By Monday:
Ballots completed (includes Democrat, Republican, WI Green, Libertarian)
Second announcement explaining the Mock Election completed and submitted by second hour.
Announcement explaining why to vote and how to vote in the real election completed and submitted by second hour.
Each lunch shows 2 ads on flatscreens (Mr. Bretzmann facilitates)
Each lunch has two t.v.'s that show as many ads as possible. See Alex H. to find out who is in charge of the t.v.'s for each lunch.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
CLEARINGHOUSE: Use this post as a clearinghouse to share your information and progress regarding the mock election.
What would we need?
Ballots
Matt C.
Limit who is on the ballot and not allow write-in candidates
Scott W.
Nathan L.
Matt L.
Jake K.
Pencils
Ryan H.
Poll workers
See next page
Collect votes at lunch
5a
Steph V.
Nathan L.
Tyler L.
Scott W.
Savannah B.
5b
Matt C.
Ryan H.
Steph V.
Tyler L.
Addie B.
5c
Kyle C. K.
Jessie R.
Ryan K.
Alli B.
Erik K.
Alex K.
Jake K.
Vote counters
Hour 6, Hour 7
Kyle K. (Coordinator)
List of students (divided alphabetically into 4 separate lists)
Matt C.
Scott W.
2 tables
Kyle K.
“Vote Here” signs (2)
Vince T.
Alphabetical order signs (4)
Tyler L.
Marketing Campaign Coordination
Scott W.
Kyle K.
Erik K.
Ballot Box
Jenni F.
Ask Election Commission for “I Voted” stickers
Addie B.
Information on registering to vote for real election
Jessie R.
Addie B.
Ask Administration for permission to vote and permission to run campaign ads and GOTV ads on flat screens
Scott W.
Fliers describing how and where to register for real and how to find out where to vote for real
Shannon O’
Vina A.
Copies of Fliers
Steph V.
Voting Statistics Research Coordinator
Matt L.
Civicsblog post for clearinghouse of info.
Mr. Bretzmann
Announcement that announces mock election
Scott W.
Announcement that announces real election
Scott W.
Announcement announcing results of mock election and encouraging 18 year-olds to vote today
Scott W.
Invitations to outside speakers
Nathan L.
Matt L.
WHEN WOULD IT HAPPEN?
Planning, preparation and contacts:
NOW
Voting:
November 3
Counting:
November 3 -- 6th, 7th, and after school
Results Announced:
November 4 in announcements
Ballots
Matt C.
Limit who is on the ballot and not allow write-in candidates
Scott W.
Nathan L.
Matt L.
Jake K.
Pencils
Ryan H.
Poll workers
See next page
Collect votes at lunch
5a
Steph V.
Nathan L.
Tyler L.
Scott W.
Savannah B.
5b
Matt C.
Ryan H.
Steph V.
Tyler L.
Addie B.
5c
Kyle C. K.
Jessie R.
Ryan K.
Alli B.
Erik K.
Alex K.
Jake K.
Vote counters
Hour 6, Hour 7
Kyle K. (Coordinator)
List of students (divided alphabetically into 4 separate lists)
Matt C.
Scott W.
2 tables
Kyle K.
“Vote Here” signs (2)
Vince T.
Alphabetical order signs (4)
Tyler L.
Marketing Campaign Coordination
Scott W.
Kyle K.
Erik K.
Ballot Box
Jenni F.
Ask Election Commission for “I Voted” stickers
Addie B.
Information on registering to vote for real election
Jessie R.
Addie B.
Ask Administration for permission to vote and permission to run campaign ads and GOTV ads on flat screens
Scott W.
Fliers describing how and where to register for real and how to find out where to vote for real
Shannon O’
Vina A.
Copies of Fliers
Steph V.
Voting Statistics Research Coordinator
Matt L.
Civicsblog post for clearinghouse of info.
Mr. Bretzmann
Announcement that announces mock election
Scott W.
Announcement that announces real election
Scott W.
Announcement announcing results of mock election and encouraging 18 year-olds to vote today
Scott W.
Invitations to outside speakers
Nathan L.
Matt L.
WHEN WOULD IT HAPPEN?
Planning, preparation and contacts:
NOW
Voting:
November 3
Counting:
November 3 -- 6th, 7th, and after school
Results Announced:
November 4 in announcements
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
Analysis: Who exceeded expectations in the town-hall-style format? WHAT ABOUT THE "SITTING AT THE TABLE" DEBATE?
The Players:
Bob Schieffer, Barack Obama, John McCain.
(In the audience: Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney)
(Your choices are John McCain, Barack Obama, or Tom Brokaw)
Ben Smith reports:
"Lynn Sweet reported yesterday that the two campaigns had reached an agreement under which, among other things, moderator Tom Brokaw wouldn't ask follow-up questions tonight.
But Brokaw wasn't a party to the deal, I'm told, and hasn't agreed to it, so the campaigns are expecting follow-up questions, a senior campaign official said."
Bob Schieffer, Barack Obama, John McCain.
(In the audience: Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney)
(Your choices are John McCain, Barack Obama, or Tom Brokaw)
Ben Smith reports:
"Lynn Sweet reported yesterday that the two campaigns had reached an agreement under which, among other things, moderator Tom Brokaw wouldn't ask follow-up questions tonight.
But Brokaw wasn't a party to the deal, I'm told, and hasn't agreed to it, so the campaigns are expecting follow-up questions, a senior campaign official said."
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Analysis: What does each candidate have to do to win the Vice Presidential debate on Oct. 2?
One of my favorite moments (38 seconds) from the primary debates. Keep in mind that Biden has a reputation for droning on and on in his answers. Enjoy.
Opinion: Who won the presidential debate on Friday?
By Tom ShalesSaturday, September 27, 2008; Page C01
John McCain wore the more presidential tie -- that much can be said for him -- but Barack Obama displayed the more presidential temperament, or the kind of demeanor people presumably would want in a president, when the two candidates met at the University of Mississippi last night for their first debate of the campaign.
Both men seemed well equipped in terms of facts and figures -- especially, as one would expect, dollar figures -- and neither made an outrageous blunder, although McCain did misidentify the new president of Pakistan. More critically, he came across as condescending and even rude to his opponent, a bit of bad behavior especially evident because Obama may have overdone the fair-minded bit in many of his remarks and answers.
Imperiously enough, McCain -- who had threatened not to show up for the debate because of America's financial crisis -- seemed determined to avoid even looking at Obama as the debate went on, although they did shake hands at the beginning and end. Many of McCain's answers were preceded with belittling references to Obama as if he were talking to a college freshman way out of his depth: "I'm afraid Senator Obama doesn't understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy," was one typical remark.
Obama supporters must have been displeased, then, to hear their candidate keep agreeing with McCain, a case perhaps of sportsmanlike conduct run amok. Doesn't Obama want to win?
On the matter of congressional earmarks and wasteful spending, Obama began one answer with, "Well, Senator McCain is absolutely right . . ." and later, on an issue related to the Iraq war: "Senator McCain is absolutely right . . ." etc., etc.
After all the nice-guy stuff from Obama, which may have reached self-defeating levels, it's perhaps not surprising that the most, perhaps only, electrifying moment of the debate was when he finally told McCain he was wrong -- three times in quick and effective succession. This was during debate about the origins of the war in Iraq. "You were wrong" about saying the war would be quick and easy, Obama charged, his voice rising. "You were wrong" about finding weapons of mass destruction, he continued. And there was one more "you were wrong" for good measure.
Obama was showing something that his personal appearances have too often lacked: passion. There was strong conviction behind his words, whether one agreed with them or not, and a welcome assertiveness. "You were wrong" was an effectively simple declarative sentence, not bogged down in qualifiers the way some of his sentences tend to be. "We've got to look at bringing that war to a close," he said of Iraq; why not just, "We've got to end that war"?
Although Obama was "crisper" than usual, as one commentator noted after the debate, he still may not have been crisp enough. His oratorical skills when giving speeches in vast venues have been amply demonstrated. But in debates and conversations, when he ad-libs, he sometimes seems to be weighing his answers almost too carefully, defusing his own remarks by diffusing them.
Democrat Paul Begala, one of CNN's army of pundits, criticized both candidates for the way they handled questions on the economy. The whole debate was supposed to deal with foreign policy, but as the economy shuddered and crumbled during the week, it was wisely decided to devote about a third of the debate to that crisis. But as Begala said, a stranger to this planet tuning in the debate wouldn't have known from the candidates' answers and attitudes that America is in the midst of what has been called the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression.
Instead their answers were on the theoretical side, with no real sense of urgency. The folks out there in television land, losing their homes to foreclosure or seeing their retirement nest eggs obliterated, deserved more thoughtful and heartfelt answers.
The debate was moderated by public television's Jim Lehrer, who did a very accomplished job, willing to interrupt or challenge the candidates when they danced around an issue rather than addressing it. His first question was "Where do you stand on the financial recovery plan" now being debated in Washington. Both candidates merely reiterated economic policies from past speeches, with McCain preceding his response with a self-serving salute to Ted Kennedy, who was hospitalized earlier in the day.
Obama began his response with the usual bromide about America being "at a defining moment in our history." Yes yes, but how will we pay the mortgage when the interest rate goes up for the umpteenth time next month?
Lehrer took control. After the meandering palaver from the two men he said pointedly, "Let's go back to my question" and repeated it.
Since all three networks had access to the same basic pool video, some networks tried to dress up the picture with identifying decoration. NBC and CNN both had annoying animated graphics in the lower right-hand corners of the screen, just the thing for people who want to watch letters dance or globes spin around, distracting to everyone else. CNN had mercifully ditched its ticker-tape of fun facts, but replaced it with a chart that supposedly showed reactions from a sample group to the candidates' performances. The chart was hard to read and essentially useless.
CBS armed a test group of viewer-voters with "joy sticks" to measure their responses to various moments of the debate, but this gimmick also proved to be of little help. A CBS reporter interviewed one man sitting in the room; the man said he thought McCain looked "stressed."
And that was that. The research measurement was done by Nielsen Media Research, it was pointed out, the same people who rate television shows. That raised the discomforting specter of equating presidential candidates with sitcoms, soap operas and reality junk.
This was reality -- the realest kind of reality -- and the debate was, for the most part, encouragingly civilized and not flawed with frivolous name-calling. As NBC's able Chuck Todd put it, "no lipstick on a pig" nonsense. If McCain had been more civil, and Obama were more combative and fervent, it would have been better still.
John McCain wore the more presidential tie -- that much can be said for him -- but Barack Obama displayed the more presidential temperament, or the kind of demeanor people presumably would want in a president, when the two candidates met at the University of Mississippi last night for their first debate of the campaign.
Both men seemed well equipped in terms of facts and figures -- especially, as one would expect, dollar figures -- and neither made an outrageous blunder, although McCain did misidentify the new president of Pakistan. More critically, he came across as condescending and even rude to his opponent, a bit of bad behavior especially evident because Obama may have overdone the fair-minded bit in many of his remarks and answers.
Imperiously enough, McCain -- who had threatened not to show up for the debate because of America's financial crisis -- seemed determined to avoid even looking at Obama as the debate went on, although they did shake hands at the beginning and end. Many of McCain's answers were preceded with belittling references to Obama as if he were talking to a college freshman way out of his depth: "I'm afraid Senator Obama doesn't understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy," was one typical remark.
Obama supporters must have been displeased, then, to hear their candidate keep agreeing with McCain, a case perhaps of sportsmanlike conduct run amok. Doesn't Obama want to win?
On the matter of congressional earmarks and wasteful spending, Obama began one answer with, "Well, Senator McCain is absolutely right . . ." and later, on an issue related to the Iraq war: "Senator McCain is absolutely right . . ." etc., etc.
After all the nice-guy stuff from Obama, which may have reached self-defeating levels, it's perhaps not surprising that the most, perhaps only, electrifying moment of the debate was when he finally told McCain he was wrong -- three times in quick and effective succession. This was during debate about the origins of the war in Iraq. "You were wrong" about saying the war would be quick and easy, Obama charged, his voice rising. "You were wrong" about finding weapons of mass destruction, he continued. And there was one more "you were wrong" for good measure.
Obama was showing something that his personal appearances have too often lacked: passion. There was strong conviction behind his words, whether one agreed with them or not, and a welcome assertiveness. "You were wrong" was an effectively simple declarative sentence, not bogged down in qualifiers the way some of his sentences tend to be. "We've got to look at bringing that war to a close," he said of Iraq; why not just, "We've got to end that war"?
Although Obama was "crisper" than usual, as one commentator noted after the debate, he still may not have been crisp enough. His oratorical skills when giving speeches in vast venues have been amply demonstrated. But in debates and conversations, when he ad-libs, he sometimes seems to be weighing his answers almost too carefully, defusing his own remarks by diffusing them.
Democrat Paul Begala, one of CNN's army of pundits, criticized both candidates for the way they handled questions on the economy. The whole debate was supposed to deal with foreign policy, but as the economy shuddered and crumbled during the week, it was wisely decided to devote about a third of the debate to that crisis. But as Begala said, a stranger to this planet tuning in the debate wouldn't have known from the candidates' answers and attitudes that America is in the midst of what has been called the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression.
Instead their answers were on the theoretical side, with no real sense of urgency. The folks out there in television land, losing their homes to foreclosure or seeing their retirement nest eggs obliterated, deserved more thoughtful and heartfelt answers.
The debate was moderated by public television's Jim Lehrer, who did a very accomplished job, willing to interrupt or challenge the candidates when they danced around an issue rather than addressing it. His first question was "Where do you stand on the financial recovery plan" now being debated in Washington. Both candidates merely reiterated economic policies from past speeches, with McCain preceding his response with a self-serving salute to Ted Kennedy, who was hospitalized earlier in the day.
Obama began his response with the usual bromide about America being "at a defining moment in our history." Yes yes, but how will we pay the mortgage when the interest rate goes up for the umpteenth time next month?
Lehrer took control. After the meandering palaver from the two men he said pointedly, "Let's go back to my question" and repeated it.
Since all three networks had access to the same basic pool video, some networks tried to dress up the picture with identifying decoration. NBC and CNN both had annoying animated graphics in the lower right-hand corners of the screen, just the thing for people who want to watch letters dance or globes spin around, distracting to everyone else. CNN had mercifully ditched its ticker-tape of fun facts, but replaced it with a chart that supposedly showed reactions from a sample group to the candidates' performances. The chart was hard to read and essentially useless.
CBS armed a test group of viewer-voters with "joy sticks" to measure their responses to various moments of the debate, but this gimmick also proved to be of little help. A CBS reporter interviewed one man sitting in the room; the man said he thought McCain looked "stressed."
And that was that. The research measurement was done by Nielsen Media Research, it was pointed out, the same people who rate television shows. That raised the discomforting specter of equating presidential candidates with sitcoms, soap operas and reality junk.
This was reality -- the realest kind of reality -- and the debate was, for the most part, encouragingly civilized and not flawed with frivolous name-calling. As NBC's able Chuck Todd put it, "no lipstick on a pig" nonsense. If McCain had been more civil, and Obama were more combative and fervent, it would have been better still.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Analysis: Is the economy broken? Is the economy in a downward cycle? or Is the economy OK?
Treasury's Paulson Urges Quick Action on Bailout Plan
Rescue Plan Grows to $700 Billion; Similar Measures Urged Overseas
By Lori Montgomery and David ChoWashington Post Staff Writers Sunday, September 21, 2008; 10:00 AM
Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. today urged Congress to move quickly to approve the Bush administration's emergency plan to revive the U.S. financial system, a proposal that officials said yesterday would cost up to $700 billion as it relieved crippled financial institutions of their mortgage-based assets.
Paulson, who was making the rounds of Sunday morning news talk shows explaining the administration's plan, said lawmakers need to reassure credit markets and Wall Street quickly and should not slow the process down by adding proposals onto the emergency bill.
"The credit markets are still very fragile right now and frozen," Paulson said in an interview on NBC's Meet the Press. "We need to deal with this and deal with it quickly."
Senior administration officials meanwhile yesterday pressed their counterparts in Japan, Germany, Britain and elsewhere to establish similar programs to rescue their own troubled firms in what would be an unprecedented bailout of the worldwide financial system. The move comes in recognition that complex interconnections among financial institutions have created a global crisis that the United States cannot solve alone.
As part of his television interviews today, Paulson said foreign banks would be eligible for assistance under the U.S. rescue plan because "if a financial institution has business operations in the United States, hires people in the United States, if they are clogged with illiquid assets, they have the same impact on the American people as any other institution."
Congressional leaders responded positively to the administration's rescue plan, though the price tag they received yesterday was $200 billion higher than they had been told to expect just three days ago. But House Democrats said they would push to include a number of contentious provisions that could make it difficult to pass the plan quickly, including limits on executive compensation for firms that unload their bad assets on the government and new powers for bankruptcy judges to modify mortgages on primary residences.
Democrats also want President Bush to drop his opposition to a second round of federal spending aimed at stimulating the economy. While the administration's bailout plan would insure the money market funds of millions of ordinary Americans and help prop up the mortgage market, some Democrats worry that it will primarily be viewed as a bailout for big Wall Street firms.
"Obviously, this is of direct benefit to some people in the financial industry," Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said of the rescue plan. "We need to be talking about direct benefits to people who are not in the private sector."
Bush, speaking to reporters during a White House appearance yesterday with Colombian President Álvaro Uribe, urged Democrats to set aside those demands. In talks with congressional leaders, Bush said he "found a common understanding of how severe the problem is" and the need for urgent action. "We need to get this done quickly and, you know, the cleaner the better,'' he said.
Bush also defended the size of the request, saying drastic action was needed because of the magnitude of the financial crisis, a cataclysm that started with nontraditional mortgage loans to U.S. homeowners, spread to the banking and financial services industry and now is enveloping markets around the world.
"This is a big package because it's a big problem," Bush said. "The risk of doing nothing far outweighs the risk of the package."
Bush, who campaigned as the nation's first MBA president and a free-market advocate, also appeared to address complaints from conservatives that the plan inserts the government too much into the economy.
This article continues at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/21/AR2008092100169.html?hpid=topnews
Rescue Plan Grows to $700 Billion; Similar Measures Urged Overseas
By Lori Montgomery and David ChoWashington Post Staff Writers Sunday, September 21, 2008; 10:00 AM
Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. today urged Congress to move quickly to approve the Bush administration's emergency plan to revive the U.S. financial system, a proposal that officials said yesterday would cost up to $700 billion as it relieved crippled financial institutions of their mortgage-based assets.
Paulson, who was making the rounds of Sunday morning news talk shows explaining the administration's plan, said lawmakers need to reassure credit markets and Wall Street quickly and should not slow the process down by adding proposals onto the emergency bill.
"The credit markets are still very fragile right now and frozen," Paulson said in an interview on NBC's Meet the Press. "We need to deal with this and deal with it quickly."
Senior administration officials meanwhile yesterday pressed their counterparts in Japan, Germany, Britain and elsewhere to establish similar programs to rescue their own troubled firms in what would be an unprecedented bailout of the worldwide financial system. The move comes in recognition that complex interconnections among financial institutions have created a global crisis that the United States cannot solve alone.
As part of his television interviews today, Paulson said foreign banks would be eligible for assistance under the U.S. rescue plan because "if a financial institution has business operations in the United States, hires people in the United States, if they are clogged with illiquid assets, they have the same impact on the American people as any other institution."
Congressional leaders responded positively to the administration's rescue plan, though the price tag they received yesterday was $200 billion higher than they had been told to expect just three days ago. But House Democrats said they would push to include a number of contentious provisions that could make it difficult to pass the plan quickly, including limits on executive compensation for firms that unload their bad assets on the government and new powers for bankruptcy judges to modify mortgages on primary residences.
Democrats also want President Bush to drop his opposition to a second round of federal spending aimed at stimulating the economy. While the administration's bailout plan would insure the money market funds of millions of ordinary Americans and help prop up the mortgage market, some Democrats worry that it will primarily be viewed as a bailout for big Wall Street firms.
"Obviously, this is of direct benefit to some people in the financial industry," Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said of the rescue plan. "We need to be talking about direct benefits to people who are not in the private sector."
Bush, speaking to reporters during a White House appearance yesterday with Colombian President Álvaro Uribe, urged Democrats to set aside those demands. In talks with congressional leaders, Bush said he "found a common understanding of how severe the problem is" and the need for urgent action. "We need to get this done quickly and, you know, the cleaner the better,'' he said.
Bush also defended the size of the request, saying drastic action was needed because of the magnitude of the financial crisis, a cataclysm that started with nontraditional mortgage loans to U.S. homeowners, spread to the banking and financial services industry and now is enveloping markets around the world.
"This is a big package because it's a big problem," Bush said. "The risk of doing nothing far outweighs the risk of the package."
Bush, who campaigned as the nation's first MBA president and a free-market advocate, also appeared to address complaints from conservatives that the plan inserts the government too much into the economy.
This article continues at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/21/AR2008092100169.html?hpid=topnews
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Analysis: Will the bailout help the political futures of incumbents or a particular political party?
Who the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac bailout is really supposed to help.
By Daniel GrossPosted Monday, Sept. 8, 2008
On Sunday, the Treasury Department announced that it would effectively take over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the critically wounded government-sponsored mortgage behemoths. (This landing page at the Treasury Department has the details.)
Generally speaking, the federal government has been content merely to watch the failures stemming from the real-estate/housing-credit bubble. If individuals default on their mortgages and get foreclosed on, that's their proper comeuppance. If subprime lenders go out of business, that's capitalism's creative destruction. If banks start to fail, as they're now doing at a rate of one per week, no big deal.
But Washington reacted with alacrity when a second-tier investment bank, Bear Stearns, threatened to take the plunge. And the case of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is a rare example of Washington regulators being slightly ahead of the curve. Of course, Fannie and Freddie are bigger and more significant than any of the financial firms that have failed thus far. But the reason for the fevered weekend rescue activity has less to do with the companies' size than with their scope.
(this article continues at: http://www.slate.com/id/2199564/?from=rss)
By Daniel GrossPosted Monday, Sept. 8, 2008
On Sunday, the Treasury Department announced that it would effectively take over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the critically wounded government-sponsored mortgage behemoths. (This landing page at the Treasury Department has the details.)
Generally speaking, the federal government has been content merely to watch the failures stemming from the real-estate/housing-credit bubble. If individuals default on their mortgages and get foreclosed on, that's their proper comeuppance. If subprime lenders go out of business, that's capitalism's creative destruction. If banks start to fail, as they're now doing at a rate of one per week, no big deal.
But Washington reacted with alacrity when a second-tier investment bank, Bear Stearns, threatened to take the plunge. And the case of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is a rare example of Washington regulators being slightly ahead of the curve. Of course, Fannie and Freddie are bigger and more significant than any of the financial firms that have failed thus far. But the reason for the fevered weekend rescue activity has less to do with the companies' size than with their scope.
(this article continues at: http://www.slate.com/id/2199564/?from=rss)
Saturday, August 30, 2008
What are you watching for at the Republican Convention this week?
Republican Convention Preview (3:17) on Youtube
Directly from the GOP Convention's website:
The convention's overall theme, "Country First," reflects John McCain's remarkable record of leadership and service to America. Each day of proceedings will center on a touchstone theme that has defined John McCain's life and will be central to his vision for leading our nation forward as president. Read more...
Directly from the GOP Convention's website:
The convention's overall theme, "Country First," reflects John McCain's remarkable record of leadership and service to America. Each day of proceedings will center on a touchstone theme that has defined John McCain's life and will be central to his vision for leading our nation forward as president. Read more...
Monday, August 25, 2008
What are you watching for at the Democratic Convention this week? (Same question next week for the GOP Convention...)
The following guest post is from Dan Conley, a former speechwriter for Virginia Gov. Doug Wilder and Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley.
Here are the things the Democrats need to get done this week:
Sell the Middle Class Tax Cut. John McCain doesn't offer one, Barack Obama does. McCain is running ad after ad saying Obama will raise taxes -- it's a lie. For the bottom 97 percent of American taxpayers, Barack Obama will cut your taxes and John McCain won't.
Pound the economic elitism storyline. McCain gift wrapped an issue for Democrats this week by not knowing how many homes he owns. He's out of touch. He thinks people who make $4 million a year are middle class. He thinks the Bush economic approach is working.
Turnaround the celebrity/cult issue. There's a real political cult stalking America, but not the one you think. The real cult is one of warrior pencil-necked geeks ... a political Fight Club for all the boys who got beat up in high school. They hold the corner offices in think tanks and dominate the op-ed pages of big city newspapers. They walk in John McCain's shadow and throw around pro wrestling words like "smackdown," thinking that the U.S. military can restore their manhood. And yes, some of them are U.S. Senators, most notably McCain's fey sidekicks Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman ...
Destroy Joe Lieberman. The Dems made a huge mistake in 2004 by not bloodying up Zell Miller in Boston before he could attack them in New York. This time, Lieberman must be annihilated. I'd use Jim Webb or Wesley Clark to twist the knife into him.
Get real. No need for flash or showbiz. No need for soaring rhetoric. America knows we can do that, they expect it. Talk about where we are, how we got there and exactly how we'll get out. Bob the Builder chants aren't enough ... turn the convention into Extreme Makeover, America Edition.
Taken From: http://politicalwire.com/
Here are the things the Democrats need to get done this week:
Sell the Middle Class Tax Cut. John McCain doesn't offer one, Barack Obama does. McCain is running ad after ad saying Obama will raise taxes -- it's a lie. For the bottom 97 percent of American taxpayers, Barack Obama will cut your taxes and John McCain won't.
Pound the economic elitism storyline. McCain gift wrapped an issue for Democrats this week by not knowing how many homes he owns. He's out of touch. He thinks people who make $4 million a year are middle class. He thinks the Bush economic approach is working.
Turnaround the celebrity/cult issue. There's a real political cult stalking America, but not the one you think. The real cult is one of warrior pencil-necked geeks ... a political Fight Club for all the boys who got beat up in high school. They hold the corner offices in think tanks and dominate the op-ed pages of big city newspapers. They walk in John McCain's shadow and throw around pro wrestling words like "smackdown," thinking that the U.S. military can restore their manhood. And yes, some of them are U.S. Senators, most notably McCain's fey sidekicks Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman ...
Destroy Joe Lieberman. The Dems made a huge mistake in 2004 by not bloodying up Zell Miller in Boston before he could attack them in New York. This time, Lieberman must be annihilated. I'd use Jim Webb or Wesley Clark to twist the knife into him.
Get real. No need for flash or showbiz. No need for soaring rhetoric. America knows we can do that, they expect it. Talk about where we are, how we got there and exactly how we'll get out. Bob the Builder chants aren't enough ... turn the convention into Extreme Makeover, America Edition.
Taken From: http://politicalwire.com/
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Who will be chosen for each candidate's vice president? AND/OR What do you think about each candidate's choice?
My predictions:
Obama:
1. Biden
2. Clinton
McCain:
1. Romney
2. Ridge
The "most fun for the fall" picks:
1. Bloomberg (D or R)
2. Gore (D)
3. Fiorina (R)
4. Lieberman (R)
5. Jindal (R)
6. Powell (D)
No Chance Picks:
1. Edwards (D)
2. Richardson (D)
3. Clark (D)
4. Huckabee (R)
5. Giuliani (R)
My Humble Opinon of who would help the ticket the most:
1. Clinton (this is a change for me. I think her help now outweighs her hurt for the ticket)
2. Ridge (doubles down on the national security narrative and the maverick narrative...the guy is pro-choice...it would take a maverick to pick him.)
3. Biden (D)
4. Bloomberg (R)
Obama:
1. Biden
2. Clinton
McCain:
1. Romney
2. Ridge
The "most fun for the fall" picks:
1. Bloomberg (D or R)
2. Gore (D)
3. Fiorina (R)
4. Lieberman (R)
5. Jindal (R)
6. Powell (D)
No Chance Picks:
1. Edwards (D)
2. Richardson (D)
3. Clark (D)
4. Huckabee (R)
5. Giuliani (R)
My Humble Opinon of who would help the ticket the most:
1. Clinton (this is a change for me. I think her help now outweighs her hurt for the ticket)
2. Ridge (doubles down on the national security narrative and the maverick narrative...the guy is pro-choice...it would take a maverick to pick him.)
3. Biden (D)
4. Bloomberg (R)
Friday, June 20, 2008
Analysis: Showcased in these ads, which will be the most effective storyline for the fall?
McCain "Safe" ad
Moveon.org "Not Alex" ad
Obama "Country I Love" ad
All three are running in Wisconsin. Wisconsin will be (is?) a battleground state. The Obama bio ad is running in 18 states--including many states where a Democrat has not been competitive for years. McCain's ad was the first one to be "up" (meaning: on t.v. in any given state).
So many elections are about defining yourself and defining your opponent. This is exactly what each campaign, and Moveon.org, are trying to do. Moveon.org started out as a special interest group trying to end the war in Iraq and has since expanded considerably to give its 2 cents on most liberal political causes. There is some question among Republicans as to why McCain waited so long to try to define himself. Why didn't he use the months that he had without an opponent to try to define himself and whoever his opponent would be? Notice how Obama talks about Kansas values (the values of the "heartland") and not big city Chicago values. Is he trying to court those working class Clinton supporters? Shouldn't he have won their support already?
Feel free to go to the websites to see more videos and get more information (if you like busses as much as my 2 year old son, you should check out McCains website where they have a "Cribs" tour of the Straight Talk Express Bus--no joke) (btw: shouldn't it be "Pimp My Ride" instead of "Cribs"?)
www.johnmccain.com
www.barackobama.com
www.moveon.org
Moveon.org "Not Alex" ad
Obama "Country I Love" ad
All three are running in Wisconsin. Wisconsin will be (is?) a battleground state. The Obama bio ad is running in 18 states--including many states where a Democrat has not been competitive for years. McCain's ad was the first one to be "up" (meaning: on t.v. in any given state).
So many elections are about defining yourself and defining your opponent. This is exactly what each campaign, and Moveon.org, are trying to do. Moveon.org started out as a special interest group trying to end the war in Iraq and has since expanded considerably to give its 2 cents on most liberal political causes. There is some question among Republicans as to why McCain waited so long to try to define himself. Why didn't he use the months that he had without an opponent to try to define himself and whoever his opponent would be? Notice how Obama talks about Kansas values (the values of the "heartland") and not big city Chicago values. Is he trying to court those working class Clinton supporters? Shouldn't he have won their support already?
Feel free to go to the websites to see more videos and get more information (if you like busses as much as my 2 year old son, you should check out McCains website where they have a "Cribs" tour of the Straight Talk Express Bus--no joke) (btw: shouldn't it be "Pimp My Ride" instead of "Cribs"?)
www.johnmccain.com
www.barackobama.com
www.moveon.org
Friday, June 13, 2008
There is no opinion or analysis: Tim Russert has died.
Tim Russert.
RIP
Your enthusiasm for politics and your intensity for what we think is so important are unmatched and are admired. Thank you. We will work hard to continue your tradition of clinical analysis of all that is political. We learned from you that it's OK to love politics. Again, thank you. Your influence continues. . .
RIP
Your enthusiasm for politics and your intensity for what we think is so important are unmatched and are admired. Thank you. We will work hard to continue your tradition of clinical analysis of all that is political. We learned from you that it's OK to love politics. Again, thank you. Your influence continues. . .
Saturday, June 07, 2008
Sunday, June 01, 2008
Analysis: Too little too late?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24908975/
Obama quits church after long controversy
Candidate seeks to distance himself from Wright
ABERDEEN, S.D. - Barack Obama said Saturday he has resigned his 20-year membership in the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago "with some sadness" in the aftermath of inflammatory remarks by his longtime pastor the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and more recent fiery remarks at the church by another minister.
"This is not a decision I come to lightly ... and it is one I make with some sadness," he said at a news conference after campaign officials released a letter of resignation sent to the church on Friday. "I'm not denouncing the church and I'm not interested in people who want me to denounce the church," he said, adding that the new pastor at Trinity and "the church have been suffering from the attention my campaign has focused on them."
Obama said he and his wife have been discussing the issue since Wright's appearance at the National Press Club in Washington last month that reignited furor over remarks he had made in various sermons at the church. "I suspect we'll find another church home for our family," Obama said. "It's clear that now that I'm a candidate for president, every time something is said in the church by anyone associated with Trinity, inlcuding guest pastors, the remarks will imputed to me even if they totally conflict with my longheld views, statements and principles," he said.
Obama said he had "no idea" how the resignation would "impact my presidential campaign, but I know its the right thing to do for the church and our family."
‘A pretty personal decision’"This was a pretty personal decision and I was not trying to make political theater out of it," he said.
--LAST REQUIRED POSTING WINDOW ENDS TODAY!!!
KEEPING POSTING ANYWAY. . .
:)
Obama quits church after long controversy
Candidate seeks to distance himself from Wright
ABERDEEN, S.D. - Barack Obama said Saturday he has resigned his 20-year membership in the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago "with some sadness" in the aftermath of inflammatory remarks by his longtime pastor the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and more recent fiery remarks at the church by another minister.
"This is not a decision I come to lightly ... and it is one I make with some sadness," he said at a news conference after campaign officials released a letter of resignation sent to the church on Friday. "I'm not denouncing the church and I'm not interested in people who want me to denounce the church," he said, adding that the new pastor at Trinity and "the church have been suffering from the attention my campaign has focused on them."
Obama said he and his wife have been discussing the issue since Wright's appearance at the National Press Club in Washington last month that reignited furor over remarks he had made in various sermons at the church. "I suspect we'll find another church home for our family," Obama said. "It's clear that now that I'm a candidate for president, every time something is said in the church by anyone associated with Trinity, inlcuding guest pastors, the remarks will imputed to me even if they totally conflict with my longheld views, statements and principles," he said.
Obama said he had "no idea" how the resignation would "impact my presidential campaign, but I know its the right thing to do for the church and our family."
‘A pretty personal decision’"This was a pretty personal decision and I was not trying to make political theater out of it," he said.
--LAST REQUIRED POSTING WINDOW ENDS TODAY!!!
KEEPING POSTING ANYWAY. . .
:)
Analysis: Will this unify or split the Democrats? Good or bad for John McCain?
Fla., Mich. Delegates Each Get Half a Vote
Compromise Prompts Anger From Clinton Campaign
By Dan BalzWashington Post Staff Writer Sunday, June 1, 2008; Page A01
After hours of emotional testimony and sometimes contentious debate, Democratic Party officials agreed yesterday on a pair of compromises to seat Florida's and Michigan's delegations to their national convention. But a part of the deal drew an angry reaction and the threat of a subsequent challenge from the campaign of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The compromises by the Democratic National Committee's Rules and Bylaws Committee called for both delegations, originally barred from the convention for violating party rules, to be seated in full in Denver but with each delegate casting only half a vote.
The actions by the committee were aimed at bringing the long and sometimes-bitter Democratic nomination battle between Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Clinton (N.Y.) to a close and to ensure party unity as the Democrats head into the general election. But the decisions prompted bitter and sometimes-tearful reactions from some members of the audience, who repeatedly shouted over the committee members as they voted.
Obama remains the heavy favorite to win the nomination, with his campaign hoping that he can secure enough delegates over the next week to do so. Puerto Rico's primary will be held today, and the last two states, Montana and South Dakota, will vote Tuesday. The committee's decisions represented a significant setback to Clinton, who had passionately called for seating both delegations with full votes.
The net result was a gain of 87 delegate votes for Clinton and 63 for Obama. Until yesterday's action, the magic number for winning the nomination was 2,026 delegates. Now the winner will need 2,118. According to a count by the Associated Press, as of last night, Obama controlled 2,052 delegates to Clinton's 1,877.
Obama campaign officials said they will redouble efforts to win over enough superdelegates to put their candidate over the top as quickly as possible, but Clinton hopes to emerge with more popular votes and continues to press the case that she would be a stronger general-election candidate than Obama.
"We're extremely gratified that the commission agreed on a fair solution that will allow Michigan and Florida to participate in the Convention. We appreciate their efforts, and those of the party leadership of both states, to bring this resolution about," said Obama campaign manager David Plouffe.
The Florida agreement included a provision calling for the delegates to be allocated on the basis of the state's Jan. 29 primary, a decision that would net Clinton 19 more delegates than Obama. Clinton's campaign had pushed for a proposal to seat the full delegation with full voting power, but when that failed, her supporters on the committee relented, and the compromise was approved without a dissenting vote, 27 to 0.
But it was the Michigan plan, approved by a 19 to 8 vote, that drew sharper opposition because of the way that state's delegates will be awarded. Under the plan, Clinton will be given 34.5 delegate votes in Denver to Obama's 29.5 delegate votes, a percentage distribution recommended by leaders of the Michigan Democratic Party but opposed by the Clinton campaign officials, who said it violates the results of Michigan's Jan. 15 primary.
This article continues at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/31/AR2008053102355.html?hpid=topnews
Compromise Prompts Anger From Clinton Campaign
By Dan BalzWashington Post Staff Writer Sunday, June 1, 2008; Page A01
After hours of emotional testimony and sometimes contentious debate, Democratic Party officials agreed yesterday on a pair of compromises to seat Florida's and Michigan's delegations to their national convention. But a part of the deal drew an angry reaction and the threat of a subsequent challenge from the campaign of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The compromises by the Democratic National Committee's Rules and Bylaws Committee called for both delegations, originally barred from the convention for violating party rules, to be seated in full in Denver but with each delegate casting only half a vote.
The actions by the committee were aimed at bringing the long and sometimes-bitter Democratic nomination battle between Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Clinton (N.Y.) to a close and to ensure party unity as the Democrats head into the general election. But the decisions prompted bitter and sometimes-tearful reactions from some members of the audience, who repeatedly shouted over the committee members as they voted.
Obama remains the heavy favorite to win the nomination, with his campaign hoping that he can secure enough delegates over the next week to do so. Puerto Rico's primary will be held today, and the last two states, Montana and South Dakota, will vote Tuesday. The committee's decisions represented a significant setback to Clinton, who had passionately called for seating both delegations with full votes.
The net result was a gain of 87 delegate votes for Clinton and 63 for Obama. Until yesterday's action, the magic number for winning the nomination was 2,026 delegates. Now the winner will need 2,118. According to a count by the Associated Press, as of last night, Obama controlled 2,052 delegates to Clinton's 1,877.
Obama campaign officials said they will redouble efforts to win over enough superdelegates to put their candidate over the top as quickly as possible, but Clinton hopes to emerge with more popular votes and continues to press the case that she would be a stronger general-election candidate than Obama.
"We're extremely gratified that the commission agreed on a fair solution that will allow Michigan and Florida to participate in the Convention. We appreciate their efforts, and those of the party leadership of both states, to bring this resolution about," said Obama campaign manager David Plouffe.
The Florida agreement included a provision calling for the delegates to be allocated on the basis of the state's Jan. 29 primary, a decision that would net Clinton 19 more delegates than Obama. Clinton's campaign had pushed for a proposal to seat the full delegation with full voting power, but when that failed, her supporters on the committee relented, and the compromise was approved without a dissenting vote, 27 to 0.
But it was the Michigan plan, approved by a 19 to 8 vote, that drew sharper opposition because of the way that state's delegates will be awarded. Under the plan, Clinton will be given 34.5 delegate votes in Denver to Obama's 29.5 delegate votes, a percentage distribution recommended by leaders of the Michigan Democratic Party but opposed by the Clinton campaign officials, who said it violates the results of Michigan's Jan. 15 primary.
This article continues at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/31/AR2008053102355.html?hpid=topnews
Opinion: What's your opinion of this article?
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=756918
Energized McCain wins over one teen
Posted: May 31, 2008
Mike NicholsE-MAIL
Greendale - Odd men in cow suits and rubber masks, or holding handwritten signs alluding to "Adolf Bush," usually provide the only unscripted moments at big campaign events.
So I didn't show up too early for an appearance by John McCain at Martin Luther High School - and was relegated to the "remote" room where we Wisconsinites often seem to end up.
Watched him along with a couple hundred others on two television screens that could, as easily, have been transmitting from Tuscaloosa.
Sometimes, though - lo and behold - the world comes to you.
No sooner did the man walk off the screen at the end of his event, than he came through the door. Right there in the scarred and wrinkled flesh.
This is Wisconsin in 2008, baby. We're all in the front row now.
"Wisconsin," as Congressman Paul Ryan was quoted as saying, "is going to be the center of the political universe."
At least for John McCain.
And the first impression?
"Very pale," said Morgan Johnson, a senior at Muskego High School who just turned 18 and was there with her aunt. "That was the first thing I noticed about him."
Yep. There's been a lot of speculation about Barack Obama becoming the blackest president ever. John McCain might just become the whitest.
But, allowed Morgan, "he looked good for his age."
The truth is that McCain, who is 71, gets younger when he walks right up and starts talking.
This is no somnambulant Reagan. You don't worry about him being under-engaged. You worry about him being over-engaged.
With all due respect to the "McSame" crowd, this is not George W. Bush either. I mean, with our current president, you cringe every time you hear him try to pronounce Ahmadinejad.
With McCain, you worry a little he is pronouncing it with extreme fluidity, over and over, in his sleep.
Obama, then again, is apt to add a "Sir" at the end and say it in person - without preconditions.
Morgan's aunt, Lisa Klug, asked the best question of the day.
She asked McCain what he "would say to Morgan to get her to vote for you instead of Obama."
Morgan is a self-described moderate who would have voted for Hillary in the primary, had she been 18. And she lives in Wisconsin, where John Kerry beat George Bush by fewer than 12,000 votes - which means she could well be a president-maker.
Many of her peers like Obama.
"He is young," she said. "I am not going to lie. I think his race has a lot to do with it."
She, personally, is basing her vote on other things.
"Base it on issues," Morgan said.
McCain walked spryly over and responded to Lisa's question by making light of his years. What America really needs now is a president who is "very, very, very, very , very old," he said, repeating a joke from "Saturday Night Live."
Then he told Lisa, in a more serious vein, that he will "try to make sure (Morgan) can believe she will inherit a safer and more prosperous world."
Therein lies the rub, of course. Elections are about the future, and to a lot of young eyes, McCain looks like the past.
Not to Morgan, though. She likes his experience and his fiscal conservatism. Likes him on a personal basis. Thought he looked good. Is inclined to vote for him.
All you wonder now is if he can repeat the feat.
About 12,000 or so times.
E-mail mnichols@journalsentine.com.
Energized McCain wins over one teen
Posted: May 31, 2008
Mike NicholsE-MAIL
Greendale - Odd men in cow suits and rubber masks, or holding handwritten signs alluding to "Adolf Bush," usually provide the only unscripted moments at big campaign events.
So I didn't show up too early for an appearance by John McCain at Martin Luther High School - and was relegated to the "remote" room where we Wisconsinites often seem to end up.
Watched him along with a couple hundred others on two television screens that could, as easily, have been transmitting from Tuscaloosa.
Sometimes, though - lo and behold - the world comes to you.
No sooner did the man walk off the screen at the end of his event, than he came through the door. Right there in the scarred and wrinkled flesh.
This is Wisconsin in 2008, baby. We're all in the front row now.
"Wisconsin," as Congressman Paul Ryan was quoted as saying, "is going to be the center of the political universe."
At least for John McCain.
And the first impression?
"Very pale," said Morgan Johnson, a senior at Muskego High School who just turned 18 and was there with her aunt. "That was the first thing I noticed about him."
Yep. There's been a lot of speculation about Barack Obama becoming the blackest president ever. John McCain might just become the whitest.
But, allowed Morgan, "he looked good for his age."
The truth is that McCain, who is 71, gets younger when he walks right up and starts talking.
This is no somnambulant Reagan. You don't worry about him being under-engaged. You worry about him being over-engaged.
With all due respect to the "McSame" crowd, this is not George W. Bush either. I mean, with our current president, you cringe every time you hear him try to pronounce Ahmadinejad.
With McCain, you worry a little he is pronouncing it with extreme fluidity, over and over, in his sleep.
Obama, then again, is apt to add a "Sir" at the end and say it in person - without preconditions.
Morgan's aunt, Lisa Klug, asked the best question of the day.
She asked McCain what he "would say to Morgan to get her to vote for you instead of Obama."
Morgan is a self-described moderate who would have voted for Hillary in the primary, had she been 18. And she lives in Wisconsin, where John Kerry beat George Bush by fewer than 12,000 votes - which means she could well be a president-maker.
Many of her peers like Obama.
"He is young," she said. "I am not going to lie. I think his race has a lot to do with it."
She, personally, is basing her vote on other things.
"Base it on issues," Morgan said.
McCain walked spryly over and responded to Lisa's question by making light of his years. What America really needs now is a president who is "very, very, very, very , very old," he said, repeating a joke from "Saturday Night Live."
Then he told Lisa, in a more serious vein, that he will "try to make sure (Morgan) can believe she will inherit a safer and more prosperous world."
Therein lies the rub, of course. Elections are about the future, and to a lot of young eyes, McCain looks like the past.
Not to Morgan, though. She likes his experience and his fiscal conservatism. Likes him on a personal basis. Thought he looked good. Is inclined to vote for him.
All you wonder now is if he can repeat the feat.
About 12,000 or so times.
E-mail mnichols@journalsentine.com.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Opinion: Is this good public policy and/or is it the correct decision by the court?
California's top court legalizes gay marriage
By LISA LEFFThe Associated Press Friday, May 16, 2008; 2:45 AM
SAN FRANCISCO -- California's Supreme Court declared that gay couples in the nation's most populous state can marry _ a monumental but perhaps short-lived victory for the gay rights movement Thursday that was greeted with tears, hugs, kisses and at least one instant proposal of matrimony.
Same-sex couples could tie the knot in as little as a month. But the window could close soon after _ religious and social conservatives are pressing to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot in November that would undo the Supreme Court ruling and ban gay marriage.
"Essentially, this boils down to love. We love each other. We now have equal rights under the law," declared a jubilant Robin Tyler, a plaintiff in the case along with her partner. She added: "We're going to get married. No Tupperware, please."
A crowd of people raised their fists in triumph inside City Hall, and people wrapped themselves in the rainbow-colored gay-pride flag outside the courthouse. In the Castro, long the center of the gay community in San Francisco, Tim Oviatt wept as he watched the news on TV.
"I've been waiting for this all my life. This is a life-affirming moment," he said.
By the afternoon, gay and lesbian couples had already started lining up at San Francisco City Hall to make appointments to get marriage licenses. In West Hollywood, supporters planned to serve "wedding cake" at an evening celebration.
James Dobson _ chairman of the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family, which has spent thousands of dollars to get the measure on the ballot _ called the ruling an outrage.
"It will be up to the people of California to preserve traditional marriage by passing a constitutional amendment. ... Only then can they protect themselves from this latest example of judicial tyranny," he said in an e-mailed statement.
In its 4-3 ruling, the Republican-dominated high court struck down state laws against same-sex marriage and said domestic partnerships that provide many of the rights and benefits of matrimony are not enough.
"In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," Chief Justice Ronald George wrote for the majority in ringing language that delighted gay rights activists.
Massachusetts in 2004 became the first, and so far only, state to legalize gay marriage; more than 9,500 couples have taken advantage of the law. But the California ruling is considered monumental by virtue of the state's size _ 38 million out of a U.S. population of 302 million _ and its historical role as the vanguard of many social and cultural changes that have swept the country since World War II.
California has an estimated 108,734 same-sex households, according to 2006 census figures.
THIS ARTICLE CONTINUES AT:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/15/AR2008051502290_2.html
By LISA LEFFThe Associated Press Friday, May 16, 2008; 2:45 AM
SAN FRANCISCO -- California's Supreme Court declared that gay couples in the nation's most populous state can marry _ a monumental but perhaps short-lived victory for the gay rights movement Thursday that was greeted with tears, hugs, kisses and at least one instant proposal of matrimony.
Same-sex couples could tie the knot in as little as a month. But the window could close soon after _ religious and social conservatives are pressing to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot in November that would undo the Supreme Court ruling and ban gay marriage.
"Essentially, this boils down to love. We love each other. We now have equal rights under the law," declared a jubilant Robin Tyler, a plaintiff in the case along with her partner. She added: "We're going to get married. No Tupperware, please."
A crowd of people raised their fists in triumph inside City Hall, and people wrapped themselves in the rainbow-colored gay-pride flag outside the courthouse. In the Castro, long the center of the gay community in San Francisco, Tim Oviatt wept as he watched the news on TV.
"I've been waiting for this all my life. This is a life-affirming moment," he said.
By the afternoon, gay and lesbian couples had already started lining up at San Francisco City Hall to make appointments to get marriage licenses. In West Hollywood, supporters planned to serve "wedding cake" at an evening celebration.
James Dobson _ chairman of the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family, which has spent thousands of dollars to get the measure on the ballot _ called the ruling an outrage.
"It will be up to the people of California to preserve traditional marriage by passing a constitutional amendment. ... Only then can they protect themselves from this latest example of judicial tyranny," he said in an e-mailed statement.
In its 4-3 ruling, the Republican-dominated high court struck down state laws against same-sex marriage and said domestic partnerships that provide many of the rights and benefits of matrimony are not enough.
"In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," Chief Justice Ronald George wrote for the majority in ringing language that delighted gay rights activists.
Massachusetts in 2004 became the first, and so far only, state to legalize gay marriage; more than 9,500 couples have taken advantage of the law. But the California ruling is considered monumental by virtue of the state's size _ 38 million out of a U.S. population of 302 million _ and its historical role as the vanguard of many social and cultural changes that have swept the country since World War II.
California has an estimated 108,734 same-sex households, according to 2006 census figures.
THIS ARTICLE CONTINUES AT:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/15/AR2008051502290_2.html
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Opinion: Is this good public policy? Does the U.S. Government too often "govern by crisis?"
39 Republicans Join Democrats As Mortgage Bill Passes House
By Lori MontgomeryWashington Post Staff Writer Friday, May 9, 2008; Page A01
The House yesterday approved an ambitious plan to rescue hundreds of thousands of homeowners at risk of foreclosure by helping them trade exotic loans with rapidly rising monthly payments for more affordable mortgages backed by the federal government.
Bucking a White House veto threat, 39 Republicans joined Democrats in supporting the bill, the centerpiece of a broader housing package that represents Washington's most aggressive response to the nation's housing crisis. The measure aims to unfreeze mortgage markets by expanding the Federal Housing Administration's reach and strengthening mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It also would create a $7,500 tax credit for first-time home buyers to try to boost sales and slow plummeting home prices.
GOP House leaders blasted the bill as a bailout for speculators and irresponsible borrowers. But the measure, sponsored by House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), gained strong support from rank-and-file Republicans worried that escalating foreclosures are ruining lives and decimating neighborhoods.
Despite President Bush's condemnation of the bill this week, White House officials seemed to leave the door open to negotiation. And key Republicans are working with Democrats on a similar plan in the Senate.
"People are in a world of hurt. My sense is there's maneuvering room," said Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), whose state has been among those hardest hit. "There's still a good chance they'll get a bill the president can sign, knowing that a lot of the country needs help."
More than 1.2 million homes are in foreclosure, and an additional 3 million are forecast to join them over the next two years. Home prices have fallen more than 10 percent, and state and local tax collections are suffering. Polls show the economy is the top concern among voters, with one in four respondents saying they have been directly affected by problems in the housing market.
The borrowers most at risk of foreclosure -- and who have drawn policymakers' attention -- are those who have fallen behind on their mortgage payments but cannot sell or refinance because the value of their homes has fallen so far that they owe more than their homes are worth.
The Bush administration has tried to help such borrowers by urging banks to reduce their mortgage debt. The administration also has eased eligibility standards so borrowers who have missed a few payments can qualify for cheaper loans insured by the federal government through the FHA. But those initiatives have helped relatively few families.
Frank's proposal calls for the FHA to respond more aggressively, by offering to insure mortgages for even the least creditworthy borrowers if their banks will forgive a portion of the debt and help them stay in their homes. Under the proposal, lenders would have to take a significant loss, permitting borrowers to pay their original loans with new loans worth no more than 90 percent of their homes' new, lower value. Extra fees charged by the FHA would lower the payoff to lenders to 85 percent of a home's current value.
Borrowers would get lower monthly payments and an immediate equity stake in their property. If home values rise, the plan requires homeowners to share their profits with the federal government when they sell or refinance.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that as many as 500,000 homeowners will benefit from the program. But more than a third of those borrowers are likely to default, the CBO estimates, forcing the FHA to pay off their loans and take possession of their property at a cost to taxpayers of $1.7 billion.
The White House has balked at that price tag, calling Frank's bill an "attempt to shift costs to taxpayers [that] constitutes a bailout." But there are signs that the administration is open to compromise.
In a speech Monday, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke appeared to endorse Frank's plan. Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. and other administration officials have spoken favorably of it. On Wednesday, even as Bush declared his intention to veto the measure, one of his top economic advisers told the Wall Street Journal that differences between the White House and congressional Democrats were not "insurmountable."
Yesterday, White House spokesman Tony Fratto said Bush supports the concept of Frank's plan. "As a basic concept, it's what we're already doing. But it's what we're doing on steroids," he said.
"Is it possible to have additional housing legislation? Yes, it's possible. And maybe the Frank bill could change so much that there could be legislation we could accept," Fratto said. "But I think we're far away from that."
In House debate, many Republicans echoed the administration's concerns. Minority Leader John A. Boehner (Ohio) said Frank's bill would "bail out scam artists and those who were speculating in the market, and they want taxpayers to pick up the tab."
But other Republicans cringed at the indictment of troubled borrowers and said they were disappointed by the veto threat.
"What's offensive is some of the rhetoric," said Rep. Steven C. LaTourette (R-Ohio), who voted for the measure. "They say it rewards speculators. No, it doesn't. It's limited to homeowners. They say it's a $300 billion bailout. No, it's not. It costs $1.7 billion."
"Would I have written the bill the way Chairman Frank did? No, but we're not in charge anymore," LaTourette said. The housing mess "calls for some bold action. People are expecting us to do something."
The House voted 266 to 154 to approve Frank's rescue plan and a broad array of other housing initiatives. The House also voted 322 to 94 to approve an $11 billion package of housing tax measures, including the $7,500 credit for first-time buyers who purchase a home this year. Under the measure, the credit would have to be repaid to the government over 15 years.
The package moves to the Senate, where Banking Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) and the committee's senior Republican, Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, are working on a similar proposal. Senate Republicans have been more resistant than their House counterparts to broad plans to intervene on behalf of distressed homeowners.
But Francis Creighton, vice president for government affairs at the Mortgage Bankers Association who is working with both the administration and Congress to slow the rate of foreclosures, said he expects a compromise to be reached.
"We believe the administration is as committed to addressing this situation in the market as anybody. There's still a lot of time for negotiation," Creighton said. "Everyone wants to support something that can fix the housing crisis."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/08/AR2008050803482.html
FOR USE ONLY AFTER COMPLETING ALL YOUR AP EXAMS:
http://www.therightfoot.net/mystuff/whatever/swf/bubblewrap.swf
By Lori MontgomeryWashington Post Staff Writer Friday, May 9, 2008; Page A01
The House yesterday approved an ambitious plan to rescue hundreds of thousands of homeowners at risk of foreclosure by helping them trade exotic loans with rapidly rising monthly payments for more affordable mortgages backed by the federal government.
Bucking a White House veto threat, 39 Republicans joined Democrats in supporting the bill, the centerpiece of a broader housing package that represents Washington's most aggressive response to the nation's housing crisis. The measure aims to unfreeze mortgage markets by expanding the Federal Housing Administration's reach and strengthening mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It also would create a $7,500 tax credit for first-time home buyers to try to boost sales and slow plummeting home prices.
GOP House leaders blasted the bill as a bailout for speculators and irresponsible borrowers. But the measure, sponsored by House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), gained strong support from rank-and-file Republicans worried that escalating foreclosures are ruining lives and decimating neighborhoods.
Despite President Bush's condemnation of the bill this week, White House officials seemed to leave the door open to negotiation. And key Republicans are working with Democrats on a similar plan in the Senate.
"People are in a world of hurt. My sense is there's maneuvering room," said Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), whose state has been among those hardest hit. "There's still a good chance they'll get a bill the president can sign, knowing that a lot of the country needs help."
More than 1.2 million homes are in foreclosure, and an additional 3 million are forecast to join them over the next two years. Home prices have fallen more than 10 percent, and state and local tax collections are suffering. Polls show the economy is the top concern among voters, with one in four respondents saying they have been directly affected by problems in the housing market.
The borrowers most at risk of foreclosure -- and who have drawn policymakers' attention -- are those who have fallen behind on their mortgage payments but cannot sell or refinance because the value of their homes has fallen so far that they owe more than their homes are worth.
The Bush administration has tried to help such borrowers by urging banks to reduce their mortgage debt. The administration also has eased eligibility standards so borrowers who have missed a few payments can qualify for cheaper loans insured by the federal government through the FHA. But those initiatives have helped relatively few families.
Frank's proposal calls for the FHA to respond more aggressively, by offering to insure mortgages for even the least creditworthy borrowers if their banks will forgive a portion of the debt and help them stay in their homes. Under the proposal, lenders would have to take a significant loss, permitting borrowers to pay their original loans with new loans worth no more than 90 percent of their homes' new, lower value. Extra fees charged by the FHA would lower the payoff to lenders to 85 percent of a home's current value.
Borrowers would get lower monthly payments and an immediate equity stake in their property. If home values rise, the plan requires homeowners to share their profits with the federal government when they sell or refinance.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that as many as 500,000 homeowners will benefit from the program. But more than a third of those borrowers are likely to default, the CBO estimates, forcing the FHA to pay off their loans and take possession of their property at a cost to taxpayers of $1.7 billion.
The White House has balked at that price tag, calling Frank's bill an "attempt to shift costs to taxpayers [that] constitutes a bailout." But there are signs that the administration is open to compromise.
In a speech Monday, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke appeared to endorse Frank's plan. Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. and other administration officials have spoken favorably of it. On Wednesday, even as Bush declared his intention to veto the measure, one of his top economic advisers told the Wall Street Journal that differences between the White House and congressional Democrats were not "insurmountable."
Yesterday, White House spokesman Tony Fratto said Bush supports the concept of Frank's plan. "As a basic concept, it's what we're already doing. But it's what we're doing on steroids," he said.
"Is it possible to have additional housing legislation? Yes, it's possible. And maybe the Frank bill could change so much that there could be legislation we could accept," Fratto said. "But I think we're far away from that."
In House debate, many Republicans echoed the administration's concerns. Minority Leader John A. Boehner (Ohio) said Frank's bill would "bail out scam artists and those who were speculating in the market, and they want taxpayers to pick up the tab."
But other Republicans cringed at the indictment of troubled borrowers and said they were disappointed by the veto threat.
"What's offensive is some of the rhetoric," said Rep. Steven C. LaTourette (R-Ohio), who voted for the measure. "They say it rewards speculators. No, it doesn't. It's limited to homeowners. They say it's a $300 billion bailout. No, it's not. It costs $1.7 billion."
"Would I have written the bill the way Chairman Frank did? No, but we're not in charge anymore," LaTourette said. The housing mess "calls for some bold action. People are expecting us to do something."
The House voted 266 to 154 to approve Frank's rescue plan and a broad array of other housing initiatives. The House also voted 322 to 94 to approve an $11 billion package of housing tax measures, including the $7,500 credit for first-time buyers who purchase a home this year. Under the measure, the credit would have to be repaid to the government over 15 years.
The package moves to the Senate, where Banking Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) and the committee's senior Republican, Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, are working on a similar proposal. Senate Republicans have been more resistant than their House counterparts to broad plans to intervene on behalf of distressed homeowners.
But Francis Creighton, vice president for government affairs at the Mortgage Bankers Association who is working with both the administration and Congress to slow the rate of foreclosures, said he expects a compromise to be reached.
"We believe the administration is as committed to addressing this situation in the market as anybody. There's still a lot of time for negotiation," Creighton said. "Everyone wants to support something that can fix the housing crisis."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/08/AR2008050803482.html
FOR USE ONLY AFTER COMPLETING ALL YOUR AP EXAMS:
http://www.therightfoot.net/mystuff/whatever/swf/bubblewrap.swf
Sunday, May 04, 2008
NO BLOGGING TODAY.
Study, Review, Prepare, Sleep, Eat, Breathe.
COURAGE !!!
Just do it!
Impossible is nothing!
Live in the moment and enjoy it.
You can do it...
THINK.
WORK YOUR WAY THROUGH IT.
YOU KNOW MORE THAN YOU THINK YOU KNOW.
YOU'LL BE FINE !!!
P.S. #2 pencils, black or blue pen, a watch to keep track, social security number (optional). No cell phones.
COURAGE !!!
Just do it!
Impossible is nothing!
Live in the moment and enjoy it.
You can do it...
THINK.
WORK YOUR WAY THROUGH IT.
YOU KNOW MORE THAN YOU THINK YOU KNOW.
YOU'LL BE FINE !!!
P.S. #2 pencils, black or blue pen, a watch to keep track, social security number (optional). No cell phones.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)