Quote:http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/republican_majority_committee.phpMurky Group Spends Hundreds of Thousands against Obama and Clinton
By Paul Kiel - March 24, 2008, 11:44AM
This election is sure to see its share of attack groups like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. But while most of the attention will be on the billionaire-backed attack organizations, there are also sure to be a number of smaller groups operating under the radar.
A group called the Republican Majority Campaign is a good example. Since January, the group has disclosed spending a total of $350,000 on phone calls against both of the Democratic presidential nominees. The FEC filings show a number of expenditures in equal amounts on the same day against both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama throughout February and March. It's an oddly unfocused strategy and one that the group declines to describe publicly in any detail.
But that's not all that's curious about the group. It's operations resemble those of groups formerly run by Linda Chavez and Christopher Gersten, although those associated with the group deny any connection with Chavez and Gerstein.
Chavez, a former Reagan administration official and President Bush's one-time nominee for Secretary of Labor (derailed by a nanny scandal), and Gersten, a former Bush administration official, ran a stable of conservative political action committees together for many years. But that stopped not long after a front-page Washington Post story, under the headline "In Fundraising's Murky Corners," exposed a troubling trend in those groups. Only about one percent of the funds were used for actual political activities such as contributions to politicians or independent political activity. The rest was cycled back into fundraising costs, "a modest but steady source of income for Chavez and four family members," and various expenses for the family associated with the groups. "I guess you could call it the family business," as Chavez put it.
Foxfyre wrote:
I am afraid of getting a President who will focus on the 'black agenda' and make matters worse instead of healing.
What is the 'black agenda' and how does it differ from the Democratic agenda?.
Barack Obama wrote:That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time." This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.
This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.
This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.
This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged, and we want to talk about how we'll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.
I would not be running for President if I didn't believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country.
Foxfyre wrote:I am afraid of a President who claims to be a uniter, not a divider, but who has never voted with the GOP even once nor reached out to them in identifiable way nor co-sponsored any significant legislations shared by GOP sponsors.
Obama-Lugar. But I think you and others misunderstand him when he talks of uniting us. He's talking about uniting people, not politicians, around a common agenda.
Quote:What specific evidence do you have to show that Obama is in fact the person he claims to be?
What evidence do you have that he isn't?
Also do you believe I provided competent rebuttal to your other points?
FreeDuck wrote:What danger are you afraid of? What do you think he will do as president that is so dangerous?
Foxfyre wrote:And not only is Obama the most leftwing socialist serious candidate for President we've had in a very long time, he now has a public relations problem that I don't believe was dispelled by his speech.
So when asked what specifically you think makes Obama so dangerous, now that we've heard some controversial statements by Rev. Wright, part of your answer is that he's "the most leftwing socialist serious candidate for President we've had in a very long time"?
So again, what evidence do you have that he is?
Foxfyre wrote:
So again, what evidence do you have that he is?
No more and no less than all of his words and all of his actions.
I also believe that if the situation were reversed, and John McCain had been a 20-year active member of John Hagee's church, had contributed heavily to it, had cited Hagee as his spiritual advisor and mentor, and had put Hagee on his campaign staff, you would not be suggesting that such circumstances should make no difference at all and shouldn't raise any question about John McCain and/or how he might govern.
old europe wrote:FreeDuck wrote:What danger are you afraid of? What do you think he will do as president that is so dangerous?
Foxfyre wrote:And not only is Obama the most leftwing socialist serious candidate for President we've had in a very long time, he now has a public relations problem that I don't believe was dispelled by his speech.
So when asked what specifically you think makes Obama so dangerous, now that we've heard some controversial statements by Rev. Wright, part of your answer is that he's "the most leftwing socialist serious candidate for President we've had in a very long time"?
Asked and answered OE. I don't believe I insinuated that Rev. Wright is running for President.
Foxfyre wrote:old europe wrote:FreeDuck wrote:What danger are you afraid of? What do you think he will do as president that is so dangerous?
Foxfyre wrote:And not only is Obama the most leftwing socialist serious candidate for President we've had in a very long time, he now has a public relations problem that I don't believe was dispelled by his speech.
So when asked what specifically you think makes Obama so dangerous, now that we've heard some controversial statements by Rev. Wright, part of your answer is that he's "the most leftwing socialist serious candidate for President we've had in a very long time"?
Asked and answered OE. I don't believe I insinuated that Rev. Wright is running for President.
Good. That's settled. You don't believe that Rev. Wright is running for President.
Now about the other bit: how do Rev. Wright's statements - that have been denounced by Obama - make Obama "the most leftwing socialist serious candidate for President we've had in a very long time"?
I mean, so far you've said that Wright's statements were racist and anti-American. But how do Wright's statements now make Obama "leftwing socialist"?
Explain.
FreeDuck wrote:Foxfyre wrote:
So again, what evidence do you have that he is?
No more and no less than all of his words and all of his actions.
Well without going into ALL his words and ALL of his actions, could you be a bit more specific and cite a couple of examples?
Foxfyre wrote:old europe wrote:FreeDuck wrote:What danger are you afraid of? What do you think he will do as president that is so dangerous?
Foxfyre wrote:And not only is Obama the most leftwing socialist serious candidate for President we've had in a very long time, he now has a public relations problem that I don't believe was dispelled by his speech.
So when asked what specifically you think makes Obama so dangerous, now that we've heard some controversial statements by Rev. Wright, part of your answer is that he's "the most leftwing socialist serious candidate for President we've had in a very long time"?
Asked and answered OE. I don't believe I insinuated that Rev. Wright is running for President.
Good. That's settled. You don't believe that Rev. Wright is running for President.
Now about the other bit: how do Rev. Wright's statements - that have been denounced by Obama - make Obama "the most leftwing socialist serious candidate for President we've had in a very long time"?
I mean, so far you've said that Wright's statements were racist and anti-American. But how do Wright's statements now make Obama "leftwing socialist"?
Explain.
You're right that those who would not have voted for Obama anyway will not be persuaded to vote for him at this point. But voters like me, and I don't think I'm atypical, who were not excessively concerned about Obama and didn't fear him as President are now taking a much closer second look. I didn't think there was any force out there strong enough to make me prefer Hillary to Obama. But now I'm wondering if she might not be the less dangerous choice. Obama did not reassure me.
Rev. Wright is a PR problem for Obama on top of all the rest.
But, for now, lets look at his website and use what's there.
Education:
"Obama will quadruple Early Head Start, increase Head Start funding and improve quality for both."
Good idea, hefty cost.
"Obama will reform NCLB, which starts by funding the law. Obama believes teachers should not be forced to spend the academic year preparing students to fill in bubbles on standardized tests. He will improve the assessments used to track student progress to measure readiness for college and the workplace and improve student learning in a timely, individualized manner. Obama will also improve NCLB's accountability system so that we are supporting schools that need improvement, rather than punishing them. "
Increased spending, moving away from accountability, throwing money at the problem.
"Obama will address the dropout crisis by passing his legislation to provide funding to school districts to invest in intervention strategies in middle school - strategies such as personal academic plans, teaching teams, parent involvement, mentoring, intensive reading and math instruction, and extended learning time."
Why not make the government schools federal schools and do away with local administrations? Again, a hefty price tag.
"Obama will double funding for the main federal support for afterschool programs, the 21st Century Learning Centers program, to serve one million more children. "
Spend, spend, spend... looks like a tax increase to me... oh boy.
"Obama will create new Teacher Service Scholarships that will cover four years of undergraduate or two years of graduate teacher education"
"He will also provide incentives to give teachers paid common planning time so they can collaborate to share best practices. "
"Obama will promote new and innovative ways to increase teacher pay that are developed with teachers, not imposed on them. "
Common theme for Obama's educational policies - SPEND MORE MONEY!
Fiscal matters:
"Obama will protect tax cuts for poor and middle class families, but he will reverse most of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers. "
Despite the fact that tax revenues are higher with the Bush tax cuts... Lets give the rich a reason to move their money offshore and out of the country again.
"Obama has called for an end to subsidies for oil and gas companies that are enjoying record profits, "
"Obama will level the playing field for all businesses by eliminating special-interest loopholes and deductions, such as those for the oil and gas industry. "
Obama is playing on the fact that gas and oil prices are high by going after them.. typical Democratic strategy. Raising taxes and cutting subsidies on them will only be passed on to the consumer. I don't want to spend $6 a gallon on gas. Do you?
Foreign Policy:
"Obama will 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."
Stupid is as stupid does I suppose. Full on civil war in Iraq in 16 months. I wonder how long before Iraq becomes a subsidary of Iran?
"The best way to press Iraq's leaders to take responsibility for their future is to make it clear that we are leaving. As we remove our troops, Obama will engage representatives from all levels of Iraqi society - in and out of government - to seek a new accord on Iraq's Constitution and governance. The United Nations will play a central role in this convention, which should not adjourn until a new national accord is reached addressing tough questions like federalism and oil revenue-sharing. "
Good luck on that one. An impossible dream and a plan for utter failure. Welcome to a single term if he wins.
"Obama will launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent American history to reach a new compact on the stability of Iraq and the Middle East. This effort will include all of Iraq's neighbors - including Iran and Syria."
Negotiating with terrorists. Great way to ensure more terrorism.
ho, Christopher Hitchens wrote extensively of Henry Kissinger's war crimes. In his research he discovered evidence that backs up much of what Rev. Wright says about America. War crimes should be damned by God and everyone else. Your continuous railing against Rev. Wright is contingent on your ignoring American history which is what truly damns America. You have someone to crucify with soundbites which enables you to keep on keeping on pretending America is some kind of moral force. To do that you must ignore the truth at all costs.
Foxy,
you've stated that now, after you've heard statement from Rev. Wright, you've come to see Obama as dangerous. Here. Your statement.
Foxfyre wrote:You're right that those who would not have voted for Obama anyway will not be persuaded to vote for him at this point. But voters like me, and I don't think I'm atypical, who were not excessively concerned about Obama and didn't fear him as President are now taking a much closer second look. I didn't think there was any force out there strong enough to make me prefer Hillary to Obama. But now I'm wondering if she might not be the less dangerous choice. Obama did not reassure me.
When asked about why you see Obama as a more dangerous choice now, your answer is
Foxfyre wrote:Rev. Wright is a PR problem for Obama on top of all the rest.
Does this mean that the whole turmoil about Rev. Wright (that you consider nothing more as a PR problem) made you go look at Obama's actual platform, and you came away with the impression that he was the most leftwing socialist candidate in years - and that's what you see as dangerous?
Are you saying that Obama's statements after the whole turmoil about Rev. Wright (that you consider nothing more as a PR problem) did not reassure you that he is not a dangerous leftwing socialist?
I thought you were worried about the fact that Rev. Wright was an anti-American racist?
What exactly is it?
[ Obama has already proven he doesn't have two of the credentials many look for in a president - judgment and character.
