden seems a little confused tonight – not only on the positions of his running mate, but the positions he’s taken on the campaign trail on behalf of the Democratic ticket.

FLASHBACK 9/17/08:

“We’re not supporting ‘clean coal.’ … NO COAL PLANTS HERE IN AMERICA.”

Seems pretty cut and dried, no?

He Said It

Liz Mair — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 16:08:15 GMT

A point worth remembering re: Barack Obama and what he thinks about John McCain’s climate change plan is that he said (and the congressional record proves it) that “the first step” in combating climate change was “to adopt the McCain-Lieberman amendment.” It’s true: Obama said, “This bipartisan approach is not only good environmental policy, it's good economic policy.”

New Ad: "BarackBook"

James Richardson — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 15:53:32 GMT

While you’re exploring Obama’s social network, take a few seconds to install the Facebook "Barackbook" application and join the RNC’s official group.

Spending Spree!

Liz Mair — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 15:52:43 GMT

Poll 100 voters supporting John McCain, and I bet you’d find a wide diversity of reasons why Americans are backing him. One of mine, though-- and a top one, I might add-- is that he takes spending restraint seriously, whereas Barack Obama takes… spending seriously.

Check it out:

Also worth remembering on this front is that Obama has been an avid earmarker for all but a fraction of his Senate career: He’s requested nearly $1 billion in earmarks since entering the Senate, to John McCain’s, er, $0. It’s tough to believe Mr. Hope and Change is going to take a hatchet (or even a scalpel!) to pork-barrel spending given his history of pushing it, himself, no?

His kind of “change” where federal outlays are concerned does not appear to be, er, change we need.

With Friends Like These…

Liz Mair — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 15:51:40 GMT

Claire McCaskill on Joe Biden: he “has a tendency to talk forever and sometimes say things that are kind of stupid.”

Follow-up re: her own “candor”: “I was probably having a Joe Biden moment myself.”

Hmmm….

Bubba Ain’t Playing Along

James Richardson — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 15:47:10 GMT

Team Obama has spent a lot of time recently blaming the crisis on Wall Street on deregulation, and specifically, Congress’ vote—taken in 1999—to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 separating the commercial and investment banking industries. This is interesting because a) the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, passed the Senate with a high 90 “yea” votes and b) while Obama was busy voting “Present” in the Illinois State Senate, his future colleagues—and prominent campaign supporters and surrogates— including Chuck Schumer, John Edwards, John Kerry, Tom Daschle, Chris Dodd, Dick Durbin, and, of course, his own running mate, Joe Biden were voting for this law. It’s also interesting because it seems there isn’t too much consensus between President Clinton—who signed that legislation-- and Illinois’ junior senator on where blame for the current financial crisis properly sits. From today’s Wall Street Journal:

In BusinessWeek.com, Maria Bartiromo reports that she asked the former President last week whether he regretted signing that legislation. Mr. Clinton's reply: "No, because it wasn't a complete deregulation at all. We still have heavy regulations and insurance on bank deposits, requirements on banks for capital and for disclosure. I thought at the time that it might lead to more stable investments and a reduced pressure on Wall Street to produce quarterly profits that were always bigger than the previous quarter.

"But I have really thought about this a lot. I don't see that signing that bill had anything to do with the current crisis. Indeed, one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadn't signed that bill." (my emphasis added)

Bill versus Barack on Banks indeed.

Bubba on Obama

Liz Mair — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:46:43 GMT

He’s “shown a remarkable ability to learn and grow in this campaign. He always was highly intelligent and always a very good politician,” but he’s evidently not a “great man.”

Just remember, that’s per Bill Clinton, not me…

Sweden Gets It… Why Doesn’t Barack Obama?

Liz Mair — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:35:08 GMT

This morning, the WSJ notes in an editorial that Sweden’s “government is planning to cut business taxes and the personal income and payroll tax” in an effort to boost jobs and promote economic growth.

Way to go, Sweden. And boo, Barack Obama.

Some of you who watched the first presidential debate will remember that Obama seemingly offered a vigorous defense of (high) US corporate tax rates, opposing John McCain’s plan to reduce them. So, then, Obama obviously doesn’t understand what Sweden does (and what John McCain does): Lowering corporate tax rates, given what these rates are in the rest of the world, is essential in order to compete in the global economy. That’s why Sweden plans to reduce its corporate tax rate to 26.3% from 28% (it used to be 57% back in 1987), which would result in its rate being about “one-third lower than the U.S. average of 39.5% (the 35% federal rate plus the state average).”

Reverse!

Liz Mair — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 16:19:45 GMT

Joe Biden delivered today what was billed as “a major address” on foreign policy. But rather than major, I found the speech majorly odd. Since accepting his position as Barack Obama’s veep nominee, Biden has undergone shall we say “transformations” where his views on Barack Obama’s readiness to lead on foreign policy issues are concerned—and they are not insignificant ones, either.

Like Senator Clinton, who famously commented that “Senator McCain will bring a lifetime of experience to the campaign, I will bring a lifetime of experience, and Senator Obama will bring a speech that he gave in 2002,” before assuming his current role, Biden offered heavy criticism of Obama, saying that "I think he can be ready, but right now I don't believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training."

Biden also praised McCain, but now, the idea is for voters to forget all that: As “demonstrated” by several “examples” today, McCain exhibits “poor judgment.” Yes, McCain’s response to the unprecedented attacks on September 11th was “wrong,” even though in 2004 Biden indicated that he wished the President would have listened to John McCain “when 9/11 occurred.” And that John McCain’s judgment on national security matters has been lacking is of course evidenced by Biden saying, also in 2004, that he would “feel a lot better if [he] knew that President Bush ... was going to start to listen to John McCain instead of the Secretary of Defense."

Earlier this year, Biden firmly stated his refusal to meet with leaders of rogue nations (in fact, I believe his exact words were, “absolutely positively no”), but today, this expert on foreign policy “judgment” suggests that conversations, without preconditions, with leaders like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would be beneficial. He also previously blasted Obama’s suggested approach with regard to Pakistan, an approach he (of course) now endorses. So much change in such a short period of time—truly, it’s quite extraordinary… For most people, even Barack Obama, one public reversal is quite enough for a single policy address. But then Joe Biden is not your average Joe.

Biden Gets Slapped

Liz Mair — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:47:43 GMT

Ah, to be a fly on the wall at Obama headquarters and observe what happens when Joe Biden says things that peeve and annoy the junior senator from Illinois… The NY Post certainly makes out that that’s what Biden has been up to, and that Obama’s response has been, well, unfriendly:

A civil war broke out on the Democratic ticket yesterday, as Barack Obama slapped down a comment by running mate Joe Biden just a day after Biden ripped a sarcastic Obama campaign ad about John McCain.

After slamming McCain for flip-flopping on whether to bail out insurance giant AIG, Obama was asked yesterday by the "Today" show's Matt Lauer about his running mate's own view that the federal government shouldn't have rescued the firm.

"And I think that, in that situation - I think Joe should have waited, as well," Obama said.

Well, then….

The New York Daily News also writes about Obama, Biden and “slapping,” noting that:

Barack Obama slapped his loose-lipped running mate Tuesday, chastising Joe Biden for speaking too fast and contradicting him on one of the massive financial bailouts.

[…]

It's not the only Biden gaffe to make headlines lately.

In a CBS interview Monday, Biden called one of his own campaign ads "terrible" for mocking McCain's lack of e-mail ability.

So plenty of slapping, then…

Sadly, for Biden, it looks like more of this might be on the cards, at least if you consider his comments about coal that were exposed yesterday, and which garnered coverage in papers this morning in three target states where coal is, um, kind of a big deal. Some headlines from VA, OH and PA:

'No coal' comment follows Biden to Va.

Biden's clean-coal critique has Democrats scrambling

McCain campaign jumps on Biden's clean coal comments

I’ve heard career-campaign-staffers say that politics can be a painful business, but if you’re Joe Biden, this week that seems to be particularly true!

Headlines You Won`t See at BarackObama.com

James Richardson — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 11:29:38 GMT

FactCheck.org: Out of Context on Health Care
Washington Post: Obama Distorts McCain Social Security Stances

Obama takes comments “out of context” and “distorts” his opponent’s agenda? I’m speechless.

In the midst of an economic crisis, Obama seems content to bring his Chicago-style gutter politics to the national stage instead of actually addressing the situation. Mum’s the word in the Obama camp, unless of course they’re “discussing,” wrongly, John McCain’s record.

The DNC’s Thursday End-of-Day Attempt at Humor

Liz Mair — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 11:22:15 GMT

Look, I know it’s just over 40 days until the election and those of us working at party committees and on presidential campaigns are getting increasingly tired and inundated with information. Over at the DNC, I’m sure it’s getting a little harder to see the wood for the trees with everything going on, but still, that’s little excuse for one of our Democratic counterparts writing this ridiculous phrase: “Senator Barack Obama -- a proven record of getting things done.”

I can only assume this is a DNC blogger’s attempt at humor. We all need a little giggle to perk us up towards the end of these long days, and I presume this is his, because I cannot imagine that the DNC, tasked with playing defense for Barack Obama and Joe Biden, is unaware of the following:

Last week, ABC’s Jake Tapper fact-checked Obama’s claim that his “plan” to improve the economy formed the “basis” of the bipartisan stimulus package passed by Congress earlier this year. Tapper himself writes that “Obama today was guilty of inflating his role in the creation of that bill.” He also notes that Democrats on Capitol Hill who support Obama say Obama’s claims are not true. Nothing says “a proven record of getting things done” like your own party, packed with your own supporters, refusing to give you credit for inspiring an important initiative, the signature points of which you claim to have thought up.

Earlier this month, Obama was trying to portray himself as a leader on education reform. The DNC was obviously buying it, in spite of Education Week having written of Obama just a year ago that “In his eight years in the state senate and two years in the U.S. Senate, Mr. Obama hasn't made a significant mark on education policy.” A proven record of getting things done indeed!

In 2005, just after Obama first took office as a U.S. Senator, the Gang of 14 came together to ensure that progress could be made on judicial appointments. John McCain was, of course, a member of the Gang of 14. Unsurprisingly, Obama was not (the most liberal Senator in the country does not get involved with things like “bipartisan compromise”). Charles Krauthammer, writing in the Washington Post in March, described Obama as having “flinched.” Nothing says “getting things done” like flinching!

As of April this year (since when Obama has of course been on the road, and infrequently present in the Senate), as a U.S. Senator, Obama had passed just one bill on which he was the lead sponsor: S. 2125, during the 109th Congress (i.e., not the current one)-- a bill to "promote relief, security, and democracy in the Democratic Republic of Congo.” One bill, more evidence of “getting things done,” apparently.

In March, the Washington Post’s David Ignatius blasted Obama in a piece entitled “Obama: A Thin Record for a Bridge Builder.” In the text of the piece, Ignatius said that calling Obama’s record “thin” was actually putting it mildly. He also pointed to Obama’s reputation in Illinois as someone who avoided “standing up to special interests or divisive party activists,” and further details Obama’s propensity for “skipping” tough votes (side note: he voted “present” over 100 times as a state senator). A case in point would presumably be the example of “a key gun control vote that he missed in December 1999 because he was vacationing in Hawaii,” which led to the Chicago Tribune describing Obama as "gutless." Nothing says “getting things done” like being called out as “gutless” by your own hometown newspaper!

Obama likes to talk a lot about the importance of Afghanistan (and clearly the efforts in which our troops are engaged there are important). The trouble is, his failure to hold a single hearing on the NATO mission in Afghanistan, which falls under his remit as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s Subcommittee on European Affairs, led in July to the Ranking Member of that Subcommittee blasting him for inaction. Failing to hold hearings on an important issue within one’s purview as a subcommittee chairman is obviously evidence of “getting things done”—or so the DNC wants you to believe.

Yesterday, USA Today ran this editorial, which stated that John McCain has a “record of producing bipartisan alliances on tough issues,” but that Obama has “a much thinner record” where the tough work of bucking one’s party in order to get things done on the most difficult items is concerned. But don’t worry… Obama gets things done—the DNC says so!

If all of this weren’t enough evidence of the preposterousness of the DNC’s claim at issue here, Illinois State Sen. Dan Cronin, who served with Obama, says Obama is a “gentleman,” but “he doesn't think Obama accomplished much in his eight-year tenure as a state senator.” Per Cronin, himself: “There were no bold solutions, no effort to stand up to the Chicago public schools or the unions. There really wasn't, and there were opportunities to do so.”

“Not accomplishing much”—only the DNC could describe that as a “proven record of getting things done.”

Reform Wall Street and Fix Washington

Liz Mair — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 10:02:33 GMT

Over recent days, we’ve witnessed the continued unfolding of a troubling series of events involving major financial institutions ranging from Bear Stearns, to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to Lehman Brothers to (now) AIG. Barack Obama’s suggestions as to how we go about addressing serious economic challenges in the country seem woefully lacking and ill-conceived (higher taxes; more spending). Meanwhile, Team McCain is pledging to reform Wall Street and fix Washington. Here is their latest ad, “Foundation,” which features the Senator delivering some straight talk to the American people:

It is American workers that, as John McCain noted yesterday on the Today show, form the “fundamentals of America, and our strength, and our future.” He was right when he said that “The excess, the greed, and the corruption of Wall Street have caused us to have a situation which is going to affect every American. We are in a total crisis. We need to fix it.”

“Fixing it” is something that, with McCain’s demonstrated, lengthy record of continually pushing, against the odds, to reform Washington, and Gov. Palin’s strong track record of pursuing reform in Alaska, the McCain-Palin ticket is particularly well-placed to do. Unfortunately, it’s much tougher to say the same of the Obama-Biden ticket, which is big on talk, but less big on results.

Erroneous Claim of the Day: Obama’s Good on 2nd Amendment Rights. No, Really!

Liz Mair — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 12:55:39 GMT

Ben Smith has details of a new pro-Obama ad focused on the topic of… the 2nd amendment and gun rights.

Seriously—a pro-Obama ad on these topics!

The ad is apparently narrated by Ray Schoenke of the American Hunters and Shooters Association (see what Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign says about them here).

And, not surprisingly, it neglects to mention that Obama received an “F” rating from the National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund not once, not twice, but three times: in 2004, 2002 and 1998.

Similarly, it neglects to mention various items of evidence strongly supporting the conclusion that Obama thought the DC handgun ban (which the Supreme Court, er, took issue with recently) was, uh, constitutional.

It’s not tough to argue that Obama is the most anti-gun presidential candidate in US history—but heck, if the head of AHSA wants to try to credibly argue the reverse, I’m certainly not going to stand in his way.

Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes

James Richardson — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 12:54:56 GMT

While I’ve grown all too accustomed to Barack Obama’s reversals (see: Public financing of elections, FISA, 2nd Amendment rights), I never cease to be amazed by each new “change” evidenced in his various proposals and stances.

This morning Robert Gibbs, one of Obama’s chief strategists, told MSNBC that “We don’t want people to participate in 527s.” This declaration comes only one week after an interesting report from The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder, who noted that the Obama campaign has been “communicating”-- with “body language, tells and hints”—that its allies, i.e., liberal 527s – which one campaign operative dubbed the “cavalry” – should “hammer John McCain.”

Up until last week, Obama had taken a fairly firm stance on these groups. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of Obama's campaign today, which (apparently) would sooner hurl insults and attacks than discuss Obama’s thin record of accomplishment (or indeed, John McCain’s extensive one). Sadly, in hindsight, Obama’s time spent railing against the undue influence of 527s looks like a quaint exercise in campaigning using rhetoric that was carefully crafted by Gibbs.

Again, there seems to be a disparity between Obama’s old words and his recent actions. That’s not change we can believe in—nor is it change that we need.

On Pay Equity

Liz Mair — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 12:35:46 GMT

Deroy Murdock has an interesting op-ed running today in the Seattle P-I on the subject of gender pay equity—something Barack Obama likes to talk about a lot, but an issue regarding which he has, er, some problems:

Obama's commitment to federally mandated pay equity stretches from the Rockies to Wall Street and beyond. And yet it seems to have eluded his Senate office. Compensation figures for his legislative staff reveal that Obama pays women just 83 cents for every dollar his men make.

A watchdog group called LegiStorm posts online the salaries for Capitol Hill staffers. "We have no political affiliations and no political purpose except to make the workings of Congress as transparent as possible," its website explains. Parsing LegiStorm's official data, gleaned from the Secretary of the Senate, offers a fascinating glimpse at pay equity in the World's Greatest Deliberative Body.

The most recent statistics are for the half-year from Oct. 1, 2007 to March 31, 2008, excluding interns and focusing on full-time personnel. For someone who worked only until, say, last Feb. 29, extrapolating up to six months' service simplifies this analysis. Doubling these half-year figures illustrates how a year's worth of Senate employees' paychecks should look.

Based on these calculations, Obama's 28 male staffers divided among themselves total payroll expenditures of $1,523,120. Thus, Obama's average male employee earned $54,397.

Obama's 30 female employees split $1,354,580 among themselves, or $45,152, on average.

Why this disparity? One reason may be the under-representation of women in Obama's highest-compensated ranks. Among Obama's five best-paid advisors, only one was a woman. Among his top 20, seven were women.

Again, on average, Obama's female staffers earn just 83 cents for every dollar his male staffers make. This figure certainly exceeds the 77-cent threshold that Obama's campaign website condemns. However, 83 cents do not equal $1.

Indeed not, but what’s really interesting is that when you look at who the presidential candidates actually employ and what they pay them, John McCain appears to be far more about action, as opposed to just talk, where gender pay equity is concerned:

McCain's 17 male staffers split $916,914, thus averaging $53,936. His 25 female employees divided $1,396,958 and averaged $55,878.

On average, according to these data, women in John McCain's office make $1.04 for every dollar a man makes. In fact, all other things being equal, a typical female staffer could earn 21 cents more per dollar paid to her male counterpart -- while adding $10,726 to her annual income -- by leaving Barack Obama's office and going to work for John McCain.

How could this be?

One explanation could be that women compose a majority of McCain's highest-paid aides. Among his top-five best-compensated staffers, three are women. Of his 20-highest-salaried employees, 13 are women. The Republican presidential nominee relies on women -- much more than men -- for advice at the highest, and thus, best-paid levels.

[…]

In short, these statistics suggest that John McCain is more than fair with his female employees, while Barack Obama -- at the expense of the women who work for him -- quietly perpetuates the very same pay-equity divide that he loudly denounces. Of all people, the Democratic standard bearer should understand that equal pay begins at home.

I could not agree more. Less talk, more action, please, Mr. Obama…

A Bleak Prospect for Reform

James Richardson — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 17:26:08 GMT

In the wake of surging enthusiasm for the McCain-Palin ticket, Barack Obama is today attacking John McCain on the subject of education and trying to make out that Obama is, in fact, better than McCain on this critical issue. This, my friends, is utter nonsense, and today, I wanted to take a few minutes to explain McCain’s forward-thinking education agenda and his approach to progressing real education reform (as opposed to merely talking about it).

In his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, McCain noted the significance of quality education for America’s youth and acknowledged it as the “civil rights issue of this century:”

We need to shake up failed school bureaucracies with competition, empower parents with choice, remove barriers to qualified instructors, attract and reward good teachers, and help bad teachers find another line of work.

When a public school fails to meet its obligations to students, parents deserve a choice in the education of their children. And I intend to give it to them. Some may choose a better public school. Some may choose a private one. Many will choose a charter school. But they will have that choice and their children will have that opportunity.

Senator Obama wants our schools to answer to unions and entrenched bureaucracies. I want schools to answer to parents and students. And when I’m President, they will.

Indeed, the McCain-Palin plan for education is simple, straightforward and would promote real educational reform. Parents and students, neglected by broken schools, deserve opportunities, choices, and the chance to succeed. John McCain knows this. But Obama still attacks McCain on education. This is despite the fact that Obama has done nothing apart from give speeches about the need for education reform (and prioritize the interests of bureaucrats and unions). As Education Week notes, Obama’s record on education deserves nothing less than an “Incomplete:”

In his eight years in the state senate and two years in the U.S. Senate, Mr. Obama hasn’t made a significant mark on education policy.

Having personally attended a sub-par public school before my family made the tough (and costly) decision to send me to a private school, I can speak to the importance of parents and children being provided with opportunity and choice, as John McCain wants. Unfortunately, the prospects for both under an Obama Administration look rather bleak.

Really?

Liz Mair — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 14:50:02 GMT

Democratic Vice Presidential nominee Joe Biden earlier: “If you care about [children with developmental disabilities], why don’t you support stem cell research?”

I think it goes without saying that there are various problematic aspects of this comment; if they’re not evident on their face, click on the link for more.

News Roundup

Liz Mair — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 14:16:00 GMT

There are lots of good stories out there today worth checking out. Here’s a sampling:

We'll Protect Taxpayers From More Bailouts (John McCain and Sarah Palin op-ed in the Wall Street Journal)

ObamaTax 3.0 (Wall Street Journal Editorial)

Forgoing Subsidy, Obama Team Presses Donors (Michael Luo, Jeff Zeleny, the New York Times)

Telling Tall Tales

Liz Mair — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 11:06:57 GMT

Yesterday’s line up of political talk shows provided some interesting viewing for those starting to focus more intently on coverage of the presidential race—including, if I may say so myself, the spectacle of the Obama campaign’s Robert Gibbs dabbling in telling Tall Tales regarding John McCain and Barack Obama’s respective stances on energy matters.

Case in point: Gibbs said this yesterday on CNN’s Late Edition: “John McCain wants to give $4 billion worth of tax breaks to Exxon Mobil. Barack Obama thinks that’s wrong and we ought to raise taxes on people that make $11 billion in one quarter.”

Interestingly, Factcheck.org begs to differ with Gibbs’ “interpretation” regarding McCain’s tax plans: According to them, the “claim that ‘McCain wants to give [oil companies] another $4 billion in tax breaks’" is “somewhat misleading.” Why? Because “McCain is not proposing any special tax breaks for the oil industry. What he's proposing is a reduction in the corporate income tax rate for all companies”—a reduction that, I might add, is important for ensuring US competitiveness moving forward (something that, incidentally, will not best be aided by Obama’s plans for higher taxes and spending).

Not that Barack Obama has failed to demonstrate plenty of interest in policy that aids the oil industry, including policy encompassing big handouts, over the course of his Senate career. Gibbs may have forgotten this or chosen to overlook it, but Obama voted for the now much-discussed 2005 energy bill which contained about $3 trillion in subsidies to oil and gas companies. As an aside, he has, of course, also taken more money from employees of Big Oil’s very biggest companies than John McCain, another point that Gibbs doesn’t seem interested in talking about. Not that that’s surprising, of course…

Robert Gibbs on Lobbyists and Special Interests

Liz Mair — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:04:04 GMT

Here’s a clip of Robert Gibbs talking about lobbyists and special interests on MSNBC today.

Watching it, I’m tempted to ask whether Gibbs really thinks this is a topic he should be focusing on at the moment, given that Joe Biden is the subject of persistent questioning within the media about his “Washington insider” relationships. Surely, Gibbs must be aware of headlines like these:

Biden, Obama at odds over lobbyist donations

Biden's Son, Brother Named in Two Suits

Biden's Son Employed in Profession Obama Disdains: Lobbying

My Son, The Lobbyist: Biden's Son A Well-Paid DC Insider

Scrutiny of Biden Focuses On Lobbyist Ties, Family

Obama, Biden's Son Linked by Earmarks

Biden's Son A Partner in D.C. Lobbying Firm

And, of course, there are more out there.

Maybe Gibbs thinks that Obama’s consistent decrying of lobbyists and Washington insiders will be sufficient to keep attention off of all of this, but that doesn’t seem likely. Earlier this week, ABC’s Emma Schwartz wrote this:

The son of Barack Obama's vice presidential pick, Sen. Joe Biden, is a top partner at a Washington law firm that has lobbied his father's office, a family tie that could prove embarrassing for a campaign that has positioned itself as fighting lobbyists and special interests in Washington.

Embarrassing is right. That particular family tie has obviously already proved attention-grabbing—and looks likely to continue to be so.

Bayh on Iraq

Liz Mair — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 22:00:25 GMT

Evan Bayh finished up speaking to the Democratic National Convention a short while ago, and while speaking, he took the opportunity to talk in pretty disparaging terms about US engagement in Iraq and attack John McCain on the subject.

The only point I’ll make here is that this is somewhat ironic considering Bayh’s strong support for the US taking military action against Iraq: not only did he vote for the war, but in 2002, he told Sean Hannity that he was one of the “principal sponsors” of the resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. Indeed, as more than a few liberal bloggers would no doubt remind him, Bayh was one of a handful of Senators who sat on the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq.

More Change You Can Believe In?

Liz Mair — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 11:03:04 GMT

There’s a rather stunning story running in today’s Washington Post regarding Barack Obama and Joe Biden’s lobbyist son, Hunter. Here’s a choice excerpt:

Sen. Barack Obama sought more than $3.4 million in congressional earmarks for clients of the lobbyist son of his Democratic running mate, Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, records show. Obama succeeded in getting $192,000 for one of the clients, St. Xavier University in suburban Chicago.

And here’s another, regarding what sold Steve Murphy, vice president for university advancement with St. Xavier, on signing up as a client of the younger Biden’s firm:

Murphy said he found Biden's parentage a selling point. Murphy then accompanied Biden to the offices of the Illinois delegation, including Obama's.

As the Post item notes, “Obama's campaign has taken a hard stance against the world of lobbying in the nation's capital.” So the point made in the latter quoted sentence is interesting, to say the least.

Energy Matters

Liz Mair — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 20:33:05 GMT

In his speech at the Democratic National Convention today, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell went after John McCain on energy—a hot topic across the country.

As such, this seems like a good juncture to again offer a reminder of three points relevant to the overall energy discussion:

Earlier this month, the Center for Responsive Politics noted that “it's actually Obama who has received more from the pockets of employees at several of Big Oil's biggest and most recognizable companies. Tallying contributions by employees in the industry and their families,” CRP “found that Exxon, Chevron and BP have all contributed more money to Obama than to McCain.”
Obama, as we’ve underlined repeatedly, is the candidate who voted for the 2005 energy bill, which handed out $2.8 billion in subsidies to oil and gas companies. John McCain did not. He called the bill’s handouts “irresponsible.”
Obama recently hired Daniel Shapiro, who MSNBC’s First Read said, on August 20, was “listed as a lobbyist by Washington, D.C.-based Timmons & Co” (which represents the American Petroleum Institute) as a senior adviser and Jewish outreach coordinator.

Is Alexi Giannoulias Obama`s Next "Not The Man I Knew"?

Liz Mair — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:16:05 GMT

Ross Kaminsky at the Denver Post’s Politics West site asks that question. For those not in the know, Giannoulias is the Illinois State Treasurer who addressed the DNC last night.

"Misleading"

James Richardson — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 11:33:48 GMT

Yesterday, on the heels of an ad put out by an independent group (the American Issues Project) the Obama campaign released a new ad, which argues that Obama’s relationship with Bill Ayers, an unrepentant domestic terrorist, is nothing for voters to concern themselves with (note, though, that given Obama’s long-standing relationship with Ayers, the RNC and the McCain campaign take issue with that contention).

Steve Schmidt of the McCain campaign just spoke with the National Review’s Rich Lowry and had this to say:

That they've made a strategic decision to air a commercial about William Ayers is perplexing. I don't understand it, but put that aside. The ad is misleading. It states the McCain campaign is running an ad on the issue and it's not. This a pattern of attacking from a platform of disingenuousness when Obama accuses his opponent of attacking when he's not, in an attempt to disqualify the issue from the debate. Here's Obama's problem with regard to Ayers. When he was asked directly, Obama described Ayers as just a guy who lives in his neighborhood. We know that's not accurate. Before we get to the place where we can ask, "Why does Barack Obama have a relationship with an unrepentant terrorist?" we have to ask, "Why is Barack Obama not being forthcoming about his relationship?" This is what he has to realize: He's a candidate for president of the United States of America. He's not in a state senate race where he can disqualify all his opponents from running. He's deluding himself if he doesn't think his relationship with an unrepentant domestic terrorist who was part of this viscous, crack-pot group will give the American people pause. If he does, he's being very naïve. And he's being misleading. It says a lot about Barack Obama. John McCain is not running an ad on Ayers and William Ayers was not just someone who lived in his neighborhood.

That’s really the bottom line.

A Question for Speaker Pelosi

Liz Mair — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 21:32:13 GMT

In her speech to the Democratic National Convention tonight, Nancy Pelosi was at pains to underline that John McCain is “wrong” on the issue of energy.

Setting aside that it’s tough to argue that there’s anything “wrong” with advocating a comprehensive, all of the above energy policy, I’ve noted before that John McCain voted against the 2005 energy bill which he said contained “irresponsible” handouts, while Barack Obama voted for it—and that Democrats like Senator Clinton, John Kerry and Chuck Schumer also criticized that bill and voted against it. But here’s an additional point of interest, in view of Obama’s selection of Joe Biden as his running mate: Biden also voted against the bill.

That leaves me wondering, Madam Speaker, does that mean Joe Biden is also wrong on energy policy? Just wondering…

"Was She Right?"

James Richardson — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:13:13 GMT

The RNC independent expenditure unit has a new ad out today: “Right.” Its release comes just one day after the McCain campaign put out its ad, “Passed Over." Both ads highlight quotes made by Senator Clinton during her presidential campaign.

Discord in Denver

Liz Mair — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 14:49:40 GMT

The Washington Times has a great report out today about something that’s fairly evident here on the ground in Denver: many supporters of Senator Clinton are angry and they’re refusing to get behind Barack Obama’s candidacy.

Some choice excerpts:

"You can actually feel this party splitting," said Diane Mantouvalos, co-founder of Just Say No Deal coalition, an Internet-based collection of more than 250 groups vehemently opposed to the impending presidential nomination of Mr. Obama at the party convention in Denver.

[…]

Will Bower, a registered Democrat in the District who co-founded an anti-Obama group called PUMA, nonetheless said he likely will vote for Mr. McCain.

"I feel that Obama has won a fraudulent campaign," Mr. Bower said. "He's done nothing. He's great at speeches and that's it."

It’s this kind of thing that presumably underlies the voicing of this particular sentiment by one Dana Singiser, who handled female voter outreach efforts for Clinton, and now does that for Obama:

"We probably won't get all 18 million voters who voted for Hillary…”

Note that Singiser adds that nonetheless:

“…we are going to keep talking to her voters."

I’m sure the Obama campaign will, but it looks like a lot of Clinton supporters aren’t listening… and it’s worth noting that the Obama folks aren’t the only ones doing the talking. So are John McCain, RNC Victory Chairman Carly Fiorina and others on our side of the aisle. That’s in addition, of course, to Democrats who have decided to support McCain, like Debra Bartoshevich and Silverio “Silver” Salazar.

Ruh-roh!

Liz Mair — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 12:02:36 GMT

Chicago Sun-Times headline this morning: “Biden has deep ties to Rezko accomplice”

NotReady08.com

James Richardson — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 10:45:30 GMT

In case you may have missed it, we launched an interactive site to follow the DNCC, www.NotReady08.com, complete with press conferences via live streaming video, blogs, and rapid response research briefings.

Liz and I will be blogging (from both conventions), so be sure to check back often for breaking news…

UPDATE: As always, GOPConvention.com is great resource for any news regarding the Republican National Convention, so be sure to click on over there, too.

On Obama’s Choice

James Richardson — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 09:21:16 GMT

While you were sleeping last night, Barack Obama announced his running mate: Joe Biden.

It’s worth remembering that there has been no harsher critic – Democrat or Republican – of Obama’s lack of experience, or indeed his foreign policy judgment, than Joe Biden — something that is evident from Biden’s own comments as featured in this ad released by the McCain campaign:

Young Voters Aren’t Buying It

James Richardson — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 12:05:18 GMT

Senator McCain, no doubt to the annoyance of Barack Obama and Howard Dean, has made a firm commitment to reach out to demographic blocs traditionally more associated with Democrats, Hispanics and African Americans among them. His willingness to address one such bloc, young voters, through non-traditional mediums and venues seems to be making a dent. Interestingly, McQ at Q and O thinks Obama is slipping among this demographic (perhaps, his most important).

A demographic that Obama is counting on to help make the difference in November may be slipping away… Expectations among youth who tend to be much more idealistic than older voters, are easily crushed.

Indeed: Obama of late has been looking every inch a standard politician and seems to have abandoned the “new politics” the old Obama used to espouse. However, I think it’s also worth noting that in my estimation, Obama’s support for hundreds of billions of dollars in new spending over the course of his first term alone and tax increases aren’t helping him either, given younger voters’ interest in “pocket-book issues” this election.

In the end, I’m betting that John McCain’s record of combating wasteful spending, corruption, and inefficiency at all levels of government, combined with his commitment to low taxes and pursuing a comprehensive, “all of the above” energy plan will have stronger than expected appeal to America’s youth. Certainly, there’s been evidence before in this campaign of younger voters souring on Obama.

Sadly, I’m Not Surprised

James Richardson — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:22:20 GMT

Over recent months, I’ve become familiar with the inconsistency between rhetoric emanating from both the Democratic National Committee and the Obama campaign and those parties’ actions. Today offers another example, with news out of the Obama campaign having appointed Daniel Shapiro, who the Wall Street Journal noted was (as of March) “registered to lobby on behalf of the American Petroleum Institute and other corporate clients,” as a senior policy adviser and Jewish outreach coordinator yesterday.

But another thing I’ve become familiar with is the propensity of the other side to mislead voters, for example through campaign ads, and carefully cropped quotes—and yesterday, we got another taste of that, as well.

That’s when the Obama campaign released a new TV ad in Indiana hitting John McCain on the economy—and, surprise, surprise—as FactCheck.org notes: The ad employs old and out-of-context quotes. The Obama campaign’s use of “out-of-context” quotes, specifically, is reminiscent of the DNC’s earlier use of their thoroughly debunked “100 years” talking point.

In the interest of allowing John McCain speak for himself – free of dated and cherry-picked quotes – watch this ad:

DNC: Off-the-mark, Again

James Richardson — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:24:12 GMT

In another laughable attack on John McCain, our chums down the street have today introduced a mildly amusing new product to the political collectibles market: Oil barrel stress balls.

It’s good to know they’re at least interested in the production of tiny, fake barrels of oil because with their party’s presumptive nominee and House Democrats apparently continuing to oppose to a comprehensive, “all-of-the-above” energy policy – one which includes, but does not singularly hinge upon, increased domestic oil production – they don’t seem too interested in the (domestic) production of more, real-life versions.

Still though, the DNC having produced these items is somewhat ironic considering that it's actually Obama who has received more from the pockets of employees at several of Big Oil's biggest and most recognizable companies. That’s all the more true since it was Barack Obama, not John McCain, who voted for the 2005 Energy Bill (a.k.a., the Bush-Cheney energy plan)-- the very same bill that lined the pockets of “Big Oil” with $2.8 billion in subsidies, which John McCain criticized as “irresponsible.”

It’s also somewhat sad, though, because, in the DNC’s frantic quest to divert attention from Obama’s real record on energy (not to mention his Carteresque support for a windfall profit tax), they have yet to address struggling Americans’ concerns: How am I going to fill my tank to get to work today? Where am I going to get the money for this energy bill? Too bad that where Obama and Democratic leaders are concerned, the focus remains on cute trinkets instead of comprehensive solutions.

Hey, Big Spender!

Liz Mair — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 10:06:54 GMT

In this morning’s Wall Street Journal, Peter Ferrara picks apart Barack Obama’s tax plan and finds plenty to disgruntle him. Ferrara’s big problem with Obama appears to be the various tax credit proposals that the presumptive Democratic nominee has put forward. But the line that caught my attention was that in bold below, which can be found in Ferrara’s conclusion:

The Obama tax plan would sharply increase real taxes. It also would come nowhere near to paying for the massive increases in federal spending he has proposed, including the spending that is disguised in the form of refundable tax credits. (my emphasis added)

Obama likes to talk about all his phenomenally large spending proposals being “paid for.” The more his proposals are scrutinized, however, the more doubtful that claim appears. And, of course, the idea that to the extent they are paid for, they are paid for by tax increases isn’t particularly consoling, either.

Lost and Found in Florida

Liz Mair — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 12:53:48 GMT

A check for $2.8 billion “from Senator Barack Obama and made out to oil companies” has apparently been found in Florida, per the St. Petersburg Times’ Buzz Blog (which has a picture of the check). Florida Republicans conjecture David Plouffe dropped it when he was stopped at a gas station to check his rental car’s tire pressure last night.

Well, his candidate (Obama) did vote for the 2005 energy bill handing out nearly $3 billion in subsidies to oil and gas companies…

Of note: no similar check from John McCain has been found, nor is any likely to surface—because McCain, unlike Obama, did not vote for the 2005 energy bill.

Incidentally, that’s the same bill that McCain said contained “irresponsible” handouts. And which Senator Clinton said was “larded with all kinds of special interest breaks, giveaways to the oil companies,” which John Kerry called “pork-laden,” and which Chuck Schumer bashed in a press release titled “Energy Bill Is Historic Mistake And Step Backwards For The Environment, Taxpayers, And National Security.” Senators Barbara Boxer, Jack Reed, Russ Feingold and Patty Murray also ripped the bill.

But not Obama. He voted for it!

On the Subject of Tire Inflation…

Liz Mair — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 10:20:21 GMT

Via Factcheck.org this morning comes this:

… expanded offshore drilling is projected to produce far more oil eventually than can be saved by proper tire inflation – nearly three times as much even by the conservative estimate of government experts, and more than 10 times as much if an industry-endorsed estimate is correct. And even taking into account additional fuel savings from tune-ups, which Obama also mentioned, he greatly exaggerated.

Just something to bear in mind when thinking about energy policy.

“We Are All Georgians”

James Richardson — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:20:14 GMT

Until recently, had I said “Georgia on my mind,” Ray Charles’ classic, soulful ode to the southern state of Georgia would likely have come to mind. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said now and today, John McCain has an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal which details, what he believes, should be America’s role with regard to the other Georgia. Here’s an excerpt (but check out the whole thing):

“The Georgian people have suffered before, and they suffer today. We must help them through this tragedy, and they should know that the thoughts, prayers and support of the American people are with them… As I told President Saakashvili on the day the cease-fire was declared, today we are all Georgians. We mustn't forget it.”

Democrats Get Into the Town Hall Game. Kinda.

James Richardson — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 16:43:54 GMT

Today, the Democratic National Convention Committee announced their “America’s Town Hall” feature. All very well and good, but instead of a virtual town hall, couldn’t Barack Obama have just committed to a real town hall with John McCain?

Virtual interaction is great (we’re all for it, in fact). But it’s no substitute for reality.

Fact-Checkers: Exxon-Mobil Hearts Obama

James Richardson — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 17:31:38 GMT

Today, there’s been some bad news for Team Obama and the DNC when it comes to those oil-based attacks they’ve been launching.

First, The Center for Responsive Politics reported that it is actually Barack Obama, not Senator McCain, who's taken into his campaign coffers the most money from "Big Oil's" very biggest. Employees of Exxon, Chevron, and BP have contributed more to the junior senator from Illinois than John McCain, who unlike Obama actually voted against the $2.8 billion in oil and gas in the 2005 energy bill (Obama supported it).

Additionally, ABC’s Jake Tapper notes Obama’s recently-outed donors stand to seriously complicate Obama’s employment of anti-Exxon-Mobil rhetoric on the stump.

At a town hall today in Lima, Ohio, John McCain responded to Barack Obama’s recent attacks:

No doubt our chums down the street are none too happy with today’s events and revelations.

Consistency: It’s New for Him

James Richardson — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 14:48:55 GMT

As I noted yesterday, Barack Obama, for once, is being consistent. He remains opposed to increasing our domestic oil supply via offshore drilling, and if you don’t believe me, just watch this clip, from this morning, of Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) telling Joe Scarborough that Obama “believes [offshore drilling] is not really the short-term or long-term answer to the problem."

There you have it, unequivocally.

Instead of advocating for an “all of the above,” comprehensive solution to America’s energy crisis, Barack Obama is still heralding tire inflation as a sort of silver bullet with regard to our energy crisis.

Try Again

Liz Mair — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 14:48:53 GMT

Our friends at the DNC are apparently on a new drive to link John McCain to big oil.

Nice try, but there’s a big problem with this: Barack Obama voted for the 2005 energy bill that handed out $2.8 billion in subsidies to oil and gas companies. John McCain opposed it as containing “irresponsible” “handouts.”

As such, it seems to me that the DNC should be linking Obama’s name to those of oil companies. Obama himself has already done it, by virtue of his vote.

A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words

James Richardson — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 14:48:49 GMT

And here’s one worth keeping in mind, given the attacks that Barack Obama and the DNC are currently leveling at John McCain:

Via his vote on the 2005 energy bill, Barack Obama gave a thumbs-up to $2.8 billion in giveaways to oil and gas companies. John McCain did not support that bill, or those handouts, which he called “irresponsible.”

And that’s the bottom line

To Be Fair

James Richardson — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 16:51:34 GMT

I’ve always been a proponent of straight shooting, as is John McCain.

So, here’s a little straight talk on Barack Obama and drilling. While Obama has “refined” his positions on public financing of his campaign, FISA, and other issues, he has not “refined” his position on off-shore drilling, something he’s continually opposed.

Moreover, he’s called John McCain’s proposal to increase our domestic oil supply in this way— a component of McCain’s “all of the above,” comprehensive approach to solving our energy crisis-- a “scheme” and “not real.”

Rest assured, Speaker Pelosi, Barack Obama won’t oppose your policy of inaction. Americans can take solace, however, in John McCain’s commitment to provide relief at the pump and deliver America’s energy independence – something Obama’s “fill ‘er up” (“’er” meaning tires) energy initiative simply can’t accomplish.

Still Needs Familiarizing with His Own Record

Liz Mair — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 13:27:29 GMT

Barack Obama has a new ad out today attacking John McCain on energy. The ad includes this line:

After one president in the pocket of big oil we can't afford another.

The funny thing is—and I’ve pointed this out before—Obama’s the one who voted for the 2005 energy bill. That bill was called “The Best Energy Bill Corporations Could Buy” by Public Citizen, and was decried by the Boston Globe in a July 2005 editorial as “a candy store of tax breaks and subsidies for… the highly profitable oil and gas companies” (numerous other editorials bashed the bill, too). It was also bashed by Democrats like Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator Jack Reed, Senator John Kerry, Senator Russ Feingold, Senator Barbara Boxer, Senator Patty Murray and Senator Chuck Schumer on the basis of the giveaways it contained.

Here’s the real rub, though: Not only did Obama vote for it, but John McCain did not.

Obama should think about that and how it sits with the message conveyed by his ad. As it stands, it looks like he may not have fully thought things through prior to putting this out there—that’s actually true of his energy policy in the whole, too, come to think of it.

What Constitutes “Reasonable,” Senator Obama?

James Richardson — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 11:26:09 GMT

Last week, with American families continuing to struggle to pay for gas in light of rising oil prices, Senator Obama unveiled the newest “bold” plank of his energy platform: Inflate your tires.

And, as further evidence that the Obama campaign fully appreciates neither the full scope of our energy challenges nor certain fundamentals of energy policy, this week Obama is hyping the idea that the government should take “a reasonable share” of oil company profits via a “windfall profits” tax. Just what, you ask, is this “windfall profits” tax, and what qualifies as a “windfall profit?” Good question. Unfortunately, Barack Obama hasn’t exactly offered a definition—though today, the Wall Street Journal has attempted to offer some insight into who Obama possibly considers to have benefited from a windfall profit: Exxon Mobil, which the WSJ notes “on Thursday reported the highest quarterly profit ever and is the main target of any ‘windfall’ tax surcharge.”

Between 2003 and 2007, Exxon paid $64.7 billion in U.S. taxes, exceeding its after-tax U.S. earnings by more than $19 billion. […]

Exxon’s profit margin stood at 10% for 2007, which is hardly out of line with oil and gas industry average of 8.3%, or the 8.9% for U.S. manufacturing (my emphasis added).

Exxon’s profit margin, as the WSJ points out, is hardly out of line with that of key players in the technology and electronics industry, or companies owned by one particular Obama supporter: As the WSJ notes, LG saw its profits grow by 505% in 2007; Obama fan Warren Buffet’s company, Berkshire Hathaway, saw an 11.47% profit margin and grossed $11 billion last year.

Perhaps Obama would care to tax these companies’ windfalls, too? Or perhaps his windfall profits tax scheme is simply about going after an unpopular industry (which works well, rhetorically), as opposed to sound policy?

One thing we know for sure: Barack Obama’s plans for a windfall profits tax are not about promoting economic growth, a comprehensive energy policy, energy independence or lower prices. And since that’s what ordinary Americans are looking for in this election, it’s very unlikely that Obama’s ever-growing list of proposals for government intervention and tax increases is going to sit well with them—lofty rhetoric aside.

Say What?

Liz Mair — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 10:10:51 GMT

Here’s something interesting from the WSJ’s John Fund this morning:

Some cracks are appearing in the solid wall of opposition that Democrats have erected against proposals for expanding domestic production of oil.

The House voted to adjourn for its August recess yesterday, but only by a vote of 213 to 212 as minority Republicans were able to convince over a dozen Democrats to break with Speaker Nancy Pelosi and support staying in session in order to deal with high energy prices. On the Senate side, Majority Leader Harry Reid broached the idea of an "energy summit" that would convene in September and consider more domestic drilling.

Even the Obama campaign, stung by a new John McCain commercial that contrasts his celebrity cult status in Europe with his refusal to address high gas prices at home, may be in motion. Former Sen. Gary Hart, an Obama surrogate, told the Denver Post that the gas price issue is a top concern of voters. He said it was possible that Senator Obama would back offshore domestic drilling if it were part of a much larger package that focused on clean energy and conservation. But the Obama campaign still insists that the Senator views calls for offshore drilling as a distraction from the real energy debate.

That could change if polls continue to show the power of the issue to move voters. Last week, a poll in the swing state of Colorado found that 9% of state voters say they've changed their minds and become supporters of offshore energy exploration.

Don't be surprised if Democrats use the August recess to meet behind the scenes with their environmentalist allies to put together a Plan B approach to block further Republican exploitation of the drilling issue.

(emphasis mine)

If Gary Hart’s metaphorical crystal ball is right, this would be quite a change (pun intended) for Obama. If it’s wrong, one wonders how Obama’s latest proposal for dealing with energy concerns in the short term (just make sure your tire pressure is optimal) will play with voters moving forward.

Good Grief, He’s Forgotten His Voting Record… Again!

Liz Mair — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:23:57 GMT

Barack Obama said this, today in Cedar Rapids, Iowa:

When George Bush came into office, he put Dick Cheney in charge of energy policy. … George Bush’s approach was to let the oil companies write his energy policy. We cannot afford four more years of an energy policy dicated by the oil companies.

Of course, Obama voted for the 2005 energy bill (and John McCain did not)—a fact he seems to keep forgetting!

Another Invitation He’ll Presumably Reject

Liz Mair — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:15:39 GMT

The San Francisco Chronicle has an interesting editorial today. The paper is apparently extending an invitation to Barack Obama to participate in a joint meeting with the paper’s editorial board, together with John McCain… pursuant to a suggestion by McCain himself.

Sen. John McCain came up with a terrific idea Monday when he was handed an invitation to meet with our editorial board as part of our endorsement process.

"Why don't you invite Senator (Barack) Obama to join me?" McCain suggested.

McCain noted that he has been frustrated in his attempts to have "just the two of us stand there and answer questions" in a town-hall format.

"Unfortunately, he (Obama) has refused to do so," McCain told our colleagues Debra J. Saunders and Carla Marinucci at the start of an interview at San Francisco's Fairmont Hotel.

Senator Obama: Consider this an official invitation for a debate with McCain before The Chronicle's editorial board.

The format would be straightforward and substantive, modeled after the five debates we hosted (and streamed live on the Web) with statewide candidates in 2006. The candidates would have sufficient time to answer questions. If they tried to duck a question, we would follow up. Voters would have a chance to see video of the editorial board meeting in its entirety.

Senator McCain gets extra points for proposing a unglossed, unscripted, groundbreaking version of the presidential debate in the bluest of states and at a newspaper that last endorsed a Republican for president in 1992.

What do you say, Senator Obama?

I haven’t seen any indicator that Obama has yet replied to this offer, but I bet I can guess what he’ll say: “No.”

Obama won’t participate in joint town hall meetings with John McCain (evidently that’s just too much “change” from the business-as-usual manner of conducting presidential campaigns for Mr. Change himself to handle). So it’s exceedingly likely that he’ll agree to be subjected to a high level of scrutiny from a major editorial board in the same setting as McCain with any more ease.

I guess that means he loses out on points with the paper’s editors, just as McCain gains them for simply proposing this.

ABC Fact-checks Obama re: the Surge

Liz Mair — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 10:52:35 GMT

ABC fact-checks Obama re: the surge

Here, Jake Tapper dissects what he terms an “Obama meme -- that Obama during the debate over the surge he acknowledged that more US troops would mean a temporary reduction in violence”:

The first official Senate debate over the surge came in January and February 2007.

The surge of 21,500 US troops was officially announced by the President on Jan. 10, 2007.

The first wave of surge soldiers -- 3,500 soldiers from the 1st Infantry Division -- left for Iraq during the first week of February.

On February 16, 2007, the House passed legislation disapproving of the surge, 246-182.

One day later the Senate failed to do so. The resolution needed 60 votes; it got 55, with 34 voting against it.

Of course, the larger debate over the surge did not end in February; it continues through today.

But it seems, well, debatable for Obama to say "there were also statements made during the course of this debate in which I said there's no doubt that additional U.S. troops could temporarily quell the violence."

He said it, but not until March 2007. So the accuracy of this claim depends on when you consider the "debate" over the surge to have taken place.

Congress (of which Obama is obviously a member) clearly did its debating about whether to move forward with legislation disapproving of the surge a month before Obama made the comment his campaign is apparently pointing to. I think that really says it all.

Details? What Details?

Liz Mair — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 09:39:07 GMT

With Barack Obama now back in the US, one imagines that this week, he’ll aim to shift his focus back to talking about bread-and-butter economic issues that are of concern to American families. One of them might be Social Security—which, it turns out, is an area of policy in which Obama could do with being a little more, well, specific, with regard to his intentions. Per the AP:

Barack Obama's bid to place a new Social Security tax on very high incomes is either a bold or foolhardy plan, depending on who critiques it.

But its potential impact is almost impossible to gauge because he is providing few details on basic questions such as what the tax rate might be, what types of income would be taxed and how the taxpayers' benefits would be affected.

[…]

When he outlined his idea in the battleground state of Ohio, Obama said it is unfair for middle-class earners to pay the Social Security tax "on every dime they make," while millionaires and billionaires pay it on "only a very small percentage of their income." He also said the Social Security program needs revamping to bolster its long-term viability.

With Obama offering few details, several news accounts suggested that his proposed tax on very high incomes would be applied just as the existing Social Security tax is levied on incomes up to $102,000.

All workers pay a 6.2 percent Social Security payroll tax on such income. Their employers match it, for a total tax of 12.4 percent. The tax applies only to earned income, not to passive income such as dividends and interest.

In recent weeks, Obama aides have quietly indicated that the proposed tax on incomes above $250,000 might be different in key aspects. The rate probably would be about 2 percent to 4 percent, not 6.2 percent, they said. It's also possible that it would apply to more types of income, including dividends and investments.

As for benefits, the campaign has not said how the proposed tax on very high incomes would translate into new retirement income, if any, for those who pay it.

The campaign "has not put forth a specific plan" for Social Security, Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee said in an interview.

So… the rate for $250,000-plus in income could be 2 percent, or it could be 4 percent (but probably would not be 6.2 percent). And that rate could apply to income derived from investments (or, presumably, it could not). And the new taxes could result in new retirement income, or they could not—the Obama campaign hasn’t bothered to offer a view on that. And even Obama’s economic adviser concedes that his candidate has not put forward a “specific plan.”

It sounds like Obama is offering real leadership on this issue. Mind you, what Obama lacks on that front and in specificity, he makes up for in hope—which should make all of us concerned about retirement security feel that much better.

Why, Again, Did Obama Cancel on the Troops?

James Richardson — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:45:15 GMT

Today, we’ve seen four different explanations as to why Obama’s plans to visit US troops in Germany were nixed:

Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs “said the stop was canceled because Obama decided ‘it would be inappropriate to make a stop to visit troops at a U.S. military facility as part of a trip funded by the campaign.’” (AP)

An Obama campaign adviser “said the U.S. military saw the visit as a campaign stop. ‘We learned from the Pentagon last night that the visit would be viewed instead as a campaign event,’ the adviser, retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Scott Gration, said in a statement.” (AP)

David Axelrod “said that that Pentagon notified an Obama military advisor only yesterday or the day before that he should not come. The Pentagon ‘viewed this as a campaign event and therefore they said he should not come’” (Chicago Sun-Times)

A military official working on the Obama visit “said because political candidates are prohibited from using military installations as campaign backdrops, Obama's representatives were told, ‘he could only bring two or three of his Senate staff member, no campaign officials or workers.’ In addition, ‘Obama could not bring any media. Only military photographers would be permitted to record Obama's visit.’ The official said ‘We didn't know why’ the request to visit the wounded troops was withdrawn. ‘He (Obama) was more than welcome. We were all ready for him.’” (NBC)

I’m left wondering exactly what the deal is here.

Obama Cancels Visit to the Troops

Liz Mair — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:36:50 GMT

There’s been a lot of discussion of this topic online today.

Jonathan Martin, however, has a post up on it that is well worth reading. Excerpts:

SPIEGEL ONLINE has learned that Obama has cancelled a planned short visit to the Rammstein and Landstuhl US military bases in the southwest German state of Rhineland-Palatinate. The visits were planned for Friday. "Barack Obama will not be coming to us," a spokesperson for the US military hospital in Landstuhl announced. "I don't know why." Shortly before the same spokeswoman had announced a planned visit by Obama.

The optics here are not good: Obama has time to get in a workout and give a speech to a crowd mostly comprised of Europeans, but can't be bothered to visit American troops wounded in action recovering at a military hospital.

[…]

This is a sticky wicket for Obama.

Click over to Politico for the full item.

“Obama’s” Banking Committee

Liz Mair — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:08:46 GMT

Barack Obama, during his press conference in Sderot, Israel, today:

Perhaps our counterparts at the DNC can let us know exactly how the Senate Banking Committee qualifies as “his,” given that Obama’s name appears absolutely nowhere on the page of the committee’s website that lists its members.

If You Read One Thing Today, Read This

Liz Mair — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:12:08 GMT

The Washington Post has a great editorial today on Barack Obama and Iraq. Here’s a taste. Make sure you read the whole thing, though.

THE INITIAL MEDIA coverage of Barack Obama's visit to Iraq suggested that the Democratic candidate found agreement with his plan to withdraw all U.S. combat forces on a 16-month timetable. So it seems worthwhile to point out that, by Mr. Obama's own account, neither U.S. commanders nor Iraq's principal political leaders actually support his strategy.

Stunning

James Richardson — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 11:24:21 GMT

From the write-up of Nightline’s interview with Barack Obama, which is causing quite a stir this morning:

…when asked if knowing what he knows now, he would support the surge, the senator said no.

"These kinds of hypotheticals are very difficult," he said. "Hindsight is 20/20. But I think that what I am absolutely convinced of is, at that time, we had to change the political debate because the view of the Bush administration at that time was one that I just disagreed with, and one that I continue to disagree with -- is to look narrowly at Iraq and not focus on these broader issues."

So, then: the surge has delivered key successes in Iraq, but Obama still wouldn’t have supported it. Surely that’s a good indicator that Obama doesn’t exactly pass the threshold required of a would-be commander in chief.

Obama: Foreign Journalists Not Required!

Liz Mair — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 15:24:04 GMT

Here’s another interesting tidbit with relevance to Barack Obama’s visit abroad, the discrepancies between him and John McCain when it comes to media scrutiny, and indeed the differences between the two when it comes to reaching out to our allies and their citizenries directly (and for purposes other than capturing choice footage for campaign ads): Per the AP, John McCain has cut an interview (which aired today) with Israel's Channel 2 TV, in which he talks about Iran.

The reason I dub this “interesting” is because, per this Washington Post item, quite unlike John McCain, Barack Obama has “almost completely refused to answer questions from foreign journalists.” Moreover, he has “refused multiple requests from international reporters to travel with the candidate” on his current trip abroad. “Refused”—now that’s a word that I find telling.

Given Obama’s persistent touting of his ability to project a positive image of the US abroad, and his rhetorical focus on multilateralism and diplomacy, I’m left wondering what the deal is here. I’ve pointed out previously that Obama has succeeded in ticking off just a few leaders of allied countries and coming off as something short of diplomatic. In my mind, this evident unwillingness to engage with foreign press (and thereby their readers, overseas) just further underlines distinctions between the two candidates with regard to who is really the open one, and which of them is really best-placed to lead this country forward, with regard to foreign affairs, and especially with regard to reaching out to our traditional allies. That, in my view, is not Barack Obama.

As the author of the Washington Post item underlines, Obama is plenty willing to speak directly to leaders of US adversaries like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Yet unlike John McCain, he is not willing (apparently) to “spend a few moments with journalists from friendlier countries.” That’s too bad. It’s also not indicative of the approach to overseas outreach that I’d like to see from our next president, for what it’s worth.

This “Is Not a Campaign Trip?”

James Richardson — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:30:22 GMT

Today, The Baltimore Sun offers the following tidbit regarding Barack Obama’s visit to Germany:

An Obama ad team will be on hand for the Berlin rally, which figures to become part of the campaign… as a TV commercial.

Evidently the campaign thinks the giving of an overseas speech by a US senator with three years and no major legislative accomplishments under his belt constitutes campaign ad magic.

Fair enough. It’s just that today’s report undercuts somewhat Obama campaign senior advisor Robert Gibbs’ claim this “is not a campaign trip.” And makes me wonder what Team Obama would, in fact, call it…

"Troop Funding"

James Richardson — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:15:28 GMT

The McCain campaign is out with yet another blistering ad (this one, not as long as the previous) on Obama's Iraq contradictions and apparent triangulation on the matter:

The freshman senator's political opportunism is catching up to him. Quickly.

UPDATE: Senator McCain had this to add on recent progress made in Iraq -- which Barack Obama neglected to acknowledge until the politics suited him:

"Progress between the United States and Iraq on a time horizon for American troop presence is further evidence that the surge has succeeded. Most of the U.S. forces used in the surge have already been withdrawn. When a further conditions-based withdrawal of U.S. forces is possible, it will be because we and our Iraqi partners built on the successes of the surge strategy, which Senator Obama opposed, predicted would fail, voted against and campaigned against in the primary. When we withdraw, we will withdraw with honor and victory. An honorable and victorious withdrawal would not be possible if Senator Obama's views had prevailed. An artificial timetable based on political expediency would have led to disaster and could still turn success into defeat. If we had followed Senator Obama's policy, Iraq would have descended into chaos, American casualties would be far higher, and the region would be destabilized."

Mastering Political Expediency

James Richardson — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 08:42:04 GMT

Yesterday, Team McCain released their newest web-video, "The Obama Iraq Documentary: Whatever the Politics Demand:"

There you have it, Obama on the surge: "Not persuaded."

Our European allies and Barack Obama

Liz Mair — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:25:04 GMT

Ahead of his overseas travel, the Times of London today offers some bad news for Barack Obama, who frequently likes to tout his commitment to diplomacy and multilateralism, and his ability to project a positive image of the US abroad (including, one imagines, in Europe):

There are, however, nuanced disagreements emerging between Mr Obama and European governments on his foreign policy. During a trip to Washington last week, Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, made plain his distaste for withdrawal timetables from Iraq, saying that they do “not serve any of us”.

[…]

His promise to hold direct talks “without preconditions” over Iran’s nuclear ambitions has raised eyebrows in Europe....

Readers will recall that it’s not just the Times that has suggested that Obama may not be quite as agreeable a fellow as he’d have you think, where relations with Europe are concerned; recently, the Washington Post did, too. From their article:

European officials are increasingly concerned that Sen. Barack Obama's campaign pledge to begin direct talks with Iran on its nuclear program without preconditions could potentially rupture U.S. relations with key European allies early in a potential Obama administration.

The U.N. Security Council has passed four resolutions demanding that Iran stop enriching uranium, each time highlighting the offer of financial and diplomatic incentives from a European-led coalition if Tehran suspends enrichment, a route to producing fuel for nuclear weapons. But Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, has said he would make such suspension a topic for discussion with Iran, rather than a precondition for any negotiations to take place.

European officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said they are wary of giving up a demand that has been so enshrined in U.N. resolutions, particularly without any corresponding concessions by Iran. Although European officials are eager to welcome a U.S. president promising renewed diplomacy and multilateralism … they feel strongly about continuing on the current path.

"Dropping a unanimous Security Council condition would simply be interpreted by Iran and America's allies as unconditional surrender, and America's friends would view this as confirmation of America's basic unreliability," said François Heisbourg, a Paris-based military analyst with the International Institute for Strategic Studies. "A hell of a way to start a presidential term."

Of course, it’s worth remembering that Democratic presidential hopefuls (including Obama) also caused some upset with key European leaders earlier this year over their rhetoric on trade policy.

So there should be plenty for Obama to talk about with several of our closest allies when he jets abroad.

Purge of the Surge

James Richardson — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 10:59:07 GMT

Barack Obama continues to “refine” his position(s) on Iraq and the success of the surge, it appears.

Per the NY Daily News, on Sunday evening, Obama aides posted a new plan for Iraq to his campaign website:

The presumed Democratic nominee replaced his Iraq issue Web page, which had described the surge as a "problem" that had barely reduced violence.

"The surge is not working," Obama's old plan stated, citing a lack of Iraqi political cooperation but crediting Sunni sheiks - not U.S. military muscle - for quelling violence in Anbar Province.

[…]

Obama's campaign posted a new Iraq plan Sunday night, which cites an "improved security situation" paid for with the blood of U.S. troops since the surge began in February 2007.

It praises G.I.s' "hard work, improved counterinsurgency tactics and enormous sacrifice."

Irrespective of what Obama’s website now says regarding his “new plan,” it’s worth remembering that Obama said in 2007 that the surge strategy would not “prove to be one that changes the dynamics significantly.” Whatever his campaign spokespeople may now seek to convey, Obama lacked the necessary political courage and military judgment to support the surge strategy. Senator McCain, unlike his presidential counterpart, faced a surge of his own: namely one in negative sentiment from the public, and indeed from many in his own party, for suggesting a new strategy when he did and along the lines that he did. It’s worth remembering that, when assessing which of these candidates is best placed to bring our troops home with dignity, and in victory.

Re: Gaffes

James Richardson — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:37:23 GMT

Earlier today, Liz posted on Barack Obama’s overstating of his role on immigration reform. I’d like to remind readers, though, that Obama doesn’t just overstate. The freshman senator from Illinois actually misstates, especially where US geographical matters are concerned, and with some frequency, too. Some examples:

Obama said in May that he’d “now been in 57 states” (leaving me speechless, for once).
To an audience in Sunrise, Florida, Obama asked “How’s it going Sunshine?” following up with “Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you everybody. It’s good to be in Sunshine!” (er, it was Sunrise, Senator).
To an audience in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, in May Obama said, “Thank you, Sioux City.” D’Oh!

Of course, these are but a few instances of the presumptive Democratic nominee gaffing it up.

Overstating One’s Role

Liz Mair — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 10:54:23 GMT

On Saturday, Lynn Sweet wrote about how Obama has been “overstating” his role on immigration reform, commenting that, on the campaign trail, Obama “inflates his leadership role — casting himself as someone who could figure out how to get something done.” Sweet quotes Margaret Sands Orchowski, an author on immigration and a tracker of immigration reform legislation as saying Obama “did not absolutely stand out in any way,” and Sen. Lindsey Graham as saying that Obama “broke the agreement” that backers of immigration reform legislation had struck, among other things by voting for making guest worker visa programs temporary.

Votes for such “poison pill” amendments to the legislation are one thing Jake Tapper delves into further today, in this item where he writes:

There was a cohesive bipartisan group led by Sens. McCain and Ted Kennedy, D-Mass, that worked to defeat amendments that would hurt the overall bill's chance of final passage -- amendments that were too liberal for the Republicans and too conservative for the Democrats.

And on at least five occasions, Obama voted for amendments against the wishes of the bipartisan group, including Kennedy.

These included an amendment Obama offered that would have sunsetted the merit-based evaluation system for immigrants after five years; two amendments from Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-ND, to sunset both the temporary guest worker visa program and the Y-1 non-immigrant temporary worker visa program after five years; and two amendments from Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-NM, that would have removed the requirement that 'Y' non-immigrant visa holders leave the United States before they are able to renew their visa, and would have lowered the annual visa quota for guest workers from 400,000 to 200,000 per year.

Obama voted for all five; Kennedy voted against all five.

The bottom line, in Tapper’s view?

Obama… took actions that were contrary to the desires of the bipartisan coalition that may have helped sink the bill.

On the 2007 bill… Obama took to little-to-no risks at all.

Sinking bipartisan bills one is now trying to tie oneself to. Taking little-to-no-risks at all. Barack Obama.

Obama`s Iraq Withdrawal Plan May Prove Difficult

Liz Mair — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 13:18:43 GMT

This morning, on Good Morning America, Martha Raddatz offered a very interesting on-air report of her trip to Iraq:

An actual write-up of her visit can be found here—and it’s one that won’t exactly please Team Obama. Excerpts:

Whatever nuance Barack Obama is now adding to his Iraq withdrawal strategy, the core plan on his Web site is as plain as day: Obama would "immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months."

It is a plan that, no doubt, helped Obama get his party's nomination, but one that may prove difficult if he is elected president.

[…]

We spent a day with Maj. Gen. Jeffery Hammond in Sadr City. He is the commander of the 4th Infantry Division, which is responsible for Baghdad. Hammond will likely be one of the commanders who briefs Barack Obama when he visits Iraq.

[…]

"Instead of any time-based approach to any decision for withdrawal, it's got to be conditions-based, with the starting point being an intelligence analysis of what might be here today, and what might lie ahead in the future. I still think we still have work that remains to be done before I can really answer that question," Hammond said when asked how he would feel about an order to start drawing down two combat brigades a month.

Asked if he considered it dangerous to pull out if the withdrawal is not based on "conditions," Hammond said, "It's very dangerous. I'll speak for the coalition forces, men and women of character and moral courage; we have a mission, and it's not until the mission is done that I can look my leader in the eye and say, 'Sir, Ma'am, mission accomplished,' and I think it is dangerous to leave anything a little early."

[…]

On the streets of Baghdad, where a suicide bomber had struck just days before, Capt. Josh West told us he wants to finish the mission, and that any further drawdown has to be based on conditions on the ground.

"If we pull out of here too early, it's going to establish a vacuum of power that violent criminal groups will be able to fill once we leave," West said.

Capt. Jeremy Ussery, a West Point graduate on his third deployment, pointed to his heavy body armor as we walked in the 120-degree heat, saying, "The same people keep coming back because we want to see Iraq succeed, that's what we want. I don't want my kids, that hopefully will join the military, my notional children, to have to come back to Iraq 30 years from now and wear this."

But Ussery added, "You can't put a timetable on it -- it's events-based."

It sure sounds from the above like those who are actually on the ground in Iraq (and bear in mind that 915 days and counting since Barack Obama was last there) think Obama’s long-held commitment, as set out on his website even today, is not at all sensible or smart. Obama has made comments, in recent days, that seem aimed at convincing voters that any timetable he sets would be based on the conditions on the ground, and isn’t rigid, or fixed, irrespective of them—but that’s sure not what his website indicates, and funnily, it’s not the impression he was giving off in the primaries. Obama’s consistency and firmness with regard to immediately removing troops from Iraq, should he become president, has in fact been one of the major hallmarks of his campaign (and, indeed, selling points during the Democratic primary). So that makes informed criticism of it, such as that offered by those Raddatz spoke to, all the more biting. Those in the know, it seems, think Obama’s judgment on this very key issue is off—and for the reasons Capt. Ussery suggests (the prospect of US troops having to go back to Iraq years down the road if they are precipitously withdrawn now, and all the gains made since implementation of the surge utterly dissolve), that’s something very important to bear in mind. John McCain advocated for a change of strategy in Iraq when it was evident to him that a change was required—and, I’d note, long before others saw the need. That change—the troop surge—is now yielding real dividends and resulting in real successes. If judgment with regard to the actual handling of US engagement in Iraq is the issue (and it will certainly be a big one this year), it’s pretty clear that John McCain is the stronger candidate. That’s bad news for Barack Obama.

Indignación

James Richardson — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 13:21:09 GMT

Today, The Miami Herald reports of mounting pressure on Barack Obama from Cuban exiles over two campaign advisers tied to the Elian Gonzalez fiasco, Eric Holder and Greg Craig:

Greg Craig, a foreign policy advisor, represented Elian's father in the custody battle that ended with the boy being sent back to Cuba. Eric Holder, a member of Obama's vice presidential search committee, served as deputy attorney general when the federal agents seized the boy from his Miami relatives. His mother died at sea in the rafting trip to Miami.

In the letter, the Cuban-American leaders say Obama "demonstrates a shocking level of political insensitity'' by keeping Craig and Holder on his team. About three dozen protesters rallied outside an Obama speech in Miami last month.

"It is cause for indignation that these men sit so closely to a presidential contender while our families, friends and neighbors 90 miles to the South are held captive by a tyrannical regime,'' the letter says. "Had it not been for the actions of these two men, lending themselves as instruments to Fidel Castro, Elian could today be enjoying the freedom his mother died to provide for him."

Babalu Blog’s Henry Louis Gomez also seems less than impressed by Barack Obama involving Holder and Craig in his campaign. It’s unlikely that he, and the signers of the letter, are alone in that where Florida’s Cuban population is concerned. Perhaps that’s something Obama should ponder?

Obama’s FISA Shift

Liz Mair — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 17:30:44 GMT

Per Jake Tapper this morning:

"To be clear," Sen. Barack Obama. D-Illinois, spox Bill Burton told Talking Points Memo last October about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, "Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."

Reaffirmed Obama's Senate office in December: “Senator Obama unequivocally opposes giving retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies and has cosponsored Senator Dodd's efforts to remove that provision from the FISA bill. Granting such immunity undermines the constitutional protections Americans trust the Congress to protect. Senator Obama supports a filibuster of this bill, and strongly urges others to do the same...Senator Obama will not be among those voting to end the filibuster.”

In February Obama voted in favor of the an amendment from Sens. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Russ Feingold, D-Wisc., to repeal retroactive immunity for telecoms, saying, "I am proud to stand with Senator Dodd, Senator Feingold and a grassroots movement of Americans who are refusing to let President Bush put protections for special interests ahead of our security and our liberty. There is no reason why telephone companies should be given blanket immunity to cover violations of the rights of the American people - we must reaffirm that no one in this country is above the law. We can give our intelligence and law enforcement community the powers they need to track down and take out terrorists without undermining our commitment to the rule of law, or our basic rights and liberties."

So… based on the above, do you think Obama supported a filibuster of the FISA bill that came before the Senate today? Do you think he voted against the bill?

If you answered “yes” to either or both of those questions, you would be wrong. Obama voted for cloture and Obama voted for the bill—despite the statements Tapper cites having been made, and made very publicly, just months ago.

It looks like another Obama policy shift has been completed.

Out of Left Field

James Richardson — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 14:36:09 GMT

Senator Dick Durbin, the senior senator from Illinois and Obama’s campaign Co-Chair, is veering from the campaign talking points regarding off-shore drilling and oil production, it seems.

The Wall Street Journal reports Durbin is “open to drilling and responsible production,” which doesn’t sound quite like what “Dr. No,” i.e., Obama (who voted for the Bush-Cheney energy bill – an interesting tidbit the Obama campaign and the DNC tend to gloss over), has been saying.

Per the WSJ:

Speaking to reporters Tuesday, Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin (D., Ill.), said "I'm open to drilling and responsible production," adding that he and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, (D., Nev.), could support a modest expansion of offshore production. …

Recent opinion polls have indicated strong public support for more domestic exploration. A Rasmussen Reports survey in June showed 67% of Americans support deepwater energy exploration -- with 64% expecting it will lower gas prices -- while a CNN poll published last week showed 73% of Americans favor more exploration of deep ocean energy resources far off U.S. shores. …

Looks like Senator Durbin is getting the message that many Americans-- worried about record high gas prices-- support an expansion of drilling and oil production. How long until Durbin’s freshman colleague takes his cue and follows suit?

D’Oh!

Liz Mair — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 14:55:33 GMT

The DNC bloggers have posted this item today, which claims that what Barack Obama has to offer is “a real energy plan,” “Not just a bear hug of Bush's energy policies.”

This is somewhat ironic; it’s also downright embarrassing for our counterparts down the street. If the DNC’s blogging team had bothered to have a word with their research department before throwing this kind of thing up on the web, for all to see and all to query, they presumably would have been aware that Barack Obama voted for the 2005 Energy Bill, a.k.a., the Bush-Cheney Energy Plan.

They’d also be aware that John McCain did not.

Not that it’s exactly tough work to figure out how Obama voted on the bill in question. Senator Clinton underlined that point plenty while still running for the Democratic nomination.

You’d think the DNC bloggers might have been aware of that, wouldn’t you? I mean, hers was a critique leveled by one of their fellow party members, and not exactly an unknown one at that.