You are currently browsing the daily archive for October 5, 2008.
The half decent and (relatively) factual part of Rove’s speech/article was left out – that’s the way they always start – the following is where he thinks the McCain campaign should go – and how they should get there.
So much riding on Palin….I just had my own Rovian thought !!
Achilles was only as strong as his heel !!
McCain-Palin must deepen those doubts by pounding away on questions about Obama’s character, judgment and values. Drawing on Obama’s own record and statements, they need to paint him as a big spender, class warrior and cultural elitist; they need to say he’s never worked across party lines or gotten his hands dirty solving big issues. But the duo must also give voters reasons to support them. They must crystallize a positive, forward-looking vision so people who see Obama as unqualified have something to hang on to. It can’t be a laundry list of positions. McCain-Palin must offer a narrative about what they will do to help America see better days, especially on kitchen-table concerns.
McCain must launch these themes in the two remaining debates. Knockouts are welcome but unlikely and unnecessary. Introducing a theme and sticking to it day after day worked this past July, when McCain successfully depicted Obama as a celebrity taken with his own press notices. The GOP nominee did it right in the first debate when his assaults were formal and indirect (“Senator Obama has the most liberal voting record …”) while Obama was personal and direct (“John, 10 days ago you said …”).
McCain and Palin should also respond to key misstatements by Obama-Biden, but only to flip the discussion back to Obama’s own deficits. They should not chase rabbits: that would only occupy time better devoted to who can fix the big stuff broken in Washington and reach across the aisle to work for the American people by putting country first.
The election still favors Obama. But Sarah Palin’s debate performance, and the passage of the economic-rescue plan, may bookend a bad couple of weeks for McCain. He has a month to turn things around. It’s doable; but it won’t be easy.
How About A Train Metaphor …
“The question isn’t ‘Is America ready for Barack Obama;’ the question is, ‘Is America ready for a smart President.” Jon Lovitz
Source: Daily Kos
Say anything to win – the bridge to nowhere speaks!
The gloves have well and truly come off in the US presidential race after Sarah Palin accused Barack Obama of associating with terrorists.
The Democrat’s campaign team described the comments as “offensive” but said they were not surprising.
Mrs Palin, the Republican vice presidential nominee, made the remarks during a speech to supporters at a fundraiser in Colorado.
She said Obama “is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect that he’s palling around with terrorists who would target their own country”.
The Alaska Governor was referring to William Ayers, a member of the radical 1960s group the Weathermen who placed bombs at the Pentagon and the Capitol.
He reportedly supported Mr Obama’s first run for public office in 1995.
The Obama campaign described Mrs Palin’s guilt-by-association attack as “desperate and false”.
Campaign spokesman Hari Sevugan said the accusation was part of the McCain/Palin ticket’s newly aggressive “come-from-behind” strategy with only a month left before the vote.
Democrat supporters display their disdain for Sarah Palin
He said:”Governor Palin’s comments, while offensive, are not surprising, given the McCain campaign’s statement this morning that they would be launching Swiftboat-like attacks in hopes of deflecting attention from the nation’s economic ills.”
Republicans have promised to ramp up the rhetoric ahead of the November 4 election in a bid to arrest Senator McCain’s recent dip in the polls following his role in delays to the $700bn economic bail-out.
On Friday, his top adviser Greg Strimple promised a “very aggressive last 30 days” of campaigning.
“We are looking forward to turning a page on this financial crisis and getting back to discussing Mr Obama’s aggressively liberal record and how he will be too risky for Americans,” he told reporters.
The Democrat nominee has emerged strengthened from the financial crisis, boosting his polling lead to an average of six points over Senator McCain, according to RealClearPolitics.com.
The latest Gallup tracking poll of registered voters puts Mr Obama on 50% and Mr McCain on 42%.
Source: Sky News
Find out more at The Real John McCain
But Madeline Albright was not running for office and I am sure would have never used the statement during an election!
Women will support someone who cares about their issues –
On a personal level – Palin has a pregnant daughter – but slashed funds for teen mothers – good thing then that the Palin’s have enough resources to take care of their teenage daughter who’s pregnant. Ju-know!
The right to choose – if Palin has her way – abortion may be criminalized – then the law will have to decide how long women will have to spend behind bars for the crime. Can you say Iran?
CSPAN footage – Palin says she would outlaw abortion – given the chance.
The rape kit issue was truly shameful – after a woman has been raped – she is charged for the kit – so that the police can then go about doing their job of catching the guy – and of course if you can’t afford the kit….seems Palin did not care.
Palin’s record shows – she doesn’t support women – maybe her ‘support me (women) or else’ – might apply to her own self.
Palin’s religious stance is to narrowly focused – and therefore comes across as arrogant.
Where the Democrats are saying – if you don’t want to have an abortion – don’t have one! There are other options – like adoption – but the women’s right to choose remains.
Young people who get pregnant shouldn’t be scorned or left in hardship – we should focus on them like an arrow – because that is now two children – so likely won’t go after already scant funding for teen mothers. What was worst about Palin’s slashing of funding – was that the service was provided by the church.
Palin runs with McCain – who doesn’t support equal pay for equal work, who voted against a bill led by Biden – for the protection of women from spousal abuse.
Carly Fiorina pointed out that McCain – supported bills to fund Viagra – but voted against bills that supported women’s issues.
On women’s issues the Palin/McCain ticket get a thumbs down.
At a rally today in California, Gov. Sarah Palin offered up a rather jarring argument for supporting the Republican ticket. “There’s a place in Hell reserved for women who don’t support other women,” the Alaska Governor said, claiming she was quoting former Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.
The statement came after Palin had recounted a “providential” moment she experienced on Saturday: “I’m reading on my Starbucks mocha cup, ok? The quote of the day… It was Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State [crowd boos] and UN ambassador. … Now she said it, I didn’t. She said, ‘There’s a place in Hell reserved for women who don’t support other women.'”
Actually, Albright didn’t say that. The real quote is, “There’s a place in Hell reserved for women who don’t help other women.” (Sources made the same point to CBS’s Scott Conroy.)
Palin seemed to realize that the line could be viewed as grating. As the audience cheered, she remarked: “Okay, now, thank you so much for receiving that well. I didn’t know how that was gonna go over. And now, California, let’s see what a comment like I just made, how that is turned into whatever it’ll be turned into tomorrow with the newspaper.”
McCain we hear is more that partial to a game of craps – but where’s the gambling man’s winnings and losses – accounted for on his tax returns? Is McCain being dishonest? Has McCain acted legally?
Senator John McCain is a gambler. If I’d known that right away I would have immediately seen what was wrong with his tax returns.
I am a tax attorney, so a tax return means more to me than it would to most. I reviewed McCain’s tax returns as a basic check on the candidates. You can look at McCain’s 2006 and 2007 tax returns for yourself. The tax returns are below a lot of verbiage about his charitable activities.
According to a New York Times article of September 27, 2008 “For McCain and Team, a Host of Ties to Gambling,” reported by Jo Becker and Don VanNatta Jr., McCain gambled at the MGM Grand in May 2007.
Apparently McCain is a habitual gambler; he usually plays craps. He even says, “I am a gambling man.”
Gambling has tax implications. According to IRS Publication 17, “Your Federal Income Tax”, 2007 edition, page 89 “Gambling Winnings. You must include your gambling winnings in income on Form 1040, line 21. If you itemize your deductions on Schedule A (Form 1040), you can deduct gambling losses you had during the year, but only up to the amount of your winnings.” In other words, you can’t subtract your losses from your winnings and just not report. You have to report the winnings, and then claim the losses.
But McCain’s tax returns say nothing about gambling winnings or losses.
As a casino gambler, McCain is likely to have lost more than he won. But by not reporting his winnings, the different percentage calculations built into the tax calculation are thrown off, and if he gambled much at all, he has underpaid his tax. The amount of understatement of tax may be minimal, but that’s not the point.
The real purpose of preparing his tax return and omitting the gambling winnings is so that people would not know how much he gambled. If he won $200,000 playing craps in Las Vegas, it would make a difference in the way voters viewed his suitability as a presidential candidate.
There are circumstances under which the tax returns could be correct, such as McCain gambled once in 2007, not at all in 2006, and lost everything the one time he gambled. Such an explanation is unlikely in light of McCain’s alleged long history of gambling.
I think we are looking at tax returns calculated to hide an aspect of the candidate. My 35 years of experience in taxes tells me these tax returns are wrong, and we do not know the true scope of McCain’s gambling or of his potential obligations to gambling enterprises.