...Imagine my surprise when I’m greeted by this lot over the weekend:Subject: Ron Paul Eliminates The IRS!
Subject: Iraq Scam Exposed, Ron Paul
Subject: IRS Fears Ron Paul?
Subject: Ron Paul Wins GOP Debate!
Subject: Ron Paul Exposes Federal Reserve
Etc.
They all linked YouTube searches for “ron paul” which results in the usual electoral propaganda you’d expect 372 days before an election.
Later in the day it changed however. With the usual addition of bayes poison, randomness in the subject lines and a tinyurl and no doubt some additional sending resources since they just burned a load, this campaign moved up a gear.
Subject: Ron Paul Wins GOP Debate! ydB
Subject: Ron Paul Wins GOP Debate! XZHMuk
Subject: Iraq Scam Exposed, Ron Paul qCnUa
Subject: IRS Fears Ron Paul? edukDy
Subject: Who Is Ron Paul? lyI
Subject: Ron Paul Stops Iraq War! nALGU
This is trivial stuff as I’m sure you can appreciate, but that tinyurl did catch my attention:
tinyurl 345s6g -redirects-> 301 Moved Permanently -to-> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeHWW5gbc0w
“This video has been removed due to terms of use violation.”
Now I have no idea what that video was (and frankly dear, I don’t give a damn!) but what struck me is that this would be a really efficient way to remove your competitions videos from youtube. I’m not picking on YouTube here, I believe almost any social site would do the same.There are 2 people I feel for in this messy situation: postmaster@*.gov and abuse@youtube.com
You’ll be seeing lots of this stuff in the coming months, the most worrying of which will be the false donation solicitations and finishing with incorrect dates for actual polling day!I wonder how many candidates have EV certs? or “security logos” on their donation sites.
There's no way to know whether it's being done by a misguided supporter, or by someone trying to embarrass the campaign. Wired notes that Paul's supporters tend to be a very tech-savvy bunch, and are very vocal online. Wired notes, "Some participants in the online political world have long suspected Paul's technically sophisticated fan base of manipulating online tools and polls to boost the appearance of a wide base of support."
No matter who's doing it, though, expect this to be only the beginning of online political dirty tricks by many others. When power, money, and egos are involved, things get very nasty very quickly. One way or another, it'll all show up online.
The jury first awarded $2.9 million in compensatory damages. It returned in the afternoon with its decision to award $6 million in punitive damages for invasion of privacy and $2 million for causing emotional distress.
Snyder's attorney, Craig Trebilcock, had urged jurors to determine an amount "that says don't do this in Maryland again. Do not bring your circus of hate to Maryland again."
The father of a Marine killed in Iraq took the stand today in his invasion of privacy suit against a fundamentalist church that pickets soldiers' funerals, saying protesters carrying signs at his son's burial made him sick to his stomach.
Albert Snyder said he had hoped for a private funeral for his son, Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder.
"They turned this funeral into a media circus and they wanted to hurt my family," Snyder testified. "They wanted their message heard and they didn't care who they stepped over. My son should have been buried with dignity, not with a bunch of clowns outside."
Albert Snyder of York, Pa., the father of a Westminster Marine who was killed in Iraq, today won his case in a Baltimore federal court against members of Topeka, Kan.-based Westboro Baptist Church who protested at his son's funeral last year.
The jury of five women and four men awarded Snyder $2.9 million in compensatory damages. The amount of punitive damages to be awarded has not yet been decided. The jury deliberated for about two hours yesterday and much of today.
Snyder was the first in the nation to attempt to hold members of Westboro Baptist Church legally liable for their shock protests at military funerals after the church protested the military's inclusion of gays at the funeral of Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder, a 2003 Westminster High School graduate who died March 3, 2006, in a vehicle accident in Anbar province.
In June 2006, Snyder sued the tight-knit fundamentalist Christian church and three of its members individually. The father argued that Westboro's demonstrations exacerbated his pain and suffering in March 2006 while he mourned the death of his only son.
Specifically, he charged that they violated his privacy, intentionally inflicted emotional harm and engaged in a conspiracy to carry out their activities. The jury decided in Snyder's favor on every count.
The church and its members maintained that they did nothing wrong. They based their legal defense on the First Amendment, arguing that their protests were constitutionally protected. Their attorneys told jurors yesterday that Westboro members were expressing closely held religious beliefs about an immoral society, including the military, that has endorsed homosexuality.
The Synder website has legal documents from the case here. Send him a note of congratulations and thanks here.
The fight’s not over.
The Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) does exactly that on a page that is headed with "Thank God for Katrina".New Orleans, symbol of America, seen for what it is: a putrid, toxic, stinking cesspool of fag fecal matter.
America is irreversibly doomed. It is a sin to pray for the good of this evil fag nation.
Pray for more dead bodies floating on the fag-semen-rancid waters of New Orleans.
Those statements were all highlighted on the Katrina page.
Here is a video on their site. Watch the cop in this. He is disgusted.
On the page that shows what this disgusting, pathetic group, is about it says:WBC engages in daily peaceful sidewalk demonstrations opposing the homosexual lifestyle of soul-damning, nation-destroying filth. We display large, colorful signs containing Bible words and sentiments, including: GOD HATES FAGS, FAGS HATE GOD, AIDS CURES FAGS, THANK GOD FOR AIDS, FAGS BURN IN HELL, GOD IS NOT MOCKED, FAGS ARE NATURE FREAKS, GOD GAVE FAGS UP, NO SPECIAL LAWS FOR FAGS, FAGS DOOM NATIONS, THANK GOD FOR DEAD SOLDIERS, FAG TROOPS, GOD BLEW UP THE TROOPS, GOD HATES AMERICA, AMERICA IS DOOMED, THE WORLD IS DOOMED, etc.
On their front page, under the "featured posts" label, some of the headlines read:
Thank God for the California fires
Typical fag-ass American soldiers
If you need any further proof of how sick and twisted these people are, then just click and go to their site, see how much you can read before feeling sick to your stomach.
Russert: Senator Clinton, Governor of New York Eliot Spitzer has proposed giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. He told the Nashua, New Hampshire, Editorial Board it makes a lot of sense.THEN THE FLOP:Why does it make a lot of sense to give an illegal immigrant a driver's license?
Clinton: Well, what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is fill the vacuum left by the failure of this administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform. We know in New York we have several million at any one time who are in New York illegally. They are undocumented workers. They are driving on our roads. The possibility of them having an accident that harms themselves or others is just a matter of the odds. It's probability.
So what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is to fill the vacuum. I believe we need to get back to comprehensive immigration reform because no state, no matter how well intentioned, can fill this gap. There needs to be federal action on immigration reform.
Russert: Does anyone here believe an illegal immigrant should not have a driver's license?
(Unknown): Believe what?
Russert: An illegal immigrant should not have a driver's license.
Dodd: This is a privilege. And, look, I'm as forthright and progressive on immigration policy as anyone here. But we're dealing with a serious problem here, we need to have people come forward. The idea that we're going to extend this privilege here of a driver's license I think is troublesome, and I think the American people are reacting to it.
We need to deal with security on our borders. We need to deal with the attraction that draws people here. We need to deal fairly with those who are here.
But this is a privilege. Talk about health care, I have a different opinion. That affects the public health of all of us.
But a license is a privilege, and that ought not to be extended, in my view.
Clinton: Well, I just want to add, I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do...
A day after she appeared to struggle to give her views on the subject, Hillary Rodham Clinton offered support today for Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s effort to award New York driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, as her campaign sought to contain potentially damaging fallout from a what her own supporters saw as a tense and listless debate performance.
Mrs. Clinton’s statement affirming her support of Mr. Spitzer in his office came less than a day after she offered a muddled and hesitant position on the bill, prompting a round of denunciations by her opponents. It signaled the extent to which her advisers viewed that moment as the biggest misstep she made in the debate, and one with long-term potential to undermine her candidacy.
“Senator Clinton supports governors like Governor Spitzer who believe they need such a measure to deal with the crisis caused by this administration’s failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform,’” her campaign said.
Mrs. Clinton’s aides said her statement was intended to signal that she broadly supported Mr. Spitzer’s goal of awarding driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. Mr. Spitzer initially proposed a blanket program of awarding full-fledged driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants; in the face of sharp opposition from the Legislature, he backed off and presented a two-tier program system of awarding licenses to illegal immigrants.
“She is a habitual evader"
And Rudolph W. Giuliani, the Republican presidential candidate who has spent more time attacking Mrs. Clinton than any of his opponents, pounced as he offered a preview of what a Clinton-Giuliani race might be like, should both win their party’s nomination, in a radio interview with Glenn Beck.
“You know, she was being attacked all night for taking different positions in front of different audiences and then by the end of the night, she took different positions in front of the same audience,” he said. “It was pretty amazing. I mean, in politics I’ve never quite seen that before.”
As I said yesterday, in reference to why Tom Cole, GOP strategist was smiling:With her massive connections to crooks, (Hsu to name just one) corruption (NJ Mayor to name just one of her corrupt supporters), court cases where she will have to testify, her ability to pander to anyone and any time without regard to principle, her flip flopping and that fact that she already holds a 48% disapproval rating and most everyone already knows her name and has an "opinion" one way or another-- her supposed shoe in candidacy will probably be the most fatal error on the Democratic side before the 2008 elections.
[...]
With that said, do not forget to stop by facebook and join "Stop Hillary Clinton (One Million Strong against Hillary)" which as of right now has 452, 671 members from both sides of the aisle and independents. (When I joined on September 25, 2007, there was only 421,000+, so you can see how that movement is growing fast).
If a person, Hillary Clinton to be specific, keeps surrounding herself with criminals, corrupt officials, convicted felons and proven liars, it is only fair that she be associated with them closely.
With the complaint filed, Hillary's campaign has 15 days to respond.
Here is the text of our complaint:
October 31, 2007
Office of General Counsel
Federal Election Commission
999 E Street, NW
Washington, DC 20463Dear Counsel:
We write to file a complaint against the Hillary Clinton for President Committee for violation of Federal Election Law under the Commission's jurisdiction.
It is clear from recent news accounts that the campaign and its donors and fundraisers have violated 2 USC 441f, the provision of law that prohibits campaign contributions in the name of another, and that some donors may have violated 2 USC 441e which prohibits donations by foreign nationals without permanent resident status.
A recent Los Angeles Times article, [available here], indicates that several reported donors to the Clinton campaign are non-existent persons, illegal immigrants, or were reimbursed by others for contributions. The article documents several instances in which reported donors could not be found, even by those living at the same address reported in the campaign’s FEC filing:
The Times examined the cases of more than 150 donors who provided checks to Clinton after fundraising events geared to the Chinese community. One-third of those donors could not be found using property, telephone or business records. Most have not registered to vote, according to public records. […]In yet another case, a “donor” denied ever giving money to the campaign:Of 74 residents of New York's Chinatown, Flushing, the Bronx or Brooklyn that The Times called or visited, only 24 could be reached for comment.
[…]
The tenement at 44 Henry St. was listed in Clinton's campaign reports as the home of Shu Fang Li, who reportedly gave $1,000. […]
A tenant living in the apartment listed as Li's address said through a translator that she had not heard of him, although she had lived there for the last 10 years.
Census figures for 2000 show the median family income for the area was less than $21,000. About 45% of the population was living below the poverty line, more than double the city average.
In the busy heart of East Broadway, beneath the Manhattan Bridge, is a building that is listed as the home of Sang Cheung Lee, also reported to have given $1,000. Trash was piled in the dimly lighted entrance hall. Neighbors said they knew of no one with Lee's name there; they knocked on one another's doors in a futile effort to find him.
Salespeople at a store on Canal Street were similarly baffled when asked about Shih Kan Chang, listed as working there and having given $1,000. The store sells purses, jewelry and novelty Buddha statues. Employees said they had not heard of Chang.
Another listed donor, Yi Min Liu, said he did not make the $1,000 contribution in April that was reported in his name. He said he attended a banquet for Clinton but did not give her money.The article also demonstrates that the Clinton campaign received large campaign contributions from illegal immigrants barred from contributing under Federal law:One New York man who said he enthusiastically donated $2,500 to Clinton doesn't appear to be eligible to do so under federal election law. He said he came to the United States from China about two years ago and didn't have a green card.These incidents are far from isolated occurrences at the fringes of the Clinton campaign. Campaigns routinely stay in close contact with their most prolific fundraisers and encourage them to raise even more money from associates. Community organizers even organized a fundraising event for Hillary Clinton that netted $380,000, implying substantial knowledge of and involvement in procuring these donations on the campaign’s part.As Clinton campaign bundlers, these community leaders also placed improper pressure on those who could least afford to donate:
Clinton has enlisted the aid of Chinese neighborhood associations, especially those representing recent immigrants from Fujian province. The organizations, at least one of which is a descendant of Chinatown criminal enterprises that engaged in gambling and human trafficking, exert enormous influence over immigrants. The associations help them with everything from protection against crime to obtaining green cards.The New York Post conducted a further examination of the Hillary Clinton for President Committee's campaign finance data. Their story is available here.Many of Clinton's Chinatown donors said they had contributed because leaders in neighborhood associations told them to. In some cases, donors said they felt pressure to give.
[…]
"Everybody was making a donation, so I did too," [He Duan Zheng] said. "Otherwise I would lose face."
The New York Post story indicates that several unlikely donors, including cooks and dishwashers, made $1,000 contributions to the campaign.
A search of Chinatown donors yesterday by The Post found several bogus addresses and some contributions that raised eyebrows.The investigation by the New York Post also found evidence of illegal “straw donations.”Shin K. Cheng is listed twice in federal records for giving $1,000 donations to Clinton's campaign on April 17.
But the address recorded on campaign reports is a clinic for sexually transmitted diseases, hemorrhoids and skin disease.
No one at the address knew of a Shin K. Cheng.
Another donation came from a Shih Kan Chang on Canal Street. But the address listed is a shop that sells knock-off watches and other pirated goods. The sales clerk there did not know the donor.
Hsiao Yen Wang, a cook in Chinatown, is listed as giving Clinton $1,000 on April 13. Contacted yesterday, she told The Post she had written a check.In addition to the aforementioned evidence, it is worth noting that the Hillary Clinton for President Committee has clearly decided to take no action to remedy these violations. According to the New York Post, “The Clinton campaign dismissed the L.A. Times story as derogatory to Chinese-Americans.”But it was on behalf of a man named David Guo, president of the Fujian American Cuisine Council, and Wang told The Post that Guo had repaid her for the $1,000 contribution.
Accordingly, the Clinton campaign's disinterest in and failure to remedy these violations along with the potential scope of the abuse indicates that that the Commission should investigate and take action against those responsible for violation of the law.
The information in this complaint is based upon information and belief, and not on our personal knowledge.
Respectfully,
Matthew Margolis & Mark Noonan
This is really smart on Margolis and Noonan's part, who know the issue of Democrat corruption backwards and forwards as the authors of Caucus of Corruption. For about the time it would have taken to write a blog entry on this issue, they can demand real accountability from the Clinton campaign. I wish I'd thought of this.
"The PKK is a terrorist organization and we have taken a decision to shut down their offices and not allow them to operate on Iraqi soil. We will also work on limiting its terrorist activities which are threatening Iraq and Turkey," a statement from Maliki's office said.
Protesters demonstrate against a possible major cross-border operation into northern Iraq by Turkey against Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) guerrillas, in front of the Turkish Consulate in Berlin October 27, 2007. Turkey has massed up to 100,000 troops on the frontier before a possible cross-border operation against about 3,000 PKK guerrillas, who launch deadly attacks into Turkey from Iraq. REUTERS/Pawel Kopczynski (GERMANY)
BAGHDAD - Iraq will set up more checkpoints along its northern frontier to keep out supplies for Kurdish rebels, who have been striking the Turkish military in raids across the border, the Iraqi foreign minister said Wednesday.
Hoshyar Zebari said Iraq would set up the checkpoints along with the border with heavily Kurdish southeastern Turkey to stop fuel, food and other supplies from reaching the Iraq-based Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK, which has killed dozens of people inside Turkey over the past month. He said they would also take other unspecified measures against the rebels.
Zebari, who is Kurdish, told reporters that Iraq would also restrict the movement of PKK fighters in order to "prevent them from reaching the populated towns and areas" inside Turkey.
The Iraqi official's comments came after he discussed the border issue with Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki in Baghdad.
Turkish helicopters have begun pounding rebel hideouts in Turkey with rockets, and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Wednesday that his nation would exhaust all diplomatic options before ordering a cross-border offensive.
Zebari warned that a Turkish military incursion into northern Iraq would have "serious consequences for the entire region and could undermine its stability."
He said Iraq was ready "to cooperate actively with the Turkish government to find practical measures" to prevent the attacks staged by Kurdish rebels from Iraqi territory.
The United States and Britain made a joint call late Monday for Iraq to take immediate steps to halt cross-border attacks by Iraqi-based Kurdish PKK militants into Turkey. The issue dominated a Washington meeting between Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and British Foreign Secretary David Miliband. VOA's David Gollust reports from the State Department.
Rice and her British counterpart are welcoming statements by the Iraqi government condemning the attacks by the PKK.
But they say it is time for the government in Baghdad and the Kurdish regional authorities in northern Iraq to take tangible action to halt the PKK operations, which have raised the specter of large-scale Turkish military intervention in Iraq.
The joint appeal by Rice and Miliband capped a day of intensive diplomatic activity on the Iraq-Turkey crisis that included a telephone call by President Bush to Turkish President Abdullah Gul stressing the U.S. commitment to work with Turkey and Iraq to combat PKK attacks.
The PKK, the Kurdistan Workers Party, has long been listed by the United States as a terrorist organization. It has been fighting the Turkish government for Kurdish self-rule in southeastern Turkey for more than 20 years and has recently stepped up hit-and-run attacks against Turkish forces and civilians from mountain hideouts in northern Iraq.
Iraq has maintained that PKK militants are operating out of rugged border areas beyond the reach of its security forces, while Turkey alleges that Iraqi Kurdish authorities have turned a blind eye to PKK activities. At a joint press appearance with Rice, Foreign Secretary Miliband said Iraq's stated promises to deal with the PKK are no longer enough:
"Words are not going to be sufficient," said David Miliband. "There needs to be real deeds. The hurt and anguish of the Turkish people is real and evident to anyone who looks at the situation."
Miliband said Iraqi action is essential if the Turkish government is to be able to resist public pressure to intervene in Iraq, action that U.S. officials say could shatter the relative peace of northern Iraq and have broader security and political consequences.
Russert: Senator Clinton, Governor of New York Eliot Spitzer has proposed giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. He told the Nashua, New Hampshire, Editorial Board it makes a lot of sense.Why does it make a lot of sense to give an illegal immigrant a driver's license?
Clinton: Well, what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is fill the vacuum left by the failure of this administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform. We know in New York we have several million at any one time who are in New York illegally. They are undocumented workers. They are driving on our roads. The possibility of them having an accident that harms themselves or others is just a matter of the odds. It's probability.
So what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is to fill the vacuum. I believe we need to get back to comprehensive immigration reform because no state, no matter how well intentioned, can fill this gap. There needs to be federal action on immigration reform.
Russert: Does anyone here believe an illegal immigrant should not have a driver's license?
(Unknown): Believe what?
Russert: An illegal immigrant should not have a driver's license.
Dodd: This is a privilege. And, look, I'm as forthright and progressive on immigration policy as anyone here. But we're dealing with a serious problem here, we need to have people come forward. The idea that we're going to extend this privilege here of a driver's license I think is troublesome, and I think the American people are reacting to it.
We need to deal with security on our borders. We need to deal with the attraction that draws people here. We need to deal fairly with those who are here.
But this is a privilege. Talk about health care, I have a different opinion. That affects the public health of all of us.
But a license is a privilege, and that ought not to be extended, in my view.
Clinton: Well, I just want to add, I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do...(Unknown): Wait a minute...
Clinton: And we have failed. We have failed.
Dodd: No, no, no. You said -- you said yes...
Clinton: No.
Dodd: ... you thought it made sense to do it.Clinton: No, I didn't, Chris. But the point is, what are we going to do with all these illegal immigrants who are driving...
Dodd: That's a legitimate issue. But driver's license goes too far, in my view.
Clinton: Well, you may say that, but what is the identification?
If somebody runs into you today who is an undocumented worker...
Dodd: There's ways of dealing with that.
Clinton: Well...
Dodd: This is a privilege, not a right.
Clinton: Well, what Governor Spitzer has agreed to do is to have three different licenses, one that provides identification for actually going onto airplanes and other kinds of security issues, another which is another ordinary driver's license, and then a special card that identifies the people who would be on the road, so...
Dodd: That's a bureaucratic nightmare.
Clinton: ... it's not the full privilege.
Russert: Senator Clinton, I just want to make sure of what I heard. Do you, the New York senator, Hillary Clinton, support the New York governor's plan to give illegal immigrants a driver's license?
You told the New Hampshire paper that it made a lot of sense. Do you support his plan?
Clinton: You know, Tim, this is where everybody plays "gotcha." It makes a lot of sense. What is the governor supposed to do? He is dealing with a serious problems. We have failed. And George Bush has failed. Do I think this is the best thing for any governor to do? No. But do I understand the sense of real desperation, trying to get a handle on this? Remember, in New York, we want to know who's in New York. We want people to come out of the shadows.
He's making an honest effort to do it. We should have passed immigration reform.
Edwards: For children? To try to protect children -- using technology to protect children, I would.I want to add something that Chris Dodd just said a minute ago, because I don't want it to go unnoticed. Unless I missed something, Senator Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes just a few minutes ago.
And I think this is a real issue for the country. I mean, America is looking for a president who will say the same thing, who will be consistent, who will be straight with them. Because what we've had for seven years is double-talk from Bush and from Cheney, and I think America deserves us to be straight.
Williams: Senator Obama, why are you nodding your head?
Obama: Well, I was confused on Senator Clinton's answer. I can't tell whether she was for it or against it. And I do think that is important. One of the things that we have to do in this country is to be honest about the challenges that we face.
Immigration is a difficult issue. But part of leadership is not just looking backwards and seeing what's popular or trying to gauge popular sentiment. It's about setting a direction for the country. And that's what I intend to do as president.
Williams: Same question to Senator Clinton. What would be your red line?
Clinton: Well, first of all, we have to try diplomacy, and I see economic sanctions as part of diplomacy. We have used it with other very difficult situations -- like Libya, like North Korea. I think that what we're trying to do here is put pressure on the Bush administration. Joe is absolutely right. George Bush can do all of this without anybody. You know, that is the great tragedy and that's why we've got to rein him in, and that's why we need Republican support in the Congress to help us do so.I invite all of our colleagues to pass something immediately that makes it very clear: He has no authority and we will not permit him to go take offensive action against Iran. But what we're trying to do is push forward on vigorous diplomacy. That has been lacking. I believe we should be engaged in diplomacy right now with the Iranians.
Everything should be on the table, not just their nuclear program. I've been advocating this for several years. I believe it strongly.
But I also think when you go to the table to negotiate with an adversarial regime, you need both carrots and sticks. The Revolutionary Guard is deeply involved in the commercial activities of Iran. Having those economic sanctions hanging over their heads gives our negotiators one of the set of sticks that we need to try to make progress in dealing with a very complicated situation.
Everybody agrees up here that President Bush has made a total mess out of the situation with Iran. What we're trying to do is to sort our way through to try to put diplomacy, with some carrots and some sticks, into the mix and get the president to begin to do that.
Williams: Respectfully, Senator, same question though: Do you have a threshold, a red line beyond which...
Clinton: I want to start diplomacy. I -- you know, I am not going to speculate about when or if they get nuclear weapons.We're trying to prevent them from getting so. We're not, in my view, rushing to war. We should not be doing that, but we shouldn't be doing nothing, and that means we should not let them acquire nuclear weapons. And the best way to prevent that is a full court press on the diplomatic front.
Russert: I want to ask each of you the same question.
Senator Clinton, would you pledge to the American people that Iran will not develop a nuclear bomb while you are president?
Clinton: I intend to do everything I can to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb.Russert: But you won't pledge?
Clinton: I am pledging I will do everything I can to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb.
Russert: But, they may.
Clinton: Well, you know, Tim, you asked me if I would pledge, and I have pledged that I will do everything I can to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb.
Russert: Senator Clinton, I'd like to follow up, because in terms of your experience as first lady, in order to give the American people an opportunity to make a judgment about your experience, would you allow the National Archives to release the documents about your communications with the president, the advice you gave?Because, as you well know, President Clinton has asked the National Archives not to do anything until 2012.
Clinton: Well, actually, Tim, the Archives is moving as rapidly as the Archives moves. There's about 20 million pieces of paper there. And they are move, and they are releasing as they do their process. And I am fully in favor of that.
Now, all of the records, as far as I know, about what we did with health care, those are already available. Others are becoming available. And I think that, you know, the Archives will continue to move as rapidly as its circumstances and processes demand.
Russert: But there was a letter written by President Clinton specifically asking that any communication between you and the president not be made available to the public until 2012. Would you lift that ban?
Clinton: Well, that's not my decision to make, and I don't believe that any president or first lady ever has. But, certainly, we're move as quickly as our circumstances and the processes of the National Archives permits.
Russert: Senator Obama, your hand is up?
Obama: Well, look, I'm glad that Hillary took the phrase "turn the page." It's a good one, but this is an example of not turning the page. We have just gone through one of the most secretive administrations in our history.And not releasing, I think, these records at the same time, Hillary, that you're making the claim that this is the basis for your experience, I think, is a problem.
Part of what we have to do is invite the American people back to participate in their government again. Part of what we need to do is rebuild trust in our government again.
And that means being open and transparent and accountable to the American people......
Russert: Senator Clinton, I want to clear something up which goes to the issue of credibility. You were asked at the AARP debate whether or not you would consider taxing, lifting the cap from $97,500, taxing that, raising more money for Social Security. You said, quote, "It's a no." I asked you the same question in New Hampshire, and you said "no."
Then you went to Iowa and you went up to Tod Bowman, a teacher, and had a conversation with him saying, "I would consider lifting the cap perhaps above $200,000." You were overheard by an Associated Press reporter saying that.
Why do you have one public position and one private position?
Clinton: Well, Tim, I don't. I have said consistently that my plan for Social Security is fiscal responsibility first, then to deal with any long-term challenges which I agree are ones that we are going to have to address.
We would have a bipartisan commission. In the context of that, I think all of these would be considered. But, personally, I do not want to balance Social Security on the backs of our seniors and middle-class families. That's why I put fiscal responsibility first, because we have to change the Bush tax cuts, which I am committed to doing.
We have to move back toward a more fair and progressive tax system, and begin once again to move toward a balanced budget with a surplus. You know, part of the idea in the '90s was not just so Bill would have a check mark next to his name in history, but so that we would have the resources to deal with a lot of these entitlement problems.
George Bush understood that. The Republicans understood that. They wanted to decimate that balanced budget and a surplus because they knew that that would give them a free hand to try to privatize Social Security.
I am not going to be repeating Republican talking points. So when somebody asks me, would something like this be considered, well, anything could be considered when we get to a bipartisan commission. But personally, I am not going to be advocating any specific fix until I am seriously approaching fiscal responsibility.
Russert: But you did raise it as a possibility with Tod Bowman?
Clinton: Well, but everybody knows what the possibilities are, Tim. Everybody knows that. But I do not advocate it. I do not support it. I have laid out what I do believe, and I am going to continue to emphasize that.
I think, for us to act like Social Security is in crisis is a Republican trap. We're playing on the Republican field. And I don't intend to do that.
Senator Clinton, I'd like to start with you. Because the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Charlie Rangel, is a strong supporter of your campaign.
He wants to repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax. But he also wants to have a 4 percent surtax on a single $150,000 income or $200,000 married couple.
You went to Harlem with your husband, with Charlie Rangel. And the former president said, quote, "Charlie Rangel wants me to pay more taxes so you can pay less and I think that's a good idea."
Is that also your view?
Clinton: Well, I am a great admirer of Chairman Rangel. And what he's trying to do is deal with a very serious problem. You know, the Alternative Minimum Tax was never intended to hit people are in middle income, upper middle income. It was meant for people who are rich and evading taxes.
Now I don't know all the details of what Charlie is recommending, but I certainly agree with the goal. We've got to do something with the Alternative Minimum Tax.
There are a lot of ways of getting there. I want it to be fair and progressive. It starts in the House, it starts in the Ways and Means Committee, which he chairs. But I think my husband was expressing an opinion that a lot of people who have been very fortunate and blessed over the last six and a half years feel.
You know, we've not been asked to sacrifice anything. You know, young men and women wearing the uniform of our country are dying and being maimed. We have the average American family losing a thousand dollars in income, and George Bush and his cronies can't figure out how they can give even more tax cuts to the wealthiest of Americans.
Now, I never thought Bill and I would be in that category, to be honest with you. So it's kind of a new experience. But it's not one that make us very comfortable, because we should be investing in new energy, we should be investing in college affordability, universal pre-K, the kind of health care plan that I've outlined.
That's what we intend to do. But we're going to have to deal with the AMT, something that the Republicans have refused to do because, very frankly, it hits people who are below their concern. They're concerned about the real top wage earners. This hits people that are, you know, the police chief. This hits people that are, you know, two income families that are doing well.
So we're going to have to do something about it. I think Charlie's being very courageous in moving forward. I don't agree with all the details, but he's on the right track to say we've got to do something about the AMT.
Russert: So in principle, you would be in favor of looking at a 4 percent surtax?
Clinton: No, I didn't say that, Tim. I said that I'm in favor of doing something about the AMT. How we do it and how we put the package together everybody knows is extremely complicated.
It's not going to happen while George Bush is president. Everybody knows that. I want to get to a fair and progressive tax system. The AMT has to be part of what we try to change when I'm president.
And there are a lot of moving pieces here. You know, there are kinds of issues we're going to deal with as the tax cuts expire.
I want to freeze the estate tax at the 2009 level of $7 million for a couple.
There's a lot of moving parts. So I'm not going to get committed to a specific approach, but I applaud Chairman Rangel for beginning the conversation.
We now know something that we did not know before: When Hillary Clinton has a bad night, she really has a bad night.
Leading in the polls, the darling of the media, Hillary Clinton faced her toughest bitch slapping last night and failed to deliver."....she continued her strategy of avoiding direct answers to questions: She wouldn't say how she would address Social Security; she declined to pledge whether she would stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, or say whether she supports giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.
Instead she tried to tried to turn every issue into an argument against President Bush. She said Bush's name 25 times, more than all six of her rivals combined."
It came about because Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) had the courage to defy the uni-speak of the Democratic debates, where everybody agrees with everybody else, and spoke out against the proposal to give licenses to illegal immigrants. Hillary, suddenly realizing how exposed she was by her seeming endorsement of New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s plan on illegals, backtracked and pointed out that she had not explicitly endorsed the plan. It was her equivalent of Bill saying that it depended on what the definition of “is” is. It was a Hillary moment, and her parsing and mincing of the vocabulary to have it both ways was on full public display. Caught, she retreated to the claim that everybody was playing “gotcha” — but, indeed, she had been got!
I doubt that this will keep her from winning the Democratic nomination. I’m equally certain that that night’s performance will show up in the GOP’s candidate’s ad campaign. Hillary’s panderfest on the stage at Drexel last night will offer a stark contrast to Rudy Giuliani’s forthrightness. You can disagree with Rudy on certain issues. It’s even fair to say that he’s had a few missteps.
This wasn’t a policy disgreement with Hillary and it wasn’t that she misstated what she meant to say. She said what she meant to say. Unfortunately for her, someone caught her doing what she’s done consistently. Hillary’s tried being all things to all people in the hopes of maximizing her vote totals.
That’s the wrong thing to do this year. People are looking for a leader who’s straight with them, who won’t talk out of both sides of their mouth. That won’t be good for Hillary because she’s nothing if not a panderer.
We're talking about a woman who has had one single goal her entire life and endured marrying a hack like Bill Clinton to get there. She's a robot who will say anything, do anything, to get in that Oval Office. Consequences be damned.
She was not prepared for this question, incredibly, and showed her true self. An indecisive, cranky, unlikable person.
The consistent thread throughout the debate was clearly Clinton's "double talk." Both Obama and Edwards attacked her on it early on and she exhibited signs of it in a couple of answers, but she might have escaped unscathed if not for her response to the illegal immigrant driver's license question. There, she basically proved the criticisms true. I agree with dday that it was just a horrible answer and probably should hurt her, but will it? Is it her version of "I voted for it before I voted against it?" I don't know but I will say this is the first time I've left watching a debate feeling like Clinton is vulnerable. At the very least she was thrown off her game tonight, especially in the beginning.
Advantage Obama here. Dodd took a position. Clinton doubletalked. Edwards did not even state his position, just attacked.
Oops. She said the plan makes a lot of sense, and defended Spitzer’s efforts, but then isn’t sure if the idea is any good? Clinton supports the policy, but won’t endorse the policy?
The winner was clearly Edwards. He was concise, aggressive, completely right about Clinton and always on point. He seemed unafraid to take her on, while Obama was still playing a too-careful defense. If I were to give an instant sum-up of the debate - and I'm a blogger so it's my job - it would be that Clinton's profound weakness as a general election candidate was pretty badly exposed. And the main alternative just about survived as a credible presidential candidate.
In other words: a great night for the GOP.
If one of the cardinal rules of progressive politics is that you never repeat the talking points by which your opponents beat up on your own party, then what are we to think of last night’s Democratic debate, in which a principal tactic used by some of the non-Clintons was to repeat Republican talking points about Hillary Clinton?
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. I just had a very constructive and important meeting with the leadership and the Republican members of the United States House of Representatives. And I want to thank you all for coming down, and thank you for your leadership.
Congress is not getting its work done. We're near the end of the year, and there really isn't much to show for it. The House of Representatives has wasted valuable time on a constant stream of investigations, and the Senate has wasted valuable time on an endless series of failed votes to pull our troops out of Iraq. And yet there's important work to be done on behalf of the American people.
They have not been able to send a single annual appropriations bill to my desk, and that's the worst record for a Congress in 20 years. One of the important responsibilities of the Congress is to pass appropriations bills. And yet the leadership that's on the Hill now cannot get that job done.
They've also passed an endless series of tax increases. You know, they proposed tax increases in the farm bill, the energy bill, the small business bill, and of course, the SCHIP bill. They haven't seen a bill they could not solve without shoving a tax hike into it. In other words, they believe in raising taxes, and we don't.
Spending is skyrocketing under their leadership -- at least proposed spending is skyrocketing under their leadership. After all, they're trying to spend an additional $205 billion over the next five years. Some have said, well, that doesn't matter much; it's not that much money. Well, $205 billion over the next five years in the real world amounts to this: $4.7 million per hour, every hour, for every day, for the next five years. That's a lot of money.
And that doesn't even include spending that would actually pay for 2 million people to move from private health insurance to an inefficient, lower-quality, government-run program. Despite knowing it does not have a chance of becoming law, the Senate will now take up the second SCHIP bill the House passed last week. I believe the Senate is wasting valuable time. This bill, remarkably, manages to spend more money over five years than the first bill did.
After going alone and going nowhere, Congress should instead work with the administration on a bill that puts poor children first; a bill that will take care of the poor children that the initial bill said we got to do; a bill that would stop diverting money to adults. You realize some major states in the United States spend more money on adults than they do on children? We want a bill that enrolls the more than 500,000 poor children currently eligible for the program who are not a part of the program.
We want to sit down in good faith and come up with a bill that is responsible, because Congress has been unable or unwilling to get its basic job done of passing spending bills. There are now reports that congressional leaders may be considering combining the Veterans and Department of Defense appropriations bills, and then add a bloated Labor, Health and Education spending bill to both of them.
It's hard to imagine a more cynical political strategy than trying to hold hostage funding for our troops in combat and our wounded warriors in order to extract $11 billion in additional social spending. I hope media reports about such a strategy are wrong, I really do. If they're not, if the reports of this strategy are true, I will veto such a three-bill pileup. Congress should pass each bill one at a time in a fiscally responsible manner that reflects agreement between the legislative branch and the executive branch.
I again ask Congress to send me a clean Veterans funding bill that we have already agreed to by Veterans Day, so we can keep America's promise to those who have defended our freedom and are recovering from injury. I again urge them to pass a clean Defense appropriations bill, and a war supplemental bill to fund our troops in combat.
I know some on the Democrat side didn't agree with my decision to send troops in, but it seems like we ought to be able to agree that we're going to support our troops who are in harm's way. I know the members feel that way, standing with me. I hope the leadership feels that way, and they ought to give me a bill that funds, among other things, bullets, and body armor, and protection against IEDs, and mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles. It would be irresponsible to not give our troops the resources they need to get their job done because Congress was unable to get its job done.
Again, I want to thank the members here. I appreciate us working together for the good of the United States of America. God bless.
More is on the way. In the massive 2008 military-spending bill now before Congress -- which could go to a House-Senate conference as soon as Thursday -- Mr. Murtha has steered more taxpayer funds to his congressional district than any other member. The Democratic lawmaker is chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, which will oversee more than $459 billion in military spending this year.
Johnstown's good fortune has come at the expense of taxpayers everywhere else. Defense contractors have found that if they open an office here and hire the right lobbyist, they can get lucrative, no-bid contracts. Over the past decade, Concurrent Technologies Corp., a defense-research firm that employs 800 here, got hundreds of millions of dollars thanks to Rep. Murtha despite poor reviews by Pentagon auditors. The National Drug Intelligence Center, with 300 workers, got $509 million, though the White House has tried for years to shut it down as wasteful and unnecessary. Another beneficiary: MTS Technologies, run by a man who got his start some 40 years ago shining shoes at Mr. Murtha's Johnstown Minute Car Wash.
We've covered the fact that Murtha has received donations from every interest to which he granted an earmark--many in the last few days before he introduced the earmarks in legislation. He's funneled money to a group headed by a former staffer which supposedly helps wounded veterans find jobs--but there's no evidence that they've helped anyone. He falsely claimed that the Department of Energy supported one of his earmarks. He falsely claimed Department of Justice support for another. He's threatened his colleagues. He's broken House rules to get earmarks.
And all that is merely this year! We have not yet touched upon Haditha, or 'slow-bleed,' or the draft, or AbScam.
After nearly three decades in the military, William T. Russell’s latest mission has brought him to Johnstown.
The career Army man, just two years short of retirement, has left the service and moved to the Flood City in order to mount a political campaign against veteran Democratic U.S. Rep. John Murtha.
As a Republican and first-time candidate facing a powerful congressman in the sprawling, Democrat-dominated 12th Congressional District, Russell faces a tough challenge.
But he is determined to press ahead and will formally announce his candidacy within weeks.
“I recognize this is an uphill battle,” Russell said in an interview last week at The Tribune-Democrat.
“But it’s one that must be fought.”
[...]
Born on an Air Force base in Newfoundland, Canada, Russell’s long Army and Army Reserve career includes duty in the Balkans and in both Iraq wars.
Russell and his wife, Kasia, were in the Pentagon when a hijacked jetliner crashed into the building on Sept. 11, 2001. They escaped unharmed.
While Murtha’s encounters with wounded soldiers have solidified his stance on Iraq, Russell said a similar encounter left him with the opposite impression: To withdraw from Iraq, he argues, would render the sacrifices of those soldiers pointless.
“I think Mr. Murtha is just flat-out wrong,” Russell said.
The Republican also cites, as Irey did, Murtha’s public accusation that U.S. Marines murdered innocent civilians in the Iraq town of Haditha in 2005.
The congressman, Russell contends, is “playing right into the hands of this enemy.”
On his Web site, Russell takes that line of thought a step further and attempts to raise the stakes for next year’s election.
“In this war against Islamic radicalism, the political battle of the 2008 election in the Pennsylvania 12th Congressional District is a critical turning point,” he said.
Russell’s platform is not limited to the Iraq issue.
He seeks to turn a long history of substantial economic clout against Murtha, arguing that the congressman is an “extreme practitioner of cronyism” who has not created long-term, sustainable jobs in this area.
As a small-business owner who operates an ATM company, Russell says he wants to help create a local economy that is more dependent on the free market – while also acknowledging that some jobs may be lost if governmental contracts disappear.
Until August 31st of this year, I was a fulltime Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Army Reserve, stationed at the Pentagon and a little over 2 years short of full, active duty retirement. I am also a small business owner and entrepreneur, as well as a husband and father.
In my military career I have served six tours in hostile fire zones including Desert Storm, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and the Balkans. These tours include almost three years in the Middle East (Iraq and Saudi Arabia) and a year and a half in the Balkans (Hungary, Bosnia, Kosovo, Croatia). My wife, Kasia, who was pregnant with our son at the time, and I were also in the Pentagon on 9/11.
Bush invited Sen. Dianne Feinstein to join him on Air Force One during his trip. It may not have been coincidence that less than 24 hours earlier, Feinstein played a pivotal role in allowing Judge Leslie Southwick, a target of liberal groups, to be confirmed to an appeals court when she voted to block a filibuster and support the president's nomination.
With a 7:40 a.m. Thursday departure from Andrews Air Force Base, Feinstein found herself seated in the rear of the plane with a handful of Southern California congressional representatives.
After a breakfast of scrambled eggs, sausage and French toast, Bush popped back for what the senator described as a frank two-hour conversation, mostly about foreign policy.
"I found the discussion extraordinarily positive," Feinstein said. "I came away with a very different view about him."
As for the president's performance on the ground?
"It was a wonderful thing to see, to be candid," Feinstein said. "I saw a warm, caring human being."
In her statement before the committee, Sen. Feinstein said: "I don't believe he's a racist...I believe he's a good person. ... Judicial nominees are not just a collection of prior writings or prior judicial opinions. ... My hope is that we can put these days behind us, and that we can give people a fair hearing, and that we can move them on."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's appeal among Nevadans has plunged dramatically in a new Las Vegas Review-Journal poll, which finds him viewed unfavorably by most likely voters in his home state.
Reid is still slightly more well-liked than Gov. Jim Gibbons. Both the Democratic senator and the Republican governor are less favorably viewed than President Bush.
In a closed-door meeting before the last vote on the children’s health care bill, House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer appealed for the support of about 30 wavering Republican lawmakers. What he got instead was a tongue-lashing, participants said.
The GOP lawmakers, all of whom had expressed interest in a bipartisan deal on the SCHIP legislation, were furious that the Democratic leader from Maryland had not reached out to them in a more serious way early on. They also criticized him and Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel of Illinois for failing to stop his allies outside Congress from running attack ads in their districts, while they were discussing a bipartisan deal.
The result was a predictable one for this bitterly divided Congress. The House vote for a second SCHIP bill was a healthy majority, but not the two-thirds needed to override another veto vowed by President Bush. Only one Republican switched his vote — to oppose the measure.
Democrats accused Republicans of hurting kids. Republicans howled about a heavy-handed, uncompromising Democratic majority. And another chance at bipartisan consensus slipped away.
“They spent $1.5 million through their various shill outreach groups attacking me and a handful of my colleagues,” Rep. Ric Keller (R-Fla.) said before the Hoyer meeting, “but they did not spend five minutes to approach me to ask for my vote.”
This us-against-them mentality has been an ongoing storyline of the new Democratic-controlled Congress. On the big items — Iraq, health care and spending — party leaders have shunned compromise.
Debating Iraq all the time and trotting out 12-year-olds to push for a flawed doubling of SCHIP gets you 11% approval. Congressional Democrats won’t replace the first female speaker, but they may make her just a figurehead.
They may already have.
Moderate Democrats in the House say that majority leader Rep. Steny Hoyer's decision to cut back the House work week by a day in 2008 is an indication that his influence is growing among Democrats to the diminishment of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.Read the entire piece, it shows other areas where Nancy just "doesn't get it."
"She's all about image, and she fought this change to the death," says a moderate House member. "To our way of thinking, there was nothing for us to do on Friday, she had us wasting time when we could be home doing something, like campaigning and raising money. She didn't seem to understand that if we can't do either, she isn't going to have a majority next time."
[...]
Hoyer, who has long been considered a more powerful House member than Pelosi based on his fundraising prowess and Capitol Hill connections, has been hearing it from mostly moderate and conservative members, and even a few of Pelosi's supporters of late. "They feel like we're stuck in the mud and playing the Republicans' game," says a House leadership aide with ties to Hoyer. "Last week was a bad week for the House Speaker and she didn't seem to even know it."
Last week the House held its one-thousandth roll call vote this year, the first time Congress had reached that level since the ratification of the Constitution. Pelosi's office demanded that Democrats mark the event as a victory for the party, against the advice of Hoyer and other party leaders.
"It only served to highlight just how little we've actually achieved compared to what we promised," says the House aide. "Out of those thousand votes, about ten percent were bills that became law and half of those were namings of federal buildings and such. Fifty bills in a year doesn't compare to what we promised, and she wanted to put a spotlight on it. She just doesn't get it sometime."
