Turns out I am not the only one who wonders why Obama continues to get a free pass for actions that, had Bush done them, would be front page news (and again, I have NO love lost for Bush – absolutely zero, but fair is fair). Josh Gerstein of Politico had these same questions, about which he wrote in this article, What If Bush Had Done That?. Indeed:

A four-hour stop in New Orleans, on his way to a $3 million fundraiser.

Snubbing the Dalai Lama.

Signing off on a secret deal with drug makers.

Freezing out a TV network.

Doing more fundraisers than the last president. More golf, too.

President Barack Obama has done all of those things — and more.

What’s remarkable is what hasn’t happened. These episodes haven’t become metaphors for Obama’s personal and political character — or consuming controversies that sidetracked the rest of his agenda.

It’s a sign that the media’s echo chamber can be a funny thing, prone to the vagaries of news judgment, and an illustration that, in politics, context is everything.

Conservatives look on with a mix of indignation and amazement and ask: Imagine the fuss if George W. Bush had done these things?

The media’s “echo chamber”? That is a kind reference for what they are really doing, or rather aren’t doing: their jobs. Conservatives aren’t the only ones questioning why this is happening. Anyone who truly cares about the our democracy and the state of journalism in this country are asking, too. But they do ask a good question:

And quickly add, with a hint of jealousy: How does Obama get away with it?

“We have a joke about it. We’re going to start a website: IfBushHadDoneThat.com,” former Bush counselor Ed Gillespie said. “The watchdogs are curled up around his feet, sleeping soundly. … There are countless examples: some silly, some serious.”

Indeed, Bush got grief for secret meetings with the oil industry, politicizing the White House and spending too much time on his beloved bike. But it’s not just Republicans who notice. Media observers note that the president often gets kid-glove treatment from the press, fellow Democrats and, particularly, interest groups on the left — Bush’s loudest critics, Obama’s biggest backers.

But others say there’s a larger phenomenon at work — in the story line the media wrote about Obama’s presidency. For Bush, the theme was that of a Big Business Republican who rode the family name to the White House, so stories about secret energy meetings and a certain laziness, intellectual and otherwise, fit neatly into the theme, to be replayed over and over again.

Obama’s story line was more positive from the start: historic newcomer coming to shake up Washington. So the negatives that sprung up around Obama — like a sense that he was more flash than substance — track what negative coverage he’s received, captured in a recent “Saturday Night Live” skit that made fun of his lack of accomplishments in office.

“There may well be almost an unconscious effort on the part of the media to give Obama a bit more slack because he is more likable, because he is the first African-American president. That plays into it,” said Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, a political analyst at the University of Southern California.

Democrats find the complaints of Obama “getting a pass” hard to stomach in light of the way the press treated Bush — particularly on the single biggest mistake of his presidency, relying on the faulty intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq. Now, Obama’s aides say, the positive coverage simply reflects the fact that their efforts are succeeding.

“As our administration makes progress on the agenda that Washington has ignored for too long, we expect we’ll get some news coverage of that progress that we like and some tough coverage that we don’t,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said. “It’s not unlike the New Orleans Saints, who are getting lots of good coverage of their perfect record so far — certainly better coverage than the [2-5] Redskins — but it doesn’t mean the Saints have liked every story that’s been written about them since training camp. It goes with the territory.”

There are signs the friendly tone toward Obama is ebbing. Case in point: a front-page story in The New York Times noting that Obama’s all-male basketball games drew fire from the head of the National Organization for Women, who called the games “troubling.”

I agree that Bush seemed to be treated with kit gloves, way, way too much for my liking. The media does seem to enjoy determining who our next president will be. But even Bush’s treatment pales in comparison to the lovefest the MSM has had for Obama.

So yes, they are now asking why Obama excludes women (though he has now tried to rectify that by asking ONE woman, Melody Barnes, to play golf with him) in his games? We have known for ages that often, it is on the golf course or basketball court that favors are curried or power is amassed, hence the desire for women to achieve membership in numerous country clubs across the country. Oh, and Obama’s response to the NY Time’s articles highlighting that women were excluded? “Bunk, ” he said. Uh, yeah, no. It isn’t, President Obama.

There are too many examples of just how Obama has been allowed to skate free:

But here are other stories in which Obama seems to have gotten a pass:

New Orleans

As a candidate, Obama railed against the Bush administration for abandoning and then neglecting the people of New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. He made five campaign trips to the city.

But as president, Obama waited almost nine months before visiting the Big Easy, spent less than four hours on the ground there and then jetted to San Francisco for a $3 million Democratic fundraiser.

“Don’t judge anybody on the amount of time that they’ve spent there. Judge only what this administration promised that they would do, what they’ve done every day and what they’re continuing to work on,” press secretary Robert Gibbs said, pointing to positive reviews of the federal government’s efforts under Obama.

For their part, Democrats can’t see how Bush officials can muster much umbrage over anything related to New Orleans, given how the Republican administration handled the initial response to Katrina.

Forget “Bush Officials.” How about us plain ol’ Americans? We’re pretty pissed off about it, too. Just saying. A biggie is this:

Managing The Press

When the Obama administration moved in recent weeks to isolate and disparage Fox News as a wing of the Republican Party, there were few immediate howls of outrage — even from Fox’s fellow journalists in the media.

Press defenders and First Amendment advocates who jumped on the Bush administration for using military analysts to shape war coverage reacted with a yawn to the White House’s announcement that it had deemed Fox to be not a “legitimate news organization.”

“Had I said about MSNBC what the Obama White House said about Fox, the media uproar would still be going on,” said Ari Fleischer, who served as Bush’s press secretary until 2003. “I instinctively would have known … the media would have leapt to their feet to defend them. I’m shocked it’s not happening now.”

One press veteran agreed. “If George Bush had taken on MSNBC, what would have happened?” said Phil Bronstein, editor-at-large of the San Francisco Chronicle. “That’s one place you can point to a real difference in how I’d imagine Bush would be treated.”

No freakin’ kidding. People would be screaming their fool heads off about free speech. But the Obamam crowd? They just jump on the Fox bashing bandwagon. Nice.

And this is a big one, too:

Politicizing the White House

Throughout the Bush administration, liberal critics warned that the hand of Bush political adviser Karl Rove was spreading politics into all corners of government. Reporters were on alert for any sign that politics was infecting the work of federal agencies. One top appointee got in hot water for allegedly asking agency officials to work to “help our candidates” across the country.

So some Bush aides went nearly apoplectic earlier this month when they spotted Gibbs and Obama’s political guru, David Axelrod, in photos of a Situation Room meeting on Afghanistan policy.

“Oh, the howling and screaming that would have happened if Karl Rove was sitting in on even a deputies-level meeting where strategy was being hammered out. People would have just gone ballistic,” said Peter Feaver, a former White House aide for both Bush and Bill Clinton.

Also, in about nine months, Obama has already attended more than two dozen fundraising events, while Bush did only six in his first year in office, according to a tally by CBS’s Mark Knoller.

Gibbs said Obama had to do more to raise a similar amount of money, since the kinds of soft-money fundraisers Bush did early on were banned. “This president … doesn’t accept money from PACs or lobbyists and doesn’t allow lobbyists to give at fundraisers that he’s at, as well,” Gibbs added.

Uh, yeah, sure, okay, Mr. Mealy Mouth Man. We all buy that one, right? Uh, yeah, no.

Then there is this one:

Dealing With Business, In Secret

Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney endured years of criticism and lawsuits that stretched all the way to the Supreme Court over secret meetings Cheney’s Energy Task Force held with oil and gas companies. When the policy emerged, critics said Cheney was carrying water for the industry.

Obama pledged to hash out health care reform live on C-SPAN and excoriated Bush for kowtowing to the drug industry. But aides signed off on the drug industry’s agreement to find $80 billion in savings to support reform. However, Obama aides didn’t disclose that the agreement involved the White House promising that current health legislation wouldn’t include further cuts or give the government the right to negotiate over drug prices.

I admit, this did actually get a rise from a few folks, like Greg Palast. But that moment seems to have passed now. Now, people rarely mention it. Big surprise…

And another issue near and dear to many of us:

Toning Down Human Rights

During the campaign, Obama talked tough on China. While candidate Obama pushed Bush to take a hard line, President Obama hasn’t. Hoping to win China’s help on Iran and North Korea, Obama skipped a meeting with the Dalai Lama and said little when China undertook a violent crackdown in its largely Muslim Xinjiang region. The White House has pledged to meet with the Dalai Lama later.

And while candidate Obama warned Bush against a “reckless and cynical initiative [that] would reward a regime in Khartoum that has a record of failing to live up to its commitments,” President Obama’s envoy to Sudan, Scott Gration, seemed to lay out a similar incentive-driven approach.

“We’ve got to think about giving out cookies,” said Gration. “Kids, countries — they react to gold stars, smiley faces, handshakes, agreements, talk, engagement.” The White House backed away from Gration’s characterization of the strategy but did recently lay out a strategy of engaging with the Sudanese regime.

Obama snubbed the DALAI LAMA. C’mon already – THAT’S not going to get an outcry? He’s the DALAI LAMA, for pete’s sake! No? *Crickets*

Just for, um, fun:

Traveling And Recreating

In his campaign and as president, Bush was mocked for a lack of interest in all things foreign — seven minutes touring the Kremlin, 25 minutes at the Great Wall of China, before declaring, “Let’s go home.”

During a trip to Europe in June, Obama chastised German and French reporters for suggesting that he was snubbing those countries by making only brief stops in each. “There are only 24 hours in the day. And so there’s nothing to any of that speculation beyond us just trying to fit in what we could do on such a short trip,” he told reporters in Germany.

But after taking his wife out for an attention-grabbing date night, Obama promptly jetted back to Washington. Within about 90 minutes of arriving at the White House, the tightly scheduled president was on the move again — headed to Andrews Air Force Base to play nine holes of golf.

How quickly people change. If Bush had done ANY of these things, the HuffPo and Daily Kos crowds would have been going ballistic about it. But now that it’s THEIR guy, it’s peachy keen. Where is the sense of fair play? Where is the concept of right is right? No, all of that gets completely thrown out of the window if it is someone they actually LIKE.

That is just sad. While ethics can be situational, the similarities between Bush and Obama are glaring, as many of us said they were all along. To completely disregard any sense of decency because it’s their guy weakens their arguments about choosing him in the first place. It makes it crystal clear that this is about winning at all costs, and choosing someone with little more than a teleprompter to do so.

It weakens their arguments against Bush, too, though they will most likely never admit that. But it’s true. In this case, what’s god for the gander, is, well, good for the gander.

Maybe if the media actually starts to do its job (for instance, where are all of the photos of Obama playing golf all of the time? Or basketball? They never failed to show Bush playing or riding his bike.), maybe they will start to open their eyes. One can hope, anyway. In the meantime, it continues to be our job to hold Obama’s feet to the fire for decisions he makes, and doesn’t make. It is our job to hold up the glaring similarities between Bush and Obama. And do so we will…

But here’s the problem for me. I had really liked President Carter. I had a lot of respect for him, in fact. I was young and naive when he was in office, but certainly the work he had done AFTER leaving the White House was commendable. For instance, the work he and his entire family did for Habitat for Humanity has helped numerous people, including in my home town. I have experienced firsthand seeing the joy and pride the new homeowner as she looked at her house, and talked about what it meant to her. And the group of university students with whom I was working, all female, becoming more empowered, more sure of themselves, because they were helping to build someone a HOUSE, and the sense of pride and accomplishment that gave them.

The work Carter has done in Africa, helping to eradicate a horrible disease of worms that infiltrate too many areas there, doing horrible damage to the people they infest. Or his work in monitoring elections. Heck, even his recent decision to leave his church of many years because they will not ordain women.

My partner and I have visited the Carter Presidential Library in Atlanta, GA, a beautiful place in a calming and serene environment. I walked through that buildung filled with a sense of awe, seeing what he gave up, and subsequently his wife, when he left his commission as a Naval officer behind to go back to Georgia and help out the family. As I saw photographs marking historic moments, actual papers from events I had read about, or seen on tv. I was in awe as I saw his actual Nobel Peace Prize. And with pride, we have supported the Carter Peace Center for years now with monthly contributions…

(Photo by rachydachy)

But, things have been changed now. It began with some of his statements about Israel. Then President Carter inserted himself into the Primary Campaign, making some unkind remarks about my hero, “>Hillary Clinton. And now this. Being called a racist because I oppose the way by which Obama became President, but even more, because I oppose his policies. When someone calls me a racist, I gotta say (as we do down here in the South, “Them’s fightin’ words.” And so, I have written this letter to send to the Carter Center when my next payment is due:

Dear Carter Center,

Sincerely,
The Rev. Amy

What a sad day, for me personally, but also for this nation, when a former president makes such a grievous, and unfounded, charge against over half of the population. Because we have the audacity to judge the president by his CHARACTER, rather than the color of his skin, as Martin Luther King, Jr., charged us to do, we are called a heinous name. How sad, and how infuriating.

President Carter, as respectfully as I can muster after being called a racist, I would suggest it is time for you to go into retirement, and leave off sharing your political opinions. You are not doing yourself or your legacy any good, to be sure. Even more, you are not doing this nation any good. Rather, you are fanning flames that divide us, not unite us, all to provide cover for a man who, had he been properly vetted in the first place, and had the DNC followed its own rules, would never have gotten this far. Speaking for me only, I am judging Obama on the merits, not the color of his skin. I suggest you do likewise.

Rather, the point of the Editorial has to do with an upcoming Supreme Court decision:

The Supreme Court may be about to radically change politics by striking down the longstanding rule that says corporations cannot spend directly on federal elections. If the floodgates open, money from big business could overwhelm the electoral process, as well as the making of laws on issues like tax policy and bank regulation.

The court, which is scheduled to hear arguments on this issue on Wednesday, is rushing to decide a monumental question at breakneck speed and seems willing to throw established precedents and judicial modesty out the window.

Corporations and unions have been prohibited from spending their money on federal campaigns since 1947, and corporate contributions have been barred since 1907. States have barred corporate expenditures since the late 1800s. These laws are very much needed today. In the 2008 election cycle, Fortune 100 companies alone had combined revenues of $13.1 trillion and profits of $605 billion. That dwarfs the $1.5 billion that Federal Election Commission-registered political parties spent during the same election period, or the $1.2 billion spent by federal political action committees.

Uh, okay. Is it really possible that the Editors are unaware just how much money Obama spent to buy the White House in the last election? Are they unaware that he violated one of his campaign promises to forego Public Financing? Did they even BOTHER to look up just how much money Obama GOT from corporations?? Evidently not. Hence their outrage at this possibility. And it goes on:

The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the limitations on corporate campaign expenditures. In 1990, in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, and again in 2003, in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, it made clear that Congress was acting within its authority and that the restrictions are consistent with the First Amendment.

In late June, the court directed the parties to address whether Austin and McConnell should be overruled. It gave the parties in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission a month to write legal briefs on a question of extraordinary complexity and importance, and it scheduled arguments during the court’s vacation.

All of this is disturbing on many levels. Normally, the court tries not to decide cases on constitutional grounds if they can be resolved more simply. Here the court is reaching out to decide a constitutional issue that could change the direction of American democracy.

The Editors are sure right about that – it IS “disturbing on many levels.” I just don’t get why they didn’t get so exercised about this say, oh, two years ago. I guess I’m just nitpicky that way.

And their concern continues:

The court usually shows great respect for its own precedents, a point Chief Justice John Roberts made at his confirmation hearings. Now the court appears ready, without any particular need, to overturn important precedents and decades of federal and state law.

The scheduling is enormously troubling. There is no rush to address the constitutionality of the corporate expenditures limit. But the court is racing to do that in a poorly chosen case with no factual record on the critical question, making careful deliberation impossible.

Most disturbing, though, is the substance of what the court seems poised to do. If corporations are allowed to spend from their own treasuries on elections — rather than through political action committees, which take contributions from company employees — it would usher in an unprecedented age of special-interest politics.

Corporations would have an enormous say in who wins federal elections. They would be able to use this influence to obtain subsidies, stimulus money and tax loopholes and to undo protections for investors, workers and consumers. It would take an extraordinarily brave member of Congress to stand up to agents of big business who then could say, quite credibly, that they would spend whatever it takes in the next election to defeat him or her.

The conservative majority on the court likes to present itself as deferential to the elected branches of government and as minimalists about the role of judges. Chief Justice Roberts promised the Senate that if confirmed he would remember that it’s his “job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat.”

If the court races to overturn federal and state laws, and its well-established precedents, to free up corporations to drown elections in money, it will be swinging for the fences. The American public will be the losers.

Well,I don’t know about you, but this seems just a tad disingenuous to me. They are railing NOW about the money corporations can spend? Do you think they gave a crap that Goldman Sachs, yes, I said, GOLDMAN SACHS, gave Obama almost $1 MILLION dollars? How about Time Warner giving him almost $600,000? The list goes on and on, which is what makes the outrage of the Editors ring just a bit hollow to me. How about you?

Obama claims that much of the record-breaking donations come from small donors, often via his Web site. The symbolism of both the size and number of those donations has taken on mythical proportions. However, it is very worrisome that Obama doesn’t share the details of how those Web donations are procured.

In fact, if the details are as suspected, Obama has found an “inventive” way to fund his campaign and to subvert campaign finance laws. (This week, regular NoQuarter reader Craig initiated a myth-breaking investigation, and his findings are being published widely, at least around the blogosphere. Links to the blog posts are listed at the end of my story.)

John McCain noted yesterday in an exclusive interview with Joseph Curl of the Washington Times:

Mr. McCain said Mr. Obama’s giant fundraising total — he announced this weekend that he raised more than $150 million in September — is going to produce “a scandal.”

His campaign and the Republican National Committee have released the names of all his donors, including those who have contributed less than $200. That’s not required by federal election rules, and Mr. Obama has declined to release his small-dollar donors, leading to speculation that some donors are trying to circumvent fundraising laws.

Some of Obama’s donors are trying?! It’s more that his donors are indeed circumventing fundraising laws. Consider how this works …

You can contribute to Obama’s campaign via his Web site in amounts from $5 to $2,300, in each instance. There appear to be no sensible checks in the submission form, and there’s only a simple note at the bottom of the page that states that an individual can only contribute up to $2,300 per election and that the contribution made on the Web site page “is designated for the general election.”

But, this reminder is virtually meaningless since no wording on the Web site page that states that donors must use their real names. Nor does the Obama donation page require that you confirm that you are using your real name.

In other words, in Barack Obama’s world, your decision to obey FEC (Federal Election Commission) laws is entirely voluntary.

Most alarming is that there appears to be NO mechanism on Obama’s donation page to ensure that the name of the donor matches the name on the credit card.

1. Go to the Obama Web site to make a contribution.



2. Fill in the form, even with bogus information—nothing asks for true or correct information.
3. Enter a contribution from $5 to $2,300.
4. Enter a credit card type, number, and expiration.
5. Check the confirmation that you are legally eligible to make a contribution (i.e., that you are a U.S. citizen or legal resident, at least 16 years old, etc.). Again, nothing is required that you verify that you are using your real name.
6. Submit the contribution.
7. You will receive a thank you note. The note is quite simple: “Your donation has been processed. Thank you for your generous gift.”

This is campaign money laundering made easy. There is no validation that the name and address entered match the credit card’s information. Nor was the security code on the card requested.

Ignore the campaign aspect of this for a moment.

The Obama Web site is obviously set up to bypass common security checks: There is no Address Verification Check (the 3-4 digit number on your card). And there is no requirement to match your billing address, no City-State-ZIP code match.

Since none of these is verified by the Web site’s programming system, it is very likely that the site is a dream for anyone whose donation comes from another country. Foreign donors, merely by using their credit cards, can donate just as easily as U.S. donors. These are settings that the Obama campaign had to intentionally set up, and it is at odds with the well-established security precautions implemented by nearly all online merchants and many brick-and-mortar businesses.

If you consider that any time you make a purchase, you are asked for or are tested for these common security precautions and verifications, why are these simple requirements not in place on Obama’s campaign Web site?

As others have noted, McCain’s Web site does perform those security and identity checks. Further, McCain is transparent on all donations. Obama is not. Why? He simply wants the money regardless of source, regardless of amount, and without respect for any applicable laws.

What does this mean?

• If the Obama campaign relies on the form information, rather than the credit card billing information, then they are blissfully ignorant of who is contributing, under what name(s), and how much they are contributing through multiple instances.
• The Obama campaign does not appear to validate your card entry, leaving the onus to catch fraudulent use to credit card companies or card holders.
• The lack of requirements to use one’s real name and offer validation appears to allow contributors to send as much as they want in multiple, small amounts under multiple names.
• Further, since you can buy anonymous gift cards, you can truly donate as much as you want without respect to campaign limits.

This is an incredible way to subvert campaign finance laws and to launder unlimited amounts of money into the Obama campaign. It is therefore no wonder that Obama opted to renege on public financing!

Yes, as Senator McCain notes, this is a scandal in the making. Not just $150 million, but over $600 million!

So, Senator Obama, I have a few questions for you:

• Do you match donor names with names on their credit cards before processing transactions? If so, what percentage of those names match up? If not, why not? When and how are discrepancies caught?
• Do you check donor IP addresses for U.S. locations? If not, why not?
• Have you received more than $2,300 from any given credit card? How many and how much?
• How much have you received from gift credit cards?
• Do you match donor and/or credit card names and contact information to state and local voter registration lists? If so, how many match or don’t match? If not, why not?
• How many donor email or physical addresses are not valid when you send ot that automated thank you note or a follow-up request?
• For the sake of transparency, will you release all donor names, matching credit card names, contact information, IP addresses, and amounts contributed?

• “WHO IS JOHN GALT?,” Powerline blog, October 23, 2008
• “WHAT DID DELLA WARE?,” Powerline blog, October 24, 2008
• “The Obama scammer,” National Review Online (Mark Steyn), October 23, 2008
• “We Get Results,”
  National Review Online (Mark Steyn), October 23, 2008
• “Not a Bombshell: Barack Obama’s Campaign Website Encourages Fraudulent Donations,” Ace of Spades, October 22, 2008

Cross-posted on my blog, The Independent View.

My oldest brother sent me the piece Gloria Steinem wrote on Gov. Palin, an elitist, patronizing piece in which she diminishes people who hunt (not understanding, I guess, that many people hunt to put FOOD on the table, especially in these difficult economic times), among other smears. So, I felt compelled to write him back. A lot of this is information those who have been paying attention already know:

I am not an apologist for Sarah Palin, but I find the argument that SHE is inexperienced as Steinem said to be laughable. The DNC selected the least experienced candidate ever, one who refuses to make available ANY paper trail at all – no college or law school transcripts, no medical records, no passports, no birth certificates, and claims he had NOT ONE PAPER or DATE BOOK available from his time in the IL Senate (which is part-time service, btw). One who has no legislative accomplishments of note to his name. Never mind the LONG list of his sordid associates which throw his whole “good judgment” stance out the window.

Or his lack of chairing ONE meeting of the European Affairs Subcommittee, which oversees Afghanistan, and now claims that we need to do more abt Afghanistan,and who wants to return to the foreign policy of DONALD RUMSFELD…If this was BUSH, the Progressives would be going batshit crazy screaming our fool heads off.


But for some reason, this is all fine and dandy. Never mind all of the university professors who are now shrugging off his constant plagiarizing (and his picking a running mate who is also a plagiarizer), an act that can get students thrown OUT of universities. Why? I really don’t get this infatuation with this man! Without a teleprompter, he can barely even talk!! But he is “eloquent,” and has “good judgm ent.” Um, no. And he is sexist as all hell, to boot.

And for some reason, Obama is constantly comparing himself to the VP pick, not the presidential nominee. Much easier for him to pick on a woman than a man, as he demonstrated time and again during this campaign. Flipping Hillary off, brushing her off his shoulder and his shoe, having “99 Problems BUt a Bitch Ain’t One” playing when he won Iowa. Class act this guy. Oh, and for what it’s worth – he lives 1 1/2 blocks away from Bill Ayers, who lives right down the street from the Farrakhan Compound. What a coincidence.

Oh – is now when I tell you that my brother has a PhD., and developed some major software, whose clients include NASA? Yeah. He’s supposed to be smart (my younger brother and his wife – both PhDs – also are big Obama supporters, at least my brother is. My sis-in-law is a “Vote Democrat” no matter what more than anything.). Just goes to show that there is a difference between being educated and having common sense. I can say that because I have BOTH!!! Ahem.

Here’s what he wrote back:

These are interesting accusations. Do you know these things for a fact? What is your source of information? Is there some doubt about the fact that Obama was elected president of the Harvard Law Review? You don’t get to that place by being a flaky biscuit. Is there any doubt about the fact that McCain was at the bottom of his class at the Naval Academy?

I don’t follow you with the Donald Rumsfield foreign policy thing. What do you mean?

One thing I can say for sure. I have seen Obama in many interviews and town hall type conversations, besides the podium speeches. He has always impressed me with his speaking ability in off the cuff situations. This is a sharp dude.

I also like Joe Biden very much. He is a solid, decent, knowledgeable person.

At the end of the day, this is about policies, not personalities. Who do you think is going to best implement the objectives of Hillary Clinton? If you say McCain-Palin, then I don’t see how you get there.

Oh, boy. Evidently, he does not have the same desire for sources when others are “accused,” but whatever. And yes, he DID go there about the personalities. Here’s my response:

Yes, I know these things for a fact. This is what I do every day, all day long.

I don’t know if I will even vote this year, so don’t assume I am voting for McCain/Palin. I can say that McCain is an honorable man, and has given his entire life i n service to this country. That means something. He is also moderate, and a reformer, something Obama will NEVER be (oh – today’s BIG report is about Obama raging on Palin, particularly about the Bridge to Nowhere, which she did get rid of afterall – and which HE VOTED FOR TWICE!!! He claimed, “Palin Can’t Just Make Stuff Up!” No, that purview belongs to Obama alone.). But Obama will never get my vote. He should never have assumed he would.

So that’s how my morning started – not at ALL about what I was going to write today. But you never know what is going to come up, I reckon. And I know there is evern more about Obama, but I figured I was pushing my luck with him actually reading it this far.

Ah, families…

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun”–Barrack Obama/June 2008

Yup, the Democratic National Committee has outdone themselves with their preparations for their upcoming National Convention in a few weeks. They thought of everything… balloons, barbed wire cages, confetti, stun guns, and those funny hats we all love to see! The Convention will also have lot of speeches extolling the lofty visions of civil rights and personal liberties the Democratic party is so fond of protecting, you know, liberties like free speech, the right to protest, that kind warm and fuzzy democracy stuff. My heart just swells with pride when I read this stuff on their blog:
& lt;h3>The Democratic Vision
The Democratic Party is committed to keeping our nation safe and expanding opportunity for every American. That commitment is reflected in an agenda that emphasizes the security of our nation, strong economic growth, affordable health care for all Americans, retirement security, honest government, and civil rights.

Civil Rights

On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight. We support vigorous enforcement of existing laws, and remain committed to protecting fundamental civil rights in America.

The Party Platform

The Democratic Party has a long and proud history of representing and protecting the interests of working Americans and guaranteeing personal liberties for all. One of the places we articulate our beliefs is in the Party’s National Platform, adopted every four years by the Delegates at the National Convention.

Wait…did someone say something about stun guns and cages? No, that can’t be…not the party of freedom and liberty!

The problem is, old Howie didn’t think this through…he didn’t think that rounding up hundreds or thousands of protesters and throwing them in a barbed wire cage in a warehouse on the outskirts of town might not be the message they want to send to those wanting to donate to their party . Not to mention, it goes against all those so-called principals and “visions” of theirs. He also didn’t think his dirty little secret about these cages would be made public.

Damned reporters! Damned free speech!

Not to worry, Howard Dean has this all figured out, he’ll let the Denver Police handle this. They will be passing out flyer’s to all the protesters so they can be told of their rights. So, there ya go! The pretty little piece of paper says we DO have rights to protest! Ain’t America great?

YOUR RIGHTS TO DEMONSTRATE AND PROTEST

Can my free speech rights be restricted
because of what I want to say – even if it’s
controversial ?

No. The First Amendment prohibits
restrictions based on the content of speech.
Police and government officials are allowed
to place non-discriminatory and narrowly
drawn “time, place and manner” restrictions
on the exercise of First Amendment rights.

Where can I engage in free speech activity?

Generally, all types of expression are
constitutionally protected in traditional
“public forums” such as public sidewalks
and parks. Public streets can be used for
marches subject to compliance with the
City’s permitting process.

Where can you engage in free speech activity? Anywhere you want as long as you freely state that you are going to vote for Obama, otherwise…get in the cage until you’re ready to act like an American, dammit!

Let’s see what other rights the demonstrators will have….

What other types of free speech activity are
constitutionally protected?

The First Amendment can, under certain
circumstances, protect communication such
as theater, music, film and dance. Symbolic
acts and civil disobedience that involve
illegal conduct may be outside the realm of
constitutional protection and may lead to
0Acitation and/or arrest. This may include, but
is not limited to, blocking streets, sidewalks
or parades or disrupting public assemblies.

Hmmm…so it sounds like a large group of people protesting could not be on the streets or the sidewalks or they can given a citation/and or arrest. So, they have two choices. They can either levitate so they’re not on the streets or sidewalks, or come wearing costumes and tell the cops they’re doing street theater.

Can I be cited or arrested during a

demonstration?

Yes, if you engage in unlawful behavior
including, but not limited to, such as
blocking streets, sidewalks or parades,
disrupting public assemblies or ignoring
lawful orders to disperse.

Okey-Dokey, so unlawful behavior is defined as blocking streets…check, sidewalks or parades…check, disrupting public assemblies…check, or ignoring lawful order to disperse…check. I’ve got it now. Let’s not forget the vague text that arrest is not limited to just that, they can also arrest you if you look like you aren’t “unified” with the DNC. In other words, you have no civil liberties in the eyes of the Denver Police or in the eyes of Howard Dean, Barrack Obama, Donna Brazille, or Nancy Pelosi. Check and double check.

The American Civil Liberties Union seemed to be a bit dismayed. They want to know where the bathrooms are, will the “prisoners” have something to eat or drink (they were not told how long they will hold the protesters in these barbed wire cages), will they have access to their lawyers, and will they have telephones? Details….details, who needs details when you have flyer’s, police in riot gear, and barbed wire cages?

“They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. *That’s* the *Chicago* way!”-The Untouchables/1987

NOTES ABOUT THE DNC: It seems that after Obama took over the DNC and got his hands on their mailing list, he sent out an e-mail telling Democrats to give to his campaign and not the DNC. Well, since he decided that he didn’t want their public funding, they are now virtually broke. The money they have will barely cover the payroll and a few field advisor’s. There will not be enough cash to be able to fund thousands of field offices, like they have in the past. Ooops! Larry Johnson has a post that tells you all about it.

More bad news for the DNC….

Sen. John McCain has so much spare cash on hand — he collected a record $27 million in July — that the Republican candidate plans to run campaign ads during the networks’ coverage of the Democratic National Convention later this month.

Because Mr. McCain has agreed to accept $84 million in public financing for the general election, the presumptive presidential nominee has only until Sept. 4, when he accepts his party’s nomination, to spend the more than $21 million he has on hand.

“We continue to have record months of fundraising. This is now the fifth month in a row that we have exceeded the month before,” said McCain campaign manager Rick Davis. The candidate’s advertising budget for August is expected to exceed $20 million, he said, and, by the Republican convention, Mr. McCain is on track to spend some $60 million on TV advertising during the whole primary campaign.

Hat tip to Pat Racimora of No Quarter for the info on the Denver Police flyer.

Another hat tip to Uppity Woman who also wrote about Gitmo on the Platte, her blog is always chock full of up to the moment news about this election.

(NOTE: I’m sorry, but due to a family emergency, I will not be here to respond to your comments, please forgive my absence and thank you for reading my post!)

Obama’s Speechwriter: A Baby Faced, 26-Year-Old White Guy 

So, Obama is really, really successful at reading a teleprompter, and delivering someone else’s words. A puppet, you might say. 

Then we learned that Obama was regurgitating words originally given by his friend Patrick Deval. Not once, but many times. 

And we not only learned about *borrowed* speeches but also borrowed phrases. 

“Sí Se Puede” or “yes we can” is from the United Farm Workers. 

 “Together we can” was the campaign slogan of Deval Patrick in 2006

“Fired Up! Ready to Go!” is from the NAACP in South Carolina, used by Jondelle Harris Johnson in the Civil Rights marches. 

“We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.” is a Hopi Indian saying, used by Alice Walker as the title of her book.

But now we learn that not only is Obama a puppet when it comes to giving speeches, but his foreign policy isn’t his either. I knew he had very little foreign policy experience, if any, but doesn’t he have to do anything?? A cast of 300 prepare him daily? Who are these people that are affecting our foreign policy? Shouldn’t they be running for office, or at least vetted, since they are doing all the work? 

A Cast of 300 Advises Obama on Foreign PolicyEvery day around 8 a.m., foreign policy aides at Senator Barack Obama’s Chicago campaign headquarters send him two e-mails: a briefing on major world developments over the previous 24 hours and a set of questions, accompanied by suggested answers, that the candidate is likely to be asked about international relations during the day.One recent Q. & A. asked, for example, whether Mr. Obama supported the decision by Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, to include a timetable for American troop withdrawal in any new security agreements with the United States. The answer, provided to Mr. Obama with bullet points, was yes — or “a genuine opportunity,” as he put it in a speech on Iraq this week. Behind the e-mail messages is a tight-knit group of aides supported by a huge 300-person foreign policy campaign bureaucracy, organized like a mini State Department, to assist a candidate whose limited national security experience remains a concern to many voters.   

I do take some comfort in knowing that many are from the Clinton White House and from Hillary’s staff. (funny how Obama always wanted to distance himself from the politics of the past, and from the Clinton’s, but he always surrounds himself with people from the Clintons years.) 

I know all candidates, and all Presidents have advisors. I know they all have speech writers. But, if you take away Obama’s great speeches, and you take away his foreign policy advisors, what is left? Seriously. He has not accomplished anything. Nada. Zilch. And the LITTLE that he does do, now, (give speeches or comment on foreign policy) is totally scripted and provided by someone else. And when he speaks to groups like African Americans about taking responsibility, he is threatened with castration. And when he has taken a firm stance on an issue, he completely FLIPS and FLOPS on them – FISA, NAFTA, the surge in Iraq, campaign finance, guns, abortion… 

Well, I think we have a pretty good idea of what happens when Obama is left to his own devices. Here are some new ones: 

“Great” Moments in Presidential Speeches: Obama

Another Barack Obama Gaffe: A Civilian Army? (what is that all about??)

The Real Barack Obama, The Flip Flop Kid

The Obama Iraq Documentary: Whatever the Politics Demand

Barack Obama “Uh” Count 

And of course, the classics:

Obama VS. Robert Gibbs on the surge

Obama on Iran

 The Game of Expedience

Obama Just words – just speeches – just think

Obama on Lobbiest bill

Obama on the Race Card

Obama Claims He’s Visited 57 States

Obama on his dad and the flag?

Barack Obama Sees Dead People

Obama’s Memorial Day Gaffe

Obama in Sunrise 

Obama rally in Sioux Falls

Obama on Rezko

Obama Gets Afghanistan Language Wrong 

So, again I ask, is he just a puppet? A flip flopping, do nothing, know nothing, present voting, change jobs every two years, never having accomplished anything, hangs out with bigots, racists, and terrorists, gaffe machine, judgment lacking, slumlord buddy, vain, pandering puppet. 

What does he stand for, really? We thought he was very left. But now he is moving further and further to the right. We can’t look at his voting history, because it is very un-telling (130 present votes on tough issues- intentional, me thinks) We can’t look at his resume because it is very, very short – he has spent more time campaigning then serving in the Senate (146 days). And his state senate job was part time, meeting 55 days a year.  

Hell, we can’t even look at his birth certificate to know if he is who he says he is! We can’t even look to his books for information, because they are full of mistruths, and fictitious characters and situations.

I can’t figure out if he is super calculating and dangerous, or a puppet.  

But, who is controlling his strings? 

Published at American PUMA in Italy. 

June 4, 2008: Obama goes to the pro-Israel lobby, AIPAC and talks about his (new found) support for Israel. In fact, he contravenes US Policy in his desire to pander to the Israeli lobby. From the CNSNews article, “Obama Departs From U.S. Policy,” he says:

“Let me be clear,” Obama told America’s largest pro-Israel lobby, AIPAC, on Wednesday. “Israel’s security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive and that allows them to prosper. But any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel’s identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided,” he said in comments widely viewed as intended to win the hearts of Jewish voters.

Well, that’s just jake – he has just ceded Jerusalem to Israel. I wonder how the Palestinians feel about that??

“This statement is totally rejected,” Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas was quoted as saying.

“The whole world knows that holy Jerusalem was occupied in 1967 and we will not accept a Palestinian state without having Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state,” Abbas said.

I see. They aren’t happy! What a big surprise – Obama continues winning hearts and minds abroad. Ahem.

Oh, here’s a good one – Campaign Finance Reform.

On June 20th, Obama decided to do a 180, and has decided public campaign financing reform might not be the way to go after all!! Oh, and in making this decision, he violated previous statements that should he be the Democratic presidential candidate, he would meet with Senator John McCain to push for public campaign financing. Uh, no. Didn’t bother to have that conversation. What a guy.

This one is big – FISA. You know, the bill that would grant retroactive immunity to the big telecoms, and expand spying powers for the president. Now that Obama thinks he is going to BE president, he wants all the bells and whistles he can get! This is what he said, from the Washington Post:

“It is a close call for me,” Obama told reporters. But he said the addition of the “exclusivity” provision giving power to the secret court, along with a new inspector general role and other oversight additions, “met my basic concerns.” He said the bill’s target should not be the phone companies’ culpability, but “can we get to the bottom of what’s taking place, and do we have safeguards?”

And for some bonus coverage, and this will be a big, huge shock to everyone (not), look who else switched positions?!?!

The Illinois senator’s reversal on the issue has angered liberal groups, but Obama told reporters at a news conference this afternoon that he was satisfied with changes made to the original bill, including a provision that gives a secret court, rather than the White House, the final say on spying procedures. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer also switched sides on the legislation, for the same reasons as Obama.

Uh, ya THINK?? Yes, it pissed off liberal groups – most of us who consider ourselves liberal have been opposed to these changes for quite some time! And we were all pretty vocal about our disgust with President Bush for wanting them. So, Obama said what he had to say to whichever group it was he had to say it on FISA, then he does this little end-run, “Oh, but they have assuaged my concerns, and it isn’t the big phone companies’ problem anyway that they broke the law.” Again, the self-proclaimed Constitutional scholar at work. (Hmmm – I wonder what he means by “Constitutional”? I’m starting to think as in daily constitutional in which changing his policy positions is considered par for the daily course.) Clearly, LOGIC is not his strong suit…

Just a few short days later, Obama is jumping on the Gun Bandwagon, applauding the decision of the Supreme Court on June 26 to support gun ownership. Do I even need to say that he opposed it before he was for it (Political Radar: Obama Camp Disavows “Inartful” Statement? Oh, wait – check that, he was opposed to it when he was in IL, but when he was debating Hillary, he didn’t know WHAT he thought about the DC gun ban because he just didn’t know that much about it, he said, hadn’t seen all of the information on it or anything. Gee – wonder when he got the time to read everything that now allows him to AGREE with the decision?! Yeah, right (for more on this, check out the video from Fox News currently at NoQuarterUSA.net).

Good grief, I am getting DIZZY with all of this spinning around by Obama!!

Whew. Okay, just one more – not because there aren’t more, but really – isn’t all of this making you have vertigo?? Well, this one I think is just perfect – really. It just encapsulates the moral fiber (LOL) of Obama. And as a previous member of this organization, it could not happen to more deserving people who chose to endorse this guy with a very limited number of actual members, and allowed people who were NOT members to vote on this decision…Are you with me? Yep, Move-On.Org! That’s right – they endorsed Obama pretty early on amidst numerous reports of ballot stuffing (oh, now there’s a surprise, too, right?? Uh huh.), and based on approximately 10% of their entire membership – meaning in numbers, not actual members. Anywho, he swatted MoveOn for their ad regarding General Petraeus
recently. (When the vote came up about the ad, he was nowhere to be found, of course, though he had voted on another matter that very day. Whatever. Typical.) Obama slammed 527s in general, even though they have been helping HIM out. No doubt, he is trying to set it up so he won’t be Swiftboated, but it is only Swiftboating when it isn’t true!! Anyway, I wonder how all of those MoveOn members feel now that they have been thrown under the bus? Couldn’t happen to a more deserving organization, if you ask me.

I should add, there is the whole Faith Initiatives thing, though I am not sure he has actually changed his mind on that. Given that TUCC has apparently been the beneficiary of that program, you see, it makes some sense that he is all about it. BUT – for Constitution-loving Americans who believe in the separation of Church and State, the whole program has been a HUGE issue. That Obama wants to continue it, and INCREASE its depth and breadth, is pretty darn surprising (this whole issue has been dealt with a lot here at No Quarter, including one of my posts, so I’ll spare you any more from me on this).

Bear in mind, this is just JUNE. I know there are more, and feel free to add them in the comments. I just can’t take it anymore. My head is already about to explode. I can just imagine – and I know you can – what the MSM and bloggers would be saying if Clinton had made all of these flip flops in just ONE month!! In some ways, it gives me hope – if he keeps this up for the next 7 weeks or so, who KNOWS what might happen at the Convention? You just never know!

by Medusa and Bud White

Two-faced? Hypocritical? Or showing his true colors? Last week Barack Obama made 180 degree turns on three previous positions he had taken in order to seduce liberal Democrats. In an article entitled “For Obama, winning is everything“, Michael Tomasky writes of these changes, claiming that:

It’s acceptable – and necessary – for Barack Obama to compromise his liberal principles in order to get elected

Taking Fat-Cat Money

In November 2007, the Midwest Democracy Network, a non-partisan alliance of 20 civic and public interests groups, released the unedited responses to a questionnaire on federal political and government reform issues. The questionnaire was sent to both Democratic and Republican presidential candidates. Question 1-B asks:

If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?

Barack Obama answered the question in detail: Yes. I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. I introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and am the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold’s (D- WI) bill to reform the presidential public financing system.

In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election.My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election.

My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election.The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (r- AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.

However, on June 19, in an about-face so abrupt as to cause whiplash in his beholden followers, Obama said he would forego public finances in his presidential race against John McCain.Previously decrying special interests money, which made him the darling to liberal Democrats, Obama has rejected the 84 million dollars in public funds available to him. This allows him to accept money from special interest groups, making clear that against all his claims, he is a Washington insider. Anthony Corrado writes:

Obama “is likely to outspend McCain and the Republican national committee combined by perhaps two to one. Between now and election day, we very well may see Senator Obama spend $400m or more

Obama is clearly two-faced, as we are seeing more and more. But he’s not simply repeating old and familiar patterns, according to Richard Briffault, a campaign finance expert at Columbia University:

Obama is the first candidate since the public financing system was established by congress in 1974 to opt out of the system.

Denying Civil Liberties

The second liberal principal Obama sacrificed in the space of one week is his decision to support a bill that gives the telecoms retroactive immunity. Only last year Obama promised to filibuster the bill but instead, in a stomach-lurching turn to the right, he gave his support to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and climbed in bed with George Bush and company. No doubt Obama is attempting to show some strength regarding national security to those of us who know he has none, but he’s sacrificing the very liberals who fell for his dippy promises of hope and change:

Asked specifically why he’s supporting the current FISA bill when he’d promised months ago to support a filibuster of an earlier version of the bill, Obama suggested flat out that “national security” overrides the question of telecom immunity.

The Death Penalty

As Michael Tomasky writes, most liberals are opposed to the death penalty, so when Obama joined in with the most conservative minority of the supreme court justices to support the death penalty in the case of the rape of a child, he turned more right than many from the right wing, causing many of his supporters to doubt their support. David Sirota suggests that “When Obama takes these mushy positions, it could speak to a character issue. Voters that don’t pay a lot of attention look at one thing: ‘Does the guy believe in something?’ They may be saying the guy is afraid of his own shadow.” The Huffington Post has noticed Obama’s lurch to the right:

Sen. Barack Obama is risking his brand as a political reformer, according to reports today in the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post. In recent weeks, he has moderated or changed positions on a number of politically-charged issues, leading to criticism from demoralized Democratic activists and charges of “flip-flopping” from conservatives.

Hillary supporters have long known that Obama wears whatever mask will gain him political advantage in the moment. The big blogs are now beginning to catch on to Obama’s tricks. Anglachel notices this trend:

Overall, the trend I am seeing is that, with Hillary out of contention, the Blogger Boyz have abruptly noticed The Precious is not what they have claimed him to be or, rather, they are finally having to acknowledge that we HRC supporters were right about the mendacious little bastard all along.

Indeed, there is an emerging narrative — not just in the blogosphere — that Obama is two-faced. Unlike the charge that Kerry was a flip-flopper, this narrative is born out of Obama’s own actions; no windsurfing imagery is necessary, even the big blogs are beginning to see that Obama has no core values and that he suddenly shifts positions and rhetoric to suit his needs. Politico reports:

“[A] lot of people tried to convince themselves that he was a progressive hero, and I think they were disappointed,” Hamsher said. “You can feel a real shift in the zeitgeist online.”

Obama recently told women that they need to “get over” that Hillary lost. But what Obama doesn’t understand or have the maturity to see is that in this extended job interview, in which women are the majority of voters, his tactics, reversals, arrogance, and bullying do not easily fade from memory. Even at this date, Obama is largely unknown to the public, but what we do know is that he will say one thing and do another. Where we come from that’s called lying, and it’s something we’d expect from a con.