First of all, Obama did not seal his records....sm

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

of McCain and Obama. I always research who I'm voting for before I vote. I don't want to be one of those uninformed voters like the ones that were interviewed and said they had no problem with Sarah Palin being Obama's VP. I mean....come on. If you are that misinformed that you don't even know the candidates VP choice....you shouldn't be voting.

My problem was that I didn't have faith in either McCain or Obama. I voted for McCain because I felt he was the lesser of two evils and I didn't want to throw my vote away by voting for an independent. I'm not doing that any more. If I think an independent is better, I'm bucking both parties. Maybe if both parties lose, they may open their eyes and see that both parties have screwed up and both parties have p!ssed us off.

I agree. I think the media is way out of line with that. Judge Roberts and his wife should be commended and respected for having the love and compassion in their hearts to adopt these children.

when they are voting" so what in McCain's record was so appealing? Firstly, he cheated on his wife who was in a horrible car wreck, and then eventually married for money. Not much appealing going on there. Secondly, his record of Keating-5 not very appealing. Thirdly, he doesn't know anything about the economy, handled himself erradically; that's not appealing to me, for sure. So as far as the choice, Americans have chosen the right person for prez in these dire times.

"A prez/rep has of the people has to hold the constituents thoughts in mind when they are voting." If I understand this, I think you mean the prez/rep has to remember why they were voted into office. What has Obama done in one week that has not shown that he is doing just that? He most certainly has done, in one week, a lot that the American people who voted for him want done. So far, so good.

"People have to get involved by writing to their reps." Did you write to Bush when he invaded a country without reason, when he was killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people? Did you write to your rep when he and his cronies sanctioned torture? Did you write to your rep when they put in jail PFCs for the Abu Ghraibe deal, which goes much higher than Private First Class!! Did you write to your rep when Katrina hit and thousands of people were stranded, and some even killed by police officers who are sworn to help people, when they had nothing to drink for 5 days? Did you write to your rep when Halliburton stole Billions of bucks? Did you? No? didn't think so. So much for your involvement.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/14/shouldnt-john-mccain-release-his-medical-records/

>> John McCain has not yet released his medical records to the public. McCain is 72 years old, and has been diagnosed with invasive melanoma. In May of this year, a small group of selected reporters were allowed to review 1,173 pages of McCain�s medical records that covered only the last eight years, and were allowed only three hours to do so. John McCain�s health is an issue of profound importance. We call on John McCain to issue a full, public disclosure of all of his medical records, available for the media and members of the general public to review. >>

By LARRY MARGASAK, Associated Press WriterMon Apr 10, 4:55 PM ET

Key figures in a phone-jamming scheme designed to keep New Hampshire Democrats from voting in 2002 had regular contact with the White House and Republican Party as the plan was unfolding, phone records introduced in criminal court show.

The records show that Bush campaign operative James Tobin, who recently was convicted in the case, made two dozen calls to the White House within a three-day period around Election Day 2002 � as the phone jamming operation was finalized, carried out and then abruptly shut down.

The national Republican Party, which paid millions in legal bills to defend Tobin, says the contacts involved routine election business and that it was preposterous to suggest the calls involved phone jamming.

The Justice Department has secured three convictions in the case but hasn't accused any White House or national Republican officials of wrongdoing, nor made any allegations suggesting party officials outside New Hampshire were involved. The phone records of calls to the White House were exhibits in Tobin's trial but prosecutors did not make them part of their case.

Democrats plan to ask a federal judge Tuesday to order GOP and White House officials to answer questions about the phone jamming in a civil lawsuit alleging voter fraud.

Repeated hang-up calls that jammed telephone lines at a Democratic get-out-the-vote center occurred in a Senate race in which Republican John Sununu defeated Democrat Jeanne Shaheen, 51 percent to 46 percent, on Nov. 5, 2002.

Besides the conviction of Tobin, the Republicans' New England regional director, prosecutors negotiated two plea bargains: one with a New Hampshire Republican Party official and another with the owner of a telemarketing firm involved in the scheme. The owner of the subcontractor firm whose employees made the hang-up calls is under indictment.

The phone records show that most calls to the White House were from Tobin, who became President Bush's presidential campaign chairman for the New England region in 2004. Other calls from New Hampshire senatorial campaign offices to the White House could have been made by a number of people.

A GOP campaign consultant in 2002, Jayne Millerick, made a 17-minute call to the White House on Election Day, but said in an interview she did not recall the subject. Millerick, who later became the New Hampshire GOP chairwoman, said in an interview she did not learn of the jamming until after the election.

A Democratic analysis of phone records introduced at Tobin's criminal trial show he made 115 outgoing calls � mostly to the same number in the White House political affairs office � between Sept. 17 and Nov. 22, 2002. Two dozen of the calls were made from 9:28 a.m. the day before the election through 2:17 a.m. the night after the voting.

There also were other calls between Republican officials during the period that the scheme was hatched and canceled.

Prosecutors did not need the White House calls to convict Tobin and negotiate the two guilty pleas.

Whatever the reason for not using the White House records, prosecutors tried a very narrow case, said Paul Twomey, who represented the Democratic Party in the criminal and civil cases. The Justice Department did not say why the White House records were not used.

The Democrats said in their civil case motion that they were entitled to know the purpose of the calls to government offices at the time of the planning and implementation of the phone-jamming conspiracy ... and the timing of the phone calls made by Mr. Tobin on Election Day.

While national Republican officials have said they deplore such operations, the Republican National Committee said it paid for Tobin's defense because he is a longtime supporter and told officials he had committed no crime.

By Nov. 4, 2002, the Monday before the election, an Idaho firm was hired to make the hang-up calls. The Republican state chairman at the time, John Dowd, said in an interview he learned of the scheme that day and tried to stop it.

Dowd, who blamed an aide for devising the scheme without his knowledge, contended that the jamming began on Election Day despite his efforts. A police report confirmed the Manchester Professional Fire Fighters Association reported the hang-up calls began about 7:15 a.m. and continued for about two hours. The association was offering rides to the polls.

Virtually all the calls to the White House went to the same number, which currently rings inside the political affairs office. In 2002, White House political affairs was led by now-RNC chairman Ken Mehlman. The White House declined to say which staffer was assigned that phone number in 2002.

As policy, we don't discuss ongoing legal proceedings within the courts, White House spokesman Ken Lisaius said.

Robert Kelner, a Washington lawyer representing the Republican National Committee in the civil litigation, said there was no connection between the phone jamming operation and the calls to the White House and party officials.

On Election Day, as anybody involved in politics knows, there's a tremendous volume of calls between political operatives in the field and political operatives in Washington, Kelner said.

If all you're pointing out is calls between Republican National Committee regional political officials and the White House political office on Election Day, you're pointing out nothing that hasn't been true on every Election Day, he said.

WASHINGTON � Director Leon Panetta says agency records show CIA officers briefed lawmakers truthfully in 2002 on methods of interrogating terrorism suspects, but it is up to Congress to reach its own conclusions about what happened.

Panetta's message to agency employees came one day after Speaker Pelosi said bluntly the CIA had misled her and other lawmakers about the use of waterboarding and other harsh techniques seven years ago.

Panetta wrote that the political debates about interrogation "reached a new decibel level" with the charges.

He urged agency employees to "ignore the noise and stay focused on your mission."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/15/cia-director-panetta-reco_n_204005.html

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday accused the CIA of misleading Congress about its use of enhanced interrogation techniques on terror detainees.

"Yes I am saying the CIA was misleading the Congress, and at the same time the (Bush) administration was misleading the Congress on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, to which I said that this intelligence doesn't support the imminent threat," Pelosi said at her weekly news conference.

"Every step of the way the administration was misleading the Congress and that is the issue and that's why we need a truth commission," she said.

Under a barrage of questioning, Pelosi adamantly insisted that she was not aware that waterboarding or other enhanced interrogation techniques were being used on terrorism suspects.

"I am telling you they told me they approved these and said they wanted to use them but said they were not using waterboarding," she said.

Growing increasingly frustrated throughout the briefing, Pelosi slowly started backing away from the podium as she tried to end the questioning.

As she backed out, she continued to accuse the CIA of not telling Congress that dissenting opinions had been filed within the administration suggesting the methods were not lawful.

The CIA immediately disputed Pelosi's accusation, saying the documents describing the particular enhanced interrogation techniques that had been employed are accurate. CIA spokesman George Little noted that CIA Director Leon Panetta made available to the House Intelligence Committee memos from individuals who led the briefings with House members.

"The language in the chart -- 'a description of the particular EITs that had been employed' -- is true to the language in the agency's records," Little said. "The chart I'm referring to is, of course, the list of member briefings on enhanced interrogation techniques."

"It's hard for me to imagine anyone in our intelligence area would ever mislead a member of Congress," House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said at his weekly news conference. "They come to the Hill to brief us because they're required to under the law. I don't know what motivation they would have to mislead anyone."

The top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., told FOX News that Pelosi's accusation against the CIA is "not credible."

"I am afraid she has disremembered what she went through," he said. "We have had not only the records from the CIA but the contemporaries who were there with her had other views on it, so I am afraid that this is not a credible explanation."

Pelosi said she was briefed only once on the interrogation methods in September 2002. She acknowledged that her intelligence aide, Michael Sheehy, informed her about another briefing five months later in which Bush officials said waterboarding was being used on CIA terror detainee Abu Zubaydah.

Pelosi said she supported a letter drafted by Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee who also attended the briefing in February 2003, and sent to the Bush administration, raising concerns over the technique.

Pelosi's account has changed several times in recent weeks as she has sought to clarify what she did or didn't know about the interrogation methods that she is pushing to investigate.

Pelosi said last month that she was never told that the controversial interrogation methods were being used. But a national intelligence report later showed that she was briefed seven years ago on the tactics while she was on the House Intelligence Committee.

Her spokesman then said the speaker thought the techniques were legal and that waterboarding was not used.

Democrats will hold a series of hearings on Justice Department memos released last month that justified rough tactics against detainees, including waterboarding and sleep deprivation.

While Democrats want the hearings to focus on what they call torture, Republicans have tried to turn the issue to their advantage by complaining that Pelosi and other Democrats knew of the tactics but didn't protest.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/14/pelosi-reiterates-didnt-know-waterboarding-use/

Obama has shown great judgment in the people who surround him. He picked a great VP choice, and his wife is impeccable as a helpmate and is a fantastic role model for the American children.

I believe Obama has an awesome political future. He sure is a bright light, and he would be someone I would seriously consider voting for.

Someone I like even better is Rep. Harold Ford from Tennessee. Every time I hear this man speak, I like him more and more and more.

I think there are lots of good candidates out there who don't fit the profiles you outlined, which I also believe to be true, and I think we're well overdue in considering those candidates because, in my opinion, what we've been offered in the last several elections -- on BOTH sides -- has been pretty pitiful. The "box" isn't working, and it's time to look outside of it.

If we get Obama or any of the other candidates we will get more of the same. War and taxes. Empire building. If you like that kind of stuff, vote for any of the candidates EXCEPT.......... RON PAUL. The only candidate for peace, limited government and minding our own business.

Haven't seen any posts here for awhile. Very excited about the outcome of tonight's election. I am so glad to see that people are not buying the "gimmicks" Hillary proposed. Gas tax holiday?...give me a break! Someone needed to ask her, "So what happens when the holiday is over", you charge back up the gas price!

The big joke is that Bill Clinton raised the gas tax in his first year in office. It was included in a package of tax increases that amounted to the biggest tax increase in history. It was raised by 4.3 cents. Not only did he raise the gas tax, but he wanted to raise it even higher.

So you should all get this straight...Hillary is "claiming" she would give drivers 3 whole months (wow - imagine that) 18 cent a gallon cut after her husband forced drivers to pay an extra 5 cents for 15 years.

Unfortunately there were some people who bought into her pandering (which by the way is another word for lying), but thank goodness enough people with an education and most important most of the with common sense could see right through her lies.

Way to go North Carolina - I'm so pleased. And Indiana too. It was a close race thank goodness.

Now she needs to step down. Why? Because its the right thing to do. Do the numbers. There is no way she can win and anyone who believes so needs to wake up. What we need is for her to support Barack Obama (that is if she's telling the truth about the most important thing is nominating a democrat for president). Somehow though I do not believe she has the best interest of the party or the american people in mind. Her goal is to serve herself. She needs to graciously bow out and put all her efforts into getting a democrat in the office.

P.S. - Note to the "ditto heads". Maybe we should rename Limbaugh followers "dumbo heads". Not only did your little plan fail Mr. Limbo, but it failed badly. In a poll taken (and yes I know polls can be misleading), but not only did the republicans change parties to vote for a democrat but the majority of them voted for Obama. Then on top of that over 75% of republicans that voted as democrats said that Obama could be McCain (or as I am hearing him being referred to as McBush), but only around 25% said they believed Hillary could win. So not only does Hillary need to do the math, so does Mr. Limbo.

He's just a talking head, somebody's puppet, aint nothing without his teleprompter and written speeches...gimme a break!

help these people so they can continue to sit on their butts and do something while the rest of us bust our humps. No thank you!

With RNC behind us now, dems are faced with the daunting challenge of making the 2008 election a referendum on issues, not a personality contest. Here are 2 links that got thrown under the bash bus.

Though the title of these articles may lead one to conclude it is more about Palin bashing, there is a gold mine of pertinent information to be found there. Embedded within the articles are more links that are overwhelming on first inspection, but well worth the time it takes to review them. Laid out there between the lines is a structured blueprint for facing the upcoming 60 days with effective campaign strategy.

There is another post that also got buried in the mud which will be brought back up to the top momentarily on issues. If it get buries again, it will be brought back up to the top again. The bashes it may inspire will be ignored. The issues will continue to get the focus.

There is another battleground in this election aside from the issues push. It is the one fought on the field of values and vision; specifically, the Obama vision versus the McCain/Palin vision of what kind of America they/we see in our futures and what sort of change each candidate promises to deliver. The link below is an article that addresses this subject. It is a self-effacing piece I believe dems should take to heart when considering how to frame their upcoming campaign tactics. Here's that link.

http://www.alternet.org/election08/97193/the_palin_choice%3A_the_reality_of_voters%27_minds/

The introduction to this post expresses a basic premise from which I will be operating. I will not be diminishing the power of Obama's message by indulging in petty squabbles, dead-end distractions, one-upmanship and a race to get the last word. There is important work here, people, and we best rolls up our sleeves and get started.