|
|
|
|
|
| Presidential Election (What do you think)
Posted: 7/14/2008 8:20:31 PM | The cartoon cover reaction reminds me of the Danish cartoonists the Muslims wanted killed for their art and the author before that who had a Ayatollah order that he be killed.
It appears that if the cover was accepted as it was intended, it would be lampooning those who do not trust Obama for the reasons illustrated in the art. Would censorship be a part of the Obama administration? I suppose the first word outlawed would be Obama's middle name. Should we have such a thin skinned leader? | |
|
| Presidential Election (What do you think)
Posted: 7/14/2008 8:37:28 PM | Ahoy,
Please move on. As an African American I found it very offensive. It reminded me of the 'black face' images used during the beginning of the last century, but why would I think you would be at least sensitive to anything. My view of you remains the same.
Because I do believe that all things work out for the good in the end. This will help Obama more than hurt him.  | |
|
| Presidential Election (What do you think)
Posted: 7/14/2008 10:53:38 PM | | I havent taken the time to read word for word all the latest posts.. but does the word ............. well crud.. i cant even spell it right.. but it's ... darn.. one shouldnt open their mouth I suppose unless the Lord leads them too...p... r.. o.. phets? | |
|
| Presidential Election (What do you think)
Posted: 7/15/2008 4:34:48 AM | Yes, that New Yorker cover is outrageous.  And, to many, probably very offensive. For my two cents, I feel that The New Yorker stepped way over the journalistic line of integrity – I’m guessing that their goal was to outrage people into buying more copies of their magazine. Who knows, maybe they will see that extra revenue?? But I doubt even an extra 10,000 copies justifies their editors’ bad taste.
According to the New Yorker’s statement, the cover “combines a number of fantastical images about the Obamas and shows them for the obvious distortions they are… The burning flag, the nationalist-radical and Islamic outfits, the fist-bump, the portrait on the wall? All of them echo one attack or another. Satire is part of what we do, and it is meant to bring things out into the open, to hold up a mirror to prejudice, the hateful, and the absurd. And that’s the spirit of this cover.”
Yeah… whatever. 
The politicians, the media, and, who knows, maybe everyone… it’s about being VISCERAL. That seems to be the way of making a point these days. Dismiss using your brain to actually think, analyze, and draw a conclusion. So much easier to evoke an emotional reaction. No need for truth, honesty, or integrity. And such is the tone of this election. | |
|
| Presidential Election (What do you think)
Posted: 7/15/2008 7:09:27 AM | ^ ^ ^ ^ No it was about being outrageous and getting people to read the article. Has the American attention span gotten to the point that we make comments on the pictures instead of reading the article?
How about it?
Making it: How Chicago Shaped Obama.
Here's the printable link for you. All on one handy dandy page:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_lizza?printable=true | |
|
| Presidential Election (What do you think)
Posted: 7/15/2008 7:25:07 AM | Ok Howdi, let us use our brains to actually think, analyze, and draw conclusions:
First, that will require the ability to freely exchange thoughts and information. Often not easy in an environment of extreme political correctness. Faith would argue its all about skin color but not actually say so. I say it’s about his values as demonstrated by his associations, actions, and career history. I have stated many timesl I feel his policy ideas are bad for the country and detailed why. Instead of responding to those comments, Faith implies "racism" and posts unrelated poll data. Instead of claiming to be offended at her implications, I ask for rational debate. I see his policies more in line with Carter and the resulting economic wreck under his leadership. Obama's international policy on the Middle East is more like Bush Jr. before 9/11 taught him he couldn't retreat from the middle east conflicts.
As for the cover art, a picture is worth a thousand words.
On the analysis side, Faith, what in the art smacks of white on black racism in the US or is this a topic that can't be discussed?
Why not examine each aspect of the cover art and explain how it is supposed to reflect such racism.
Obama as a Muslim? That is a concern many have as his father was Muslim and he attended a Muslim school but that concern has nothing to do with his skin color. The concern is amplified with his conciliatory rhetoric to anti-western Muslim extremist movements around the world. The very sensitivity and censorship of anything "offensive" to Muslims is already oppressive and the reaction to this art draws very close parallels to similar Muslim reactions to other art. I would very much like to see this discussion in the light of Darfur. The world is watching Arab Muslim genocide of people for the very reason that they are black Africans.
The burning flag. Obama's very close associations with people who have repeatedly screamed God Damn America etc. Obama's lack of participation in the national anthem and other displays of respect for the country and those who regard the flag as a symbol of the many lives given for the country. The greatest number of Americans ever to die in war died to keep the country united under that flag yet Obama is associated with lack of respect for it. Those who continued to bring up the pictures and video’s of Obama wer being lampooned by the cover art.
The various terrorist symbols: Again, Obama's associations including a campaign meeting at the house of convicted terrorist bomber and Obama supporter.
All the components of the artwork are concerns many people have about Obama and it was these concerns the artwork was trying to label as paranoid by lampooning them. Instead, it seems the artwork struck sensitive nerves among Obama supporters. Why?
To draw a conclusion, the reaction to the art wipes away the idea that the concerns being lampooned were completely without merit. They struck a nerve and drew reaction from the opposite side they were supposed to.
As for journalistic integrity, that term belongs with terms like military intelligence and jumbo shrimp. The best journalism should lead us to think and debate. Do you think this cover did that? | |
|
| Presidential Election (What do you think)
Posted: 7/15/2008 8:08:18 AM | Yes, it was satire, but in very poor taste.
I know that people are going to say 'why can't he or they get over it, what if they made a picture of McCain in a wheelchair with his wife pushing him'. The difference is McCain IS a senior citizen and his wife IS younger than him. So, that would be funny.
This cover is based on 'let us put a cover out there with all of images some American feel in their heart so that they can deal with them and face them. This cover is not based on truth. That is why it reminds me of the 'bafoon' and 'sambo' characters of the early 20th century. The images were not those of real African Americans, but what some people wanted to believe about African Americans. There is a very big difference.
But enough of that....this will
What do you feel about Obama's NAACP speech and I am glad that McCain will be speaking to this audience. Bush refused to do so before his last term. | |
|
| Presidential Election (What do you think)
Posted: 7/15/2008 2:50:29 PM | I guess you have missed just about every characterization of McCain on late night TV. Many, if not most, are age jokes with senility or dimentia as the theme.
SNL directly addressed the same issues, with Obama directly as the guest, and in the same satirical way, as was pictured on the cover art. I would guess it was that show that led the magazine to feel it was acceptable satire.
Why would people think a large number of African Americans are Muslim, terrorist, or disrespect the flag. You should know very well, that's not the case.
Why should Bush have bothered with the NAACP? There is absolutely nothing he could have done to get their support and plenty of opportunities to feed an adversarial press and provide a forum for anti-Bush rhetoric. Now that a person of color is running, the NAACP and Obama must be the ones to tread carefully to avoid looking racist in the wake of Wright. McCain gets a free pass for the exposure looking like he is "reaching out". If someone with the NAACP does anything negative toward McCain, it will reflect badly on Obama just as Wright's comments have.
As for his speech, from what I know about it, he took the advice of a lot of people and followed the example of Bill Cosby instead of the examples of Wright, Jackson, Sharpton etc. who feed off, and enrich themselves, from racial divides. When Obama was lower profile, he was more like the dividers but now he has better handlers. He now wears a flag pin and salutes the flag when before, he didn't. | |
|
| Presidential Election (What do you think)
Posted: 7/15/2008 5:11:06 PM | Thank you, flyonthewall, for the link to that New Yorker article (msg #480). It’s quite long, quite a bit to digest, and I’m gonna have to read it several more times before I form an opinion as to Obama’s character. But my initial reaction is that EVERY Obama supporter should read this article. Clearly, he is savvy… heck, he’s an attorney. Or at least that was his formal education and first few years of professional life. In reading, it seems to me that he wanted to get into politics from the get-go… every one he met, every action he took, everything has been a stepping stone to get into the national arena and become President. Still, about the only thing that I remain convinced about is that being white male, I have little or no idea what it must be like to grow-up female or a different color.
And, Ahoytheredave, yes, the cover definitely sparked debate – to quote dubya, “Mission Accomplished!” – but I’ll reserve opinion on the “thinking” bit… like I wrote… it’s visceral… definitely sparked controversy. And, I’m certain that the New Yorker could have selected many other covers rather than what they printed to generate debate and thinking. | |
|
| Presidential Election (What do you think)
Posted: 7/16/2008 8:15:00 AM | It was in poor taste. Ok, so maybe some didn't read the article it represented but anyone involved in magazines knows the cover draws people in or is the "first impression". For that reason alone I was disgusted with it.
I am against the wars but very much behind our troops. Mainly due to the length of time and loss of lives. Yes, I know there are always loss of lives. I think they are too dependant on us and too unknowing to do it alone. I supported it initially for a while due to it's reasoning.
I want gas prices dropped without politicians and rich guys doing shady deals.
Talk is talk, action is action.....obviously.
It's usually unlikely to find all the aspects we want in one politician. I don't vote by party. I vote by which one feels like I do about each and every issue. If neither are worth a crap...I don't vote. | |
|
| Presidential Election (What do you think)
Posted: 7/16/2008 10:49:12 AM | The war was a result of neglect to punish Saddam when he systematically violated almost everything he had agreed to in the first war. That is the nature of appeasement. 9/11 reminded us we can be a target and it was beleived Saddam was still producing weapons. As it was, the only thing found was about 500 chemical warheads and 500,000 pounds of uranium, enough to make over 100 bombs, that was safely moved to Canada in the last few weeks. That doesn't constitute enough WMD effort to justify the administration "lies" that Saddam's WMDs were a threat.
What went wrong was when Brenner under Rumsfeld was put in charge of Iraq after the invasion was successful. To the surprize of Powell, Rice, and all of the top military command, Brenner ordered the dismantling of the Iraq military and civilian government. All the top US military leaders in Iraq resigned as a result yet Bush, like he later did with Brown and FEMA, failed to fire Brenner or his boss Rumsfeld. At least it appears to be getting back on track and Rumy is out but Trashcanistan (and to some extent Pakistan) is now the hot spot but Iran still remains very dangerous and sponsers many of the problems in Iraq. Do we turn and run as Obama was originally wanting? Do we wimp out under political correctness? Do we become all talk and no action like the lead up to 9/11?
What about Darfur? What is Obama's position on a soverign nation governed by Arab Muslims killing thousands of people for no other reason than they are black Africans? Obama's heritage is likely from similar Arab Muslims in their earlier rape and pillage of Black Africa except they were capturing them and selling them into slavery more than just killing them. The African American heritage is discended from those slaves, not Obama's ancestors selling those slaves. The genocide has recently been found a crime against humanity by an international court. Is that empty talk? What is Obama's position? Do you care? Did you care about Afganistan before 9/11? Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Do we invade it to fix Afganistan? Do we invade Iran to fix Iraq?
Just what is Obama's position on any of this? Its really hard to tell. | |
|
| Presidential Election (What do you think)
Posted: 7/16/2008 4:53:27 PM | ^ ^ ^ ^ I think you should STOP continuously posting the exact same comments to multiple forums. IT IS AGAINST THE RULES.
If you want to see my reply, it is here:
http://forums.plentyoffish.com/10112100datingPostpage40.aspx#10413705 | |
|
| Presidential Election (What do you think)
Posted: 7/17/2008 6:49:39 AM | How will this effect Obama? I think it is going to work in his favor.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fox: Jackson used N-word in crude off-air remarks
By SOPHIA TAREEN (Associated Press Writer)
From Associated Press
July 17, 2008 6:21 AM EDT
CHICAGO - The Rev. Jesse Jackson used the N-word during a break in a TV interview where he criticized presidential candidate Barack Obama, Fox News confirmed Wednesday.
The longtime civil rights leader already came under fire this month for crude off-air comments he made against Obama in what he thought was a private conversation during a taping of a "Fox & Friends" news show.
--------------------------------------------------------------
They really need to stop | |
|
| Presidential Election (What do you think)
Posted: 7/18/2008 7:41:10 AM | The economy is the most important thing on Americans minds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 18, 2008
Surging Prices Changing U.S. Consumer Behavior
Eight in 10 Americans have made more of an effort to find the cheapest prices for products
USABusiness and EconomyConsumersPersonal FinancesAmericasNorthern America
by Dennis Jacobe, Chief Economist
PRINCETON, NJ -- When asked to name the most important financial problem facing their families today, nearly half of Americans point to energy and gas prices (29%) or to the high cost of living and inflation (18%). Fourteen percent say a lack of money and low wages, and 9% each say healthcare costs or the cost of owning or renting a home...........................................
 | |
|
Lea1
|
Joined: 5/22/2008
Msg: 490 | |
| Presidential Election (What do you think)
Posted: 7/18/2008 11:10:24 AM | Have to agree with most of what you say. Especially about the 2000 election. Talk about a democratic election, with the Supreme Court making the decision...enough to make one decide to never vote again. But reasoning (l0l) takes over and when the process starts again, I'm all in. Can' t say I'm thrilled about either party's candidate, but I'm what they call a "yellow dog democrat" so I guess I'll exercise my right again, even tho I also dislike the Electoral College ...
I suppose to look at it from the candidates perspective (heaven forbid, I think you would have to be a lot "off" to even put yourself into the situation) if you stuck entirely either all the way to the left, or all the way to the right, you would have a hard time being elected. Too many people are a little of both, so the middle is a not a bad place to be, I suppose. So, I' ll vote for Obama and hope he has a lot of experienced people (lol) to give him advice.haha | |
|
| Presidential Election (What do you think)
Posted: 7/18/2008 2:46:15 PM | Lea1
Many Americans are beginning to feel like you. In the news today they stated that republicans are not as excited as democrats; and independents are truly stuck. The media (in my opinion) is beginning to hurt both of the candidates. But, someone stated on another forum this is the summer and during the summer people are vacationing in general. The election will probably pick up in the fall.
Let us see who they pick as running mates. That will make things interesting. I guess we need to see what happens after the convention fellow Texan Lea1.
Will the choice of a running mate bring more excitement to this election? Are Americans losing interest? Both candidates said they were not going to attack each other when Hillary was in the game. Have they both flip flopped on that as well?
-----------------------------------------------------------
McCain TV ad hits Obama on Iraq policy
From Associated Press
July 18, 2008 3:04 PM EDT
WASHINGTON - Republican John McCain is launching an attack on rival Barack Obama in a new television ad that accuses Obama of switching positions on Iraq "to help himself become president."
The 30-second ad will run on national cable and in 11 battleground states. It's the hardest hit and the first negative TV ad aimed at Obama so far by McCain.
-----------------------------------------------------
What is really going on? | |
|
| Presidential Election (What do you think)
Posted: 7/21/2008 7:10:24 AM | The ad is only negative if you don't like the truth. If Obama was honest, he would admit he was wrong about the troop surge in Iraq and McCain was right but Obama is not honest. Instead, the comparison of candidate's records is labeled by an Obama sympathetic press as a negative ad. The label is parroted by our own local Obama campaigner here.
The question still remains, what will Obama do about the genocide on Darfur? Hundreds of thousands of people are being killed by Arab Muslims simply because they are black. Is Obama more loyal to his Arab Muslim heritage or the black African heritage of most African Americans that so embrace him as their "do no wrong" messiah? The Darfur question will reveal his loyalty, if he has any. So far, he has abandoned his minister, his church, and many of those that got him this far .
The question for most independants, largely Libertarians, is Obama so absolutely horrible that they should vote for McCain instead of Barr from concerns over a split vote? It's clear, Obama supporters are pretty much mindless drones as even the most high profile supporters cannot name a single accomplishment he has made, a firm policy, or an associate of his, that gives then any hope for a positive Obama outcome. For most thinking people, this is a very scary person. He is so scary that even the most extreme conservatives that have campaigned against McCain are now coming out in support of him. | |
|
| Presidential Election (What do you think)
Posted: 7/21/2008 10:16:26 AM | "It's clear, Obama supporters are pretty much mindless drones as even the most high profile supporters cannot name a single accomplishment he has made, a firm policy, or an associate of his, that gives then any hope for a positive Obama outcome. For most thinking people, this is a very scary person. He is so scary that even the most extreme conservatives that have campaigned against McCain are now coming out in support of him. "
You nailed it Dave, it couldn't have been said any better! | |
|
| |
| Presidential Election (What do you think)
Posted: 7/24/2008 7:51:31 PM | | Why not tell us what you think instead of what the media says? Are you really that much of a drone? I have asked many times what makes Obama qualified or even the so called uniter he claims to be and you haven't answered. I said in the beginning of this thread you were obviously an Obama supporter although I had some doubts your thread was a ploy to campaign for Obama. You have done a pretty good job of erasing that doubt. | |
|
| Presidential Election (What do you think)
Posted: 7/24/2008 7:56:46 PM | There are a lot Americans that are going to view Obama's speech in Germany as too much "One World" and see it as a threat to our sovereignty, so I see it working against him.
His trip to Afghanistan and Iraq has made a lot of people aware that we are winning the war on terror so I see that working against him as well. There are already words coming in from our troops that were totally ignored as they were lined up to just get any kind of acknowledgement from him and they were ignored as he walked right by them and not even a nod. He also scrubbed a visit to injured personnel at the base hospital in Germany.
A legal team filed a formal complaint today with the Illinois State Bar Association over a questionairre on which he put false information on at the time he applied to the bar.
They are Hillary surrogates so that's going to be interesting. Also it seems as though one of his major surrogates, Congressman Wexler is having a residency problem in his home state of Florida since he doesn't have a real residence there. Seems as though he's using his mother-in-law's address in a gated community for seniors with no one under 55 allowed to live there and he and his wife have minor children. Looks like another one under the bus pretty soon.
With most of Europe leaning conservative lately I think this next week you may be hearing a different opinion from them as well. I didn't hear any comments about the free concert in Germany before the speech, two major acts, were they good?
To quote an old Houston Oiler coach talking to a referree in this case the NFL means "Not For Long". | |
|
| Presidential Election (What do you think)
Posted: 7/25/2008 12:08:12 AM | Sorry,but Obama is falling and falling quick in the Polls....Take a good read here then check Obama's voting record....Obama is about to find America could care less about his visits to foreign countries then neglect to visit our wounded troops....Making slimeball excuses not to visit wounded troops made him look worse than what he is....
He also refused to vote on a bill to support General Petreaus and all the the troops until they removed General Petreaus name...So if anyone believes Obama will listen to the ground commander in Iraq they are being deceived....
And,Obama's campaign fund raising is under scrutiny......
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/07/24/barack-skipped-visiting-wounded-troops-in-germany/#comment-494343
Barack Skipped Visiting Wounded Troops in Germany
Site: http://noquarterusa.net/
About: See Authors Posts (1173) on July 24, 2008 at 8:40 PM in Barack Obama, Germany, Soldiers/Veterans, Veterans Administration
Barack cancelled his visit to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center because, his spokesman said, he decided it would be “inappropriate” to do so during a campaign trip. Wait. I thought this was a mission with fellow senators, touring the embattled countries of Iraq and Afghanistan where these soldiers were wounded. Then there’s that today he told Berliners that he wasn’t in Berlin as a candidate but as a “citizen.” I’m confused. Well, thankfully, there are good people who visit these soldiers stuck in Germany far from family and friends:
Bless Eddie. Bless Ryan. Then there’s Barack. Here’s what Jake Tapper reports:
… The German magazine Der Spiegel is reporting online that Obama has “cancelled a planned short visit to the Rammstein and Landstuhl U.S. 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 U.S. military hospital in Landstuhl told Der Spiegel. “I don’t know why.”
Obama senior adviser Robert Gibbs told ABC News in a statement, “During his trip as part of the CODEL to Afghanistan and Iraq, Sen. Obama visited the combat support hospital in the Green Zone in Baghdad and had a number of other visits with the troops. For the second part of his trip, the senator wanted to visit the men and women at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center to express his gratitude for their service and sacrifice. The senator decided out of respect for these servicemen and women that 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.”
John McCain’s campaign didn’t buy that baloney:
"Barack Obama is wrong," said McCain spokesman Brian Rogers. “It is never ‘inappropriate’ to visit our men and women in the military."
An Obama adviser, Air Force Maj. Gen. Scott Gration (Ret.), later elaborated on Obama’s decision to skip the event.
"We learned from the Pentagon last night that the visit would be viewed instead as a campaign event," Gration said. "Sen. Obama did not want to have a trip to see our wounded warriors perveived as a campaign event when his visit was to show his appreciation for our troops and decided instead not to go."
Good god almighty.
Well, he had his priorities.
Doing a rock star turn in Berlin definitely trumps visiting wounded soldiers. Definitely.
Although he could claim that visiting the wounded troops was relevant to the work of his committee — a committee of which he is actually a member, the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs.
But that involves doing the WORK of the committee instead of just TALKING about the committee.
Vote
No. Session Date Vote Question
Description Result Position
344 1 9/20/07 On the Amendment S.Amdt. 2934 to S.Amdt. 2011 to H.R. 1585 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008)
To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces. Amendment Agreed to (72-25, 3/5 majority required) Not Voting
343 1 9/20/07 On the Amendment S.Amdt. 2947 to S.Amdt. 2011 to H.R. 1585 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008)
To reaffirm strong support for all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces and to strongly condemn attacks on the honor, integrity, and patriotism of any individual who is serving or has served honorably in the United States Armed Forces, by any person or organization. Amendment Rejected (50-47, 3/5 majority required) Yea
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/07/23/obama%e2%80%99s-fundraising-comes-under-scrutiny/#more-3746
Obama’s Fundraising Comes Under Scrutiny
Last week, the Obama campaign reported that it had a $52 million haul in the month of June. In releasing this information, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe wrote in an e-mail to supporters that:
“You continue to prove what ordinary Americans committed to change can accomplish, despite the Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs funding so much of our opponents’ campaign.”
Two articles in the US media point to what I have long been saying about Obama’s duplicitous statements on where his money is coming from and it is not from “ordinary Americans”. It is from corporate interests and Washington lobbyists and yes PAC money. The only difference is that backhanded manner in which Obama collects his millions.
The first article is from the Los Angeles Times in article by Dan Morain entitled Donations to Obama campaign include some biggies:
Even as he touts his base of small donors, Barack Obama is relying heavily on well-heeled contributors who have given $28,500 or more each to Democratic Party committees that will campaign on his behalf.
Obama aides emphasized that the average donation to his campaign in June — during which he brought in $52 million — was $68. Over the course of his campaign, the presumed Democratic presidential nominee has raised $340 million. By law, an individual can give no more than $2,300 to a candidate for the primary and $2,300 for the general election.
Obama has established joint fundraising agreements with the Democratic National Committee and two other party committees. Those entities can raise larger sums and spend unlimited amounts on behalf of individual candidates.
Of the $20.3 million Obama’s joint fundraising committees amassed in June, 86%, or $17.6 million, came in chunks of $5,000 or more; 64% came in increments of $28,500 or more, campaign finance reports filed over the weekend show.
Frank Clark, head of Commonwealth Edison, which supplies electricity to Chicago, gave $2,300 to Obama early in the campaign and $28,500 last month to the Democratic White House Victory Fund.
John Rogers, founder of the Chicago investment house Ariel Capital, also gave the maximum to Obama’s presidential account, and $13,000 to Democratic White House Victory.
According to the campaign, Clark and Rogers are among Obama’s largest fundraisers, each having raised more than $200,000 from friends and associates.
Employees at Exelon, the parent company of Commonwealth Edison, have given more than $180,000.
Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt noted that the campaign, unlike the Democratic Party and the fundraising committees, has tapped small donors, raising the bulk of its money in increments of less than $90.
Michael J. Malbin, executive director of the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute, said that although Obama had raised an unprecedented $165 million from those who donated in increments of less than $200, “he cannot raise $150 million or whatever his budget says he needs without going to large contributors.”
The presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain, also has joint fundraising committees and will probably rely heavily on them in the fall.
Such committees appeal to candidates and donors because contributors can write a single check and have it split among the candidate, the party and related committees.
A review of the campaign finance reports filed over the weekend with the Federal Election Commission showed that attorneys accounted for at least $2.4 million of the $20.3 million the three Obama joint committees raised.
People who listed their occupations as investors or said they worked for investment houses contributed at least an additional $2.85 million. Individuals who said they were chief executive officers, company presidents or board chairmen chipped in $1.8 million. The entertainment industry accounted for $1.5 million.
McDonald’s President Donald Thompson and Pepsi Chairman Robert Pohlad each gave $28,500. The Pohlad family, including Minnesota Twins owner Carl Pohlad, gave a combined $170,000 to Democratic committees.
Entertainers who donated $28,500 to the committees include producers Frederick W. Field and Steven Bochco and his wife, Dayna, and actors Samuel L. Jackson and Edward Norton.
NBA star LeBron James donated $20,000.
In several instances, couples doubled their donations. Professional poker player Phil Ivey and his wife, Luciaetta, for example, each gave $33,100 to the Obama Victory Committee. New York writer and entrepreneur Steven Brill and his wife, attorney Cynthia Brill, donated $61,600 last month, with $4,600 going to Obama’s presidential campaign and the rest going to one of the party’s joint fundraising committees.
The Exelon donations are particulary interesting. Since 2003, executives and employees of Exelon, which is based in Illinois, have contributed at least $227,000 to Mr. Obama’s campaigns for the United States Senate and another $180,000 for President. That’s $400,000 from the upper echelons of the nation’s largest nuclear power firm. Two top Exelon officials, Frank M. Clark, executive vice president, and John W. Rogers Jr., a director, are among his largest fund-raisers.
Another Obama donor, John W. Rowe, chairman of Exelon, is also chairman of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear power industry’s lobbying group, based in Washington. Exelon’s support for Mr. Obama far exceeds its support for any other presidential candidate. In addition, Mr. Obama’s chief political strategist, David Axelrod, has worked as a consultant to Exelon. A spokeswoman for Exelon said Mr. Axelrod’s company had helped an Exelon subsidiary, Commonwealth Edison, with communications strategy periodically since 2002.
You got to love this one degree of separation because in 2005 during Obama’s first year in the Senate, Exelon Corporation failed to disclose some radioactive leaks from a nuclear power plant sixty miles south of Chicago. Naturally when the leaks came to light, residents were less than thrilled. Obama railed against the firm publicly but then proceed to help out the company in the subterfuge that is the United States.
First, Obama worked to pass a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was “the only nuclear legislation that I’ve passed.” The only thing it passed was its committee; the bill died on the Senate floor.
In March 2006, Senator Obama introduced a bill known as the Nuclear Release Notice Act of 2006. The bill S109-2348 stated flatly that nuclear plants “shall immediately” notify federal, state and local officials of any accidental release of radioactive material that exceeded “allowable limits for normal operation.” Like all of Obama’s legislation, the bill never became law. This was largely due to the fact that Exelon objected to the provisions of bill and complained to Senator Obama’s office. Facing pushback from his major donor, Obama then worked with Senator James Inofe of Oklahoma to insert provisions into another bill that gave the Nuclear Energy Institute whose chair is also the CEO of Exelon to assist the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in writing the technical standards of what constitute “allowable limts for normal operation.” The language of the bill was also changed. In place of Obama’s original straightforward reporting requirements was new language giving the nuclear commission two years to come up with its own regulations. The bill said that the commission “shall consider” — not require — immediate public notification, and also take into account the findings of a task force it set up to study the tritium leaks.
Oh the things that money can buy. In this case, John W. Rowe, chairman of Exelon and chair of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry association that was now assisting US Nuclear Regulatory Commission with the technical standards of what constitutes a leak, bought in effect the words “shall consider.” Of course, John W. Rowe is just an “ordinary American” as Obama campaign manager David Plouffe suggests. John W. Rowe is just an “ordinary American” who according to Forbes’ 2005 list of Executive Pay was paid $11.5 mil in total compensation. But don’t fret, this “ordinary American” is on up and up. According to Reuters, John W. Rowe earned $19,491,556 in total compensation in 2007.
The second article is from US News & World Report in article written by Bonnie Erbe entitled Barack Obama’s Fundraising Hypocrisy—a Lobbyist by Any Other Name…:
The latest campaign finance figures show Sen. Barack Obama’s pledge not to take money from lobbyists is a distinction without a difference.
He clobbered Sen. John McCain in fundraising last month, netting more than twice the amount of money raised by his rival. From Bloomberg:
Obama took in $51.9 million in June, including $1.4 million from a joint fundraising committee with the Democratic National Committee, while McCain reported raising $21.5 million, including $5.1 million from his fundraising effort with the Republican National Committee.
But consider whence much of Obama’s money comes. While donations to his campaign are not accepted from lobbyists per se, they are proffered by corporate executives. These same executives face a mountain of federal issues on which they will most surely need Obama’s help, should he win the White House in November. So what’s the difference?
To wit. Bloomberg reported that donors to Obama’s joint fundraising committee included Jay Grinney, president and chief executive officer of Birmingham, Ala.-based HealthSouth Corp., who gave $10,000, and Donald Thompson, U.S. chief of Oak Brook, Ill.-based McDonald’s Corp., who gave $28,500, the maximum.
As I’ve noted before, Sen. Obama’s fourth-largest corporate donor is Exelon, the nation’s largest provider of nuclear power.
Did he take donations straight from the pockets of the company’s lobbyists? No. But did he accept largesse in the amount of more than a quarter million dollars from Exelon’s CEO and top executives? Yes. In the process, he watered down to oblivion an antinuclear amendment he had sponsored, originally to force nuclear power producers to report even the most negligible of radioactive leaks. He then went on to tell mesmerized campaign audiences he had “passed” his antinuclear bill, which never passed the U.S. Senate.
Meanwhile, the Obama campaign disinvited Democratic war hero and former Sen. Max Cleland to appear at an Obama event in Atlanta earlier this month. Why? Sen. Cleland is a registered lobbyist.
John McCain openly accepts lobbyists’ donations. And some voters find that as much of a conflict (because Senator McCain has his name attached to the most important campaign finance reform bill of the last two decades.) The difference between McCain and Obama on this issue is McCain has never pledged not to take lobbyists’ donations. He has only pledged to fight to make the process as transparent as possible.
It is, of course, reassuring to see these articles in the media. However is anybody reading them?
He didn't vote for us to get the "Stimulus" "Payment" either....More on that later.... | |
|
| Presidential Election (What do you think)
Posted: 7/25/2008 7:47:10 AM | The media is not favoring Obama. Everytime they post a picture, they make a comment (negative) and talk about how McCain keeps complaining. McCain has NOT used this time to make us want to vote for him because of what good he can do for the country. He just keeps whining that Obama is getting more attention, it is starting to look bad. As for the surge. Yes, Obama needs to acknowledge that it worked, that does not mean he is not being honest. Not being honest is to open your mouth and lie. Being quiet does not equal not being honest.
I know many of you are crazy about McCain and I do not dislike him, but I am tired of him complaining about Obama as opposed to giving us the reasons we should vote for him.
Let us see what will happen when Obama returns. | |
|
| Presidential Election (What do you think)
Posted: 7/26/2008 12:09:48 AM | Actually I'm not crazy about any political source. I do know Obama will destroy America. I don't necessarily like McCain ,but at least McCain will protect America, Obama will not....
Take a good read here..He never voted for or against the stimulus payment but he claims he wants us to have another one.
..http://obama.senate.gov/votes/index.cfm?start=161
2 2/05/08 On the Motion (Motion to Instruct Sgt. At Arms)
A bill to provide economic stimulus through recovery rebates to individuals, incentives for business investment, and an increase in conforming and FHA loan limits. Motion Agreed to (73-12) Not Voting
2 2/04/08 On the Cloture Motion H.R. 5140
A bill to provide economic stimulus through recovery rebates to individuals, incentives for business investment, and an increase in conforming and FHA loan limits. Cloture Motion Agreed to (80-4, 3/5 majority required) Not Voting
Obama claims he wants sanctuary cities excluded from Federal funds,however,he equates law enforcement to terrorist....Take a good read here...
Obama >>>>>>> http://obama.senate.gov/votes/index.cfm?start=101
3/13/08 On the Motion to Table S.Amdt. 4309 to S.Con.Res. 70 (No short title on file)
To create a reserve fund to ensure that Federal assistance does not go to sanctuary cities that ignore the immigration laws of the United States and create safe havens for illegal aliens and potential terrorists. Motion to Table Agreed to (58-40) Yea
http://209.157.64.200/tag/obama/index?more=6094487
Barack Obama Calls Immigration Enforcement Agency Terrorists
Monday, July 14, 2008 12:06:43 PM · by Free ThinkerNY · 60 replies · 1,320+ views
lashawnbarber.com ^ | July 14, 2008
Future President Barack Hussein Obama makes so many verbal gaffes, it’s barely challenging to find and expose the ignorance. Race-pandering before the hispanic racialist group La Raza, BHO equated Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the government agency charged with carrying out our nations immigration laws, with terrorism. He said: “When communities are terrorized by ICE immigration raids…when all that is happening, the system just isn’t working, and we need to change it.” Play the video below: | |
|
| Presidential Election (What do you think)
Posted: 7/27/2008 3:26:17 PM | | This is sad. My aunt went to a Benny Hin convention and they are casting Obama as an anti-christ like figure. Why are people having such a hard time with him. This election is turning into a popularity contest. I thought this was going to be better than Clinton vs Obama. McCain is still whining that he is not the media baby. The media is still trying to show that they can say mean things about Obama. I will be glad when Obama gets back into the country. | |
|
|
| Page 20 of 28
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 |
|
Home
login 
