What happened to American Jobs?

Job Losses Accelerate, Signaling Deeper Distress
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, October 23, 2008; Page A01

Employers are moving to aggressively cut jobs and reduce costs in the face of the nation's economic crisis, preparing for what many fear will be a long and painful recession.
The labor market has been weak all year, with a slow drip of workers losing their jobs each month. But the deterioration of the job market is now emerging as a driver of economic distress, according to a wide range of data and anecdotal reports from corporate America.

In September, there were more mass layoffs -- instances in which employers slashed 50 or more jobs at one time -- than in any month since September 2001, the Labor Department said yesterday. And nearly half a million Americans have filed new claims for unemployment benefits in each of the past four weeks, the highest rate of such claims since just after the terrorist attacks seven years ago.

Anecdotal reports suggest that the hemorrhaging in the job market has only begun. Companies that announced plans this week to cut jobs include Internet company Yahoo (1,500 positions), pharmaceutical company Merck (7,200), National City bank (4,000) and Comcast, the cable company (300).

The weakening employment outlook is part of the reason that investors have become more fearful of a deep, prolonged recession -- fears that led to yet another miserable day on Wall Street yesterday, with the Dow Jones industrial average down 514 points, or 5.7 percent.

"The customers I've spoken to are all living under a sense of fear," said Paul Villella, chief executive of HireStrategy, a Reston company that matches employers and workers. "They have very limited visibility into the future and have a great degree of uncertainty, so they just want to sit steady and be conservative in hiring."

Villella and others who work with employers said that for many companies, the pullback in hiring is not a direct result of tightening credit. Rather, firms simply don't know whether their own customers will be affected by the financial crisis; as a result, they want to hold their breath and delay hiring decisions until they have a better sense of the future.

The nation has shed jobs every month this year, but at a slower overall pace than in past economic downturns. The slide accelerated in late summer, with declines similar to those in past recessions. Last month, employers shed 159,000 jobs, the most this year and more than the average number of monthly job losses in the terrible labor markets of 2001 and 2002.

More obscure indicators monitored by economists at the Federal Reserve and in the private sector also show an inflection point in late summer. For example, employers had 214,000 fewer job openings in August than in July, according to a Labor Department report. Over the past year, the number of openings dropped by a more modest average of 74,000 per month.

Indeed, many companies are imposing hiring freezes. Such moves don't often get the kind of headlines that layoffs do, but because they shrink the number of places people can turn to for jobs, they still hurt the economy.

VMware, a Palo Alto, Calif., software company, is one firm that has curbed hiring. Earlier this week, after reporting third-quarter earnings that beat Wall Street's expectations, VMware told analysts on a conference call that despite a 32 percent jump in revenue, a "hiring pause" had been imposed for all jobs except critical ones.

"We are just being conservative," VMware spokeswoman Mary Ann Gallo said yesterday.

The nation's unemployment rate was 6.1 percent last month, not astronomical by historical standards. But the rate was up from 5 percent in April, and many forecasters now expect it to hit 7 percent or more by the end of this downturn.

The construction and manufacturing sectors have been losing jobs for more than a year. But lately, job losses have begun or accelerated in a wide range of other fields. Retailers, stung by less consumer spending, cut 87,000 jobs in the three months ended in September. Employment services shed 100,000 positions in that span, reflecting the fact that companies are slashing temporary jobs. The leisure and hospitality industry cut 51,000 jobs, as people had less money to stay in hotels and eat in restaurants.

In the greater Los Angeles area, Manpower, one of the nation's largest temp agencies, has noticed a steady increase in job seekers since early September. Paul Holley, a spokesman for the company, said there are more applicants for fewer openings and better-qualified candidates seeking work.

What's particularly noteworthy, Holley said, is what's happening in Phoenix. Job applications have held steady, but since September more applicants have had backgrounds in general labor and warehouse distribution. That's unusual because warehouse and logistics jobs usually hold steady in the fall to support retailing for holiday shopping.

Randstad USA, another large temp agency, reports that job applications are up in the Tucson area and that the firm is even getting inquires from people who still have jobs. "In general, a lot of people seem to be insecure about their current jobs even if they are still employed," said Emily Cline, Randstad's area vice president for Tucson.

As reports of layoffs continue to pile up around the country, executives at Randstad said they have noticed a shift in psychology among job seekers.

"Employees are much more willing to work extra hours and to take on additional duties to enhance job security and improve their employability," said Eric Buntin, managing director for marketing and operations at Randstad. "In a changing market, they know that's a valuable resource."

They are also willing to make less money, even as the cost of living goes up. Cline said some call center jobs that were paying $9 an hour in the Tucson area last year are now paying $8.50. "Their option becomes to take the job or not have the job," she said.

With workers losing their leverage to negotiate raises, there could be greater downward pressure on wages, which in turn could drive down overall economic growth. Workers are already having a hard time getting raises; inflation-adjusted pay for non-managerial workers fell 1.9 percent in the year ended in September, according to the Labor Department.

Staff writer Michael A. Fletcher in Cleveland contributed to this report.

Big Losers Always Make Excuses (BLAME): What does it mean to be a Republican?

As Barack Obama and the Democrats appear poised for an historic sweep, we have a message for our Republican friends: It is time to point fingers.

We are pro-finger-pointing. We disagree strongly with Gov. Sarah Palin who said recently, "Do you notice that our opponents sure have spent a lot of time looking at the past and pointing fingers? You look to the past because that's where you find blame, but we're...looking to the future, because that's where you find solutions." On the contrary, Governor, blame assignment, while much maligned, is essential to determining what went wrong and how to set it right. Besides, it's a hell of a spectator sport. Here's our primer for a little game we like to call Big Losers Always Make Excuses (BLAME):
First -- a couple of ground rules. You can't blame the press or minorities. Sure, media-bashing is part of the conservative catechism, and minority voters are likely to support Barack Obama in record numbers. But finger-pointing is only interesting when you point at someone on your team. Republicans need a civil war -- a steel cage death match -- to sort out what they stand for. Scapegoating outsiders won't purge the party of what's rotting it on the inside.

Here's the most important thing about finger-pointing: you have to start early. If you're a Republican who wants to avoid blame for the current meltdown, you cannot afford to wait until after the election is over.

The smartest people in the conservative movement are already pointing like a bird dog on a South Georgia quail hunt. David Brooks and Bill Kristol are leading the way. Mr. Brooks, representing the intellectual wing of the conservative movement, called Ms. Palin, "a fatal cancer to the Republican Party." Attaboy, Brooksie. Score one for the brainiacs.

Mr. Kristol, on the other hand, blames neither Ms. Palin nor Sen. John McCain, but rather McCain's campaign advisers, writing of the campaign: "Its combination of strategic incoherence and operational incompetence has become toxic." See? That's how you do it. Kristol can't say McCain's problem is that he supported the Iraq war, (which Kristol advocated) or that he chose Sarah Palin (whom Kristol praised). So rather than play defense, Bill went on offense, blaming McCain's Steve Schmidt-led campaign. But we have a feeling this fight will only begin when the Schmidt hits the fan.

But where are the other voices? We need to hear, for example, from Karl Rove. Whom will he blame? We stipulate that Karl is a genius -- albeit a genius whose advice took Pres. Bush from a 91 percent approval rating down to 26. With the House of Bush ablaze, Karl is going to have to do some quick finger-pointing before they change they change his nickname from The Architect to The Arsonist.

How about Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and other radio personalities? They never liked McCain much -- but his campaign cratered only when he embraced their wild attacks on Sen. Obama. It was only after Mr. McCain borrowed the Limbaugh-Hannity line on Bill Ayers, only after Gov. Palin accused Mr. Obama of "pallin' around with terrorists," that the bottom fell out for Mr. McCain and Ms. Palin. We're betting the hot air boys will blame the intellectuals. After all, if you want to make an omelet, you've got to break a few eggheads.

The Republican Party is atomizing, and each faction must participate in Project BLAME. The neocons may want to blame the theocons. The economic conservatives will likely blame the big spenders. The conflagration will be so multi-dimensional we'll need a program to sort out the players. They will need to answer fundamental questions: What does it mean to be a Republican? Do Republicans support laissez-faire or nationalized banking? Do Republicans support a balanced budget or half-trillion-dollar deficits? Do Republicans want a "humble foreign policy" like George W. Bush, or preventive war against countries that pose no threat, like, umm, George W. Bush? Are Republicans the party of limited government or a vast Medicare prescription drug benefit? Are they wary of Big Brother or eager to expand warrantless wiretaps? Do they support Christian values or torture? Are they the party that believes that cutting-edge technology can shoot a missile out of the sky or the party that believes humans and dinosaurs walked the earth simultaneously?

These questions should define the 2012 GOP presidential primaries. So start blaming, all you would-be candidates. That means you, Ms. Palin, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush and Charlie Crist. Hurry up. You only have 1,165 days left until the Iowa Caucuses.





James Carville and Paul Begala were senior strategists for the 1992 Clinton-Gore campaign. They'd like everyone to know it's not their fault.


John McCain
Karl Rove
Bill Kristol
Sarah Palin
Barack Obama
As Barack Obama and the Democrats appear poised for an historic sweep, we have a message for our Republican friends: It is time to point fingers. We are pro-finger-pointing. We disagr...
As Barack Obama and the Democrats appear poised for an historic sweep, we have a message for our Republican friends: It is time to point fingers. We are pro-finger-pointing. We disagr...

McCain Transition Chief Aided Saddam In Lobbying Effort

McCain Transition Chief Aided Saddam In Lobbying Effort


William Timmons, the Washington lobbyist who John McCain has named to head his presidential transition team, aided an influence effort on behalf of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to ease international sanctions against his regime.

The two lobbyists who Timmons worked closely with over a five year period on the lobbying campaign later either pleaded guilty to or were convicted of federal criminal charges that they had acted as unregistered agents of Saddam Hussein's government.

During the same period beginning in 1992, Timmons worked closely with the two lobbyists, Samir Vincent and Tongsun Park, on a previously unreported prospective deal with the Iraqis in which they hoped to be awarded a contract to purchase and resell Iraqi oil. Timmons, Vincent, and Park stood to share at least $45 million if the business deal went through.

Timmons' activities occurred in the years following the first Gulf War, when Washington considered Iraq to be a rogue enemy state and a sponsor of terrorism. His dealings on behalf of the deceased Iraqi leader stand in stark contrast to the views his current employer held at the time.

John McCain strongly supported the 1991 military action against Iraq, and as recently as Sunday described Saddam Hussein as a one-time menace to the region who had "stated categorically that he would acquire weapons of mass destruction, and he would use them wherever he could."

Timmons declined to comment for this story. An office manager who works for him said that he has made it his practice during his public career to never speak to the press. Timmons previously told investigators that he did not know that either Vincent or Park were acting as unregistered agents of Iraq. He also insisted that he did not fully understand just how closely the two men were tied to Saddam's regime while they collaborated.

But testimony and records made public during Park's criminal trial, as well as other information uncovered during a United Nations investigation, suggest just the opposite. Virtually everything Timmons did while working on the lobbying campaign was within days conveyed by Vincent to either one or both of Saddam Hussein's top aides, Tariq Aziz and Nizar Hamdoon. Vincent also testified that he almost always relayed input from the Iraqi aides back to Timmons.

Talking points that Timmons produced for the lobbyists to help ease the sanctions, for example, were reviewed ahead of time by Aziz, Vincent testified in court. Proposals that Timmons himself circulated to U.S. officials as part of the effort were written with the assistance of the Iraqi officials, and were also sent ahead of time with Timmons' approval to Aziz, other records show.

Moreover, there was a major financial incentive at play for Timmons. The multi-million dollar oil deal that he was pursuing with the two other lobbyists would only be possible if their efforts to ease sanctions against Iraq were successful.

Vincent, an Iraqi-born American citizen with whom Timmons worked most closely, pleaded guilty to federal criminal charges in January 2005 that he had acted as an unregistered agent of Saddam Hussein's regime. Tongsun Park, the second lobbyist who Timmons worked closely with, was convicted by a federal jury in July 2006 on charges that he too violated the Foreign Agent Registration Act.

As part of a plea bargain agreement with the Justice Department, Vincent agreed to testify against Park and others in exchange for a reduced prison sentence. He was the government's chief witness against Park during Park's trial. Park was sentenced to five years in prison after his conviction.

A U.N commission headed by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker conducted an exhaustive investigation of the oil-for-food program, in which various individuals were found to have paid illegal kickbacks to Saddam Hussein. The findings of the Volcker Commission detail the roles of Vincent, Park and Timmons in trying to ease the sanctions.

* * * * *
Timmons testified that he first introduced Vincent to Tongsun Park and encouraged him to hire Park to work on the deal.

At the time Timmons introduced the two men, Park's notorious background was well known:

In the 1970s, Park had admitted to making hundreds of thousands in payments and illegal campaign contributions to U.S. congressmen on behalf of the South Korean government. Park was indicted on 36 counts by a federal grand jury, but fled to South Korea before he could face trial. All of the charges were later dismissed in exchange for Park providing information about which public officials received funds from the South Korean government.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, not long after Timmons suggested that Vincent hire Park to assist their influence, lobbying, and back-channel diplomatic efforts on behalf of Saddam Hussein's government, much of that effort became increasingly bizarre, corrupt, and - on occasion - illegal.

Vincent testified that Park covertly received millions of dollars from Saddam's government that was supposed to be used to bribe then-U.N. Secretary General Boutros Boutros Ghali to ease international sanctions against Iraq. But both men simply pocketed the money, according to Vincent. (There is no evidence that Boutros Ghali even knew of Iraq's intention to bribe him.)

Investigations by the Justice Department and the Volcker commission disclosed that Park also served as the middleman for a million dollar payment that investigators believed was a bribe for another senior United Nations official. That official in fact admitted receiving the money from Park, but said he did not know that the funds originated with Saddam's regime.

Timmons told federal investigators that he was unaware of these particular activities, and investigators were unable to uncover any evidence to contradict that claim.

Timmons also claimed that he was motivated to push forward with the lobbying campaign with Vincent and Park not only to assist Saddam's regime but also because he believed that his actions would serve U.S. interests, that they would help the people of Iraq obtain needed medicine and food being denied them by sanctions, and would serve to facilitate a rapprochement of relations between Hussein and the U.S. that would be beneficial to both countries.

But there was a financial incentive in play as well. During the same period, Vincent was hard at work obtaining contracts with Iraq to purchase and resell Iraqi oil allowed under international sanctions; Timmons would have stood to benefit financially from those contracts.

Timmons claimed to investigators that any contracts offered to him, Vincent, and Park would be awarded solely on merit, and had nothing to do with their lobbying efforts.

But Vincent told investigators that their work clearly gave them an inside track. And in other instances, in which Timmons was not involved, Vincent profited from lucrative oil-for-food contracts awarded by Iraq as compensation for his effort to buy influence in the U.S. and at the U.N. for Saddam's regime.

At Park's trial, Vincent testified that he, Park, and Timmons stood to make as much as $45 million in profits from one particular oil venture with Saddam's regime had it gone forward. Park testified that he was unsure exactly what percentage of the proceeds each of the three men would have personally received. The deal ultimately fell through.

An investigator who worked on the U.N. investigation of the oil-for-food program told me that Timmons clearly should have or did understand that he was the possible recipient of oil contracts from the Iraqi government because of his lobbying and back channel diplomatic efforts on behalf of Saddam: "He would have to be the most naive person in the world to believe that was not the case," the official told me. "I guess William Timmons is just a natural born oilman. He is either deceiving himself to rationalize what he has done or taking the rest of us for fools."

Between 1997 and 2001, according to the Volcker report, Vincent received five such contracts from Saddam's regime.

In his guilty plea agreement with the Justice Department, Vincent admitted: "I received those allocations because of the work I had done on behalf of the Government of Iraq in helping set up the oil-for-food program."

* * * * *
Samir Vincent was well positioned for the task at hand when he began his influence and back channel diplomacy campaign with the Iraqis; he had been boyhood friends of two of Saddam Hussein's closest advisers, Nizaar Hamdoon and Tariq Aziz.

Hamdoon, who died in 2003, was Saddam's foreign minister, and Tariq Aziz had variously served as Baghdad's ambassador to the United States, ambassador to the United States, and Iraq's deputy prime minister.

But Vincent also sought to enlist the help of a Washington insider or lobbyist if his efforts were to have any chance of success.

His initial plan to purchase Iraqi oil through the American Red Cross faced opposition from the U.S. government. Vincent's partner at the time, an American businessman named John Venners, suggested that they needed "help from some people that he knew very well" who "used to be high up in the government." Venners recommended William Timmons.

As Time magazine's Michael Scherer recently reported, Timmons is "a Washington institution," having worked as a senior aide to every Republican president since Richard Nixon. He also serves as chairman emeritus of Timmons and Company, "a small but influential lobbying firm he founded in 1975 shortly after leaving the White House."

According to Vincent's testimony, Timmons immediately opened doors for the Iraqi-American lobbyist. He talked to then-Deputy Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger on Vincent's behalf. He also contacted then-Sen. Bob Dole and John Bolton, then-undersecretary of state for international affairs, to discuss Vincent's plan.

In a meeting with U.N. officials, Vincent pressed his case armed with "talking points" that Timmons had written for him. Before using them, Vincent said that he first sent the talking points to Nizaar Hamdoon and Tariq Aziz, with Timmons' approval.

After the meeting, Vincent traveled all the way to Baghdad to report back to Tariq Aziz what had occurred. Later, he had another meeting with Hamdoon and Aziz at the United Nations mission in New York to plan on next steps. Vincent testified he made formal minutes of that meeting, typed them up, and then traveled to Washington to personally give them to Timmons. This was routine practice as Vincent, Timmons, and the Iraqis worked together.

Timmons himself was apparently loathe to meet with Hamdoon or Aziz personally. But virtually the entire time they worked together, Vincent would relay to Timmons what the Iraqis had to say and vice versa.

After Vincent's first meeting with U.N. officials, Aziz and Hamdoon suggested that something called a "non-paper" be presented the next time Vincent met with the same officials. Non-papers are diplomatic communications in which parties can propose positions in writing, but do not have to fear if they leak to the public or press, because they do not officially represent positions of the government.

At the request of Aziz and Hamdoon, Timmons authored the non-paper which Vincent could rely on for that second meeting. Both Aziz and Hamdoon also reviewed the paper before Vincent used it.

On March 15, 1995, Timmons wrote a memo (which is a matter of public record as an exhibit in the case) advocating that they and the Iraqis should enlist the assistance of U.S. oil companies to make their case.

Timmons once again apparently understood that his audience was the Iraqi government. Vincent testified that Timmons gave him the memo knowing that the document was "supposed to solicit the thoughts of the Iraqi government, if this is something they would seriously consider." Vincent dutifully passed Timmons' memo on to Nizaar Hamdoon, he testified.

Weeks later, in April 1995, Vincent was summoned to Iraq to meet with Saddam Hussein in Baghdad.

As to Timmons' claims that he kept his distance from Vincent and Park and did not know much about what they and the Iraqis were up to, this exchange between a federal prosecutor and Vincent once again suggests otherwise:

Q: And when you returned to the United States, did you tell anyone about your visit with Saddam Hussein?

A: I told Bill Timmons and Tongsun Park.

Q: Why did you tell Bill Timmons about your visit with Saddam?

A: To let him know that we were talking to the leader of Iraq, and in essence we have access and assure him that any messages we were relaying between Iraqi and Tariq Aziz and anyone else, it was being transmitted to the president, Saddam Hussein, in Iraq.


* * * * *
Presciently, Time's Scherer noted that McCain's own staffers had early concerns that appointing Timmons could prove detrimental to the Arizona Senator's presidential ambitions:

His [lobbying] registrations include work on a number of issues that have become flashpoints in the presidential campaign. He has registered to work on bills that deal with the regulations of troubled mortgage lenders Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, a bill to provide farm subsidies and bills that regulate domestic oil-drilling.

By tapping Timmons, McCain has turned to one of Washington's steadiest and most senior inside players to guide him in the event of a victory -- but also to someone who represents the antithesis of the kind of outside-of-Washington change he has recently been promising. One Republican familiar with the process said the decision to involve Timmons could become a political liability for the campaign's reformist image, especially in the wake of the controversies over the lobbying backgrounds of other McCain staffers, including campaign manager Rick Davis. "It's one more blind spot for Rick Davis and John McCain," the person said.


Timmons' work to relax international sanctions against Iraq, as well as to benefit financially from Saddam Hussein's regime, may be another such flashpoint.

The Volcker report makes clear that when Timmons first got involved with Vincent and the Iraqis, the lure of millions of dollars was at least one incentive. By early 1992, Timmons and his associates were already "pursu[ing] the purchase of sale of Iraqi oil and the exploration by a consortium of companies of the Manjoon field in Iraq," the report said.

According to the report, the venture was dependent on Vincent's belief "that sanctions against Iraq would be lifted immediately and that the Iraqi government might grant a long-term concession to an American oil company."

Later, when Timmons pressed the case even more aggressively that sanctions against Saddam's regime be eased, he, Vincent and Park hoped to profit as well, according to the Volcker report. "Continuing through 1994 and 1995, Mr. Vincent and Mr. Park, along with Mr. Timmons and others, persisted in their efforts to establish a foothold in the Iraqi oil business," the report stated.

At one point, Timmons even boasted to investigators that it was his ideas that later became the basis for the United Nations' oil-for-food program.

Under that program, the United Nations allowed Iraq to sell its oil under U.N. supervision, with the proceeds placed in U.N. escrow accounts to buy food, medicine, and other humanitarian goods for the Iraqi people.

However, a major flaw in the program was that Saddam Hussein's regime was allowed to play a role in the selection of oil companies awarded contracts. Because of lax oversight of the program, Saddam's government was able to demand that foreign oil companies -- including American ones -- provide more than $1.7 billion in kickbacks to his regime.

One of the most outspoken critics in the U.S. Senate of the oil-for-food program was John McCain:

"We need to have a full and complete cooperation on the part of the U.N. about this whole oil-for-food program, which stinks to high heaven," McCain told Fox News in Dec. 2004. "We're talking about billions and billions of dollars here that were diverted for many wrong purposes. And this is an example of corruption.

"And by the way, it's an argument, maybe a small one, but maybe an argument that justifies our action in Iraq. Because clearly the sanctions and the framework of those sanctions was completely eroded."

Additional reporting by Patrick B. Anderson.

Gambler's Anonymous ? McCain?

Yesterday's New York Times front-page investigative story about John McCain's long time ties to the nation's gambling industry ("For McCain and Team, a Host of Ties to Gambling"), jogged my memory about an unsettling bit of information I was given by Ross Perot in 1995.

In November 1995, my wife and fellow author, Trisha, and I, interviewed Perot for several days for an unauthorized biography (Citizen Perot: His Life & Times, Random House, 1996). During one of our conversations, outside of the 'on the record' taped interviews, Perot discussed with us how he had utilized private investigators to uncover information about other people. Perot never used, from what I could determine, any of the personal details he assembled about others. Rather, he was merely a collector of information, never knowing when it might come in useful.

I discussed this with my editor, Bob Loomis. Without independent reporting, much of it was no more than informed gossip. Perot had passed along personal details about Barbara Walters family, Clinton chief of staff Leon Penneta, and business tycoon Peter Ueberroth, someone Perot had seriously considered as a vice-presidential candidate in his own 1992 presidential run.

From our interviews with Perot about the Vietnam POW/MIA issue, it was clear there was no love lost between Perot and a number of public officials who opposed his efforts to keep looking for soldiers he believed had been left behind and were alive. On Perot's most disliked list was George Herbert Bush, who as Reagan's vice-president had shut the door to any further government probe on the matter. Richard Armitage, George W. Bush's ex-deputy Secretary of State, had earned Perot's eternal animosity because of his conclusion that there were no MIAs left in Southeast Asia. And the final person to earn Perot's enmity was John McCain, who as a decorated war hero, and then Senator, had also closed the door to any further MIA investigations.

Bob Loomis and I decided that I should not report Perot's personal details about these men and women, with two exceptions. Regarding Ueberroth, I wrote in Citizen Perot that one Perot campaign insider had concluded that "Ueberroth was the perfect match," but that "Perot and Mort Meyerson (Perot's top business executive at EDS) personally made inquiries about him and eventually opted for a stand-in candidate."

And as for Armitage, Perot's information was so detailed, including even surveillance photos of Armitage in supposedly compromising situations, I did report it. And Armitage was generous in giving me extensive interviews that helped explain the background and put into context Perot's one man war on him.

I am only reporting now Perot's rumor/information about McCain because of today's New York Times story. Perot told me that McCain had a gambling problem and he had uncovered details that McCain was bailed out in the late 1980s from a big gambling debt by his wife, Cindy.

If true, it raises a question as to whether McCain's gambling might ever have put him in a situation where he was pressed to repay his debt through Senatorial favors.

An enterprising reporter has to ask Ross Perot if he will acknowledge what he shared with me 14 years ago, and if so, if he will now provide the evidence to back up the assertion. Perot hasn't talked to me since I published my unauthorized biography, so unfortunately, I am not the person to ask. And some reporter should ask McCain, directly, if he has ever had a gambling debt that his wife had to pay off. American voters have a right to know.
Gerald Posner
Posted September 29, 2008 | 02:00 PM (EST)
Huffington Post

I LOVE SPAIN!!! I am a PROUD AMERICAN!

I wonder how many Americans hold a passport? With stamps other than Cancun or Puerto Vallarta?
Pre 9-11 only 5% held a passport!
YIKES! Looks like Palin was one of them that did not!



Bizarre McCain Remarks Appear To Reject Spain As Ally

stein@huffingtonpost.com | HuffPost Reporting From DC


Late Wednesday night, news made its way from the other side of the Atlantic that John McCain, in an interview with a Spanish outlet, had made a series of bizarre responses to a question regarding that country's prime minister.

"Would you be willing to meet with the head of our government, Mr. Zapatero?" the questioner asked, in an exchange now being reported by several Spanish outlets.

McCain proceeded to launch into what appeared to be a boilerplate declaration about Mexico and Latin America -- but not Spain -- pressing the need to stand up to world leaders who want to harm America.

"I will meet with those leaders who are our friends and who want to work with us cooperatively," according to one translation. The reporter repeated the question two more times, apparently trying to clarify, but McCain referred again to Latin America.

Finally, the questioner said, "Okay, but I'm talking about Europe - the president of Spain, would you meet with him?" The Senator offered only a slight variance to his initial comment. "I will reunite with any leader that has the same principles and philosophy that we do: human rights, democracy, and liberty. And I will confront those that don't [have them]."

The implication seemed fairly clear: McCain was refusing to commit to meet with Zapatero, the "socialist" party leader, whose country is a member of NATO and intricately involved in many of America's global financial and national security objectives.

Already, several explanations are being offered to explain McCain's statements. As Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo opined: "The great majority [of those who have weighed in] appear to think the McCain was simply confused and didn't know who Zapatero was -- something you might bone up on if you were about to do an interview with the Spanish press. The assumption seems to be that since he'd already been asked about Castro and Chavez that McCain assumed Zapatero must be some other Latin American bad guy. A small minority though think that McCain is simply committed to an anti-Spanish foreign policy since he's still angry about Spain pulling it's troops out of Iraq."

If, in fact, that latter group is correct and McCain was just putting voice to an adversarial stance, it could be as quizzical as if he didn't know Zapatero's name in the first place. Indeed, such a take on U.S.-Spain relations puts McCain in a far more hard-lined position than even the Bush administration, which has warmed to the Spanish leader after a rocky initial period. Indeed, the State Department's website touts the Zapatero government, which came to power in April 2004, for supporting "coalition efforts in Afghanistan" as well as "reconstruction efforts in Haiti" and counterterrorism tasks across the globe.

That Zapatero immediately withdrew Spanish forces from Iraq upon entering office, it seems, is being chalked up for what it is: an electoral promise the prime minister made good on. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice touched on this during press briefing in June 2007.

"The United States and Spain are allies," she said. "We're in NATO together; we are serving together in Afghanistan. A lot of our conversation today was about that, working together on any number of issues. We've had our differences... [but] I feel that the relationship is warm. We had a good discussion today... We're allies. But when we have differences, we will express them. I think there's no secret that out of the Iraq war, we had a particular difference in the timing of the withdrawal. But that's behind us now, and we need to look forward and look to areas on which we can cooperate and work together."

Only days earlier, Daniel Fried, assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, made much the same case in an interview with El Pais.

"I think that we got off to a bad start with President Zapatero's government," he declared. "There were various issues that got in the way. But the fact is, and the reason for this trip, is that the United States and Spain need to work together on a common agenda. Spain is one of the most successful European states of the last generation in terms of where Spain was in 1965 and where Spain is today. You weren't in 1965 the ninth or tenth largest economy in the world. You weren't a country that was fabulously productive, affluent and a leader in Europe. In 1965 you were some place else. Look at Spain now."

The truth is, even McCain has been willing to extend an olive branch to the Zapatero government in the past. John Aravosis of AmericaBlog - a fluent Spanish speaker - noted that McCain gave an interview to El Pais back in April in which he said that the differences between the U.S. and Spain should be swept under the rug.

And thus, the Senator finds himself in what appears to be an embarrassing if not potentially damaging proposition: either admit to confusing the name of the Spanish prime minister, a tough pill to swallow even with the built in perception that he is the candidate with foreign policy know-how, or explain away a position on U.S.-Spain relations that appears far outside the mainstream.

Lou Dobbs is a PHONY!

Lou Dobbs-
HE LIKES Bush McCain PALIN! Don;tlet himfool you!

Apparently Lou Dobbs does not know how to explain his MISSING IN ACTION mouth while the INVESTMENT BANKS ROBBED the AMERICAN TAXPAYERS! Remember,he was suppose to be the ECONOMIC GURU!!

LOU DOBBS is more interested in INCITING HATE while ignoring the REAL PROBLEMS!
Such as prosecuting (REGULATING) EMPLOYERS who HIRE illegals and PRIVATE INVESTMENT BANKS while Robbing the AMERICAN PEOPLE BLIND!

The war in IRAQ and his belief that the SURGE was a SUCCESS as John McCain boasts failed to mention the fact the Bob Woodward revealed had very little to do with the decrease in Violence in Iraq. Once again,as he mouthed off about Russia Georgia conflict, proved he knew NOTHING about the ploy behind the Real Agenda for that backfired plot by this administration and the GEORGIA LOBBYIST!
ONCE AGAIN, LOU DOBBS is spending too much time on the radio and not EDUCATING himself on what he clains to be such a KNOW IT ALL on, EVERYTHING!
Lou Dobbs main concern ws the CASUALTIES, NOTHING more. yesterday, September 15, 2008, over 30 people died in Iraq, more bombs!

Meanwhile, this "ECONOMIC GURU" willnow attempt to act as though he is not as IGNORANT as he really is.

I want to know, what this man's agenda is on CNN?

I want a Brilliant Leader. I do not care if I ever have a beer or an ORANGE soda with my President! But Lou Dobbs, he likes you stupid!
Forget about "...Five different schools in six years. What was that about?" for the VICE presidential Nominee for the Republicans. Forget the fact that the Presidential Nominee does not even KNOW HOW To send an EMAIL! And this leader talks about the FUTURE?



I have to agree with Roger Ebert :


Roger Ebert on Sarah Palin: The American Idol candidate

September 11, 2008

BY ROGER EBERT Sun-Times Movie Critic

I think I might be able to explain some of Sarah Palin's appeal. She's the "American Idol" candidate. Consider. What defines an "American Idol" finalist? They're good-looking, work well on television, have a sunny personality, are fierce competitors, and so talented, why, they're darned near the real thing. There's a reason "American Idol" gets such high ratings. People identify with the contestants. They think, Hey, that could be me up there on that show!

My problem is, I don't want to be up there. I don't want a vice president who is darned near good enough. I want a vice president who is better, wiser, well-traveled, has met world leaders, who three months ago had an opinion on Iraq. Someone who doesn't repeat bald- faced lies about earmarks and the Bridge to Nowhere. Someone who doesn't appoint Alaskan politicians to "study" global warming, because, hello! It has been studied. The returns are convincing enough that John McCain and Barack Obama are darned near in agreement.

I would also want someone who didn't make a teeny little sneer when referring to "people who go to the Ivy League." When I was a teen I dreamed of going to Harvard, but my dad, an electrician, told me, "Boy, we don't have the money. Thank your lucky stars you were born in Urbana and can go to the University of Illinois right here in town." So I did, very happily. Although Palin gets laughs when she mentions the "elite" Ivy League, she sure did attend the heck out of college.

Five different schools in six years. What was that about?
And how can a politician her age have never have gone to Europe? My dad had died, my mom was working as a book-keeper and I had a job at the local newspaper when, at 19, I scraped together $240 for a charter flight to Europe. I had Arthur Frommer's $5 a Day under my arm, started in London, even rented a Vespa and drove in the traffic of Rome. A few years later, I was able to send my mom, along with the $15 a Day book.

You don't need to be a pointy-headed elitist to travel abroad. You need curiosity and a hunger to see the world. What kind of a person (who has the money) arrives at the age of 44 and has only been out of the country once, on an official tour to Iraq? Sarah Palin's travel record is that of a provincial, not someone who is equipped to deal with global issues.

But some people like that. She's never traveled to Europe, Asia, Africa, South America or Down Under? That makes her like them. She didn't go to Harvard? Good for her! There a lot of hockey moms who haven't seen London, but most of them would probably love to, if they had the dough. And they'd be proud if one of their kids won a scholarship to Harvard.I trust the American people will see through Palin, and save the Republic in November. The most damning indictment against her is that she considered herself a good choice to be a heartbeat away. That shows bad judgment.

WHITE ABSTINENCE ONLY !!! EXCEPT FOR PALIN!!

Let's say that you enjoyed watching last week's Republican National Convention on television.

Let's say you drank in the almost uniformly white faces and the regimented revivalism, you clapped when speakers belittled Barack Obama's work organizing impoverished communities, indeed, you cheered with Rudy Giuliani's zinger, "Drill, baby, drill!"

Let's further stipulate that you were not at all discomfited by the convention's incessant "Country First" mantra that defines loyalty to America as lockstep fealty to the Republican Party.

Let's say - for sheer argument's sake, of course - all of this is true. What, then, of the substance? Stripping away the partisanship, passion and propaganda, what about the veracity of the claim that the GOP puts this country first?

Well, let's just say it's a little dicey.

On national security, the Republican Party advocates continuing to force thousands of young Americans to risk life and limb refereeing Iraq's civil war. Though the party's slogan hearkens back to conservatives' "America First" isolationism, the GOP nonetheless supports spending $12 billion a month on the war - money needed at home.

Same story on economics. In 2004, the Republican White House called outsourcing "a plus." In 2006, the Republican commander-in-chief OK'd the sale of critical infrastructure to foreign dictators. And today the Republican presidential nominee is demanding more NAFTA-style trade pacts that eliminate American jobs. This, says the GOP, is putting our country first.
But who is the "country"? According to the Census Bureau, it will soon be mostly non-whites. That is, the demographic groups who the alleged "country first" party regularly disparages, whether Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., is scapegoating Latinos, Rep. Howard Coble, R-N.C., celebrating Japanese internment or President Bush genuflecting to Bob Jones University's white supremacists.
Maybe, you insist in your post-convention fervor, I just don't get it. Maybe "country first" really does mean refereeing foreign civil wars, spending billions overseas while cutting domestic programs, exporting jobs and bashing ethnic groups that will soon comprise the majority of the nation.

But I don't think so. More likely, Republicans have simply taken the famous parable to heart - the one about patriotism being the last refuge of scoundrels.

As a political strategy, it's not stupid. Following the Bush-DeLay-Abramoff era, many Americans rightly think Republican politicians are scoundrels. And so those politicians are trying to make sure "this election is not about issues," as McCain's campaign manager said this week, but about a hideous hypernationalism only Joe McCarthy could love. Employing flag pins, war stories and Bible-thumping social conservatism, former P.O.W. McCain and Christian fundamentalist Palin hope their red-white-and-blue phantasmagoria will hypnotize America into voting Republican.

On the seventh anniversary of the 9/11 atrocities, the Republican convention reminds us of what Barry Goldwater suggested 44 years ago: Terrorists are not the only ones who believe extremism is "no vice." And, as the old aphorism warns, when the most virulent extremism attacks our country, it won't be shrouded in Islamic fatwas - it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross.

Sadly, the when is now. McCain is the flag, Palin is the cross - and Americans will have to decide whether we believe their zealotry puts country first.

David Sirota is a fellow at the Campaign for America's Future and a board member of the Progressive States Network - both nonpartisan organizations. His blog is at www.credoaction.com/sirota.

LIPSTICK ON A PIG- OLD FISH in a NEW Sheet of PAPER

Palin expensed her children's air travel to the state

By Kyle Hopkins | Anchorage Daily News
ANCHORAGE — Since Gov. Sarah Palin took office nearly two years ago, the state of Alaska has routinely bought commercial airline tickets for her daughters when they travel with her, a practice that raises questions about the governor's claim to being a fiscal conservative.

Travel records from the governor's office show that the state has spent at least $31,800 on dozens of airline tickets for the family, and more for meals and hotels.

Records show the family has traveled with Palin for events such as the Alaska Federation of Natives convention in Fairbanks last fall and to shoot official first family photos in Juneau, to draw raffle tickets at an event in Anchorage and to tour a teen center spearheaded by the Juneau Christian Center.

There's no specific state law or rule that says the state pays for family members to travel to events with the governor, but it's become tradition, according to Linda Perez, director of administrative services for the governor. The governor's spokeswoman, Sharon Leighow, said paying the family's travel expenses is appropriate because people expect Palin to bring her husband and children along.

"There is an expectation of the first family to participate in activities across the state," she said.

But the issue of who should pay the family's travel expenses adds to questions about Palin's spending practices that were raised this week by revelations in the Washington Post that Palin also charged the state for meals while she was staying at her home in Wasilla, away from her official state duty station of Juneau, the capital.

Leighow said there was nothing wrong with Palin claiming state money while she was staying in her own home. "She's entitled to it," Leighow said.

Leighow noted that Palin's travel expenses last year — $114,000 — were far less than those submitted the previous year by Gov. Frank Murkowski — the Republican Palin beat in the primary to cement her reputation as a reformer willing to take on members of her own party. Murkowski's travel expenses for 2006 totaled $516,000.

But the Democrat who preceded Murkowski in office, Tony Knowles, questioned both the state's paying for Palin's children's travel and for Palin's collecting the state per diem while staying in her Wasilla home.

"When you're living at home, you don't pay yourself for living at home," Knowles said in an interview Tuesday. "And if you use a technicality to get around that rule so you can get paid for it, it's not right."

Knowles said in an interview last week that when he was governor his children were allowed to fly on state-owned King Air propeller planes, but that the state did not buy them commercial airline tickets.

"All of her travel-related activities have been appropriately documented, are completely transparent and entirely legal," said Ben Porritt, spokesman for Palin's vice presidential campaign.

Since Palin was named the Republican Party's vice-presidential candidate, the campaign of Sen. John McCain has promoted her as a fierce budget watchdog eager to shave frivolous government spending. At campiagn stops, Palin has repeatedly touted her record for selling the state's jet and laying off the chef at the governor's mansion in Juneau. Her presence on the campaign trail has energized the party's evangelical Christian base behind the McCain candidacy.

But her claims to middle-class frugality as the state's governor are undercut by the revelations about her travel expenses. The Post reported that she's billed the state thousands of dollars for meal money while spending more than 300 nights at her Wasilla home during her first 19 months in office.

The Palins split time between Juneau, the state's capital, and Wasilla, outside of Anchorage, with the governor often working in Juneau during the legislative session and in Anchorage for much of the rest of the year.

The state considers Juneau to be the governor's home base. That creates a scenario where Palin is considered to be "traveling" while living in her own house.

At least one member of Palin's cabinet also ate on the state's dime while staying in his hometown on multi-day trips during 2007, according to Division of Finance records. Palin doesn't require her cabinet members to live in Juneau, and most don't.

Knowles, who served as governor from 1994 to 2002, moved his family to Juneau and leased out his Anchorage home. When in Anchorage on official business, Knowles said he stayed at the Hilton hotel. He collected a meal per diem unless he was attending events at which meals were provided, he said.

Murkowski, who served from 2002 to 2006, lived in the governor's mansion in Juneau. The state rented an Anchorage apartment for him for business in the city, and he collected a per diem while staying there, Perez said.

Palin's travel expenses first drew attention during the summer when her daughter Piper joined Palin on a well-publicized trip to Barrow, in Alaska's far north. Critics wondered then who had paid Piper's travel expenses.

Travel records requested by the Anchorage Daily News show that the state did. The reports, which the governor and other state employees submit to get reimbursed for meals and lodging while on the road, also document thousands of dollars in per diem claims while Palin stayed in her own home.

For example, the reports show that in mid-June of 2007, Palin arrived in Anchorage on the state's King Air propeller plane for the beginning of a long stay away from the capital. On her agenda: a special legislative session on senior aid, signing the state budget and a baseball game between the Mat-Su Miners and Alaska Goldpanners.

During the same trip, Palin performed the coin toss at an Alaska Wild football game one day and vetoed $231 million for projects in the state construction budget the next.

For the two weeks she worked in Anchorage while living at home, she charged the state a total of about $800 in meal money, according to the travel records.

Leighow said the governor saves money when she's at home — it's less expensive than staffing and stocking the governor's mansion in Juneau.

Leighow also defended the governor's commercial air travel, noting that Palin flies coach and that Todd Palin's state-paid travel expenses so far total only $14,000, compared to $124,000 for Nancy Murkowski during Murkowski's four years in office.

Leighow also said that Palin has had to travel by commercial air with her children because the state's King Air aircraft often has been unavailable. Lately, when the King Air isn't down for maintenance, it's being painted or fitted with new electronics, she said.

Among the trips documented by the travel records where Palin took along her children:

-- July 7-15, 2008: Palin daughters Piper and Bristol flew to Philadelphia with the governor for a National Governors Association meeting. The state lists the purpose of the girls' trip as participating in "governor's youth programs and family activities." The airfare and lodging cost $2,500.

-- April 3-6, 2008: Piper joined the governor in the Anchorage area because -- according to state travel records authorizing the trip -- the first family was to read to students a Wasilla Christian school. The round trip flight from Juneau cost $550.

-- October 7-11, 2007: Palin's oldest daughter, Bristol, flew with the governor to New York City at a cost of $1,390 because she was "invited to attend Newsweek's

Third Annual Women and Leadership Conference with the governor," Palin's office says. They stayed in a $707-a-night hotel for four nights.
Piper, who is 7, flew with Palin the most often, followed by Todd Palin and the governor's two older daughters.

The couple's oldest son, 19-year-old Track, enlisted in the Army last September and isn't listed on any of the travel forms. Neither is the governor's youngest, Trig, who was born in April and flies for free.

The family and Palin's staff also often flew on the King Air propeller plane, which is owned by the Department of Public Safety, according to the records.
The governor's office pays a flat rate -- which was about $900 an hour as of this spring -- when using the state plane, Perez wrote in an e-mail. When the jet was still in use, it cost roughly twice as much as the King Air, according to the Department of Public Safety.

One set of travel expense the state will not pick up are those generated by Palin since she's been on the campaign trail. The trip isn't considered state business, and Palin won't be able to collect a per diem or reimburse lodging costs since she's been gone, Perez said.

Palin chief of staff Mike Nizich, Anchorage office director Kris Perry, communications director Bill McAllister, and Bob Cockrell, one of Palin's security special agents, all joined the governor at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn.

The state plans to pay only the travel expenses for McAllister and Cockrell, according to the governor's office.

Russian Georgian PR BLAST! No kidding!

When Cheney is in Georgia while all eyes are on the Republican Convention, what in the world did he do now?

Just as I said...THIS IS A SET UP! I have called, emailed, blogged and made many, many comments on smelling a RAT! More BLOOD on America's hands all for the PRE 9-11 Missile Defense Treaty! What IDIOTS!!WAKE UP!

NO WAY, NO HOW, NO McCAIN-PALIN

Return of the "Mavrick" MEVERICK


A Democrat, probably some sort of spelling elitist, is amused.

The line appeared on screen just as McCain discussed adult literacy, two colleagues say.

Clinton amends 'No way, no how, no McCain-Palin'

Hillary releases a statement at the close of McCain's speech:

“The two party conventions showcased vastly different directions for our country. Sen. Obama and Sen. Biden offered the new ideas and positive change America needs and deserves after eight years of failed Republican leadership. Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin did not.

“After listening to all of the speeches this week, I heard nothing that suggests the Republicans are ready to fix the economy for middle-class families, provide quality affordable health care for all Americans, guarantee equal pay for equal work for women, restore our nation's leadership in a complex world or tackle the myriad of challenges our country faces.

“So, to slightly amend my comments from Denver: NO WAY, NO HOW, NO McCAIN-PALIN.”

Sarah Palin speech ONLY!! NO QUESTIONS ASKED!

If Bush/McCain Campaign refuses to allow any questions posed to the Republican Party’s VP candidate, then why would the nedia give time to STUMP SPEECH ONLY COVERAGE?

We don't really know Sarah Palin...but we did not know GWBush either

Apparently, not knowing is what the IGNORANT AMERICANS CHOOSE. Over the past 19 months of getting to know Obama does not seem to be enough for the BUSH/MCCAIN people, but because she is female seems to be enough for this mentality.
Does not matter that the leader they would chosse for this country doesnot know how to use a computer yet they buy his speech on taking us into the future?
Really?


Can Palin Escape the Parent Trap?
Thursday, Sep. 04, 2008

Almost overnight, Sarah Palin replaced Hillary Clinton as the screen on which we project our doubts and hopes about women and success. In noisy public forums, everyone seemed suddenly certain of beliefs they used to reject: of course a woman can manage five kids and the vice leadership of the free world, said conservative defenders previously known for asserting a woman's need to submit to her husband. Of course she has no business putting her family through this, said liberal opponents better known for insisting women should submit to no one.

But in quieter places, such as my inbox and my subconscious, there has been nothing like that kind of certainty. Instead, it has been the conversation that never ends — the one about how we juggle and who we judge — and I don't think I know any woman, working or not, who feels she has gotten it exactly right. I do know we share a deep revulsion at having choices made for us and values thrust upon us, which is why Palin has our instincts tied up in such intricate knots.

We are accustomed, after centuries of experience, to ambitious fathers whose parental failures are glossed over and swept under the rug by devoted wives and complicit courtiers; we only learn about the train wrecks of famous families when we read the memoirs. When a man at the height of his powers announces he will be Spending More Time with His Family, it translates as: he messed up big-time, didn't have what it takes.

But now we are presented with the unfolding complexity of an ambitious woman, one prepared to be Spending Less Time with Her Family, to play by the boys' rules, to break the glass ceiling Clinton softened for her. I couldn't help thinking as I watched Palin's debut that she was the most macho candidate we've seen in years, the point guard turned sportscaster aiming her M-16, shooting her moose, taking on the good-old boys. And yes, balancing BlackBerry and breast pump, with a beautiful family that includes a son heading to Iraq, a pregnant teenage daughter and a 4-month-old with special needs. She's willing to put Country First. Should she be punished for doing something we reward men for doing?

Just to complicate the picture a little more: the week before the Republicans gave us Sarah Palin, the Democrats offered up Joe Biden as a man who could feel my pain; who, after his wife and daughter's fatal car accident, had to be talked out of giving up his Senate seat because he wanted to be at his sons' side; who, if voters know nothing else about him, know that he takes the train home to Delaware every night and has never missed a soccer game.

So I come back to the moment when John McCain invited Palin to become the first woman on a Republican ticket. Together they could make history, perhaps make the world a better place. I have to wonder: Did she know her daughter would become a late-night punch line? However unconditionally supportive, did she tell Bristol she'd have to stay backstage or hold her baby brother in pictures in a way that hid her own baby until a media strategy had been set for telling the public her most private secrets? Ordinarily, such revelations are choreographed well in advance — only this time, there was no advance. The pregnancy was something of an open secret in Alaska, where respect for privacy and small-town sympathy may have allowed a governor to imagine that the impact would be minimal. But America isn't Alaska, and the national stage is no small town. McCain may have given her a chance that women have been waiting for for years. But he has also been through this before, faced the kind of scrutiny for which nothing can really prepare you. Did he warn her about what lay ahead?

We don't really know Sarah Palin and can't possibly know what calculations and compromises she has made. We do know one thing, however: She was given very little time to make this choice. Every working mother lives a life of what-ifs and should-Is, birthdays missed for the important meeting and meetings missed because a child was sick. Yes, many men face these choices too, but it's mainly the women in my life whom I hear agonize over them, applauding friends who make the hard climb but also those who walk away. We still don't have many role models, because both professional success and successful parenting take so much time and heart and sweat and sleepless nights. So it's hard to watch an accomplished woman walk the tightrope under lights this bright and with stakes this high; we don't want it to look too easy, but we don't want to see her fall.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1838535,00.html

Who wrote the 'MOM of the YEAR' speech?

The Man Behind Palin's Speech
Thursday, Sep. 04, 2008
By MASSIMO CALABRESI / WASHINGTON

As Democrats and Barack Obama's campaign scrambled to attack Sarah Palin's well-received acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn., on Wednesday night, they latched on early and hard to the fact that it was penned by former Bush speechwriter Matthew Scully. But the story is more complicated than just the recycling of a Bush staffer into John McCain's fold, and it tells you more about how McCain's camp intends to use Palin than it does about the continuing influence of the current White House.

The clues are in the text itself. Scully started working on the vice-presidential speech a week ago, before he or anyone else knew who the nominee would be, and it's not hard to pick out the parts that would have been the same regardless of who delivered it. Scully unspooled two centrist themes via Palin that have been key to the McCain message: the idea that the Republican nominee puts service to country ahead of career and the notion that he's the true representative of Middle America. Both themes implicitly push Obama and Biden to the left, and Scully made them explicit with lines accusing the Democrats of élitism and talking down to working-class voters.

Once Palin was chosen, Scully tailored the speech to the Alaska governor, highlighting her biography and using her PTA background and local political experience (contrasted so memorably with Obama's work as a community organizer) to bolster his two themes. Where much media attention in the wake of her surprise naming has focused on Palin's views on cultural issues like abortion, the speech carefully steered away from ideological touchstones. Palin was shown as an average mainstream American looking to bring change to Washington, further bolstering McCain's overarching message of reforming the wasteful Federal Government.

Scully was a good choice to help moderate Palin's right-wing image. A veteran of the early Bush White House, his specialty was crafting Bush's pro-life message in a way that would not offend soccer moms or mainstream Catholics who get nervous around some of the more extreme Evangelical rhetoric. A former protégé of the late pro-life Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, Bob Casey, Scully has a history of finding rhetorical unity for voters on the right and in the center.

The Palin-Scully pairing is anything but a guaranteed fit, though. Palin is known as an avid hunter; Scully is best known for his vigorous defense of animal rights. A vegetarian who is regularly critical of the NRA and much of the hunting community, he is a passionate advocate for doing away with the more brutal versions of blood-sport, including aerial hunting, which Palin supports.

Don't be surprised, though, if the combination continues. McCain wanted to pick a centrist Vice President not just because he liked candidates such as Joe Lieberman and Tom Ridge, but because he badly needs to close the gap in swing states like Ohio, Iowa and Wisconsin, where he trails Obama. But he had to pick a cultural conservative like Palin because he couldn't risk alienating an already demoralized base. If Palin was viewed as the most likely right winger to sell in the swing states, Scully is the right pick to help repackage her from a base pleaser into a bridge builder. (See photos of Sarah Palin here.)

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1838808,00.html?xid=feed-cnn-topics

LETS GET THIS RIGHT!! MEDIA better PAY ATTENTION!

September 4, 2008

To set the record, I come from a family of ten children, and in a hospital bed, on my mother’s dying bed, unable to speak, she motioned for a paper and pen Her last wish was for all of us siblings to take care of our oldest sister, who is mentally retarded. I know what a special needs child does to the dynamic of a family. My mom voted for JFK.

When I travel outside of this country with my current passport, my third one issued, (one every TEN years) I am often asked why TWICE, TWICE, and this country and its IGNORANT, ANTI-INTELLECT people voted BUSH into office?

The McCain supporters are the majority of people that put BUSH into the White House for EIGHT YEARS! This intellect needs to be questioned.

Let us not forget the media took a beating for not asking enough or the right questions prior to the invasion of Iraq. I do not believe the media will be forgiven twice if they allow the same group of people that played the media to do it once again. They need to earn the forgiveness that the American people were so gracious to give and not only ASK the RIGHT questions in 2008, but get the ANSWERS to those questions prior to NOVEMEBER 2008!

OK! Now, let’s get a grip on the POW action!

This morning on C-Span, Michele Bachman, a state representative of Minnesota, was not aware of the fact that her newfound hero, Sarah Palin, collected $24 Million dollars of EARMARKS! She was informed of this fact by a call in AMERICAN HERO, a Korean Veteran from Iowa, who received a SILVER STAR. He informed her of this FACT of her newfound hero. He also commented on how the number of UNKNOWN POWS are not ‘bragging up’ their POW time and their service as John McCain does.

It is a fact that the education for the people in the United States of America has been on a FAST decline and still going, DOWN! How is it that the same party that voted Bush in twice will have nominated the man, John McCain, to lead their party, without any ability to use a computer? I have mentioned before, Osama Bin Laden knows how to use a computer. Asking that anti-intellect crowd if this is relevant might be too invasive? Is it sexist or maybe inflicting the AGE factor? How does this lead to the future as the Vice President nominee proclaimed he would do?

After last night’s DIV ISIVE speech, it was very clear that the McCain Party is not going to fool us with a UNITY ticket. For those of us that take advantage of the God Given gift of intelligence I could only hope that we will not go through EIGHT MORE YEARS OF THIS!

War on Drugs in Alaska?

Drug Abuse, Addiction and Treatment and Rehabilitation Situation in Alaska

Due to it’s non-centrally location compared with the rest of the United States and common border with Canada, Alaska has become a transit zone for drug smugglers. The state also has become a major consumer of illicit drugs despite is remote location. The majority of the drug trade is carried out by the Mexican and Dominican drug organizations/cartels.

Over the past 2 decades, Alaska has seen some of the highest per capita use of controlled drugs and large drug seizures have become common. Associated with the illicit drug trade is one of the highest incidence of alcoholism, money laundering, violence, rape and suicide when compared to the rest of the United States.

The major drug trafficked in Alaska is crack cocaine. The trafficking is usually done by the Mexican and Dominican organizations. The cocaine originates from the Southern USA arriving via South America. Because of Alaska’s remote location and difficulty bringing in drugs, the drug cartels resell cocaine at exorbitant prices. In addition to cocaine, black tar heroin is also available in Alaska. The spread of this drug is done by the Mexican organizations.

Today, Oxycontin and methamphetamine have replaced heroin as the drug of abuse. Like all other states, methamphetamine abuse has become an epidemic in Alaska because of its easy availability and cheap price. To counter the methamphetamine abuse, legislation has been passed to remove pseudoephrine from cold remedies. This legal maneuver has helped decrease the abuse of methamphetamine. Drug trafficking organizations obtain the majority of methamphetamine for sale in Alaska from the Southern USA and transport it across state lines using various couriers systems.

Club Drugs are also becoming widely abused in Alaska and the business is very profitable for the traffickers. The club drugs are easily available at most night clubs and are the drugs of choice for abuse among college students.

Marijuana is the most abused and widespread drug in Alaska. Unlike other states, Bill HB49 has been introduced which re-criminalizes the use and possession of marijuana. The majority of marijuana is home grown in sophisticated laboratories. However, the potent and more pure form of marijuana known as BC Bud continues to be smuggled in from Canada.

Prescription drugs are the second most commonly abused drugs. These drugs are easily accessed by illegal dispensing and prescribing by physicians/pharmacists, prescription forgery, doctor shopping, drug thefts from pharmacies and online sales. The drugs most commonly abused include oxycodone (OxyContin®, Percocet, Percodan), hydrocodone (Vicodin, Lortab), and anabolic steroids.

DEA Mobile Enforcement Teams

To counter the drug traffickers, various DEA mobile enforcement teams have been established in Alaska. This cooperative program with state and local law enforcement counterparts were established in response to the escalating problem of drug-related violent crime in the State. While these mobile unit have not eradicated the drug problem, they certainly have led to more arrests of criminals and gangs.

Alaska has recently allowed patients to use medical marijuana if they have specified medical conditions, a state registry ID card and the advice of a physician. Caregivers must also have the ID cards to avoid prosecution for distribution of marijuana. This law was enacted in March of 1999 after voters passed Ballot Measure #8.However, a proposal is now being considered to over turn the state's lenient marijuana laws.

To assist victims of drug abuse, the State is now using money collected from drug traffickers to pay for Rehabilitation/Treatment programs. A few in-patient and outpatient programs have been established to help the victims.

McCain Can't Use 'a Google.' So What?

Just goes to show you HOW STUPID and IGNORANT the AMERICAN INTELLECT IS!
just another reason why the entire WORLD LAUGHS at our STUPIDITY!


Posted Monday, July 14, 2008 4:34 PM
McCain Can't Use 'a Google.' So What? Andrew Romano




The liberal blogosphere's outrage du jour? John McCain's professed "computer illiteracy." "Did the GOP really pick one of the last few cavemen among us who has yet to learn how to use the internet or e-mail?" writes commenter Tony over at the Politico. "Pathetic," add DailyKos's BarbinMD. "How long should it take to 'learn' to get online? It's one point and a click."

I understand the temptation to sic some snark on the senator from Arizona. Compared to Barack Obama--a 46-year-old who's comfortable thumbing his BlackBerry every "seven seconds" and teleconferencing by Mac laptop with his young daughters--it's easy enough to paint McCain as a doddering old dinosaur by, say, trotting out the clip where he admits that he's "an illiterate [who] has to rely on my wife for all of the assistance I can get." Or the one where he uses the nonexistent phrase "a Google" to describe an Internet search. Or his assurance during an interview yesterday with the New York Times that even though his aides "go on for [him]" right now, "[he's] learning to get online myself, and I will have that down fairly soon." That latest outburst has earned McCain a round of liberal scorn over the past 24 hours, with Politico commenter Veritas claiming "it shows he is stubborn, stuck in the past and slow to learn" and Democratic blogger Jed Lewison wondering what would happen if the famous 3:00 a.m. call arrived via email. Elsewhere, Jane Hamsher has written that "someone who is going to be expected to lead the country through the social, political, economic and communication upheavals that are happening as a result of the changes in computer and online technology very much needs to be able to use [a PC].” In other words, no email = incompetent president. Also, he's, like, old. LOL.

COMPUTER for MCCAIN? BIN LADEN uses her computer!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_R9wnMVZE_Q

John Mccain Admits He Cant Use a Computer

WHAT A MOTHER! Sarah Palin.....GO GO GO !!

let';s really look at this MOTHER!

HELP ALASKA!
YES, ALASKA is what we are all concerned with!
After all, their REVENUE sharing is only shared with ALSAKANS, not the COUNTRY!

ALL women that delivered a baby and went back to work THREE DAYS LATER, PLEASE STAND UP NOW!
Notice, the woman 'mother' did nto come on stage with the baby in arms , did she?
Nor did her ESKIMO husband......
The daughter held that FOUR MONTH OLD baby during that entire campaign stump with TEN THOUSAND people clapping their loudest and not ear plugs for the baby!
WHAT A MOTHER!




Palin Comparison: Not Enough "Northern Exposure" in the Press?
Interviewed by a reporter from Alaska, Sarah Palin could not testify to her national security experience. And Cindy McCain says it amounts to Alaska being close to Russia.

By Greg Mtichell

(August 31, 2008) -- It has come to this.

When a Fox News morning host, Steve Doocy, testified to Sarah Palin's national security experience on Friday by saying that her state, Alaska, was so close to Russia, it drew hoots across the media and blogosphere (and even, no doubt, from a few Fox viewers).

This morning, on ABC in an interview with George Stephanopoulos, Cindy McCain, wife of the GOP standard bearer who had just picked Palin as his running mate, endorsed this very view.
Asked about Palin's national security experience, Cindy McCain could not come up with anything beyond the fact that, after all, her state is right next to Russia. "Remember that Alaska is the closest part of our continent to Russia," she declared. She added that Palin has "way more experience than...." but Stephanopoulos cut her off before she could say, for example, "Barack Obama" or maybe "others give her credit for."

Earlier, she said that Palin was "heavily experienced" in general, citing her going from the PTA to mayor to governor -- and having a son headed for Iraq. She actually said that she started her political career at the PTA "like everybody else."

Meanwhile, Palin's mother-in-law, Faye Palin, told a New York Daily News reporter that she didn't agree with Sarah on everything and hadn't yet decided how she would vote. She added: "I'm not sure what she brings to the ticket other than she's a woman and a conservative. Well, she's a better speaker than McCain," Faye Palin said with a laugh.

But this actually isn't as appalling as a phone interview Palin herself gave yesterday to reporter back home, at the Anchorage Daily News. (E&P has been covering for three days now reports from the Alaska press.)

The reporter, Kyle Hopkins, asked, according to the transcript posted today, "Are you ready to be President Palin if necessary?"

"I am ... I am up to the task, of course, of focusing on the challenges that face America," she answered, and that was all she could say on her behalf on this question. Then she abruptly shifted to how her candidacy would help Alaska. "And I am very pleased with the situation that I am in, when, when you consider the situation now that Alaska will be in.
"And that is Alaska, and Alaskans will be allowed to contribute more to our great country and they'll be allowed to do that because I -- if we're elected -- will be in a position of opening the eyes of the country to what it is that Alaska is all about and what Alaska has to offer. So, I am happy to and very honored to be asked to do this. I know it's going to be great for Alaska."

Who said the woman was against earmarks?

The early returns are not good, with most in the media still stepping lightly around the issue of John McCain's hypocrisy in asserting, for months, that Barack Obama is "dangerously" inexperienced in facing international threats -- and then appointing Sarah Palin as his running mate. If you don't believe it, just keep reading the Alaska newspapers.

Or, take conservative ultra-hawk columnist Charles Krauthammer's word for it, in his blog posting at The Washington Post: "The Palin selection completely undercuts the argument about Obama's inexperience and readiness to lead -- on the theory that because Palin is a maverick and a corruption fighter, she bolsters McCain's claim to be the reformer in this campaign. In her rollout today, Palin spoke a lot about change. McCain is now trying to steal "change" from Obama, a contest McCain will lose in an overwhelmingly Democratic year with an overwhelmingly unpopular incumbent Republican administration. At the same time, he's weakening his strong suit -- readiness vs. unreadiness.

"The McCain campaign is reveling in the fact that Palin is a game changer. But why a game changer when you’ve been gaining? To gratuitously undercut the remarkably successful 'Is he ready to lead' line of attack seems near suicidal."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Mtichell (gmitchell@editorandpublisher.com) is editor. His ninth book, on Iraq and the media, is titled "So Wrong for So Long."

NO COMPUTER? BIN LADEN HAS A COMPUTER!!!

The Republican Party and their electorate overlooked GW Bush’s lack of knowledge on most everything for EIGHT YEARS!

I am appalled at the fact that any party in this country’s government would even allow a contender for President to the most powerful country in the World with ABSOLUTELY NO KNOWLEDGE to use a computer. This just amazing to me!

The fact that the American people would even consider voting for someone that does not know how to use a computer is embarrassing as an American. Osaama Bin Laden knows how to use a computer! Are we that ignorant to elect what is supposed to be our leader?

According to Webster, Leadership is:
Capacity or ability to lead


I do believe that Senator Obama will do, as most great CEO’s have done; hire the BEST people to surround him to make the best decisions to move our country forward into the 21st Millennium.

I was aware of Barack in Illinois, as one of my Senators but was really moved by his speech at the 2004 Convention. I was speaking to my girlfriend in California and expressed my regret that she missed it. (She is from Chicago also) She mentioned she had Time Warner and could replay it. I asked her to tape it for me and I have it in my possession today.

The decision to ask Joe Biden, to be his Vice President, quite capable of being President should something tragic should happen while in office, displays his judgments and ability to make the tough decisions. The fact that pre September 11, 2001 it was not more than 10% or the American People that held passports. We will be led by the best teacher moving forward to EDUCATE the AMERICAN people transitioning to a
GLOBALWORLD is very reassuring as a world traveler myself.

National Security is not important to the American Mainstream Media

Chuck Todd from MSNBC warned his colleagues that they would be sorry they missed so much of the DNC Convention while lamenting over the CLINTONS for the first three days of the Convention. The media missed so much and I am very angry you decided to take this programming strategy and MIS-INFORM the AMERICAN PEOPLE, ONCE AGAIN!

I guess it wasn’t enough “RED MEAT” for the media. But let us not forget, the fourth arm of the People’s GOVERNMENT, the Media, and how well they did informing the AMERICAN PEOPLE prior to being MIS LEAD by CHENEY/BUSH into Iraq!

YES! YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED!

I have my critique of the mainstream media but am more concerned of the continuous EXPLOITATION of the ignorance of Americans and allowing the Bush administration to bring this country to its lowest levels across the board. Domestic and Foreign!

Apparently, the National Security is not important to the American Mainstream Media and it’s responsibility to inform Americans of THE REAL ISSUES!

Wow! Amazing! The only MEDIA outlet that showed the CHAIRMAN of the Foreign Intelligence Committee Speech was C-SPAN.

After all, while banks were robbing the American treasury and its people, we were all exposed to the talking heads, misrepresenting themselves as reporters but bringing in the cash while focusing on Paris & Brittany.

As a matter of fact, the American Mainstream media has continuously exploited the ignorance of the American people and the fact that the education of its people has been fast eroding.

The mainstream media continues to bash government yet they are right there playing the same old game and not INFORMING the AMERICAN PEOPLE.

Now, NBC has refused to allow the T-Bone Pickens advertisement to be aired.