The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Archives

John McCain

McCain Ads Are Hybrid Vehicles

By Matthew Mosk
Most of the campaign ads that Sen. John McCain began airing Sept. 1 are taking a glancing shot at Democrats in Congress -- often just a two-second jab at the Democratic leader in the Senate, Harry Reid.

This is not because the McCain campaign has suddenly decided the best strategy to defeat Sen. Barack Obama is to run against other top Democrats in Congress. It's because of a loophole in the public financing laws that allows McCain to evenly split the cost of his ads with the Republican Party so long as the ads make at least a passing reference to the rest of the party's ticket.

Evan Tracey of the Campaign Media Analysis Group and Tim Kay of National Cable Communications -- two top media analysts -- both said they've noticed a growth in this emerging type of ad, known as a hybrid.

"Pretty much every spot they've done has been a hybrid ad," Tracey said.

How do the ads save McCain money? Well, consider that McCain has $84 million to spend between now and Election Day -- that's the federal allotment of money he decided to take during the general election contest. While the Republican National Committee will devote much of its privately financing to field operations, microtargeting, and voter contact, McCain will spend most of his public funding on television ads. If McCain can split the cost of his ads 50-50 with the party, he is essentially able to stretch his public dollars twice as far.

Candidates first discovered this loophole four years ago, according to Paul Ryan of the Campaign Legal Center. The FEC attempted to set new rules about hybrid advertising, but never got around to finalizing them. "That's left the rules unclear," Ryan said.

McCain is not the only one exploiting the loophole, Tracey noted. State parties are able to share the cost of ads with their congressional candidates, as well. The text of a recent ad for former Virginia governor Jim Gilmore, for example, blends his Senate race message with the party's goal of winning the state for McCain. See below:

Note: Please upgrade your Flash plug-in to view our enhanced content.

Posted at 5:01 PM ET on Sep 9, 2008  | Category:  John McCain
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Previous: 'Independent' Lieberman to Eat Lunch Alone | Next: Obama Broke Money Record


Add 44 to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Trail. This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Trail.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



RC POLITICS-
September 11, 2008
Words Obama Will Regret
By Ken Blackwell

On Monday, Senator Obama uttered one sentence that could haunt him until Election Day. He said of Senator McCain and Governor Palin telling voters they would bring change, "they must think you're stupid." Given his stances on the surge, social issues, and his past, Mr. Obama will regret those words.

Let's start with social issues like Second Amendment freedoms. Mr. Obama denies that he's ever supported banning handguns, right after the landmark Heller case where the Supreme Court struck down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban.

When a 1996 questionnaire surfaced that had asked if Mr. Obama supported banning all handguns, his one-word written answer was "yes." He said an unnamed staffer must have filled it out without his knowledge. Then another copy surfaced -- this one with his handwriting on it. He says he must not have read that particular question. Sure.

On the hot-button issue of abortion, last month saw a growing concern over Mr. Obama's opposition to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which states if an abortion is botched and a live birth results, the baby is entitled to medical care. The federal version of this law unanimously passed the U.S. Senate.

However, when a version of this bill came to the Illinois Senate, Mr. Obama opposed it. When confronted last month with the fact that the federal version of this bill had been supported by the likes of Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer, Mr. Obama said the he would have supported the federal version. Those suggesting otherwise were lying, he said. Then it was revealed that a second bill was introduced in the Illinois Senate, and this one was identical to the federal version. Mr. Obama opposed that bill as well. He has yet to come up with an explanation on that one.

Posted by: SCOTT | September 11, 2008 8:26 AM

The op-ed by Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) in the Wall Street Journal shows that he's as big a liar as Sarah Palin.

Congress allocated $233 million for transportation projects in Alaska. Palin didn't give the money back, just spent it elsewhere.

She wasn't trying to save the federal government money; she was disappointed that they weren't giving Alaska even more.

“Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329-million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island.”

Posted by: Eric Jaffa | September 10, 2008 4:52 PM

The Republicans nationalized Wall Street

while you were talking about lipstick.


Posted by: TJ | September 10, 2008 2:47 PM

McCain vs. the BoogieMan! McCain would have it no other way. He can't win on the issues, so he's trying, and succeeding to a certain extent, to win on narrative and smears. Palin as the attack dog has worked wonders for the McCain Camp, but the ride is going to be short-lived. I wouldn't even consider being bullied if I was a reporter. The McCain camp seems to think bullying the media has succeeded. And choosing Charles Gibson, who along with George Stephanopoulos took heat during the primary debates, looks to be a set-up: if he's too hard on Palin he will be ostricized by McCain supporters and women voters. But Gibson would NOT be doing his job if he let Palin off the hook. There's too many questions in her background, and too many questions surrounding her policy credentials, both foreign and domestic, that need to be addressed.

McCain Lying? Why should we be surprised? But his Pit Bull with Lipstick might turn into a whelping puppy who just got whacked for pooping on the floor.

Posted by: ji_john | September 10, 2008 10:44 AM

From Today's Wall Street Journal!

Yes, Palin Did Stop That Bridge
By JIM DEMINT
September 10, 2008

"But, you know, when you've been taking all these earmarks when it's convenient, and then suddenly you're the champion anti-earmark person, that's not change. Come on! I mean, words mean something, you can't just make stuff up." -- Barack Obama, Sept. 6, 2008

In politics, words are cheap. What really counts are actions. Democrats and Republicans have talked about fiscal responsibility for years. In reality, both parties have a shameful record of wasting hundreds of billions of tax dollars on pork-barrel projects.

My Senate colleague Barack Obama is now attacking Gov. Sarah Palin over earmarks. Having worked with both John McCain and Mr. Obama on earmarks, and as a recovering earmarker myself, I can tell you that Mrs. Palin's leadership and record of reform stands well above that of Mr. Obama.

Let's compare.

Mrs. Palin used her veto pen to slash more local projects than any other governor in the state's history. She cut nearly 10% of Alaska's budget this year, saving state residents $268 million. This included vetoing a $30,000 van for Campfire USA and $200,000 for a tennis court irrigation system. She succinctly justified these cuts by saying they were "not a state responsibility."

Meanwhile in Washington, Mr. Obama voted for numerous wasteful earmarks last year, including: $12 million for bicycle paths, $450,000 for the International Peace Museum, $500,000 for a baseball stadium and $392,000 for a visitor's center in Louisiana.

Mrs. Palin cut Alaska's federal earmark requests in half last year, one of the strongest moves against earmarks by any governor. It took real leadership to buck Alaska's decades-long earmark addiction.

Mr. Obama delivered over $100 million in earmarks to Illinois last year and has requested nearly a billion dollars in pet projects since 2005. His running mate, Joe Biden, is still indulging in earmarks, securing over $90 million worth this year.

Mrs. Palin also killed the infamous Bridge to Nowhere in her own state. Yes, she once supported the project: But after witnessing the problems created by earmarks for her state and for the nation's budget, she did what others like me have done: She changed her position and saved taxpayers millions. Even the Alaska Democratic Party credits her with killing the bridge.

When the Senate had its chance to stop the Bridge to Nowhere and transfer the money to Katrina rebuilding, Messrs. Obama and Biden voted for the $223 million earmark, siding with the old boys' club in the Senate. And to date, they still have not publicly renounced their support for the infamous earmark.

Mrs. Palin has proven courageous by taking on big spenders in her own party. In March of this year, the Anchorage Daily News reported that, "Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens is aggravated about what he sees as Gov. Sarah Palin's antagonism toward the earmarks he uses to steer federal money to the state."

Mr. Obama had a chance to take on his party when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid offered a sham ethics bill, which was widely criticized by watchdog groups such as Citizens Against Government Waste for shielding earmarks from pubic scrutiny. But instead of standing with taxpayers, Mr. Obama voted for the bill. Today, he claims he helped write the bill that failed to clean up Washington.

Mr. Obama has shown little restraint on earmarks until this year, when he decided to co-sponsor an earmark moratorium authored by Mr. McCain and myself. Mr. Obama is vulnerable on this issue, and he knows it. That is why he is lashing out at Mrs. Palin and trying to hide his own record.

Mrs. Palin is one of the strongest antiearmark governors in America. If more governors around the country would do what she has done, we would be much closer to fixing our nation's fiscal problems than we are.

Mrs. Palin's record here is solid and inspiring. She will help Mr. McCain shut down the congressional favor factory, and she has a record to prove it. Actions mean something. You can't just make stuff up.

Mr. DeMint, a Republican, is a U.S. senator from South Carolina.

Posted by: Scott | September 10, 2008 7:59 AM

I've had 34 trips to the US and lived over there for a period, but even as an Australian who genuinely loves the US and its people, I accept I am still an outsider looking in.

My leaning has always been to the Democrats, but I have to ask how America can even consider electing a candidate who cannot make a decision, or conversely, doesn't want to be on record for votes that he thinks may hurt him in the future.

Obama would not last five minutes in Australia with his 134 'Present' votes. His penchant for voting 'Present' would be the biggest issue of the election, if by some miraculous chance he got to be a candidate. We elect our Government representatives to say Yes or No. We don't only expect decisions to be made, we demand they be made and America should demand, also.

In this fast moving world of the 2000's, decisions have to be made.....especially by the President of the USA.

Posted by: Jack - Australia | September 10, 2008 1:35 AM

Remember Issues People?

Two Embarrasingly indefensible Obama Issues-

1. Corn Ethanol
-leads to global warming using one unit of petroleum for every unit replaced
-raises food prices
-7x less efficient than sugar cane ethanol (which McCain favors)
(BUT great for Illinois farmers!)

2. Infant Protection Act

-Opposes medical attention for infants who survive LEGAL abortions, not making them illegal
-Obama lied about wording of the Illinois law, later admitting that it was the same wording as in the federal bill
**********
Obama- shows no shame in pandering to farmers and more radical than abortion advocates.

Comments Obama More Pro-Choice Than NARAL

HumanEvents.com

12/26/2006
Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) portrays himself as a thoughtful Democrat who carefully considers both sides of controversial issues, but his radical stance on abortion puts him further left on that issue than even NARAL Pro-Choice America.

In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions. That same year a similar federal law, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, was signed by President Bush. Only 15 members of the U.S. House opposed it, and it passed the Senate unanimously on a voice vote.

Both the Illinois and the federal bill sought equal treatment for babies who survived premature inducement for the purpose of abortion and wanted babies who were born prematurely and given live-saving medical attention.

When the federal bill was being debated, NARAL Pro-Choice America released a statement that said, “Consistent with our position last year, NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act ... floor debate served to clarify the bill’s intent and assure us that it is not targeted at Roe v. Wade or a woman’s right to choose.”

But Obama voted against this bill in the Illinois senate and killed it in committee. Twice, the Induced Infant Liability Act came up in the Judiciary Committee on which he served. At its first reading he voted “present.” At the second he voted “no.”

The bill was then referred to the senate’s Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired after the Illinois Senate went Democratic in 2003. As chairman, he never called the bill up for a vote.

Jill Stanek, a registered delivery-ward nurse who was the prime mover behind the legislation after she witnessed aborted babies’ being born alive and left to die, testified twice before Obama in support of the Induced Infant Liability Act bills. She also testified before the U.S. Congress in support of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

Stanek told me her testimony “did not faze” Obama.

In the second hearing, Stanek said, “I brought pictures in and presented them to the committee of very premature babies from my neonatal resuscitation book from the American Pediatric Association, trying to show them unwanted babies were being cast aside. Babies the same age were being treated if they were wanted!”

“And those pictures didn’t faze him [Obama] at all,” she said.

At the end of the hearing, according to the official records of the Illinois State senate, Obama thanked Stanek for being “very clear and forthright,” but said his concern was that Stanek had suggested “doctors really don’t care about children who are being born with a reasonable prospect of life because they are so locked into their pro-abortion views that they would watch an infant that is viable die.” He told her, “That may be your assessment, and I don’t see any evidence of that. What we are doing here is to create one more burden on a woman and I can’t support that.”

Posted by: Scott | September 10, 2008 12:28 AM

.

Leon said:
"this is America, we exploit loopholes here.... That's how the rich get around paying taxes and pedophiles don't do hard time."

An Obama follower, mimicking his hero.

.

Posted by: Jacj The Ripper | September 9, 2008 11:51 PM

.


Leon:
Half arab then, and all muslim faith for all you know, cowboy.


.

Posted by: Jack The Ripper | September 9, 2008 11:46 PM

I think we should hire, tax free, Obama to retire the national debt. Why do we want to waste his talent on a no good job like being President? But if you want him to be Presidnt, then Team Obama, why can't you get McCain up to 750,000 asap? I mean come on. We are the wired crowd. Pass http://ww.bop-o-rama.com on for he cause!!!!!!!! The night is young!!!!

Posted by: acarponzo | September 9, 2008 10:25 PM

Obama smoked up Hillary like cheap pack of cigarettes he's now showing through the same sort of pompous deference towards Governor Palin.

Shame on Obama, first for not picking the best Dem. VP - Hillary Clinton, and second for being a "pig" of a chauvinist himself.

Go McCain / Palin 2008!!! Show the promiser how to take action!!

Posted by: Yolanda | September 9, 2008 8:30 PM

an answer she gave in an Anchorage Daily News article in October 2006 when Ms. Palin was running for the gubernatorial seat:
5. Would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges?
Yes. I would like to see Alaska’s infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now–while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.
So she was very much for the bridge and insisted that Alaska had to act quickly—the party of Ted Stevens and Don Young might soon lose its majority, after all. By that point, though, the project was endangered for reasons that had nothing to do with Palin—the “Bridge to Nowhere” had become a national punchline, Congress had stripped away the offending earmark, moving the money back to the state’s general fund, and future federal support seemed unlikely. True, after Palin was sworn into office that fall, her first state budget didn’t allocate any money for the bridge. But when the Daily News asked on December 16, 2006, if she now opposed the project, Palin demurred and said she was simply trying to figure out where the bridge fit on the state’s list of transportation priorities, given the lack of support from Congress. Finally, on September 19, 2007, she decided to redirect funds away from the project altogether with this sorry-sounding statement:
“Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer,” said Governor Palin. “Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island,” Governor Palin added. “Much of the public’s attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened.”

Posted by: Anonymous | September 9, 2008 8:11 PM

There is one thing noticeable to all of these blogs: the most fallacy arguments belong to the Republicans at least 4 to 1.

Do you know what a fallacy argument is, Republicans?

Ad hoc attack - simply bringing up an unrelated fact when you are losing an argument, like say discussing no child left behind and talking about McCain's record on 'reform' voting is an illegitimate argument.

You lose.

Ad hominem attack - simply attacking another person when you are losing an argument, like say being cornered on the Republican 'no child left behind' progam after its pilot program in Texas turned out to be fraudulent and flawed and then saying, "well, Obama's a radical muslim" - that is an illegitimate argument.

You lose again. This also includes racist attacks (another place where Republican bloggers here and elsewhere win hands down-congrats, scum)

Appeal to authority attack - simply attacking another person because your guy has the 'authority' and therefore, has to be right, like saying "it doesn't matter if McCain isn't smart about economics, but he's a war hero-so he has to be right, right?" - that is an illegitimate argument.

You lose again-for the third time.

Ad misericordiam attack - simply stating that your candidate is right simply because they are being attacked and should be pitied- like saying "well Sarah Palin is being attacked in the media for the ongoing ethics probe in Alaska, poor Sarah-we are with you!" - that is an illegitimate argument.

You lose again- for the fourth time.

Ad hoc ergot propter hoc (this is simply called correlation proving causation ) simply stating that McCain voted outside his party 10% of the time in the last four years does not make him a 'maverick'. - that is an illegitimate argument. again.

You lose. Starting to see a pattern here?

You lose (and are a loser) if you are racist. You lose if you are not smart enough to back up debate about policy with points that are not flawed arguments.

Look over what has been posted so far. You will see an overwhelming amount of these losing arguments on the Republican side.

The question is: Does America deserve a candidate who is trying to take the high road-whose attacks on his opponent are on policy? who has clearly stated multiple times that he will not stoop to false arguments attacking his opponent's character?

...or is America too stupid to see that the illegitimate arguments listed above are not an accepted form of discourse and the only people they convince are those who are ignorant of them.

That is what this election is about. That and there are also a bunch of racists in America cowering behind some of these arguments-too afraid and too cowardly to say they simply dislike Obama because of his race. Because they know better. They know that they are wrong.

So lets talk about the issues, shall we?

Posted by: Jason W | September 9, 2008 8:10 PM

Osama and Obama twin brothers

Posted by: Ruth | September 9, 2008 8:00 PM

I liked this add. I am voting McCain this fall. Obama is a muslim and Terrorist apeasing radical fool. Obama is not ready to fight the Fundamental Islamic Terrorist to keep us safe in this part of the world.

Posted by: Jen | September 9, 2008 8:00 PM

Obama lied about taking public funds. Why is this fact not in this article? The Washington Post is too in love with OBIDEN to report acurately.

Posted by: Marcp | September 9, 2008 7:52 PM

Obama lied about taking public financing. He should not be given another free pass over this. Why was this not covered in this article. Stop the free pass for Obiden and the disrespect for McPalin!

Posted by: marcp | September 9, 2008 7:45 PM


Obama's sexist hate machine:

Today Obama called Palin 'a pig'
Obama is beneath contempt


LIBERAL=SEXIST

Posted by: julia | September 9, 2008 7:37 PM

So, do you recall the scene in The Godfather when Clemenza asks Tessio, "What's with all the new faces?" and Abe responds, "we're gonna need all we can get, Sonny just hit Bruno Tattaglia"...well, Obama's gonna need all the money he can raise, Joe Biden's at it again- today fresh from his false drunk driver claim, he tried to tell family's with disabled children that McCain was against stem cell research- I guess he had Palin on his mind, everyone else in this country does- she's against embryonic stem cell research- McCain isn't. His position for embryonic stem cell research is one real distinction between McCain and Bush and is one reason the far Right was lukewarm on his candidacy.....Come on Joe, keep it up- we want at least 4 more gaffes before the debate! MCain is nearly tied with Obama with women voters and leads with white women voters as of today, but Joe can really put us over the top when we pull out the Anita Hill hearings....remember? Call Clemenza!

Posted by: Scott | September 9, 2008 7:37 PM

does = doesn't (kinda changes the whole meaning there ; )

Posted by: JakeD | September 9, 2008 7:21 PM

Thats Ok, McCain needs the RNC Help., He isnt going to be able to get much from Palin. Palin couldnt even quote the Amendments, http://www.theveep.com

Posted by: pastor123 | September 9, 2008 7:16 PM

Ron:

If Charlie Gibson does ask all the questions you want asked this week, make sure you tell little Joe Biden to ask them on October 2nd.

Posted by: JakeD | September 9, 2008 7:12 PM

For the first time in my adult life, McCain
has made me embarassed of my country.
What a circus.

Posted by: klayne | September 9, 2008 7:09 PM


Jason, you are making too much sense and are appealing to too much logic for neo-conservative posters (I hate to call them republicans because there was a time when republicans were sensible) to understand. One would have to be "educated" to know of such things as logic. It's a shame that the "red states" are the "least educated states": http://www.morganquitno.com/edrank.htm

So when you ask "is America too stupid to see that the illegitimate arguments listed above are not an accepted form of discourse"..then all I can say is, I hope not.

Posted by: Leon | September 9, 2008 7:01 PM

Jason, you are making too much sense and are appealing to too much logic for neo-conservative posters (I hate to call them republicans because there was a time when republicans were sensible) to understand. One would have to be "educated" to know of such things as logic. It's a shame that the "red states" are the "least educated states": http://www.morganquitno.com/edrank.htm.

So when you ask "is America too stupid to see that the illegitimate arguments listed above are not an accepted form of discourse"..then all I can say is, I hope not.


Posted by: Leon | September 9, 2008 7:00 PM

You would think by now that the people are tired of hearing about the bridge to nowhere. It is apparent McCain and Palin don't have anything else to talk about. Sounds like they will be on that bride to "no where."

Posted by: BDM | September 9, 2008 6:58 PM

so McCain is skirting his own rules and then taking shots at Obama for not taking the matching funds as well. Obama didn't take them for exactly reasons such as these.

McCain the straight talker alright. Straight out this arse.

Posted by: bill j | September 9, 2008 6:55 PM

There is one thing noticeable to all of these blogs: the most fallacy arguments belong to the Republicans at least 4 to 1.

Do you know what a fallacy argument is, Republicans?

Ad hoc attack - simply bringing up an unrelated fact when you are losing an argument, like say discussing no child left behind and talking about McCain's record on 'reform' voting is an illegitimate argument.

You lose.

Ad hominem attack - simply attacking another person when you are losing an argument, like say being cornered on the Republican 'no child left behind' progam after its pilot program in Texas turned out to be fraudulent and flawed and then saying, "well, Obama's a radical muslim" - that is an illegitimate argument.

You lose again. This also includes racist attacks (another place where Republican bloggers here and elsewhere win hands down-congrats, scum)

Appeal to authority attack - simply attacking another person because your guy has the 'authority' and therefore, has to be right, like saying "it doesn't matter if McCain isn't smart about economics, but he's a war hero-so he has to be right, right?" - that is an illegitimate argument.

You lose again-for the third time.

Ad misericordiam attack - simply stating that your candidate is right simply because they are being attacked and should be pitied- like saying "well Sarah Palin is being attacked in the media for the ongoing ethics probe in Alaska, poor Sarah-we are with you!" - that is an illegitimate argument.

You lose again- for the fourth time.

Ad hoc ergot propter hoc (this is simply called correlation proving causation ) simply stating that McCain voted outside his party 10% of the time in the last four years does not make him a 'maverick'. - that is an illegitimate argument. again.

You lose. Starting to see a pattern here?

You lose (and are a loser) if you are racist. You lose if you are not smart enough to back up debate about policy with points that are not flawed arguments.

Look over what has been posted so far. You will see an overwhelming amount of these losing arguments on the Republican side.

The question is: Does America deserve a candidate who is trying to take the high road-whose attacks on his opponent are on policy? who has clearly stated multiple times that he will not stoop to false arguments attacking his opponent's character?

...or is America too stupid to see that the illegitimate arguments listed above are not an accepted form of discourse and the only people they convince are those who are ignorant of them.

That is what this election is about. That and there are also a bunch of racists in America cowering behind some of these arguments-too afraid and too cowardly to say they simply dislike Obama because of his race. Because they know better. They know that they are wrong.

So lets talk about the issues, shall we?

Posted by: Jason | September 9, 2008 6:52 PM

FYI, polls show Obama ahead in electoral votes.

Posted by: Leon | September 9, 2008 6:50 PM

"McCain is a war hero and will always put country first"

You all are on the right cannot think for yourselves.

You deserve anal probing.

Posted by: Parrots | September 9, 2008 6:49 PM

"Jack The RIpper"....Muslim is not a race so you can't be "half Muslim". Someone else said he should go back to Kenya. Um, he wasn't born in Kenya. But what if he was. America is a country of immigrants. Maybe you wish all immigrants should go back to where they come from.

FYI, this is America, we exploit loopholes here. C'mon, yall shd know this. That's how the rich get around paying taxes and pedophiles don't do hard time.

Posted by: Leon | September 9, 2008 6:48 PM

Take heed, Obama is going down the drain.

It is September 9, less than two months before the general election, and he is behind the polls.

The Republicans have been playing nice thus far. Come mid-October, the cups, glasses, plates and the sink will be thrown his way. Obama along with Wright, Ayres and company will be plastered all over the net and on television.

Can anybody save him? Nope, not even Biden. Speaking of Biden, where is he? His job is supposed to be the attack dog. Yet, The Democractic presidential candidate is attacking the Republican VICE-presidential candidate. How pitiful.

Posted by: Demo_nomo | September 9, 2008 6:34 PM

Just down right amazed

If my kid lied like these guys do I would was thier mouth out with soap and group them for a year...

But instead we vote them in as president..
It does not matter they lied....
American public will forget tomorrow.

How dumb do they think we are

Posted by: cb | September 9, 2008 6:33 PM

When will Palin answer questions about the "Bridge to nowhere" she supported before she opposed (... and then kept the money for other pork-barrel spending in Alaska).

When will Palin finish her crash course on foreign countries, leaders, and policy positions so she will be allowed to talk to the media?

When will Palin come up with an acceptable way to explain that she believes in using public dollars to teach creationism in public schools?

When will Palin come up with an acceptable way to explain that she doesn't believe in global warming?

When will Palin explain how an abstinence only education failed to keep her teenage daughter from getting pregnant out of wedlock?

Posted by: Ron | September 9, 2008 6:26 PM

"Arlo, you're family will pay more for everything you buy from the businesses and corporations that supply you your middle class living. You are a fool."

Business maximize their prices to make the most money they can in the prevailing market conditions. Giving them a tax break will not cause them to reduce prices unless there is serious competition.

Increasing taxes on the top 5% and spreading it on the bottom 95% will improve peoples lives and move society to a better balanced position.

If it were not for the health insurance lobby I'd also like to see a national health system. I'm originally from a country that has a national health system and, much as we all complained about the inefficiency, it cost half of what Americans pay overall and it didn't have 47M people with no health coverage.

Bottom up economics creates more of an economic stimulus than trickle down ever will.

The bush tax cuts only caused a temporary boost in the economy because he went and borrowed several trillion $ and pumped it into the economy to make up for the loss of taxes. Criminal that a typical family now owes about $160,000 towards the national debt. To reduce taxes they should remove the debt and then we can all enjoy a 20% tax cut generated from the interest savings. Now there's a way of helping provide security for America (notice this week that the Asian countries forced the US to pump $200B into Freddie and Fannie).


Posted by: Mick | September 9, 2008 6:22 PM

Great, so McCain is using $182 million of our tax money to exploit a loophole in a law he helped write?

In what sense does he call that "change"? Does he plan to give back the $0.30 left over at the end?

Posted by: Joe | September 9, 2008 6:22 PM

Obama Biden sound just like Osama Binladen. We should vote for them if we want terrorists and Muslims running our country. McCain is a war hero and will always put his country first.

Posted by: Osama | September 9, 2008 6:11 PM

The fundamental problem is that the republicans support trickle down economics, rather than bottom up. Hence reducing taxes on the rich, but having to throw crumbs to the rest of us to justify it. Reducing corporate tax, while taxing health benefits for the rest of us. Creating tensions and future threats to make sure that the defense companies have large contracts and can help out their friends. Drill now so the oil companies can contribute to campain funds and so that they can get their land grab over with before the republicans leave office. No negotiation to reduce drug costs so that the drug companies can make huge profits and 'put it back into research', yer right.

Why don't we do something to benefit the 95% that need the most help in this economy? Even Warren Buffet thinks its unfair that he pays less tax (as a percentage) than his secretary. I'm not in the 95% so I will have to pay more tax, but I'll do that because it will help the economy as a whole if we recirculate the wealth of the country. If the wealthy and the companies want to make more money then they will have to provide goods and services that the masses want, rather than taking the easy way out of funding the republicans to give them tax breaks.

When is someone going to talk about the deficit?


Posted by: Mick | September 9, 2008 6:07 PM

You can't "get around" a law if one
does not exist.

If there are loopholes, then the actions
McCain and other people are taking are
not illegal, and while it may be against
the spirit of the existing law to have a joint ad with the RNC, as long as it's
also referencing the rest of the Party,
then it IS within the law.

Posted by: Lee | September 9, 2008 6:05 PM

Now thats real Maverick Behavior right there. Straight talk.!! Thats how washington outsiders do things.

Has anyone else read this story about a possible Affair Sarah Palin had? That is just one of the Scandals listed at this site. http://www.hotpres.com

This site has the inside scoop about the Palin Dui Secret,
http://www.duihelpguide.com Why hasnt the news covered this?

This site has background info on sarah Palin Bio, Pics, Videos, Alot of Polls like how many people actually think that she is attractive? http://www.theveep.com

Posted by: Anonymous | September 9, 2008 6:04 PM

Now thats real Maverick Behavior right there. Straight talk.!! Thats how washington outsiders do things.

Has anyone else read this story about a possible Affair Sarah Palin had? That is just one of the Scandals listed at this site. http://www.hotpres.com

This site has the inside scoop about the Palin Dui Secret,
http://www.duihelpguide.com Why hasnt the news covered this?

This site has background info on sarah Palin Bio, Pics, Videos, Alot of Polls like how many people actually think that she is attractive? http://www.theveep.com

Posted by: Anonymous | September 9, 2008 6:04 PM

.

Lance Newell:
"Obama is not a muslim, but heck that is also on line"

He is half muslim and you have only his word as to his leanings. Certainly 20 years with Wright doesn't bode well on this.


.

Posted by: Jack The RIpper | September 9, 2008 5:59 PM

Arlo, you're family will pay more for everything you buy from the businesses and corporations that supply you your middle class living. You are a fool.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 9, 2008 5:57 PM

Interesting info on the domains referenced above.

theveep.com - registered June 8th 2008 by Charles King

duihelpguide.com - registered Aug 6th 2008 by Charles King

hotpres.com - registered April 29th 2008 by Charles King.

So the question is is

Charles King
44 sturbridge apt. L
apt L
columbus, Ohio 43228


Part of the Democratic smear machine or does anyone believe these sites are reporting serious news?

Posted by: Dana | September 9, 2008 5:57 PM

And Palin McSame are in favor of campaign finance reform?

Public money?

Really?

More of the same. More Republican lies. More Republican crimes. More Republican smears. More Republican games.

Meanwhile, we can't afford health care for our kids. The Republicans (with McSame in the lead) are WORKING EVERY DAY with a ferocious intensity to GET OUR JOBS OUT OF THE COUNTRY before we notice.

For which THEY ARE BRIBED.

$200,000,000. Eight or nine or ten or twenty homes.

DISGUSTING.

More of the SAME with McSAME Palin.

Lies and smears and distortions.

She was against the bridge to nowhere.

AFTER SHE WAS FOR THE BRIDGE TO NOWHERE.

More Republican LIES.

I'm middle class. OBAMA WILL SAVE MY FAMILY OVER TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS PER YEAR IN TAXES.

McSAME PALIN says he'll raise my taxes.

MORE REPUBLICAN LIES.

More BUSH ROVE McSAME PALIN smears and distortions and half-truths.

DISGUSTING.

VOTE NO! ON McSAME PALIN. VOTE NO! FOR BUSH McSAME PALIN.

FOUR MORE YEARS????

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Obama-Biden '08!!!

Posted by: Arlo Scott Kennedy | September 9, 2008 5:51 PM

Every time I read about someone posting something like Obama broke the law with Rezko,I have zero doubt that these people look anything up.
What a shame,they must have a computer,so it would be easy to look this up and realize that Obama did not buy a house with Rezko.
I wonder if America will ever have campaign finance laws that will actually work,or will there always be a loop hole.
Jack,it is his...and he Obama is not a muslim,but heck that is also on line...

Posted by: Lance Newell | September 9, 2008 5:51 PM

I would bed Sarah Palin in a second! I'll be her wild moose buck any day of the week. Obama couldn't handle that sh!t!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 9, 2008 5:49 PM

the country is not broken, JakeD

Posted by: Anonymous | September 9, 2008 5:46 PM


The liberal media is piling on the lies again.

They felt burned for a couple days because their inbred sexist attitudes became so transparent all of america turned on them. But now with a couple days of breathing room they are back to their old tricks.

We are tired of the liberal media lies. We will not forget.

Posted by: reason | September 9, 2008 5:46 PM

Under Alaska law, Gov. Palin is allowed to claim "per diem" expenses, even if she is at home. Obviously, that was a fake JakeD at 5:13 PM claiming otherwise.

Posted by: JakeD | September 9, 2008 5:45 PM

Adolf the Obama:

Dude...

Your stylus is stuck... KerTHUNK... KerTHUNK... KerTHUNK...

Obama broke the law when he bought that house in Chicago together with Rezko.Do we need the criminal president?

You got anything else to say...?

Flip the 45 over and launch a swift boat attack or sump'm...

Posted by:

Posted by: c earl jr | September 9, 2008 5:45 PM

.

Obama should go to Kenya and live with hus muslim relatives.


.

Posted by: Jack The Ripper | September 9, 2008 5:42 PM

He should know (he wrote the loopholes ; )

Posted by: JakeD | September 9, 2008 5:42 PM

I'm sickened by McCain/Palin they keep chasing after anything to help them win the election but I hear nothing they actually plan to do to help our broken country. We need actual help and change that they have not idea how to even discuss. Palin has lied directly to Americans multiple times in the past 2 weeks. McCain has already shown us he is just a puppet to his puppet directors. He does not have the ability to lead his campaign much less our nation. Obama 2008 - we can have a better future wake up Americans!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 9, 2008 5:42 PM

Obama broke the law when he bought that house in Chicago together with Rezko.Do we need the criminal president?

Posted by: Adolf the Obama | September 9, 2008 5:40 PM

Polls are showing the Pailn effect may already be playing out and is now going flat. They are trying like Hillary did now, to come up with a gimmick a week. I think it doesn't take much to see the future. Mccain was already even before the Palin thing and now is back where he started except stone around his neck in the name of Palin. Palin is one scandal or gaff away from taking them down completely.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 9, 2008 5:28 PM

You know, AK, when someone who supports a candidate says that he's GLAD to see that candidate trying to circumvent the law, that makes me shudder. It certainly doesn't make me want to put that candidate in the White House.

Posted by: Chredon | September 9, 2008 5:27 PM

Now thats real Maverick Behavior right there. Straight talk.!! Thats how washington outsiders do things.

Has anyone else read this story about a possible Affair Sarah Palin had? That is just one of the Scandals listed at this site. http://www.hotpres.com

This site has the inside scoop about the Palin Dui Secret,
http://www.duihelpguide.com Why hasnt the news covered this?

This site has background info on sarah Palin Bio, Pics, Videos, Alot of Polls like how many people actually think that she is attractive? http://www.theveep.com

Posted by: Anonymous | September 9, 2008 5:27 PM

Why isn't Sarah "per diem" Palin in jail for lying to the state about her expenses?

Posted by: JakeD | September 9, 2008 5:13 PM

I'm a McCain voter (perhaps more accurately described as a Palin voter), but it's nice to see McCain trying to get around the stupid, unconstitutional campaign finance laws he championed for so long as a senator.

Posted by: AK | September 9, 2008 5:06 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2009 The Washington Post Company