Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Huckabee Calls on McCain-Palin to Return to Issues-Based Campaigning


Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee spoke at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

By Garance Franke-Ruta
While the McCain-Palin campaign is making a series of lurid charges about support for sex education and sexism by its Democratic opponents, one Republican is calling for a return to the issues.

Last night, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee -- winner of this year's Republican Iowa caucuses -- sent a letter to his supporters (reprinted on his blog) calling on them to "shift back to the issues" and echoing his Tuesday comments to Fox News's Sean Hannity pooh-poohing Obama's contention that Sen. John McCain's claim that he represents change is putting "lipstick on a pig."

"It's an old expression," Huckabee had told Hannity, "and I'm going to have to cut Obama some slack on that one. I do not think he was referring to Sarah Palin; he didn't reference her. If you take the two soundbites together, it may sound like it. But I've been a guy at the podium many times, and you say something that's maybe a part of an old joke and then somebody ties it in. So, I'm going to have to cut him slack."

In his letter, Huckabee drives the point home: "[W]hile on Hannity & Colmes I cut Barack Obama some slack on his reference to 'lipstick on a pig.' Now I personally don't think he was referring to Gov. Palin, but if he was he should apologize immediately," the former Arkansas governor wrote. "Almost twenty four hours into this new controversy and the accusations are continuing to fly from both campaigns. That's too bad.

"Let's shift back to the issues."

Huckabee proceeds to criticize Obama's education proposal released yesterday "that has plenty of faults. Lets talk about it instead," he writes. "Republicans have been arguing correctly for choice in our schools and adding accountability. Lets spend our time and energy focusing on what we stand for. There is plenty to talk about."

He continues: "Where is the discussion on the continuing rise of healthcare costs in the nation? ... Republicans should be trumpeting our openness to drill, conserve and use alternative sources of energy."

He also calls for increased focus on preventative health care, before concluding with a colloquialism that is, perhaps, no longer free of suggestive undertones given Palin's comparison of herself to a pitbull with lipstick and the controversy over Obama's remarks.

"A return to the issues is what the American people expect and it is a mistake to think that our Republican ideas somehow can't compete with the Democrats. And frankly, if anyone tells you otherwise, that dog won't hunt."

By Web Politics Editor  |  September 11, 2008; 9:19 AM ET
Categories:  Barack Obama , John McCain , Mike Huckabee , Sarah Palin  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: A Warm Welcome for Palin in Alaska
Next: Candidates React: Remembering 9/11

Comments

Ah! An honorable republican. Isn't that an oxymoron?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2008 1:23 AM | Report abuse

Mike Huckabee is the most honest, genuine Republican that America has seen in at least 30 years.

Posted by: Don | September 11, 2008 10:41 PM | Report abuse

To Mockerfab4:

First of all, as someone who supported Governor Huckabee during the primaries, I want to thank you for being so courteous to him in your comment. All too often I see people rudely insult this decent and kind-hearted man. I guess that’s just politics.

But to get to the point, about Wayne Dumond:

Unfortunately, Huckabee’s enemies love to bring this up! They usually distort it, by saying things such as "Huckabee pardoned rapists." This is not true! He did NOT pardon Wayne Dumond. Here are the facts:

Wayne Dumond was arrested for the rape of one of Bill Clinton's cousins. While out on bail and awaiting trial, Dumond was attacked and had his testicles cut off. Not only did the Sheriff (a Clinton crony) NOT do any investigation, instead he proudly displayed Dumond's testicles in a jar on his desk. (He was later successfully sued for this behavior.)

Dumond was sentenced to life in prison plus twenty years more, an excessive sentence for an assault.

After Dumond had served several years with good behavior, he applied for clemency. It was granted in 1992 by then-Lt. Governor JIM GUY TUCKER. When Tucker granted Dumond's clemency, it made him immediately eligible for parole.

Dumond was a model prisoner, expressed remorse for his crime, lined up a job and a sponsor, and applied for either a commutation or parole. If he got a commutation, he would have been released immediately without any supervision whatsoever. Gov. Huckabee decided that the guy had suffered enough for his crime (how would you like to have yours cut off with scissors??), but Huckabee felt that the guy needed supervision once he was released. I'm sure that no one ever thought a castrated man would commit a sexual assault again, but it happened. (Yes, it CAN.)

So Huckabee recommended that the guy be paroled. The parole board, composed entirely of Democrats appointed by Clinton or Tucker, voted to grant the parole. If they had voted no, the guy would have remained in prison.

As to whether Huckabee pressured them, accounts differ. Only TWO of the 5 people present claim that there was pressure. And they only claimed it when Huckabee was running for office, and when they weren't re-appointed to their $75,000 jobs on the parole board.

And, if they really believed back then that Dumond should stay in prison, then why did they vote, apparently against their conscience, to parole him?

It is truly tragic and unspeakably awful that Dumond committed horrible crimes after he was paroled (although he died while awaiting trial for one of them). Unlike the parole board, Mike Huckabee has expressed to the victim’s family his deep regret and sorrow, and says he wishes he could turn back the clock so that Dumond would never have been freed. I've never heard members of the parole board apologizing for their vote to release him.

So if you want to point some fingers, you should look at the the people who didn't protect their prisoner while he was awaiting trial, because he raped a Clinton cousin… the people who didn't investigate the vigilantes who mutilated the guy… Tucker, who granted the guy a clemency… and the Democrats who made up the entire the parole board.

As one blogger put it:
>>Actually, Huckabee was getting hammered from both sides of the issue. There were lots of people criticizing him because he hadn't pardoned Dumond. There was court testimony that DNA evidence indicated that Dumond couldn't have been the rapist. There was testimony that the victim couldn't pick Dumond out of a lineup until the sheriff had a word with her in private. There was testimony that Dumond was asking a lot of questions about stolen cars in the area and the sheriff's involvement in that car theft ring. The sheriff did later go to prison on a variety of charges. There was the castration and the fact that the sheriff displayed Dumond's testicles in a jar on his desk and that the sheriff was a close friend of the victim's father, who was a distant relative of Clinton's and a wealthy benefactor of Clinton's. So there were lots of questions, legitimate questions about how the case was handled from the start.

Thanks for reading this! I hope you that now you can see how Governor Huckabee wasn't to blame.

Posted by: Mrs. P | September 11, 2008 8:38 PM | Report abuse

In this case war is a racket. Google General Smedley Butler

Posted by: brock101 | September 11, 2008 7:38 PM | Report abuse

Ask yourself why are all of these conservative talk show host fighting tooth and nail for John McCain? They are making millions off war profiteering. One talk show host in Tennessee name Steve gill said just before we went into iraq he invested in hillaburton. It actually slipped. Think what if most of the people you listen to or watch have inside information?

Posted by: brock101 | September 11, 2008 7:35 PM | Report abuse

Dems voter registration up in key battleground states. Clinton is right obama will win big time

Posted by: brock101 | September 11, 2008 7:26 PM | Report abuse

Once I at least respected John McCain. No longer. He and his campaign are now up to their eyeballs in lying excrement. Has anybody else noticed this?

Posted by: oldhonky | September 11, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

I think Mike Huckabee needs to enlist Chuck Norris to enforce his will on this issue.

But more seriously, I miss the fun that Governor Huckabee injected into the nomination battle. He was (and is) an exeptionally gifted and engaging individual.

Posted by: scott032 | September 11, 2008 6:24 PM | Report abuse

The meanest and most racist comments I see most of the time are from the liberals. This is apart from my democratic friends who do not spout "hate Bush" retoric and constantly play the blame game but listen to others and have intelligent conversations with, yes, even Republcans. I fail to understand all this bitterness and hatred for other Americans who have a different point of view.

I was truly amazed at Carolin Kennedy's speech mentioning how she has never been inspired the way people were inspired by her father. One thing struck me -- did she forget her father's famous words, "Ask not what your country and do for you, ask what you can do for your country." That is so opposite of Obama's message.

Keep up the hate retoric. It says a lot about you.

Drill, baby, drill!
Support our troops!

Posted by: Jean D | September 11, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse

julie,

you prove my point, democrats are out to save thier own balls, thier own issues, whilst republicans are voting against thier own interests for a brighter future, thanks for making it clear to both republicans and democrats.

in the words of nathan hale "my only regret is that i have but one life to lose for my country."

Posted by: dale | September 11, 2008 5:55 PM | Report abuse

the democrats take a college education, and make a mockery of it by using common conceptual ideas and using them as veiled insults for the sake of appearing self-righteous in the eyes of voters.

huckabee has heartfelt intentions and i wish the guy well in his future politically and theologically, but he needs to face the harsh truth, politics is a muddy battle.

now i can understand if obama had simply left it at "lipstick on a pig" not suggesting ANYTHING against palin.

but please explain to me how his listeners reacted as soon as he said the word pig. explain to me how he could throw in "old fish" and "8 years" and it not be a direct attack on the republican ticket.

yes obama can claim innocence, but its simply another veiled attack.

well obama, your veiled attacks may be a wolf in sheep's clothing, but we are feeling the bite of your so called "sheep".

Posted by: dale | September 11, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

its incredible

Posted by: boruch yona loriner | September 11, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

So, Xander, Ted was fooled by the wording and Barack wasn't? It's Camp Obama that's being fooled. Did you go to the 2 day session of Camp Obama I was invited to when I signed up to get his VP text message? What a cult!

Posted by: Scott | September 11, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Julie, not very nice to condemn us to that sort of hell. I mean come on, we're not THAT bad are we? :P

Posted by: Xander | September 11, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

I am so sick of this campaign that I could vomit. Same old smear tactics, same old fools who prefer a candidate because "she's just like us", same old pundits saying the same old thing.

I have had it with the ignorant masses of this country voting against their own best interests. The ignorance and stupidity of the American voter is simply breath taking. Let the fools vote for a doddering old man and a low-class religious nut... the rest of the world will laugh at us and unfortunately we will suffer the consequences.

Posted by: Julie | September 11, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Scott

More smear for the presses. Gotta love it. If Obama was against it because of poor wording, then so be it. And to say that photos don't affect somebody are just trying to play to the crowd. What did she want him to do? Cry? Vomit? I have seen tons of pictures with this sort of message, and it doesn't faze me either. Why? Because I choose not to let it. I would rather be a strong person and simply viwe what is presented to me rather than overreact just to placate those who are trying to change my mind. Just because she didn't like the way she reacted shows me that she was trying to tug at heartstrings. And when it didn't work, she cried foul against Obama and started throwing out accusations. I bet if there were any other Senator who was present at that particular event was running for President, she would go the same route with that person. She's just trying to get publicity for her cause.

Posted by: Xander | September 11, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse


Hey 3rd Term-
I guess that pro Life Radical Ted Kennedy, who voted FOR the Infant Protection Act, was duped by the "wording"!!!

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 11, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

I know that this article is about sticking to the issues, which makes this comment sort of ironic, but it's "preventive" not "preventative". Look it up.

Posted by: Jessica | September 11, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

"I'm still waiting for the mainstream media to call McCain on his stated refusal to stop using the word 'gook'. Plenty of other vets had it just as hard as him in Vietnam, yet they don't use the word gook. Why does he get a free pass on this?"

Haven't you heard? It's because he's a war hero. Yeah, because somehow his being a POW has somehow earned him the right to say and do whatever he pleases. It gives him rights above all other POWs and Vets, being that he's John McCain and all.

Posted by: Xander | September 11, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

There is an old saying which goes like this: "There is no fool like an old fool." McCain is the paradym of this phrase. Seeing them campaigning together makes me laugh ... what an odd pair. He looks so pathetic and she so overpowering with her flattering lies. She would never get my vote ... I would never vote for a red neck and that's exactly what she is.

The Republican Party is trying desperately once again to fool the public and steal the election, but many, many are wise to their strategy and will not be so gullible to fall into their trap again.

No more, no way, no McCain. Go Obama 2008!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

I'm still waiting for the mainstream media to call McCain on his stated refusal to stop using the word 'gook'. Plenty of other vets had it just as hard as him in Vietnam, yet they don't use the word gook. Why does he get a free pass on this?

Posted by: Jesus | September 11, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Who are you calling a Dog Mr Huckabee!!! .........just kidding

Posted by: Romulus | September 11, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

There's something mildly frightening about the situation when a man as despicable as Huckabee--who is defined by his rejection of science--is the voice of sanity in this sad excuse for a campaign.

Posted by: Tom | September 11, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

"The President should be the one dealing in these matters for the most part, not the VP, and every point you bring up about Palin can be said about Obama. "

McCain has about a 1 in 3 chance of surviving his first term. Are those odds you really want to bank on for someone with no real experience backing him up? Beyond that, she will still have major roles to play as Veep that will include foreign issues. How can we trust her to make the right decisions when she is so narrow-minded?

Posted by: Xander | September 11, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

What issues would Huckabee like to discuss the ones that George / McCain were responsible for creating in the first place? While Palin contributes lipsticks and pit bulls and continues to promote polices that have failed in her family. Of course they do not want to discuss those issues it’s easier to go on about lipstick.

Posted by: Ken | September 11, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

I think it is comical that McCain cancelled one of his rally's because Sarah Palin would not be able to be there. Apparently he doesn't want to show the world that only a smattering of followers would show up without her there.

I've also heard that people start leaving his rallies in streams after she's done talking.

Talk about celebrity psychosis, she hasn't even taken a single question.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

"What kind of foreign policy experience does she have? Zero.

McSame has chosen a person for VP who is totally and completely unprepared to protect the country or have a dialogue with foreign leaders.

Why would he make this choice when there were so many better choices for a running mate? Why?"

The President should be the one dealing in these matters for the most part, not the VP, and every point you bring up about Palin can be said about Obama.

Why would the Dems make this inexperienced man their choice? Why?

If Palin is too inexperienced to be a VP, Obama is way to inexperienced to be President.

Posted by: mark | September 11, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Huckabee is a decent man. Too bad he let a rapist go because he "found god"...only to have the freed rapist, rape and kill another woman. But, I agree do agree 100% with him on this one, let get back to the issues. Like what is McCain going to do about health care, economy, woman's rights? And Scott the 5% Gallup poll lead that you covet..did you read in what regions he's leading? Let me give you the answer. He's kicking Obama's butt in the South. That's it. In the East, West & Midwest regions where people are also polled, Obama has a edge over McCain that has been consistent since after the RNC. Obama is'nt counting on the South to win, because he has no shot there...he's betting on the W, E and MW. And polls and majority votes don't win elections....it's all about the Electoral College. Ask Gore about that one.

Posted by: Mockerfab4 | September 11, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Huckabee, you are out of touch with mainstream Americans! We are into TOTAL MARTIAL ARTS, the age of the Marquis of Queensbury is OVER! We want the Leader of the Free World to be an 8-tinme gold medalist in TRASH TALKING! Huckabee, you are out of your league when it comes to barnyard smack. Now we know why H-U-C-K-A-B-E-E spells "loser"!!! Gotta put on my lipstick, THAT'S ALL FOLKS!!!!

Posted by: Terrible Swift Sword | September 11, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

From The Nation

"John McCain has been hammering rival Barack Obama for being little more than a vapid "celebrity" and "elitist." But The Nation has obtained a photo revealing just how star-struck a straight-talking maverick can become when offered the chance to celebrate his birthday aboard a yacht filled with celebrities--even if one of those celebrity types turns out to be an A-list con man.

The McCain-Follieri Love Boat Presidential Election 2008

Mark Ames & Ari Berman: What are we to make of a straight-talking maverick who spends his 70th birthday on the yacht of an A-list con man?

The photograph substantiates reports that in late August, 2006, McCain celebrated his 70th birthday aboard a yacht, the Celine Ashley, rented by A-list con man Raffaello Follieri and his then-movie star girlfriend Anne Hathaway. In the current edition of Vanity Fair, Michael Schnayerson reported that Follieri rented the Celine Ashley for the month of August 2006. Montenegro's leading daily newspaper, Vijesti, earlier reported that during McCain's visit in 2006 he celebrated with birthday cocktails and sweets aboard the Celine Ashley yacht. In the photograph, taken in Montenegro at the end of August, McCain is shown boarding the yacht ramp towards the smiling Follieri and Hathaway. Just ahead of McCain and shaking hands with Follieri appears to be Rick Davis--McCain's top aide and now co-manager of his campaign, who accompanied him on the trip and advised the government of Montenegro.

A few months after McCain's yacht party, Follieri strengthened his ties to McCain's orbit by retaining Rick Davis's well-connected Washington lobbying firm, Davis Manafort, and offering Davis both an investment deal and help in securing the Catholic vote for McCain's presidential bid.

Follieri, who posed as Vatican chief financial officer in order to win friends and investments, pleaded guilty Wednesday in a Manhattan district court to conspiracy to commit wire fraud, eight counts of wire fraud and five counts of money laundering. As part of the plea, Follieri admitted to misappropriating at least $2.4 million of investor money and redirecting it to foreign personal bank accounts that were disguised as business accounts.


Yet Follieri's ties to McCain's orbit have been largely overlooked by the media. Follieri first met McCain when the Arizona Senator visited Montenegro from August 29-31 as part of a Congressional delegation that included Republican senators Lindsay Graham, Richard Burr, Saxby Chambliss, Mel Martinez and John Sununu. [We'll have more on what else McCain was doing in Montenegro in a forthcoming article in the print edition of The Nation.]

What, exactly, was McCain doing aboard Follieri's yacht? Or put another way, was this McCain's 70th birthday wish--to spend an evening floating on the Adriatic with one of Hollywood's top actresses and her smooth-talking Italian beau?

An even bigger mystery is how Follieri's boat came to be docked in Montenegro on McCain's birthday. According to a journalist in Montenegro, the yacht had been anchored there for several days before McCain's arrival, and only sailed away after McCain boarded. According to Vijesti, locals were told that McCain was meeting "friends from Florida" on the yacht.

McCain aides later confirmed the encounter with Follieri, but said it was "entirely social and nothing came of it." Follieri, they told the New York Daily News, was just a "passing acquaintance." (Though the McCain campaign promise to comment on the encounter, it did not respond to The Nation's request by the time this article was published.)

It must not have seemed that way to Follieri. According to the Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore, in January 2007 Follieri sent Rick Davis a packet of information on his companies Follieri Capital and Follieri Media, apparently hoping to get financing from Pegasus Capital Advisors, a hedge fund in Connecticut that Davis represented. "Follieri's proposal to Davis had two dimensions to it--first, as an investment opportunity for Davis's fund; but secondly, there was the political dimension, in which Follieri offered to help deliver Catholic votes to McCain," said Claudio Gatti, a reporter for Il Sole 24 Ore, who investigated Follieri for eighteen months.

In February 2007, according to a recent article in the New York Daily News, Follieri retained Davis's lobbying firm, Davis Manafort. According to the paper, "on Feb. 27, 2007, Davis Manafort partner Rick Gates signed a confidentiality agreement drafted by the Follieri Group. In the contract...Gates agreed not to disclose any information about Follieri's deal to get Clinton pal Ron Burkle to buy Catholic Church properties." (Gates did not respond to repeated requests for comment.)

In June of this year, Follieri was finally arrested and charged. Following his guilty plea this week, Follieri now faces up to five years and three months in jail."

Posted by: Not this time | September 11, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

"McCain holds 5-point lead for second day; in past, such advantages have held for a while (On Politics, USA Today)
Two days in a row now, Gallup’s presidential tracking poll has given Republican nominee John McCain a 5 percentage point lead over Democrat Barack Obama. The latest reading, according to Gallup: McCain, 49%; Obama, 44%. That’s the same score as yesterday. And according to Gallup, history suggests McCain’s lead could last for at least a while."

As I understand it, those polls were inaccurate. There is something floating around about how their "random calls" placed more calls to known republican voters than democratic. I personally don't trust any of these polls, as there is no way to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were unbiased.

Posted by: Xander | September 11, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

I

Posted by: 4chanteller | September 11, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Scott says,

"I post real issues- corn ethanol and global warming, gun control."

Scott,

I guess political corruption is not a "real issue" to you.

McCain has the whole George Bush outfit on board. The same gang that slimed him in 2000.

What does that say about his integrity and "honor?" Not much, in my opinion.

By the way, the "born alive" act that Senator Obama opposed had provisions in it that were unconstitutional and were attempting to reverse Roe versus Wade. Illinois already had a law that protected these infants, as did the Federal government. It is a non issue red herring.

From Fact check

REALITY: Obama Said He Would Have Supported Federal Born Alive Legislation Because It Made a Distinction Between a Fetus in Utero and Child That is Born

Obama Said He Would Have Supported Federal Born-Alive Legislation. The Chicago Tribune reported, "Obama said that had he been in the US Senate two years ago, he would have voted for the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, even though he voted against a state version of the proposal. The federal version was approved; the state version was not.

Both measures required that if a fetus survived an abortion procedure, it must be considered a person. Backers argued it was necessary to protect a fetus if it showed signs of life after being separated from its mother…

The difference between the state and federal versions, Obama explained, was that the state measure lacked the federal language clarifying that the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade." [Chicago Tribune, 10/4/04]


BORN ALIVE PRINCIPLE WAS ALREADY THE LAW IN ILLINOIS

Illinois Law Already Stated That "In The Unlikely Case That An Abortion Would Cause A Live Birth, A Doctor Should "Provide Immediate Medical Care For Any Child Born Alive As A Result Of The Abortion."

The Chicago Tribune reported, "'For more than 20 years, Illinois law has required that when 'there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support,' an abortion may only be performed if a physician believes 'it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.' And in such cases, the law requires that the doctor use the technique 'most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus' and perform the abortion in the presence of 'a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion.'" [Chicago Tribune, 8/17/04]

Illinois Law Stated That A Doctor Must Preserve The Life And Health Of A Fetus If In The Course Of An Abortion, There Is Reasonable Likelihood Of Sustained Survival. The Illinois Compiled Statutes stated that any physician who intentionally performs an abortion when, in his medical judgment based on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support, shall utilize that method of abortion which, of those he knows to be available, is in his medical judgment most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus. No abortion shall be performed or induced when the fetus is viable unless there is in attendance a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion. Subsequent to the abortion, if a child is born alive, the physician required to be in attendance shall exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion. Violation of these statutes constituted a Class 3 felony. [Illinois Compiled Statutes, 720 ILCS 510/6]

Scott, please address the real issues: The war in Iraq, the mortgage meltdown, the high rate of unemployment, the lack of healthcare for 49,000,000 Americans, corruption from lobbyists in Washington- who are prime backers of the "Mavericks," and the need to develop real alternative energy sources."

Your phony concern is appalling.

Posted by: Edward | September 11, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Please keep referring to the Republican candidate as McShame, McBush, McSame, etc. It is so clever and does much to further your arguments. In the meantime, the woman you demean and diminish is going to help him clean Obama's clock. This election isn't even going to be close. Obama peaked to early (February) and has spent too much money over the past 19 months. He now suffers from overexposure and a dwindling bank account. Fortunately for him, Hollywood will soon prop him up, but it's too late. The flopsweat is evident.

Posted by: Joanne600 | September 11, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse


McCain holds 5-point lead for second day; in past, such advantages have held for a while (On Politics, USA Today)
Two days in a row now, Gallup’s presidential tracking poll has given Republican nominee John McCain a 5 percentage point lead over Democrat Barack Obama. The latest reading, according to Gallup: McCain, 49%; Obama, 44%. That’s the same score as yesterday. And according to Gallup, history suggests McCain’s lead could last for at least a while.

McCain Now Winning Majority of Independents (Gallup)
PRINCETON, NJ — John McCain’s 6 percentage-point bounce in voter support spanning the Republican National Convention is largely explained by political independents shifting to him in fairly big numbers, from 40% pre-convention to 52% post-convention in Gallup Poll Daily tracking… Regionally, Gallup finds solid gains for McCain in all areas of the country except the West, where his already fairly high support has held steady. However, the 9-point increase for McCain in the South on top of his previous 49% support level in that region makes the South now overwhelmingly pro-McCain, 58% to 36%.

Posted by: Scott | September 11, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse


Hey ZappoDave-
Whose base are you referring to?- Certainly not your's- Your's is shrinking fast- narrowing, as pollsters say-
Oops Dave- do a little research and put down the Dailykos once in a while-


campaign
McCain holds 5-point lead for second day; in past, such advantages have held for a while (On Politics, USA Today)
Two days in a row now, Gallup’s presidential tracking poll has given Republican nominee John McCain a 5 percentage point lead over Democrat Barack Obama. The latest reading, according to Gallup: McCain, 49%; Obama, 44%. That’s the same score as yesterday. And according to Gallup, history suggests McCain’s lead could last for at least a while.

McCain Now Winning Majority of Independents (Gallup)
PRINCETON, NJ — John McCain’s 6 percentage-point bounce in voter support spanning the Republican National Convention is largely explained by political independents shifting to him in fairly big numbers, from 40% pre-convention to 52% post-convention in Gallup Poll Daily tracking… Regionally, Gallup finds solid gains for McCain in all areas of the country except the West, where his already fairly high support has held steady. However, the 9-point increase for McCain in the South on top of his previous 49% support level in that region makes the South now overwhelmingly pro-McCain, 58% to 36%.


Posted by: Scott | September 11, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Scott says,

support is a (NOW HALF) mile wide and an inch deep: I post real issues- corn ethanol and global warming,"

Scott, I'm glad you picked up on the expression that was used to describe Sarah Palin by one of her former supporters. Plagiarism anyone?

"She has very, very good political instincts," said Mike Kenny, former Alaska Teamsters union president and now a Democratic candidate for the state House. Kenny, in his role as Teamster president, endorsed Palin in the 2006 gubernatorial primary but does not call himself a supporter now.

"I think she's a mile wide and about an inch deep."

By the way, John McCain is now fully supporting corn based ethanol production since losing the Iowa caucus- and Bush signed the bills putting it into law.

I personally think that this is not the way to go- and believe that Senator Obama will figure out a better way to do it, while creating jobs at home.

By the way, Sarah Palin is lying about her "gas pipeline." It is not even close to being built- it's at least 10 years out in the future- and the study group that will try and figure how to do it was given a $500,000,000 subsidy by her is a Canadian company. So much for American jobs.

Posted by: Edward | September 11, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

HEY MCCAIN:


THANKS FOR FIRING UP THE DEM BASE WITH YOUR STUPID LIPSTICK PIG, FAKE OUTRAGE!

YOU'RE DUMBER THAN A BAG OF ROCKS, YOU OLD FOSSIL!
.
http://s144.photobucket.com/albums/r163/InsultComicDog/?action=view¤t=McCainPalin.jpg
.

Posted by: ZappoDave | September 11, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

For once, Huck is right. And, in fact, the WaPo could help lead the way. Instead of "reporting" on trivial matters or simply acting as stenographers, the WaPo could call BHO on some of his policy-related lies like this very partial list:

http://24ahead.com/blog/archives/007954.html

Before the election is over, will the WaPo call BHO on even one of his policy-related lies? I don't think so, but maybe GFR could lead an insurgency to get the WaPo to finally do a public service instead of what they're doing now.

Posted by: 24AheadDotCom | September 11, 2008 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Scott says,"At least Obama said that the surge "has succeeded beyond anyone's wildest imagination"- thanks, Barack that sums up McCain's marvelous judgement."

McCain's judgment took us into the disatrous Iraq invasion in the first place. He was one of the prime architects of this nightmare- and was stuping for it as far back as 1994. McWar only knows one thing. Bomb first, ask questions later.

What Scott neglects to say is that Baghdad remains the most dangerous city in the world, despite the fact that we injected ab additional 30,000 soldiers into their civil war to keep the peace.

Senator Obama stated that the surge was successful in lessening the violence, but not in achieving its main objective- and that was to allow the Iraqi government to achieve political reconciliation. It is not happening- and "we are not winning." Winning would be to get our troops out of harm's way and stop the endless multiple rotations that they have suffered.

It is not a "war." It's a day to day conflict between Shia, Sunni, and Kurd. Al Queda was not in Iraq before we invaded. When we leave, they will retreat to Afghanistan where they were before.

Here's Senator Obama's statement after meeting with General Petraeus.

"Two reports issued over the past week paint a bleak picture of the prospects of the current strategy. These reports reinforce the conclusion that there is no military solution in Iraq, that we need to get our troops out of the middle of Iraq's civil war, and that this war must be brought to a responsible conclusion.

“The U.S. Government Accountability Office concluded that the Iraqi government has failed to meet 11 of its 18 benchmarks. Another 4 benchmarks have been only partially met. In particular, GAO cited the failure of the Iraqi government to enact legislation on de-Baathification, oil revenue sharing, provincial elections, amnesty, and militia disarmament. Moreover, according to GAO, the Iraqi government has not eliminated militia control of local security, it has not eliminated political intervention in military operations, it has not ensured even-handed enforcement of the law, and it has not increased the number of army units capable of independent operations. The effect of this failure to act has been a high level of sectarian violence that can only be seen as having abated when it is measured against the explosion of violence late last year and early this year.

“And last week, an independent commission chaired by General James Jones offered a similarly bleak assessment. The Jones Commission found that the Iraqi Security Forces will not be able to carry out their essential security responsibilities without assistance for at least 12 to 18 months. The Commission also found that the Iraqi Police Service is incapable of providing adequate security to protect Iraqis from insurgents and sectarian violence and that the National Police is so infiltrated by sectarian militias that it should be disbanded and reorganized.

“These independent assessments – and the stunningly bleak NIE released at the end of last month – make clear that there has been zero national political progress. The consensus from the NIE, GAO, and General Jones is that the Iraqi Security Forces have made little progress.

“Rather than identify the very limited tactical gains that have been made at great cost and using them to justify the maintenance of a failing strategy, I believe it is time to change course. Over 3,700 American servicemen and women have died in this war and over 27,000 have been seriously wounded. Each month, this misguided war costs us a staggering $10 billion, and when all is said and done, this will have cost us $1 trillion.

“Changing the definition of success to stay the course with the wrong policy is the wrong course for our troops and our national security. The time to end the surge and to start bringing our troops home is now – not six months from now. The Iraqi government is not achieving the political progress that was the stated purpose of the surge, and in key areas has gone backwards.

“Our military cannot sustain its current deployments without crippling our ability to respond to contingencies around the world. It's time for a change of direction that brings our troops home, applies real pressure on the Iraqis to act, surges our diplomacy, and addresses Iraq's urgent humanitarian crisis. I can only support a policy that begins an immediate removal of our troops from Iraq's civil war, and initiates a sustained drawdown of our military presence.

“It is long past time to turn the page in Iraq, where each day we see the consequences of fighting a war that should never have been authorized and should never have been waged. We in Congress must take action to change the president's failed policy.”


Posted by: Lucas | September 11, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Edward I'll say it again-

You see, this is why Obama's support is a (NOW HALF) mile wide and an inch deep: I post real issues- corn ethanol and global warming, gun control, and the Infant Protection act and Camp Obama can't get its head out of the kennel! or John McCain's birthday parties...

Posted by: Scott | September 11, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

John McCain's 70th birthday was spent on a luxurious yacht off the coast of Montenegro. I'm willing to bet that Sarah Palin doesn't have a clue where this tiny country is. McCain's lobbyists work for the small country.

The host for McCain's yacht party off the coast of the Republic of Montenegro was, according to WMR sources with close links to the Republican Party, Oleg Deripaska, one of Russia's most powerful tycoons who made his billions in cornering Russia's aluminum market in the 1990s.

The 70th birthday bash was reportedly a promise of huge cash donations to McCain's forthcoming presidential campaign, another indication of violations of law prohibiting donations from foreign sources. The quid pro quo for Derpaska was that McCain and his top lobbyists were pushing the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company (EADS) and its Airbus subsidiary to receive the lucrative US Air Force contract to replace the Air Force's fleet of refueling tankers. The reported source for the aluminum in the Airbus tanker aircraft is Deripaska's Russian Aluminum Company (RusAl).

Where was Cindy during this birthday celebration?

Posted by: Edward | September 11, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Hey "3rd Term"- You already lost that election twice- FDR was the last President to run for a 3rd term- it's unconstitutional now. As bad as Bush was, he beat Kerry and Gore- that's not saying much for Kerry and Gore- I mean if Gore had carried his HOME STATE, the chads could have kept on hanging through his presidency. So, you run against Bush and forget that Bush isn't running against you; but Don't worry about John McCain and foreign policy- He's not the candidate who said Iran was a "Tiny" threat- WOW, THAT WAS A GOOD ONE! At least Obama said that the surge "has succeeded beyond anyone's wildest imagination"- thanks, Barack that sums up McCain's marvelous judgement. Hey 3Rd, didn't these 100 years pass quickly?

Posted by: Scott | September 11, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

This election is too important to be sidetracked by all this nonsense. Sarah Palin is not running for President. McCain is. Though you would think she is on the top of the ticket.
We need to quit focusing on the Jerry Springer Show that is Sarah Palin and focus on the real issues--the economy, the wars, education, global warming, skyrocketing energy costs, unemployment, the failing banks, etc., etc.

McCain is part of the party that brought us this nightmare, before this year he was proud to be photographed with George Bush, to be seen as an ally of our current President. So how is McCain going to even begin to get us out of this mess. Why would he want to? His constiuency of lobbyists and rich people are doing just fine--it's the rest of us who are suffering. Do you really want to return to a time like that of the robberbarons--a time when the middle class was practically nonexistent, and working people were basically chattel to be used and abused for their employers' astronomical profit margins.

The Republicans over and over again use these cultural wedge issues to keep working people from voting in their own economic best interest.

They are laughing all the way to the bank. The Republicans were in charge of all three branches of government for six years, and they didn't ban abortion or ban gay marriage or make Christianity our state religion or make English our national language, or reinstate prayer in the schools, etc. They wouldn't have anything to distract the populace with if they actually moved legislatively on these issues. They need poor and middle class people who believe strongly in these cultural issues to continue to support them even though it means that they get poorer and poorer. And don't think they sincerely believe in these cultural issues as well. Look at the way many, if not most, Republican politicians live, look at the scandals that they have been associated with--they want the vote of cultural conservatives, but after the lever has been pulled in the ballot box, those voters can be forgotten until the next election when the Republicans will rile them up again with their favorite wedge issures, and get folks to cut off their noses to spite their faces.

The Bible talks about straining gnats and swallowing camels. It also says that it is harder for a rich man to enter heaven than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle. The rich Republicans are giving us plenty of gnats to strain in terms of cultural issues that we can't resolve through legislative means, and meanwhile we just keep swallowing those camels--the economic problems that the Congress and Senate and White House could resolve, so that real wealth could be earned by a multitude of American citizens willing to work hard if given real opportunities. Just think we could help some of those rich Republican (and Democrat) folks get into heaven by reducing their profit margins and taxing the wealthiest among us at a higher, fairer rate.


Posted by: Melissa | September 11, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

McCain holds an interview on Palin. This interview should be on all the MSM. McCain really fumbles on answering some tough questions--questions that Charles Gibson should ask Palin in his upcoming interview with her.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/McCain_on_

Posted by: Kristin2 | September 11, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

McCain is too much of a coward to address the issues.

McCain/Palin are about as anti-freedom as you can get.

Patriots of Obama 2008!

Posted by: pfc marshall | September 11, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

This lipstick thing is the most ridiculous phony political BS I've seen in a long time, and that's saying something.

McCain, stop crying like a baby about the mean ol' press and mean ol' Obama. Man up and talk about some substance. John McCain and the whole right wing are a bunch of simpering little girls.

Posted by: BB | September 11, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Questions for our "foreign policy expert" knuckledragging Wingnuts?
-----------------------------------

When he was warned in the August 6, 2001 PDB, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike In US", why did the president do nothing except tell the guy who delivered it to him, "All right, you've covered your arse, now"?


Why did Rudy Giuliani put the anti-terrorism command center in the World Trade Center against the advice of experts who knew better?


Why did the president sit in that Florida classroom for several minutes after being told "America is under attack"?


Could there be any greater examples of heroism than the passengers who fought back on Flight 93, the rescue teams at the Pentagon, or the NYPD and NYFD responders who ran into the towers without hesitation?


Father Mychal Judge: Saint...or Supersaint?


Why did NY firefighters have faulty radios instead of dependable ones, Mr. Giuliani?


Was it really necessary for the president to tell us to go shopping?


Why were rescue workers at Ground Zero told by the EPA director that the air was safe to breathe when it wasn't?


When rescue workers got horribly sick from breathing contaminated air, why were so many given perfunctory treatment and then left to fend for themselves?


Why did Rudy Giuliani say he "was at the site as often, if not more, than most of the workers," when he only visited the site for 29 hours over a span of 41 visits and spent more time in that span at NY Yankee's games?


When Glenn Beck---one of the most respected figures in the Republican party---said, "When I see a 9/11 victim family on television, or whatever, I'm just like, 'Oh shut up!' I'm so sick of them because they're always complaining," why wasn't he banished into obscurity?


When the president stressed the importance of safeguarding our ports and vital infrastructure, why did he take so long actually safeguarding them? Are they much safer today?


When the president called for greater security at airports, why was there such a lopsided focus on passengers and very little on cargo until recently?


When we found out that most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, why did the president continue holding hands with their leaders?


Why were habeas corpus rights suspended years after the attacks of 9/11, when the country wasn't in a state of rebellion or invasion?


When Congress found out the president had broken the law before 9/11 by snooping on American citizens without warrants, why did they patch up the law to make his---and the phone companies'---illegal activities retroactively legal?


The president nominated Bernard Kerik to be the head of Homeland Security...and he wasn't joking???


When Ann Coulter---one of the most respected figures in the Republican party---said, "These broads (9/11 widows) are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much," why wasn't she banished into obscurity?


When Bush had bin Laden in his sights at Tora Bora, why didn’t he take the shot?


Why were we told repeatedly that Saddam Hussein was partly responsible for the attacks when he had nothing to do with them?


When we needed more troops to vanquish the Taliban in Afghanistan, why did we invade Iraq?


If we're winning the "War on terror," why hasn't the color-coded terror alert level changed from Yellow to Green or Blue in 2,382 days?


How unspeakably crude was it for the Republican party to exploit the 9/11 attacks in a promotional video during their convention in St. Paul?
Why hasn't the president caught Osama bin Laden?


When Jerry Falwell---one of the most respected figures in the Republican party---got on TV and said, "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped 9/11 happen'," why wasn't he defrocked and sent to work in soup kitchens for the rest of his life?


Why is there still a giant hole in the ground in Lower Manhattan?
-
Are terrorists punks, or what?
-
Are Republican politicians (McCain, Giuiliani) who use fear to scare citizens into submission, thugs or what?

Posted by: McCain = Bush's third term | September 11, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Unless, in fact, this election is about Palin. And it has to be. She - along with the Iraq war - is the embodiment of McCain's claim to presidential judgment and experience. If she is a fraud, and has been proven a demonstrable liar in ways that a competent campaign would have vetted six months ago, McCain's campaign is over, and deserves to be over. As is the election. I don't see how we can know anything until she has answered a series of obvious, factual questions from the press corps about the truthfulness of her various statements in the public record.

Posted by: F A | September 11, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

I am sickened by John McCains shameless exploitation of his military record. He has failed our veterans—past, present and future. McCain doesnt mind starting more wars, or having the Iraq Occupation last another 100 years but he does mind helping those vets when they return to the US. John McBush is typical of the I got mine but you cant have yours philosophy of the Republican Party.


Inside the senile mind of John McBush probabaly looks something like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2kyXN4ZVQg

Posted by: Load up on guns, bring your friends, it's fun to lose and to pretend | September 11, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Republicans have one "issue"...to win at all costs at the expense of americans.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Since when does constantly confusing the Sunni's, Shiites and Al-Qaeda in Iraq, singing "bomb bomb Iran" and blabbering about staying in Iraq for 100 years or more, like McCain has done the last six months, make you a "foreign policy expert"?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nqtL-P8kzo

Posted by: McCain - sane, insane or just senile? | September 11, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

. . . sorry Mr. Huckabee you're just as much a xian fanatic as she.

** Welcome to “The Handmaid's Tale”, America **

McCain is a dupe. Now he’s just along for a ride into the abyss of fundamentalist political ideology, dominionism.

Palin comes "wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross." She is exactly the gender traitor dominionists need to create the xian Iran of their dreams, under xian imams, xian enforcers of morals.

Have you ever read or ever viewed The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood? A one sentence synopsis: “In a dystopicly polluted right-wing religious tyranny, a young woman is put in sexual slavery on account of her now rare fertility.” IMDb.com/title/tt0099731

Atwood depicts a society in which women have been stripped of all rights in a fragment of a failed America, known as Gilead, a country controlled by christian fundamentalist terrorists and their transnational corporate overlords.

Obama PACs should buy The Handmaid's Tale, novel and DVD, by the box load and hand copies to every media person they know. Get TV outlets to broadcast it. If necessary buy time to show The Handmaid’s Tale in critical markets.

Palin emerges as a puritanical atavism directly from Atwood’s dystopia. She belongs to an all-too-possible future we must avert.

Posted by: bipolar2 | September 11, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse

McCain's good for nothing but mindlessly killing people, and the senile old man will be lucky if he even lives through his first term if he happened to get elected. That would leave us with Caribou Barbie the pathological serial liar as our president. Nobody (other than the Alaska state trooper she had fired for personal revenge) even knew her 2 weeks ago.


Say What?!?!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c

Posted by: DrainYou | September 11, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Republicans continue to live at the bottom of the barrel.

I don't want our nation to join them there for much longer!

Posted by: Britt | September 11, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Exactly, Scott. I doubt he will be able to sustain his support until Election Day. Here's another "Republican" Lincoln Chafee calling Sarah Palin a "cocky wacko" and saying her selection as John McCain's running mate has energized supporters of Democrat Barack Obama.

Posted by: JakeD | September 11, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

You see, this is why Obama's support is a (NOW HALF) mile wide and an inch deep: I post real issues- corn ethanol and global warming, gun control, and the Infant Protection act and Camp Obama can't get its head out of the kennel!

Posted by: Scott | September 11, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

A voice reason experience and moderation...Hmmm.. Can some one please tell me how Huckabee was overlooked for the VP position on the McCain ticket?

Posted by: cjbailey | September 11, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

"Dog won't hunt?"

Mike are you saying that a pitbull can be weak?

Posted by: teferet | September 11, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Here's another Issue Obama, the champion of Illinois Farm Profits, is just plain wrong on- Corn Ethanol Production Requires as much petroleum as it replaces, thereby INCREASING our dependency on foreign oil (hey, I thought he was against that?), raises Food Prices, and Increases Global warming...and before Anthony writes to say it doesn't increase global warming (and that Obama didn't write YES on the gun ban questinnaire) here's back up- yes, you SHOULD be informed:


Study: Ethanol may add to global warming
Updated 2/8/2008 5:52 PM | Comments350 |

By H. Josef Hebert, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON — The widespread use of ethanol from corn could result in nearly twice the greenhouse gas emissions as the gasoline it would replace because of expected land-use changes, researchers concluded Thursday. The study challenges the rush to biofuels as a response to global warming.
The researchers said that past studies showing the benefits of ethanol in combating climate change have not taken into account almost certain changes in land use worldwide if ethanol from corn — and in the future from other feedstocks such as switchgrass — become a prized commodity.
"Using good cropland to expand biofuels will probably exacerbate global warming," concludes the study published in Science magazine.
=0 A
The researchers said that farmers under economic pressure to produce biofuels will increasingly "plow up more forest or grasslands," releasing much of the carbon formerly stored in plants and soils through decomposition or fires. Globally, more grasslands and forests will be converted to growing the crops to replace the loss of grains when U.S. farmers convert land to biofuels, the study said.
The Renewable Fuels Association, which represents ethanol producers, called the researchers' view of land-use changes "simplistic" and said the study "fails to put the issue in context."
FIND MORE STORIES IN: Congress | Princeton University | Thursday
"Assigning the blame for rainforest deforestation and grassland conversion to agriculture solely on the renewable fuels industry ignores key factors that play a greater role," said Bob Dinneen, the association's president.
There has been a rush to developing biofuels, especially ethanol from corn and cellulosic feedstock such as switchgrass and wood chips, as a substitute for gasoline. President Bush signed energy legislation in December that mandates a six-fold increase in ethanol use as a fuel to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022, calling the requirement key to weaning the nation from imported oil.
The new "green" fuel, whether made from corn or other feedstocks, has been widely promoted — both in Congress and by the White House — as a key to combating global warming. Burning it produces less carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas, than the fossil fuels it will replace.
During the recent congressional debate over energy legislation, lawmakers frequently cited estimates that corn-based ethanol produces 20% less greenhouse gases in production, transportation and use than gasoline, and that cellulosic ethanol has an even greater benefit of 70% less emissions.
The study released Thursday by researchers affiliated with Princeton University and a number of other institutions maintains that these analyses "were one-sided" and counted the carbon benefits of using land for biofuels but not the carbon costs of diverting land from its existing uses.
"The other studies missed a key factor that everyone agrees should have been included, the land use changes that actually are going to increase greenhouse gas emissions," said Tim Searchinger, a research scholar at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and lead author of the study.
The study said that after taking into account expected worldwide land-use changes, corn-based ethanol, instead of reducing greenhouse gases by 20%, will increases it by 93% compared to using gasoline over a 30-year period. Biofuels from switchgrass, if they replace croplands and other carbon-absorbing lands, would result in 50% more greenhouse gas emissions, the researchers concluded.


Posted by: Scott | September 11, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Here's another Issue Obama, the champion of Illinois Farm Profits, is just plain wrong on- Corn Ethanol Production Require as much petroleum as it replaces, thereby INCREASING our dependency on foreign oil (hey, I thoght he was against that?), raises Food Prices, and Increases Global warming...and before Anthony writes to say it doesn't increase global warming (and that Obama didn't write YES on the gun ban questinnaire) here's back up- yes, you SHOULD be informed:


Study: Ethanol may add to global warming
Updated 2/8/2008 5:52 PM | Comments350 |

By H. Josef Hebert, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON — The widespread use of ethanol from corn could result in nearly twice the greenhouse gas emissions as the gasoline it would replace because of expected land-use changes, researchers concluded Thursday. The study challenges the rush to biofuels as a response to global warming.
The researchers said that past studies showing the benefits of ethanol in combating climate change have not taken into account almost certain changes in land use worldwide if ethanol from corn — and in the future from other feedstocks such as switchgrass — become a prized commodity.
"Using good cropland to expand biofuels will probably exacerbate global warming," concludes the study published in Science magazine.
=0 A
The researchers said that farmers under economic pressure to produce biofuels will increasingly "plow up more forest or grasslands," releasing much of the carbon formerly stored in plants and soils through decomposition or fires. Globally, more grasslands and forests will be converted to growing the crops to replace the loss of grains when U.S. farmers convert land to biofuels, the study said.
The Renewable Fuels Association, which represents ethanol producers, called the researchers' view of land-use changes "simplistic" and said the study "fails to put the issue in context."
FIND MORE STORIES IN: Congress | Princeton University | Thursday
"Assigning the blame for rainforest deforestation and grassland conversion to agriculture solely on the renewable fuels industry ignores key factors that play a greater role," said Bob Dinneen, the association's president.
There has been a rush to developing biofuels, especially ethanol from corn and cellulosic feedstock such as switchgrass and wood chips, as a substitute for gasoline. President Bush signed energy legislation in December that mandates a six-fold increase in ethanol use as a fuel to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022, calling the requirement key to weaning the nation from imported oil.
The new "green" fuel, whether made from corn or other feedstocks, has been widely promoted — both in Congress and by the White House — as a key to combating global warming. Burning it produces less carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas, than the fossil fuels it will replace.
During the recent congressional debate over energy legislation, lawmakers frequently cited estimates that corn-based ethanol produces 20% less greenhouse gases in production, transportation and use than gasoline, and that cellulosic ethanol has an even greater benefit of 70% less emissions.
The study released Thursday by researchers affiliated with Princeton University and a number of other institutions maintains that these analyses "were one-sided" and counted the carbon benefits of using land for biofuels but not the carbon costs of diverting land from its existing uses.
"The other studies missed a key factor that everyone agrees should have been included, the land use changes that actually are going to increase greenhouse gas emissions," said Tim Searchinger, a research scholar at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and lead author of the study.
The study said that after taking into account expected worldwide land-use changes, corn-based ethanol, instead of reducing greenhouse gases by 20%, will increases it by 93% compared to using gasoline over a 30-year period. Biofuels from switchgrass, if they replace croplands and other carbon-absorbing lands, would result in 50% more greenhouse gas emissions, the researchers concluded.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

This is just the beginning. It's a long way to November, so keep your eyes, ears, and minds open to avoid the lies and false allegations that will continue to come Obama's way. Then make sure to discuss them with your friends and family so they become and, just as importantly, stay informed.


Posted by: Anthony | September 11, 2008 12:58 PM

**********

So, Anthony did YOU write "Yes" on the questionnaire Obama claimed he didn't fill out? Or on the one his handwriting was on, but he didn't "see the question"?

Posted by: Scott | September 11, 2008 1:05 PM | Report abuse

This is just the beginning. It's a long way to November, so keep your eyes, ears, and minds open to avoid the lies and false allegations that will continue to come Obama's way. Then make sure to discuss them with your friends and family so they become and, just as importantly, stay informed.


Posted by: Anthony | September 11, 2008 12:58 PM

**********

So, Anthony did YOU write "Yes" on the questionnaire Obama claimed he didn't fill out? Or on the one his handwriting was on, but he didn't "see the question"?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

This is just the beginning. It's a long way to November, so keep your eyes, ears, and minds open to avoid the lies and false allegations that will continue to come Obama's way. Then make sure to discuss them with your friends and family so they become and, just as importantly, stay informed.


Posted by: Anthony | September 11, 2008 12:58 PM

**********

So, Anthony did YOU write "Yes" on the questinnaire Obama claimed he didin't fill out? Or on the one his handwriting was on, but he didn't "see the question"?

Posted by: Scott | September 11, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

I am so glad there is one Republican out there who still has some sort of semblance of class and dignity. I don't agree with his politics, but Mike Huckabee is a great man and God bless him.

OBAMA/BIDEN 08

Posted by: Andrew | September 11, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

""When a 1996 questionnaire surfaced that had asked if Mr. Obama supported banning all handguns, his one-word written answer was "yes."

Don't fall for the nonsense.

The only thing one needs to understand about this NRA campaign is that they are not protecting the gun rights of the average hunter or law abiding gun owner, they are protecting gun companies sales to gang bangers and criminals who account for a large percentage of their revenue.

Gun companies get a new sale every time a gun owner replaces a stolen weapon, which is far more often than one would think. Over 600,000 firearms are stolen every year in the U.S. Instead of working to make their guns more traceable and the streets safer, the gun companies want to protect their lucrative indirect and repeat sales to gang members and criminals.

While the NRA claims they are protecting the rights of hunters and citizens to bear arms, they are also protecting the right of criminals to have easy access to automatic weapons and high kill rate ammunition so they can keep our emergency rooms full of 5 year old kids caught in the cross fire of turf wars, and urban shoot outs over "respect". Hunters and law abiding citizens have no need for those types of high powered weapons and ammunition.

And, as revealed by ABC News, the NRA (working with the Bush Administration) is also protecting gun and ammunition sales to the Mexican drug cartels, who, according to U.S. law enforcement statistics, get more than 90% of their guns from the U.S. 3,500 people have been murdered by the Mexican drug cartels in the last 15 months, 2,000 of them law enforcement officials.

The number of U.S. deaths from gun violence are almost 10 times the numbers in Mexico. According to a 2007 New York Times article, 29,569 Americans died from gun violence in 2004, that's 81 deaths every day. An additional 176 people are injured daily from gun violence (64,389 in 2004). The CDC has updated their site to include statistics from 2005 (the latest year full statistics are available) and gun deaths rose that year to 30,694.

By comparison, 4,092 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq during the last five years at the time of this article. Approximately 150,000 Americans have been killed at home from gun violence during the same period.

So who is the NRA protecting, U.S. citizens or gun company sales?

The laws Barack Obama supports that the NRA are vehemently against include sensible acts like:

Mandatory waiting periods to purchase a gun

Requiring citizens to actually register their firearms

Mandatory micro stamping of guns to aid tracing weapons

Banning inexpensive handguns that make it easier for criminals to acquire

Limit gun purchases to one gun a month

Require training for gun owners

Restrict gun ownership to citizens 21 and older

Eliminate right to carry concealed weapons

Ban gun shops from operating within 5 miles of a school

Ban resale of police firearms which include high powered assault weapons

Ban high capacity ammunition magazines that are often used by gang members in drive by shootings and not needed to kill a deer

Those do not sound the like rantings of a crazy person hell bent on denying citizens the right to bear arms. They sound like well thought out solutions to curb gun deaths. Training citizens to safely handle firearms, restricting access to guns and assault ammunition by criminals, registering guns and making them more traceable, those are all the acts of common sense, despite what the NRA wants citizens to believe.

They proposals do, however, affect the pocket books of gun manufacturers, so the NRA, acting as the large bully lobbyist group they have become, throw a public fit and get headlines. Unfortunately most Americans do not go beyond the headlines and find out the facts to a story, much less a political candidate.

We've experienced 8 years of high crimes and misdemeanors. We can't change this country if we turn a blind eye to the corruption and mind controlling ways of the powers that be.

This is just the beginning. It's a long way to November, so keep your eyes, ears, and minds open to avoid the lies and false allegations that will continue to come Obama's way. Then make sure to discuss them with your friends and family so they become and, just as importantly, stay informed.

Posted by: Anthony | September 11, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Good for Huckabee for a call to getting back to the issues.

It's hard to believe that McCain (or McSame as some people are calling him... and perhaps rightly so, because he is unfortunately making a mockery of the republican party) has been campaigning for so long and hasn't had the courage to talk about the issues. Instead, he has chosen to make the election a circus.

He can't even campaign on his own, and he sure made the wrong choice in terms of a VP.

What kind of foreign policy experience does she have? Zero.

McSame has chosen a person for VP who is totally and completely unprepared to protect the country or have a dialogue with foreign leaders.

Why would he make this choice when there were so many better choices for a running mate? Why?

I have been a long time republican supporter, but this is ridiculous.

One final note. I think that there are many more republicans who would have been much better choices for president for this election.

I think that it will be the single biggest political mistake in United States history if John McCain wins this election with the joke of a running mate he has.

Posted by: Paul | September 11, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

John (the POW- did I mention that before) McCain has hired all the sleaze ball campaign smear artists that were employed by George Bush to defeat him in the 2000 primary. His entire staff is made up of ex Bush White House refugees.

What does that say about the man?

He is also hanging out with the same corporate lobbyists that he is going to seek "reform" against.

Please take a look at the picture of him boarding a luxury yacht belonging to a known con man from Italy with his campaign advisor Rick Davis. What on earth was the old curmudgeon doing in Montenegro on his 70th birthday? His campaign said, "nothing came out of it.?"

"The Nation" will publish a picture tomorrow of John McCain on the yacht of a convicted con man and Italian playboy, Raffaello Follieri, and his girlfriend Anne Hathaway.

John McCain's campaign has confirmed that he did in fact meet with Raffaello Follieri and Anne Hathaway.

This is not a picture of a "Maverick" Delusional old fool would be a better description of him.

http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-82897

Posted by: Lydia | September 11, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

"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."

Wait, do we have handguns in Montana, Virginia, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan....?

Posted by: Scott | September 11, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Real Clear Politics today-

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 12:39 PM | Report abuse

NY Time 6/17/08

Interrogation Tactics
Mr. McCain has battled the Bush administration on a number of bills to end torture by the U.S. But this year he voted against a bill to force the Central Intelligence Agency to abide by the rules set out in the Army field manual on interrogation. He said that a 2005 law he helped pass already prohibits the C.I.A. from “cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment.” But the same law gives the president the last word in establishing specific permissible interrogation techniques. The Bush administration has not ruled out waterboarding, considered illegal by Mr. McCain, as impermissible.

Posted by: Scott | September 11, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Don’t underestimate the Barracuda ( with or without lipstick.)

The Anchorage Daily News reporter stated,

“She can look you in the eye and tell you black is white.” That’s why they picked her. In her gubernatorial debates with some very heavy hitters, she was able to change the subject when it skirted any substantive issues with which she was not familiar with. She is a master at avoidance.

She fits right in with the McSame campaign in their ability to put constant slime and lies out about their opponent.

The latest “sex education” lie that Alan Keyes tried to use in his disastrous senate campaign is particularly sleazy and totally untrue. The program that it was referring to was recommended by parent organizations, educators, the Illinois Medical society and others to teach young children how to deal with sexual predators, and to tell their parents if they were inappropriately touched. It never made it out of committee because of the usual right wing anxiety and fear of anything with the word “sex” in it being publicaly discussed.

Sarah Palin removed her children from the sex education classes in their Alaskan school. We all know what happened afterwards.

Posted by: Helen | September 11, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

"LET HE WHO IS WITHOUT SIN CAST THE FIRST STONE"


On this commemoration of 9/11/01, let us petition our government to get our own house in order:

"Government Agencies Support Domestic Torture and Gang-Stalking..."

http://nowpublic.com/world/government-agencies-support-domestic-torture-and-gang-stalking-says-noted-nowpublic-com-columnist
http://members.nowpublic.com/scrivener

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 12:26 PM | Report abuse


Obama's Education Plan is that HE can choose Private School for his kids BUT YOU can't choose it for your's-

from the NY Times-

September 9, 2008, 6:08 pm
The Rantings of a P.T.A. Mom
By Sandra Tsing Loh


Sandra Tsing Loh, a writer and a performer, is the author most recently of “Mother on Fire,” a comic memoir of her struggle to find a school in Los Angeles for her child to attend. (Full biography.)
As usual, Bruce Fuller and Lance Izumi , my fellow Education Watch contributors, make some fascinating points, none more startling to me than Lance’s casual throw-away that Barack Obama sends his children to private school. As a rabid public school Democrat, I crumpled in despair at the news.
Look, I am not in politics, I get no money from foundations, I do not get invited to lecture on third world eco-sustainability on luxury cruises. I have no highly placed blue-state friends and I will soon be a divorced woman because my die-hard Democratic husband will not brook any dissent, public or private, about our party.
Fair enough, fair enough, but here’s the thing: I do not know why Barack and Michelle Obama cannot send their children to a nice public school in Hyde Park. You understand that I am a bit unstable this election season (I voted for Hillary) and I do my research by erratically Googling from home. And all I know about Hyde Park — and, readers, I’d love to be corrected if I’m wrong — is that even though real estate prices seem high, the brave little public schools in its ZIP code seem to be flailing. Their scores on www.greatschools.net are largely 2’s and 4’s (on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being the best). When you read the tea leaves as manically as I do, those low numbers suggest that few children of educated, middle-class children are attending the local schools. Rather, they’ve withdrawn, with nary a ripple, into their whispery private enclaves.
Let us not even touch the term “community organizer,” so buffeted about, by both sides, like a balloon at a rock concert. Let us just say that if Mr. and Mrs. Obama — a dynamic, Harvard-educated couple — had chosen public over private school, they could have lifted up not just their one local public school, but a family of schools. First, given the social pressure (or the social persuasion of wanting to belong to the cool club), more educated, affluent families would tip back into the public school fold. And second, the presence of educated type-A parents with too much time on their hands ensures that schools are held, daily, to high standards.
But the significance of educated families opting in to their local public schools goes deeper than that. Research done by Richard Kahlenberg, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation, indicates that poor children benefit hugely by mixing, daily, with middle-class children (particularly those from families who value education). Conversely, as long as the deleterious effects of poverty, like rampant absenteeism and serious health issues, do not overwhelm the school culture, middle-class children suffer no ill effects. Furthermore, studies have shown that new immigrant children learn English faster and master the complex linguistic skills they need to succeed on standardized tests when they are in classrooms with native English speakers. Sadly, because of the widespread flight of higher-minded families, ethnic segregation (not to mention class segregation) in public schools today is so extreme that only one in five immigrant children will have even one native English-speaking friend.
So it is with huge grief-filled disappointment that I discovered that the Obamas send their children to the University of Chicago Laboratory School (by 5th grade, tuition equals $20,286 a year). The school’s Web site quotes all that ridiculous John Dewey nonsense about developing character while, of course, isolating your children from the poor. A pox on them and, while we’re at it, a pox on John Dewey! I’m sick to death of those inspirational Dewey quotes littering the Web sites of $20,000-plus-a-year private schools, all those gentle duo-tone-photographed murmurings about “building critical thinking and fostering democratic citizenship” in their cherished students, living large on their $20,000-a-year island.
Meanwhile, Joseph Biden, the Amtrak senator, standing up boldly for the right to be a Roman Catholic, appears to have sent all three children to the lovely looking Archmere Academy in Delaware. Archmere’s Web site notes some public school districts allow Archmere students to use public school buses. Well, isn’t that great — your tax dollars at work in the great state of Delaware because with $18,000 a year in tuition, they can’t afford their own buses.
Then again, a spot of happy news for the Democrats: not only did John McCain’s four children attend elite private schools in Arizona, but collective donations to their children’s private schools between 2001 and 2006, totaled $500,000.
And yes, I know I appear to be ranting on like a pit bull without lipstick, which brings me to the final nail in the coffin in this sorry election year. As a Democrat I am horrified that Sarah Palin is the one who snagged the deeply profound — and absolutely ignored by professional smart people — emotional real estate of “P.T.A. mother.” I too am, in fact, not just “my kids’ mom” but their Title I Los Angeles public school P.T.A. secretary. This unheard female howl is, for better or worse, what Ms. Palin has set out to tap into; it is real, and I am sick that we’ve let the Republicans charge this ground.
Sarah Palin’s children went to what looks like a humble little public school: Iditarod Elementary on Wasilla Fishhook Road. The school’s score on www.greatschools.net is a 4. That’s a lot of street cred, for a gun-totin’, snow-mobilin’ creationist-lovin’ lady.
Oh, I’m such a depressed, Democrat P.T.A. mother.

Posted by: Scott | September 11, 2008 12:25 PM | Report abuse

Obama thinks it's OK for HIS KIDS to choose private school, just not your's-
***************************************
from the NY Times

September 9, 2008, 6:08 pm
The Rantings of a P.T.A. Mom
By Sandra Tsing Loh


Sandra Tsing Loh, a writer and a performer, is the author most recently of “Mother on Fire,” a comic memoir of her struggle to find a school in Los Angeles for her child to attend. (Full biography.)
As usual, Bruce Fuller and Lance Izumi , my fellow Education Watch contributors, make some fascinating points, none more startling to me than Lance’s casual throw-away that Barack Obama sends his children to private school. As a rabid public school Democrat, I crumpled in despair at the news.
Look, I am not in politics, I get no money from foundations, I do not get invited to lecture on third world eco-sustainability on luxury cruises. I have no highly placed blue-state friends and I will soon be a divorced woman because my die-hard Democratic husband will not brook any dissent, public or private, about our party.
Fair enough, fair enough, but here’s the thing: I do not know why Barack and Michelle Obama cannot send their children to a nice public school in Hyde Park. You understand that I am a bit unstable this election season (I voted for Hillary) and I do my research by erratically Googling from home. And all I know about Hyde Park — and, readers, I’d love to be corrected if I’m wrong — is that even though real estate prices seem high, the brave little public schools in its ZIP code seem to be flailing. Their scores on www.greatschools.net are largely 2’s and 4’s (on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being the best). When you read the tea leaves as manically as I do, those low numbers suggest that few children of educated, middle-class children are attending the local schools. Rather, they’ve withdrawn, with nary a ripple, into their whispery private enclaves.
Let us not even touch the term “community organizer,” so buffeted about, by both sides, like a balloon at a rock concert. Let us just say that if Mr. and Mrs. Obama — a dynamic, Harvard-educated couple — had chosen public over private school, they could have lifted up not just their one local public school, but a family of schools. First, given the social pressure (or the social persuasion of wanting to belong to the cool club), more educated, affluent families would tip back into the public school fold. And second, the presence of educated type-A parents with too much time on their hands ensures that schools are held, daily, to high standards.
But the significance of educated families opting in to their local public schools goes deeper than that. Research done by Richard Kahlenberg, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation, indicates that poor children benefit hugely by mixing, daily, with middle-class children (particularly those from families who value education). Conversely, as long as the deleterious effects of poverty, like rampant absenteeism and serious health issues, do not overwhelm the school culture, middle-class children suffer no ill effects. Furthermore, studies have shown that new immigrant children learn English faster and master the complex linguistic skills they need to succeed on standardized tests when they are in classrooms with native English speakers. Sadly, because of the widespread flight of higher-minded families, ethnic segregation (not to mention class segregation) in public schools today is so extreme that only one in five immigrant children will have even one native English-speaking friend.
So it is with huge grief-filled disappointment that I discovered that the Obamas send their children to the University of Chicago Laboratory School (by 5th grade, tuition equals $20,286 a year). The school’s Web site quotes all that ridiculous John Dewey nonsense about developing character while, of course, isolating your children from the poor. A pox on them and, while we’re at it, a pox on John Dewey! I’m sick to death of those inspirational Dewey quotes littering the Web sites of $20,000-plus-a-year private schools, all those gentle duo-tone-photographed murmurings about “building critical thinking and fostering democratic citizenship” in their cherished students, living large on their $20,000-a-year island.
Meanwhile, Joseph Biden, the Amtrak senator, standing up boldly for the right to be a Roman Catholic, appears to have sent all three children to the lovely looking Archmere Academy in Delaware. Archmere’s Web site notes some public school districts allow Archmere students to use public school buses. Well, isn’t that great — your tax dollars at work in the great state of Delaware because with $18,000 a year in tuition, they can’t afford their own buses.
Then again, a spot of happy news for the Democrats: not only did John McCain’s four children attend elite private schools in Arizona, but collective donations to their children’s private schools between 2001 and 2006, totaled $500,000.
And yes, I know I appear to be ranting on like a pit bull without lipstick, which brings me to the final nail in the coffin in this sorry election year. As a Democrat I am horrified that Sarah Palin is the one who snagged the deeply profound — and absolutely ignored by professional smart people — emotional real estate of “P.T.A. mother.” I too am, in fact, not just “my kids’ mom” but their Title I Los Angeles public school P.T.A. secretary. This unheard female howl is, for better or worse, what Ms. Palin has set out to tap into; it is real, and I am sick that we’ve let the Republicans charge this ground.
Sarah Palin’s children went to what looks like a humble little public school: Iditarod Elementary on Wasilla Fishhook Road. The school’s score on www.greatschools.net is a 4. That’s a lot of street cred, for a gun-totin’, snow-mobilin’ creationist-lovin’ lady.
Oh, I’m such a depressed, Democrat P.T.A. mother.

Posted by: Scott | September 11, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Palin as VP is a very scary thing. Her education ends with a degree in Journalism. IN one of her interviews she stated she had no idea what a VP even did.

Seriously people?

Lets get back to the issues. Palin is an excuse from the Republican party to keep us occupied instead of comparing the facts between policies and campaigns.

Add my myspace. Same as my name.

Not Pro Obama, anti McBriliant_Palin_08

Posted by: McBriliant_Palin_08 | September 11, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

to jy2008:
Let's stick to the facts. We don't need to lie to win this election. per factcheck.org:
"Digging for "Dirt"

The ad also quotes the Wall Street Journal as saying that the Obama campaign "air-dropped a mini-army of 30 lawyers, investigators and opposition researchers to dig dirt on Governor Palin." That's also a distortion. The Wall Street Journal opinion article did not say that the Obama team was there to "dig dirt." It said they were there do "dig into her record and background." Maybe the McCain-Palin campaign knows something we don't about what's in Palin's record and background.

The full quote, from an item by conservative columnist John Fund, dated Sept. 9:

WSJ's John Fund, Sept. 9: Democrats have airdropped a mini-army of 30 lawyers, investigators and opposition researchers into Anchorage, the state capital Juneau and Mrs. Palin's hometown of Wasilla to dig into her record and background. My sources report the first wave arrived in Anchorage less than 24 hours after John McCain selected her on August 29.

Fund said the opposition researchers were mainly interested in a controversy surrounding Palin's firing of her public safety commissioner, Walt Monegan. Monegan has claimed he was dismissed because he wouldn't fire a state trooper who was in a divorce battle with Palin's sister; the Alaska Legislature is investigating whether Palin acted properly. Fund also stated that the Palin family has accused the trooper of "using a Taser on his 10-year-old stepson, drinking in his patrol car and illegally shooting a moose."

Now, that's "dirt."

Update, Sept. 10: After this article was posted, the Obama campaign contacted us to say that John Fund's article is wrong.

Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor, Sept. 10: John Fund's claim that we "air-dropped" 30 lawyers into Alaska is false. No one from the Obama campaign or the DNC has been sent to Alaska. We've asked Mr. Fund for a correction."

I find it surprising that the DNC or the Obama campaign have NO interest in Palin's history (I found it curious that we didn't seem to vet her very well, either.) I would seem to be a matter of course to research an opponent in an election, so we'll see if the claim that they sent "no-one" holds up.

In any case, jy2008, please get your facts straight. I recommend factcheck.org and snopes.com as generally reliable sources.

Cheers.

Posted by: McCainer | September 11, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

"
We can't compare Obama and Palin's resume, because Obama has been vetted for the last two years and has created the most expansive and efficient political organization/campaign in our nation's history. .........
"

Do you think this strength machine will be better than Bush's??????

Wake up! Soon you will become one of them

1/4 are racist
1/4 are liar
1/4 are stupid
1/4 are shameless.

Now you may add pig before or after the words above.

He sounds like God but act like doG.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

the Republicans have nothing to offer the voting public in the form of real change so they are grasping ar air in order to avoid the issues.
the people who see Sarah Palin as qualified for the job of vice president or even president are the same people who voted for George Bush because he looked like some one they could drink beer with.....Hmmmmm

Posted by: DAR | September 11, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Huckabee is worthy of much respect for making this call for the campaign to return to issues of subtance. Still, it probably won't happen, for one simple reason. Contrary to Huckabee's opinion, the Republicans can't win on the issues this year. The McCain campaign knows that full well, and that's why they keep trying to distract the voters and the media.

In other words: Sorry Mike, but that dog WILL hunt...

Posted by: Reverend Rock | September 11, 2008 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Obama just does not get it. DNC liberals just do not get it. It is not about lipstick on pig. It is about the following

"In “The Hunt for Sarah October,” the Wall Street Journal’s John Fund writes about a 30-lawyer S.W.A.T. team of Obama Democrats descending on Alaska in search of dirt related to “Palin’s troopergate.” They found nothing that hasn’t already aired about Palin’s alcoholic ex-brother-in-law who tasered his stepson."

No doubt most Americans want to see change.

Have you seen tiny bit of change by Chicago political poker players?

But People do breathe some fresh air from Alaska and they hope more.

And now Obama and DNC liberals are trying to kill the fresh source.

It is the time and opportunity to push real change in this country.

Do not just sit in church. Come out and join the force.

Posted by: jy2008 | September 11, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Back to the real issue, is Palin qualified to take over as President if something were to happen to John McCain?

We can't compare Obama and Palin's resume, because Obama has been vetted for the last two years and has created the most expansive and efficient political organization/campaign in our nation's history. He's a proven leader, but the media and the American people only have two months to vet Sarah Palin, who could become President if John McCain is elected. To me that seems a little irresponsible.

Posted by: b | September 11, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Obama just does not get it. DNC liberals just do not get it. It is not about lipstick on pig. It is about the following

"In “The Hunt for Sarah October,” the Wall Street Journal’s John Fund writes about a 30-lawyer S.W.A.T. team of Obama Democrats descending on Alaska in search of dirt related to “Palin’s troopergate.” They found nothing that hasn’t already aired about Palin’s alcoholic ex-brother-in-law who tasered his stepson."

No doubt most Americans want to see change.

Have you seen tiny bit of change by Chicago political poker players?

But People do breathe some fresh air from Alaska and they hope more.

And now Obama and DNC liberals are trying to kill the fresh source.

It is the time and opportunity to push real change in this country.

Do not just sit in church. Come out and join the force.

Posted by: jy2008 | September 11, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Huckabee is the REAL Maverick standing up to our party's inane focus on trivia!! We can face the Dems on the issues and win, instead of acting like pigs, with and without lipstick. If we keep this up I'll vote for Obama just because he is maintaining, or trying to, a higher plane of dialogue. Palin is already pushing the limits of what I consider acceptable positions (as much as I know of her positions, anyway,) on ANWAR, abortion, etc.
Make us proud, John.

Posted by: Michael | September 11, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

If'n he wants 'em to promote their take on the issues reckon he don't know they don't have none.

Posted by: mammyyel | September 11, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

"Dog won't hunt?"

Mike are you saying that a pitbull can be weak?

Posted by: teferet | September 11, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

Good for you Mike!

As much as some people want this election to be about people/personalities the really important thing is what the next administration can and will do for the country.

Posted by: nowanna1 | September 11, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Huckabee is head and shoulders above his peers. I'm sorry that because of his particular background he believes in teaching creationism in school and a few other things that are uncrossable lines for me. But he is fundamentally a decent, serious person and I am glad he is part of our national dialogue. There is just no comparison. He is the only prominent Republican who is comfortable throwing away the campaign "talking points" and it gives him an authenticity that is unmistakable. I will always watch when I see him on TV, because he usually has something interesting to say that is worth considering, even when I ultimately disagree with it.

Posted by: Fairfax Voter | September 11, 2008 11:43 AM | Report abuse

I heart Huckabee!

I will NEVER vote for him but he has my respect and admiration for this. I hope that if he runs for president again, he'll refrain from the very things he's railing against.

McCain used to be like this but unfortunately he let his ambition get the better of him. He is letting absolutely nothing stop him from getting the White House, even if it means losing every last bit of respect and goodwill he gained from liberals, conservatives and independents.

What a shame that he's stooped so low...

Posted by: around | September 11, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

I was raised Republican. Most of my relatives are Republican. Not surprisingly, they're also angry, racist, and afraid of the ever-changing world. I spend a lot of time trying to make sense of how these people I love can continue to support politicians who are morally bankrupt. I think it's largely tribal. I think that partisan identity combined with fear causes many good-hearted people to become mired in cynicism. They don't really believe in McCain (or Bush, whoever they're being steered towards) but they seem to find some solace in being part of a tribe--even when their tribe operates on lies, cynicism, and destruction.

Posted by: Jeff | September 11, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

If Huck were cuter, he'd be the next Prez.

Posted by: Seven Burke | September 11, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

What part of "drill here and drill now" is not energy POLICY?!

Posted by: JakeD | September 11, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

Good for him. Let's go Huck! Keep 'em honest!

Posted by: Chris | September 11, 2008 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Actually, I sort of like Huckabee above all the other Republican candidates during the primary, I guess it must be a southern thing.

Huckabee is correct. Obama has been pushing issues over the last 4 weeks, but the media forces the American public to hear stuff like "lipstick on pitbulls and pigs".

The McCain campaign is gambling bigtime on America accepting Palin as a potential president of the U.S. with America only getting to know her in 9 weeks. It is a brilliant strategy that may work for the McCain campaign, but will it work for America.

Posted by: Obama-Junkie | September 11, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company