Jack & Jill Politics

U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel's wife plans to endorse Senator Barack Obama for president of the United States!

RICHMOND, Va. - The wife of Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel plans to endorse Democrat Barack Obama.

Lilibet Hagel has scheduled a 10 a.m. news conference in Alexandria, Va., on Tuesday with Susan Eisenhower, the daughter of Republican President Eisenhower.

Hagel, R-Neb., has made no endorsement. Lilibet Hagel said in an Associated Press interview that her decision was independent of her husband. She said she didn't know whether he would make an endorsement or whom he would support.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/6/221...

Random curious question: Has anyone else noticed this one particular Secret Service man who always seems to be near Senator Obama in pictures -- and, am I the only one who finds his presence in these photos really reassuring at the gut level? I find myself looking for him whenever I see Senator Obama in photos when he is near a lot of people.

Anyway, this is who I'm talking about: He's the one in the sunglasses next to Senator Obama -- to Obama's right -- in this photo right here:

Obama rally

Yes. I've seen him on many occasions as well.

rikyrah: Rep. Deborah Wasserman-Schulz is "ALL ABOUT" Mr. Obama, AFTER she lost her billary mantra! I intensely disliked her when she saw NO WRONG in billary! :>)

She was on Dr. Rachel's Show!!

rikyrah: Found this on Black Politics OTW:

http://blackpoliticsontheweb.com/2008/10/06/oba...
"Obama Youth - Junior Fraternity Regiment" VIDEO - What's your take?



October 6, 2008 · Print This Article

A Youtube video of middle school students at a Kansas City charter school is making the rounds on the internet. The video shows the students speaking of what Obama has inspired them to become in a stepping routine. The teacher who organized the video has been suspended. What’s your take on the video - is this being blown out of proportion or do you feel that their routine is inappropriate?

IMHO:

1. The video is APPROPRIATE because it is EDUCATIONAL & INSPIRATIONAL TO BLACK MALES!

2. I hesitate to comment on information that provided "little source data/information", as this article does. That said, I wonder why the teacher would subject herself to discipline? She could have done this at home! -SIGH-

3. I don't know WHO/WHAT is blowing the video "out of proportion"; so I'm confused.

At any rate, I'm sharing because I like the video, in the main! :>)

The Palin and McCain campaign want to talk about so-called domestic terrorist ,let them defend this.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/06/mccain-abot...

made the mistake of watching 5 minutes anderson cooper tonight. phony investigative reporting about ayers reveals that obama worked with ayers...to fund inner city schools. what an outrage. getting education for those little black kids. so unamerican.

Keith Olbermann's "Special Comment:"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/06/olberm...

This time he's gunning for Palin. This one's right up there with his Special Comment to Hillary Clinton during the primaries...

Robert Reich on the current situtation: http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2008/10/meltdow...

Please make this an ad!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eu9Z2hXky0

Wow, take a look at the polls:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/la...

And so it begins.....

HuffPo: Paulson Hires Former Goldman Sachs Exec to Head $700 Billion Bailout

Sepia, you knew this was coming.

Fox gets to guard Henhouse with Congress' blessing and using our tax dollars to do it.

An Ed Schultz Email:

10/6/2008

FROM BIG EDDIE:
Sunday night I was told by Capitol Hill insiders the polling after Tuesdays
debate will determine McCains next shift in resources. McCain will trim operations
in Minnesota this week and may be out of the state by the end of the week.
Obama has opened a solid double digit lead in the Gopher state. Some McCain insiders
feel the state is already lost coupled by the fact that Al Franken is now leading
Senator Norm Coleman.

Sources with knowledge of the campaign are telling me this will be a crucial week for McCain.
All Minnesota efforts will be reallocated to Ohio, Florida and possibly Virginia.

The McCain camp is now expecting the 527's to attack Obama on character in an
attempt to shift the conversation and focus off the economy. One source told me
tonight "We are definitely in need of a game changer"

Isn't this the second or third state he's conceeded to Obama in the past week? He pulled out of Michigan and another battleground state I can't remember.

Michigan only....watch 4 Pennsylvania

Good, they need to kick him out of the keystone state. At least Field Negro is starting to think that's the next state he'll concede.

I think I heard murmurings about him conceding - or closing up campaign headquarters in another state.

@ Jack and Jill:

I love the photos you guys post on the daily Open Threads. One of my faves is the one of Obama with the caption "Everyone chill the **** out. I got this."

With Election Day so close and McCain employing the kitchen sink strategy, I think it would be a good one to see ever so often. Just a thought...

Outdated, Arcane Laws Disenfranchising Voters in Seattle
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/patty-cogen/outda...

This is how the Republicans treat the troops:

Frank St. Pierre, of Anaconda, fought in World War II. He is one of the most decorated living veterans in America. And yet, on Wednesday, my party — the Montana Republican Party — tried to invalidate his voter registration because he lives in a county with a lot of Democrats. Incredible as this may sound to you, it is the truth...

A significant number of the 6,000 voters targeted were servicemen, including Kevin Furey, a former state legislator from Missoula who left the legislature to serve in Iraq; Cindie Kalan-Green, who is also serving in Iraq; and Mathew Robison, who I am told has been deployed to Fort Drum.

Many were college students and elderly people. For example, Babe Aspholm, of Anaconda, an elderly man, simply moved across town from his house to a senior living center. The Republicans tried to void his registration. Tom Detonacour, a policeman from Deer Lodge County who simply bought a house in another county, also got targeted.

But worst of all is the legendary Frank St. Pierre, 86, also of Anaconda, who helped save thousands of allied troops at Dunkirk in World War II and has 10 Medals of Honor. St. Pierre, too, moved from one end of town to the other, and the Republicans tried to void his and his wife's registrations. I have a copy of the signed affidavits from the Republicans, declaring that Frank and Marilyn St. Pierre's voter registrations must be purged. An utter disgrace.


http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/6/145...

Why any veteran supports the republican party is beyond me.I am a veteran and for the last 8 years all I have seen is reTHUGS gut veteran programs send them in unwinnable wars and not once ask the country for shared sacrifice.

Obama called a terrorist in front of erratic McCain
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvXf9AUHTqM

While his running mate stumps in Florida, someone yells..."kill him" from the audience.

"Now it turns out, one of his earliest supporters is a man named Bill Ayers," Palin said.

"Boooo!" said the crowd.

"And, according to the New York Times, he was a domestic terrorist and part of a group that, quote, 'launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and our U.S. Capitol,'" she continued.

"Boooo!" the crowd repeated.

"Kill him!" proposed one man in the audience.

I don't know what to say anymore...I just don't

donate....please

that "kill him", according to what you have written in your post, seems to be referring to ayers. i didn't hear this directly, so i'm only going by what you've written...the logical sequence of things...

i don't think it's wise to fan those kinds of flames when things are already tense enough as it is. i cannot look at that--as written--and jump to the most horrible conclusion possible. the person doesn't seem to have been referring to barack, so why take it there?

I want to know why the Secret Service did nothing to this person. A man in New Orleans tells Cheney "to go f**k himself" and he is arrested. A man somewhere else tells Cheney he disagrees with his policies and is arrested. Someone calls to kill a potential president, and all there is are crickets??

I hope Obama directly confronts McCain with these smears at the debate and ask him does he believe he is a terrorist and does he believe he runs around with terrorist. I want McCain called on it and put on the spot on national TV. Let's see what honor this old grumpy man really does have. Call him out on this BS!!

What do you expect? That's the whole point of their attacks.

Notice that folks took the comment as comedy.

I told you that we'll see pictures of him in Kenyan garb interspersed with pictures of al-Quaeda just before the November 4.

Remember how Hillary also dropped those fearmongering ads the weekend before the Tuesday primaries?

McCain's a big old copycat.

Out of ideas. Out of gas. Out of time.

And Out of Luck, Craig.

The throes of a dying candidate.

Is this a comedy routine?....

Boss Is Not Amused After Columnist’s Humor Brings a Retort From Fox News
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/06/business/medi...

Ms. Mallick, Mr. Carlin wrote, was unable to present evidence to support her suggestion that that Republican men were deficient sexually or that Ms. Palin’s supporters were “white trash.”

NO WEAPON, NO MCCAIN, NO PALLIN FORMED AGAINST OBAMA WILL WORK!

Watch TODAYS Signs from the Lord-- It CAN Get Worse. The Lord wants racist people in this country to ignore Obama's skin color and elect him fairly; but if He must, He will put them in a position where Obama's skin color won't be the main issue, THEIR PLIGHT TO SURVIVE WILL. If Obama's skin-color TRUMPS the failing economy then we are in deep trouble in this land. McCain is staking his presidency on skin color though.



(1) CLEARWATER, Fla. - Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin expanded her attack on Democrat Barack Obama's character Monday to include his relationship with an incendiary former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, as well as his ties to 1960s-era radical Bill Ayers.



(2) NEW YORK - Wall Street suffered through another traumatic session Monday, with the Dow Jones industrials plunging as much as 800 points and setting a new record for a one-day point drop as investors despaired that the credit crisis would take a heavy toll around the world. The Dow also fell below 10,000 for the first time since 2004, and all the major indexes fell more than 7 percent.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/20...

McCain: We know that Obama got $200 million from shady sources and we demand to know who those shady sources are. Cuz ain't no way that boy could raise $450 million dollars the right way, ain't no way.

I am not shady and I have donated about $175. John McCain and everyone who supports his immoral, bankrupt campaign can kiss where the sun dont shine.

At this point nothing surprises me. For all we know, Repubs may be making these donations in order to cast suspicion on him; he will return the donations after all and they know that!

McCain's people will probably see "Kareen Abdul Jabaar" on the donor list and say "AHA! Thar goes a terr'ist!"


Seriously, does the McCain campaign not know how many black people born in the 60s and 70s (and even 80s) have Arabic names? And I'd be willing to bet more than one of them has donated to Obama. Dang, if people with Arabic names are "suspect" then a whole lot of black people are suspect. Well, we're suspect anyway, but you know...

As usual, Town, you are on point.

rikyrah: HuffPost is ALL OVER IT with headlines/articles!!!

Sorry I can't post now! Whew!

If there is anything left when I return - I'll do some posting! :>) :>)

I can't even look at McCain right now. The markets were down 800 less then a half hour ago and McCain is giving a stump speech about Obama being a liar, withholding information about his past, not answering any questions and never acomplishing in Congress. "Who is Barack Obama? No one knows." McCain says, and continues that whenever you ask Obama questions about his past he gets upset and wants to "take of the gloves".

Oh the spin. It's making me dizzy.

I can't wait for the debate.

my family and i went to va. to canvas and register voters this past weekend. lots of positive energy and people in the obama office. survey usa has him up by TEN today. va. is the bellwether. mccain is going to lose.

andy: CONGRATULATIONS!

I was just about to post this from HuffPost:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/06/obama-...
Obama Up 10 In Virginia According To New Polls

Whooo! Hoo!!

Sorry if a repeat: we can assume that Obama is winning Georgia right now given early voting turnout rates. With more hard hard work in the next four weeks, it's not impossible to imagine Georgia flipping blue this year -- something that was UNIMAGINABLE months ago.

Georgia is (technically) my home state and we know the field directors there so BIG UPS to the campaign. And any of you who live there or have relatives: TODAY IS THE __LAST__ DAY TO REGISTER TO VOTE IN GEORGIA!!! GET THE VOTE OUT!

Obama Remarks: See You Tues Night, John McCain.
Obviously we woke up this morning and saw the markets are still in turmoil.

Not only are we seeing the stock market go down but there is still great danger of the credit markets not responding and the contagion is spreading to all parts of the globe. Europe is having some of the same problems....It is a reminder that the rescue package that was passed last week is not the end of our efforts to deal with the economy, it’s just the beginning. I think it is very important for Secretary Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke to move swiftly and try to restore confidence as quickly as possible, and effectuate the plans based on the authority that has been given to them by Congress.

I think it is still critical for us to move forward on an economic stimulus package that can provide people with some relief from high gas prices, food prices, help state and local governments maintain their payrolls. I think we have to extend unemployment insurance after the statistics showing that 159,000 additional jobs were lost just last month. We’re going to have to then, move on an aggressive plan to deal with some of the underlying structural problems in the economy including the housing market.

Now Sen. McCain and I have a debate tomorrow and obviously the American people are going to be anxious to hear from one of the two people that is going to be the next president and responsible for dealing with these economic problems and hear what their plans are. I was a little surprised over the last couple of days to her Sen. McCain say, or Sen. McCain’s campaign say, that we want to turn the page on the discussion of the economy and a member of Sen. McCain’s campaign saying today that if we keep talking about the economic crisis we lose. I’ve got news for the McCain campaign, the American people are losing right now, they’re losing their jobs, they’re losing their health care, they’re losing their homes, they’re losing their savings.

I can not imagine anything more important to talk about than the economic crisis and the notion that we’d want to brush that aside and engage in the usual political shenanigans and scare tactics that have come to characterize too many political campaigns, I think is not what the American people are looking for. So I’m going to keep on talking about the economy, I’m going to keep on talking about what we can do to strengthen the middle class and get our credit markets to settle down. I have confidence that we can solve this problem but we’re not going to solve it with business as usual. We need fundamental change and that’s why I’m running for president.

dj: I just watched this! Thanks for "bringin' it"! :>)

Is it more or does the Obama Campaign NEVER seem prepared for an assault it knows is coming? Short of announcing it on a blimp during the last Super Bowl, we all knew if McCain was down in October, he would launch a full throttle "Ayers" attack on Senator Obama, and yet--AGAIN--Team Obama doesn't have an effective response.

Yes, start with the FACT that Senator Obama was only eight years old when Ayers committed his crimes. Generally, I think most fair minded people would agree that Senator Obama should not have to account or atone for anyone elses' behavior. However, that doesn't anser the question why would Senator Obama and his wife associate with someone, even decades ago, who committed such crimes. That said, it's important that Senator Obama paint Ayers as endemic of 60's and that since then most have become mainstream. You got Tom Hayedn, Bobby Rush and Jerry Rubin just to name a few. Moreover, it's important to highlight the FACT that many conservative politicians, business people and institutions treated Ayers as a rehabilitated figure. He is a tenured professor at one of the more prestigious schools in the country. The boards on which he and Obama sat included Republicans. He sits on a board at South Carolina University, which no one would accuse of being a radical or Liberal institution.

Lastly, what the hell has the DNC opposition research team been doing in AK. Salmon fishing? Just the little information we know so far is sufficient to raise questions about Palin and her husband, including the Jews for Jesus ministries that she sat through. More importantly, her fuckin' husband is a secessionist. You don't more unpatriotic than that! Why the hell are they not bringing this up?

The best way to block an attack is to counterattack. If you're forced to defend, the message goes out twice -- once by the attacker, a second time by the defense. By attacking back on Keating, Obama is at least canceling out the attack. And the timing in impeccable: the message on Keating resonates much more strongly in this economic climate than this so-called terrorist association given (thank God) no recent terrorist attacks. (Unless McCain knows something we don't about the next few weeks).

NMP - look within your own family and tell me someone didn't make bad choice at some point in their lives. Smoked weed, did drugs, was arrested, drove while drunk, beat their significan other, child abuse, robbed somebody, lied, cheated, stole etc? Are you saying you disowned them? So I don't know what you are insinuating about Barack and Michelle but it smells like bullshit to me.

I believe Obama's campaign is doing the right things and we are not going to fall for the nonsense. Not this time.

smells pretty foul to me too.

here is my point. Everyone knows someone who made a bad decision at some point in their life. Doesn't mean you agree with it their actions so why would we hold you accountable for it?

bottom line - this is nonsense and I am sick of it.

I don't understand, NMP. Your comment confuses me.

You see the Obama campaign as unprepared?

Seriously?

When they rolled out the keatingeconomics.com site and documentary in response? When they obviously had that in waiting for a moment like this?

When they waited for McCain to open this door and took the opportunity to walk through it because basically McCain invited them?

Do you not see that that IS a real response and how it is a million times better than any focused "defense" re Ayers?

The fight is not over defending this one thing.

It is about what the topic of the discussion from here to Nov 4 actually is.

Senator Obama's campaign says: it's the economy.

Senator Obama's campaign says: McCain's people said publicly that they don't want to talk about the economy anymore, and so let's look at why. And we all know Keating is only one piece of the larger puzzle here. They have a website called McLobbyist.com, check that out too.

I'm baffled -- I hope I am not understanding your comment.

I am truly baffled.

I am not a political strategist at all (it's not how I think) -- but even I can see that what they have done and are doing is strategically brilliant.

Michelle: STRATEGICALLY BRILLIANT!! ABSOLUTELY!!!

IFFF McAncient hadn't STARTED Some, - - There wouldn't be some.

NOT! Actually, this K-5 incident WAS going to be involved in this election process.

But, McAncient "STARTED SOME!!" :>)

obama is up by ten in va.
polls show that both debates were wins with the swing voters.
i figure obama knows what he is doing. have a little faith. give the man the credit he deserves. he beat hillary and now he is beating mccain. the guy has his shit together.

The Keating 5 documentary appears to have been in the works for some time. It's not something that could have been whipped up over the past week. Obama knew McCain would do this which is why he had the video produced in advance and ready to go when McCain tipped his hand.

Town! Town! Town! virtual 'dap'!!! TRUTH!!! :>) :>)

The attack was inevitable but the Obama campaign responded by talking about the Keating 5 which now looks like it took off because of the McCain campaign's response.

30 Lies Refuted About Ayers and Obama

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-k-wilson/30-...

Anyone watching the Lehman hearings? The CEO is getting a congressional smack down.

From HuffPo:

Richard S. Fuld Jr., chief executive officer of Lehman Brothers, declared to the committee "I take full responsibility for the decisions that I made and for the actions that I took." He defended his actions as "prudent and appropriate" based on information he had at the time.

"I feel horrible about what happened," he said.

Waxman questioned Fuld on whether it was true he took home some $480 million in compensation since 2000, and asked: "Is that fair?"

Fuld took off his glasses, held them, and looked uncomfortable. He said his compensation was not quite that much.

"We had a compensation committee that spent a tremendous amount of time making sure that the interests of the executives and the employees were aligned with shareholders," he said. Fuld said he took home over $300 million in those years _ some $60 million in cash compensation.

Only $300M? Well now I feel bad for him. In that case take my tax dollars, please.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/06/lehman...

Speaking of strange...

A move to create our 51st State -

(10-05) 04:00 PDT Yreka, Siskiyou County -- Some folks around here think the economic sky is falling and state lawmakers in Sacramento and Salem are ignoring their constituents in the hinterlands.

Guess the time is ripe to create a whole new state.

That's the thinking up here along the border between California and Oregon, where 12 sparsely populated, thickly forested counties in both states want to break away and generate the 51st star on the nation's flag - the state of Jefferson.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/...

I would like NYC to secede (?) from New York state. Please sign my petition.

Here's the Keating Economics video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g72BuIvMbWY

Just watched the video (only 13 minutes, folks.)

Clearly presents the Keating 5 issue.
Clearly shows IN PRINT that McCain lacks good judgment on yet another major issue, the economy.
Clearly shows his political bedfellows are bad for working people.

No matter what they want to say about Obama's associations, the bigger issue is McCain's FRIENDS.

Two interesting articles on Barack.
1-Barack and James Baldwin
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21930?utm_mediu...

2-Race Will survive Barack Obama
http://chronicle.com/free/v55/i07/07b00601.htm?...

Michelle Obama - "Perennially dissatisfied." Her hatred of “White America” consumed her early on, and that hatred is now ingrained on her face and even in her speech.

Pssst...Keating Five...pass it on...

now ingrained on her face

Well well well.

Someone just got a little screamingly obvious in their ongoing displays of racism.

To be expected from this particular troll.

troll troll troll

troll troll troll

lol.

i love when white people try to take the HIGH ROAD on racism. it smacks of privilege and racial FEAR.

STFU Karmi

evita: Co-signing!! :>)

"Whycome" Karmi believes that he/she can SEE HATRED on Mrs. Obama's face?? That's a BOLD statement when WE can SEE his/her RACISM in his/her posts!! :>) :>)

Funny how that works -huh?? :>)

Now where's my RATE DOWN ARROW? :>) :>) That would be - NEGATIVE 351! and LOWERING!! :>)

How's that "whitey" tape working for you?

Yeah, it's been awhile since I got my Rick Astley fix.

OMG - if we're going to talk about spouses, let's talk about the Alaskan secessionist group.

My apologies everyone. I hit the send button accidentally before cleaning up my post.

no problem

Keating Economics is up!

Also, Palin claims she's just trying to help Tina Fey out with her career:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/06/palin-...

Fey was a millionaire before anyone heard of Caribou Barbie

I just found out about this new book on John McCain. This brings to mind that we should put all John McCain's "guilt by association" items in one place. The below is at theperfectvillain.com website.

Gary Chafetz
is a liberal Boston journalist who set out to chronicle the scandal involving conservative gun-for-hire and super-lobbyist, Jack Abramoff. Instead he uncovered a Shakespearean tragedy of deceit, betrayal and political vendetta in which the true villains are Presidential aspirant John McCain, the Washington Post newspaper and the U.S. Department of Justice--all of whom participated in the railroading of an innocent man. Chafetz benefited from exclusive and unconditional access to the jailed Abramoff and to many never-before-released documents. The blizzard of stories originating from the Washington political machine painted Abramoff as an implausibly greedy lobbyist who cheated Indian tribes, bribed politicians and corrupted the political process--a fascinating tale but, ultimately, untrue. The true story, as Chafetz recounts in The Perfect Villain, is even more riveting and compelling.



"The blizzard of stories originating from the Washington political machine painted Abramoff as an implausibly greedy lobbyist who cheated Indian tribes, bribed politicians and corrupted the political process--a fascinating tale but, ultimately, untrue."


Shop.MTV.com

Want an autographed copy?
Click here for details



Questions & Answers

Q WHAT IS THE PURPOSE/DISTINCTIVENESS OF THE BOOK AND WHY DO YOU FEEL PEOPLE NEED TO READ IT?
A What is surprising about the Abramoff corruption scandal is that everybody, including me at first, got this story completely wrong. We swallowed this epic narrative hook, line, and sinker. We believed everything we read in the press about this allegedly indelibly evil man. Because of the almost suffocating accumulation of “incontrovertible” evidence, the public’s natural skepticism ended up being suffocated as well. As a liberal writing about an arch conservative, I tried my best, probably inadequately, not to allow my political or social positions to color my judgment. I think a lot of what is written is too polemic, subjective, and tendentious. And there are plenty of readers who enjoy this kind of writing. Authors like Corsi, Frank, Coulter, and Franken do extremely well. This may sound prosaic, but I wanted to look at the facts and nothing but the facts. Even though the public is intrinsically susceptible to epic narratives and myths, I firmly believe that in its heart of hearts—the public is really interested in the unvarnished truth. Of course, we can debate what “truth” really is. But the unvarnished truth involves an honest attempt to conduct a careful and objective examination of the facts, documents, and interviews with those with intimate knowledge of the subject. And in conducting that investigation, nothing should be shaded, colored, or omitted. The good, bad, and ugly must get thrown into the mix, including information that undermines or contradicts one’s thesis. This means that the “truth” almost always ends up rather fuzzy, gray, difficult to discern, even at times out of focus. Though we seem to yearn for clear-cut, black-and-white heroes and villains, the truth is that the only place they can be found is in fiction, usually bad fiction.


Q IN THIS BOOK YOU MAKE SOME STRONG ACCUSATIONS AS TO THE VERACITY, IF NOT DUPLICITY, OF JOHN MCCAIN'S INVESTIGATION OF JACK ABRAMOFF AND INDIAN GAMING. WHAT DO YOU THINK ARE THE MOST GLARING EXAMPLES OF THIS?
A First of all, I want to say I have no animus toward John McCain. In many ways, I think he’s a pretty cool guy, because he has bucked the Republican Party line and has taken positions that seem based on what is fair, true, and honest. In other words, his conscience has seemed to dictate his position, not what’s politically correct for Republicans. For example, McCain has really angered conservative Republicans by sponsoring campaign finance reform, opposing President George W. Bush’s tax cuts, disagreeing with drilling in the Arctic wilderness, opposing a constitutional amendment banning abortion, expressing great concern over American use of torture after 9-11, and so forth. I have to respect McCain for his independence. Second of all, I hope that the four documents in my book of interviews McCain apparently gave during his captivity in North Vietnam—published in Hanoi and Havana—do not do him much damage. He exaggerated a little. But they do contradict his repeated statements in his numerous autobiographies, in which he claimed he gave the enemy virtually no military and personal information. Those inconsistencies, however, are unsettling, because McCain has never called the release of his POW records. If he did release them or was pressured into releasing his POW records—held by the Pentagon, the CIA, Russia’s FSB, and the North Vietnamese—I hope they do not show that he has lied repeatedly for many decades about his behavior and activities as a prisoner of war. The reason is that I do not want to see the humiliation or destruction of anyone. I don’t want to do—or see done—to McCain what he did to Abramoff. I don’t want to see McCain denounced, humiliated, and vilified. I wish no such pain and humiliation on anyone, his family, his friends, and supporters. I think we have become a culture that shows virtually no compassion, mercy, or forgiveness. That said, if McCain has lied about what he did during his captivity or if he is hiding something questionable, unacceptable, or even treasonous during his captivity, then the American electorate needs to be informed, so that voters can make a fully informed decision about whom to vote for president, in what may be the most important presidential election for many years, perhaps ever.

As for his Senate Indian Affairs Report, McCain has characterized it as “fair, factual, and neutral.” Nothing could be further from the truth. This too is unsettling. The report is clearly and incontrovertibly mendacious. The report seems to go out of its way to twist, distort, and omit key information about Abramoff and his lobbying activities that show he was perhaps the best lobbyist who ever lived. Abramoff provided financial benefits for his tribal clients far, far in excess of his high fees. If you want the best, you’ve got to pay for it. Abramoff’s tribal clients were not unsophisticated people who had just fallen off the turnip truck. They operated Las-Vegas style casinos that enjoyed revenues that in some cases approached $500 million a year. Not only could they afford to hire the very best lobbyist, they also hired the very best lawyers and accountants, who, in turn, vetted every contract with Abramoff. And then his tribal clients continued to hire Abramoff over and over, in some cases for nearly a decade, because they were so pleased with the results he was able to produce. Of course, McCain omits this or claims that Abramoff was somehow able to bamboozle his poor gullible clients into paying him outrageous fees and creating threats to his tribes’ casino revenue.

So why did his tribal clients turn against Abramoff if he was such a great lobbyist? It was good business. By turning against Abramoff, the tribes could please McCain—the powerful chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee and possible presidential aspirant—but they could sue Abramoff’s former employers and win huge settlements. Abramoff’s former employers, two large and very successful law firms, did not want their e-mail traffic made public (it would destroy their law practice), so they quickly settled with the “aggrieved” tribes. In other words, Abramoff’s former tribal clients ended up getting all the extraordinary benefits of his lobbying services for free (or at a huge discount.) These tribes were hardly unsophisticated. They were as shrewd as they come.


Q AFTER CONDUCTING THREE YEARS OF RESEARCH INTO THE MCCAIN REPORT IN WHICH YOU FOUND MCCAIN POSSIBLY IGNORED SIGNIFICANT EVIDENCE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN EXCULPATORY TO ABRAMOFF, DO YOU THINK JOHN MCCAIN IS AN HONEST MAN? IF NOT, WHY?
A Well, McCain takes the credit for bringing Abramoff down and therefore should accept the blame for “authoring” a report which is essentially a lie. Anyone who drills down into this report will come to the conclusion that this report is hardly “fair, accurate, and neutral.” My guess is that McCain never actually read the report. He is a busy guy. His schedule is very tight. Hundreds of people are vying for his attention. Except for the executive summary, I doubt he has much time to read a 373-page report, which is not exactly a page turner. And he certainly didn’t research and write it. His staff did it all. If McCain were truly a straight-express talker, if McCain were gutsy enough to ignore his focus-grouped advisors and politically savvy consultants, here’s what he should say. “Look, I told the staff to nail this guy, because I thought he was a really bad. And in trying to satisfy me, the staff went overboard and wrote a report that I now realize was irresponsible and downright false. I want to apologize directly to Jack Abramoff for the harm I have caused him and I now realize that his imprisonment may have been a gross miscarriage of justice. Indeed, to compensate for the pain and suffering that I am for the most part responsible for, I call upon President Bush to pardon Abramoff. If I am elected president, as an act of contrition, I will pardon Abramoff on my first day in office. If Barack Obama is elected president, I call on him to pardon Abramoff immediately.


Q YOU ALSO LEVEL CHARGES THAT THEN-WASHINGTON POST REPORTER SUE SCHMIDT ENGAGED IN POSSIBLY WILLFULLY DISHONEST REPORTING ON THE ABRAMOFF SCANDAL AND POSSIBLY COLLUDED WITH JOHN MCCAIN'S OFFICE TO DRIVE THIS STORY. WHAT ARE THREE EXAMPLES OF HOW YOU FEEL MRS. SCHMIDT MISLEAD THE PUBLIC?
A Well, I am sorry to have to do this, but the facts are the facts. The Washington Post’s earlier stories were seemingly fair. They were actually misleading only because its reporters were not experts in the arcana of Indian Country, particularly in the complex context of gaming. Therefore, the stories painted a black-and-white picture of Abramoff that simply wasn’t accurate. If I had been writing those stories at that time, I would have written them the same way, but probably not as well. But Susan Schmidt’s September 26, 2004 clearly crossed the line. She claimed that Abramoff had deliberately worked to shut down an Indian casino in the westernmost part of Texas. Located in El Paso, that tribal casino belonged to the Tiguas. First of all, Schmidt failed to mention something very important. She omitted from her story that there was a bill pending in the Texas legislature with overwhelming support that would have allowed two illegal Indian tribe casinos in Texas to remain open, which were about to be shut down by the state attorney general. Abramoff somehow managed to stop the legislation. Schmidt claimed that Abramoff secretly took this action for the sole reason of shutting down the Tigua’s casino, so he could approach the tribe and promise them to get their casino re-opened. But the fact is that the legislation that Abramoff stopped would have shut down not one, but two tribal casinos in Texas. One of them did belong to the Tigua in El Paso; but the second one belonged to a tribe in easternmost Texas, west of Houston and not far from the Texas-Louisiana border. Schmidt did mention that there were two Indian tribes, which meant that she knew there was a second tribe, but she never mentioned the name of that second tribe—the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas. Also, Schmidt never mentioned in her story that Abramoff’s biggest tribal client operated a casino just on the other side of the Texas border in Louisiana, whose clientele came from the Houston area. Therefore, she never mentioned that if the second Indian tribal casino—the one belonging to the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas—had ever opened its casino, it would have killed his client’s casino business. Was it possible that Abramoff stopped that legislation—not to shut down the Tigua casino—but to shut down the tribal casino that was threatening his client? The answer is simple. Of course. From her previous Abramoff stories, she clearly knew of the existence of Abramoff’s tribal client in Louisiana. But the question is did she know of the existence of the tribal casino in easternmost Texas whose name was the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas? Apparently, she did. She had contributed to a story, written by Thomas Edsall, that would published on August 30, three weeks before her devastating September 26th story, in which it was clearly stated that the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas was a threat to Abramoff’s tribal client in Louisiana. Schmidt can’t claim that she did not know there was another tribal casino that was going to be shut down thanks to Abramoff’s efforts, because she clearly states in her September 26th story that “two Indian casinos” had been shut down. One of those tribes was the Tigua. The second one was the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas. So Schmidt clearly knew that there were two tribes, but did not mention the name of the second tribe, which she must have or should have known was the tribe threatening his Louisiana client.

In fact, e-mails in McCain’s possession show that Abramoff was hired by his Louisiana client in March 2001 specifically to kill the ambitions of the Alabama-Coushatta tribe of Texas to open a Las-Vegas style casino west of Houston. Abramoff had no interest in the Tigua tribal casino nearly 1000 miles away from his Louisiana client. And Abramoff did not express any interest whatsoever in persuading the Tigua to hire him until February 2002, nearly a year after his client hired him to shut down its nearby competitor. Yet Schmidt insisted that Abramoff had deliberately lobbied to shut down only the Tigua’s casino specifically so he could underhandedly get that tribe to hire him for millions of dollars to get its casino reopened. Schmidt’s story sounded so incredibly villainous. Two days later, the Post condemned Abramoff and praised Schmidt’s reporting. But there was a problem. The story wasn’t true. Nonetheless, Schmidt’s Tigua fairytale story had a devastating effect on Abramoff, who appeared the morning after the Post ran its scathing editorial, under subpoena and under oath in front of McCain and his Indian Affairs Committee. The omission of the name of the second tribe was egregious.

All of this may sound a bit complex, but when you study the facts and circumstances, it is hard not to agree that the Post should be censured for running this story.


Q DID YOU MAKE A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO REACH MRS. SCHMIDT AND SENATOR MCCAIN FOR COMMENT IN THIS BOOK?

A Yes, I telephoned and spoke to her at the Washington D.C. office of the Wall Street Journal. (She no longer works for The Washington Post.) She declined to answer any questions. Next, I sent her 19 questions by e-mail. I gave her 36 hours to respond. She did not respond. I called The Washington Post and left a voice mail for the editor in chief, Len Downie. His assistant called me back and told me that Mr. Downie requested that I e-mail him questions. I sent Mr. Downie 20 questions. Downie’s response was generic. He couldn’t recall the story about the Tigua and asserted that his newspaper’s Abramoff stories have held up very well.

As for Sen. McCain, shortly after the Senate Indian Affairs Committee report was issued on June 22, 2006, I called the committee’s office. I requested an interview with McCain. I also requested an interview with Pablo Carillo, the report’s chief investigator. I received a call back that McCain was too busy to grant an interview. I received no response from Carillo. In June 2008, I sent an e-mail to the press office of McCain’s presidential campaign with a series of specific questions about his Senate Indian Affairs Report. I never received a response.


Q DO YOU THINK MS. SCHMIDT AND THE WASHINGTON POST SHOULD HAVE TO RETURN THE PULITZER PRIZE WON BY MS. SCHMIDT FOR HER REPORTING IF IN FACT THE PULITZER COMMITTEE DECIDES THAT SHE MAY HAVE MANUFACTURED HER SEPTEMBER 26, 2006 STORY IN THE ABRAMOFF MATTER?
A Yes, I do. That story is a shameful one. The omission of the second tribe’s identity was egregious. Including it would have killed the story. If Susan Schmidt claims that she never read the August 30, 2004 story, to which her name is attached as a contributor, then maybe she can claim that she was unaware the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas was a threat to Abramoff’s client, the Louisiana Coushatta. But that claim would stretch credulity. I call it the Tigua fairytale story. It had a devastating effect. It was clearly a false, possibly intentionally false, story. If you’ve been an exemplary babysitter for 20 years, but on one occasion you molest a child you’re caring for, you go to prison. If you’ve been the perfect priest for the past 30 years, but on one occasion you molested a nine-year-old altar boy, you are defrocked, your church is sued for millions, and you go to prison. The Washington Post should lose the Pulitzer Prize it won for breaking the so-called Abramoff corruption scandal story. The Pulitzer Prize committee should rescind it, or the Washington Post should do the classy thing and return it voluntarily and issue an apology to Mr. Abramoff.


Q YOU RAISE POSSIBLE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VERACITY OF SENATOR MCCAIN'S EXPLANATIONS OF HIS P.O.W SERVICE. WHAT ARE THEY AND WHY ARE THEY RELEVANT TO THE OVERALL TOPIC?
A I was struck by the fact that McCain withheld almost 99% of the Abramoff documents he subpoenaed. It made me very suspicious that he didn’t want us to see most of the material. There could be only one explanation. He didn’t want us to see all the information because he was trying to hide something: the evidence didn’t support his conclusions. Otherwise, he should have been happy to release all the documents. It appeared that this may be a pattern in McCain’s character, because he had refused to release his POW records as well. Why not? Was he also trying to hide something about his activities during his 5 ½ year stay in Hanoi? In fact, I realized that the only information about his POW days was what he had told us. There had been no independent accounts. He was the sole source. And we believed everything he said. We believed everything he said about Abramoff in his Senate Indian Affairs Report and that proved to be totally false. What about what McCain said about his days as a POW during the Vietnam War?


Q WHAT ARE YOUR POLITICS? WHAT PROMPTED YOU TO WRITE THIS BOOK?
A I’m a liberal, a registered independent, but I’ve never voted Republican. However, I’ve never contributed—money or time—to any political campaign. My interest in the Abramoff story was driven by curiosity. I wondered how anyone could possibly be so evil. Then it dawned on me that this was not possible. Finally, I realized that there was something profoundly wrong with this story and I was curious to find out what it was. I don’t care for Abramoff’s politics and disagree, but I worked very hard at not allowing my political leanings to color or to interfere with how I weighed and sifted the evidence. This is an apolitical book. The conclusions are apolitical. Despite his politics, Abramoff is a decent guy, who doesn’t deserve to be in prison.


Q YOU HAD GENERALLY UNFETTERED ACCESS TO ABRAMOFF BEFORE AND AFTER HE WENT TO PRISON. WHAT DID YOU THINK OF HIM WHEN YOU STARTED THE BOOK AND WHAT DO YOU THINK OF HIM NOW?
A I was curious to meet this infamous celebrity. From the day I met him until the present, I have found him a nice guy, not a monster. He’s well spoken, very smart, funny, self-effacing, and sensitive. The more I got to know him, the more I liked him. Nevertheless, I also kept reminding myself that my first obligation was to the reader, not to Abramoff. And I repeatedly told Abramoff that. I couldn’t sugarcoat anything. I had to tell the reader the absolute truth—to the best of my ability—about this scandal and this man. I had access to all the publically available documents, as well as much that had never been released to the public. And I had extensive access to the central protagonist in this drama. He could now defend himself and I could challenge whatever he said. It gave me an opportunity to get to the bottom of this complex story and I think I did.


Q DO YOU BELIEVE JACK ABRAMOFF SHOULD BE IN PRISON?

A No, I do not. Otherwise, all of the other 35,000 lobbyists should be also be in the prison cell next to him.


Q DO YOU BELIEVE THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ACTED IN AN HONORABLE MANNER IN THE ABRAMOFF CASE?
A No, I do not. I think the Justice Department line prosecutors knew that they would have had a difficulty making their case before a jury. If Abramoff had been allowed to present supporting evidence, the jury would have received sufficient information—which the public never did—that the charges against Abramoff were weak. The jury would have realized that the world Abramoff operated in was extremely complex and that what he was doing was quite common among lobbyists from the beginning of time. The jury would have learned that virtually every political candidate and elected official operates essentially the same way. Otherwise, they would neither win nor continue to hold public office. Abramoff’s “crime” was that he did it better than anyone else.


Q DO YOU BELIEVE MR. ABRAMOFF WAS RAILROADED? IF SO, DO YOU BELIEVE THERE SHOULD BE NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS?
A It’s too late for public hearings. He’s confessed and been convicted, because I believe he had no choice but to do so. He didn’t want to risk 12 years in prison, so he took the risk-averse approach. He pleaded guilty and agreed to cooperate, hoping to receive a much-reduced sentence. I think the only way for this injustice to be corrected is with a presidential pardon.


Q HOW DID YOU EVER MANAGE TO GET BOTH ABRAMOFF AND ADAM KIDAN TO TALK TO YOU?
A A. Pure luck.

Book Reviews
It Ain´t Necessarily So (Amazon Review)
By Gracchus "Sandaler" (Massachusetts)
September 17, 2008

A few years ago, Gary Chafetz wrote a book on a notorious malpractice case in which he countered the easy, even lazy, journalistic narrative that dominated the headlines. The story had it that an elite Harvard psychotherapist led an unfortunate, confused working-class medical student to despair and suicide. Chafetz' research uncovered a quite different, and more plausible, story that re-focused he narrative and largely exonerated the psychotherapist from the most serious charges leveled against her.
Read The entire review here

Comments
"Besides Abramoff, are there any other targets of the Justice Department that you believe were wrongly or maliciously prosecuted?"
Read More Comments with Answers from the Author

Question the Author:








News Stories
Why Did "Straight-Talk" McCain Lie About Jack Abramoff? (HUFFINGTON POST)
September 16, 2008 | 11:45 AM (EST)
Link to Article

Sen. John McCain, for many, is an appealing presidential candidate, because he seems to have followed his conscience, not Republican Party dogma, on so many issues. These include his support of campaign finance reform, and his opposition to the Bush tax cuts, drilling in the Arctic Wilderness, and a constitutional amendment banning abortion. He touts himself as a "straight talker" whose word can be trusted.

Before launching his probe into Jack Abramoff -- one of the most prominent and powerful Republican lobbyists in Washington -- McCain claimed that he had never heard of or met Abramoff. This claim certainly stretches credulity.
Read The entire article here

Just in Time for Yom Kippur, and Sentencing, Abramoff Paints Himself as Repentant (THE JEWISH DAILY: FORWARD)
By Nathan Guttman
Thu. Sep 11, 2008

Washington - As he serves time in federal prison, a picture is emerging in court documents and in a newly published book of a repentant Jack Abramoff, who is embracing the Jewish notion of "Teshuva" and turning his back on the days of power, money and politics.

At least that is what the once-powerful Republican lobbyist, convicted in a massive corruption investigation in the nation’s capital, would have us believe.
Read The entire article here

Book attacks McCain's Abramoff inquiry (POLITICO.COM)
Written by Mike Harwood
9/8/08 4:56 AM EST

A new book released the day after Sen. John McCain accepted the Republican presidential nomination attacks one of his trademark political successes: his investigation of now-jailed lobbyist Jack Abramoff in 2004 and 2005.

"The Perfect Villain: John McCain and the Demonization of Lobbyist Jack Abramoff," by former Boston Globe freelancer Gary S. Chafetz and put out by small independent publisher Martin and Lawrence press, aggressively puts forth the case that McCain’s investigation into Abramoff wasn’t the high-minded reform crusade he has made it out to be on the campaign trail, but rather was pure political payback.
Read The entire article here

Abramoff: During lobbying probe, McCain withheld and concealed e-mails implicating his own cronies! (AMERICAN POLITICS JOURNAL)
By EAMON JAVERS
Monday, 08 September 2008

September 8, 2008 - New York (apj.us) - Newsrooms in Washington and New York are on alert this evening as a smattering of revelations from Gary S. Chafetz's forthcoming book, "The Perfect Villain: John McCain and the Demonization of Lobbyist Jack Abramoff". have been leaked to political news and progressive Web sites.

According to Politico.com's Eamon Javers:

...The book alleges that McCain withheld the vast majority of emails he confiscated during the [2004] inquiry [into the money trail left by Abramoff's lobbying on behalf of Indian tribes], many of which could be exculpatory to the former lobbyist or damaging to McCain allies.
Read The entire article here

Book rips McCain's probe of Abramoff (UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL)
Published: Sept. 8, 2008 at 9:33 AM

WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 (UPI) -- John McCain's investigation into disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff wasn't for political reform but political payback, a book about the probe argues.

"The Perfect Villain: John McCain and the Demonization of Lobbyist Jack Abramoff," by former Boston Globe freelance writer Gary Chafetz was released Friday, the day after McCain accepted Republican party's presidential nomination, Politico reported Monday.
Read The entire article here

Abramoff Gets Reduced Sentence of Four Years in Prison (THE WASHINGTON POST)
Judge Cites Assistance Ex-Lobbyist Provided In Corruption Probe
By Del Quentin Wilber and Carrie Johnson
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, September 5, 2008; A03

Jack Abramoff, the powerhouse Washington lobbyist who admitted running a wide-ranging corruption scheme that ensnared lawmakers, Capitol Hill aides and government officials, yesterday received a reduced sentence of four years in prison because of his cooperation with federal investigators.

Abramoff, 49, already has served nearly two years for his conviction in a related Florida fraud case. The sentence yesterday by U.S. District Judge Ellen S. Huvelle means that the former Republican lobbyist will likely remain in prison until 2012.
Read The entire article here

Abramoff Gets 4 Years in Corruption Scandal (THE ASSOCIATED PRESS)
By MATT APUZZO - Sep 4, 2008

WASHINGTON (AP) Jack Abramoff, the once powerful lobbyist at the heart of a far-reaching political corruption scandal, was sentenced to four years in prison Thursday by a judge who said the case had shattered the public's confidence in government.

Abramoff, who fought back tears as he declared himself a broken man, appeared crestfallen as the judge handed down a sentence lengthier than prosecutors had sought.
Read The entire article here









Gary Chafetz
is a liberal Boston journalist who set out to chronicle the scandal involving conservative gun-for-hire and super-lobbyist, Jack Abramoff. Instead he uncovered a Shakespearean tragedy of deceit, betrayal and political vendetta in which the true villains are Presidential aspirant John McCain, the Washington Post newspaper and the U.S. Department of Justice--all of whom participated in the railroading of an innocent man. Chafetz benefited from exclusive and unconditional access to the jailed Abramoff and to many never-before-released documents. The blizzard of stories originating from the Washington political machine painted Abramoff as an implausibly greedy lobbyist who cheated Indian tribes, bribed politicians and corrupted the political process--a fascinating tale but, ultimately, untrue. The true story, as Chafetz recounts in The Perfect Villain, is even more riveting and compelling.



"The blizzard of stories originating from the Washington political machine painted Abramoff as an implausibly greedy lobbyist who cheated Indian tribes, bribed politicians and corrupted the political process--a fascinating tale but, ultimately, untrue."

Purchase a copy where you prefer
Amazon.com
BarnesandNoble.com
Target.com
BoonBridgeBooks.com ShopinHK.com

Buy.com
BiggerBooks.com
Blackwell.com
Overstock.com
Shop.MTV.com

Want an autographed copy?
Click here for details



Questions & Answers

Q WHAT IS THE PURPOSE/DISTINCTIVENESS OF THE BOOK AND WHY DO YOU FEEL PEOPLE NEED TO READ IT?
A What is surprising about the Abramoff corruption scandal is that everybody, including me at first, got this story completely wrong. We swallowed this epic narrative hook, line, and sinker. We believed everything we read in the press about this allegedly indelibly evil man. Because of the almost suffocating accumulation of “incontrovertible” evidence, the public’s natural skepticism ended up being suffocated as well. As a liberal writing about an arch conservative, I tried my best, probably inadequately, not to allow my political or social positions to color my judgment. I think a lot of what is written is too polemic, subjective, and tendentious. And there are plenty of readers who enjoy this kind of writing. Authors like Corsi, Frank, Coulter, and Franken do extremely well. This may sound prosaic, but I wanted to look at the facts and nothing but the facts. Even though the public is intrinsically susceptible to epic narratives and myths, I firmly believe that in its heart of hearts—the public is really interested in the unvarnished truth. Of course, we can debate what “truth” really is. But the unvarnished truth involves an honest attempt to conduct a careful and objective examination of the facts, documents, and interviews with those with intimate knowledge of the subject. And in conducting that investigation, nothing should be shaded, colored, or omitted. The good, bad, and ugly must get thrown into the mix, including information that undermines or contradicts one’s thesis. This means that the “truth” almost always ends up rather fuzzy, gray, difficult to discern, even at times out of focus. Though we seem to yearn for clear-cut, black-and-white heroes and villains, the truth is that the only place they can be found is in fiction, usually bad fiction.


Q IN THIS BOOK YOU MAKE SOME STRONG ACCUSATIONS AS TO THE VERACITY, IF NOT DUPLICITY, OF JOHN MCCAIN'S INVESTIGATION OF JACK ABRAMOFF AND INDIAN GAMING. WHAT DO YOU THINK ARE THE MOST GLARING EXAMPLES OF THIS?
A First of all, I want to say I have no animus toward John McCain. In many ways, I think he’s a pretty cool guy, because he has bucked the Republican Party line and has taken positions that seem based on what is fair, true, and honest. In other words, his conscience has seemed to dictate his position, not what’s politically correct for Republicans. For example, McCain has really angered conservative Republicans by sponsoring campaign finance reform, opposing President George W. Bush’s tax cuts, disagreeing with drilling in the Arctic wilderness, opposing a constitutional amendment banning abortion, expressing great concern over American use of torture after 9-11, and so forth. I have to respect McCain for his independence. Second of all, I hope that the four documents in my book of interviews McCain apparently gave during his captivity in North Vietnam—published in Hanoi and Havana—do not do him much damage. He exaggerated a little. But they do contradict his repeated statements in his numerous autobiographies, in which he claimed he gave the enemy virtually no military and personal information. Those inconsistencies, however, are unsettling, because McCain has never called the release of his POW records. If he did release them or was pressured into releasing his POW records—held by the Pentagon, the CIA, Russia’s FSB, and the North Vietnamese—I hope they do not show that he has lied repeatedly for many decades about his behavior and activities as a prisoner of war. The reason is that I do not want to see the humiliation or destruction of anyone. I don’t want to do—or see done—to McCain what he did to Abramoff. I don’t want to see McCain denounced, humiliated, and vilified. I wish no such pain and humiliation on anyone, his family, his friends, and supporters. I think we have become a culture that shows virtually no compassion, mercy, or forgiveness. That said, if McCain has lied about what he did during his captivity or if he is hiding something questionable, unacceptable, or even treasonous during his captivity, then the American electorate needs to be informed, so that voters can make a fully informed decision about whom to vote for president, in what may be the most important presidential election for many years, perhaps ever.

As for his Senate Indian Affairs Report, McCain has characterized it as “fair, factual, and neutral.” Nothing could be further from the truth. This too is unsettling. The report is clearly and incontrovertibly mendacious. The report seems to go out of its way to twist, distort, and omit key information about Abramoff and his lobbying activities that show he was perhaps the best lobbyist who ever lived. Abramoff provided financial benefits for his tribal clients far, far in excess of his high fees. If you want the best, you’ve got to pay for it. Abramoff’s tribal clients were not unsophisticated people who had just fallen off the turnip truck. They operated Las-Vegas style casinos that enjoyed revenues that in some cases approached $500 million a year. Not only could they afford to hire the very best lobbyist, they also hired the very best lawyers and accountants, who, in turn, vetted every contract with Abramoff. And then his tribal clients continued to hire Abramoff over and over, in some cases for nearly a decade, because they were so pleased with the results he was able to produce. Of course, McCain omits this or claims that Abramoff was somehow able to bamboozle his poor gullible clients into paying him outrageous fees and creating threats to his tribes’ casino revenue.

So why did his tribal clients turn against Abramoff if he was such a great lobbyist? It was good business. By turning against Abramoff, the tribes could please McCain—the powerful chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee and possible presidential aspirant—but they could sue Abramoff’s former employers and win huge settlements. Abramoff’s former employers, two large and very successful law firms, did not want their e-mail traffic made public (it would destroy their law practice), so they quickly settled with the “aggrieved” tribes. In other words, Abramoff’s former tribal clients ended up getting all the extraordinary benefits of his lobbying services for free (or at a huge discount.) These tribes were hardly unsophisticated. They were as shrewd as they come.


Q AFTER CONDUCTING THREE YEARS OF RESEARCH INTO THE MCCAIN REPORT IN WHICH YOU FOUND MCCAIN POSSIBLY IGNORED SIGNIFICANT EVIDENCE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN EXCULPATORY TO ABRAMOFF, DO YOU THINK JOHN MCCAIN IS AN HONEST MAN? IF NOT, WHY?
A Well, McCain takes the credit for bringing Abramoff down and therefore should accept the blame for “authoring” a report which is essentially a lie. Anyone who drills down into this report will come to the conclusion that this report is hardly “fair, accurate, and neutral.” My guess is that McCain never actually read the report. He is a busy guy. His schedule is very tight. Hundreds of people are vying for his attention. Except for the executive summary, I doubt he has much time to read a 373-page report, which is not exactly a page turner. And he certainly didn’t research and write it. His staff did it all. If McCain were truly a straight-express talker, if McCain were gutsy enough to ignore his focus-grouped advisors and politically savvy consultants, here’s what he should say. “Look, I told the staff to nail this guy, because I thought he was a really bad. And in trying to satisfy me, the staff went overboard and wrote a report that I now realize was irresponsible and downright false. I want to apologize directly to Jack Abramoff for the harm I have caused him and I now realize that his imprisonment may have been a gross miscarriage of justice. Indeed, to compensate for the pain and suffering that I am for the most part responsible for, I call upon President Bush to pardon Abramoff. If I am elected president, as an act of contrition, I will pardon Abramoff on my first day in office. If Barack Obama is elected president, I call on him to pardon Abramoff immediately.


Q YOU ALSO LEVEL CHARGES THAT THEN-WASHINGTON POST REPORTER SUE SCHMIDT ENGAGED IN POSSIBLY WILLFULLY DISHONEST REPORTING ON THE ABRAMOFF SCANDAL AND POSSIBLY COLLUDED WITH JOHN MCCAIN'S OFFICE TO DRIVE THIS STORY. WHAT ARE THREE EXAMPLES OF HOW YOU FEEL MRS. SCHMIDT MISLEAD THE PUBLIC?
A Well, I am sorry to have to do this, but the facts are the facts. The Washington Post’s earlier stories were seemingly fair. They were actually misleading only because its reporters were not experts in the arcana of Indian Country, particularly in the complex context of gaming. Therefore, the stories painted a black-and-white picture of Abramoff that simply wasn’t accurate. If I had been writing those stories at that time, I would have written them the same way, but probably not as well. But Susan Schmidt’s September 26, 2004 clearly crossed the line. She claimed that Abramoff had deliberately worked to shut down an Indian casino in the westernmost part of Texas. Located in El Paso, that tribal casino belonged to the Tiguas. First of all, Schmidt failed to mention something very important. She omitted from her story that there was a bill pending in the Texas legislature with overwhelming support that would have allowed two illegal Indian tribe casinos in Texas to remain open, which were about to be shut down by the state attorney general. Abramoff somehow managed to stop the legislation. Schmidt claimed that Abramoff secretly took this action for the sole reason of shutting down the Tigua’s casino, so he could approach the tribe and promise them to get their casino re-opened. But the fact is that the legislation that Abramoff stopped would have shut down not one, but two tribal casinos in Texas. One of them did belong to the Tigua in El Paso; but the second one belonged to a tribe in easternmost Texas, west of Houston and not far from the Texas-Louisiana border. Schmidt did mention that there were two Indian tribes, which meant that she knew there was a second tribe, but she never mentioned the name of that second tribe—the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas. Also, Schmidt never mentioned in her story that Abramoff’s biggest tribal client operated a casino just on the other side of the Texas border in Louisiana, whose clientele came from the Houston area. Therefore, she never mentioned that if the second Indian tribal casino—the one belonging to the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas—had ever opened its casino, it would have killed his client’s casino business. Was it possible that Abramoff stopped that legislation—not to shut down the Tigua casino—but to shut down the tribal casino that was threatening his client? The answer is simple. Of course. From her previous Abramoff stories, she clearly knew of the existence of Abramoff’s tribal client in Louisiana. But the question is did she know of the existence of the tribal casino in easternmost Texas whose name was the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas? Apparently, she did. She had contributed to a story, written by Thomas Edsall, that would published on August 30, three weeks before her devastating September 26th story, in which it was clearly stated that the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas was a threat to Abramoff’s tribal client in Louisiana. Schmidt can’t claim that she did not know there was another tribal casino that was going to be shut down thanks to Abramoff’s efforts, because she clearly states in her September 26th story that “two Indian casinos” had been shut down. One of those tribes was the Tigua. The second one was the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas. So Schmidt clearly knew that there were two tribes, but did not mention the name of the second tribe, which she must have or should have known was the tribe threatening his Louisiana client.

In fact, e-mails in McCain’s possession show that Abramoff was hired by his Louisiana client in March 2001 specifically to kill the ambitions of the Alabama-Coushatta tribe of Texas to open a Las-Vegas style casino west of Houston. Abramoff had no interest in the Tigua tribal casino nearly 1000 miles away from his Louisiana client. And Abramoff did not express any interest whatsoever in persuading the Tigua to hire him until February 2002, nearly a year after his client hired him to shut down its nearby competitor. Yet Schmidt insisted that Abramoff had deliberately lobbied to shut down only the Tigua’s casino specifically so he could underhandedly get that tribe to hire him for millions of dollars to get its casino reopened. Schmidt’s story sounded so incredibly villainous. Two days later, the Post condemned Abramoff and praised Schmidt’s reporting. But there was a problem. The story wasn’t true. Nonetheless, Schmidt’s Tigua fairytale story had a devastating effect on Abramoff, who appeared the morning after the Post ran its scathing editorial, under subpoena and under oath in front of McCain and his Indian Affairs Committee. The omission of the name of the second tribe was egregious.

All of this may sound a bit complex, but when you study the facts and circumstances, it is hard not to agree that the Post should be censured for running this story.


Q DID YOU MAKE A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO REACH MRS. SCHMIDT AND SENATOR MCCAIN FOR COMMENT IN THIS BOOK?

A Yes, I telephoned and spoke to her at the Washington D.C. office of the Wall Street Journal. (She no longer works for The Washington Post.) She declined to answer any questions. Next, I sent her 19 questions by e-mail. I gave her 36 hours to respond. She did not respond. I called The Washington Post and left a voice mail for the editor in chief, Len Downie. His assistant called me back and told me that Mr. Downie requested that I e-mail him questions. I sent Mr. Downie 20 questions. Downie’s response was generic. He couldn’t recall the story about the Tigua and asserted that his newspaper’s Abramoff stories have held up very well.

As for Sen. McCain, shortly after the Senate Indian Affairs Committee report was issued on June 22, 2006, I called the committee’s office. I requested an interview with McCain. I also requested an interview with Pablo Carillo, the report’s chief investigator. I received a call back that McCain was too busy to grant an interview. I received no response from Carillo. In June 2008, I sent an e-mail to the press office of McCain’s presidential campaign with a series of specific questions about his Senate Indian Affairs Report. I never received a response.


Q DO YOU THINK MS. SCHMIDT AND THE WASHINGTON POST SHOULD HAVE TO RETURN THE PULITZER PRIZE WON BY MS. SCHMIDT FOR HER REPORTING IF IN FACT THE PULITZER COMMITTEE DECIDES THAT SHE MAY HAVE MANUFACTURED HER SEPTEMBER 26, 2006 STORY IN THE ABRAMOFF MATTER?
A Yes, I do. That story is a shameful one. The omission of the second tribe’s identity was egregious. Including it would have killed the story. If Susan Schmidt claims that she never read the August 30, 2004 story, to which her name is attached as a contributor, then maybe she can claim that she was unaware the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas was a threat to Abramoff’s client, the Louisiana Coushatta. But that claim would stretch credulity. I call it the Tigua fairytale story. It had a devastating effect. It was clearly a false, possibly intentionally false, story. If you’ve been an exemplary babysitter for 20 years, but on one occasion you molest a child you’re caring for, you go to prison. If you’ve been the perfect priest for the past 30 years, but on one occasion you molested a nine-year-old altar boy, you are defrocked, your church is sued for millions, and you go to prison. The Washington Post should lose the Pulitzer Prize it won for breaking the so-called Abramoff corruption scandal story. The Pulitzer Prize committee should rescind it, or the Washington Post should do the classy thing and return it voluntarily and issue an apology to Mr. Abramoff.


Q YOU RAISE POSSIBLE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VERACITY OF SENATOR MCCAIN'S EXPLANATIONS OF HIS P.O.W SERVICE. WHAT ARE THEY AND WHY ARE THEY RELEVANT TO THE OVERALL TOPIC?
A I was struck by the fact that McCain withheld almost 99% of the Abramoff documents he subpoenaed. It made me very suspicious that he didn’t want us to see most of the material. There could be only one explanation. He didn’t want us to see all the information because he was trying to hide something: the evidence didn’t support his conclusions. Otherwise, he should have been happy to release all the documents. It appeared that this may be a pattern in McCain’s character, because he had refused to release his POW records as well. Why not? Was he also trying to hide something about his activities during his 5 ½ year stay in Hanoi? In fact, I realized that the only information about his POW days was what he had told us. There had been no independent accounts. He was the sole source. And we believed everything he said. We believed everything he said about Abramoff in his Senate Indian Affairs Report and that proved to be totally false. What about what McCain said about his days as a POW during the Vietnam War?


Q WHAT ARE YOUR POLITICS? WHAT PROMPTED YOU TO WRITE THIS BOOK?
A I’m a liberal, a registered independent, but I’ve never voted Republican. However, I’ve never contributed—money or time—to any political campaign. My interest in the Abramoff story was driven by curiosity. I wondered how anyone could possibly be so evil. Then it dawned on me that this was not possible. Finally, I realized that there was something profoundly wrong with this story and I was curious to find out what it was. I don’t care for Abramoff’s politics and disagree, but I worked very hard at not allowing my political leanings to color or to interfere with how I weighed and sifted the evidence. This is an apolitical book. The conclusions are apolitical. Despite his politics, Abramoff is a decent guy, who doesn’t deserve to be in prison.


Q YOU HAD GENERALLY UNFETTERED ACCESS TO ABRAMOFF BEFORE AND AFTER HE WENT TO PRISON. WHAT DID YOU THINK OF HIM WHEN YOU STARTED THE BOOK AND WHAT DO YOU THINK OF HIM NOW?
A I was curious to meet this infamous celebrity. From the day I met him until the present, I have found him a nice guy, not a monster. He’s well spoken, very smart, funny, self-effacing, and sensitive. The more I got to know him, the more I liked him. Nevertheless, I also kept reminding myself that my first obligation was to the reader, not to Abramoff. And I repeatedly told Abramoff that. I couldn’t sugarcoat anything. I had to tell the reader the absolute truth—to the best of my ability—about this scandal and this man. I had access to all the publically available documents, as well as much that had never been released to the public. And I had extensive access to the central protagonist in this drama. He could now defend himself and I could challenge whatever he said. It gave me an opportunity to get to the bottom of this complex story and I think I did.


Q DO YOU BELIEVE JACK ABRAMOFF SHOULD BE IN PRISON?

A No, I do not. Otherwise, all of the other 35,000 lobbyists should be also be in the prison cell next to him.


Q DO YOU BELIEVE THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ACTED IN AN HONORABLE MANNER IN THE ABRAMOFF CASE?
A No, I do not. I think the Justice Department line prosecutors knew that they would have had a difficulty making their case before a jury. If Abramoff had been allowed to present supporting evidence, the jury would have received sufficient information—which the public never did—that the charges against Abramoff were weak. The jury would have realized that the world Abramoff operated in was extremely complex and that what he was doing was quite common among lobbyists from the beginning of time. The jury would have learned that virtually every political candidate and elected official operates essentially the same way. Otherwise, they would neither win nor continue to hold public office. Abramoff’s “crime” was that he did it better than anyone else.


Q DO YOU BELIEVE MR. ABRAMOFF WAS RAILROADED? IF SO, DO YOU BELIEVE THERE SHOULD BE NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS?
A It’s too late for public hearings. He’s confessed and been convicted, because I believe he had no choice but to do so. He didn’t want to risk 12 years in prison, so he took the risk-averse approach. He pleaded guilty and agreed to cooperate, hoping to receive a much-reduced sentence. I think the only way for this injustice to be corrected is with a presidential pardon.


Q HOW DID YOU EVER MANAGE TO GET BOTH ABRAMOFF AND ADAM KIDAN TO TALK TO YOU?
A A. Pure luck.

Book Reviews
It Ain´t Necessarily So (Amazon Review)
By Gracchus "Sandaler" (Massachusetts)
September 17, 2008

A few years ago, Gary Chafetz wrote a book on a notorious malpractice case in which he countered the easy, even lazy, journalistic narrative that dominated the headlines. The story had it that an elite Harvard psychotherapist led an unfortunate, confused working-class medical student to despair and suicide. Chafetz' research uncovered a quite different, and more plausible, story that re-focused he narrative and largely exonerated the psychotherapist from the most serious charges leveled against her.
Read The entire review here

Comments
"Besides Abramoff, are there any other targets of the Justice Department that you believe were wrongly or maliciously prosecuted?"
Read More Comments with Answers from the Author

Question the Author:








News Stories
Why Did "Straight-Talk" McCain Lie About Jack Abramoff? (HUFFINGTON POST)
September 16, 2008 | 11:45 AM (EST)
Link to Article

Sen. John McCain, for many, is an appealing presidential candidate, because he seems to have followed his conscience, not Republican Party dogma, on so many issues. These include his support of campaign finance reform, and his opposition to the Bush tax cuts, drilling in the Arctic Wilderness, and a constitutional amendment banning abortion. He touts himself as a "straight talker" whose word can be trusted.

Before launching his probe into Jack Abramoff -- one of the most prominent and powerful Republican lobbyists in Washington -- McCain claimed that he had never heard of or met Abramoff. This claim certainly stretches credulity.
Read The entire article here

Just in Time for Yom Kippur, and Sentencing, Abramoff Paints Himself as Repentant (THE JEWISH DAILY: FORWARD)
By Nathan Guttman
Thu. Sep 11, 2008

Washington - As he serves time in federal prison, a picture is emerging in court documents and in a newly published book of a repentant Jack Abramoff, who is embracing the Jewish notion of "Teshuva" and turning his back on the days of power, money and politics.

At least that is what the once-powerful Republican lobbyist, convicted in a massive corruption investigation in the nation’s capital, would have us believe.
Read The entire article here

Book attacks McCain's Abramoff inquiry (POLITICO.COM)
Written by Mike Harwood
9/8/08 4:56 AM EST

A new book released the day after Sen. John McCain accepted the Republican presidential nomination attacks one of his trademark political successes: his investigation of now-jailed lobbyist Jack Abramoff in 2004 and 2005.

"The Perfect Villain: John McCain and the Demonization of Lobbyist Jack Abramoff," by former Boston Globe freelancer Gary S. Chafetz and put out by small independent publisher Martin and Lawrence press, aggressively puts forth the case that McCain’s investigation into Abramoff wasn’t the high-minded reform crusade he has made it out to be on the campaign trail, but rather was pure political payback.
Read The entire article here

Abramoff: During lobbying probe, McCain withheld and concealed e-mails implicating his own cronies! (AMERICAN POLITICS JOURNAL)
By EAMON JAVERS
Monday, 08 September 2008

September 8, 2008 - New York (apj.us) - Newsrooms in Washington and New York are on alert this evening as a smattering of revelations from Gary S. Chafetz's forthcoming book, "The Perfect Villain: John McCain and the Demonization of Lobbyist Jack Abramoff". have been leaked to political news and progressive Web sites.

According to Politico.com's Eamon Javers:

...The book alleges that McCain withheld the vast majority of emails he confiscated during the [2004] inquiry [into the money trail left by Abramoff's lobbying on behalf of Indian tribes], many of which could be exculpatory to the former lobbyist or damaging to McCain allies.
Read The entire article here

Book rips McCain's probe of Abramoff (UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL)
Published: Sept. 8, 2008 at 9:33 AM

WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 (UPI) -- John McCain's investigation into disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff wasn't for political reform but political payback, a book about the probe argues.

"The Perfect Villain: John McCain and the Demonization of Lobbyist Jack Abramoff," by former Boston Globe freelance writer Gary Chafetz was released Friday, the day after McCain accepted Republican party's presidential nomination, Politico reported Monday.
Read The entire article here

Abramoff Gets Reduced Sentence of Four Years in Prison (THE WASHINGTON POST)
Judge Cites Assistance Ex-Lobbyist Provided In Corruption Probe
By Del Quentin Wilber and Carrie Johnson
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, September 5, 2008; A03

Jack Abramoff, the powerhouse Washington lobbyist who admitted running a wide-ranging corruption scheme that ensnared lawmakers, Capitol Hill aides and government officials, yesterday received a reduced sentence of four years in prison because of his cooperation with federal investigators.

Abramoff, 49, already has served nearly two years for his conviction in a related Florida fraud case. The sentence yesterday by U.S. District Judge Ellen S. Huvelle means that the former Republican lobbyist will likely remain in prison until 2012.
Read The entire article here

Abramoff Gets 4 Years in Corruption Scandal (THE ASSOCIATED PRESS)
By MATT APUZZO - Sep 4, 2008

WASHINGTON (AP) Jack Abramoff, the once powerful lobbyist at the heart of a far-reaching political corruption scandal, was sentenced to four years in prison Thursday by a judge who said the case had shattered the public's confidence in government.

Abramoff, who fought back tears as he declared himself a broken man, appeared crestfallen as the judge handed down a sentence lengthier than prosecutors had sought.
Read The entire article here





Gary Chafetz
is a liberal Boston journalist who set out to chronicle the scandal involving conservative gun-for-hire and super-lobbyist, Jack Abramoff. Instead he uncovered a Shakespearean tragedy of deceit, betrayal and political vendetta in which the true villains are Presidential aspirant John McCain, the Washington Post newspaper and the U.S. Department of Justice--all of whom participated in the railroading of an innocent man. Chafetz benefited from exclusive and unconditional access to the jailed Abramoff and to many never-before-released documents. The blizzard of stories originating from the Washington political machine painted Abramoff as an implausibly greedy lobbyist who cheated Indian tribes, bribed politicians and corrupted the political process--a fascinating tale but, ultimately, untrue. The true story, as Chafetz recounts in The Perfect Villain, is even more riveting and compelling.



"The blizzard of stories originating from the Washington political machine painted Abramoff as an implausibly greedy lobbyist who cheated Indian tribes, bribed politicians and corrupted the political process--a fascinating tale but, ultimately, untrue."

Purchase a copy where you prefer
Amazon.com
BarnesandNoble.com
Target.com
BoonBridgeBooks.com ShopinHK.com

Buy.com
BiggerBooks.com
Blackwell.com
Overstock.com
Shop.MTV.com

Want an autographed copy?
Click here for details



Questions & Answers

Q WHAT IS THE PURPOSE/DISTINCTIVENESS OF THE BOOK AND WHY DO YOU FEEL PEOPLE NEED TO READ IT?
A What is surprising about the Abramoff corruption scandal is that everybody, including me at first, got this story completely wrong. We swallowed this epic narrative hook, line, and sinker. We believed everything we read in the press about this allegedly indelibly evil man. Because of the almost suffocating accumulation of “incontrovertible” evidence, the public’s natural skepticism ended up being suffocated as well. As a liberal writing about an arch conservative, I tried my best, probably inadequately, not to allow my political or social positions to color my judgment. I think a lot of what is written is too polemic, subjective, and tendentious. And there are plenty of readers who enjoy this kind of writing. Authors like Corsi, Frank, Coulter, and Franken do extremely well. This may sound prosaic, but I wanted to look at the facts and nothing but the facts. Even though the public is intrinsically susceptible to epic narratives and myths, I firmly believe that in its heart of hearts—the public is really interested in the unvarnished truth. Of course, we can debate what “truth” really is. But the unvarnished truth involves an honest attempt to conduct a careful and objective examination of the facts, documents, and interviews with those with intimate knowledge of the subject. And in conducting that investigation, nothing should be shaded, colored, or omitted. The good, bad, and ugly must get thrown into the mix, including information that undermines or contradicts one’s thesis. This means that the “truth” almost always ends up rather fuzzy, gray, difficult to discern, even at times out of focus. Though we seem to yearn for clear-cut, black-and-white heroes and villains, the truth is that the only place they can be found is in fiction, usually bad fiction.


Q IN THIS BOOK YOU MAKE SOME STRONG ACCUSATIONS AS TO THE VERACITY, IF NOT DUPLICITY, OF JOHN MCCAIN'S INVESTIGATION OF JACK ABRAMOFF AND INDIAN GAMING. WHAT DO YOU THINK ARE THE MOST GLARING EXAMPLES OF THIS?
A First of all, I want to say I have no animus toward John McCain. In many ways, I think he’s a pretty cool guy, because he has bucked the Republican Party line and has taken positions that seem based on what is fair, true, and honest. In other words, his conscience has seemed to dictate his position, not what’s politically correct for Republicans. For example, McCain has really angered conservative Republicans by sponsoring campaign finance reform, opposing President George W. Bush’s tax cuts, disagreeing with drilling in the Arctic wilderness, opposing a constitutional amendment banning abortion, expressing great concern over American use of torture after 9-11, and so forth. I have to respect McCain for his independence. Second of all, I hope that the four documents in my book of interviews McCain apparently gave during his captivity in North Vietnam—published in Hanoi and Havana—do not do him much damage. He exaggerated a little. But they do contradict his repeated statements in his numerous autobiographies, in which he claimed he gave the enemy virtually no military and personal information. Those inconsistencies, however, are unsettling, because McCain has never called the release of his POW records. If he did release them or was pressured into releasing his POW records—held by the Pentagon, the CIA, Russia’s FSB, and the North Vietnamese—I hope they do not show that he has lied repeatedly for many decades about his behavior and activities as a prisoner of war. The reason is that I do not want to see the humiliation or destruction of anyone. I don’t want to do—or see done—to McCain what he did to Abramoff. I don’t want to see McCain denounced, humiliated, and vilified. I wish no such pain and humiliation on anyone, his family, his friends, and supporters. I think we have become a culture that shows virtually no compassion, mercy, or forgiveness. That said, if McCain has lied about what he did during his captivity or if he is hiding something questionable, unacceptable, or even treasonous during his captivity, then the American electorate needs to be informed, so that voters can make a fully informed decision about whom to vote for president, in what may be the most important presidential election for many years, perhaps ever.

As for his Senate Indian Affairs Report, McCain has characterized it as “fair, factual, and neutral.” Nothing could be further from the truth. This too is unsettling. The report is clearly and incontrovertibly mendacious. The report seems to go out of its way to twist, distort, and omit key information about Abramoff and his lobbying activities that show he was perhaps the best lobbyist who ever lived. Abramoff provided financial benefits for his tribal clients far, far in excess of his high fees. If you want the best, you’ve got to pay for it. Abramoff’s tribal clients were not unsophisticated people who had just fallen off the turnip truck. They operated Las-Vegas style casinos that enjoyed revenues that in some cases approached $500 million a year. Not only could they afford to hire the very best lobbyist, they also hired the very best lawyers and accountants, who, in turn, vetted every contract with Abramoff. And then his tribal clients continued to hire Abramoff over and over, in some cases for nearly a decade, because they were so pleased with the results he was able to produce. Of course, McCain omits this or claims that Abramoff was somehow able to bamboozle his poor gullible clients into paying him outrageous fees and creating threats to his tribes’ casino revenue.

So why did his tribal clients turn against Abramoff if he was such a great lobbyist? It was good business. By turning against Abramoff, the tribes could please McCain—the powerful chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee and possible presidential aspirant—but they could sue Abramoff’s former employers and win huge settlements. Abramoff’s former employers, two large and very successful law firms, did not want their e-mail traffic made public (it would destroy their law practice), so they quickly settled with the “aggrieved” tribes. In other words, Abramoff’s former tribal clients ended up getting all the extraordinary benefits of his lobbying services for free (or at a huge discount.) These tribes were hardly unsophisticated. They were as shrewd as they come.


Q AFTER CONDUCTING THREE YEARS OF RESEARCH INTO THE MCCAIN REPORT IN WHICH YOU FOUND MCCAIN POSSIBLY IGNORED SIGNIFICANT EVIDENCE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN EXCULPATORY TO ABRAMOFF, DO YOU THINK JOHN MCCAIN IS AN HONEST MAN? IF NOT, WHY?
A Well, McCain takes the credit for bringing Abramoff down and therefore should accept the blame for “authoring” a report which is essentially a lie. Anyone who drills down into this report will come to the conclusion that this report is hardly “fair, accurate, and neutral.” My guess is that McCain never actually read the report. He is a busy guy. His schedule is very tight. Hundreds of people are vying for his attention. Except for the executive summary, I doubt he has much time to read a 373-page report, which is not exactly a page turner. And he certainly didn’t research and write it. His staff did it all. If McCain were truly a straight-express talker, if McCain were gutsy enough to ignore his focus-grouped advisors and politically savvy consultants, here’s what he should say. “Look, I told the staff to nail this guy, because I thought he was a really bad. And in trying to satisfy me, the staff went overboard and wrote a report that I now realize was irresponsible and downright false. I want to apologize directly to Jack Abramoff for the harm I have caused him and I now realize that his imprisonment may have been a gross miscarriage of justice. Indeed, to compensate for the pain and suffering that I am for the most part responsible for, I call upon President Bush to pardon Abramoff. If I am elected president, as an act of contrition, I will pardon Abramoff on my first day in office. If Barack Obama is elected president, I call on him to pardon Abramoff immediately.


Q YOU ALSO LEVEL CHARGES THAT THEN-WASHINGTON POST REPORTER SUE SCHMIDT ENGAGED IN POSSIBLY WILLFULLY DISHONEST REPORTING ON THE ABRAMOFF SCANDAL AND POSSIBLY COLLUDED WITH JOHN MCCAIN'S OFFICE TO DRIVE THIS STORY. WHAT ARE THREE EXAMPLES OF HOW YOU FEEL MRS. SCHMIDT MISLEAD THE PUBLIC?
A Well, I am sorry to have to do this, but the facts are the facts. The Washington Post’s earlier stories were seemingly fair. They were actually misleading only because its reporters were not experts in the arcana of Indian Country, particularly in the complex context of gaming. Therefore, the stories painted a black-and-white picture of Abramoff that simply wasn’t accurate. If I had been writing those stories at that time, I would have written them the same way, but probably not as well. But Susan Schmidt’s September 26, 2004 clearly crossed the line. She claimed that Abramoff had deliberately worked to shut down an Indian casino in the westernmost part of Texas. Located in El Paso, that tribal casino belonged to the Tiguas. First of all, Schmidt failed to mention something very important. She omitted from her story that there was a bill pending in the Texas legislature with overwhelming support that would have allowed two illegal Indian tribe casinos in Texas to remain open, which were about to be shut down by the state attorney general. Abramoff somehow managed to stop the legislation. Schmidt claimed that Abramoff secretly took this action for the sole reason of shutting down the Tigua’s casino, so he could approach the tribe and promise them to get their casino re-opened. But the fact is that the legislation that Abramoff stopped would have shut down not one, but two tribal casinos in Texas. One of them did belong to the Tigua in El Paso; but the second one belonged to a tribe in easternmost Texas, west of Houston and not far from the Texas-Louisiana border. Schmidt did mention that there were two Indian tribes, which meant that she knew there was a second tribe, but she never mentioned the name of that second tribe—the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas. Also, Schmidt never mentioned in her story that Abramoff’s biggest tribal client operated a casino just on the other side of the Texas border in Louisiana, whose clientele came from the Houston area. Therefore, she never mentioned that if the second Indian tribal casino—the one belonging to the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas—had ever opened its casino, it would have killed his client’s casino business. Was it possible that Abramoff stopped that legislation—not to shut down the Tigua casino—but to shut down the tribal casino that was threatening his client? The answer is simple. Of course. From her previous Abramoff stories, she clearly knew of the existence of Abramoff’s tribal client in Louisiana. But the question is did she know of the existence of the tribal casino in easternmost Texas whose name was the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas? Apparently, she did. She had contributed to a story, written by Thomas Edsall, that would published on August 30, three weeks before her devastating September 26th story, in which it was clearly stated that the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas was a threat to Abramoff’s tribal client in Louisiana. Schmidt can’t claim that she did not know there was another tribal casino that was going to be shut down thanks to Abramoff’s efforts, because she clearly states in her September 26th story that “two Indian casinos” had been shut down. One of those tribes was the Tigua. The second one was the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas. So Schmidt clearly knew that there were two tribes, but did not mention the name of the second tribe, which she must have or should have known was the tribe threatening his Louisiana client.

In fact, e-mails in McCain’s possession show that Abramoff was hired by his Louisiana client in March 2001 specifically to kill the ambitions of the Alabama-Coushatta tribe of Texas to open a Las-Vegas style casino west of Houston. Abramoff had no interest in the Tigua tribal casino nearly 1000 miles away from his Louisiana client. And Abramoff did not express any interest whatsoever in persuading the Tigua to hire him until February 2002, nearly a year after his client hired him to shut down its nearby competitor. Yet Schmidt insisted that Abramoff had deliberately lobbied to shut down only the Tigua’s casino specifically so he could underhandedly get that tribe to hire him for millions of dollars to get its casino reopened. Schmidt’s story sounded so incredibly villainous. Two days later, the Post condemned Abramoff and praised Schmidt’s reporting. But there was a problem. The story wasn’t true. Nonetheless, Schmidt’s Tigua fairytale story had a devastating effect on Abramoff, who appeared the morning after the Post ran its scathing editorial, under subpoena and under oath in front of McCain and his Indian Affairs Committee. The omission of the name of the second tribe was egregious.

All of this may sound a bit complex, but when you study the facts and circumstances, it is hard not to agree that the Post should be censured for running this story.


Q DID YOU MAKE A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO REACH MRS. SCHMIDT AND SENATOR MCCAIN FOR COMMENT IN THIS BOOK?

A Yes, I telephoned and spoke to her at the Washington D.C. office of the Wall Street Journal. (She no longer works for The Washington Post.) She declined to answer any questions. Next, I sent her 19 questions by e-mail. I gave her 36 hours to respond. She did not respond. I called The Washington Post and left a voice mail for the editor in chief, Len Downie. His assistant called me back and told me that Mr. Downie requested that I e-mail him questions. I sent Mr. Downie 20 questions. Downie’s response was generic. He couldn’t recall the story about the Tigua and asserted that his newspaper’s Abramoff stories have held up very well.

As for Sen. McCain, shortly after the Senate Indian Affairs Committee report was issued on June 22, 2006, I called the committee’s office. I requested an interview with McCain. I also requested an interview with Pablo Carillo, the report’s chief investigator. I received a call back that McCain was too busy to grant an interview. I received no response from Carillo. In June 2008, I sent an e-mail to the press office of McCain’s presidential campaign with a series of specific questions about his Senate Indian Affairs Report. I never received a response.


Q DO YOU THINK MS. SCHMIDT AND THE WASHINGTON POST SHOULD HAVE TO RETURN THE PULITZER PRIZE WON BY MS. SCHMIDT FOR HER REPORTING IF IN FACT THE PULITZER COMMITTEE DECIDES THAT SHE MAY HAVE MANUFACTURED HER SEPTEMBER 26, 2006 STORY IN THE ABRAMOFF MATTER?
A Yes, I do. That story is a shameful one. The omission of the second tribe’s identity was egregious. Including it would have killed the story. If Susan Schmidt claims that she never read the August 30, 2004 story, to which her name is attached as a contributor, then maybe she can claim that she was unaware the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas was a threat to Abramoff’s client, the Louisiana Coushatta. But that claim would stretch credulity. I call it the Tigua fairytale story. It had a devastating effect. It was clearly a false, possibly intentionally false, story. If you’ve been an exemplary babysitter for 20 years, but on one occasion you molest a child you’re caring for, you go to prison. If you’ve been the perfect priest for the past 30 years, but on one occasion you molested a nine-year-old altar boy, you are defrocked, your church is sued for millions, and you go to prison. The Washington Post should lose the Pulitzer Prize it won for breaking the so-called Abramoff corruption scandal story. The Pulitzer Prize committee should rescind it, or the Washington Post should do the classy thing and return it voluntarily and issue an apology to Mr. Abramoff.


Q YOU RAISE POSSIBLE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VERACITY OF SENATOR MCCAIN'S EXPLANATIONS OF HIS P.O.W SERVICE. WHAT ARE THEY AND WHY ARE THEY RELEVANT TO THE OVERALL TOPIC?
A I was struck by the fact that McCain withheld almost 99% of the Abramoff documents he subpoenaed. It made me very suspicious that he didn’t want us to see most of the material. There could be only one explanation. He didn’t want us to see all the information because he was trying to hide something: the evidence didn’t support his conclusions. Otherwise, he should have been happy to release all the documents. It appeared that this may be a pattern in McCain’s character, because he had refused to release his POW records as well. Why not? Was he also trying to hide something about his activities during his 5 ½ year stay in Hanoi? In fact, I realized that the only information about his POW days was what he had told us. There had been no independent accounts. He was the sole source. And we believed everything he said. We believed everything he said about Abramoff in his Senate Indian Affairs Report and that proved to be totally false. What about what McCain said about his days as a POW during the Vietnam War?


Q WHAT ARE YOUR POLITICS? WHAT PROMPTED YOU TO WRITE THIS BOOK?
A I’m a liberal, a registered independent, but I’ve never voted Republican. However, I’ve never contributed—money or time—to any political campaign. My interest in the Abramoff story was driven by curiosity. I wondered how anyone could possibly be so evil. Then it dawned on me that this was not possible. Finally, I realized that there was something profoundly wrong with this story and I was curious to find out what it was. I don’t care for Abramoff’s politics and disagree, but I worked very hard at not allowing my political leanings to color or to interfere with how I weighed and sifted the evidence. This is an apolitical book. The conclusions are apolitical. Despite his politics, Abramoff is a decent guy, who doesn’t deserve to be in prison.


Q YOU HAD GENERALLY UNFETTERED ACCESS TO ABRAMOFF BEFORE AND AFTER HE WENT TO PRISON. WHAT DID YOU THINK OF HIM WHEN YOU STARTED THE BOOK AND WHAT DO YOU THINK OF HIM NOW?
A I was curious to meet this infamous celebrity. From the day I met him until the present, I have found him a nice guy, not a monster. He’s well spoken, very smart, funny, self-effacing, and sensitive. The more I got to know him, the more I liked him. Nevertheless, I also kept reminding myself that my first obligation was to the reader, not to Abramoff. And I repeatedly told Abramoff that. I couldn’t sugarcoat anything. I had to tell the reader the absolute truth—to the best of my ability—about this scandal and this man. I had access to all the publically available documents, as well as much that had never been released to the public. And I had extensive access to the central protagonist in this drama. He could now defend himself and I could challenge whatever he said. It gave me an opportunity to get to the bottom of this complex story and I think I did.


Q DO YOU BELIEVE JACK ABRAMOFF SHOULD BE IN PRISON?

A No, I do not. Otherwise, all of the other 35,000 lobbyists should be also be in the prison cell next to him.


Q DO YOU BELIEVE THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ACTED IN AN HONORABLE MANNER IN THE ABRAMOFF CASE?
A No, I do not. I think the Justice Department line prosecutors knew that they would have had a difficulty making their case before a jury. If Abramoff had been allowed to present supporting evidence, the jury would have received sufficient information—which the public never did—that the charges against Abramoff were weak. The jury would have realized that the world Abramoff operated in was extremely complex and that what he was doing was quite common among lobbyists from the beginning of time. The jury would have learned that virtually every political candidate and elected official operates essentially the same way. Otherwise, they would neither win nor continue to hold public office. Abramoff’s “crime” was that he did it better than anyone else.


Q DO YOU BELIEVE MR. ABRAMOFF WAS RAILROADED? IF SO, DO YOU BELIEVE THERE SHOULD BE NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS?
A It’s too late for public hearings. He’s confessed and been convicted, because I believe he had no choice but to do so. He didn’t want to risk 12 years in prison, so he took the risk-averse approach. He pleaded guilty and agreed to cooperate, hoping to receive a much-reduced sentence. I think the only way for this injustice to be corrected is with a presidential pardon.


Q HOW DID YOU EVER MANAGE TO GET BOTH ABRAMOFF AND ADAM KIDAN TO TALK TO YOU?
A A. Pure luck.

Book Reviews
It Ain´t Necessarily So (Amazon Review)
By Gracchus "Sandaler" (Massachusetts)
September 17, 2008

A few years ago, Gary Chafetz wrote a book on a notorious malpractice case in which he countered the easy, even lazy, journalistic narrative that dominated the headlines. The story had it that an elite Harvard psychotherapist led an unfortunate, confused working-class medical student to despair and suicide. Chafetz' research uncovered a quite different, and more plausible, story that re-focused he narrative and largely exonerated the psychotherapist from the most serious charges leveled against her.
Read The entire review here

Comments
"Besides Abramoff, are there any other targets of the Justice Department that you believe were wrongly or maliciously prosecuted?"
Read More Comments with Answers from the Author

Question the Author:








News Stories
Why Did "Straight-Talk" McCain Lie About Jack Abramoff? (HUFFINGTON POST)
September 16, 2008 | 11:45 AM (EST)
Link to Article

Sen. John McCain, for many, is an appealing presidential candidate, because he seems to have followed his conscience, not Republican Party dogma, on so many issues. These include his support of campaign finance reform, and his opposition to the Bush tax cuts, drilling in the Arctic Wilderness, and a constitutional amendment banning abortion. He touts himself as a "straight talker" whose word can be trusted.

Before launching his probe into Jack Abramoff -- one of the most prominent and powerful Republican lobbyists in Washington -- McCain claimed that he had never heard of or met Abramoff. This claim certainly stretches credulity.
Read The entire article here

Just in Time for Yom Kippur, and Sentencing, Abramoff Paints Himself as Repentant (THE JEWISH DAILY: FORWARD)
By Nathan Guttman
Thu. Sep 11, 2008

Washington - As he serves time in federal prison, a picture is emerging in court documents and in a newly published book of a repentant Jack Abramoff, who is embracing the Jewish notion of "Teshuva" and turning his back on the days of power, money and politics.

At least that is what the once-powerful Republican lobbyist, convicted in a massive corruption investigation in the nation’s capital, would have us believe.
Read The entire article here

Book attacks McCain's Abramoff inquiry (POLITICO.COM)
Written by Mike Harwood
9/8/08 4:56 AM EST

A new book released the day after Sen. John McCain accepted the Republican presidential nomination attacks one of his trademark political successes: his investigation of now-jailed lobbyist Jack Abramoff in 2004 and 2005.

"The Perfect Villain: John McCain and the Demonization of Lobbyist Jack Abramoff," by former Boston Globe freelancer Gary S. Chafetz and put out by small independent publisher Martin and Lawrence press, aggressively puts forth the case that McCain’s investigation into Abramoff wasn’t the high-minded reform crusade he has made it out to be on the campaign trail, but rather was pure political payback.
Read The entire article here

Abramoff: During lobbying probe, McCain withheld and concealed e-mails implicating his own cronies! (AMERICAN POLITICS JOURNAL)
By EAMON JAVERS
Monday, 08 September 2008

September 8, 2008 - New York (apj.us) - Newsrooms in Washington and New York are on alert this evening as a smattering of revelations from Gary S. Chafetz's forthcoming book, "The Perfect Villain: John McCain and the Demonization of Lobbyist Jack Abramoff". have been leaked to political news and progressive Web sites.

According to Politico.com's Eamon Javers:

...The book alleges that McCain withheld the vast majority of emails he confiscated during the [2004] inquiry [into the money trail left by Abramoff's lobbying on behalf of Indian tribes], many of which could be exculpatory to the former lobbyist or damaging to McCain allies.
Read The entire article here

Book rips McCain's probe of Abramoff (UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL)
Published: Sept. 8, 2008 at 9:33 AM

WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 (UPI) -- John McCain's investigation into disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff wasn't for political reform but political payback, a book about the probe argues.

"The Perfect Villain: John McCain and the Demonization of Lobbyist Jack Abramoff," by former Boston Globe freelance writer Gary Chafetz was released Friday, the day after McCain accepted Republican party's presidential nomination, Politico reported Monday.
Read The entire article here

Abramoff Gets Reduced Sentence of Four Years in Prison (THE WASHINGTON POST)
Judge Cites Assistance Ex-Lobbyist Provided In Corruption Probe
By Del Quentin Wilber and Carrie Johnson
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, September 5, 2008; A03

Jack Abramoff, the powerhouse Washington lobbyist who admitted running a wide-ranging corruption scheme that ensnared lawmakers, Capitol Hill aides and government officials, yesterday received a reduced sentence of four years in prison because of his cooperation with federal investigators.

Abramoff, 49, already has served nearly two years for his conviction in a related Florida fraud case. The sentence yesterday by U.S. District Judge Ellen S. Huvelle means that the former Republican lobbyist will likely remain in prison until 2012.
Read The entire article here

Abramoff Gets 4 Years in Corruption Scandal (THE ASSOCIATED PRESS)
By MATT APUZZO - Sep 4, 2008

WASHINGTON (AP) Jack Abramoff, the once powerful lobbyist at the heart of a far-reaching political corruption scandal, was sentenced to four years in prison Thursday by a judge who said the case had shattered the public's confidence in government.

Abramoff, who fought back tears as he declared himself a broken man, appeared crestfallen as the judge handed down a sentence lengthier than prosecutors had sought.
Read The entire article here

Ugh, can you edit this post? Its wwwwaaayyy too long.

I tried to edit but I was too late. I got a msg that my edits couldn't be saved because of replys. Again my apologies, I hit the send button by accident.

Just go to theperfectvillian.com website

Whoops...it's Monday! :-)

Well it looks like the African Americans in GA are fired up and ready to go. So naturally folks are losing their mind. the comment by "sambo" is enough to make you see red but I just decided to not go there.

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/shared-blogs/a...

I voted on Saturday. There were a lot of people streaming in and out of the building. We are trying our hardest to make GA blue, but where I live I see McSame/Failin bumper stickers and signs everywhere. However, I did see one Obama '08 bumper sticker on my way to my parents house after I voted. Know hope? :o)

carolinagirl: CONGRATULATIONS!! U DID IT!! :>)

A comment against blacks by someone using a derrogatory name for blacks....

What about that doesn't make sense?

Obama's web video about Keating 5 debuts in three minutes:

http://keatingeconomics.com

It's not up yet. If he says 9:00 it should be 9:00. This is no time to be on CPT.

It says 12pm EST for me, however its 12:20 pm (est) for me now soooo....I dunno. But then again I can't watch most videos at work anyway.

It's posted now. it's best to watch as the .mov download. The Youtube
video is really slow.

John McCain Supports Domestic Terrorism Against Women

And he has a record to prove it.

The man called HIS WIFE A CUNT

do people really think there is radical separation from private and public works

Palin Pals Around With Radical Alaskans

How can PAlin criticize Obama for Ayers with her ties to the Radical Alaskan Secessionist AKIP?
http://newsone.blackplanet.com/elections/akip-i...

BarackMarley: Hey! :>) Just like The Gov. HAD NOT been VETTED, the FIRST DUDE is NOW due his VETTING! But, we just don't have that much time or energy!

BUT, we see him "SLITHERING AROUND" in the background! SNNNNNNAKE!!


Obama-Biden '08!!

http://mediamatters.org/items/200810040004

On October 4, The New York Times published a 2,140-word front-page article about Sen. Barack Obama's association with former Weather Underground member William Ayers -- at least the 18th Times article this year mentioning that association. But the Times has yet to mention, let alone devote an entire article to, Sen. John McCain's relationship with radio host and convicted Watergate burglar G. Gordon Liddy. Indeed, in its October 4 article, the Times quoted Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman denouncing Obama's association with Ayers but did not note that Chapman has described Liddy as McCain's "own Bill Ayers" and has written that "[i]f Obama needs to answer questions about Ayers, McCain has the same obligation regarding Liddy." The Times, moreover, quoted McCain criticizing Obama for his association with Ayers without noting that Chapman has faulted McCain for what Chapman described as McCain's "howling hypocrisy on the subject."


As Media Matters for America has noted, Liddy served four and a half years in prison in connection with his conviction for his role in the Watergate break-in and the break-in at the office of the psychiatrist of Daniel Ellsberg, the military analyst who leaked the Pentagon Papers. Liddy has acknowledged preparing to kill someone during the Ellsberg break-in "if necessary"; plotting to murder journalist Jack Anderson; plotting with a "gangland figure" to murder Howard Hunt to stop him from cooperating with investigators; plotting to firebomb the Brookings Institution; and plotting to kidnap "leftist guerillas" at the 1972 Republican National Convention -- a plan he outlined to the Nixon administration using terminology borrowed from the Nazis. (The murder, firebombing, and kidnapping plots were never carried out; the break-ins were.) During the 1990s, Liddy reportedly instructed his radio audience on multiple occasions on how to shoot Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms agents and also reportedly said he had named his shooting targets after Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Joy Behar wasn't on the show today to discuss the debate.

Ooooooh Barbara Walters said it bothered her that Sarah Palin had the infant out at the end of the debate. LMAO

Ther are discussing Keating 5, Bill Ayers... Elizabeth was talking crap and SHERRI tried to get in her ass about distorting the truth. In response to Elizabeth's assertion that Obama has radical ties, Whoopi on the way out to a commercial said "You're spreading lies!" When they came back from commercial- they changed the subject. DAMMMMN!

Elizabeth probably started crying during the commercial.

Wait for the announcement that Hasselbeck is leaving "The View" because she can't stand the heat in that Hen Party.

She can't defend the indefensible, so she cries on cue - and Baba Wawa ain't having it. Barbara's probably doing what she's doing to force homegirl to leave so she won't have another "Star Jones" incident on her hands.

'I'm Catholic, staunchly anti-abortion, and support Obama

By NICHOLAS P. CAFARDI, Religion News Service
Published:
September 30, 2008

Editor's note: Nicholas P. Cafardi is the second high profile Catholic legal scholar who is staunchly anti-abortion yet says he supports Barack Obama. Douglas Kmiec, Ronald Reagan’s constitutional lawyer as head of the office of legal counsel for the Department of Justice, publicly argued a similar case for Obama several weeks ago.

::

I believe that abortion is an unspeakable evil, yet I support Sen. Barack Obama, who is pro-choice. I do not support him because he is pro-choice, but in spite of it. Is that a proper moral choice for a committed Catholic?

As one of the inaugural members of the U.S. bishops' National Review Board on clergy sexual abuse, and as a canon lawyer, I answer with a resounding yes.

Despite what some Republicans would like Catholics to believe, the list of what the church calls "intrinsically evil acts" does not begin and end with abortion. In fact, there are many intrinsically evil acts, and a committed Catholic must consider all of them in deciding how to vote.

Last November, the U.S. bishops released "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship," a 30-page document that provides several examples of intrinsically evil acts: abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem-cell research, torture, racism, and targeting noncombatants in acts of war.

Nicholas CafardiNicholas CafardiObama's support for abortion rights has led some to the conclusion that no Catholic can vote for him. That's a mistake. While I have never swayed in my conviction that abortion is an unspeakable evil, I believe that we have lost the abortion battle -- permanently. A vote for Sen. John McCain does not guarantee the end of abortion in America. Not even close.

Let's suppose Roe v. Wade were overturned. What would happen? The matter would simply be kicked back to the states -- where it was before 1973. Overturning Roe would not abolish abortion. It would just mean that abortion would be legal in some states and illegal in others. The number of abortions would remain unchanged as long as people could travel.

McCain has promised to appoint "strict constructionist" judges who would presumably vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. But is that sufficient reason for a Catholic to vote Republican? To answer that question, let's look at the rest of the church's list of intrinsically evil acts.

Both McCain and Obama get failing marks on embryonic stem-cell research, which Catholic teaching opposes. The last time the issue was up for a vote in the Senate, both men voted to ease existing restrictions.

But what about an unjust war? In 2003, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) said flatly that "reasons sufficient for unleashing a war against Iraq did not exist." McCain voted for it; Obama opposed it.

What about torture? "There is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes," according to Antonio Taguba, the retired major general who investigated abuses in Iraq. Obama opposes the use of torture in all cases; McCain, himself a victim of torture, voted to allow the CIA to use so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" -- a euphemism for torture.

How, some may ask, can I compare these evils with abortion? The right to abortion is guaranteed by the federal judiciary's interpretation of the Constitution. And while the president appoints federal judges, the connection between a president's appointments and the decisions rendered by his appointees is tenuous at best. After all, in 1992, five Republican-appointed justices voted to uphold Roe v. Wade in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Yet on other intrinsic evils -- an unjust war, torture, ignoring the poor -- I can address those evils directly by changing the president.

There's another distinction that is often lost in the culture-war rhetoric on abortion: There is a difference between being pro-choice and being pro-abortion. Obama supports government action that would reduce the number of abortions, and has consistently said that "we should be doing everything we can to avoid unwanted pregnancies that might even lead somebody to consider having an abortion." He favors a "comprehensive approach where ... we are teaching the sacredness of sexuality to our children." And he wants to ensure that adoption is an option for women who might otherwise choose abortion.

Obama worked all of that into his party's platform this year. By contrast, Republicans actually removed abortion-reduction language from their platform.

What's more, as recent data show, abortion rates drop when the social safety net is strengthened. If Obama's economic program will do more to reduce poverty than McCain's, then is it wrong to conclude that an Obama presidency will also reduce abortions? Not at all.

Every faithful Catholic agrees that abortion is an unspeakable evil that must be minimized, if not eliminated. I can help to achieve that without endorsing Republicans' immoral baggage. Overturning Roe v. Wade is not the only way to end abortion, and a vote for Obama is not somehow un-Catholic.

The U.S. bishops have urged a "different kind of political engagement," one that is "shaped by the moral convictions of well-formed consciences."

I have informed my conscience. I have weighed the facts. I have used my prudential judgment. And I conclude that it is a proper moral choice for this Catholic to support Barack Obama's candidacy.

Cafardi is a civil and canon lawyer, and a professor and former dean at Duquesne University School of Law in Pittsburgh. His most recent book, Before Dallas, examines the bishops' failures in handling the clergy sex abuse crisis.

http://ncronline3.org/drupal/?q=node/2058

Cool.

MUST HEAR....The most POWERFUL race speech in a decade....from a white man !Listen to Obama Talk Radio.....Nothing But The Truth with Greg Jones. What MSM omits....you'll hear on NBTT !

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/stations/HeadingLe...

Greg: I WILL be making a "Field Trip" today! :>)

THANK YOU for ALWAYS BRINGING the TRUTH!! Annnnnd, for being another VOICE for the CAUSE!! :>)

Obama-Biden '08!!

I truly beleive that mccain thought our boy was a punk..... The debates are going to be real interesting on Tuesday night because Obama, just got all up in mccain.........

I think McCain will be scared because he won't know what Obama will say.

LOL It will certainly be interesting. I am sure he will have a comment or two to whisper to McCain while shaking his hand before the debate begins.

http://leishacamden.blogspot.com/2008/10/not-th...

Heres a link to a story about a Norwegian woman who ran into a 27 year old black man Named Barack Obama at an airport. You all will love this story

Thank you for posting and sharing. What a wonderful way to start my day. This gives me another good reason to go hit that donate box again. Thanks.

Obama-Biden '08!!

Obama is now officially pulling out a can of whoop azz on J-Mac!

http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/keatingvideo

Is anyone concerned about the threat of Martial Law imposed on the politicians by Bush?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaG9d_4zij8

All the criminals know how to do is make threats in order to get what they want. And they got what they wanted.

Say goodbye to the New Deal.

There's always, that, HeartsandFlowers, but I really think Bush can't wait to get the hell out of DC come January.

He's already acting like he's ready to go and why not? Like every business and administration he's ran, he came there when the organization was running well, looted and pillaged, and left it eff'ed up and ruined. Just like the country; we have no global credibility and our economy has gone to hell.

Mission accomplished, as far as Bush is concerned. I'd worry more about Martial law under a McCain administration if he wins.

Somewhere in the White House, Bush is packing his boxes and laughing his ass off at McCain.

Can't remember if this was posted...

Bruce Springsteen for Obama
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=RJI74wwZe1E

I couldn't find any videos of the Jay-Z concert..

rikyrah: Another Obama-Biden Rally in Alaska!

http://mudflats.wordpress.com/2008/10/05/obama-...
Obama-rama in Juneau, Alaska

Here it is….from the capitol city of Alaska! Several hundred Juneau-ites came together and rallied for Obama-Biden! For a city of 30,000 people, that’s saying something! Here’s the recap with photos from Mudflatter Sandy Beach!

Juneau had a great party today. It was held at our Juneau Arts & Cultural Center, the former Armory. Participants were instructed to make a sign that reads “I am an Alaskan __________, and I choose Obama/Biden.” You were to fill in the blank with a word to describe yourself. As you can tell from the pictures, most people did just that. There were Alaskan mothers, fathers, grandmothers, grandfathers, animal lovers, hockey players, fishermen, moose hunters, nurses, dietitians, pastors, Christians, Lesbians, state employees, rednecks, developers, entrepreneurs, poets, musicians, and even a few Republicans. There was music, an emcee, and a visit from Juneau Representative Beth Kertulla. In fact, someone who looked a lot like Sarah Palin showed up and gave a speech, although she looked a bit unsteady on her high heels. Note: See the the woman with a child in her arms that faux Sarah is posing with? That’s the real Sarah—Sarah Conarro, that is, whose brainchild this whole event was.

The PICS are GREAT 2!! :>) :>)

GO ALASKA!! GO MUDFLATS!!

Obama-Biden '08!!

say it loud,...

I LUV MUDFLATS

rikyrah: I go to "ALASKA" erryday!! :>) :>)

Recently, People just RALLYING in the STREETS -DAILY!! :>) :>) Party over there!! :>)

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vi...
Dancing In The Streets - Martha Reeves & The Vandellas

Whooooo! Hooo! :>)

Callin' out ALL Obama people!! :>) Listen to the CITIES!! :>)

These are great, thanks!

TruthSeeker: My pleasure! :>) Love to find pro-Obama Rallys in ALASKA!

Boo-yah! Right in "The Gov.'s FACE!!! :>)

**Video**
If You Care About Women The Best Choice BY FAR is Obama! Madeleine Albright responds to Sarah Palin
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=KP8Lvl7rKwQ

TruthSeeker: Great find!! :>) Thanks!! :>)

***Video*** 60 Minutes Wallstreet Shadown Market

60 Minutes: A Look at Wallstreet's Shadow Market P1
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=-wFFCtx7UhI

60 Minutes: A Look at Wallstreet's Shadow Market P2
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=GT76vCHKzGM

..These bastards need to go to prison.
-------------------------------------------------------

Lehman Bros Accuse JP Morgan of FREEZING 17 BILLION in CASH BEFORE Collapse!
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=y1qXUvYADug

JP Morgain froze the money in order to help collapse the market.

I said it before and I mean it again: this market collapse is for pure politics. It's just not working the way the criminals wanted it to work.

And we are simply pawns in their political games.

Yeah, they should all go to prison.

With Bernanke and Paulson leading that perp walk, Craig.

Someone commented on that video that it is organized crime and treason. I agree, and recall vaguely how Gingrich shut down the Government when he was put out about something. These right wing criminals would collapse the market to stand in the way of change. Something's got to give, because this will not stand.

TS, Gingrich shut down the government because he was on Air Force One with Clinton on their way to the funeral of some dead foreign head of state. Newt wanted to discuss the budget - Clinton asked him to save the discussion for when they got back to DC - Newt threw a hissy fit on the plane, got back to DC, told Clinton, "I'll show you!" and refused to pass a budget, which shut down the Government.

I remember this well because I was a Fed employee who had to call my creditors and ask them to wait for their payments, while I waited on my paycheck (fortunately my position was considered "essential to the agency mission") but many of my colleagues were sent home until the budget got passed, and Newt took a big ass hit for that backfired strategy.

So let them try this shyt - when you dig one ditch, they better dig two, cause the trap they setting for us, they will fall in.

Did you know that many of the Wall Street firms are declining to use the bailout package because it would crimp on executive pay and golden parachutes. These guys would rather ride out the storm so they can get a quick buck.

That's why Paulson asked for a blank check.

They were going to get those CEO's a big chunk of that money.

Does anyone notice that when the bailout was only $700 billion Congress couldn't get it passed; but when it was repackaged to include another $140 billion of pork, it passed in BOTH HOUSES?

Think about that; $700 billion was too much - but $840 billion was JUST RIGHT?

EWWWWWWWWWWWWw

TruthSeeker: Nobody could have thought that that "RESCUE PLAN" would have caused a mutation in the GREED GENE! of "WALL STREET"!!

These people are who they are!! Sad BUT True!!

Did you hear what that guy said in part 2.....

The shadow market of credit default swaps is estimated at between 50 & 60 trillion dollars!!!! This is an unregulated market!!! And they cannot estimate the size within 10 trillion dollars!!!

Did you see that bastard Robert Pickle, did you see him raise one eyebrow when Steve questioned him??

TruthSeeker: UNREGULATED! Isn't that the "McAncient/The Gov. MANTRA?? IT IS!!!

We'll NEVA know what "Wall Street Operatives" know.

I'll continue with MY OWN fiscal conservatism(?) annnnnnd I'll keep a little in MY SOCK under the MATTRESS! :>) :>)

rikyrah: LOVIN' the video!! He sounds soooo strong! Sooo in control!! Soo FINE

OOPS! I meant intelligent!??? NO I DIDN'T!! :>) :>)

Obama-Biden '08!!

RAOTFL

Val: I really need ta get myself together. I'm working on it -

V-E-R-Y S-L-O-W-L-Y :>) :>)

Interesting book salon on Firedoglake over the weekend, with Glen Ford hosting Paul Street, author of Barack Obama and the Future of American Politics.

It is baffling to me that this election is even this close. When I see tatics like 'swiftboating' work it makes me want to scream.

ep: Hey! :>) Go 'head and scream. Then continue being a surrogate - like U R!! :>)

Obama-Biden '08!!

Love the video esp as it reminds us of that wonderful night in denver before most of us ever heard of Palin.

One of the things I think Obama needs to do is start mixing it up with large arena type of appearances in an effort to start to make it feel like a steamroll to the white house. People enjoy being a "part of a movement" and it is time to rekindle that enthusiasm. He has proven he can handle small town hall and mid size venues and relate to folks one on one.

But I just think if he could fly from battleground state to battleground state with two appearances a day in crowds of 15 - 20K on weekdays that would dampen the republican mood.

Although the risk is what if Palin draws similar crowds....

Barack hasn't drawn less than 15,000 people at his rallies in more than two weeks. He's drawn as many as 35,000 in Detroit.

Granted all his big rallies have been outdoor events in recent weeks, but they're still huge.

Well just call me Ms. Information today :)

I knew he had a large crowd yesterday but did not realize it was that big and guess I have missed his other big events of late.

But we're not electing Palin, we're electing either Obama or McCain. By boosting Palin over and beyond McCain the Repubs are basically saying "McCain is old news." Palin drawing big crowds only accentuates the fact that McCain is a has-been.

Town! Town! Town! U R WISDOM!!

Now doncha think Miss "whatevea" Cindy didn't recognize this! She began "CLINGING" to "McAncient" on DAY 1

Annnnnd the more The Gov. KEEPS referring to HERSELF as "the NEW FACE" of the Repug., she is "telegraphing" to "her base" that she (THINKS) is READY!

NOT!!

Obama-Biden '08!!

here in Dallas there are yard signs and bumper stickers that simply say Sarah! with McCain-Palin in small print. Listening her lie her butt off in FL just now, it is clear she is suppose to whip the crowds up with what they want to hear, despite being factually disproved. That is what is so disappointing about McCain but hey folks have covered this crowd.

I did not hear the whole speech but I was disappointed to hear her attacking Biden - the man's mother just died can he not be hands off until Wednesday?

to be clear...it was jill's mother who died, not joe's. she had been in hospice for a while i think (she wasn't at any of the high-profile campaign events). still family though...

thanks i did nto realize my mistake until after i had logged out.

You would think so...but the same courtesy wouldn't be extended if there was a death in either McCain or Palin's families.

Unfortunate-and I don't think it's right-but that's our world.

One small piece of evidence to oppose your statement:

Sarah Palin's non-response to Joe Biden's story about his family at the debate.

Now, maybe she would be coached to act human in another circumstance. But in that moment she did not. And he is the VP choice of McCain and that campaign.

There;s a lack of real humanity in that campaign, D, whether you like it or not. If this was not the case, Palin would not have been the choice.

Not that this one piece of evidence proves or disproves anything -- just interesting piece of info on the humanity (or lack thereof) over on the McCain side.

What was she supposed to say? She swung the topic back to McCain, which is where Biden started attacking before talking about his family. She didn't go after him.

I thought her answer was appropriate. At that point, she couldn't attack him. It was a fine line to walk, and she walked it.

Besides-and I think this is lost in everyone's rush to defend Obama-I haven't once said that Palin's right for going after Biden now. I disagree with it.

She could have shown compassion. That's all that was needed.

And-forgive my cynicism-if she had, she would've taken a hit on the right. And quite possibly the left, as any show of compassion would've been called fake, regardless of sincerity.

Palin was in a no win situation, and did the best thing: stay on message and defend McCain.

No, it exposed her for the phony that she is

Based on what? That it is the other side? The fact that Obama or Biden dissed someone who lost a family member?

D, I respect you, but that just veered into a smear without merit. Well, at least conjecture without fact.

I believe if Moma McCain were to die, that the nation would be respectful, Obama and Biden, too.

D,

You should know better than to say such as that. Barack has proven time & again what kind of man he is. Where did you get the idea that Barack wouldn't extend common courtesy?

I clarified below that the campaigns wouldn't say such.

Actually courtesy WOULD be extended to the McCain or Palin families. Obama came out and said "lay off Bristol," when we all know if Malia or Sasha were pregnant they'd be called all sorts of baby mamas, welfare queens, etc.

If Mama McCain or any of the Palins up and died, I don't think you'd see either Obama or Biden attacking them on the campaign trail until after the funeral was over.

Town, on point.

Town, you are right, as usual.

Obama and Biden are compassionate, real people.

McCain and Palin are androids. Blood doesn't flow through their veins. They're both frauds. John McCain isn't even a genuine hero and the stories about what really happened in Vietnam are coming out in droves.

Gore Vidal was right all along.

...and I honestly think-or want to believe-that McCain/Palin would call that as inappropriate as well.

Far as the supporters on each side, the namecalling/attacking would fly both ways.

D: . . . think-or want to believe-

The MAJOR DIFFERENCE is THEY DID NOT!!!

WHY??? NO CLASS!! NO HEART!! NO COMPASSION!! Look how "The Gov." reacted to Mr. Biden's "moment" during the "debate."

"Wel,l moving right along" to my NEXT TALKING POINT, was HER smarmy/snarky/sarcastic ATTITUDE!!

She's COLDER than ALASKA!! - Sub "ZERO!!"

I think you're wrong.

(Not gonna delete this, but just caught on that you were talking about from the candidates themselves. In that case, yes....wouldn't happen. But...)

I'd hope I was, but I don't think so:

If either of the McCain's sons who are in the military or Palin's son got killed, it would be said they got what they deserved for fighting in an "unjust/illegal/(insert adjective here)" war.

God knows what would be said if we were talking about Cindy or Roberta McCain...or Todd Palin, for that matter.

Now, I'll clarify: that type of stuff wouldn't come from here; I believe JJP to be better than that. But it'd make the rounds on Kos and DU.

I definitely agree that supporters on both sides can cross the line and it is unfortunate. Thankfully JJP (regulars) are not that way. That said, Fox News is an unofficial arm of the GOP- you can say Keith O and now Rachel Maddow are super liberals (and I LOVE THEM FOR IT,) but that's only two hours on one station.

The damage comes when the entire station, save for a random "left leaning" pundit happens on the station, is hell bent on fueling the lies and distorted truths. So where Obama can make a speech and tell people to chill out, Fox is out there fanning the flames of hate- real time and 24hours/ day.

Let's be honest- most of the blogs are educating people who are comfortable in this cyber habitat, but TV is where people are getting their info.

Umm I may have moved off topic here- but somewhere above lies the point.

For all the crap that O'Reilly gets in the blogosphere, I thought his interview with Obama was fair. He didn't really go after him like he could have (did you see what he did to Rep. Frank?).

That said, yes, FNC swings way right. I'm not sure if that's just how the network is, or if it's just because their liberal commentators are punks. If Colmes would reach over and slap Hannity one good time, that might restore some balance to the world.

Ahh I know my point now (lol.) Fox News is conservative media (conservative values and it says and does so.) CNN and MSNBC etc are examples of media that strives to be balanced and fair. The latter term is the rub: fair. Faux News has basically created the notion of a bi-partisan media (GOP- them, and the rest Dems media,) which is not accurate. The skewed news they present is not news then, its propaganda.

So when we discuss how both sides won't respect what's happening in the lives of the candidates, I think its important to note that the GOP has an unfair/ and unethical advantage and tool in Fox News Network.

I don't watch them- at all- ever. I saw Hannity and Colmes once and they didn't seem so different to me so I can't agree or disagree with you on this. Bill O is a freaking punk. He won't say shit to Obama's face, but behind his back of he's a tough guy.

What's fair about MSNBC? The only thing that separates them from FNC is that no one really watches them.

I occasionally take in O'Reilly if he has something interesting on. Much less so H&C. Thing about FNC is, their news is alright....it's the commentators that get them in trouble.

The only reason you think they are unfair, is because they fact check before they present conservative lies and distortions.

News and news from a PARTICULAR opinion are two different things. The latter is propaganda. Sure they are not throwing leaflets from a plane, it's just "biased news" on a scrolling ticker.

Fox News goes where the money is. It's an entertainment empire built on a particular demographic that it's captured. Giving it legitimacy as a journalist enterprise would be to bestow undeserved legitimacy.

Sadly many other news outlets are also entertainment businesses. At least the Daily Show doesn't pretend.

But we're not talking about what random bloggers might say, we're talking about what SARAH PALIN, candidate said. I doubt seriously either Obama or Biden would be attacking McCain today if Mama McCain died today or attacking Palin if any of the Palins died today.

Excellent point.

See what I said in the parantheses above; went back and added that after I typed my response.

Beau Biden is also going to Iraq so the Republican side of this presidential race is not the only one with a loved one's well-being at stake.

True.

And, in all fairness, he might get the same sort of treatment as McCain's/Palin's son(s). When I was watching the debate, someone made the distinction that his son was a lawyer (which I'm not sure is true), while Palin's was infantry. To me, that's equally disrespectful.

Oh here go- now THEY will create a hierarchy of the importance of service role. Now THAT is elitism. Bo Biden signed up to serve and is giving up the comforts of home to be there- still doesn't mean much huh? The nerve.

On this one, I'm with you.

The truth of the matter D. is that you can disagree with this war--call it unjust, illegal and so on---but in my eyes, that doesn't make you unpatriotic to me. I believe that it is an unjust war but I pray hard for every servicemember I know because that is my experience in life, I am surrounded by it. I have bid farewell to family and friends before a deployment not knowing if they will be okay. I am raising three sons, and my life , like so many others has had to endure these cyclical changes of uncertainty. Even my children's pediatrician often asks, is your husband home or deployed, because the truth is when the troops are "home" they are out training ---away from "home"--- getting ready to deploy again. I've seen plenty of marriages fall apart, children behaving poorly, and just generally angst on the homefront when our troops are gone. And yet McCain votes against a dwell-time amemdment that will give our troops much needed rest betwen deployments. And you already kow he has a despicable record on veterans legislation---so it is not far-fetched for people like me to believe this man is only obsessed with war, and not particularly concerned about what happens to our troops after they've come home or if they ever come home.

You know what is unpatriotic to me---when George W. Bush goes to a D.C. press dinner and jokes about not finding WMDs---or when Rumsfeld claims "You don't go to war with the Army you want but the Army you have"--while thousands of troops lost their lives due to unarmored vehicles. And you know I can go on and on about how reckless this administration was leading up to and during the course of this war.

Rethugs have used this war to label anyone opposed to it as unpatriotic---that is simply bullsh-t. The people who led us in this mess should be tried (the entire PNAC-Bush administration)--- but I never really expected much from people like Rumsfeld who did not even have enough decency to sign letters to the family of the deceased soldiers; instead he used an auto-signature--that is the type of shit I will never forget.

I disagreed with the dwell time amendment. The purpose of the military is to be deployable; to go anywhere in the world, as needed. No one told me that I would be able to spend as much time at home as I did deployed when I signed up (and, even though my sea/shore rotation was equal time, it ended up not being that way for me). Dwell time shrinks the availiability of units available for combat. It might have worked post-Somalia until until 9/10/01.

McCain's voting record on vets' issues does leave a lot to be desired. It's bad, being one, but I have to weigh that against his record/credentials on national security. If the truth's really to be told, Obama-only by virtue of not being in the Senate for very long doesn't have much of a voting record on veterans' issues (and for those who want to go to war over that statement, read it very carefully first).

I can't excuse Rumsfeld. I could, once...

But, we are fighting TWO wars simultaneously---(much to the behest of PNAC, since that is part of their ideology)-- and our armed forces are stretched thin--PERIOD. The top brass admits it. This administration has made no concerted effort to grow the forces(draft anyone?), however, they have lined the pockets of their buddies in this militaristic complex of contractors who are often wasting billions in taxpayers dollars.

Now as far as Obama, his record may not be as long, but McCain has always had a horrible record---dating as far back as the early 90's during the first Gulf War. John McCain has never served on the Veteran Affairs Committee---Obama does. And I guess that is why McCain's camp put Walter Reed Middle School on the jumbotron at the RNC Convention instead of Walter Reed Army Medical Center---so embarassing and out-of-touch.

You're approaching your PNAC limit for the day.

One war on multiple fronts.

What does service on a committee lend itself to?Obama's also on the Foreign Relations Committe, and that's been made an issue of in some circles (though I'm not sure if the reason makes a whole lot of sense).

NO ONE can suggest a draft, even if it may be justified. It'd be political suicide.

Well, we know the PNAC connections run deep with Bush and McCain so it is only right to bring up the ideology they suscribe to. John McCain's main foreign policy advisor and Sarah Palin's coach was a director in PNAC.

But since you brought up committees, isn't being on the Foreign Realtions Committee the crux of McCain's arguments---that he served on those same committees and thus has the expertise to lead this country because of that . Because clearly getting captured in Vietnam does not solely make him an expert on foreign relations. Have McCain tell it, he can solve the banking crisis because he was on the Commerce Committee and invented the blackberry just for that reason.

Come on, no one said McCain invented the BlackBerry...and you know that.

9/16/08:

holding up a Blackberrywhile speaking to reporters
"...you're looking at the miracle John Mccain helped create....."

-Douglas Haltz-Eakin, economic advisor to John McCain

You know just as well as I do that he was referring to McCain's support of the telecomm industry.

(Now I will grant you that it's a dumb response to a qustion about how McCain is best qualified to fix the economy)

There's the principle of the thing, and then there's reality. With our modern understanding of PTSD, isn't our military's recovery time a vital part of readiness?

I've always thought the Dems have been too dovish/soft on Bush. In 2004 I was waiting for Kerry to say something like, "Our military is like a gun with two bullets, and we've fired them both. So is it any wonder that Iran and North Korea thumb their noses at us?"

There's a hawkish argument for why Iraq was a mistake, and it's one you rarely hear. It has to do with the threat of military force being far more powerful than actual deployment.

Now that we've shown the world that we can be stopped (no "defeated," just "stopped"), we have significantly weakened our hand in international diplomacy.

I'd disagree that Iraq has shown that we can be "stopped." Bogged down, quite possibly, but we can still project an awful lot of force if required. We may not be able to go man-for-man with, say, China, but we can defintely hold a line and make advances, even with the current conflicts ongoing.

Yes, recovery is a vital part of readiness. But, even with that, "recovery" isn't a full shutdown, as there's still training to be conducted. The Navy tried measuring individual deployment time against individual "down" time (called ITEMPO), and I think they ultimately stopped collecting the metrics because it got too hard to manage.

No offense D, his temperament should also be an issue. His age as well. How will he make us more secure? In your opinion. I am interested. I like to hear opposing viewpoints.

I think it's an issue in that he hasn't let his temper fly. I think a show of it would be good. Just once, though.

In my opinion (and the majority of JJP will disagree), McCain is willing to keep the fight against terrorism on the enemy's territory instead of ours. He has called for not only strengthening our military, but for working with the international community to disrupt and prevent the formation of terrorist networks. He will work to ensure that the intelligence community has the tools they need to provide current, correct, and actionable intelligence-and will not punish those entities that acted within the law to assist in intelligence efforts. In addition, he will push for greater cooperation between the federal government and local first responders, and improve our capacity to prevent-and in the worst case, respond to-catastrophic events here at home.

D. McCain is given far too much credit for his self-proclaimed stance of "I know how to win wars." I am sorry, the man makes more gaffes in what is supposed to be his strong suit.

But not only that John McCain callously promoted kicking Russia out of the G-8 in March of this year, prior to the Georgian conflict. He disses the Spain Prime Minister and of course wants to bomb, bomb, bomb Iran. Which intl community is he trying to work with again?

In the presidential debate, he called for a surge-like operation in Afganistan. Even Gen. David Kiernan remarked that "The word I don't use for Afghanistan is surge" further explaining that what is required is a "Sustained commitment" to a counterinsurgency effort that could last for years---a political,not military solution is required.

Even his favorite Gen. Petraues has remarked that success in Iraq should not be called a victory. But yet McCain's rhetoric is we succeeded with the surge.... but our troops will only come home in victory---which is it?

The surge succeeded in accomplishing its stated goal, which was driving down violence to the point that the Iraqi government could strengthen itself, both politically and militarily. Now, there were some other elements that played a role in the surge's success...but the surge was NEVER designed to "win the war." That was not its intent.

A mirror of the surge in Afghanistan would not work...and really wouldn't accomplish much, as Afghanistan hasn't seen violence on the level of Iraq. The military will play its role in Afghanistan, but that country is able to do a lot more on its own. Besides, I don't think the Taliban's (almost-over) resurgence in Afghanistan could be considered an "insurgency," as Afghanis weren't exactly enthused with life under them. Seems more like an attempt to grab passed power.

No one wants to bomb Iran for sport. If the only suggestion that McCain wants to go to war with Iran is a joke he made in a speech, that's not saying a lot...

My largest issue with the Iraqi surgeand how McCain frames it is that troop levels are only a fraction of what made it to succeed--and I feel the American people are being mislead to beleive that increased troop levels alone created this decrease in violence. You know D, everything from ethnic cleansing,payola to Sunni leaders, and the Awaken-
ing had a hand in this strategy.

John McCain just recently spoke about cutting off all ties with Iran--diplomatically--
basically isolationg them, contrary to Gates' Mullen and several other foreign policy official's positons.

Also, McCain has also joked about killing Iranians with cigarettes, so his humor has more than once been disturbingregarding Iran. And frankly. unbecom-ing of a world leader.

Yes, the increased presence is only part of the puzzle....but it's a very
large part of the puzzle.

As it stands today, we don't have diplomatic ties with Iran. Even the plan
to put diplomats there has been shelved until the next administration takes
office.

Again, you're jumping up and down about another joke...

Unfortunate for us D. Jokes are only allowed for the Mccain campaign. I am sick of the bs. This ain't no time for joking... about the black berry or about bombing that damn IRAN.

Co-sign. That would seem to be out of character for BO.

rikyrah: Guess the DNC wants ta assist Mr. Obama NOW!! Hmm.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/06/new-dn...
New DNC AD Criticizes McCain Over Negative Attack Ads (VIDEO)

The DNC has released a new ad criticizing McCain for his aggressive turn towards negative campaigning. The spot ends with McCain, in a clip on the campaign trail from 2000, saying "if all you run is negative attack ads you don't have much of a vision for the future, or you're not ready to articulate it." As TPM notes, the McCain campaign's ad spending is now nearly 100 percent devoted to attack ads. Watch the DNC's new ad below.

ENJOY!! :>)

Obama's raised enough money for them..but they are using it at the right time.

rikyrah: O.K.! I love STRATEGY!! Sooooo, I'm aww-ite! :>) :>)

rikyrah: Obama is on the "offensive!"

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008...
Obama Warns Against McCain "Smear Tactics"

By Perry Bacon Jr.
ASHEVILLE, N.C. -- Sen. Barack Obama said today that, while his rival John McCain seeks to "distract you with smears" and "Swift Boat-style attacks" in the last weeks of the campaign, he would keep focused on economic issues and what he described as McCain's shortcomings.

"Senator McCain's campaign has announced that they plan to turn the page on the discussion about our economy and spend the final weeks of this campaign launching Swift Boat-style attacks on me," Obama told a crowd of thousands on the football field of Asheville High School. "Senator McCain and his operatives are gambling that he can distract you with smears rather than talk to you about substance. ... I want you to know that I'm going to keep on talking about issues that matter."

The Democratic nominee was reacting to reports of McCain's strategy telegraphed by his aides, as well as remarks Friday from Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

The Republican vice presidential nominee accused Obama of "palling around with terrorists," a reference to his association with William Ayers, who has confessed to domestic bombings as a member of the Vietnam-era Weather Underground. Ayers and Obama are not close and have not spoken in recent years, but they once served together on a nonprofit board that distributed educational grants in Chicago. Ayers hosted a gathering for Obama when he was running for the state Senate in Illinois a decade ago.

Obama did not refer specifically to Palin's remarks, nor did he detail exactly what the "smears" against him by McCain would be.

IT'S sooo ON!!! :>)

Obama-Biden '08!!!

McCain acts like nobody has the ' right' to bring up his dirty laundry. Like folks can't use Google on his ass.

rikyrah: Correct me IFFF I'm wrong; BUT wasn't it "McAncient" who wanted to have a "gentlemanly -kinda" political/election process?? HAH!!

No matter how they try to spin it, the bottom line is;

1. McCain cheated on his first wife with a younger woman who had money.
2. McCain left his first wife to make an advantageous marriage to said younger woman.
3. McCain launches his Political career after making connections and earning money from his beer heiress wife.
4. McCain's first wife is a class act that refuses to fuel the fire - she probably believes he will use enough rope to hang himself in the end.
5. McCain's running mate is outshining him so he hopes people will forget he's the one they have to vote for, and when they realize that, all the hot air goes out of his balloon.

GAME OVER.

CPL: GAME OVER

I'm STANDING and APPLAUDING B4 I EXIT the venue!! :>) :>)

ALL GOOD POINTS!!! :>)

It's starting to look like the Karma Express is going to run the Straight Talk Express off an embankment.

MsKitty: Let's HOPE so! :>)

Agreed ms. Kitty... Agreed.

rikyrah: I sooo enjoyed reading this! IMPULSIVITY at its HIGHEST!!

NO MORAL COMPASS!! Or a broken one!! :>) SAME RESULTS!! :>) :>)