For GOP only

[southsider2k5]

Irony:

 

http://washingtonpolicyblog.typepad.com/wa...-climate-c.html

 

Fight Climate Change...Fly A Plane In Circles

 

BannerplaneTomorrow, presidential candidate Sen. John McCain will be in Seattle to discuss his cap-and-trade proposal to reduce greenhouse gases and fight climate change. Some, however, aren't happy and will be protesting.

 

The State Democratic Party will be attacking McCain's effort to "boost his faux 'maverick bona fides,'." (By the way, the letters from "faux maverick bona fides" can be rearranged to spell "Scuba Rove Affixed A Mink" which can only be some secret code.) How they will be doing it, however, is interesting.

 

According to the Tacoma News Tribune, "The plan is to hire an airplane that will carry a special message to Republican John McCain, and everybody else who is paying attention." Maybe the banner will say "McCain: Faux Maverick Bona Fides."

 

So the way they are going to attack John McCain for his climate change plan is to hire an airplane to fly around in circles burning fuel. If that doesn't demonstrate a contrast, I don't know what does.

 

Posted by Todd Myers at 05:08 PM in Environment | Permalink

 

Digg This | Save to del.icio.us

[southsider2k5]

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/pos...mZiODMwMGE3MWY=

 

The New York Times Gets Obama's Position on Iran Completely Wrong

 

The New York Times is beyond parody in its cheerleading for Obama:

 

An examination of Mr. Obama’s numerous public statements on the subjects indicates that he has consistently condemned Hamas as a “terrorist organization,” has not sought the group’s support and does not advocate immediate, direct or unconditional negotiations with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president.

 

The YouTube debate that brought this issue to the forefront:

 

QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.

 

In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

 

COOPER: I should also point out that Stephen is in the crowd tonight.

 

Senator Obama?

 

OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous.

 

(APPLAUSE)

 

Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.

 

And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them. We've been talking about Iraq — one of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they're going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses.

 

They have been acting irresponsibly up until this point. But if we tell them that we are not going to be a permanent occupying force, we are in a position to say that they are going to have to carry some weight, in terms of stabilizing the region.

 

 

We now know what the New York Times is willing to do to protect their preferred candidate from criticism from John McCain and his allies: Lie.

 

Note Obama adviser Susan Rice, also outright lying in the article:

 

Susan E. Rice, a former State Department and National Security Council official who is a foreign policy adviser to the Democratic candidate, said that “for political purposes, Senator Obama’s opponents on the right have distorted and reframed” his views. Mr. McCain and his surrogates have repeatedly stated that Mr. Obama would be willing to meet “unconditionally” with Mr. Ahmadinejad. But Dr. Rice said that this was not the case for Iran or any other so-called “rogue” state. Mr. Obama believes “that engagement at the presidential level, at the appropriate time and with the appropriate preparation, can be used to leverage the change we need,” Dr. Rice said. “But nobody said he would initiate contacts at the presidential level; that requires due preparation and advance work.”

[lostfan]

I don't even know why the NYT would say that, that's just sloppy journalism. Obama's repeatedly said he would have talks with enemies and he does it rather loudly and flamboyantly all the time.

[NorthSideSox72]

I don't even know why the NYT would say that, that's just sloppy journalism. Obama's repeatedly said he would have talks with enemies and he does it rather loudly and flamboyantly all the time.

There has been a lot of twisting of words in the media recently, particularly Obama's words (though McCain's too).

 

[southsider2k5]

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/pos...Tc3MTQzZmNkNGY=

 

BARACK OBAMA

 

Two More Thoughts on Obama's Vision of Afghanistan

 

Further thoughts on Obama's statement regarding Afghanistan, "NATO hasn't provided enough troops because they are still angry about us going into Iraq."

 

When Obama's speaking before voters on the campaign trail, he suggests that this is all, or at least primarily, a consequence of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq. It is a simple, easy-to-understand, feel-good explanation that spurs the audience to an obvious conclusion: if we leave Iraq, our NATO allies will be more helpful in Afghanistan.

 

But in the past, when Obama's speaking before reporters on his plane, he acknowledges the situation is more complicated.

 

BEAUMONT, Texas (Reuters) - European nations must step up their efforts in Afghanistan and not count on the United States and Britain to do the "dirty work" in fighting the Taliban, Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said on Thursday.

 

Obama, the front-runner to become his party's nominee for the White House, praised Britain's Prince Harry for secretly serving on the frontlines of the war and said other NATO allies should be doing more.

 

"With respect to our NATO allies, I've been very clear that we do need more support from them. We also may need to lift some of the constraints that they have placed on their forces there," Obama said on his campaign plane.

 

"You can't have a situation where the United States is called upon to do the dirty work, or the United States and Britain are called upon to do the dirty work, and nobody else wants to engage in actual firefights with the Taliban."

 

Second, if this situation really, really bothered Obama... wouldn't have, you know, held a hearing or something?

 

HILLARY: But I also have heard Senator Obama refer continually to Afghanistan, and he references being on the Foreign Relations Committee. He chairs the Subcommittee on Europe. It has jurisdiction over NATO. NATO is critical to our mission in Afghanistan. He's held not one substantive hearing to do oversight, to figure out what we can do to actually have a stronger presence with NATO in Afghanistan...

 

SEN. OBAMA: Well, first of all, I became chairman of this committee at the beginning of this campaign, at the beginning of 2007. So it is true that we haven't had oversight hearings on Afghanistan.

 

I have been very clear in talking to the American people about what I would do with respect to Afghanistan.

 

05/15 10:10 AM

[southsider2k5]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/terry-trippan...vestments-sudan

 

AP Standards: Obama's Top Contributors Linked to Investments in Sudan

By Terry Trippany | May 15, 2008 - 08:52 ET

 

Applying the AP's McCain Standard to Barack Obama Shows Sudanese Connections to His Campaign

 

It's a strange one sided sort of game the Associated Press is playing in its latest attack against John McCain. AP writer Jim Kuhnhenn is applying a six degrees of separation style standard in trying to accuse John McCain of investing in the Sudan because his wife owned some mutual funds that had holdings in an Indian company that allegedly does business in the Sudan. The far left has picked up on this "AP newsbreak" as evidenced by its front page status at The Huffington Post.

 

So I decided to play the game myself by looking at the mainstream media's favorite target of obsessive adulation, Barack Obama. My my, would you look at that? When I applied the McCain standard to Barack Obama I quickly discovered that Obama's top contributors are being targeted by activists that are targeting financial companies to divest in the Sudan. Surprised?

 

According to OpenSecrets.org Barack Obama received $544,000 from people associated with or employed by Goldman Sachs. Not good. In 1998 China was set to make its first public offering on the New York Stock exchange via a company called the China National Petroleum Company (CNPC). The deal quickly came under fire because China was financing arms sales to the Sudan and allegedly used Chinese prison laborers to build oil pipelines in the region. (Src. Human Rights Watch)

 

In response to the outcry Goldman Sachs, Barack Obama's number one contributor, restructured the deal to create a spin off of CNPC called PetroChina Co. The new structure was created to ensure that the IPO would involve a company that was limited to only operating inside China. Unfortunately that was not the case. (all emphasis mine)

 

PetroChina would rank as China’s largest company, with 70 percent of the country’s petroleum reserves and accounting for two-thirds of its oil and gas production. It would immediately become the world’s fourth-largest publicly traded oil and gas company, although the Chinese government, through CNPC, would still own 80 to 90 percent of PetroChina’s stock after the public offering.

 

PetroChina maintained it was neither a U.S. nor a Sudanese company nor would it have direct business dealings with Sudan. Upon closer examination, this was not the divorce it first appeared to be for at least two reasons: income and debt. Critics charged that the CNPC, as the parent company, would receive 90 percent of PetroChina’s income, including funds raised in the IPO. PetroChina’s chairman denied the company would use proceeds from its stock offering to fund projects in Sudan.

 

The deal came under wide protest by activists and special interest groups, including the AFL-CIO.

 

On March 22, 2000 the AFL-CIO and the NGO Free Tibet co-sponsored a protest at the office of PetroChina’s investment banker Goldman Sachs in New York City. Bill Patterson, director of AFL-CIO’s office of investments, was convinced that political opposition and subsequent negative press reduced interest in PetroChina’s IPO: “We haven’t found a single fund yet that even wants to get near this deal."

 

Considering that the Associated Press is so obsessed with the minutiae of John McCain's wife's mutual funds you would think that they would be concerned about this dubious relationship between China, Sudan, Goldman Sachs and Barack Obama. Strangely however the AP doesn't go down that route.

 

Let's keep going here. Would you like to know who else has come under criticism for investing in the Sudan? That's easy.

 

Barack Obama's number 2 contributor the University of California held pensions and endowment funds that were partially held in the Sudan until the middle of 2006 when it announced its plans to divest. This announcement came a full 2 years after the U.S. labeled Darfur a genocide and nearly 6 years after President Clinton extended the 1997 U.S. sanctions on Sudan. Not exactly divestment at the speed of sound.

 

Yet we are just beginning. The human rights group savedarfur.org has an active campaign against JPMorgan Chase , Barack Obama's number 3 top contributor, for investing in the Sudan. The anti-corporate green group Co-Op America spells out the criticism against Chase.

 

JP Morgan, along with Vanguard and Fidelity, has been criticized by human rights groups, politicians and the public for continuing to invest in PetroChina. PetroChina is one the largest players in the Sudanese oil industry, and the proceeds from Sudan’s oil exports go overwhelmingly to fund the Sudanese army.

 

Should I stop there? Nah. The mainstream media wouldn't if it were applying this standard to a republican like John McCain. Let's look at Barack Obama's fourth largest contributor, Citigroup Inc.

 

Citigroup is getting flak by activists because they claim that Citigroup's shareholders rejected proposals by amnesty international and other human rights groups to use their investments as a way to manipulate the situation in Sudan.

 

I could go on but there are some practical limitations; I have limited space and I think you get the point. If I applied the AP's McCain standard to Barack Obama then I can assume that Obama is party to investing in the Sudan big time. But that would make me stupid.

 

As an example of such stupidity I would like all you investors and 401K holders out there to list for me the individual holdings in your funds. Tell me off the top of your head if any of those companies do business with or are related to companies that invest in Sudan. Go ahead, look them up if need be. Anyone? No? Thought so.

 

The standard is bogus and would apply to all politicians somewhere along the line if we dumb it down enough.

 

However, since it is the AP's game I will do them one better. I call on Barrack Obama to fully divest from any contributor even remotely tied to investments made in the Sudan. Do it tomorrow, don't wait any longer than John McCain's wife did. I also call on the AP to get back to me and report on it the minute that happens.

 

Don't worry if you continue to go all hypocritical on me AP people because I won't be holding my breath.

[HuskyCaucasian]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/terry-trippan...vestments-sudan

Hopefully Obama will give them the boot.

The problem with "big investors" is they often have less than clean ties. They are in it for the money. They'll invest in what gives them the most. Not that there aren't "upstanding" investors, but I tend to think the big guys are not.

[NorthSideSox72]

Hopefully Obama will give them the boot.

The problem with "big investors" is they often have less than clean ties. They are in it for the money. They'll invest in what gives them the most. Not that there aren't "upstanding" investors, but I tend to think the big guys are not.

I disagree - I think the problem here, in both cases, is the media digging for trash. Both McCain and Obama make investments with their money, as any halfway intelligent person with money does. They invest in mutual funds, and their buddies do too. Of course naturally, somehow, in some indirect way, that could tie them both to something evil. No surprise there. I fail to see why its a big deal.

 

These are both trashy non-issues. They aren't worth paying attention to.

 

[Balta1701]

So, since neither universities nor businesses are actually allowed to contribute to political campaigns...basically the argument 2k5 is making is that no one who is employed by anyone who does anything controversial whether or not they personally had anything to do with the actions of those groups should be prohibited from contributing to a campaign? Basically, I think this means that anyone who owns stock in any company in the U.S. or is employed by any company in the U.S. should be barred from contributing to a campaign. Because I own a couple shares of BP, Obama should clearly return my contribution, as otherwise that money might have been the dividend I get from BP, and clearly you don't want an oil company funding your campaign right?

 

That's a position I wholeheartedly endorse, because it pretty much requires a public financing system. Yay!

[southsider2k5]

So, since neither universities nor businesses are actually allowed to contribute to political campaigns...basically the argument 2k5 is making is that no one who is employed by anyone who does anything controversial whether or not they personally had anything to do with the actions of those groups should be prohibited from contributing to a campaign? Basically, I think this means that anyone who owns stock in any company in the U.S. or is employed by any company in the U.S. should be barred from contributing to a campaign. Because I own a couple shares of BP, Obama should clearly return my contribution, as otherwise that money might have been the dividend I get from BP, and clearly you don't want an oil company funding your campaign right?

 

That's a position I wholeheartedly endorse, because it pretty much requires a public financing system. Yay!

 

Not my argument... Just pointing out the silliness of this being a point of contention in the first place.

[Balta1701]

Not my argument... Just pointing out the silliness of this being a point of contention in the first place.

At least to my eyes, the reason why the Cindy McCain/Sudan stuff matters isn't that they were invested in places that did business with that area...it's that she has refused to allow any reasonable look at her tax returns by the public, and essentially all of Senator McCain's money, investments, holdings, and even income is shown under her tax returns. In other words, if he were to be elected, and she continued to take that position, it would be impossible for the American people to judge whether or not the President had a financial conflict of interest on any particular issue. The Sudan stuff is just an example of why it's important for a candidate to do this type of disclosure. Especially when you consider that Cindy McCain's assets, including her airplane, has been used to ferry people around for the campaign without billing the campaign. That is something I find highly troublesome. Even Senator Kerry's wife did significantly more disclosure than Cindy McCain has done so far.

[HuskyCaucasian]

IBoth McCain and Obama make investments with their money, as any halfway intelligent person with money does. They invest in mutual funds, and their buddies do too. Of course naturally, somehow, in some indirect way, that could tie them both to something evil. No surprise there. I fail to see why its a big deal.

That's a good point.

Good thing I dont have any money invested. I think I can run for office now

[southsider2k5]

At least to my eyes, the reason why the Cindy McCain/Sudan stuff matters isn't that they were invested in places that did business with that area...it's that she has refused to allow any reasonable look at her tax returns by the public, and essentially all of Senator McCain's money, investments, holdings, and even income is shown under her tax returns. In other words, if he were to be elected, and she continued to take that position, it would be impossible for the American people to judge whether or not the President had a financial conflict of interest on any particular issue. The Sudan stuff is just an example of why it's important for a candidate to do this type of disclosure. Especially when you consider that Cindy McCain's assets, including her airplane, has been used to ferry people around for the campaign without billing the campaign. That is something I find highly troublesome. Even Senator Kerry's wife did significantly more disclosure than Cindy McCain has done so far.

 

Of course conflict of interest in the eye of the beholder. Its pretty easy to argue make the same argument for any of the candidates out there, especially when they are getting hundreds of millions of dollars from people. There is usually a reason they are giving you money in the first place.

[Balta1701]

Of course conflict of interest in the eye of the beholder. Its pretty easy to argue make the same argument for any of the candidates out there, especially when they are getting hundreds of millions of dollars from people. There is usually a reason they are giving you money in the first place.

The best defense against that is disclosure.

[mr_genius]

You guys see all this manufactured outrage by the Dems today over Bush's remarks in Israel?

 

classic.

[EvilMonkey]

You guys see all this manufactured outrage by the Dems today over Bush's remarks in Israel?

 

classic.

I like the one line by the Bush person that went something like "We know that when you run for office you feel the world revolves around you, but in this case, it doesn't".

[BigSqwert]

You guys see all this manufactured outrage by the Dems today over Bush's remarks in Israel?

 

classic.

Manufactured? He was in Israel where they are commemorating their 60th anniversary. You know...the same Israel that has a tragic history with the Nazis of Germany. You felt this was an appropriate forum for our President to compare a democratic candidate to Nazi-appeasers?

Edited May 15, 2008 by BigSqwert

[EvilMonkey]

Manufactured? He was in Israel where they are commemorating their 60th anniversary. You know...the same Israel that has a tragic history with the Nazis of Germany. You felt this was an appropriate forum for our President to compare a democratic candidate to Nazi-appeasers?

"I would think that all of you who cover these issues and have for a long time have known that there are many who have suggested these types of negotiations with people that the president, President Bush, thinks that we should not talk to. I understand when you're running for office you sometimes think the world revolves around you. That is not always true. And it is not true in this case."

Get over it. He was not talking about your guy, so go away.

[BigSqwert]

"I would think that all of you who cover these issues and have for a long time have known that there are many who have suggested these types of negotiations with people that the president, President Bush, thinks that we should not talk to. I understand when you're running for office you sometimes think the world revolves around you. That is not always true. And it is not true in this case."

Get over it. He was not talking about your guy, so go away.

Where do you want me to go? And who was he talking about? Better yet...why did he even bring this up?

 

[mr_genius]

Manufactured? He was in Israel where they are commemorating their 60th anniversary. You know...the same Israel that has a tragic history with the Nazis of Germany. You felt this was an appropriate forum for our President to compare a democratic candidate to Nazi-appeasers?

 

Yea, manufactured. This isn't real outrage. I thought the comments were appropriate. The Dems are the ones who want to go pal around in Iran with a dude that says all Jews are rats and need to be exterminated.

[BigSqwert]

The Dems are the ones who want to go pal around in Iran with a dude that says all Jews are rats and need to be exterminated.

The Dems?

[NorthSideSox72]

"I would think that all of you who cover these issues and have for a long time have known that there are many who have suggested these types of negotiations with people that the president, President Bush, thinks that we should not talk to. I understand when you're running for office you sometimes think the world revolves around you. That is not always true. And it is not true in this case."

Get over it. He was not talking about your guy, so go away.

You don't seriously believe he wasn't talking about Obama, do you? He clearly was.

 

This isn't as huge a deal in itself as its being made into, I agree with that. It is, however, indicative of one of the many failings of this administration - its complete refusal to see allow for anything other than diplomacy by bully pulpit. And since that's not really news, I didn't think too much about it.

 

[BigSqwert]

Bush's own government has repeatedly conducted negotiations with terrorists and radicals, including:

 

* Iran. Bush sent Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, then posted to Baghdad, to negotiate with Iran over security issues affecting Iraq. Bush's current Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, told ABC News, "We are willing to sit down with Iran face to face for talks on Iraqi security at the invitation of the Iraqi government. We've had three rounds of those talks and we've told them we are ready to again."

 

* Libya. Although Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi was behind the December, 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie Scotland, which killed 270 people, most of them Americans, the Bush Administration conducted months of negotiations with the terrorists, culminating in a 2003 agreement to dismantle Libyan long-range missiles and weapons of mass destruction;

 

* North Korea. The Bush Administration, led by Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, has held numerous direct negotiations with the North Korean regime, a charter member of Mr. Bush's "axis of evil."

 

It should be noted that in each instance, the negotiations actually advanced America's security position. So even the Bush administration, by its actions, attests to the efficacy of negotiating with evildoers.

 

LINK

Edited May 15, 2008 by BigSqwert

[EvilMonkey]

You don't seriously believe he wasn't talking about Obama, do you? He clearly was.

 

This isn't as huge a deal in itself as its being made into, I agree with that. It is, however, indicative of one of the many failings of this administration - its complete refusal to see allow for anything other than diplomacy by bully pulpit. And since that's not really news, I didn't think too much about it.

How about Jimmy Carter? Especially since he just got back from there while trying to do just that.

[Balta1701]

Basically every network I've read the story at has some version of this clause in it.

The president did not name Sen. Barack Obama or any other Democrat, but White House aides privately acknowledged to CNN that the remarks were aimed at the presidential candidate and others in his party.

 

After Bush's comments were reported, the White House denied that they were specifically aimed at Obama.