“‘This is exactly the time when the American people need to hear from the person who, in approximately 40 days, will be responsible for dealing with this mess,’ Obama said in Clearwater, Fla. ‘It’s going to be part of the president’s job to deal with more than one thing at once.'”
“A McCain-Palin campaign ad claims Obama’s ‘one accomplishment’ in the area of education was ‘legislation to teach ‘comprehensive sex education’ to kindergarteners.’ But the claim is simply false, and it dates back to Alan Keyes’ failed race against Obama for an open Senate seat in 2004.”
It’s getting to the point where I’m having trouble keeping up. It seems obvious to me that the McCain has little of fact to support it’s campaign. Here’s an important quote from Obama when debating Keyes:
We have a existing law that mandates sex education in the schools. We want to make sure that it’s medically accurate and age-appropriate. Now, I’ll give you an example, because I have a six-year-old daughter and a three-year-old daughter, and one of the things my wife and I talked to our daughter about is the possibility of somebody touching them inappropriately, and what that might mean. And that was included specifically in the law, so that kindergarteners are able to exercise some possible protection against abuse, because I have family members as well as friends who suffered abuse at that age. So, that’s the kind of stuff that I was talking about in that piece of legislation.
Damn right I would want that taught to my child. It’s getting so, that I’m cussin’!
“A McCain-Palin ad has FactCheck.org calling Obama’s attacks on Palin ‘absolutely false’ and ‘misleading.’ That’s what we said, but it wasn’t about Obama.
Our article criticized anonymous e-mail falsehoods and bogus claims about Palin posted around the Internet. We have no evidence that any of the claims we found to be false came from the Obama campaign.
The McCain-Palin ad also twists a quote from a Wall Street Journal columnist. He said the Obama camp had sent a team to Alaska to ‘dig into her record and background.’ The ad quotes the WSJ as saying the team was sent to ‘dig dirt.’
Update, Sept. 10: Furthermore, the Obama campaign insists that no researchers have been sent to Alaska and that the Journal owes them a correction.”
“Still, attention must be paid. McCain’s address, though largely a repetitive slew of stump-speech lines and worn G.O.P. orthodoxy, reminded us of what we once liked about the guy: his aspirations to bipartisanship, his heroic service in Vietnam, his twinkle. He took his (often inaccurate) swipes at Obama, but, in winning contrast to Palin and Rudy Giuliani, he wasn’t smug or nasty.
The only problem, of course, is that the entire thing was a sham.”
“McCain’s new ad puts another stitch in what we’ve called his pattern of deceit on Obama’s tax plan. This one claims Obama and congressional Democrats plan to push forward ‘painful tax increases on working American families’ and that they will bring about ‘years of deficits,’ ‘no balanced budgets’ and ‘billions in new government spending.’
The ad is plain wrong about higher taxes on working families. In fact, Obama’s economic plan would produce a tax cut for the majority of American households, with middle-income earners benefiting most. As for ‘years of deficits,’ exactly the same claim could be made about McCain’s program. It’s unlikely either Obama or McCain would balance the budget, and both are projected to increase the debt by trillions.”
Most of the articles I’ve read in the media put Barack on the defensive. Watching the video, I don’t get a sense of defensiveness although his opponents will twist his words. Word twisting is part and parcel of a campaign. But the reports I’ve read don’t seem to portray Obama’s demeanor at all.
WSJ.com – In New Law’s Wake, Companies Slash Their Political Donations
This was a really nice surprise. I’ve been a long time supporter of campaign finance reform because I felt special interest money held too much sway in the process. It seems that the unintended effect, is the democratization of the money. Since corporations are forced to solicit employees to support their political ends, regular people are getting more involved in supporting candidates.
One possible effect is that corporate and employee interests can be more aligned, explicitly in the political process. Cause and effect are more tightly coupled. I think this is a good thing for Americans in general.
Another is that it returns a good portion of power in our democracy back where it belongs: with the people. Of course, this power is being exercised by the filter of corporate PACs, but what can you do? We live in a liberal-capitalist nation. Corporations exert tremendous power by virtue of their economic strength in our society, but now that is shared between management and employee. That is as democratic as we can get with out social and political revolution. Libertarians and anarchists take note. You must destroy people’s source of paychecks to enact your visions (pipe dreams? just kidding). What about the other PACs? Some consolidation is bound to occur. After all, once I donate to MoveOnPAC or some other general PAC, which else do I support? Just like charities, there will be “donation fatigue” and this limits their number.
These results are far from perfect, but change is a welcome.