DetroitLover9550's Blog

Bill always says it best.

Check out the all-star cast!

You saw the new book with McCain and Palin, well, here is Clinton and Obama, in their acting debuts! Check out the all-star cast!

Nipping it in the bud. I may be a glutton for opposition, but thought this should be brought to attention, in its proverbial light.Make no mistake, this article is riddled with innuendo and not one verifiable source. Pre-election remarks from Obama and others are thrown in as a preface to make proclamations without validity. We all know Obama has remarked about closing down gitmo, so has McCain, the only difference, Obama wants trials and McCain wants tribunals, both want it done on U.S soil.But this article claims "anonymous" sources providing details to  secretive and quiet plans. Give me a break. If the Obama campaign has done nothing else, it demonstrated complete discipline in preventing leaks of any kind. Calm, reserved, thorough and intelligent approach, all the way. Unfortunately, those trying to sabotage the upcoming administrations plans, do so with obvious contention. Using fear to discredit the President-elect, already in motion. Naysayers, please, review the article and give me one credible, verifiable, source. Read it carefully, pay attention. Do you not see the spin? Your answer, more than likely not. Thats allright, though, it is what it is. Don't misunderstand my position, however, I agree that gitmo should be closed, no doubt. It is true that Obama has said so as well, along with many others. My point is, the way in which this AP article is presented, to me, is nothing more than promotion of fear. One line, in particular, stands out:

"Under plans being put together in Obama's camp, some detainees would be released and many others would be prosecuted in U.S. criminal courts."

Really? The fear spin isn't obvious? These writers are incredible. That one line scares the hell out of people, I know it does me. If anyone, for one minute, assumes that President-elect Obama would do anything to jeopardize our safety, they would be ignorant in their assumptions.

Obama Planning U.S. Trials for Guantanamo Detainees The president-elect's advisers quietly craft a proposal to ship dozens, if not hundreds, of imprisoned terrorism suspects to the United States to face criminal trials

AP

Monday, November 10, 2008

WASHINGTON -- President-elect Barack Obama's advisers are quietly crafting a proposal to ship dozens, if not hundreds, of imprisoned terrorism suspects to the United States to face criminal trials, a plan that would make good on his promise to close the Guantanamo Bay prison but could require creation of a controversial new system of justice.

During his campaign, Obama described Guantanamo as a "sad chapter in American history" and has said generally that the U.S. legal system is equipped to handle the detainees. But he has offered few details on what he planned to do once the facility is closed.

Under plans being put together in Obama's camp, some detainees would be released and many others would be prosecuted in U.S. criminal courts.

A third group of detainees -- the ones whose cases are most entangled in highly classified information -- might have to go before a new court designed especially to handle sensitive national security cases, according to advisers and Democrats involved in the talks. Advisers participating directly in the planning spoke on condition of anonymity because the plans are not final.

The move would be a sharp deviation from the Bush administration, which established military tribunals to prosecute detainees at the Navy base in Cuba and strongly opposes bringing prisoners to the United States. Obama's Republican challenger, John McCain, had also pledged to close Guantanamo. But McCain opposed criminal trials, saying the Bush administration's tribunals should continue on U.S. soil.

The plan being developed by Obama's team has been championed by legal scholars from both political parties. But it is almost certain to face opposition from Republicans who oppose bringing terrorism suspects to the U.S. and from Democrats who oppose creating a new court system with fewer rights for detainees.

Laurence Tribe, a Harvard law professor and Obama legal adviser, said discussions about plans for Guantanamo had been "theoretical" before the election but would quickly become very focused because closing the prison is a top priority. Bringing the detainees to the United States will be controversial, he said, but could be accomplished.

"I think the answer is going to be, they can be as securely guarded on U.S. soil as anywhere else," Tribe said. "We can't put people in a dungeon forever without processing whether they deserve to be there."

The tougher challenge will be allaying fears by Democrats who believe the Bush administration's military commissions were a farce and dislike the idea of giving detainees anything less than the full constitutional rights normally enjoyed by everyone on U.S. soil.

"There would be concern about establishing a completely new system," said Rep. Adam Schiff of California, a member of the House Judiciary Committee and former federal prosecutor who is aware of the discussions in the Obama camp. "And in the sense that establishing a regimen of detention that includes American citizens and foreign nationals that takes place on U.S. soil and departs from the criminal justice system -- trying to establish that would be very difficult."

Obama has said the civilian and military court-martial systems provide "a framework for dealing with the terrorists," and Tribe said the administration would look to those venues before creating a new legal system. But discussions of what a new system would look like have already started.

"It would have to be some sort of hybrid that involves military commissions that actually administer justice rather than just serve as kangaroo courts," Tribe said. "It will have to both be and appear to be fundamentally fair in light of the circumstances. I think people are going to give an Obama administration the benefit of the doubt in that regard."

Though a hybrid court may be unpopular, other advisers and Democrats involved in the Guantanamo Bay discussions say Obama has few other options.

Prosecuting all detainees in federal courts raises a host of problems. Evidence gathered through military interrogation or from intelligence sources might be thrown out. Defendants would have the right to confront witnesses, meaning undercover CIA officers or terrorist turncoats might have to take the stand, jeopardizing their cover and revealing classified intelligence tactics.

In theory, Obama could try to transplant the Bush administration's military commission system from Guantanamo Bay to a U.S. prison. But Tribe said, and other advisers agreed, that was "a nonstarter." With lax evidence rules and intense secrecy, the military commissions have been criticized by human rights groups, defense attorneys and even some military prosecutors who quit the process in protest.

"I don't think we need to completely reinvent the wheel, but we need a better tribunal process that is more transparent," Schiff said.

That means something different would need to be done if detainees couldn't be released or prosecuted in traditional courts. Exactly what that something would look like remains unclear.

According to three advisers participating in the process, Obama is expected to propose a new court system, appointing a committee to decide how such a court would operate. Some detainees likely would be returned to the countries where they were first captured for further detention or rehabilitation. The rest could probably be prosecuted in U.S. criminal courts, one adviser said. All spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the ongoing talks, which have been private.

Whatever form it takes, Tribe said he expects Obama to move quickly.

"In reality and symbolically, the idea that we have people in legal black holes is an extremely serious black mark," Tribe said. "It has to be dealt with."

Nipping it in the bud. I may be a glutton for opposition, but thought this should be brought to attention, in its proverbial light.Make no mistake, this article is riddled with innuendo and not one verifiable source. Pre-election remarks from Obama and others are thrown in as a preface to make proclamations without validity. We all know Obama has remarked about closing down gitmo, so has McCain, the only difference, Obama wants trials and McCain wants tribunals, both want it done on U.S soil.But this article claims "anonymous" sources providing details to  secretive and quiet plans. Give me a break. If the Obama campaign has done nothing else, it demonstrated complete discipline in preventing leaks of any kind. Calm, reserved, thorough and intelligent approach, all the way. Unfortunately, those trying to sabotage the upcoming administrations plans, do so with obvious contention. Using fear to discredit the President-elect, already in motion. Naysayers, please, review the article and give me one credible, verifiable, source. Read it carefully, pay attention. Do you not see the spin? Your answer, more than likely not. That's alright, though, it is what it is. Don't misunderstand my position, however, I agree that gitmo should be closed, no doubt. It is true that Obama has said so as well, along with many others. My point is, the way in which this AP article is presented, to me, is nothing more than promotion of fear. One line, in particular, stands out:

"Under plans being put together in Obama's camp, some detainees would be released and many others would be prosecuted in U.S. criminal courts."

Really? The fear spin isn't obvious? These writers are incredible. That one line scares the hell out of people, I know it does me. If anyone, for one minute, assumes that President-elect Obama would do anything to jeopardize our safety, they would be ignorant in their assumptions.

Obama Planning U.S. Trials for Guantanamo Detainees The president-elect's advisers quietly craft a proposal to ship dozens, if not hundreds, of imprisoned terrorism suspects to the United States to face criminal trials

AP

Monday, November 10, 2008

WASHINGTON -- President-elect Barack Obama's advisers are quietly crafting a proposal to ship dozens, if not hundreds, of imprisoned terrorism suspects to the United States to face criminal trials, a plan that would make good on his promise to close the Guantanamo Bay prison but could require creation of a controversial new system of justice.

During his campaign, Obama described Guantanamo as a "sad chapter in American history" and has said generally that the U.S. legal system is equipped to handle the detainees. But he has offered few details on what he planned to do once the facility is closed.

Under plans being put together in Obama's camp, some detainees would be released and many others would be prosecuted in U.S. criminal courts.

A third group of detainees -- the ones whose cases are most entangled in highly classified information -- might have to go before a new court designed especially to handle sensitive national security cases, according to advisers and Democrats involved in the talks. Advisers participating directly in the planning spoke on condition of anonymity because the plans are not final.

The move would be a sharp deviation from the Bush administration, which established military tribunals to prosecute detainees at the Navy base in Cuba and strongly opposes bringing prisoners to the United States. Obama's Republican challenger, John McCain, had also pledged to close Guantanamo. But McCain opposed criminal trials, saying the Bush administration's tribunals should continue on U.S. soil.

The plan being developed by Obama's team has been championed by legal scholars from both political parties. But it is almost certain to face opposition from Republicans who oppose bringing terrorism suspects to the U.S. and from Democrats who oppose creating a new court system with fewer rights for detainees.

Laurence Tribe, a Harvard law professor and Obama legal adviser, said discussions about plans for Guantanamo had been "theoretical" before the election but would quickly become very focused because closing the prison is a top priority. Bringing the detainees to the United States will be controversial, he said, but could be accomplished.

"I think the answer is going to be, they can be as securely guarded on U.S. soil as anywhere else," Tribe said. "We can't put people in a dungeon forever without processing whether they deserve to be there."

The tougher challenge will be allaying fears by Democrats who believe the Bush administration's military commissions were a farce and dislike the idea of giving detainees anything less than the full constitutional rights normally enjoyed by everyone on U.S. soil.

"There would be concern about establishing a completely new system," said Rep. Adam Schiff of California, a member of the House Judiciary Committee and former federal prosecutor who is aware of the discussions in the Obama camp. "And in the sense that establishing a regimen of detention that includes American citizens and foreign nationals that takes place on U.S. soil and departs from the criminal justice system -- trying to establish that would be very difficult."

Obama has said the civilian and military court-martial systems provide "a framework for dealing with the terrorists," and Tribe said the administration would look to those venues before creating a new legal system. But discussions of what a new system would look like have already started.

"It would have to be some sort of hybrid that involves military commissions that actually administer justice rather than just serve as kangaroo courts," Tribe said. "It will have to both be and appear to be fundamentally fair in light of the circumstances. I think people are going to give an Obama administration the benefit of the doubt in that regard."

Though a hybrid court may be unpopular, other advisers and Democrats involved in the Guantanamo Bay discussions say Obama has few other options.

Prosecuting all detainees in federal courts raises a host of problems. Evidence gathered through military interrogation or from intelligence sources might be thrown out. Defendants would have the right to confront witnesses, meaning undercover CIA officers or terrorist turncoats might have to take the stand, jeopardizing their cover and revealing classified intelligence tactics.

In theory, Obama could try to transplant the Bush administration's military commission system from Guantanamo Bay to a U.S. prison. But Tribe said, and other advisers agreed, that was "a nonstarter." With lax evidence rules and intense secrecy, the military commissions have been criticized by human rights groups, defense attorneys and even some military prosecutors who quit the process in protest.

"I don't think we need to completely reinvent the wheel, but we need a better tribunal process that is more transparent," Schiff said.

That means something different would need to be done if detainees couldn't be released or prosecuted in traditional courts. Exactly what that something would look like remains unclear.

According to three advisers participating in the process, Obama is expected to propose a new court system, appointing a committee to decide how such a court would operate. Some detainees likely would be returned to the countries where they were first captured for further detention or rehabilitation. The rest could probably be prosecuted in U.S. criminal courts, one adviser said. All spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the ongoing talks, which have been private.

Whatever form it takes, Tribe said he expects Obama to move quickly.

"In reality and symbolically, the idea that we have people in legal black holes is an extremely serious black mark," Tribe said. "It has to be dealt with."

On their way out, the fed chairman and the president find it is high time to move that money in a direction that does not serve this country or it's tax payers. Not surprised. Scurrying to take care of the most wealthy before they are sent packing. Incredible. Good riddance greed!


It's No Joke: Fed Hires Failed Bank Executive Heckuva Job, Fed? By JUSTIN ROOD
November 4, 2008

The Federal Reserve Bank is drawing jeers for hiring a former top executive from the now-defunct investment bank Bear Stearns to help it gauge the health of other banks.

The Federal Reserve Bank has hired the former head of risk management for Bear Stearns, which imploded this spring. (ABC News Photo Illustration)

"How's this for sweet irony?" business publication Portfolio.com needled the pick.

Michael Alix was head of risk management for Bear Stearns for two years until the institution imploded this spring, a victim of its (risky) subprime-mortgage related investments.

Last Friday, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York quietly announced it had hired Alix to advise it on bank supervision.

"You're kidding me," said economic policy expert Dean Baker, of the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Economic Policy and Research. While he didn't know Alix personally, he said, "You would think [his record] would be a big strike against him."

The collapse of Bear Stearns led to its pennies-on-the-dollar buyout by J.P. Morgan Chase; the bank's shareholders saw their wealth plummet. To facilitate the buyout, the Fed agreed to assume potential billions in losses on bad Bear Stearns investments.

"[Alix] was the guy on the mast charged with yelling 'iceberg' just before the Titanic introducted its bow to a floating chunk of ice," wrote financial expert and blogger John Carney on the web site Clusterstock.com, where he flagged the hire.

The Fed's move "is sure to put to rest the notion that there are no second acts in American life," Carney observed drily.

A spokesman for the Federal Reserve declined to comment.

Thought I would give it a few days to sink in and then make my way in here to find the full upswing of ignorance simmered, but it hasn't. Of course, I didn't really believe it would. People still full of hate and vulgar behavior to express it. I haven't went through the blogs, even mine, to read up on the bs, but I know it is there. I will spend some time, soon, discussing the despicable remarks, and countering them with good sense, but I will do so knowing that racism is alive and well.

Alive and well, fueled by fear, blinded by ignorance, but yet and still only hiding in dirty little corners because it isn't representative of most Americans. There are some pretty nasty people within these blogs, and this is one of those dirty little corners. It is almost futile to speak out here, that is if you are in the mindset of all things being American. The brighter side, the silver lining if you will, is that the level of ignorant hatred can't be measured for the whole country based solely on the level that it exists here, I just don't believe it can. I can't feel sorry for those people who are so full of hate because the reality is that I cannot empathize with it, and I for one am glad that I cannot.

I take comfort in knowing that as a country, as a people, we will move forward. We will change the way that the world sees us, we will overcome, we will be strong again.

I said it before, everyone will benefit from this election, even if you don't care to recognize that fact.

President-Elect Obama won simply because people want change. He represents the idea that we can come together as a country and once again be a force of the great American dream. He didn't run on the race card. He ran on the idea of hope that this country can and will be something it stands for.

This is historic, true, but it is more than that, it is the very demonstration of the American democratic process. Under that umbrella, the fact that he is a black man with a muslim sounding name underscores that ideal. You know, the ideal of America, the one that so many on here view as all their own, that it was validated with this election.

There are still those who feel as though it was stolen with this election, and that they somehow have a monopoly on this country because of their blood line or the fact that their ancestors were here first, or the fact that Barak Obama, to them, doesn't represent their views or that line of heritage. That is indeed sad. It is those same people who truly cannnot grasp what America stands for. It doesn't stand for racism or the ownership of the country by any particular race. It is ironic that most who hate this president-elect are people who cry out about the constitution and our founding fathers. It is my understanding and belief that the founding fathers would have embraced this ideal that moves forward, they just could not have fathomed it. They wouldn't embrace the hatred.
I can, most can, we all should, embrace the ideal of America.
It is here, it is real, it is America.
I for one am proud of my country, always have been, always will be. Despite her flaws, she is still the best country in the world. Unless and until those flaws can be criticised, openly, the accusation of being unpatriotic will fly.
Again, as Americans, we can do so knowing that we will still prevail.

Thought I would give it a few days to sink in and then make my way in here to find the full upswing of ignorance simmered, but it hasn't. Of course, I didn't really believe it would. People still full of hate and vulgar behavior to express it. I haven't went through the blogs, even mine, to read up on the bs, but I know it is there. I will spend some time, soon, discussing the despicable remarks, and countering them with good sense, but I will do so knowing that racism is alive and well.

Alive and well, fueled by fear, blinded by ignorance, but yet and still only hiding in dirty little corners because it isn't representative of most Americans. There are some pretty nasty people within these blogs, and this is one of those dirty little corners. It is almost futile to speak out here, that is if you are in the mindset of all things being American. The brighter side, the silver lining if you will, is that the level of ignorant hatred can't be measured for the whole country based solely on the level that it exists here, I just don't believe it can. I can't feel sorry for those people who are so full of hate because the reality is that I cannot empathize with it, and I for one am glad that I cannot.

I take comfort in knowing that as a country, as a people, we will move forward. We will change the way that the world sees us, we will overcome, we will be strong again.

I said it before, everyone will benefit from this election, even if you don't care to recognize that fact.

President-Elect Obama won simply because people want change. He represents the idea that we can come together as a country and once again be a force of the great American dream. He didn't run on the race card. He ran on the idea of hope that this country can and will be something it stands for.

This is historic, true, but it is more than that, it is the very demonstration of the American democratic process. Under that umbrella, the fact that he is a black man with a muslim sounding name underscores that ideal. You know, the ideal of America, the one that so many on here view as all their own, that it was validated with this election.

There are still those who feel as though it was stolen with this election, and that they somehow have a monopoly on this country because of their blood line or the fact that their ancestors were here first, or the fact that Barak Obama, to them, doesn't represent their views or that line of heritage. That is indeed sad. It is those same people who truly cannnot grasp what America stands for. It doesn't stand for racism or the ownership of the country by any particular race. It is ironic that most who hate this president-elect are people who cry out about the constitution and our founding fathers. It is my understanding and belief that the founding fathers would have embraced this ideal that moves forward, they just could not have fathomed it. They wouldn't embrace the hatred.
I can, most can, we all should, embrace the ideal of America.
It is here, it is real, it is America.
I for one am proud of my country, always have been, always will be. Despite her flaws, she is still the best country in the world. Unless and until those flaws can be criticised, openly, the accusation of being unpatriotic will fly.
Again, as Americans, we can do so knowing that we will still prevail.

Ok, so we all despise each other, whats new. But we have to laugh, right?
This was In another one of my blog posts in the political section that someone added. I laughed my butt off!

My prediction: we will win it by a landslide. Could be wrong, you never know, but my gut tells me this is the time, this is the place, and this country will move forward.

It seems as though the tricks aren't working. The smears, the lies, the outright ridiculous things thrown around about Obama. The race is tightening, sure, but ever heard the expression "a day late and a dollar short? If these issues had any validity, or any truth, they would have been used much earlier. The idea that the McCain/Palin campaign didn't start throwing around bs until recently tells us they have done simply because they are losing.

As we get closer, more and more junk is being spewed from every direction. It isn't going to work. It is beyond ridiculous.

Till Tuesday. Blog on.


Whoever you want: Vote on November 4th

My prediction: we will win it by a landslide. Could be wrong, you never know, but my gut tells me this is the time, this is the place, and this country will move forward.

It seems as though the tricks aren't working. The smears, the lies, the outright ridiculous things thrown around about Obama. The race is tightening, sure, but ever heard the expression "a day late and a dollar short? If these issues had any validity, or any truth, they would have been used much earlier. The idea that the McCain/Palin campaign didn't start throwing around bs until recently tells us they have done simply because they are losing.

As we get closer, more and more junk is being spewed from every direction. It isn't going to work. It is beyond ridiculous.

Till Tuesday. Blog on.


Whoever you want: Vote on November 4th

While the McCain/Palin campaign and grippers of the far right try so hard to scare the American people into believing that Obama is somehow a mysterious, scary person with ties to many undesirable people, they often forget that the problem with these accusations is that they can come back to bite them.
Dirty campaign tactics serve only one purpose: to help the person using them get elected.

So while these political tactics are used to somehow distract voters from the real issues, such as the economy, they are rooted in alterior motives. Even Stevie Wonder can see the games used to promote a candidates agenda. How come some people cannot put them into their proper perspective?

If you cannot, then I ask you this: how is it that Obama's so-called guilt by association, you know, the ones that you all cry speak of his judgement [and even worse suggest he is a terrorist muslim in disguise], isn't plausible for McCain?
All politicians have associations that are less than admirable. It is the nature of being a politician.
So, if you want to use this as a basis for holding them accountable, you have to do it across the board.

One McCain supporter even attempted to dismiss his funding to Khalidi by McCain as something acceptable. Um, ok. Funding, yeah, that is exactly what the boards, that were served by McCain and Obama, do. So, we give McCain a pass with some rhetoric that his ties were somehow different? Hypocrisy can be harmful. Does McCain hate Isreal? Of course not, neither does Obama.
Lets not forget, Khalidi holds Israels views as something he doesn't mesh with. That is the reason for the so-called tie to Obama, to attempt to insinuate that Obama would somehow allow Isreal to fall. Please. Do you not know that Florida is an important state in this election? Do you not know how Obama is ahead there, and that is a concern for the McCain/Palin campaign? And guess what, there is a large Jewish population there. So lets see, if McCain/Palin stir up concerns with the Jewish people, they can sway votes. Nah, that would be too political,huh? Wake up conspiracy theory nuts.

Has anyone noticed the many ties to undesirable people that John McCain has had? The funny thing is, he is tied to Ayers as well. And he is tied to Khalidi as well. Those are the facts. I hesitated to even start this war here, only because it is every bit as ridiculous as the charges many of you make about Obama. You know what is funny? Despite the TRUTH, those who do respond will somehow spin this as something different, or even perhaps make a suggestion that Obama's score board is higher on his list of undesirable associates.
You have torn Obama down to the core of his humanity.

This isn't new news, by any means, and I don't consider John McCain guilty because he has ties to Ayers, or Khalidi, or that he is friends with G. Gordon Liddy, [who, by the way, held a fundraiser in his home for McCain, fact] but measure it on your scales, you know, the one you all rest Obama and his associations on. So while the Obama campaign won't fire back with the obvious hypocrisy, I have no issue battling these stupid issues here, with you all. Yes, lets just get it all out now, because come tuesday, God willing, it will be a moot point anyway.

The incident that occured in Iowa was when the Star Spangled Banner was being sung, not the recital of the pledge of allegiance, which does require the hand over the heart. Think that is nit-picky, give me a break. All of the bs you haters spew is nit-picky.

Barack Obama Explains Why He Didn't Stand During the National Anthem-Fiction!

  Summary of the eRumor:  

       Senator and presidential candidate Barack
      Obama explains why he didn't stand during the National Anthem at a
      campaign appearance and why he doesn't wear a lapel pin of the American
      flag.
  The Truth:  

        This email is a hoax.

      It is true that Obama was photographed at a campaign event in Iowa failing
      to hold his hand over his heart in salute of the flag during the National
      Anthem.  CLICK HERE for that
      story.

      But this particular eRumor, which quotes him as saying that the American
      flag is "...a symbol of oppression" and that the National Anthem "conveys
      a war-like message" is not true.

      The alleged quote is from the pen of columnist John Semmens of
      The Arizona Conservative.
       
      He writes what he calls "Semi-news --
      A Satirical Look at Recent News."   It was in that column on
      10/27/07 that he wrote the text of what has been circulated in this email.
   It's satire, not an actual quote from Obama.

CLICK HERE for a list of other related stories about Barack Obama

   A real example of the eRumor as it has appeared on the Internet:
   
                 Hot on the heels of his explanation for why he no longer wears a flag pin,      presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama was forced to explain why he      doesn't follow protocol when the National Anthem is played.      According to the United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171,     During rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed, all present except those in uniform are expected to stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. "As I've said about the flag pin, I don't want to be perceived as taking sides," Obama said. "There are a lot of people in the world to whom the  American flag is a symbol of oppression. And the anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all. It should  be swapped for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song  'I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing.' If that were our anthem, then I  might salute it."

WHAAAAAAAT!!!!!!!!!! Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this could possibly be our next president.  I, for once, am speechless
     
And for the naysayers who claim he only does it now that he is a candidate, wrong again:

       

 

You knew it was coming. I have to respond to an allegation made about Obama's health care plan. A blogger stated that it would eliminate medicare and medicaid [among many other things] and they passed this misinformation on to someone and scared them into voting for McCain. That is irresponsible to do that kind of thing without the proper verification.
But hey, this is what republicans are hoping too many people will do. They are hoping that people will not find these things out for themselves. A McCain supporter would avoid going to Obama's website to find out what his plan is, and go on faith that McCain is telling the truth. That is sad.
This allegation is completely false. His plan is laid out thoroughly on his site. It is lengthy, and I will only post the pertinent information regarding this issue. The information is there. You cannot simply take an allegation made as gospel, you have to find out for yourself. FYI- I have also read McCains plan on his site. That issue would require a whole new blog post. I have my concerns with that as well, and I went right to the source, instead of listening to political speeches attacking McCains plan. Guess what? My concerns were genuine and his site helped me to see that.

"Medicare Scare?" NOT:

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/HealthCareFullP

lan.pdf

"The Obama-Biden plan both builds on and improves our current insurance system, which most Americans continue to rely upon, and leaves Medicare intact for older and disabled Americans. Under the Obama-Biden plan, Americans will be able to maintain their current coverage, have access to new affordable options, and see the quality of their health care improve and their costs go down. The Obama-Biden plan provides new affordable health insurance options by: (1) guaranteeing eligibility for all health insurance plans; (2) creating a National Health Insurance Exchange to help Americans and businesses purchase private health insurance; (3) providing new tax credits to families who can’t afford health insurance and to small businesses with a new Small Business Health Tax Credit; (4) requiring all large employers to contribute towards health coverage for their employees or towards the cost of the public plan; (5) requiring all children have health care coverage; (5) expanding eligibility for the Medicaid and SCHIP programs; and (6) allowing flexibility for state health reform plans."

"Allow Medicare to negotiate for cheaper drug prices. The 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act bans the government from negotiating down the prices of prescription drugs, even though the Department of Veterans Affairs’ negotiation of prescription drug prices with drug companies has garnered significant savings for taxpayers.32 Barack Obama and Joe Biden will repeal the ban on direct negotiation with drug companies and use the resulting savings, which could be as high as $30 billion, 33 to further invest in improving health care coverage and quality."

"Prevent drug companies from blocking generic drugs from consumers. Some drug manufacturers are explicitly paying generic drug makers not to enter the market so they can preserve their monopolies and keep charging Americans exorbitant prices for brand name products.31 The Obama-Biden plan will work to ensure that market power does not lead to higher prices for consumers. Their plan will work to increase use of generic drugs in the new public plan, Medicare, Medicaid, FEHBP and prohibit large drug companies from keeping generics out of markets."

"Prevent private insurance waste and abuse in Medicare. Medicare’s private plan alternative, called Medicare Advantage, was established to increase competition and reduce costs. But independent reports show that on average the government pays 12 percent more than it costs to treat comparable beneficiaries through traditional Medicare.28 These excessive subsidies cost the government billions of dollars every year and create an incentive structure that has led to fraudulent abuses of seniors. Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe we need to eliminate the excessive subsidies to Medicare Advantage plans and pay them the same amount it would cost to treat the same patients under regular Medicare."

No hidden agenda, detailed plans for all to see. Educate yourselves, leave political speeches to their context of intent. Find the facts. Make your choice.
 Vote on November 4th.

Friday, October 31, 2008 Eugene Robinson McCain deserves to lose

Probably, John McCain and Sarah Palin will lose this election. Certainly, they deserve to.

With a campaign designed more to play on insecurities than promote ideas, McCain and Palin have practically framed Barack Obama's "closing argument" for him. "The question in this election is not 'Are you better off than you were four years ago?'" Obama told an audience Monday in Canton, Ohio. "We know the answer to that. The real question is 'Will this country be better off four years from now?'"

The Republicans don't even try to formulate an answer, and with Obama's lead growing by the day, it's hard to imagine what might turn things around. An "October surprise" international incident might end up working against McCain rather than for him, given his all-over-the-map reaction to the financial crisis. The vaunted Republican get-out-the-vote machine looks almost puny beside Obama's next-generation juggernaut.

There's always race, of course, and we can't say with certainty whether there's some huge, hidden racist vote out there just waiting to emerge next Tuesday. My hunch is that race is already factored into the poll numbers -- that it has already been "discounted by the market," to use the financial jargon that's so fashionable these days. I believe that race is a subtext of Republican attack words such as "dangerous" or "socialist," and that it's the real target of the attempt to paint Obama as unknown, mysterious, exotic and somehow alien. My guess is that voters who are responsive to this kind of coded appeal have already responded.

So we're not likely to see some kind of deus ex machina salvation for Mccain, Palin and their down-ticket allies, and that's as it should be. It's not just that they have run a weirdly erratic campaign, bitingly sarcastic one minute, earnestly serious the next, uncertain whether to present McCain as a serious, experienced statesman or a hypercaffeinated, overeager publicist for Joe the Plumber. It's not just that Palin, and let's be honest, should never have been allowed anywhere near the ticket -- and certainly not anywhere near those frocks from Saks and Neiman Marcus.

More damning is the fact that at a time when it could hardly be more obvious that Americans desperately want to change direction -- more than 80 percent tell pollsters the country is on the wrong track -- the Republicans offer nothing new.

That's a shame. McCain's repeated references to "maverick" have drained all meaning from the word, but it's true that he's an iconoclast with little reverence for Republican orthodoxy. Why he chose, in an election that was always going to be decided by independents and Reagan Democrats, to campaign on a platform of slavish devotion to Republican orthodoxy is beyond me.

On the economy, McCain offers some relief for homeowners facing foreclosure, but only within a context of classic Republican trickle-down economics. He wants to lower taxes on business and rejects Obama's plan -- raise income taxes for the wealthy and lower them for the middle class -- as rampant socialism. If you set aside the incendiary rhetoric about class warfare that McCain and Palin have been tossing around, basically what they propose is staying the course that brought us to this point of global crisis.

McCain makes much of wanting to get rid of congressional earmarks; everybody wants to get rid of earmarks, except the one that benefits my community or my industry. He proposes an across-the-board spending freeze -- during a recession? -- and then, in the next breath, proposes new spending. He overestimates the voters' tolerance for incoherence.

On foreign policy, once the centerpiece of McCain's campaign but now mostly an afterthought, McCain promises "victory" in Iraq and Afghanistan without telling war-weary voters how much more time, money or blood he will spend.

In choosing a running mate, McCain made absolute mockery of his "country first" slogan and instead put politics above all other considerations. It suffices to note that the Anchorage Daily News -- the biggest newspaper in Palin's state -- endorsed Obama, saying that Palin was being stretched "beyond her range" and that she clearly is not ready to be "one 72-year-old heartbeat from the leadership of the free world."

It's hard to imagine that a McCain presidency could possibly be as scattered, irresponsible, uninspiring and intellectually bankrupt as the McCain campaign. It's even harder to imagine that Americans, at this crucial juncture, will take that risk.

Eugene Robinson writes for the Washington Post. His column is distributed by the Washington Post Writers Group, 1150 15th NW, Washington, DC 20071. You can reach him at eugenerobinson@washpost.com.