Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Taking Politics Out of the White House

It was the summer of 1992, and I was a wet-behind-the-ears White House reporter, when I stumbled across what I was sure was a scandal hiding in plain sight. How can it be, I asked my far more senior Post colleague, the late, great Ann Devroy, that there is someone at the White House called the political director whose main job is to help George Bush (this was George H.W.) get reelected? That this person is paid by the taxpayers to help his own party?

Ann chuckled, indulgently, at my naïve sputtering. After all, I had arrived on the White House beat from the rarified atmosphere of the Supreme Court beat, and knew shockingly little about the rough and tumble of politics. Kid, she assured me -- Ann didn’t actually say “kid,” but it was implicit -- politics has been part of White Houses since the dawn of time, and so it will always be. Don’t worry about it.

I’ve thought back on that conversation from time to time -- sometimes in reflecting on the distance I’ve traveled from inexperienced junior ranger to crusty cynical veteran; more often, during the Bush II years, watching Karl Rove operate as the most powerful political director in memory. And it came to mind last night when John McCain, on 60 Minutes, said that as president, “I would move the political office out of the White House and into the Republican National Committee. We've got to have a White House that is without politics.”

Cue the crustiness: No White House is without politics, Senator. But McCain’s instincts are right, as I think mine were so many years ago. All politicians -- presidents included -- take politics into account, and there is nothing especially wrong with that. Elected officials responsive to the will of voters is, after all, what democracy contemplates. Presidents will always worry -- about the implications of their decisions on their party’s fortunes, about how to buttress their party's ranks in Congress or in the states, about getting reelected. But having the political director in-house invites an anything-goes, politics-reigns-supreme mentality. The discipline of moving the political operation to the separate, private entity of the political party serves as a useful reminder that while politics and governing are inevitably intertwined, the president’s day job is to represent all the people. McCain’s suggestion is a good one. Barack Obama should say he would do the same.

By Ruth Marcus  | September 22, 2008; 9:37 AM ET
Categories:  Marcus  | Tags:  Ruth Marcus  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The GOP's Self-Defeating Response to Troopergate
Next: Game-Changing Moments


Sen. McCain has made any number of good suggestions over the course of his career in government, and has also done things that contradict those suggestions.

The campaign he is running now is a campaign George W. Bush might have run, and is indeed being managed by some of the same people who worked for Bush's earlier campaigns. Would they be exiled from the White House if McCain won? I'm sorry, but how are we supposed to believe that?

Posted by: Zathras | September 22, 2008 9:57 AM | Report abuse

We are not offering a home for the President to have parties, entertain friends and read the Sunday funnies but to be on hand to do the most important job in America--run this country. They must be available 24-7. For McCain, it is not his retirement home. I think Mr. Rove will be very disappointed that he worked so hard with his vicious pit bull antics to be tossed out. I don't beleive any of it because McCain still hangs on to the Rove way of politics. We need a hard working President in the White House who will get the job done.

Posted by: Marlene Larkins | September 22, 2008 10:33 AM | Report abuse

Again the WaPo continues to report on the fringe aspects of this election and absolutely refuses to play either the corrupt man (McCain) or his deflated ball (policies).

Memo to the WaPo: Sen John McCain, a man who at the ripe age of 43 married into the Hensley-Marley-Lansky organized crime family and then used that fortune and network to launch his political career, has just run an ad accusing Barack Obama of being product of the "corrupt" Chicago machine.

Hello? When are you people going to get off your high horse, come to the defense of our Republic, and do the type of investigative reporting that you are supposedly famous for?

Or have you folks been bought off? This is an OUTRAGE!

Posted by: Deep Blue | September 22, 2008 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Ms. Marcus, your blog entry today about naked politics in the White House provides an interesting juxtaposition with your print column today about Obama's Social Security ads. You concluded there that those ads now show that Obama is "willing to do whatever it takes to win." To which I say, thank goodness. Our current problems are NOT equally the fault of both parties, but primarily of the GOP. And our political races are NOT characterized by equivalent falsehoods on both sides, but first and foremost from the Bush-McCain Republicans, with Obama now responding in kind. And you folks in the "mainstream" (read "old-fashioned") media have let the GOP get away with this for years. Remember chortling about how Al Gore invented the Internet? Now you are begining to call them on it, but too little, too late, and with too much of a felt obligation to be "even-handed". Let the Republicans squirm, let them squeal, let them explain "we only meant to privatize a portion of Social Security, and only for for people under 55." They and the Fred Hiatts of this world are responsible for our twin catastrophes at home and abroad, and Democrats' higher sense of honor has prevented them from calling these liars and sleaze merchants what they are. It is now time to fight fire with fire, and the only kind of post-partisanship many of us wish to see is a GOP forever discredited and marginalized. Whatever it takes? Bravo.

Posted by: Mike Ball | September 22, 2008 10:45 AM | Report abuse

"All politicians -- presidents included -- take politics into account"

I mean, obviously, right? Engineers take engineering into account, mathematicians take mathematics into account.

Posted by: TP | September 22, 2008 10:53 AM | Report abuse

I am surprised that no-more-wet-behind-the-ears White House reporter Ms. Ruth Marcus took seriously Sen. McCain's rhetoric-of-the-day, "I would move the political office out of the White House and into the Republican National Committee. We've got to have a White House that is without politics.”

Sen. McCain's various pronouncements since last spring have especially been highly amusing. He keeps on providing his "straight-talk" pronouncements with such an earnest demeanor! The cartoon in illustrates this marvelously.

Posted by: Observer | September 22, 2008 10:53 AM | Report abuse

McSame gets rid of the White House political office?

don't believe it for a second. The lying weasel is now saying the economy IS in trouble. He will do anything or, more importantly, say anything, just to get elected.

Posted by: Josephus | September 22, 2008 10:56 AM | Report abuse

Ruth, you may be a crusty old ranger, but you just got rolled by Republican spin. The only reason McCain is decrying the politicization of the White House is because he is under intense criticism for hiring the Bush team to engage in Rovian tactics in the election. Why don't you ask him if he will rid of his team of Rove and his ilk and stop they outright lies?

Posted by: scientist1 | September 22, 2008 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Mike Ball: Bravo.

Posted by: Judy | September 22, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

All I can say is that is a despicable that the WaPo will allow a organized crime network's front man to run for POTUS without calling them on it.

You people (WaPo) are aiding and abetting; and you ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

As for the folks in the peanut gallery, google: Hensley Marley Lansky
or read this article by the New York Times

Historians will look back at this election and will write scorching indictments against the people and the press who, apparently, would rather be criminally complicit idiots than responsible Patriots.

Posted by: Deep Blue | September 22, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

All I can say is that is a despicable that the WaPo will allow a organized crime network's front man to run for POTUS without calling them on it.

You people (WaPo) are aiding and abetting; and you ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

As for the folks in the peanut gallery, google: Hensley Marley Lansky
or read this article by the New York Times

Historians will look back at this election and will write scorching indictments against the people and the press who, apparently, would rather be criminally complicit idiots than responsible Patriots.

Posted by: Deep Blue | September 22, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse

This is changing the subject, but I am disappointed in Ms Marcus’s leading column ‘Closing the Whopper Gap’. Ms Marcus relied on criticism of Obama’s speech warning senior citizens of Social Security privatization under McCain. The problem is Obama is not lying.

McCain has long supported some form of Social Security privatization. To just talk about McCain’s support of Social Security privatization only in the context of President Bush’s most recent proposed plan is somewhat disingenuous. Many Republicans feel that Social Security is a form of socialism and will try to dismantle the Social Security program one piece at a time (just ask Grover Norquist). Both Bush and McCain proposed some form of Social Security privatization during the run-up to the 2000 presidential campaign. On December 14, 1999 McCain told Fox News “…allow people to invest part of their taxes earmarked for Social Security to investment, in investments of their choice. I am convinced that that will make the Social Security system solvent.” If ideas floated by both McCain and Bush had made it into law during Bush’s first term, then indeed, some of the seniors in the Obama Florida audience could have had partially privatized Social Security. Further, earlier this year, McCain supported at least partial privatization of social security.

True--Obama is engaging in hyperbole when he says that “Millions would've watched as the market tumbled and their nest egg disappeared before their eyes.” Even if McCain’s or Bush’s privatization efforts had been successful during Bush’s first term, the losses due to social security privatization would have been minimal. But this is a matter of emphasis, not lying. Politicians often engage in hyperbole. No one called Rudy Giuliani a liar when he pursed his lips and pronounced ‘Community Organizer’ as if it were a bad word--and then acted as if he did not know what a community Organizer does. Yet, as a Mayor and Attorney General--Giuliani knows exactly what community organizers do. In that particular instance Giuliani, was emphasizing a point.

At best, Ms Marcus’s report is another indication of the false evenhandedness. Comparing something that is 5% true against something that is 95% true is misleading. Saying that McCain is lying when he constantly repeats that middle income people will receive a tax increase under Obama’s proposals is a factual report. Saying that Obama is lying when he addressed senior citizens about potential perils of Social Security privatization under McCain is only partially factual.

There is a problem when the fact checkers do not tell all of the facts.

Posted by: Prof Reader | September 22, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Didn't McCain say he wanted to run a high-minded, no-smear, above-board campaign, too?

Why are you passing this pathological liar's statements as possibly true?

If you couldn't smim and John McCain asked you to dive in a deep pool, promising to jump in and save you if you had any trouble, would you have a feeling of trust there?

There are plenty of us who don't have a feeling of trust with pathological liars.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

why keep asking mccain about the future of america and not direct the questions to joe lieberman? What does AIPAC want for America, senator lieberman? Once this question answered with transparency the debates should begin.

Posted by: kid | September 22, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

McCain is really banking that you all out there are really, really stupid.

My money, like the GOP's... says the same: that Americans are too stupid to pick the best man.

I am sure you all won't dissapoint.

Posted by: please be stupid on Nov 4 | September 22, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

What did McCain do as Bush politicized the Federal Government more than any president in History? Nothing. What did he do as the Bush Crime Family went to war, disregarded Science, politicized the DoJ, etc, etc.??? He supported Bush more than 90% of the time. The old maverick was caught and branded with a big old GWB on his left rump. Owned Lock, Stock and Barrel by the Republican Party. A failing brand if you ask most Americans.

Posted by: thebob.bob | September 22, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

"What did McCain do as Bush politicized the Federal Government more than any president in History? Nothing. What did he do as the Bush Crime Family went to war, disregarded Science, politicized the DoJ, etc, etc.??? He supported Bush more than 90% of the time. The old maverick was caught and branded with a big old GWB on his left rump. Owned Lock, Stock and Barrel by the Republican Party. A failing brand if you ask most Americans."

Posted by: thebob.bob

Couldn't have said it better. McCain will say anything to win at this point. It's actually becoming humorous (if not really scary). If I were a friend of the family I'd have to ask if he didn't weren't exhibiting the first signs of dementia.

Posted by: us liberal | September 22, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

The Bush-McCain-Republican way of economics DOES NOT WORK. It never did and never will. The markets have crashed and burned, the American people are now footing the bill yet again in the trillions of dollars for the same corporations and Republicans who own them that ruined us economically. When will Americans ever learn. OUR money is now paying THEIR debts, that same money will not go to schools, jobs, environment, Medicare, social security, you wait people, the worst is yet to come unless you elect people who know how to handle this, Obama knows, the Democrats know, just ask Bill Clinton, HE knew. We NEVER had problems like this when Clinton was our President, things were the COMPLETE opposite! Stop listening to idiots like McCain and Bush, they LIE LIE LIE, look what they have done to us!

Posted by: Democrats 08 | September 22, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Your invitation:

"We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features."

Reading the tripe dumped on this comment page tends to make me think you have few readers capable of analyzing anything.

How sad.

Posted by: edk | September 22, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Well, Marcus, since that day you transitioned, I see you still haven't found anything worth writting about.

Please, dear, do us all a favor and find a new job.

Posted by: basementfrog | September 22, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

right on, mr. ball and judy. now is not the time for civility or the high road. mr. rove et al have managed to instantiate their rulebook. let's play by those rules and worry about changing them when this criminal clown car leaves town

Posted by: about time | September 22, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

How about we take CORRUPTION out of the White House?

Since the Grant Administration's Whiskey Ring, Republicans have been deregulating (or looking the other way) and allowing their business brethren to run amok.

The only difference between now and then that is 130 years ago the lobbyists met the Senators in dark alleys for the payoffs.

Posted by: Deep Blue | September 22, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

My dear Marcus, do you actually believe what you write, or do you figure it's just part of the job? I don't mind people having to work for a living -- we all have to do that, except for the very rich -- but you might want to bear in mind some of the implications of what you trot out for us. You actually believe all that about McCain wanting to take politics out of the White House? I've got to go either with naive or with pandering here; neither has much to do with what a good newspaper does in helping to contribute to a healthy ecology of rhetoric in a free society.

Posted by: Roger | September 22, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Like McLame's other bipartisan gestures (a Dem in the Cabinet, get rid of the WH political director, etc), this is just mindless spin and shameless pandering to those who still harbor the now-ludicrous notion that McLame is an "independent." Gee, if you're such a maverick, run as an independent! Whatever, you're a Repug neocon through and through (as if PitBull would let you remove the political director!). Just more of the same lies-

Posted by: Jake D. | September 22, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

While I don't disagree entirely with Ms. Marcus, I think she is responding to the Republican way of doing political business, not the Democratic approach.

Can she - or any WaPo reader - come up with the name of the "political director" under Clinton? That would be Minyon Moore, who was active in national political affairs at a fairly minor level before her White House appointment. Did she ever do anything in the least controversial in that position?

Contrast that with Karl Rove,who as the so-called political director seized control of the policy apparatus in the West Wing, to the country's (and his party's) detriment.

I think Ms. Marcus is constructing a bit of a straw man here. The Democrats didn't abuse this position; the Republicans sure did. McCain is responding to Republican malfeasance.

Posted by: Mary | September 22, 2008 5:55 PM | Report abuse

McCain may be 73 years old and in some one's mind he may not be too old still he is showing more signs of oldage, panic, anger, frustration,impatient,and above all deception. He is not only embracing Bush-Cheney's failed policies but accepting their core nature of lying, lying and lying with smile without any fear or shame.Old men and women have to think more seriously and compare McCain with their own life style and ask themselves how many things you can remember and how many times you can forget the matter. Are you fit for the White House/ if not how come McCain? Obam is a gift of the Almighty and we all should accept it with pride, thanks and pleasure.

Posted by: john dahodi | September 22, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

McCain would take politics out of the White House? Is this the same McCain that hasn't had the same opinion three weeks running during this whole campaign? Ruth, these are the people who called their slash and burn environmental politics the "Clear Skies" act and the "Healthy Forest" act. When McCain says he's taking politics out of the White House, he means he's tripling the space presently allotted for it. Don't you speak GOP yet?

Posted by: Lie Lie Lie | September 22, 2008 7:48 PM | Report abuse

After being suckered in once again by John McCain's lovely words, what's next for Ms. Marcus to recommend? Compassionate conservatism?

Posted by: Andy | September 22, 2008 9:05 PM | Report abuse

Bush promised to cut big government and C2O as well. McCain's "suggestions" will go the way of Bush's "promises". They have the same handlers.

Posted by: FLRepublican | September 22, 2008 9:27 PM | Report abuse

One has to feel pity for people who no longer have the ability to honestly look at both sides of a coin and see the truth. And I'm not talking about Ruth.

Posted by: Lodie | September 22, 2008 9:29 PM | Report abuse

Marcus is a political reporter. Period. We are presently engaged in the greatest economic crisis in 75 years. Ann, why don't you and your colleagues left and right, take a break for a couple of weeks. You are in over your heads.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 22, 2008 9:31 PM | Report abuse

Marcus is a political reporter. Period. We are presently engaged in the greatest economic crisis in 75 years. Ann, why don't you and your colleagues left and right, take a break for a couple of weeks. You are in over your heads.

Posted by: Lou Sernoff | September 22, 2008 9:32 PM | Report abuse

I'm amazed by all the posts trying to link Bush and McCain. McCain has been a pain in the rump to Bush and most conservatives in Congress. Most true conservative voters strongly disliked McCain, but he got the nomination because he is a moderate and right now we really need a moderate. Not a left wing, party loyalist who has to look to his party to learn how to vote. Unfortunately, should Obama make it to the presidency, his teleprompters won't be there to tell him how to think when real leadership is needed. Or will they? Even scarier. Maybe all of those swooning over him now will let him get away with "present" if we have another terrorist attack. Wake up America.

Posted by: bjp | September 22, 2008 9:32 PM | Report abuse

PALIN didn't even have a U.S. passport until 2007 (LAST YEAR!)
Palin,I can see Russia, is going to spend a couple of weeks getting Foreign Policy experience at the UN. Can you imagine graduating from a college course on Foreign Policy in three weeks? Then again if you went to college like Palin (5 colleges in 6 years) than you can get away with anything.

Posted by: I can see Russia | September 22, 2008 9:34 PM | Report abuse

It would probably be very revealing to ask major losers in last weeks financial fiasco, I am talking about the upper class, the "elite", ask them how they feel about social security now? and are they still planning to collect their share, or are their nest eggs enough for them?

Posted by: J Lauber | September 22, 2008 9:54 PM | Report abuse

bjp, McCain moderate? ROFLMAO! He is as partisan as Bush, and how is siding with George Bush for 8 vetoes of the people's will, how is THAT moderate? Reach across the aisle to stab the opposition in the back alright!

Posted by: 2Funny | September 22, 2008 10:18 PM | Report abuse

Would someone explain how a tax increase on small business owners and small companies won't be a tax increase on the middle class?

Posted by: MarxBro | September 22, 2008 11:24 PM | Report abuse

Take politics out of the White House? The Bush Administration has been nothing but politics at the public's expense. They should be strung up as traitors of the country and traitors of the people. I'm serious. They are dirt. Karl Rove is worse than dirt and now his proteges run Palin's campaign and McCain's.

Posted by: Jim | September 22, 2008 11:53 PM | Report abuse

McCain isn't a "moderate", he's an opportunistic and nakedly ambitious man who has sold his soul to the devil in exchange for a successful career in politics. Who's the real John McCain?

1950s: the punk who didn't take his education or training seriously

1960s: the hero who got shot down and was tortured

1970s: the womanizer who ditched his first wife for an organized crime princess

1980s: the corrupt politician who cavorted with Keating to the Caymans, while partying hard with the womanizing Tower crowd, and then got his hand caught in the savings & loan scandal that defrauded us taxpayers of billions

1990s: the 'reformer' who tried to whitewash his past be fighting 'corruption'

2000: the 'straight talker' who railed against Bush's tax cuts and the far right religious agents of intolerance

2008: the so-called moderate who embraces Bush's failed economic policies of tax cuts and deregulation, the guy who selfishly and recklessly selected a far right loon for VP.

Does McCain even know who he is? Does he even still have a soul?

Posted by: Deep Blue | September 23, 2008 12:03 AM | Report abuse

politics is going to be the same no matter where it is at.bottom line is the american worker is gonna lose we pay the bills and no one who is working on low paying job probally cannot tell the difference in parties. I believe every polication is on the take. some just get's more than others .rich get richer poor get to pay the bills for them. 35,000 and under is the back bone of america.nothing is free .they will tell you anything to get elected.then forget you until next election.if it sound's to good to be true it probally is.cut tax don't believe it.the truth is they will have to raise them. or maybe cut out programs for the eldery. Bottom line money has to come from
somewhere it won't out of thier pockets.

Posted by: troy ---- georgia | September 23, 2008 9:14 AM | Report abuse

History is being made in this election. The Amercian public will not be fooled by McSame & Palin. One is a liar and the other in in silence because she has something to hide. A vote for Obama is a real vote for change. The only thing that changes in the Palin/McCsame ticket is thier opnions everyday. Two fat liars. Obama 2009!!

Posted by: Toilet | September 23, 2008 9:25 AM | Report abuse

Hmmm, blame Bush for the failings of the economy?? how about the Democrats and their failed policies? or are you sheep gonna elect a left wing socialist? You think Obama is going for change, think again, he will say or do anything to get elected, as any politician will. WAKE UP PEOPLE. The democrats want a socialist/communist run country because they don't want Americans to be successful. They want to tell you how to live, work, and play. As for democracy, read the Constitution again, we are a REPUBLIC. Democracy is for sheeple who don't think for themselves and the mob mentality. Talk about Palin, 5 colleges in 6 years, what about Obama? If you sheep think that Obama means real change for the better, think again!!!!He is a post turtle( meaning someone put him there, has no clue how to do anything, and will sit there until someone tells him what to do)! I think those of you left-wing zealots needs to wake up before you have us in the next Russia or Cuba type government. Mccain is not the ideal candidate, but he is a whole sight better than Obama( another lawyer, and commie pig!) or maybe muslim pig.... who is running Obama? He can't speak without a teleprompter, he lies, and attacks worse than the republicans ever thought about doing. Politics is dirty, no matter which side you are on. Pay attention sheeple, vote for someone who will do the job right, not some left-wing "community organizer" who will put our economy in the HOLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and our way of life into the GUTTER!!!

Posted by: Independent Voter | September 23, 2008 10:03 AM | Report abuse

Memo to Washington Post:

Start reporting on the issues and be fair about it. You McCainites are unbelievable. Can you say KEATING FIVE, especially NOW.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 23, 2008 10:48 AM | Report abuse

To (frantic) Independent Voter: Please take a breath and notice that it's the Bush Administration who is currently socializing the USA, and that it is Bush who has restricted our privacy rights in his eight years, claiming that he has to "listen in" to private citizens to save us from potential terrorists. Obama, with no family money or name or support, went to Columbia as an undergrad and to Harvard Law School, where he earned (note the word, earned) a place on the Harvard Law Review. You may not know what that is, but it's a very hard position to earn, especially on your own. He became president of Harvard Law Review. These are facts, sir. Sarah Palin did attend, and drop out of, a string of colleges. Fact. She did get a degree in journalism from Idaho. McCain was near the bottom of his class in college. He got into the naval academy thanks to his father and grandfather, an advantage Obama did not have.

Why do McCain supporters use only name-calling and no fact or logic in their argument? They've been trained by "political operatives" like Rove. Not a good thing for the electorate.

Posted by: cturtle1 | September 23, 2008 11:12 AM | Report abuse

McCain’s suggestion is a good one. Barack Obama should say he would do the same? Why do pundits/journalists always insist on holding Obama to a different standard that the republicans operate under?Republicans can attack Obama, lie about him, distort and take Obama's comments out of context, and lie some more without media examination or rebuttal? Why is it that republicans can do and say whatever they want, but Democrats must adhere to the Emily Post urles of etiquette, the Marquis of Queensberry rules, and
Roberts Rules of order? When will the media stop giving free passes to the republicans and start making THEM accountable?

Posted by: Thistle Rose | September 23, 2008 12:46 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: hi | September 23, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

u suck mccain

Posted by: myranda | September 23, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

I strongly suggest that obama be ellected because he's a good hearted person and hes not perfect like other people think they so might be . obama is trying and he will acomplish what so many young americans today possibly dream of being one day in the near or far future. i also think that obama can help change many lives he just needs a little support and acknolegement he will do good and me myself and many strong hoping americans beleive that obama can suceed as long as he stays on track and knows what to do and how to make the decissions to act....

Posted by: C.Reeves | September 23, 2008 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Independent voter:

I voted for Bush. He did put our economy in the HOLE and our way of life into the GUTTER.

When George H.W. Bush was done, US debt increased to 5.7T. During the Clinton administration, the federal budget was balanced and the federal deficit was erased. Then, George W. Bush increased the US debt to 9.5T (does not include the bailout) and he is not done yet.

When George W. Bush said "It's time for a change in Washington" back in October 2000, I did not think he will change the country to worse. John McCain has voted in line with Bush over 90%. I dont think "change is coming" if he is elected.

Posted by: Independent voter 2 | September 23, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

how did obama get thur college who paid for it? he was never blue collar I wonder if he was trained from child hood to do what he is doing? The middle east sure is excited about him why?Where does he get his money? Did he have a closed door meeting in Iraq as a iraq reporter said? questions unanswered the news media don't report any negiative stuff on obama He don't even have any old girl friend that has come out. this guy don't seem normal.maybe he don't like women he is a smooth speaker maybe to slick. he said he was his brother's keeper but will not give the man a dime if he will not help his brother what makes people think he will help them? Could it be that his bother said he was a muslim?any other person the news media would sent 100's of reporters

Posted by: need answers | September 23, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Shorter "need answers:"

N****r. N****r. N****r.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 23, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

I laughed when McCain said that about taking 'Politics' out of the White House. I immediately thought about Karl Rove's omnipresence in his current campaign. And asked myself? In the age of virtual communication, who needs an office to be a political director. Anybody can say that, but with McCain's track record of firing and distancing people in his campaign who are still only a web cam, cell phone, etc., and whose influence is obvious and ongoing, what makes him think all these people are just going to go away if he is elected. They are controlling him now and will control him then, why would anyone think any different no matter what he says about an office being occupied or not. I don't agree, Obama doesn't need to say a thing, He just has to do what he is doing, prove himself by his actions.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 23, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

McCain is the least credible major party nominee in history. He has reversed or contradicted himself on just about every stand he has taken over the last 10 years.

Posted by: mnjam | September 23, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

"We do not support government bailouts of private institutions. Government interference in the markets exacerbates problems in the marketplace and causes the free market to take longer to correct itself."

-- The 2008 Republican Party Platform, adopted earlier this month.

Posted by: Vixxen | September 23, 2008 10:36 PM | Report abuse

Check out his rise to glory below:

Obama 1996 - 2000
Senator Obama: promoted to Senior Lecturer in constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School. Elected to the Illinois Senate. Sponsored more than 800 bills. In 2000, lost a Democratic primary run for the U.S. House of Representatives to four-term incumbent Bobby Rush by a margin of two to one.

What mattered was that, beginning on Jan. 2, 1996, his campaigners began challenging thousands of petition signatures the other candidates in the race had submitted in order to appear on the ballot. Thus Mr. Obama would win his state Senate seat, months before a single vote was cast. Note that when he finished he was the ONLY democrat on the ballot. Republican candidate had to step aside for political reasons.

The 800 bills he ALLEDGEDLY sponsored were actually submitted by other democrats and all OBAMA did was date and stamp. He voted present 130 times on bills that would require him to step out of the box. Gained a reputation that the ‘then’ governor would make him a United States Senator.

2001 - 2004
Obama: reelected in 2002 and became chairman of the Illinois Senate's Health and Human Services Committee.
Initially the committee was looking at Health Care for all residents of Illinois. After accepting funding from insurance lobbyists he insured that universal healthcare became merely a policy goal instead of state policy, Basically learned how to again use his power to benefit himself at the expense of doing what was right for the residents of Illinois.

Publicly spoke out against the invasion of Iraq BEFORE the congressional authorization in 2002, and then again before the actual invasion in 2003. This was a given speech that sounded great but was actually a speech that was critical of the war BECAUSE it was distracting from the real issue regarding the black community in the United States. (Note he was given ORDERS by one of his Wealthy Supporters in Chicago to SPEAK OUT AGAINST THE WAR. Being a good Chicago Politiocian, he naturally followed the orders and took credit for speaking out.. but not on his own.)

Wrote and delivered the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.
The Black Elite in the DNC decided along with the good ole boys… that to put a Democrat President in the White House in 2008 that they needed to attract the black vote… and that a Black Harvard Lawyer named Obama was the one that they needed. He was seen as an upcoming star because he won the Illinois US Senate Seat. (See the real facts of how he won by such a large number.) No one knew the Republican Candidate)

November 2004: elected to the US Senate, receiving over 3.5 million votes, more than 70% of total.

Now this is an interesting election even by Chicago standards. Seems that the front runner (Hull) mysteriously become involved in a domestic abuse trial and withdrew his name from the race. (Sounds like the Chicago Political Machine may have dropped a dime on Blair.) So Obama had a cake walk to get the democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate Seat. (Reminds me of how he won his State Senate seat by having his legal team disqualify his opponent’s signature petitions. At the same time Jack Ryan won the Republican Nomination, but announced his withdrawal from the race — four days after the Chicago Tribune succeeded in persuading a California court to release previously-sealed child custody records containing embarrassing allegations by Ryan's ex-wife. Now how is that for being one LUCKY politician. Obama walked into the US Senate Seat, when the Republicans brought in the little known Keyes to run as a Republican. Now it looks like the Chicago Political Machine along with Ayers, Jackson, Rezko Wright and the rich and wealthy Black community in Chicago loaded the deck in Obama’s favor.

Also note that for a 'white middle-class individual to be considered for entrance into Harvard' they would have to be number one in their High School class. Be the top student at Occidental just to get into COLUMBIA, and the odds of them getting into HARVARD LAW school ARE SO GREAT.. they probably would win the lottery first.

Yet Obama has us believe (on FAITH) that he performed so brilliantly that he (had a 'B' average in High School) performed so brilliantly at Occidental, that he got into Columbia, and that he EARNED a slot into Harvard Law School. Then he and HARVARD expect us to believe that he PERFORMED SO BRILLIANTLY ACADEMICALLY that he EARNED his right to be EDITOR of THE HARVARD LAW REVIEW. (Now I challenge the Obama Campaign and any supporter to valid that he was the BEST CANDIDATE excluding the fact that he was BLACK instead of BI-RACIAL.)

Amazing that there are no thesis papers, no legal briefs, no academic records, no scholarships received, no national test scores, no IQ scores, no legal briefs from his teaching in Chicago, or ANY LEGAL writings that was required of Editors of the Review... UNTIL Obama was selected.
I suspect that he received 'special' grants, scholarships, academic treatment not because he was brilliant... but because of the fact that these institutions... needed to promote black scholars at the expense of better qualified female, and white male candidates. ( I would hope that somewhere, someplace there would be documentation that would prove me wrong. )

And the amazing thing is... the MSM does not question any of this.

Shame on the MSM and shame on the Obama Supporters that BELIEVE in his Lies.

Remember he is spending over 600 million of YOUR dollars to BUY each and every American Vote that he recieves. Amazing to think that you are being BOUGHT and selling out OUR Country to the RICH AND POWERFUL.

Posted by: Bob Miller | September 23, 2008 11:55 PM | Report abuse

Both sides point fingers and complain about the same things. Meanwhile the American people are going belly up!

Sean Kursawe

Posted by: Sean Kursawe | September 24, 2008 8:17 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company