Chris Matthews interviews John Murtha

John Murtha facing MSNBC's Hardball's Chris Matthews

Transcript

Lou Dobbs Financial Crisis Disaster

It all just gets worse...

Banks told they had to take the recapitalization! There was no choice, said one of the guests, William Isaac of the Secura Group. He said the top banks really didn't want to enter into any agreements but were forced to do so... the smaller banks wouldn't look bad...

Prof. Joseph Stiglitz ... federal reserve taking some crappy assets out of this... disappointing we spent so much money and got so little for it...

David Cay Johnson... bizarre banks that didn't need this took it so the ones who needed it wouldn't look bad... dividends to stockholders will come out of the taxpayers' money...

Joe Plumber Voting for Real American Unlike Obama or 3rd Party voters

Those who vote otherwise just aren't voting for real Americans? Are we.

Sad. Prediction. When Republicans are tromped this election across the board, look on the horizon for the rise of a third party independant push. A cross between Lou Dobbs and real libertarian thinker. We can't think of one yet, but look for updates.

Net the Truth Online


JOE WURZELBACHER, MCCAIN SUPPORTER: Get out to vote, and as far as my vote, it's going to be for a real American, John McCain.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0810/31/ltm.03.html

Lou Dobbs E-Voting Machines

do you believe our e-voting machines should actually be able to count and record votes?

Obama Test Site Leading Questions Say it's not true Brad

thinkers are out there, hooray

Brad O'Leary's test Obama site analysis

vhammon on 10/02/2008 This 'test' is likely to be totally inaccurate. The questions are framed to push the reader toward an answer; they lack context and full information and use biased descriptions. Some are just plain inaccurate reflections of Obama's proposed policies.

macdoodle
on 10/02/2008 WOW IS THIS like in court ..LEADING the witness
a judge would slam that gavel hard every question.
I BET HE SNOWS A LOT OF LITTlE OLD LADIES IN HIS marketing FIRM's business

can you guess
who hes workingn for ?

NOW THERE IS THE QUESTION!

Seldon2639
on 10/02/2008 Not for nothing, but this is what would be called a push poll, were it an actual poll. Rather than actually give a fair view of Obama's ideas, it instead offers only the criticisms of them. The questions are based on the premise that one should disagree with Obama. On the environment, instead of giving a fair view of both the benefits (such as lower greenhouse gases, less smog, less acid rain, less pollution in general) and the costs (higher prices), it simply says "it might cause higher prices, do you agree with Obama's plan?" That's busch-league.

Also, I want to know how they came up with this one:

"6. In general, what should be more important to Americans in their daily life: Moral values or material concerns?" I'm not aware of any candidate *ever* who has said that we should prioritize material concerns over moral concerns. I think the difference isn't in that one group supports morality, and the other supports materialism, but that we define "moral concerns" differently. Plus, I assume at least someone checked out the "buy the book" page, and saw that the author of the site has a book out slamming Obama.

I don't agree with Obama 100% of the time, not even close, but this kind of "test" is absolute bullocks.

mabs0 on 10/02/2008 This is a misleading, inaccurate, biased poll. It is designed to present a simplistic view of his policies and lead people into disagreeing with them. It's not as much a scientific poll as propaganda.
Here is an example:
"4. Some say Barack Obama’s plans to implement sweeping environmental regulations will raise the cost of gas, groceries, heating and air conditioning. Do you favor or oppose
Obama’s environmental plans?"

Yeah, that an unbiased question... not. A low information respondent will always answer no and come away with the impression that the opinion is based on facts, when in fact it is not.

Not to mention that this:
1. Do you agree or disagree with Barack Obama’s $65 billion plan to institute taxpayer-funded universal health coverage, which would provide health insurance for those currently uninsured, including illegal immigrants.
is entirely inaccurate.



http://digg.com/political_opinion/Take_this_test_to_see_if_you_agree_with_Obama_on_the_issues

Reuters Reports ATI-News Zogby Poll Results As Is

Oddest finds of the year. A September Zogby and ATI-News Poll was conducted and shows some interesting results, but within the body of the report is this:

O'Leary says that the poll was run to confirm the conclusions drawn in a
chapter from The Audacity of Deceit, dubbed Obama's "War on Success." The book
has enjoyed a meteoric rise in the Amazon.com rankings since its release
September 9...

Seriously, thinking folks, have we all gone batty? Someone writes a book that comes to a certain conclusion and later a poll is conducted of somebody and the conclusions already drawn are substantiated?

What were the conclusions? What are the footnotes to those conclusions?

Guess we have to all run out and fork over 15 bucks or 35 bucks to find out.

Meanwhile, the poll itself is suspicious for coming to a conclusion an author already predetermined was a conclusion and a fact before such a poll was conducted.

Again, have we all gone batty?

How do we get our news, people?

Somebody writes a press release including results of a poll and Reuters just prints it as is?

We're waiting for the day when somebody investigates how the ATI-News Zogby Poll was conducted and the geographic location of those polled...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ati+zogby+poll+&btnG=Search

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ati+zogby+poll+obama+fraud&btnG=Search

Net the Truth Online

In the meantime read in full this inquisitive find, like us we just want to know how any poll that proves what an author or client has already concluded previous to the poll CAN IN ANY WAY BE TRUSTED.

Net the Truth Online

Pick a Number, Any Number

Posted on September 18th, 2008 by 9American Nonsense)
Have you noticed that pollster John Zogby seems to be getting little work these season? Ah, but that’s not true. Just because your numbers have been so miserable through the last two cycles that most of the big media organizations wouldn’t touch you with a ten foot robo-call, doesn’t mean you can’t find employment in the lucrative field of producing numbers on demand!

Suppose you need a poll to give you the numbers you want, but the American public stubbornly refuses to agree with you. Where can you turn? There’s just one man for the job.

A new Zogby poll commissioned by Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily founder and author of the new book: “None of the Above: Why 2008 is the Year to Cast the Ultimate Protest Vote” indicates a large percentage are ready to throw in the towel rather than vote for either of the two candidates in Nov. 2008.

Here’s John Zogby proving that, in a year with the highest primary turnout in history, record registrations, and unmatched interest, Americans would rather “throw in the towel” than vote for either McCain or Obama — an answer that astoundingly agrees with the new book by conservative evangelical (and Rush Limbaugh co-author) Joseph Farah.

How about a poll showing that a majority of both Democrats and African-Americans disagree with Obama on affirmative action? Zogby produced one of those for ATI-News.

And just today, Zogby produced another poll showing

Fifty-two percent of voters think Obama’s tax plan would make them worse off, while only 36 percent think it would make them better off.

This poll was also for ATI-News. Who is ATI-News? It’s the vanity site of Bradley O’Leary, the author of an anti-Obama book who apparently has found that a washed up pollster and a fake news organization provides his press releases with a little panache.

Let this be a lesson to you, wingnut authors. If you really need to prove that the sky is green and America is a radically conservative nation, there’s one man who stands willing to deliver any numbers you want.

http://americannonsense.com/?p=13994

New ATI-News/Zogby Poll Shows Majority of American Voters Think Obama's Tax Plan... Wed Sep 17, 2008 2:32pm EDT

New ATI-News/Zogby Poll Shows Majority of American Voters Think Obama's Tax Plan Would Make Them Worse Off

As American Economy Struggles, Many Fear Obama's Tax Increases Would Only
Cause More Pain

WASHINGTON, Sept. 17 /PRNewswire/ -- A majority of likely voters believe
that Barack Obama's plan to raise taxes on businesses and the wealthy will
make them worse off, according to a breaking ATI-News/Zogby poll. Brad
O'Leary, president of ATI-News.com and author of the explosive new book, The
Audacity of Deceit: Barack Obama's War on American Values, notes that Obama's
plan to raise taxes on the two main drivers of the American economy "could
cost him the election" and "is a loser with almost every key voter bloc."
(Logo: here)
The poll, which surveyed 1,008 likely voters nationwide and was conducted
September 11-13, 2008, has a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percentage points.
O'Leary says that the poll was run to confirm the conclusions drawn in a
chapter from The Audacity of Deceit, dubbed Obama's "War on Success." The book
has enjoyed a meteoric rise in the Amazon.com rankings since its release
September 9.
ATI-News/Zogby asked likely voters: "Do you think that Barack Obama's plan
to increase taxes on businesses and the wealthy will make you better or worse
off?"
The results are astounding. Fifty-two percent of voters think Obama's tax
plan would make them worse off, while only 36 percent think it would make them
better off. A majority of Independents (52 percent) and women (51 percent) say
"worse off" as do 25 percent of Democrats, and 22 percent of self-described
Liberals. Surprisingly, 18 percent of Obama's own supporters said his tax plan
would make them worse off...

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS210147+17-Sep-2008+PRN20080917

Chris Moore Interviews Brad O'Leary about Obama Book

analysis: one question raised by Brad O'Leary's appearance on the program and after looking at results from the ATI-News/Zogby Poll O'Leary cites and promotes in published material is

where was the poll conducted?

Is this one of those online polls? O'Leary noted in the interview he's conducted a test online and the test shows such and such...

Moore asked who made up the questions, you? Are they weighted for...

O'Leary didn't answer, but repeated the results of the online test.

Net the Truth Online

Chris Moore host of WPXIs Honseberger Live broadcast on PCNC television opens the program noting he'll examine rumors and inuendos about Barack Obama with guest Brad Pat O'Leary, author of the book Audacity of Deceit.

Moore prefaces with the potential for lies and misstatements thrown around in this presidential campaign. Moore is upset with rumors and scandalous lies...

Has not heard Barack Obama call for a change in the Constitution to make it socialistic... that would take a Constitutional convention, Moore says and amendment process...

says obama wants to change the constitution...

O'Leary his supporters and advisors are for a different Bill of Rights... one we have now buildt around a Judao Christian ethic... Obama believes our society should be more secular and take in the views of Hindus, atheists, Muslims... and Bryer shares that belief with Obama and Obama has made it clear he supports Justices like Bryer....

Moore says need con con

O says no we're talking about a way to work itself into our laws rather than a Constitutional Convention...

Moore says if we believe health care is a basic right... it's a different policy position...

O'Leary nothing in Constitution that says we can redistribute the wealth... he points to advisors...

Attempting to get transcript.

Net the Truth Online

ATI-News and Zogby Poll

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ati+zogby+poll+obama&btnG=Search

Obama Wants 'Second Bill of Rights' That Guarantees Government Welfare
ATI-News/Zogby

Yet Undecided and Independent Voters Reject Wealth Redistribution to Achieve 'Social Justice' According to New ATI-News/Zogby Poll WASHINGTON, Oct. 30

WASHINGTON, Oct. 30 /PRNewswire/ -- After nearly two years of campaigning,
Americans are finally learning about the real Barack Obama. In an interview
with a Chicago public radio station, Obama complained that "the Supreme Court
never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more
basic issues of political and economic justice in this society." Recently,
Obama surrogate and U.S. Representative Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), warmed up a crowd
for Obama by telling them that America needed a "second Bill of Rights" that
gives all Americans guaranteed welfare from the state.

(Logo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20030425/ATNLOGO)

"It is clear that Barack Obama will not seek to 'preserve, protect and
defend the Constitution,'" said ATI-News president Brad O'Leary. "Rather, he
will change the Constitution to suit his ideology -- an ideology that is far
different from the one held by our Founding Fathers."

O'Leary points out that a second Bill of Rights, one that gives welfare
guarantees from the state, is something that Obama's long-time and current
Constitutional advisor, Cass Sunstein, has advocated. In his book, The Second
Bill of Rights: FDR's Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need it Now More Than
Ever, Sunstein writes that "all legal rights are, or aspire to be, welfare
rights." Sunstein also believes that "if the nation becomes committed to
certain rights, they may migrate into the Constitution itself."...


... Constitution of our Founding Fathers guarantees God-given rights, but
Obama's new Constitution would create state guarantees to welfare," said
O'Leary. "In Obama's new society, citizens would no longer look to God and
the Constitution for their freedom, but rather, would look to paternal
government for their rations of bread, clothing and housing."


Brad O'Leary serves as President of ATI-News and is the former President
of the American Association of Political Consultants. From 1993 to 1997, Brad
hosted a talk show program on NBC Westwood One that boasted two million
listeners a day. For complete poll results, go to

http://www.barackobamatest.com.

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/obama-wants-second-bill-of-rights-that-guarantees-government-welfare,603059.shtml

Friday, October 03, 2008
Limbaugh lauds WND Books author O'Leary

On his #1 rated radio show today, Rush Limbaugh discussed research done by Brad O'Leary, author of The Audacity of Deceit from WND Books. Limbaugh quoted from O'Leary's recent Investor's Business Daily editorial, in which he discusses the polling research that he did with Zogby on the 30% of Americans who pay no federal income taxes. In his editorial (which you can find here), O'Leary notes that this voting block has very different preferences from taxpayers...

http://conservativepublisher.blogspot.com/2008/10/limbaugh-lauds-wnd-books-author-oleary.html

Chris Moore Highlights McCain Mishaps Naval Aviator

Today Chris Moore sitting in for Fred Honsberger on the program Honsberger Live presented viewers with Moore's food for thought as we near the last days of the election cycle.

WPXI Pittsburgh PA cable tv program Honsberger Live airs on PCNC television. The program Honsberger Live has not featured Fred Honsberger for over a year, there must be some contractual arrangement for the title of the program.

http://www.wpxi.com/pcnc/1909318/detail.html

http://television.aol.com/show/honsberger-live/57661/main

Moore first cited the Fairness Doctrine regarding talk shows noting the TV talk show program and its format enables for both sides of an issue to be presented and as equal time as possible given to opposing viewpoints. Including those in opposition to his own expressed on the program.

Moore noted John McCain's service to his country and praised that service.

Moore then outlined John McCain's naval record which appears to consist of a series of accidents while a naval pilot and prior to his Vietnam experience and imprisonment. He crashed one a rocket on aircraft carrier...

Moore then pointed out McCain had finished at the bottom fifth of his class at the United States Naval Academy.

Moore then made a comment about a Harvard graduate at the top of his class, but did not specifically identify Barack Obama at the point we were viewing. He said parents want children to be the best they can be... one graduates at the top of his class...

We are ready to elect a man who has graduated fifth at the bottom of his class... don't give into fear... go out and vote for the best you think could be president...

We must say Chris Moore's reference to McCain's naval record checks out over at the LA Times in a report Oct. 6th.

Mishaps mark John McCain's record as naval aviator
Three crashes early in his career led Navy officials to question or fault his judgment.
By Ralph Vartabedian and Richard A. Serrano, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
October 6, 2008

FOR THE RECORD:
McCain's aviation record: An article in Monday's Section A about Republican presidential nominee John McCain's record as a naval aviator quoted Jeremiah Pearson and said he had been a Navy officer who flew 400 missions over Vietnam. Pearson was an officer in the Marines


John McCain was training in his AD-6 Skyraider on an overcast Texas morning in 1960 when he slammed into Corpus Christi Bay and sheared the skin off his plane's wings.

McCain recounted the accident decades later in his autobiography. "The engine quit while I was practicing landings," he wrote. But an investigation board at the Naval Aviation Safety Center found no evidence of engine failure.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-aviator6-2008oct06,0,7633315.story

The program will be repeated on cable programming later in the day and possibly can be viewed online at

What's sad is any weight this material might have in the decisions of voters may be muted by the hestitancy of the mainstream media to report on this particular record.

Conservative pundits are likely to dismiss the LA Times report as more of the same they believe they've evidenced from them as bias, liberal bias in a liberal-leaning media.

While that may be the case, there may be liberal bias in the mainstream media, and some studies actually conclude that, if the facts of these mishaps are just that, facts, they should become public knowledge today without hesitation.

In that interest we post Chris Moore's comment as best we can having viewed only a portion of the program.

Moore also hosts Black Horizons WQED Pittsburgh Pennsylvania

Sundays at 2:00pm
(Episodes are rebroadcast
the following Tuesdays at 12:30am)

http://www.wqed.org/tv/bh/index.shtml

Moore also moderates WQED programming ON Q

Programming for Friday, March 31 starts at 7:30 PM

Spirited Talk! - Watch the lively discussion of the week’s hottest topics with moderator Chris Moore and regular panelists; Heather Heidelbaugh, Bill Green, Valerie McDonald Roberts, and John McIntire

http://www.wqed.org/tv/onq/

http://www.wqed.org/web_media/video_ondemand.php

Net the Truth Online

PA Judge: Political Attire OK

That's the ruling... can't wait to see the array of political satire... um, attire aka costumes... aka attempts to sway the undecideds who aren't wearing any McCain/Palin; Obama/Biden; Nader/Gonzalez; Barr/Root buttons in the polling place.

Judge rules on ACORN, voter-attire cases
by The Associated Press
Thursday October 30, 2008, 6:11 PM
A Pennsylvania state court judge has ruled on a pair of election cases, letting voters wear partisan attire and not giving state Republicans an injunction against the voter registration group ACORN. Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson's Thursday decisions did not end either case but were not the outcomes the plaintiffs wanted.

In the voter-attire case, Simpson says courts can't mandate common sense or good taste. Two county elections officers argued the Department of State should not have told counties that voters wearing partisan shirts or buttons should be allowed to cast ballots.

In the ACORN lawsuit, Simpson refused the state Republican Party's request to force ACORN to turn over the list of voters it has registered.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2008/10/judge_rules_on_acorn_voteratti.html

Lou Dobbs: Rhetorical Question Both Parties Frauds Are They Not?

Who could not agree more with Lou Dobbs after the past week of discussion Dobbs has had with a steady array of panelists on the matter of the $700 billion bailout aka financial crisis rescue plan.

Review the transcripts for the past week

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ldt.html

Last evening was over the tipping point for Dobbs, and should be for at the least the undecideds out there who wonder which of the two major party Presidential candidates should get their vote, and on down the line of majority party candidates seeking any office in the federal government representation.

Neither, if they'd listen to Dobbs.

Dobbs asks the question about midway during the discussion Oct. 30th.

Both of these parties are frauds, are they not?

What would you answer?

Obama Focuses on the Economy; McCain is Still Confident of Winning; Issues are Driving the Voters; Fight for Pennsylvania; What about Campaign Reform?; Border Drug Wars; Broken Borders

Aired October 30, 2008

DOBBS: Joining me now, three of the best economic minds in the country. In our Washington, D.C. bureau, Professor Peter Morici of the Robert H. Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland, David Smick, author of "The World is Curved: Hidden Dangers to the Global Economy," and former Treasury Department economist, Bruce Bartlett -- Bruce, a former U.S. deputy assistant secretary for economic policy at the treasury. And thank you all for being here.

...I thought the Republicans were supposed to have some compunction about prudence, responsibility, moral hazard.

I thought the Democrats were going to actually be serious about constraining excess compensation to CEOs and executives. Both of these parties are frauds, are they not?

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0810/30/ldt.01.html

An Analysis of the Hart Intercivic DAU eSlate

http://www.usenix.org/event/evt07/tech/full_papers/proebstel/proebstel_html/

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=hart+intercivic+eslate+memory+wire+seals&btnG=Search

Source Code Review

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voting_systems/ttbr/Hart-source-public.pdf

Automark 'reliability concerns...'

http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/dwallach?page=1

Ben Stein: Obama Election 100% About Race Mistreatment Guilt

Ben Stein on Larry King Live: ... like to see the Republicans turn back to the Republicans of Dwight Eisenhower.

Uh, Mr. Stein, Susan Eisenhower has endorsed Senator Barack Obama.

Why I'm Backing Obama

Who's Blogging» Links to this article
By Susan Eisenhower
Saturday, February 2, 2008

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/01/AR2008020102621.html

Obviously, she has more belief in Obama than in a candidate of her own party, Senator McCain, a maverick who has parted ways according to him with his own party.

Eisenhower

I am not alone in worrying that my generation will fail to do what my grandfather's did so well: Leave America a better, stronger place than the one it found.

Given the magnitude of these issues and the cost of addressing them, our next president must be able to bring about a sense of national unity and change. As we no longer have the financial resources to address all these problems comprehensively and simultaneously, setting priorities will be essential. With hard work, much can be done.

The biggest barrier to rolling up our sleeves and preparing for a better future is our own apathy, fear or immobility. We have been living in a zero-sum political environment where all heads have been lowered to avert being lopped off by angry, noisy extremists. I am convinced that Barack Obama is the one presidential candidate today who can encourage ordinary Americans to stand straight again; he is a man who can salve our national wounds and both inspire and pursue genuine bipartisan cooperation. Just as important, Obama can assure the world and Americans that this great nation's impulses are still free, open, fair and broad-minded.

No measures to avert the serious, looming consequences can be taken without this sense of renewal. Uncommon political courage will be required. Yet this courage can be summoned only if something profoundly different transpires. Putting America first -- ahead of our own selfish interests -- must be our national priority if we are to retain our capacity to lead.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/01/AR2008020102621.html

Striking, that, isn't it?

Stein made the exact remark about Republicans returning to the era of Eisenhower last July...

But he said something more... people who would vote for Barack Obama = those who are doing so out of guilt for past slavery and mistreatment of African Americans, historically?

STEIN: I think it`s way beyond that, Glenn. I think it`s all about race. I think it`s Americans thinking they`re going to -- we`re going to make up for our past racism by electing a black man. I think it`s 100 percent about race. I mean, he`s a very talented guy. He`s a very smart guy. I have heard him talk about legal issues. He does it very, very well.

He`s obviously an extremely capable human being, but I think an awful lot of his popularity has to do with whites saying we`re going to make it up now by electing a black man.

BECK: I think that`s insulting. I think that`s insulting.

STEIN: No, it really isn`t insulting. He`s a very capable man. He would go tremendously far, no matter what he did, but I think the fact of white guilt has a lot do with it.

BECK: Well, here`s -- let me play the race card the other direction. This is what he said July 30. He said, quote, "You know, people are going to say he`s not patriotic enough. He`s got a funny name. You know, he doesn`t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills."

Let me go to another quote that kind of -- go to screen -- let`s see - - go to screen five. The first black president -- this is the Ludacris lyrics from that same song, "The first black president is destined, and it`s meant to be. The threat ain`t phasing us, the nooses or the jokes."

I think both of these things. First of all, Ludacris, show me where the nooses are, because I`ll stand shoulder to shoulder with you to put those people, you know, in the place where they belong. And I`d like to hear from Obama, who is it that` saying he doesn`t look like all the other presidents on the dollar bills and he`s got a funny name? With any credibility, who`s saying that?

STEIN: I don`t know that anyone`s saying it. But the point is, he is different, he is new, and he is a new possibility.

BECK: Yes.

STEIN: And I welcome that. Look, I welcome that. It`s been a long, long time since African-Americans, or Africans, were brought here as slaves. It`s about time one of them had a shot at being president.

But let`s not kid ourselves. Some of the fact of his appeal is white people thinking in their hearts we have been very guilty of wrongful conduct towards blacks. Let`s try to make it up.

I -- maybe I`m wrong about that, but I think that`s a large part of his appeal.

BECK: Shar (ph), who is an African-American working camera two. Insulting, Shar (ph)? Insulting. Who is it insulting to? African- Americans or all people?

STEIN: In what possible way is it insulting?

BECK: I think -- I`m with Shar (ph) on this. I think this is insulting to Americans to think that we`re so shallow. I mean, I think there are those people...

STEIN: You think it`s insulting to say that Americans feel guilty about several hundred years of extreme mistreatment of African-Americans?

BECK: Yes. You know what?

STEIN: That`s not insulting. That`s saying they have a decent conscience.

BECK: No, it doesn`t.

STEIN: Yes, it does.

BECK: Ben, I have nothing to do with slavery. My people weren`t even here during the slave days. We have had shameful periods in our history, just like every other country, just like -- hang on -- every other people. How is this -- how is this -- we stopped it. And we have a guy now who might be president of the United States that`s black. God bless America, man.

STEIN: Do you think that there is not a huge residue of guilt in this country over the way African-Americans were treated?

BECK: Did we not pay for the -- for the slave trade in blood through the Civil War?

STEIN: There was still incredible mistreatment of African-Americans.

BECK: Of course, there was. Of course, there was. And there has mistreatment in the 1960s there was mistreatment. And there`s mistreatment all around. There`s enough mistreatment for everybody. How about women? Do you feel bad...

STEIN: I couldn`t agree more.

BECK: ... that we treated women this way? I don`t.

STEIN: I feel incredibly bad about the way women are treated.

BECK: Did you say the same thing about people feeling guilty, voting for Hillary Clinton, because of the way we`ve treated women?

STEIN: No, I think it would have been great if we`d had a woman president.

BECK: Because she would have been the most qualified.

STEIN: The fact is that women have been seriously mistreated. African-Americans have been seriously mistreated. There is a certain fraction of the population that feels guilty about it.

BECK: Get over your guilt. Pick the person that`s the best first. I believe it was...

STEIN: I hope -- I hope people do that. I hope.

BECK: ... Martin Luther King that said judge by the content of the character.

STEIN: And I hope -- and I hope they do that. And I hope they do that. But I think, in their heart of hearts, an awful lot of people feel guilty about the way America has treated the black man, and they should.

BECK: No, they shouldn`t. No, they shouldn`t. Unless you were the one responsible for it, no, you shouldn`t.

STEIN: Well, maybe you shouldn`t, but plenty people do.

BECK: Those are two different things.

STEIN: We`re not talking about whether they should or...

BECK: No, I want you to stick around. We`ll be back with Ben Stein here in a minute. About halfway through the program.

Also, I`ve got to show you some progress in Washington next. A bipartisan group. We have these congressmen on, pushing their politics aside to find real solutions to our energy crisis. They were on a couple of weeks ago. We`re going to find out from these two congressmen whether - - was there any progress?

Plus, country music superstar Toby Keith will be here a little later on in the program. We`ll talk about his two latest projects: new album, plus a new movie. And his take on the current state of our union. Stick around.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0807/31/gb.01.html

CNN: Straight Party Vote on Machines Not Way to Go

CNN Straight-ticket voting not straightforward
Straight-ticket voters may face confusion in North Carolina, where the presidential vote must be cast separately. Voters might think they are voting for the presidential choice when making the straight-party vote.

If the presidential race in North Carolina ends up being close, those missed votes could prove decisive.

"We unfortunately are the last state of the nation to do something of this nature. We are the only ones that separate it out," said Gary Bartlett, executive director of North Carolina's State Board of Elections.

http://www.edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/30/straight.ticket/index.html

CNN NEWSROOM

Were Old Voting Machines More Reliable?; Aired October 30, 2008
O'BRIEN: Well, we have no early voting here in New York, and I'm not -- I'm going to be in town. So I'll be waiting in line on Tuesday.

But here's a couple of things. First of all, if you're in a state that has these computerized voting machines, a lot of people tell us, straight party line votes are not a great way to go, because for some reason the computer can get confused and can register the wrong vote, if you have some sort of ballot proposition, yes or no.

Second thing, if you're in a state that has computerized stuff with a paper trail, double check it. Make sure what you voted for on the computer matches what's on that paper ballot, whatever piece of paper you got to verify how you voted.

And finally, this seems like, you know, a "duh" thing, but don't be afraid to ask for help. We don't do this very often. We do it every couple of years. For that matter, the poll workers don't do it very often. Raise your hand and say, "I'm not sure I did this right," and those people there will help you.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0810/30/cnr.05.html

Texas Voters Urged to Avoid Straight-Party Option, After Vote-Flip Complaints
By Kim Zetter October 29, 2008 | 3:21:43 PMCategories: E-Voting, Election '08
A number of voters in several Texas counties have been complaining that voting machines they used to cast early votes flipped their votes from Democratic choices to Republican ones.

Voters have reported that when they tried to vote a straight-party Democratic ticket, the machine flipped their choices to Republican candidates instead. In some cases, voters reported a problem only with the presidential race; in other cases voters reported the entire ballot being marked Republican by the machine.

The counties where the problems were reported use different kinds of voting machines from three of the top voting machine companies -- Election Systems & Software, Diebold Election Systems (now Premier Election Solutions) and Hart InterCivic.

A Hart InterCivic spokesman said that at least one of the scenarios that a voter described isn't possible on the company's machines. A spokesman for ES&S said very few voters had complained and as far as he knew poll workers were never able to replicate the situation they described. The same ES&S machines are at the center of stories in West Virginia and Tennessee where voters also reported the machines flipping their votes, though the scenario in those states was slightly different since voters there weren't trying to vote a straight-party ticket when the problem occurred.

Voting a straight-party ballot or ticket is an option offered in 15 states whereby a voter can choose to vote straight-party Democrat or Republican and the ballot will automatically mark votes for candidates from that party on the ballot.

Because of the reports of problems, many election integrity groups are urging voters to forego the option.

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/10/straight-party.html

On Election Day, will your vote be counted?

(CNN) — Watch Miles O'Brien's report about the security and reliability of modern voting technology.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/30/on-election-day-will-your-vote-be-counted/

Can voting machines be trusted?

http://www.cnn.com/24hours/

2008.10.27 • 06:00 EDT
Early e-voting results in vote flipping in three states so far

...Another problem apparently hit Texas late Friday, when a local paper in Mineral Wells, Texas (Palo Pinto County, west of Dallas), noted that there had been two huge vote flips. One woman said that when she tried to vote for a straight-party Democratic vote, the voting machine instead showed that she voted 100 percent Republican.

http://machinist.salon.com/blog/2008/10/27/early_voting/

Now, if you have problems voting during early voting periods or on Nov. 4, there are numerous ways you can document your problems.

There are two major voting hotlines: 1-866-MYVOTE-1, and CNN's 1-877-GO-CNN-08. Others include 1-866-OUR-VOTE and 1-888-VOTE-TIP for fraud reports. Wired News is also encouraging its readers to contribute information for its Google Map mashup.

http://machinist.salon.com/blog/2008/10/27/early_voting/

Update. So there is no confusion, the "Early Voting" eyewitness accounts of vote flipping on electronic voting machines cross political party lines. And there have been reports in Texas both touchscreen versions and the non-touch screen version, Hart Intercivic's product, have shown vote-flipping. (IN EARLY VOTING STATES)

Note as well, while reports show screen vote flipping, to date, we have not found any charge that review screen showed a different selection than the one intended by the voter.

Voters using an electronic voting machine are advised to review the screen ballot before pressing a CAST ballot button or touchscreen CAST ballot area. that is urgent material.

CNN's report and warning must be taken seriously. The network has teams of researchers who have surely checked out the veracity of anecdotal stories of problems associated with using electronic voting machines and utilizing the feature on the machines known as 'straight party voting.'

If we find out otherwise, if CNN, for instance cannot substantiate warnings of potential problems from actual problems, we will be sorely disappointed.

Read more on the issues of 'vote flipping' and 'straight party ticket' voting at sites like Voter Action, VotePA, and others of your choosing. We reference a couple of articles written by Joyce McCloy at Black Box Voting dotcom.

Note. We have specifically steered clear of Bev Harris's site at Black Box Voting dotorg. Unfortunately, a recent posting made there concerning a county with which I have specific experience is just flat out wrong and misleading.

In particular there is another situation in North Carolina as we posted previously.

Our understanding is there are two separate areas on the ballot which feature a box for President and a selection for 'straight party.'

If a voter selects only 'straight party,' and does not make a separate selection in the presidential column or block, there will NOT be an automatic fill-in for choice of President. This touches all political parties on the ballot in North Carolina.

It's possible the North Carolina unique situation is what has prompted CNN to make a blanket generalization about 'straight party voting.' Again, we're reviewing as best we can.

At any rate, please take time to read instructions at the precinct whether early voting or on November 4th.

Please review your selections whether you made these using an electronic voting machine or a paper ballot before you make the final move to CAST the ballot.

Net the Truth Online

Voting machines could bring Election Day glitches
With early voting under way in 31 states, these problems have already surfaced. In recent weeks, voters in West Virginia, Colorado, Tennessee and Texas have reported that touch-screen machines registered their votes, at least initially, for the wrong candidate or party...

...By 2006, some jurisdictions around the country were mothballing their DRE equipment in favor of optical-scan machines. Voters use a pen or pencil to mark paper ballots, in the way that students fill standardized tests, which are then fed into scanners that record the results.

Many observers believe that optical scanners -- especially ones that count the ballots at the election precinct, not at a central office -- are the most reliable voting method. Those systems' error rate in 2004, according to the University of Missouri study, was 0.7 percent.

If a voter has made a mistake filling out his or her ballot, the optical scanner will spit out the ballot and give the voter a chance to correct the error before leaving the polling place, Appel said.

"This is not a silver bullet. No technology is perfect," Appel told CNN. "But at least the optical scan ballots have a better resistance to [inaccuracies]."

So how can voters on Tuesday be absolutely sure that their ballots are being recorded with 100 percent accuracy? They can't, most election observers say. But election watchdogs and voting-system industry officials agree on one thing: People voting on touch-screen machines should take their time, read the ballot instructions carefully and not be afraid to ask for help.

"If the equipment is not participating the way you think it should be, don't hit the 'cast vote' button," said Rosemary Rodriguez, chair of the federal Election Assistance Commission. "Call an election official, a poll worker for help. Get it addressed immediately and on the spot. There is no going back if you hit the 'cast vote' button."


http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/10/30/voting.machines/index.html

North Carolina straight-party feature may confuse voters
Associated Press
Oct. 28, 2008,

Election watchdogs fear that a long-standing feature of ballots in North Carolina could lead thousands of straight-party voters to mistakenly fail to vote for president and possibly produce a replay of the post-election battle in Florida eight years ago.

Since the 1960s, North Carolina ballots have allowed voters to cast a straight-party ticket — Democrat, Republican or Libertarian — by checking a single box, but state law requires voters to separately mark their choice for president.

On the ballot, the straight-party vote option appears below the presidential selection, and counties have included explanations and warnings that voters must mark the White House race separately. Nevertheless, election watchdogs fear hurried voters might ignore the explanations, see the straight-ticket option first and assume it includes a vote for president.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/6082967.html

Report in Texas- Touchscreens Flipping Straight Ticket Votes by Joyce
Mccloy.

http://blackboxvoting.com/s9/index.php?/archives/322-Report-in-Texas-
Touchscreens-Flipping-Straight-Ticket-Votes.html

We've raised concerns as well with vote-flipping and have posted elsewhere a reference to Black Box Voting dotcom's Joyce McCloy's piece regarding a Brad Blog article which appears to cite evidence vote-flipping has occurred both ways and even Democrat to third-party.

Wednesday, October 22. 2008
Voting machines switching votes from GOP to Dem - can we stop now???

http://blackboxvoting.com/s9/index.php?/plugin/tag/vote+flipping

http://blackboxvoting.com/s9/index.php?/archives/320-Voting-machines-
switching-votes-from-GOP-to-Dem-can-we-stop-now.html

McCloy references Brad Freidman's piece Votes Reportedly Flipping
from Repub to Dem in TN! October 22, 2008 by Brad Friedman.

PA: Judge Emergency Paper Ballot Ruling Downgrade from State Law

As if we needed more confusion, but it appears Pennsylvania state law originally says one thing about the use of emergency paper ballots, the Secretary of State's September directive said another, contrary thing, and the Wednesday federal U.S. Chief Judge's ruling initiates something at variance with original state election law!

We agree with Brad Blog poster:

Adam Fulford said on 10/29/2008 @ 5:48 pm PT...

"As we reported when the lawsuit was filed last week, state law allows county clerks to give out paper ballots if just one machine breaks down on Election Day, Cortes' stunning decree, issued last month went unchallenged by both the DNC or the Barack Obama campaign..."

It is sad when a judge's decree that downgrades the previous condition as stated in state law is a victory for democracy.

This is truly Kafkaesque...

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6588

McCain OK with Sarah Policy Differences Silent VP Duties

We're hearing this from McCain a lot more recently. He's been asked again on Larry King Live.

transcript

We have yet to hear whether he agrees with Palin about so-called 'leeway' our founding fathers enabled in the Constitution for a mavericky Vice President.

Nobody has yet asked McCain is there such Constitutional leeway and flexibility as Palin has stated during the vice presidential debate and later during two subsequent events where she was directly asked about the job and duties of a VP.

Come on John, answer that.

Make Sure Voting System Working

It is said, Morris on MSNBC's early program.

Oh really, Morris? Vote flipping? Potential eligibles removed from voting rolls, in error, but removed without notification by election officials? Reports of actual recalibrations of voting machines during an election? That's a voting system workings?

somebody send this man even one report of long lines in hey it's going on right now, in Florida.

And Florida converted to all paper ballots with precinct optical scanners!

Yet there are 3 and 5 hour-long waits in the Florida sunshine for voters to vote? Plus, Florida permits for curbside voting?

Something is wrong this election and it's called an unprepared gang of election officials in seemingly every single state in this country.

What's working?

At least one thing is working - people are participating in the process - voter registration has reportedly increased. More people registered to vote anew than in 2000 and 2004.

That is exciting. But how much registration fraud was involved and are there inflated registration numbers being reported as a result?

Will states face more election challenges to enable homeless people to use a park bench as a residential address?

Not to say homeless shouldn't have a right to vote, but come on, a park bench? Who's to say the individual won't be talked into registering from another park bench in another state say 30 days before an election? Who's to say that homeless person can't return to a former state park bench location after the election? (a few hundred bucks richer)?

The system is not working by any measure.

Federal Budget Online Reveals Two-Party Failure

Google for Government

That's the brilliant idea presented this morning on OK gag we still peek at Scarborough's Morning Joe whom we cannot stand, though everyone else on the program is tolerable and tolerant.

One of the guests suggested the idea. We agree.

correct inefficiencies and waste in government, need to get rid of the waste, first... who's making what at Treasury...

need transparancy...

bloggers, USA Today, free press can function only when you have information...

the guests wants the entirety of the Federal Budget to be placed on line.

Line by line. All the salaries, of every single employee, well, except for all of the Pentagon and the spies, and those handling domestic spying programs, right? And Homeland Security. We couldn't have access to that information, right, or we'd know they've been going into places where they're not authorized, right?

Great idea, though. Guess what, most of what the feds do is unconstitutional anyway.

If Congress and the Prez stuck to only their Constitutional duties the federal budget would maybe only be the size of well the slim size of the Constitution.

And you see, that's the problem with all of the Presidential candidates and Vice Presidential candidates with the exception of one.

That's right. One individual among all stands out for a special look.

I gave you a hint in the posting Better Government Obama vs Limited Government Founders.

I tried to bring in all the other contenders in one way or another, including third-party nominees for President and Vice President.

I could have changed the title of that piece to leave out the name of Obama, but it was Obama who made the statement...

We don't need bigger goverment; we don't need smaller government... we need better government.

One of Obama's proposals is for him to go over the budget with a scapel, not a hatchet, a scapel, closely review line by line all of the programs and he gets to determine which ones work and which ones don't work.

So the Morning Joe guest, whatever his name, is onto a fantastic recommendation, put the Federal Budget online so we the people can all see what the cost of every employee of the federal government actually costs.

It's a great idea and maybe the CEO of Google, Schmidt, as an advisor and endorser of Obama and should Obama become President, the CEO will find a way to get the budget online.

Yep, we need to read that budget so we can determine what the Republicans and the Democrats have given us over all the years they've been at the helm of this nation's budget.

Right

Exclusive: Dems: McCain broke own law

By: Mike Allen
October 25, 2008 10:12 AM EST

Democratic officials tell Politico that they plan to file a Federal Election Commission complaint on Monday accusing the McCain campaign of being “a serial violator” of campaign finance laws.

In one case, Russia's ambassador to the United Nations was solicited for a donation. But the McCain campaign says that’s because his name was on a list rented from Foreign Affairs magazine.

The Republican National Committee filed two complaints against the Obama campaign over the past two weeks.

The Democratic National Committee complaint is interesting because Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has made campaign finance reform one of his signature issues on Capitol Hill.

DNC General Counsel Joe Sandler said: "The McCain campaign's lack of disclosure and disregard for the law he helped write raises serious questions about John McCain's commitment to the openness and transparency the voters expect from their leaders."

The four-page Democratic complaint charges: “The McCain campaign, already a serial violator of the federal campaign finance laws, including the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 popularly known as the McCain-Feingold law, evidently chosen to ignore some of the most fundamental and basic requirements of that law. ... [T]he Commission should find reason to believe that the McCain Campaign has violated the [Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971] and the Commission’s rules, and should conduct a prompt investigation.”

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=31744685-18FE-70B2-A8F4006535ABEBFA

Democrats claim McCain violating fundraising rules

By JIM KUHNHENN – 4 days ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Democratic Party plans to file a complaint with federal regulators that accuses Republican John McCain's presidential campaign of various violations of campaign finance law.

In a letter to the Federal Election Commission to be submitted Monday, the Democratic National Committee alleges McCain has received donations from 6,653 individuals who exceeded the legal $2,300 limit by at least $1,000 and 23 donation in excess of $50 from anonymous donors. The DNC cited one donor who appeared to have given more than $56,000.

The complaint is based in part on data that the McCain campaign provides on its Web site — an extra step of disclosure not required by election laws. The campaign of Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, does not disclose as much information about its donors as McCain does. Obama only reports the identities of donors who give $200 or more — the legal requirement.

The McCain campaign said Saturday that transactions on its Web site are only updated monthly and do not necessarily reflect corrections that the campaign routinely undertakes.

Complaints to the FEC are not uncommon. The Republican National Committee has filed two complaints this month alleging that Obama's campaign has received illegal contributions from foreigners and donations that exceed federal limits.

In their own complaint, Democrats cite the McCain campaign's refund of $50,000 raised by a Jordanian citizen and mentions a fundraising appeal from McCain mistakenly sent to Russia's ambassador to the United Nations, Vitaly Churkin. Foreign nationals are prohibited from contributing to political campaigns.

"The McCain campaign's lack of disclosure and disregard for the law he helped write raises serious questions about John McCain's commitment to the openness and transparency the voters expect from their leaders," said DNC General Counsel Joe Sandler.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5joC4LlcZVm5kR-hSO7HEOm4ns-1wD941KDT80

Online Donors Examined by Both Camps

Parties examine e-donors
Fraud among concerns for online political giving
By Matthew Mosk | The Washington Post
8:09 PM CDT, October 28, 2008
The Washington Post

WASHINGTON — Sen. Barack Obama's record-breaking $150 million fundraising performance in September has for the first time prompted questions about whether presidential candidates should be permitted to collect huge sums of money through faceless credit card transactions over the Internet.

Lawyers for both the Republican and Democratic Parties have asked the Federal Election Commission to examine the question, pointing to dozens of examples of what they say are lax screening procedures by the presidential campaigns that permitted donors using false names or stolen credit cards to make contributions.

"There is so much money coming in, and yet very little ability to say with certainty that you know who is giving it," said Sean Cairncross, the Republican National Committee's chief counsel.

While the potentially fraudulent or excessive contributions represent only about 1 percent of Obama's staggering haul, the security challenge is one of several major questions raised by the Democrat's fundraising juggernaut.

Concerns about anonymous donations seeping into the campaign began to surface last month, mainly on conservative blogs. Some bloggers described making their own attempts to display the flaws in Obama's fundraising program, donating under such obviously phony names as Osama bin Laden.

Obama officials said they have taken pains to establish a barrier to prevent fake contributions.

In a paper outlining those safeguards, provided to The Washington Post, the campaign said it runs twice-daily sweeps of new donations, looking for irregularities. Flagged contributions are manually reviewed by a team of lawyers, and either cleared or refunded.

Reports of misused credit cards lead to immediate refunds.

In September, according to the campaign, $1.8 million in online contributions was flagged, and $353,000 was refunded. Of the contributions flagged because a foreign address or bank account was involved, 94.1 percent were found to be proper. One-tenth of 1 percent were marked for refund, and 5.77 percent are still being vetted.

But clearly invented names have been used often enough to provoke an outcry from Republican critics. Donors to the Obama campaign using false names such as Doodad Pro and Good Will gave $17,375 through 1,000 separate donations, with no sign that they immediately tripped alarms at the campaign. Of more concern, Cairncross said, are reports that the campaign permitted money from 123 foreign nationals to enter its accounts.

Obama officials said they have identified similar irregularities in the finance records of Republican Sen. John McCain. "Every campaign faces these challenges ... and we have reviewed and strengthened our procedures," said Ben LaBolt, an Obama spokesman.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-internet-donationsoct27,0,4036131.story

More

http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/politics/elections/u.s.-elections/john-mccain-PEPLT004278.topic

« Putting John McCain on the couch

John McCain, Republican Party are reviewing curious donations
John McCain moved Thursday to return about $50,000 in donations raised by a defense contractor who has amassed $500,000 for his presidential campaign.

McCain’s campaign has been stung by news accounts raising questions about some donations. The campaign sent letters to donors whose contributions were solicited by Florida businessman Harry Sargeant III and his business partner Mustafa Abu-Naba'a, a Jordanian native.

"We’re going to take the precautionary step of returning the contributions solicited by Mr. Abu-Naba’a," McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said, noting that one of the donors was quoted as saying he gave the money but would not vote for McCain. "It just didn’t sit right."

Republican National Committee spokesman Alex Conant said the RNC also would review Sargeant's donations.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/08/mccain-jordan-d.html

McCain adviser dismisses evidence of Bush’s Iraq lies as ‘conspiracy theories.’

http://thinkprogress.org/ 2008/ 10/ 28/ kagan-conspiracy/

McCain adviser dismisses evidence of Bush’s Iraq lies as ‘conspiracy theories.’ By Amanda Terkel on Oct 28th, 2008 at 9:01 pm McCain adviser dismisses evidence of Bush’s Iraq lies as ‘conspiracy theories.’» In a recent interview with Der Spiegel, Robert Kagan, a leading member of John McCain’s war cabinet, dismissed wrongdoing by the Bush administration in the run-up to the Iraq war as “conspiracy theories”:

http://technorati.com/posts/l_1HvnXos3NHpx4_aFb%2BDN5UGvwHY0z20A7Aid9y3t0%3D

Campbell Brown Errs Obama General Election Public Financing

Thursday, June 19, 2008

Barack Obama Didn't Back Out of Public Funding Promise

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2008/06/barack-obama-didnt-back-out-of-public.html

Campbell Brown ...One year ago, he made a promise. He pledged to accept public financing and to work with the Republican nominee to ensure that they both operated within those limits.

Then it became clear to Sen. Obama and his campaign that he was going to be able to raise on his own far more cash than he would get with public financing. So Obama went back on his word.He broke his promise and he explained it by arguing that the system is broken and that Republicans know how to work the system to their advantage. He argued he would need all that cash to fight the ruthless attacks of 527s, those independent groups like the Swift Boat Veterans. It's funny though, those attacks never really materialized. 'No bias, no bull'

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/28/campbell.brown.obama/index.html

CNN’s Campbell Brown Attacks Obama’s ‘Broken Promise’ on Funding
Posted in Leaning to the Right by News Busters on October 29, 2008

http://moreaboutpolitics.info/moreaboutpolitics/?p=25603

Public Financing Helps Fuel U.S. Presidential Campaigns
McCain campaign, Obama supporters trade charges of abusing system
21 April 2008

http://www.america.gov/st/elections08-english/2008/April/20080421130233rotcartnoc0.845318.html

How does The Presidential Public Finance System work?

http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=1389223

John McCain did take out a loan using the funds as collateral, and he took it out before December 20, 2007. The Washington Post broke the news in mid-February

http://www.jedreport.com/2008/06/mccain-camp-lie.html

McCain Loan Complicates Financing of Campaign

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/22/us/politics/22finance.html?fta=y

McCain loan raises FEC questions Regulator says Republican must address loan used to kickstart campaign

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23269736/

McCain got loan by pledging to seek federal funds

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021503639_pf.html

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_john_mccain_borrow_money_using_public.html

McCain Surrogate Hits Obama On Public Financing, Sidesteps On McCain Loan

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/23/mccain-surrogate-hits-oba_n_108637.html

Barack Obama Didn't Back Out of Public Funding Promise

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2008/06/barack-obama-didnt-back-out-of-public.html

Maddow Interviews Ron Paul

paul... system is not very democratic for third party candidates... very hard to get on state ballots... system biased against competition... status quo is going to be maintained...

Maddow: you attracked a lot of support... brought a lot into system... how do you see them moving forward in the election...

Paul: there are candidates running ... message of individual liberty attracting young people... our message attractive to youth... self reliance... getting out of these wars... monetary policy... talking about financial crisis and how related to trillion dollar expenditure on foreign affairs... two major candidates not talking about Syria and Pakistan... both would send more troops to Afghanistan... neither one talking about balancing the budget... youth like idea individual liberty... talk about the Constitution...

End

Ron Paul Rachel Maddow Interview - MSNBC TONIGHT!
Posted October 29th, 2008 by Michael Nystrom
Update: Matt writes that Dr. Paul will appear at 9:45pm. Tune in if you can, check back for the YouTube later if not.

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/70883

Hmm

The Not-so-Soft Bigotry of Rachel Maddow's Low Expectations

Over the weekend, rising liberal pundit Rachel Maddow was interviewed by the New York Times and was asked if she had a favorite Republican. The answer wasn't altogther that surprising. When answering this question, most liberals say either Chuck Hagel or...

I like the congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul, because I understand what he believes, and he is fearless and civic-minded in his beliefs, rather than personally zealous.

Maddow is a smart woman (a Rhodes Scholar to boot!) and she certainly pays attention to the news. Did she miss the whole kerfuffle about Ron Paul being a paranoid, racist crank? Perhaps Maddow... needs a refresher in what Congressman Paul wrote about gays. Did she miss the news that he endorsed Christian theocrat and 9/11 Truther Chuck Baldwin (of the Constitution Party) for President? Or that Paul proudly delivered the keynote address at the 50th anniversary of the John Birch Society? (Yes, it still exists).

As it's safe to assume that Maddow is fully aware of all these things, one wonders how an ostensibly "liberal" and "progressive" person could voice such admiration for a far right extremist. The answer is that Maddow doesn't care about Paul's views on anything other than foreign policy. For many people on the Left nowadays, simple opposition to Bush, the "neocons," what have you, is sufficient evidence of one's "anti-imperialist" bona fides. Never mind that Paul's positions on foreign policy, while seemingly attractive to liberals who may abhor what's occurred during the Bush administration, derive from the Old Right isolationsim of Charles Lindbergh and Father Coughlin, figures whose ideas any self-respecting and historically aware person calling herself a "liberal" ought to abhor. Paul stands foursquare against American "Empire," and the fact that he's a Republican makes the deal even sweeter. Suddenly, a conspiracy-spouting crank is "fearless" and "civic-minded."

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/10/21/the-not-so-soft-bigotry-of-rachel-maddow-s-low-expectations.aspx

A Pundit in the Country
Inteview by EDWARD LEWINE
Published: October 17, 2008
Rachel Maddow, host of left-leaning chat shows on Air America Radio and MSNBC, both named “The Rachel Maddow Show”, spends downtime in an 1865 house in western Massachusetts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/magazine/19wwln-domains-t.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Obama 30 Minute Ad Airs

The ad was discussed on Countdown with Keith Olbermann tonight featuring Chris Matthews analysis...

youtube Countdown: Matthews and K.O React To Obama Ad

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHAQ9va2cQM

Notice one of Obama's supporters shown in the video is Google CEO! Seriously, that is awesome.

Google CEO Eric Schmidt Backs Obama, Will Hit Campaign Trail

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/20/google-ceo-eric-schmidt-e_n_136047.html

October 20, 2008 - 12:03 P.M.
Google CEO: I'm for Obama
13 comments
TAGS:endorsement, Google, McCain, Obama, schmidt
IT TOPICS:Government & Regulation, Networking, Internet
Google CEO Eric Schmidt has made it official: He's endorsing Barack Obama, and will hit the campaign trail for the Democrat this week, including at a Florida event where he will co-moderate a panel about the economy. Other Silicon Valley execs are expected to follow Schmidt's lead.

Schmidt is a political moderate; for example, he spoke at Britain's Conservative Party conference in 2006, according to the Wall Street Journal. He's been an informal adviser to the Obama campaign on technology as well as green energy.

Schmidt has made it clear that it's his personal endorsement, rather than Google's. But there's no doubt where Google employees stand: According to the Wall Street Journal, as of August 31, Google employees had given $487,355 to Obama's campaign and only $20,600 to McCain's.

http://blogs.computerworld.com/google_ceo_im_for_obama

Clip Obama Ad

http://disdei.blogspot.com/2008/10/watch-obama-30-minute-ad.html
http://gosublogger.com/2008/10/watch-obamas-30-minute-ad/

'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' for Tuesday October 28, 2008
Read the transcript to the Tuesday show

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27437451/

Headline News issues LA Times Khalidi Video non-release discussed

Headline News Issues with Jane Velez-Mitchell

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/2008/10/20/2008-10-20_untitled__inn20tv.html

guests included Greg Palast, John Avlon and Republican spokeswoman Sharon Jacobus...

the trio discussed Sarah Palin's rally comments about the LA Times not releasing a 2003 tape... and more...

Read the entire portion of the transcript...

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ijvm.html

Net the Truth Online

October 29th, 2008 1:42 PM Eastern
Palin Links Obama to Khalidi, Calls on LA Times to Release Tape
by Shushannah Walshe

BOWLING GREEN, OH — At a rally at Bowling Green University, Sarah Palin launched into one of her most scathing attacks of the campaign questioning Barack Obama’s support of Israel by linking him to a Columbia University professor who also served as the spokesperson for the Palestinian Liberation Organization.

“Now interesting what we are finding out in the last couple days about this assortment of friends from Chicago that Barack–that Barack Obama has. In case you missed the latest item let me summarize.” Palin said, “It seems that there is yet another radical professor from the neighborhood who spent a lot of time with Barack Obama going back several years. This is important because his associate, Rashid Khalidi he in addition to being a political ally of Barack Obama he’s a former spokesperson for the Palestinian Liberation Organization.”

She then slammed the Los Angeles Times for refusing to release a tape that the newspaper’s editors say shows Obama praising Khalidi at a 2003 party. Khalidi has a history of expressing anti-Israel views. The newspaper reported on the banquet and Obama and Khalidi’s relationship in an article published six months ago. Palin then questioned what Obama may have said about Israel at the party directly questioning his support of the country.

“And the twist here is that there’s a videotape of a party for this person, back in 2003, a celebration of him, and Barack was there, and we know some very derogatory things were said there about Israel and America’s support for that great nation. And among other things, Israel was described there as the perpetrator of terrorism instead of the victim. What we don’t know, what we don’t know is how Barack Obama responded to these slurs on a country that he now professes to support, and the reason is the newspaper that has the tape, the Los Angeles Times, refuses to release it,” Palin said.

She then accused the L.A. Times of not releasing the tape because of a desire to protect the Democratic nominee and called on them to release the tapes stressing that “it’s not too late.”

http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/10/29/palin-links-obama-to-khalidi-calls-on-la-times-to-release-tape/

Should the Los Angeles Times Reveal the Khalidi Videotape?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/should-the-los-angeles-ti_b_138996.html

McCain Calls on LA Times to Release 2003 Khalidi Video
By Michael D. Shear
Sen. John McCain today compared the director of Columbia University's Middle East Institute to a "neo-Nazi" and called on the Los Angeles Times to release a video of a 2003 banquet at which Sen. Barack Obama talked about the professor, Rashid Khalidi, a leading Palestinian American scholar and friend of Obama's from Chicago.

"What if there was a tape with John McCain with a neo-Nazi outfit being held by some media outlet?" McCain asked in an interview with a Cuban radio station Wednesday morning. "I think the treatment of the issue would be slightly different."

McCain added another potentially explosive charge Wednesday morning to a growing flap over the release of the tape provided to the LA Times by a source on condition they not publish it, alleging that former 60s radical William Ayers had been at the banquet -- something that has not been reported by the Times.

"We should know about their relationship," McCain said, referring to Ayers. "Including, apparently, information that is held by the Los Angeles Times concerning an event that Mr. Ayers attended with a PLO spokesman. The Los Angeles Times refuses to make that videotape public."

Khalidi has denied having been a spokesman for the PLO.

A spokeswoman for McCain said the senator based his allegation about Ayers on another newspaper article -- a New York Sun report in 2005 that Ayers had been at the same banquet...

PA Must Provide Emergency Paper Ballots Event Half Machine Breakdowns

On the Vote PA Message Board this evening, organizer and founder Mary Beth Kuznick posts an update in the recently filed case of NAACP vs Pennsylvania Secretary of State Pedro Cortes and the ruling of federal Chief U.S. District Judge Harvey Bartle III.

Plaintiffs won their Preliminary Injunction in the NAACP v. Cortés suit...

The Plaintiffs won their Preliminary Injunction in the NAACP v. Cortés suit! Emergency Paper Ballots to be used if 50% or more of voting machines are down...

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VotePA/message/4251

Kuznik testified during the hearing, and will make a report on the Vote PA site.

Posted on Wed, Oct. 29, 2008
U.S judge hears Pa. ballot lawsuit
By Cynthia Henry

Inquirer Staff Writer
Mary Beth Kuznick, a Westmoreland County election judge, testified in favor of a more flexible paper ballot backup system in Pennsylvania.

"We've already been trained on how to count and secure ballots," she said. "I don't see the need for more training."

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/pennsylvania/20081029_U_S_judge_hears_Pa__ballot_lawsuit.html?text=lg&c=y

Posted on Wed, Oct. 29, 2008
U.S judge hears Pa. ballot lawsuit
By Cynthia Henry

Inquirer Staff Writer

Voter-rights advocates and election officials argued yesterday in federal court over how to keep lines moving if Pennsylvania voting machines break down on Election Day.
The NAACP State Conference of Pennsylvania and individual voters sued Secretary of the Commonwealth Pedro A. Cortes on Thursday to force the use of paper ballots if 50 percent or more of machines in any polling place fail. On Sept. 3, Cortes instructed poll workers to issue emergency paper ballots only if all machines failed at once.

The lawsuit alleges that voters would be disfranchised if they had to wait hours in line for machine repairs.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/20081029_U_S_judge_hears_Pa__ballot_lawsuit.html

Posted on Wed, Oct. 29, 2008
U.S judge hears Pa. ballot lawsuit
By Cynthia Henry

Inquirer Staff Writer

Voter-rights advocates and election officials argued yesterday in federal court over how to keep lines moving if Pennsylvania voting machines break down on Election Day.
The NAACP State Conference of Pennsylvania and individual voters sued Secretary of the Commonwealth Pedro A. Cortes on Thursday to force the use of paper ballots if 50 percent or more of machines in any polling place fail. On Sept. 3, Cortes instructed poll workers to issue emergency paper ballots only if all machines failed at once.

The lawsuit alleges that voters would be disfranchised if they had to wait hours in line for machine repairs.

"We think people will become disgruntled and leave, and maybe even take stronger action," NAACP conference president J. Whyatt Mondesire told Judge Harvey Bartle III in Philadelphia.

But election officials expressed confidence in the machines and said Tuesday's election was too close to change procedures.

Testimony went late into the evening as witnesses related past machine failures and reliability, registration statistics, and what-if election protocols.

Philadelphia voters Angel Coleman and Douglas Jerolmack lamented machine shutdowns on the morning of the April primary.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/20081029_U_S_judge_hears_Pa__ballot_lawsuit.html

Case Information
Current Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Case 2:08-cv-05048)
All Courts: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Case 2:08-cv-05048)
Topic(s): Voting Technology
State: Pennsylvania
Date Filed: October 23, 2008


Issue:

Whether polling locations can be required to distribute emergency paper ballots to voters when 50% or more voting machines become inoperable at a specific location. Pennsylvania Secretary of the Commonwealth Pedro Cortes has issued a directive requiring that paper ballots be distributed when 100% of the voting machines at a polling location have failed. The plaintiffs, concerned about long lines due to malfunctioning voting machines, allege that not providing emergency paper ballots in cases where there is less than 100% voting machine failure would violate the constitutional rights of voters.

http://www-lvs13.net.ohio-state.edu/electionlaw/litigation/naacp-scpv.cortes.php

Stossell Uninformed Voters Shouldn't Vote this Election

Hey John what about people who only use single sources that think like them? Should they vote? What does it matter in the long run. It all balances out anyway. The entire system needs to be changed to enable third-party and independents access to the ballot in state elections, and in Presidential Primaries each party should be treated the same as Republican and Democrat...

Well, Stossel has a new book out too - it should be of interest... from the library shelves, that is.

John Stossel on Fox News today

...maybe they shouldn't vote...

but maybe it's their civic duty not to vote cause they don't know anything...

if you're informed vote... went to Washington Mall, no one knew who Biden was... or Ruth Bader Ginsberg...

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=3171416&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/urgent_queue/#50041ecb,2008-10-27

Limbaugh Distorting Obama Constitutional Constraints Comments?

Read the entirety of the Obama Interview in conjunction with listening to the audio. Then read Newsmax, Hannity, wnd, and Limbaugh's commentary, and then read Media Matters and more explanations as well.

if you don't you only have yourself to blame for remaining uninformed.

Net the Truth Online

Interview: Audio Barack Obama Interview 2001 WBEZ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

Newsmax report

Obama Attacks Founding Fathers, Constitution

Monday, October 27, 2008 3:10 PM

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_founding_fathers/2008/10/27/144567.html

Limbaugh smears Obama with misrepresentation of comments on Constitution
Summary: Rush Limbaugh distorted comments by Sen. Barack Obama in a 2001 radio interview and falsely characterized Obama as "an anti-constitutional professor" who has "flatly rejected" the U.S. Constitution. Obama made the comments in a panel discussion of how the Founders addressed the issue of slavery in the Constitution; he did not reject it, as Limbaugh falsely claimed, but called it "a remarkable political document."

Distorting comments by Sen. Barack Obama from a 2001 radio interview, nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh falsely characterized Obama as "an anti-constitutional professor" who has "flatly rejected" the U.S. Constitution. Obama made the comments in a panel discussion of how the Founders addressed the issue of slavery in the Constitution; he did not reject it, as Limbaugh falsely claimed, but called it "a remarkable political document."

During his October 27 broadcast, Limbaugh said: "Obama, ladies and gentlemen, calls himself a constitutional professor or a constitutional scholar. In truth, Barack Obama was an anti-constitutional professor. He studied the Constitution, and he flatly rejected it. He doesn't like the Constitution, he thinks it is flawed, and now I understand why he was so reluctant to wear the American flag lapel pin. Why would he?" Limbaugh later added, "I don't see how he can take the oath of office" because "[h]e has rejected the Constitution."

Limbaugh's assertion that Obama "rejected the Constitution" is false, as is clear from a clip from a September 6, 2001, interview on Chicago public radio station WBEZ that Limbaugh aired later in the show. In fact, while saying that the Constitution "reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day," Obama asserted that the Constitution is "a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now."

In a preceding portion of the WBEZ program -- titled "Slavery and the Constitution" -- Obama explained that the "fundamental flaw" was that "[t]he Africans at the time were not considered as part of the polity that was of concern to the framers," and that the framers did not "see[] it as a moral problem involving persons of moral worth." Without airing that part of the WBEZ program, in which Obama explained his position that the Constitution reflected the "fundamental flaw of this country," Limbaugh criticized Obama for saying that the Constitution reflected a "fundamental flaw," while falsely accusing Obama of saying the flaw cannot "be fixed": "How is he going to -- I asked this earlier -- how is he gonna place his hand on the Bible and swear that he, Barack Hussein Obama, will uphold the Constitution that he feels reflects the nation's fundamental flaw. Fundamental. When he talks about a fundamental flaw, he's not talking about a flaw that can be fixed. Fundamental means that this document is, from the get-go, wrong."

But Obama's identification of a fundamental flaw reflected in the Constitution and "continu[ing] to this day" is hardly unique; several influential Republicans, including President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, have articulated a similar view:

At a July 19 event at the Council on Foreign Relations, Rice said: "In our first Constitution, my ancestors were three-fifths of a man. What does that say about American democracy at its outset? I've said it's a great birth defect. And we have had to overcome a birth defect. And, like any birth defect, it continues to have an impact on us. It's why we have such a hard time talking about race, and dealing with race."
During a July 10, 2003, interview on CNN's Larry King Live, former Secretary of State Colin Powell said: "It took us a while to recognize that we could not live our Constitution truly unless we eliminated slavery, and hundreds of thousands of young men fought a civil war to end slavery and then it took us a long time to get rid of the vestiges of slavery and we're still working on it to this very day."
In July 8, 2003, remarks made at Goree Island in Senegal, Bush said that the "moral vision" of abolitionists "caused Americans to examine our hearts, to correct our Constitution, and to teach our children the dignity and equality of every person of every race." He added: "The racial bigotry fed by slavery did not end with slavery or with segregation. And many of the issues that still trouble America have roots in the bitter experience of other times."
Additionally, in an August 5, 2006, interview with C-SPAN's Brian Lamb, Chief Justice John Roberts said of the authors of the Constitution: "They never worked out what to do about slavery and just kind of shuttled that aside and decided we're not going to talk about that. And that taint in the Constitution, took a Civil War to remove." Later in the interview, he said that the Constitution's amendment process "did allow some fundamental flaws to be addressed like slavery -- abolished in the Thirteenth Amendment."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200810280007

Limbaugh's False Claim On WLS: Obama Said "He Doesn't Believe In The U.S. Constitution"

There's a new Obama-related controversy brewing among conservatives this morning and ABC's Jake Tapper reports that John McCain is planning to jump all over it. The source is a 2001 appearance by the then-state senator on Chicago Public Radio's Odyssey. The subject of the program was "how slavery affected the U.S. Constitution." During the discussion, Obama argued that while the Warren Court ensured numerous civil rights, it "never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society." Obama added that the Court "didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution."

Now while most conservative bloggers and commentators are latching on to the "redistribution of wealth" quote as evidence of Obama "expos[ing] himself as a Marxist," syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh took it a step further on Chicago radio this morning, falsely claiming that Obama said "he doesn't believe in the U.S. Constitution." Listen to his comments on Mancow Muller's new WLS show:...

...Limbaugh's claim that Obama said he "doesn't believe in the U.S. Constitution" seems to stem from Barack's remarks about the document being "a charter of negative liberties." But as the transcript makes clear, while Obama acknowledges this characteristic as a reality, he never suggests that it's a flaw. Rather, as campaign spokesman Bill Burton put it, "Obama's point -- and what he called a tragedy -- was that legal victories in the Civil Rights [movement] led too many people to rely on courts to change society for the better."

Meanwhile, a separate argument is taking place over what Obama meant by "redistributive change" and the University of Chicago's Cass Sunstein is taking the lead in defending the Democratic nominee on this front.

Here are links to the full transcript and audio of the September 6, 2001 edition of Odyssey.

http://progressillinois.com/2008/10/27/limbaugh-obama-constitution

Transcript in full

The Urgent Queue...From Our Desk To Yours NEWS ARCHIVE

HOT TOPICS
FOX News Election Coverage
Celebrity Gossip
FOX Movietone News
Send news tip to FOXNews.com

SUBMIT FOXNEWS.COM HOME > THE URGENT QUEUE...FROM OUR DESK TO YOURS
{"DhtmlHistory_pageLoaded":true}
Raw verbates of Obama 2001 radio intvw and link to audio
Monday, Oct. 27 2008
E-MailPrintShare:Digg This!FacebookStumbleUponhere is the link to the full uncut 2001 radio show with obama and verbate of all his answers
at top are the three relevant sections then the whole thing
----------------
OBAMA
39:45 and it essentially has never happened i mean if you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movemtn 39:48 and its litigation strategy and the court i think wehere it succeeded was to vest formal rigths in previously dispossessed peoples so that i would not have the right to vote would now be able to sit at lunch counter and as lpong as i coudl pay for it would be ok 40:10 but the supreme court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society and to that extent as radical as people try to characterize the warren court it wasnt that radical 40;30 it didnt break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the constituion at least as it has been interpreted and the warren court interpreted it generally in the same way that the constitution is a document of negative liberties 40:43 says what the states cant do to you says what the federal govt cant do to you but it doesnt say what the federal govt or state govt mst do on your behalf and that hasnt shifted and i think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that 41:01 the civil rights movement becaem so court focused i think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities 41:12 on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change 41:20 and in some ways we still suffer from that
----------------
caller (karen): 46:07 the gentlemen made the point that the warren court wasn't terribly radical with economic changes my question is is it to late for that kind of reparative work and is that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to take place
Q you mean the court
caller: the court or would it be legislation at this point
OBAMA
46:27 you know maybe i am showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor but you know i am not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts 46:43 you know the institution just isn't structured that way just look at very rare examples where during he desegregation era the court was willing to for example 46:55 order you know changes that cost money 46:59 to local school district and the court was very uncomfortable with it it was hard to manage 47:04 it was hard to figure out you start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues 47:09 you know in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that is essentially is administrative and take a lot of time the court is not very good at it and politically it is hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard 47:27 so i think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally you know i think any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts 47:45 i think that as a practical matte that our institutions are just poorly equipped to do it
---------------------------
http://www.wbez.org/audio_library/od_rajan01.asp
January 18, 2001 Audio hosted by Gretchen Helfrich
The Court and Civil Rights
Susan Bandes - Professor of law at DePaul University and the editor of the book, The Passions of Law
Dennis Hutchinson - The William Rainey Harper professor in the college, senior lecturer in the law school and editor of the Supreme Court Review at the University of Chicago
Barack Obama - Illinois State Senator from 13th district and a senior lecturer in the law school at the University of Chicago
AUDIO LINK:
http://www.wbez.org/audio_library/ram/od/od-010118.ram
3:55 Q do you think susan bandes and barack obama that that issue of how far the court will intervene rather than the content of its decisions what is the balance in terms of the what the civil rights era meant about how the civil rights era court operated in terms of you know the significant change in that period
Obama
4:20 well you know just to step back for a second from what dennis said and i think his characterizations were right on target but maybe for the purposes of your listeners it is important to understand what happened before the 14th amendment i mean essentially 4:33 you have an ideological bias against court intervention particularly with regard to state matters 4:40 i think most of your listeners are probably familiar with concepts of federalism that we have a charter of limited government with repsect to federal government and that encompassed i think not only the national legislative branch but also the judiciary 4:55 and so it was very rare for the supreme court -- or at least the supreme court was always cautious with respect to intruding into what were considered to be state matters and the police power that the state exercised over its citizens 5:10 was for the most part considered off limits. the 14th amendment in the vague ambiguous manner that dennis indicated seeks to initially at least overturn some of that hesitance and 5:26 says to the court no in fact you are one of the people -- you are one of the insitutions that we anticipate are going to protect individuals within these states 5:36 prior to that at least on racial issues if you think about the only real significant ruling by the supreme court the only significant venture into this area was the dred scott opinion 5:48 which was a disaster and was that was one of the rare instances where the supreme court was willing to intervene against congres to ensure that rights of individuals in this case slaveholders were not that their property rights were not diminished 6:09 that turned out to be a disaster it also indicated pprecisely because it was so rare how unusual it was for the court to intrude into these issues and i think dennis is right that although the 14th amendment tried to flip the relationship between 6:27 the supreme court and the states those habits of mind that style of jurisprudence i think continued to linger on 6:36 for quite some time
bandes: prior to warren only 14th was thought to apply to states but warren court brought in 1st 4th many issues didnt achieve importance til warren that is what is thought to be courts activism new deal court was reviled for strikin down fdr laws to protect workers lackner court became synomymous with bad kind of activism warren court dealt with that procedures or content of court that we are worried about if lackner court were wrong to strike down child work laws then how can warren court be right enforcing civil rights against states shold court intervence
OBAMA
09:14 just to pin down the connection with lackner deciions and subsequent decisions by the warrne court it goes back to what dennis was sayign about the equal protection clause being written in a vague fashion 9:30 you know one of the ongoing debates with respect to how the judiciary should behave is is it interpreting laws or is it makin laws 9:38 hwo much fidelity is it maintaining to the text and intentions of the legislators 9:44 if it is too untethered to the text what language is actually there in the constitution then you know it is starting to veer towards activism 9:53 and unelected judiciaries makin laws in what is supposed to be a democracy on the other hand any of us that has tried to read an insurance contract knows that 10:04 just what is on papre doesnt tell you what it means so the court always has to deal with that particular balance and i think that uh it is never entirely resolved and during he civil rights movement it was willing to go out much firther than i thnk it had been -- it had doen previously but that also gave them leverege to those who potentially didnt like the substance of these decisions to coe back and attack them and say well we are not objecting necessarily to the outcomes we are not saying we approve of segregation we are not saying we approve of massive resistance but instituttionally we think that this is objectionable so it gave leverage i think to rehnquist and you know the future court continuing on to today to be able to argue that kind of intervention is inappropriate 11:00 for judges to engage in
bandes: manay academics have so much trouble today cause i would acrgue that we have interventionist court today in commerce clause and peope so supportive of warrne asking is it the intervention or the content and do we have right to protest antiprogressive when in warren era we were for intervention
hutchson: conventional agreement maj on equal protection if state passed law that black cant serve on jury thats unconsitutional whereas telling black that he cant sit in theater with whites is social equality and only harlan in plessy says there is no real differecne but to 19th century mind many abolitionists were racists and lincoln was prepared to accept repatriation til 1863 to solve the color problem so thought has changed at one point thought was social intervention was wrong
Q link that to how cases were decided
hutch: that waselement but scotus sprak to greater intervention is not child labor but what happens between the wars with respect to couthern justice case after case in 20s and 30s of most grotesque vioelance against blacks by southern authorities... sheriffs say we did beat him several times but he did confess as if that doesnt violate constitution... judge just says this is inconsistent with con design takes off after wwii .. naacp mounts serious cmpn to attack jim crow in the public schools
OBAMA
15:09 and one of the thigns that should be pointed out a) the naacp mounts systematic thoughtful strategy to lay bare the contradictions that are embodied in the doctrines and ideological structures that the court is working with the second thing is that just to take a realist perspective 15:31is that there is a lot of change going on outside of the court that you know the judges you know have to take judicial notice of 15:40 i mean you have got wwii you have got the doctines of naziism that we are fighting against that start to look uncomfortably similar to what is going on back here at home you have got african americans that are returning home from the war with certain expectations why is it that i am not in uniform and yet am denied more freedom here that i was in france of italy 16:08 and so you have a whole host of social conditions that ar eyou know the court inevtiably is influenced by and i think it is imporant for us to realize that although brown may be one of those rare circumstances where the court is willing to get slightly beyond conventional opinion and sort of stake a place beyond the sort of political mainstrean
Q conventional social opinion
OBAMA
16:44 social opinion but thats very rare and even in the case of brown i think that there were a lot of social changes attitudinal changes of the sort that dennis was talking about 16:56 in terms fo teh difference between social equality and political equality a lot of that baggage has to be eliminated before you see the supreme court before you see the supreme court vneture out the way it did
hutchison: truman desgregates armed forces establishes civil rights commission dixiecrats walked out of 1948 convo strom
OBAMA
17:08 (laughing) who is still serving -- who is still alive
hutshconson: govt it putting weight behind naacp doj signed brief brown heats up doj is in case arguring amicus on behalf of naacp so court thinks that pol forces of admin are on side of naacp then brown comes down and new admin ike is nowhere to be foudn one reason i agree with bho that court got ahead but thoguht it had allies in admin and ike though warren was on fools erran as he told ???
Q way in which court rule in american life and ability to shape law and how we are feeling that today ashcroft heargins all sorts of nastiness flying cause of power of that job cause of way that court operates one two punch of doj and scotus together in combination that is kind of relatively epaking new factor meaing like 50 yrs
OBAMA
20:50 i think you are right on target lets take desegregation you know brown v bd was in 1954 by 1964 if you look at eventually what has happened on the ground nothing has happened or very little has happened 20:12
hutchonson: 2% is numbr that have changed from segreagted to desegregated schools
OBAMA
20:20 right so the emphasis is on deliberate not speed in terms of progress being made in the south well what happens in the mid 60s that suddenly forces the hand of these schools it is not that suddenly the court has a whole new attitude although the court does start getting impatietn and starts putting breannan and the court start issuing opinions that strecht even firther i think previously they would not have been comfortable with in terms of the justice dept starts coming in it 20:58 the federal govt starts tying federal funding of schools to their willingness to abide by some model rules and regulations that have been set up by the federal executive branch so suddenly you have got football 21:15 coaches in texas who are saying to their school board you know what we are not going to get this new stadium if we dont start abiding by these regulations
hutch : hew becomes enfrocment arm
Q ashcroft nomination how oftne have we heard his supportes say he will support laws gets back to interpretation overlooks how much play there is in how we interpret what is it that we enforce gets back to civil rights laws and look at how they haev now been used to convert to color blindness to protect white business from set aisdes ca
hutch that was rhetoric in 50s colorblindness roy wilkins wanted brown endrosed on freedom of choice
OBAMA
23:07 to go back to ag and how much discretion they have the example susan that i think is important is whn you think about the sheer resources invovled in actively litigting and monotoriing activity at the local level as a mazing a collection as were invovled with the naaacp they are operating on some shoestring budgets i mean they are 23:30 running around and having to select and choose here is a test case tehre is a test case that gets them to brown v bd but when you start getting into the remedie phase essentially what you have to do is you have to be covering the territory south of the mason dixie? line and sometimes above going from school district to school district and without an activist ag office and do jt hat can come in and provide sheer resources many of these changes just dont take place
Q let me ask you talked about new deal and court activism striking down lackner etc we now have court with different dispositon from 50s and 60s an seems quite willing to stirke laws in sheeer numbers what i am wonderin on eithe rside of era we have courts strikin how is it different before and after does it have different meaning
OBAMA
25:18 well i do think there is a certain set of different expectations in public that constrian the court now in important ways lets take the exampel of roe vs wade and how the court has dealt with it i mean clear you haev got a majority on that court that deosnt like roe and wouldnt ahev come up with roe vs wde has they been the court when that decision 22:45 fist came up they have been constrained from outright overturning roe vs wade party because of the public expectations that have been establisehd as far as the courts role 26:01 if this came up fresh now i thnk they would be much more willing to simply say for example ths is an unenumerated right we see nothing like this grounded in the constitution 26:14 what soever there is no reason why we are going to extend this frther than so they could haev crafted a certain approach to the due process clause in ways that they cant do now 26:29
hutch roe would be like bowers v hardwick and gays
obama
26:35 exactly where they say there is no tradition of us doing this and we are not going to do it
Q miranda rehnquist says part of our culture which is not law but seems like a rationale
hutrch: stare decisis has legitimzing feature when court reverse itself it uses institutional capaitl dfast
bandes: public consensus and what court is doing huge sea change on federalism have struck 32 major billls ... but much of what they haev been doign has been focused on obscure issues a loot of incusrsions on personal rights have been expansion that hs nothing to do with text of 11th amendment .... no longe able to sue states on age.. commerce on vawa so obscrue that peopel i think at least prior to bush v gore didnt see
OBAMA
29:03 I think susan makes good point but one that is compatible with the other point i think on hot button issues that the public is paying attneiton to the court is not shipping away as rapidaly as it is in areas that are obscure 29:18 letys take the example of the commerce clause which some listeners may not be familiar with you know essentially one fo the things that happened in the warren court essentially in response to the civil rights movement and trying to figure out how do we empower the federal govt to intrude on state activity was to bascially give congress carte blanche through the commerce clause basically interpreted the commerce clause so 29:43 boradly that for example the public accomodations laws that were passed by congress during the civil rights era werent 29:50passed under the powers that were granted under the 14th amendment but werr erather passed under the commerce clause what happens then is the congress gets prety cocky and comfortable about the fact that you know we can do pretty mch pass any laws that we want 30:02 that directly affect people in states without having to worry about the supreme court well now suddenly what has happened is that the court has systematically alspped that back but it has done so very noticably not in the area of civil righs legislation 30:20 and it has been very careful in a lot of these opinions to say well civil rights are different in some way and the reason we are striking down the commerce clause in this area and not in 30:31 civil rights areas is yada yada yada but you knwo the imp point isis that where the public is apying attetnion i think the court remains mindful 30:39 on these issues
Q take break
Q done a lot on govt power and shows no sins of stopping and changing ways that we govern and is part of that find intriguiing pruning fed power back as process can have same consequences as overtly social intervnetions
OBAMA
33:55 yeah you know one of the things that is interesting and i thnk susan is exaclty right that there is this pruning taking place and that we are aseeing potentially the groundwork being laid for potential future changes being made on substantive issues i mean right now they are sort of obscrure legal issues and at some point this may set the precendent then for trimming 34:15 back on more substantive issues that we care about but there is one other 34:21area where the civil rights area has changed and that is at the state level you now have state supreme cts and state laws that in some ways have adopted the ethos of the warren court 34:39a classic example would be something like public education where after brown v board a major issue ends up being redistribtion how do we get more money into the schools 34:51 and how do we actually create equal schools and equal educational opportunity well the court in a case called san antonio v rodriguez in the early 70s 35:01basically slaps those kinds fo claims down and says you know what we as a court have no power to examine issues of redistribution and wealth inequalities 35:11with respect to schools thats not a race issue thats a wealth issue and something and we cant get into those
hutchinson: and the federal constitution doesnt offer any warrant for intervention
OBAMA
35:18 exactly now what is interesting is though suddenly a whole bunch of folsk start bringing these claims in state court under state constitutions that call for equal educational opportunity and you see state courts with mixed results being more responsive to it 35:34 you knwo the reason i think that is relevant is not to say that i am not worried about the lack of protectiosn coming from the supreme court 35:42 but it is to say though that you have got a cultural transformation that changes hwo states operate and how states think about the protection of individual rights in ways that didnt exist prior to the warren court and that i think is an important legacy 35:56 to keep in mind
Q and didnt we see a clash of those two cultures in bush
OBAMA
36:03 exactly bush v gore is a classic example essentially you could argue that the FL state supreme court was embodying concerns and uh a jurisprudential approach that it had inherited from the warren court that is the role that we would hev expected the federal court to play
bandes: intersting many say that fderalism got bad name during yrs when it ebcame code for opposing desegregation bush v gore interesing obscure procedural way that scotus comes in and tells fl highest court will not accept its interpreation of its own law very rare
obama ironically like dennis said where stae slaws are so egregious
bandes and many of us think that
hutch not going to relook at bush v gore ... free zone .. interesting that brack brungs up thatit is mocing back to states given gop control of congress eeing shift in strategy and location we can be too scotus obsessed somgimes that they can deliver social justice in unbroken vector from brown and one barack and i were talking about was welfare rights that obsesion of die process if you can force admins to hold hearings before cutting off benefits will produce more social justice ther was 1971 decision and what it did was more money went to hearsing than benefits and then scotus reversed said well not face to face paper review the idea that you can use due process for
redistributive ends socially that will be stable wasasrtonishing assumption in minds of litigiators and it didnt last very long
OBAMA
39:45 and it essentially has never happened i mean if you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movemtn 39:48 and its litigation strategy and the court i think wehere it succeeded was to vest formal rigths in previously dispossessed peoples so that i would not have the right to vote would now be able to sit at lunch counter and as lpong as i coudl pay for it would be ok 40:10 but the supreme court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society and to that extent as radical as people try to characterize the warren court it wasnt that radical 40;30 it didnt break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the constituion at least as it has been interpreted and the warren court interpreted it generally in the same way that the constitution is a document of negative liberties 40:43 says what the states cant do to you says what the federal govt cant do to you but it doesnt say what the federal govt or state govt mst do on your behalf and that hasnt shifted and i think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that 41:01 the civil rights movement becaem so court focused i think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities 41:12 on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change 41:20 and in some ways we still suffer from that
Q lets take some phone calls good morning joe
caller: consdiering that civil rights movement was fought on moral and religious ground what impact does that haev now on scotus and ashcroft being nominatined
OBAMA
42:06 interesting question you are maybe pointing out what has been a longstanding contradiction not just in warren court and liberal lawyers but generally on liberal community which is basing claims for justice on asyou said moral and ethical grounds and that same time being suspicious abotu church encroachment into the politial sphere it has eben less of a contradiction traditioally in the african american community and for whatever reason psychologically the country has always been more comfortable with the african american communitys marriage of spiritual and political institutions but i think that is a genuine contradiciton that exists in the ideological makeup of the left in this country that has not been entirely resovled
Q do you think that maybe this is in wake of civil rights era things look different but in terms of goals fo civil rights even though there was this religious part they wernet asking for prayer in school less overtly religious content to what they were seekgin whereas nwo they seem to haev more explicityly overtly religious content some peope get heebie kjeebies over goasl that promote religious acticity
bandes not that easy to separate religiona dn desires from law ... it pervades bowers v hardwick in whch court witheld recognitioon of gays as protected class and berger cited bible prohibtion on sodmoy ... religion part of views
caller (same guy: joe): scotus avoiding issues
hutch: justices are worst pols in world they have no predictive record on public reaction they arent calculating like that
caller (karen): 46:07 the gentlemen made the point that the warren court wasn't terribly radical with economic changes my question is is it to late for that kind of reparative work and is that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to take place
Q you mean the court
caller: the court or would it be legislation at this point
OBAMA
46:27 you know maybe i am showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor but you know i am not optimistic about brining about major redistributive change through the courts 46:43 you know the institution just isn't structured that way just look at very rare examples where during he desegregation era the court was willing to for example 46:55 order you know changes that cost money 46:59 to local school district and the court was very uncomfortable with it it was hard to manage 47:04 it was hard to figure out you start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues 47:09 you know in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that is essentially is administrative and take a lot of time the court is not very good at it and politically it is hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard 47:27 so i think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally you know i think any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts 47:45 i think that as a practical matte that our institutions are just poorly equipped to do it
bande i dont necesarily disagre but court often os about status quo but court redistributes all teh time but court on recompense on insruance on every thing but aboretion that is
OBAMA
48:37 typically the court can be more or less generous in interpreting actions and initiatives taken but in terms of funding of abortions and medicare and medicaid the court it not initiating those funding strems essentiall what the court is saying is at some point this is a legitimate prohibition or this is not and i think those are very important batttles that need to be fought and i thnk they have a redistributive aspect to them
caller: tragedy was focus on court and not community work why does that hapen
OBAMA
49:42 well as a former community organizer.... litigation is hard but community organizing is harder part of it diffcult to mobilize change at local level
Q perception the legislative measures are unstable since court has last word
hutch: judicial is unstable too
Q do you see if court position at time of bush v gore court used institutional position to wade in ... how stable is that how much of that reputaiton comes from controvesial reputation but decisions
bande
we might hav consensus court can bring us a little headd moral signpost but cant go too far ahead we need dialogue adn coalitions
end

http://www.foxnews.com/urgent_queue/#50041ecb,2008-10-27