Insider Advantage Loves Me After All

My good dear darling friends at Insider Advantage/Poll Position have released a new poll from yesterday.

The poll shows Obama tailing McCain by only 6 points, a 50-44 margin for McCain… with “other” (whom I can only assume means Bob Barr, the only “other” on the Georgia ballot) getting 2% and 4% being undecided. The margin of error is 4 points… so Obama could only be down by 2, or down by as much as 10.

The 6 point spread proves me wrong when I said after SurveyUSA showed Obama 8 points back that Insider Advantage would show a greater McCain lead… so to my dear dear friends at Insider Advantage, I do apologize and appreciate this good news.

Matt Towery, the master pollster himself, had this to say:

The race in Georgia is back on. But, Sen. Obama has little room for the race to become closer, unless former Rep. Bob Barr starts to concentrate on his home state. The African-American vote has totally collapsed to Obama (96%) a rare occurrence this far out in a Georgia contest. Independents have dropped to 50% for McCain. Male support has dropped to 50% for McCain and 44% for Obama. But, Obama is making little additional progress with white voters (24%) and unless he can improve that percentage, or Barr comes on strong and takes voters away from McCain, Georgia would, at this time, still lean McCain. It is possible the results of the debates could also move the race closer.

By the way, I should note for Erick that this poll was done on a Tuesday… and if memory serves correctly Wednesday is the “second holy day” in Georgia… so the “gone churchin” excuse shouldn’t qualify for this one.

80 comments

  1. bowersville says:

    With the state focusing totally on the economic crisis of this generation, if this is all the BigO can do from the opposite party, the only person you are kidding is yourself.

  2. liberator says:

    The bailout just passed the senate overwhelmingly. I assume Saxby voted in favor of the bill. Interestingly enough the socialist senator bernie sanders from vermont voted against the bailout. Guess this will hurt Saxby even more. McCain and Obama voted for the bill.

  3. Barr will really have to push himself to gain big numbers in Georgia, and I am not sure he would do that/has the time too.

    McCain still has a lead, but I wonder how many people already voted for him. Early Voting may actually benefit the GOP in Georgia if a large enough number of their supporters that would otherwise change their minds after the crisis have already voted.

    This is why I do not like Early Voting. Makes tracking too difficult.

  4. Well, this is why I didn’t do early voting. I was actually thinking of possibly maybe somehow perhaps voting for Saxby.

    Now, as I said to his staff personally, “if he violates his oath and votes for this blatantly unconstitutional bill, I will do everything in my power to see to it that he does not return to office.” Everything might only mean my vote… or it might mean more.

  5. Taft, I’m fairly sure you can take advantage of the next two days of early voting. I sincerely doubt that anyone is going to be able to sway you in the next few weeks.

    Now if we could get our politicians to be so steadfast in their beliefs.

  6. Chris says:

    The only reason I didn’t swing by and early vote for Martin and Obama is that I’m waiting to see how Linder votes on the Senate version.

  7. debbie0040 says:

    When the poll was taken, some were upset about the Bailout Bill being killed by the GOP House and that effected poll numbers.

    If you really believe that Obama has a chance of winning Georgia, then I have some ocean front property in Tennessee I would like to sell you.

    Obama is left wing liberal extremist.

    Obama’s Fishy $200 Million
    http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13981

    Published 10/2/2008 12:08:46 AM
    FUNNY MONEY
    An auditor for the Federal Election Commission is attempting to have his bosses seek a formal investigation into the collection by the Obama for President campaign of more than $200 million in potentially illegal political donations, including millions of dollars of illegal, foreign donations, and has sought a request for assistance from the Department of Justice or Federal Bureau of Investigation. But the analyst’s requests have largely been ignored. “I can’t get anyone to move. I believe we are looking at a hijacking of our political system that makes the Clinton and Gore fundraising scandals pale in comparison. And no one here wants to touch it.”

    One reasons cited by his superiors, says the analyst, is that involvement by the Justice Department or FBI would be indicative of a criminal investigation, something the FEC would prefer not take place a month before the presidential election. Such actions, though, have been used to scuttle Republican campaigns in the past, the most famous being the Weinberger case in the days leading up to the 1992 re-election bid of President George H.W. Bush.

    The analyst, who declines to be identified for fear of retribution, says that on four different occasions in the past three months, he sought to open formal investigations into the Obama campaign’s fundraising techniques, but those investigations have been discouraged. “Without formal approval, I can’t get the resources I need, manpower, that kind of thing. This is a huge undertaking.” And the analyst says that he believes that campaign finance violations have occurred.

    The Obama campaign has already had to deal with several FEC complaints about fraudulent donors and illegal foreign contributions, and the FEC says it has no record that those complaints have been resolved or closed. As well, the Obama campaign has been cagey at times about the means by which it has made its historic fundraising hauls, which now total almost $500 million for the election cycle. The Hillary Clinton campaign raised questions about the huge amount of e-retail sales the Obama campaign was making for such things as t-shirts and other campaign paraphernalia, and how such sales were being tracked and used for fundraising purposes. While the profits of those items counted against the $2,300 personal donation limit, there have always been lingering questions about the e-retail system.

    “The question has always been, if you buy a $25 t-shirt and you go back to that purchaser eight or nine times with email appeals for $200 or $500 donations, and you have people donating like that all the time, at what point does the campaign bother to check if the FEC limit has been exceeded?” says a former Clinton campaign fundraiser. “There are enough of us from the 1992 and 1996 and 2000 races around to know that many of these kinds of violations never get caught until after the election has been won or lost. In this case, there is no way the Obama campaign will be held accountable before Election Day, unless someone raises holy hell.”

    The FEC analyst says that Obama’s filings indicate he has received large, bundled sums of donations from overseas, sometimes exceeding a quarter millions dollars. “It’s suspicious, but it’s the small donations made by credit card that need to be examined. We’ve raised red flags on many of these and the Obama campaign just ignores us. After this election, after we’ve sifted through everything — if we’re allowed to sift through everything — I am confident that we are looking at perhaps the largest fine every leveled against a national campaign entity.”

    Just as frustrating as the lack of desire on the part of his bosses to act, says the analyst, is that major media outlets have ignored the story he has been attempting to tell. Thus far, Newsmax is one of the few publications to cover the Obama campaign finance scam story.

  8. Chris says:

    Debbie,

    If after all this you think McCain will ever be president, I’ve got some shares of Lehman to sell you.

  9. debbie0040 says:

    Secret, Foreign Money Floods Into Obama Campaign

    http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/Obama_fundraising_illegal/2008/09/29/135718.html?s=al&promo_code=6BD9-1

    Monday, September 29, 2008 9:23 PM

    By: Kenneth R. Timmerman Article Font Size

    More than half of the whopping $426.9 million Barack Obama has raised has come from small donors whose names the Obama campaign won’t disclose.

    And questions have arisen about millions more in foreign donations the Obama campaign has received that apparently have not been vetted as legitimate.

    Obama has raised nearly twice that of John McCain’s campaign, according to new campaign finance report.

    But because of Obama’s high expenses during the hotly contested Democratic primary season and an early decision to forgo public campaign money and the spending limits it imposes, all that cash has not translated into a financial advantage — at least, not yet.

    The Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee began September with $95 million in cash, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

    The McCain camp and the Republican National Committee had $94 million, because of an influx of $84 million in public money.

    But Obama easily could outpace McCain by $50 million to $100 million or more in new donations before Election Day, thanks to a legion of small contributors whose names and addresses have been kept secret.

    Unlike the McCain campaign, which has made its complete donor database available online, the Obama campaign has not identified donors for nearly half the amount he has raised, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP).

    Federal law does not require the campaigns to identify donors who give less than $200 during the election cycle. However, it does require that campaigns calculate running totals for each donor and report them once they go beyond the $200 mark.

    Surprisingly, the great majority of Obama donors never break the $200 threshold.

    “Contributions that come under $200 aggregated per person are not listed,” said Bob Biersack, a spokesman for the FEC. “They don’t appear anywhere, so there’s no way of knowing who they are.”

    The FEC breakdown of the Obama campaign has identified a staggering $222.7 million as coming from contributions of $200 or less. Only $39.6 million of that amount comes from donors the Obama campaign has identified.

    It is the largest pool of unidentified money that has ever flooded into the U.S. election system, before or after the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms of 2002.

    Biersack would not comment on whether the FEC was investigating the huge amount of cash that has come into Obama’s coffers with no public reporting.

    But Massie Ritsch, a spokesman for CRP, a campaign-finance watchdog group, dismissed the scale of the unreported money.

    “We feel comfortable that it isn’t the $20 donations that are corrupting a campaign,” he told Newsmax.

    But those small donations have added up to more than $200 million, all of it from unknown and unreported donors.

    Ritsch acknowledges that there is skepticism about all the unreported money, especially in the Obama campaign coffers.

    “We and seven other watchdog groups asked both campaigns for more information on small donors,” he said. “The Obama campaign never responded,” whereas the McCain campaign “makes all its donor information, including the small donors, available online.”

    The rise of the Internet as a campaign funding tool raises new questions about the adequacy of FEC requirements on disclosure. In pre-Internet fundraising, almost all political donations, even small ones, were made by bank check, leaving a paper trail and limiting the amount of fraud.

    But credit cards used to make donations on the Internet have allowed for far more abuse.

    “While FEC practice is to do a post-election review of all presidential campaigns, given their sluggish metabolism, results can take three or four years,” said Ken Boehm, the chairman of the conservative National Legal and Policy Center.

    Already, the FEC has noted unusual patterns in Obama campaign donations among donors who have been disclosed because they have gone beyond the $200 minimum.

    FEC and Mr. Doodad Pro

    When FEC auditors have questions about contributions, they send letters to the campaign’s finance committee requesting additional information, such as the complete address or employment status of the donor.

    Many of the FEC letters that Newsmax reviewed instructed the Obama campaign to “redesignate” contributions in excess of the finance limits.

    Under campaign finance laws, an individual can donate $2,300 to a candidate for federal office in both the primary and general election, for a total of $4,600. If a donor has topped the limit in the primary, the campaign can “redesignate” the contribution to the general election on its books.

    In a letter dated June 25, 2008, the FEC asked the Obama campaign to verify a series of $25 donations from a contributor identified as “Will, Good” from Austin, Texas.

    Mr. Good Will listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You.”

    A Newsmax analysis of the 1.4 million individual contributions in the latest master file for the Obama campaign discovered 1,000 separate entries for Mr. Good Will, most of them for $25.

    In total, Mr. Good Will gave $17,375.

    Following this and subsequent FEC requests, campaign records show that 330 contributions from Mr. Good Will were credited back to a credit card. But the most recent report, filed on Sept. 20, showed a net cumulative balance of $8,950 — still well over the $4,600 limit.

    There can be no doubt that the Obama campaign noticed these contributions, since Obama’s Sept. 20 report specified that Good Will’s cumulative contributions since the beginning of the campaign were $9,375.

    In an e-mailed response to a query from Newsmax, Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt pledged that the campaign would return the donations. But given the slowness with which the campaign has responded to earlier FEC queries, there’s no guarantee that the money will be returned before the Nov. 4 election.

    Similarly, a donor identified as “Pro, Doodad,” from “Nando, NY,” gave $19,500 in 786 separate donations, most of them for $25. For most of these donations, Mr. Doodad Pro listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You,” just as Good Will had done.

    But in some of them, he didn’t even go this far, apparently picking letters at random to fill in the blanks on the credit card donation form. In these cases, he said he was employed by “VCX” and that his profession was “VCVC.”

    Following FEC requests, the Obama campaign began refunding money to Doodad Pro in February 2008. In all, about $8,425 was charged back to a credit card. But that still left a net total of $11,165 as of Sept. 20, way over the individual limit of $4,600.

    Here again, LaBolt pledged that the contributions would be returned but gave no date.

    In February, after just 93 donations, Doodad Pro had already gone over the $2,300 limit for the primary. He was over the $4,600 limit for the general election one month later.

    In response to FEC complaints, the Obama campaign began refunding money to Doodad Pro even before he reached these limits. But his credit card was the gift that kept on giving. His most recent un-refunded contributions were on July 7, when he made 14 separate donations, apparently by credit card, of $25 each.

    Just as with Mr. Good Will, there can be no doubt that the Obama campaign noticed the contributions, since its Sept. 20 report specified that Doodad’s cumulative contributions since the beginning of the campaign were $10,965.

    Foreign Donations

    And then there are the overseas donations — at least, the ones that we know about.

    The FEC has compiled a separate database of potentially questionable overseas donations that contains more than 11,500 contributions totaling $33.8 million. More than 520 listed their “state” as “IR,” often an abbreviation for Iran. Another 63 listed it as “UK,” the United Kingdom.

    More than 1,400 of the overseas entries clearly were U.S. diplomats or military personnel, who gave an APO address overseas. Their total contributions came to just $201,680.

    But others came from places as far afield as Abu Dhabi, Addis Ababa, Beijing, Fallujah, Florence, Italy, and a wide selection of towns and cities in France.

    Until recently, the Obama Web site allowed a contributor to select the country where he resided from the entire membership of the United Nations, including such friendly places as North Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

    Unlike McCain’s or Sen. Hillary Clinton’s online donation pages, the Obama site did not ask for proof of citizenship until just recently. Clinton’s presidential campaign required U.S. citizens living abroad to actually fax a copy of their passport before a donation would be accepted.

    With such lax vetting of foreign contributions, the Obama campaign may have indirectly contributed to questionable fundraising by foreigners.

    In July and August, the head of the Nigeria’s stock market held a series of pro-Obama fundraisers in Lagos, Nigeria’s largest city. The events attracted local Nigerian business owners.

    At one event, a table for eight at one fundraising dinner went for $16,800. Nigerian press reports claimed sponsors raked in an estimated $900,000.

    The sponsors said the fundraisers were held to help Nigerians attend the Democratic convention in Denver. But the Nigerian press expressed skepticism of that claim, and the Nigerian public anti-fraud commission is now investigating the matter.

    Concerns about foreign fundraising have been raised by other anecdotal accounts of illegal activities.

    In June, Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi gave a public speech praising Obama, claiming foreign nationals were donating to his campaign.

    “All the people in the Arab and Islamic world and in Africa applauded this man,” the Libyan leader said. “They welcomed him and prayed for him and for his success, and they may have even been involved in legitimate contribution campaigns to enable him to win the American presidency…”

    Though Gadhafi asserted that fundraising from Arab and African nations were “legitimate,” the fact is that U.S. federal law bans any foreigner from donating to a U.S. election campaign.

    The rise of the Internet and use of credit cards have made it easier for foreign nationals to donate to American campaigns, especially if they claim their donation is less than $200.

    Campaign spokesman LaBolt cited several measures that the campaign has adopted to “root out fraud,” including a requirement that anyone attending an Obama fundraising event overseas present a valid U.S. passport, and a new requirement that overseas contributors must provide a passport number when donating online.

    One new measure that might not appear obvious at first could be frustrating to foreigners wanting to buy campaign paraphernalia such as T-shirts or bumper stickers through the online store.

    In response to an investigation conducted by blogger Pamela Geller, who runs the blog Atlas Shrugs, the Obama campaign has locked down the store.

    Geller first revealed on July 31 that donors from the Gaza strip had contributed $33,000 to the Obama campaign through bulk purchases of T-shirts they had shipped to Gaza.

    The online campaign store allows buyers to complete their purchases by making an additional donation to the Obama campaign.

    A pair of Palestinian brothers named Hosam and Monir Edwan contributed more than $31,300 to the Obama campaign in October and November 2007, FEC records show.

    Their largesse attracted the attention of the FEC almost immediately. In an April 15, 2008, report that examined the Obama campaign’s year-end figures for 2007, the FEC asked that some of these contributions be reassigned.

    The Obama camp complied sluggishly, prompting a more detailed admonishment form the FEC on July 30.

    The Edwan brothers listed their address as “GA,” as in Georgia, although they entered “Gaza” or “Rafah Refugee camp” as their city of residence on most of the online contribution forms.

    According to the Obama campaign, they wrongly identified themselves as U.S. citizens, via a voluntary check-off box at the time the donations were made.

    Many of the Edwan brothers’ contributions have been purged from the FEC database, but they still can be found in archived versions available for CRP and other watchdog groups.

    The latest Obama campaign filing shows that $891.11 still has not been refunded to the Edwan brothers, despite repeated FEC warnings and campaign claims that all the money was refunded in December.

    A Newsmax review of the Obama campaign finance filings found that the FEC had asked for the redesignation or refund of 53,828 donations, totaling just under $30 million.

    But none involves the donors who never appear in the Obama campaign reports, which the CRP estimates at nearly half the $426.8 million the Obama campaign has raised to date.

    Many of the small donors participated in online “matching” programs, which allows them to hook up with other Obama supporters and eventually share e-mail addresses and blogs.

    The Obama Web site described the matching contribution program as similar to a public radio fundraising drive.

    “Our goal is to bring 50,000 new donors into our movement by Friday at midnight,” campaign manager David Plouffe e-mailed supporters on Sept. 15. “And if you make your first online donation today, your gift will go twice as far. A previous donor has promised to match every dollar you donate.”

    FEC spokesman Biersack said he was unfamiliar with the matching donation drive. But he said that if donations from another donor were going to be reassigned to a new donor, as the campaign suggested, “the two people must agree” to do so.

    This type of matching drive probably would be legal as long as the matching donor had not exceeded the $2,300 per-election limit, he said.

    Obama campaign spokesman LaBolt said, “We have more than 2.5 million donors overall, hundreds of thousands of which have participated in this program.”

    Until now, the names of those donors and where they live have remained anonymous — and the federal watchdog agency in charge of ensuring that the presidential campaigns play by the same rules has no tools to find out.

  10. debbie0040 says:

    Obama and the Democrats are also to blame in this crisis, not just the Republicans.

    I don’t understand how anyone that is a fiscal conservative can vote for Obama, given his past record..

  11. Chris says:

    Democratic policies are the cause of this crisis. The Republicans are to blame. They cared more about bulls–t issues like Terry Schiavo, Gay Marriage and Abortion – None of which are federal issues, and did jacksh-t to address these financial issues.

    The blame for this falls squarely in the lap of George W. Bush, Newt Gingrich, Denny Hastert, and the ass-cancers Trent Lott, Tom Delay and Rick Santorum.

    They are the ones who sat on their fat asses, spent trillions on GOP pet projects and swept these problems under the rug.

    One of the reasons I’m going to vote for Obama and Martin is that they will open up hearings and seek indictments of these faux-conservatives. At this point the best I can hope for from congress is that these Republicans will spend the rest of their lives getting ass-pounded by Guido in Federal prison.

  12. Chris says:

    I think the jist of Debbie’s post is that foreign money has been funding Obama’s campaign. Yet the same can be said of McCain, Bush and every other ass-cancer in Congress. They borrow from foreign sources to buy votes from the American People using the US Treasury.

  13. debbie0040 says:

    Bush and the GOP made several attempts to have stricter over sight over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and it was blocked by the Democrats.

    Not just foreign money, contributions over the LEGAL limit. Contributions being hidden by using the name “Will, Good” from Austin, Texas.

    Mr. Good Will listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You.”

    Contribtutions from Palestinians on the Gaza Strip, etc…

    As for polls, here is an interesting one form Gallop:

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/110881/Gallup-Daily-Obama-48-McCain-44.aspx

    PRINCETON, NJ — The latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking update of registered voters finds Barack Obama at 48%, and John McCain at 44%, marking a slight narrowing of the race from the eight percentage point margin Obama held earlier this week.

  14. John Konop says:

    Chris

    I was debating a friend of mine a long time conservative Republican last night and made similar comments to your post. The main point I made is would it not be better to start all over and have a real conservative run against Martin 6 years from now. Would this not send a message to the rest of the GOP enough is enough? ? All he could say was look at the damage Martin could do. And I think representation from politicians like Saxby under the conservative name is doing way more damage in the long run!

  15. debbie0040 says:

    John, I am not saying the GOP or Bush is blameless. I am saying the Democrats share in the blame as well.

    It is not fair just to just point the finger at Bush or the GOP when the Democrats are at fault in this mess as well.

  16. Will they know I mean to vote for Martin if I write in “Eugene Talmadge Look-A-Like” or do I need to check the box?

    Saxby has lost my vote as of yesterday, I just can’t decide between voting my conscience for Buckley or voting for vengeance with Martin.

  17. rugby fan says:

    Debbie:

    Obama refuses to disclose half of his donors because half of his donors gave less than what is required to have their names disclosed.

    Considering the spreadsheet he sent to the FEC at disclosure time crashed their computers due to its size, it would be foolish to go back and disclose all of his donors.

  18. Icarus says:

    “The blame for this falls squarely in the lap of George W. Bush, Newt Gingrich, Denny Hastert, and the ass-cancers Trent Lott, Tom Delay and Rick Santorum. ”

    I don’t disagree with most of the names on the list, but why Newt? He’s made many mistakes over the years, but we still were operating under Pay-go and were nearing or at a budget surplus when he left office.

  19. John Konop says:

    debbie0040

    I do not disagree. As you know years ago in front of you I warned about this situation. And I said than in front of the GOP in Cobb numerous times we have both sides to blame. This was not popular but it was the truth.

  20. Icarus says:

    “would it not be better to start all over and have a real conservative run against Martin 6 years from now.”

    Under this scenario, you have to assume that Obama is President. That gives at least two years of an unchecked Democrat agenda. Saxby is probably the last line of defense to hold a fillibuster. We can expect to have, among other things, public ballot union elections, higher taxes on the productive, census done by statistical sampling, and one or two more John Paul Stephens on the Supreme Court.

    The ususal response to those that want to throw everyone out and start over is “But then we can elect ‘true conservatives’ (whatever those are, as it seems no one ever measures up to whatever that’s supposed to be)”.

    Well, according to this plan, Obama will then be replaced by a Republican, just like Bill Clinton was replaced by Bob Dole. But assuming that even this was right, then Jim Martin would be running for re-election after 6 years of voting for a Democrat agenda. He would be running for re-election as an incumbent during an off year election when the other party (’cause we’ve done so well taking back the Republican party for conservatives by then). The opposition party historically gains seats, not loses them, in off-year elections.

    So if you feel the need to fix this problem this way, feel free to have Jim Martin around for a long, long time.

  21. Saxby is probably the last line of defense to hold a fillibuster.

    AAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Dang, I busted a gut on that one.

    Isn’t it required that a male Senator have at least one testis, or perhaps at least a spine, to hold a filibuster?

  22. Icarus says:

    “Are you saying Saxby is the best we can do?”

    He’s what’s on the ballot, so at this point, yes.

    As I said yesterday, I think Saxby has done his best to give us what we’ve asked for. We, (the Republicans/FisCons), probably should be a bit more clear, present, and vocal about our expectations during his next term.

  23. debbie0040 says:

    We should make their lives miserable like we did on the immigration bill when they stray from fiscal conservative principles…

    Not voting for Saxby or McCain when you are a fiscal conservative is like throwing out the bath water with the baby.

  24. debbie0040 says:

    I meant throwing out the baby with the bathwater…

    Obama and Jim Martin are not fiscal conservatives… They will tax and spend.

    The Supreme Court is at stake as well. The next President will likely get to appoint two SC Justices. Would your rather Obama appoint those justices or McCain?

  25. liberator says:

    I just advance voted for Bob Barr for President and Allen Buckley for Senate. I hope You will also if you truly believe in Liberty and Free-Markets. McCain and Saxby just voted for Socialism and Against our Constitution and everything it stands for. Stop voting for the lesser of two evils and vote Libertarian!

  26. Three Jack says:

    i will not cast my vote for saxby, but the logic that voting for martin will ensure a true conservative is elected in 2014 is total nonsense.

    saxby as the last line of defense against dems is akin to relying upon a singles hitting, slow utility infielder as the last hope in the bottom of the ninth inning. every so often he does succeed, about 20% of the time.

    saxby could have voted against the wipeout bill last night considering the wide margin in favor. but he didn’t even take that opportunity to make a stand. voters need a ‘none of the above’ choice on nov. 4th, then a mulligan election sometime after the first of the year.

  27. Chris says:

    The next President will likely get to appoint two SC Justices. Would your rather Obama appoint those justices or McCain?

    Frankly I couldn’t care less. They can’t do any worse to this country than Bush and the rest of the Republicans in Congress.

  28. debbie0040 says:

    Report on the cause of the failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

    The RNC needs to run ads listing the findings of this report.

  29. debbie0040 says:

    They could do much worse…

    You want to put people in charge of this country that blocked stricter regulations and over sight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. John McCain even warned in 2006 reform was needed.

  30. Three Jack says:

    that lame supreme court argument doesn’t hold water.

    for one thing, does anybody think a strict constitutionalist could gain approval in a majority dem senate?

    and what has mccain ever done to prove he wouldn’t cave in to dems if say ginsberg retires? he would “cross the aisle”, get with his gang of 14 and pick another ginsbergesque ultra liberal if history is a reliable indicator.

    good post chris.

  31. debbie0040 says:

    “for one thing, does anybody think a strict constitutionalist could gain approval in a majority dem senate?”

    Need I remind you that Clarence Thomas was confirmed after a fierce battle with the Democrats holding a 57 -43 majority?

    This is a great video about who is to blame for the financial mess. I hope the RNC plans to run ad after ad.

  32. Doug Deal says:

    Three Jack,

    The retiring Justices will not be conservatives, they will be very far left liberals. That means, appointing a Sandra Day O’Connor or a Kennedy to replace one of them would be, reletively speaking, more effective than Alito replacing O’Connor.

    You and Chris make such bold pronouncements now about not caring about the Supreme Court, but just wait until the next big 5-4 decision that goes against your interests. I will wager that you both will be screaming bloody murder at Kennedy, when his vote could have potentially been rendered mute by another “moderate”.

  33. Chris says:

    Doug,

    Nope, I’ll be screaming bloody murder at the same bunch of jackasses I’m screaming bloody murder at right now.

    The GOP had a once in a generation chance to accomplish something, and instead wasted its time of gay marriage and bridges to nowhere.

  34. debbie0040 says:

    “for one thing, does anybody think a strict constitutionalist could gain approval in a majority dem senate?”

    Need I remind you that Clarence Thomas was confirmed after bloody confirmation battle with the Democrats holding a 53 – 47 majority?

    McCain would appoint more conservative justices than Obama. That is a no brainer…

  35. Three Jack says:

    doug, SEVEN of the current justices were appointed by republicans. only 4 can be considered “conservative”. how’s this working out for ya?

    with mccain, you would get appointments based on appeasement, not conservatism.

  36. Three Jack says:

    debbie, the senate might have a 60+ dem majority after november. either way, it will be more than 53 as you point out was the number 17 years ago.

    do you really think in this political climate another clarence thomas could make it through the “high tech lynching” sure to be unleashed by dems?

    and what in mccain’s past makes you believe he will appoint a conservative?

  37. debbie0040 says:

    Because McCain did promise he would appoint conservatives in the line of Roberts and McCain is a man of honor..

  38. Chris says:

    George W. Bush has done more damage to this country and conservatism in the last four years than we will see good coming from Roberts and Alito.

    We’d have been better off with Kerry

  39. Doug Deal says:

    3j and rug,

    Vetting is a whole lot better than it was under Nixon, who appointed one of them and Bush 41 who appointed the other. Nixon was also one of the least conservative Republicans to ever be elected to the White House. (Think Price Controls, government expansion, etc).

    Bush, unfortunately listened to Sununu, who vouched for Souter.

    The Dems have no problem selecting mindless lock step liberals, so at least McCain has a non-zero probability to appoint someone better.

    If it wasn’t for the destructive and dangerous games that the left has played with the courts over the past 70 years, I would not who got elected President most of the time.

  40. debbie0040 says:

    Those of you that think government is the enabler or solution to problems should be right at home with Obama:

    UK Ambassador’s verdict on Obama:

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/toby_harnden/blog/2008/10/02/revealed_uk_ambassadors_verdict_on_barack_obama_

    Policies

    3. Obama’s politics and policies are still evolving. His Illinois and US Senate careers give us only a few clues as to his likely priorities in office. In the Senate he took a low profile in 2005-6, but was a diligent member of the Foreign Relations Committee, respectful and friendly to the veteran Republican Senator Lugar, with whom he travelled to London in 2005. His voting record was decidedly liberal. But the main impression is of someone who was finding his feet, and then got diverted by his Presidential ambitions. Obama’s positions and policies emerging from the campaign are a better guide to a future Presidency, but “The Audacity of Hope” (2006) does of course set out the broad themes. If elected, Obama would have less of a track record than any recent President. Carter would be the nearest, but even he had four years as a Governor.

    Domestic Policy

    4. Since clinching the nomination in June, Obama (as is traditional at this stage) has tacked towards the centre. He has seemed to move on foreign policy (see below), intelligence (his decision to vote for the compromise legislation on interception, having initially threatened to filibuster), gun control (after the Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment), the death penalty (after the Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana capital law for child rape) and more moderate comments on trade (again, see below). Most of these changes are not outright “flip-flops” but they do reflect a decision not to leave himself vulnerable to attacks from the right. They unsettle some Democrats.

    6. President Obama would reverse many of Bush’s economic policies. He wants to cut taxes on the middle-classes but would increase taxes on the rich. Instead of rolling back the state, he stresses the enabling role that government can play in improving the economy. He complains that outdated infrastructure, low levels of education, and a failing social safety net are hampering the economy’s ability to compete in a globalised world. He would invest heavily in all three.

    7. Obama’s flagship economic policy is a plan for universal healthcare. This would build on the current employer-based system to expand cover. It would not create a single national health service, but would seek to fill the gaps in the current system. Help would be provided for those too poor to buy insurance. The self-employed and small employers would be able to use a government-administered scheme. Unsurprisingly, there is a lively debate about how much all this would cost.

    8. As our parallel report makes clear, Obama’s position on trade is shifting. One senses three basic factors at work: an instinctive belief in the economic opportunities of free trade; an equally instinctive sympathy for those losing their jobs; and lastly a political calculation about handling the various special interest groups, particularly those (eg the unions) active during the primary campaign.

    9. In recent weeks, Obama has repositioned himself somewhat towards free trade. But his advisers are adamant that he does intend to shift towards a “smarter” approach to trade and globalisation. The exact meaning of this is unclear, but it could mean relieving popular economic anxieties through measures such as healthcare, retraining and trade adjustment assistance before pursuing a broadly liberal trade agenda. Or it could mean doing that and pursuing a more “balanced” trade policy, with greater commitments to labour and environmental standards. The next (probably more protectionist) Congress will be a big factor. The choice for Obama looks like being, in practice, in the middle of the Democratic spectrum, not at the extremes – ie no return to Clinton liberalism but not the trades union agenda either. But there are few domestic political drivers for Obama to engage early on the DDA.

  41. debbie0040 says:

    Those of you that think government is the enabler or solution to problems should be right at home with Obama:

    UK Ambassador’s verdict on Obama:

    Policies

    3. Obama’s politics and policies are still evolving. His Illinois and US Senate careers give us only a few clues as to his likely priorities in office. In the Senate he took a low profile in 2005-6, but was a diligent member of the Foreign Relations Committee, respectful and friendly to the veteran Republican Senator Lugar, with whom he travelled to London in 2005. His voting record was decidedly liberal. But the main impression is of someone who was finding his feet, and then got diverted by his Presidential ambitions. Obama’s positions and policies emerging from the campaign are a better guide to a future Presidency, but “The Audacity of Hope” (2006) does of course set out the broad themes. If elected, Obama would have less of a track record than any recent President. Carter would be the nearest, but even he had four years as a Governor.

    Domestic Policy

    4. Since clinching the nomination in June, Obama (as is traditional at this stage) has tacked towards the centre. He has seemed to move on foreign policy (see below), intelligence (his decision to vote for the compromise legislation on interception, having initially threatened to filibuster), gun control (after the Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment), the death penalty (after the Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana capital law for child rape) and more moderate comments on trade (again, see below). Most of these changes are not outright “flip-flops” but they do reflect a decision not to leave himself vulnerable to attacks from the right. They unsettle some Democrats.

    6. President Obama would reverse many of Bush’s economic policies. He wants to cut taxes on the middle-classes but would increase taxes on the rich. Instead of rolling back the state, he stresses the enabling role that government can play in improving the economy. He complains that outdated infrastructure, low levels of education, and a failing social safety net are hampering the economy’s ability to compete in a globalised world. He would invest heavily in all three.

    7. Obama’s flagship economic policy is a plan for universal healthcare. This would build on the current employer-based system to expand cover. It would not create a single national health service, but would seek to fill the gaps in the current system. Help would be provided for those too poor to buy insurance. The self-employed and small employers would be able to use a government-administered scheme. Unsurprisingly, there is a lively debate about how much all this would cost.

    8. As our parallel report makes clear, Obama’s position on trade is shifting. One senses three basic factors at work: an instinctive belief in the economic opportunities of free trade; an equally instinctive sympathy for those losing their jobs; and lastly a political calculation about handling the various special interest groups, particularly those (eg the unions) active during the primary campaign.

    9. In recent weeks, Obama has repositioned himself somewhat towards free trade. But his advisers are adamant that he does intend to shift towards a “smarter” approach to trade and globalisation. The exact meaning of this is unclear, but it could mean relieving popular economic anxieties through measures such as healthcare, retraining and trade adjustment assistance before pursuing a broadly liberal trade agenda. Or it could mean doing that and pursuing a more “balanced” trade policy, with greater commitments to labour and environmental standards. The next (probably more protectionist) Congress will be a big factor. The choice for Obama looks like being, in practice, in the middle of the Democratic spectrum, not at the extremes – ie no return to Clinton liberalism but not the trades union agenda either. But there are few domestic political drivers for Obama to engage early on the DDA.

  42. debbie0040 says:

    URL-http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/toby_harnden/blog/2008/10/02/revealed_uk_ambassadors_verdict_on_barack_obama_

  43. rugby fan says:

    “If it wasn’t for the destructive and dangerous games that the left has played with the courts over the past 70 years, I would not who got elected President most of the time.”

    Well think about the implication of that statement. Namely that conservatives can do no harm to the courts or that liberals can’t grasp the law.

    Either one is filled with tripe.

  44. debbie0040 says:

    Obama has re-positioned himself to the middle but when he was in the State Senate and US Senate, he voted very liberal.

    The problem is which Obama will govern? The Obama campaigning to win the Democratic Primary or the Obama campaigning to win the general election?

    Character and credibilty matters. Obama’s past associations matter..

    With all the bad financial news, the past week don’t any of you think it a bit odd that Obama does not have a 15 point lead in the polls? Obama is having a hard time closing the deal with voters.

    Voters don’t know which Obama will govern. They don’t know if he attended a racist church for 20 years because he agrees with it or if he were willing to “sell his soul” for political gain. Either one is unacceptible.

    Then there is his association with terrorist William Ayers. We are at war with terrorists that want to destroy our country and we have a presidential candidate that was closely associated with one.

    .

  45. rugby fan says:

    “Character and credibilty [sic] matters. Obama’s past associations matter..”

    Sure they do.

    However, Obama is leading in every national poll, every swing state, etc.

    And does one really want to get into a debate about credibility and current associations with Palin on the ticket?

  46. Three Jack says:

    rugby, absolutely. let’s debate credibility and current associations between obama and palin. you have no chance.

    last week, obama was behind in many of those same polls. are you that naive to think polls mean jacksquat 30+ days before an election?

    if the election comes down to credibility and associations, mccain/palin win in a landslide.

  47. Three Jack says:

    konop, good point with the video. his favorable vote contradicts the maverick image he is using for the very foundation of his campaign. he would have been better off voting present as his opponent has done so many times.

  48. debbie0040 says:

    “And does one really want to get into a debate about credibility and current associations with Palin on the ticket?”

    I most certainly do. Palin strutted her stuff in the debate. Sarah Barrucuda is back with a vengeance!

    Palin has more executive experience that Obama does.

    Dick Morris was on the O’Reilly factor before the debate. He said that Palin’s performance in the debate would not hurt McCain if she did badly. Morris said that Obama had peaked too early and McCain would get a second life as voters took a much closer look at Obama and McCain would win the eleciton.

  49. rugby fan says:

    I direct you to:

    http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/the-twelve-odd.html

    which has been updated in recent days.

    Also this:
    http://timesonline.typepad.com/uselections/2008/09/palin-linked-el.html

    There is plenty more about what Pastor Muthee said in her church while she was there that is just as off-putting as Reverend Wright.

    Debbie:

    Palin has more executive experience than McCain, are you saying he isn’t qualified to be President?

  50. rugby fan says:

    And really, can we assume one is a credible candidate if they can’t name more than one Supreme Court case and can’t even articulate what they actually feel about said case?

  51. debbie0040 says:

    Is that so? Did Palin’s pastor say GD America and blame all the problems on whitey? Did Palin’s pastor give an award to Louis Farrakhan?Does Palin associate with terrorists?

  52. rugby fan says:

    Oooooooo, Louis Farrakhan, I am shaking in my boots. Clearly a sign Obama hates America.

    If you are going to deem Reverend Wright as insane (a fair charge) then it is kind of partisan hypocrisy to ignore a pastor who wants to launch “spiritual warfare” and claims to have freed a village from the control of a witch.

  53. rugby fan says:

    The witch was in eastern Africa and if the Wizard of Oz taught us anything it is that wicked witches come from the West.

    Ergo, he freed a village from a good witch.

  54. Icarus says:

    Rugby didn’t read or watch the Wizzard of Oz close enough. The Wicked Witch of the West’s sister that the house was dropped on was the Wicked Witch of the East. Glenda the Good Witch was from the North (if memory serves, and I think she also had a sister from the South).

  55. jsm says:

    Did Obama have to affirm that he espoused the tenants of black liberation theology to join Trinity UCC? The tenants of this belief system demonstrate a hate for America. Whether Obama aligned himself with this group out of ignorance or solidarity, this cannot be swept under the rug.

  56. John Konop says:

    This craziness about religion is why Romney is not on the ticket. At the end the GOP lost, because many rational Americans would have trusted him on economics more than any of the current candidates. The GOP needs to gets over their religious phobia or the party will have problems winning elections in the future. I want the most qualified candidate bottom line!

    The reason the Middle East is so screwed up is because religious zealots overrule common sense.

Comments are closed.