Who won the final Presidential Debate? I asked that question -- well more what they thought of the debate -- of Obama supporters at the Temple Lounge in San Francisco. My thanks to the staff of the Temple Lounge. Great place; great people.
Bertha Lewis, Chief Organizer of The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) said, “It has deeply saddened us to see Senator McCain abandon his historic support for ACORN and our efforts to support the goals of low-income Americans. Maybe it is out of desperation that Senator McCain has forgotten that he was for ACORN before he was against ACORN." Seriously, McCain was the keynote speaker at a 2006 ACORN rally. Evidently McCain was for Immigration reform before he was against it? It does make one wonder why he and his campaign are so exercised over their allegations that Senator Obama has also got ACORN connections.
Perhaps McCain's actions, and those of surrogate organizations such as the Buckeye Institute, are more than the typical election-year stunts we've seen in recent election cycles. Perhaps this time they aim to take some focus off Wall Street's bailout after years of deregulation and the resulting chaos in U.S. and world economies? But in 2006 McCain was pleased to be photographed at the rally, seated beside Florida Democratic Representative Kendrick Meek.
The rally, co-sponsored by ACORN in partnership with the New American Opportunity campaign (NAOC), Catholic League Services – Archdiocese of Miami, Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center, Florida Immigrant Coalition, Miami Dade College, People for the American Way/Mi Familia/Vota en Accion, the Service Employees International Union [SEIU], and UNITE/HERE, was intended to call attention to the need for comprehensive immigration reform.
Senator McCain spoke at the rally attended by hundreds of ACORN members, most of whom were dressed in the red shirts typical of its members. Senator McCain's speech focused on the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act, a bipartisan, comprehensive reform bill, which McCain sponsored with Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA).
See The Actual Links Between John McCain and ACORN for Yourself!
If you're a GOP supporter, or just a McCain enthusiast, please get your facts straight about McCain's association with ACORN. Remember Attorney General Alberto Gonzales arranging the firing of Republican U.S. Attorneys because they refused to prosecute voter assistance groups, including ACORN? Remember how it ended up with Gonzales resigning in disgrace? That was the same year Senator McCain partnered with ACORN.
It's no wonder McCain is trying to take over the "change" theme; his record is littered with sudden reversals in positions that leave him open to charges he's been both for and against virtually anything that Congress has voted on depending on what seemed politically expedient, and his initiatives on health care and taxes don't favor the middle class when examined impartially. Ms. Lewis' recent remarks about McCain included a scathing assessment of his potential leadership, "...he was a maverick before he became erratic. We were thrilled to partner with him to help reform the outdated immigration laws in this country, and were pleased to work closely with him on this issue."Lewis continued, "We expected Senator McCain to support our efforts to give voice to millions of Americans who have never participated in an election before. We are surprised at his efforts to vilify an organization that, until recently, he saw as an ally. Maybe this surprise attack and change of heart is indicative of his state of mind, and the way he would govern."
Maverick, or political opportunist?
Ms. Lewis went on to say that, "We are sure that the extremists he is trying to get into a froth will be even more excited to learn that John McCain stood shoulder to shoulder with ACORN, at an ACORN co-sponsored event, to promote immigration reform."
Senator McCain was joined at that 2006 rally by Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-FL), Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL), leaders from both political parties, immigrant communities, and members of labor, business, and religious organizations.
When a department store calls the police to report a shoplifting employee, no one says the department store is guilty of consumer fraud. But for some reason, when ACORN turns voter registration workers over to the authorities for filling out bogus forms, it gets accused of “voter fraud.” This is a classic case of blaming the victim; indeed, these charges are outrageous, libelous, and often politically motivated. The commercial media may be content to echo McCain's talking points, and tacitly approve them by not contradicting "misstatements" during so-called debates, but the era when divisive political attacks and partisan smoke-screens are accepted as just "business as usual" is ending. We demand more now, and we deserve better from commercial news organizations and candidates alike.
The conduct of Schieffer, Obama, and McCain during tonight's debate at Hofstra University will be scrutinized closely by millions. I suggest one simple ground rule: "No more lies."
So far we've learned about leadership style more than plans, policies, and specific substance of any initiatives because the moderators of the Presidential debates thus far haven't used their position(s) either to employ follow-up questions effectively -- or to correct misinformation before a participant has to waste their own alloted response time to correct an opponent while they SHOULD be addressing the original topic/question.
Can Schieffer out-perform Brokaw, or Ifill, and rise to at least the level of Katie Couric's follow-ups with Palin? All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.
Will they give Obama long enough to actually go into detail, or will everybody have to go check his website if they want substance?
Would we learn just as much - or more - watching them play Scrabble or Syzygy and listening to real conversation, or will we get beyond talking points to hear them actually discuss why deregulation which McCain favored for Wall Street is just as dangerous for health care?
Will McCain show leadership, or be peevish, pouty, and petty?
After much study, I've come to the conclusion, which I present in this video:
..that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is stabbing Senator John McCain in the back. Often, Palin has approved of views that were taken by Senator Barack Obama, causing McCain to rein her in with a press statement that makes the campaign look like a keystone cops routine.
Consider how Palin has went against McCain in these following examples.
1) Pakistan - Palin favored the Obama-Biden assertion of going into that country to "get" a known terrorist even if that government would not cooperate.
2) Bankruptcy - Palin favors the Obama-Biden approach of allowing the homeowner to be protected against losing their dwelling after filing for Bankruptcy.
3) Korea - Palin agrees with the current action of the U.S. dropping Korea from the state terrorist list, even as McCain opposes this. Obama also backs the Bush Administration action.
4) Palin Administration - Governor Palin has referred to the McCain - Palin ticket as the Palin - McCain Administration.
The evidence for my assertion rests in Palin's past. In the way she treated Alaska GOP boss Randy Ruedrich when both were on the powerful Alaska Oil and Gas Commission. While both Palin and Ruedrich received campaign assistance and in Palin's case had ties with Evergreen Resources, which was seeking a drilling contract and needed the commission's approval, Palin implicated Ruedrich, causing him to resign from the commission. But the act elevated her status and some contend that it powered her successful run for Alaska Governor.
I've been a big fan of the Drudge Report, the website which is just a collection of links to different stories, but this blog post is one Matt Drudge, the founder and editor, will not be linking to. Why?
Because I'm accusing Matt of being a big, fat, race-batting website Republican who can't stand the fact that his candidate John McCain's going to lose to an African American man, Barack Obama. He -- Drudge -- is so upset about this that he found a photo of Obama giving a cheek-based kiss to a Blonde woman and posted that photo rather than the standard handshake.
When I saw that, I wrote this to Matt:
So showing Obama kissing a Blonde Is...What? A good way to show how racist you are; you would not have shown it if he kissed, say, Ellen De Generis, or Oprah Winfrey?
What's up with that? I liked your publication until I saw that, now I
think less of you. I'm Black, my girlfriend is Irish. Perhaps you
should date Black women and discover who people are as individuals?
Geez, Matt. Geez.
And I stand by that. Matt's site today was a trip into the world of the pathetic, not unlike the scene at some of the McCain / Palin rallies.
If you've always wondered how the energy plans of Barack Obama and John McCain compare, you've come to the right place. The Obama for America Campaign has produced this comparison of the two plans. Yes, it's from the Obama campaign, but it's a good comparison still:
Barack Obama's ahead of John McCain by 13 points and the lead is increasing in the Research 2000 poll. This is a better poll than the Gallup Daily tracking which has Obama up by 7 points but does not explain why.
“It has deeply saddened us to see Senator McCain abandon his historic support for ACORN and our efforts to support the goals of low-income Americans. Maybe it is out of desperation that Senator McCain has forgotten that he was for ACORN before he was against ACORN." Seriously, McCain was the keynote speaker at a 2006 ACORN rally. Evidently McCain was for Immigration reform before he was against it? It does make one wonder why he and his campaign are so exercised over their allegations that Senator Obama has also got ACORN connections.
So far we've learned about leadership style more than plans, policies, and specific substance of any initiatives because the moderators of the Presidential debates thus far haven't used their position(s) either to employ follow-up questions effectively -- 
or to correct misinformation before a participant has to waste their own alloted response time to correct an opponent while they SHOULD be addressing the original topic/question.
