Abstract
In particular since the turn of the millennium, social scientists have identified anti-Muslim sentiment as a key feature of the European extreme-right. This article will discuss the history and validity of the term 'Islamophobia', and will probe into the development of the theme of 'Eurabia' in extreme-right wing ideology. The author will analyze the manner in which visions of a Muslim settlement and 'takeover' of Europe have the potential to create a cross-national reconfiguration of extreme-right ideology, a thematic shift, and a movement toward convergence between different sides of the ideological spectrum. The author argues that this ideology is not static, and that its potential new direction challenges significant assumptions of the current literature on the extreme-right.
Introduction
Islamophobia is a word that is practically ubiquitous in today's discourse on Islam. The situation of Muslim minorities in the West is frequently framed both by academics and by pundits in terms of the 'need' to combat the 'evils' of Islamophobia. The United Nations has organized seminars on 'Confronting Islamophobia: Education for Tolerance and Understanding',1 and such websites as Islamophobia Watch were created to denounce 'opinion columns and news items that we believe advocate Islamophobia and those writers and organizations taking a stand against Islamophobia'.2 The Vienna-based European Union agency European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC—since March 2007 it became the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights—FRA), with a specific focus on Europe, released a much-publicized, cross-national report on 'discrimination and manifestations of Islamophobia' since 2001.3
Yet the widespread mention of Islamophobia is a recent development. The 1997 document that officially established the EUMC includes no reference to Islamophobia, but rather specifies the 'phenomena of racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism'.4 Literature on the European extreme right has mirrored the increasing ubiquitousness of the term Islamophobia in the public sphere. Though there is an ongoing debate on the definition of 'extreme right' and its shortcomings,5 the consensus has been to ascribe the label to highly nationalist, anti-system, and exclusionary (often racist) parties. In this light, Jean-Yves Camus, for example, has pointed out the emergence in the extreme right imagination of Islam as the 'new enemy',6 and has noted that 'racist rhetoric today [has] an undeniable Islamophobic dimension'.7 In academia, however, Islamophobia was not until recently seen as a basic feature of the extreme right's ideological and value system. The term itself was absent in early literature. It is true that Islam has been a target of some extreme-right parties for a considerable time. For instance, Identit, a Front National (National Front) magazine, dedicated a 1990 issue to the 'awakening' of Islam, and stressed both its 'incompatibility' with European culture and that it constituted once again in history 'a danger for Europe'.8 The scholarly tendency, however, has been to consider 'Islamophobia' as primarily a dimension of xenophobia,9 and 'anti-Muslim' narratives as part of a broader anti-immigration outlook of extreme-right parties,10 or as a consequence of aggressive foreign policy visions in post-communist Russia.11
However, in the early 21st century, and particularly in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, the threat that the Crescent will rise over the continent and the spectre of a Muslim Europe have become basic ideological features and themes of the European extreme right. Thus, the concept of 'Islam' galvanizes group action: as the group rallies a 'defence' against Islamization, new issues emerge, existent issues heighten or decline in prominence, party objectives become reconsidered, and new alliances form against the 'threat' of this 'common enemy'.
I thus accept the premise that extreme right ideology is not static but, within some limits, evolves and is shaped by the surrounding environment.12 This study focuses on a variety of parties across Europe, from Austria, Belgium, Britain, Denmark, France, and Italy. The reason behind the choice of parties with different electoral fortunes and each emerging from diverse national traditions is to show how, despite their differences, they display commonalities in their approach to Islam. Because this paper's goal is to capture the overall narrative towards Islam, a primary focus on the parties' literature (such as manifestos, press releases, official party publications, speeches) as well as interviews of leaders and members both to the media and to the author, seems appropriate. Additionally, secondary sources (from mainstream newspapers, websites and outside groups) that yield insight into the parties' worldview are also incorporated.
In the pages that follow, and in the light of the increased weight that the issue of Islam has gained, I will pose a number of key questions, seek to analyze ideological developments of the extreme right, and probe into the challenges that these potential shifts and re-alignments offer to the literature on the subject. Bearing in mind that each development by itself could form the basis for a new article and invite further scrutiny, this paper aims to provide an overview of trends that, in my view, open new avenues of research into the ideology of the extreme-right party family.
Islamophobia or anti-Islamic?
As a preliminary note, it is necessary to point out not only that the term 'Islamophobia' is present both in and outside academia, as I mentioned in the introduction, but also that there is a growing alarmism regarding the issue. This perception of imminent danger is epitomized by the following words of the vice president of the American Humanist Association: 'It's like the beginning of a thunderstorm; you can sense the electricity in the air. Islamophobia is raising its ugly head in the United States as in Europe … We are teetering on the brink of a kind of mass hysteria—Islamophobia—that can set us back a generation or more in our quest for a world at peace'.13 Yet this perceived 'hysteria' seems to be over a term about which there is a lack of agreement regarding its meaning or to what exactly it refers. The last European Union report on 'Discrimination and Islamophobia' specifically states that the definition, application, and use of the term 'remains a contested issue'.14 The introduction to a cross-national report on 'Secularization and Religious Divides in Europe' notes that 'we therefore intend to use the term “Islamophobia” as a starting point' of analysis, but 'will not take the term for granted'.15 Regardless of these caveats, the fact of the matter is that the term shows staying power and has increasingly become the norm in the discussion of the situation of Muslims in Europe. Thus, Islamophobia designates the stigmatization of all Muslims, and is defined as a widespread mindset and fear-laden discourse in which people make blanket judgments of Islam as the enemy, as the 'other', as a dangerous and unchanged, monolithic bloc that it is the natural subject of well-deserved hostility from Westerners.16
Owing to a 'failure' in explaining what Islamophobia is, there have been calls for a new definition of Islamophobia, either broader or more constrained than the current one.17 There are, however, important reasons to rethink such widespread use of the term. Several criticisms have been levelled against it, some more compelling than others. For instance, Csari has mentioned the fact that 'the term can be misleading' because it may subsume other forms of discrimination (such as racial or class) under religious discrimination.18 In my view there are two compelling reasons that the employment by social scientists of the term 'Islamophobia' should be restrained. The first stems from the term's indistinctiveness: It places under the broad umbrella of 'fear or hatred of Islam', discourses and criticisms that have different sources, motivations, and goals. Vincent Geisser, for example, accuses pundits and social scientists who criticize Islam in the name of liberal values, of being driven essentially by a 'fear' that manifests in symptoms of a somewhat undefined 'latent islamophobia'.19 Against this 'catch-all' dynamic, I adopt an approach similar to that of Marcel Maussen, who calls for an urgent need to distinguish between 'academic discussions on the relations between Islam and modernity, public discussions on whether Islam recognizes the principle of separation of church and state, public outcries about Islam as a “backward religion” or as a “violent religion”', and hate speech.20 Certainly a sizeable number of those who pose questions regarding Islam are not necessarily motivated by an illogical attitude, biased mindset, pure fear, or blind hate.
This aspect is linked with a second point of concern regarding the prevalent mention of 'Islamophobia'. John Bowen argues that the term is more polemical than it is analytical: It is 'far from neutral'.21 In this recognition, parallels can be established with the widespread use of the label 'xenophobia' that has long been attached to those who questioned the impact of immigration or the problems arising from specific models of integration (or lack thereof) of immigrants. This issue is connected with what Chantal Mouffe has described as one of the greatest flaws of contemporary European democracies: the imposition of a 'moral framework' on a number of issues, legitimating the reign of good, 'acceptable discourse' (and sometimes cordon sanitaires) over discourse deemed evil and out-of-bounds. There is, of course, no denial of the existence of 'extreme' positions or xenophobic attitudes, for example. Yet, in the wake of fairly recent developments in Europe, one is hard-pressed not to support her denunciation of 'the danger of using this category [extreme-right] to demonize all the parties who defend positions that are seen as a challenge to the well-meaning establishment'.22 The indiscriminate use of such labels as 'Islamophobia', that have an unmistakably moralistic dimension, has the potential to stigmatize generally and relegate to the 'Islamophobic' periphery of public debate, those who criticize or even attempt to understand, in a non-monolithic fashion, some aspects of Islam. The conflation (sometimes open, often implicit) of legitimate criticism or valid points of view with demonization, has the consequence of ending any sort of truly democratic and open debate on any sort of issue, silencing voices afraid of stigmatization, and in practice facilitating the emergence and actions of those who indeed demonize. This rings especially true in the light of increasing recognition, in academia for example, that there has been in recent decades a lack of public debate and interaction between those who govern and the governed, about crucial issues (like immigration), which has in turn increased the appeal of those parties that profess to represent the people and call for 'true' democracies.23 In this light, 'anti-Islamic' seems a more suitable analytical category to apply to some discourses on Islam, particularly those coming from the extreme-right, because it at least starts a necessary (and long overdue) process of distinguishing between discourses about Islam: those who show irrational fears and treat Islam as a monolithic bloc from those who may be critical of some aspects yet are not ipso facto 'anti' Islam because of their criticism.24
A greater focus on Christianity?
The authors of a 1998 research paper to the European Commission argued that it was no longer possible to discuss political futures 'without also discussing questions of meaning, spirituality, and cultural identity'.25 A decade later these words ring truer than ever, particularly in regard to the European 'political future'. One of the developments of notice in the last years has been the growing relevance of Christian motifs and themes in the narratives set forth by a substantial number of European extreme-right parties.26 The increased perception of Muslims, and Islam in general, as an ominous threat to the native communities is in no small part responsible for this evolution. In a few cases, such as that of the National Front, the attention paid to Christianity is an intensified continuation of a previous ideological stance. Thus, when Le Pen defends outlawing large mosques on the grounds that they constitute 'buildings of political-religious conquest' and 'threaten the Christian identity of our country', he is by and large reiterating a familiar theme.27
In some cases this 'turn to Christianity' has been novel and dramatic, and has implied a rejection of previous positions. This has been the case, for instance, with the Northern League. During an initial phase—which lasted until the late 1990s—the Catholic Church was defined as a natural enemy of the freedom of the North, because of the Church's 'collusion' with the oppressive centralist forces since the unification of the Italian state. The Vatican, and its ecclesiastical hierarchy in particular, were denounced as a reactionary force and enemy of Northern liberation. The outbreak of the Kosovo war (which the party saw as part of an American-led project to 'Islamicize' Europe), coupled with an increasing emphasis by the party on 'traditional' values and principles (as a response to the disruptive forces of liberalization and globalization), triggered a shift in its discourse toward a pro-Christian, pro-Vatican direction. Pope John Paul II went from being a 'Polish enemy' of the besieged community to, in the words of Umberto Bossi, 'a great [man] … the first [pope] for one hundred years who does not retreat in front of the Masonic and anti-Christian doctrines … the Church is starting to wake up'.28 Thus, the League led the opposition against the construction of Islamic places of worship,29 and increasingly stressed the 'millenarian struggle' between Christianity and Islam.
This anti-Islamic reorientation of the party received a major boost after the terrorist attacks of September 11. If the anti-Islamic focus had previously been fixed on the consequences for the indigenous community identity of Muslim settlement in Italy, 'Islam' soon became in the narrative of the party the synonym for terrorism, violence, and death. The party increased its activism on the ground against policies and practices that seemed to facilitate what the party called the 'Islamization' of the country.30 A European MP for the Northern League declared at a street protest against the burqa that 'Islam is a dangerous virus, and we must stop it from spreading, because Padania must remain Christian'.31 Historical battles are reinterpreted in the light of the steady influx of Muslim immigration to Europe. When the Italian parliament decided to remove a painting of the 1571 naval battle of Lepanto (in which the Ottoman fleet was defeated by Christian forces) from parliament Mario Borghezio, a top Northern League official, reacted angrily, saying that the decision 'was an attack against the Christian identity of the country [because Lepanto] signalled the victory of a Christian Europe against Muslim invasion'.32 In this new context it come as no surprise that the party daily was one of the strongest supporters of Pope Benedict XVI when he made comments about the constitutive role of violence in Islam that triggered worldwide Muslim protests.33 Northern League officials also praise Benedict for his focus on the need to 're-Christianize' Europe. 'We need to thank Ratzinger', declared one League member. 'Because of him the Church has remembered its origins [and] what the deep meaning of belonging to a Christian community is'.34
A similar emphasis on 'Christian roots' has become a feature of the discourse of the British National Party (BNP), particularly since 2001 and in reaction to the Islam-as-a-threat framing of the debate. Nick Griffin, leader of the BNP, has proclaimed the party to be the 'vanguard of the resistance to Islamification', which he deems to be 'the most pressing problem of the first half of our young century'.35 As in the case of the Italian Northern League, the BNP has actively opposed the construction of mosques, each of which it describes as a step toward the 'Islamic colonization' of the country (as, for example, the large mosque planned for the 2012 London Olympics).36 Even a symbol of traditional English nationalism such as Saint George has been described as a 'fiery and powerful symbol of opposition to Islam'.37 Further the BNP has defended Pope Benedict XVI, and praised his 'courage to speak against the perils of Islam',38 while heavily criticizing the Anglican Church of England for lacking the resolve to address 'the very real threat of Britain becoming an Islamic state in the next few decades'.39 In this context, in which the Church of England is accused of having resigned itself to irrelevance and extinction, with 'hand wringing ministers kneel[ing] before the advancing waves carrying aloft the mighty sword of Islam',40 it is no wonder that the party has been linked to the creation of a new Christian organization, the Christian Council, whose mission statement reads: 'At this time of moral crisis and faced with the very real prospect of the spiritual void being filled with dangerous creeds and cults, now more than ever, is a strong voice needed to reconnect the church with the lost congregations'.41 When the head of the Church of England noted that the incorporation of some aspects of Sharia law into the British legal system was 'unavoidable', the BNP reacted by stating that these declarations were part of a larger disposition of the Establishment toward 'betraying Britain's Christian heritage in order to appease Islam'.42 In the party's magazine Identity, a writer suggested that the BNP should commit itself to the defence of 'civilisational Christianity', because 'the alternative to a Christian Britain is chaos' and could lead inter alia to 'the surrender to the aggressiveness of a certain foreigner religion'.43
This renewed emphasis on the 'Christian identity' of the 'original communities', who are now endangered by the advance of Islam in Europe, can be seen across the spectrum of parties on the extreme right. The short-lived political group of the European Parliament, 'Identity, Tradition and Sovereignty' (ITS), a coalition of extreme right parties from six member states that lasted from January to November 2007, had as a founding principle the 'commitment to Christian values, heritage, culture'. Chairman Bruno Gollnisch stated that one of the goals of the group was to go beyond a narrow euroscepticism (limited to attacking a European superstate) that does not 'properly defend Christian values'.44 During the Austrian parliamentary elections of October 2006, the Freedom Party campaigned with a specifically anti-Islamic platform and released a political advertisement in which the cross atop Stephen's Cathedral in Vienna, the oldest church in the country, was replaced with an Islamic crescent. The caption read: 'This is the true hidden desire of Muslims'.45 Amidst warnings against the impending 'Islamization' of the country, the Flemish party Vlaams Belang proclaims to be the real guardian of Christianity. As stated by Filip Dewinter, 'In political disputes about abortion, euthanasia, same-sex-marriage, adoption for homosexual couples, family values, subsidies for Christian or Jewish schools, we have always defended the Christian viewpoint. On those topics, we were better Christians than the so-called Christian-Democrats'. He added, 'Many of us are not “believers” in the religious meaning of the word, but we share the moral values of Christianity. They are the foundation of European civilization'.46
This idea of an embattled 'Christian Europe' weakened by secularism and threatened with disappearance under the continuous migratory flow and settlement of Muslim populations, has found support in the warnings of Pope Benedict XVI against the spiritual void into which Europe fell due to the triumph of a Godless rationality that denies its peoples the role of faith and spiritual guidance.47 As the Pope declared in an address regarding the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, Europe has 'an identity comprised of a set of universal values that Christianity helped forge, thus giving Christianity not only a historical but [also] a foundational role vis--vis Europe. These values, which make up the soul of the Continent, must remain in the Europe of the third millennium as a “ferment” of civilization'. If Europe stays the course of radical secularism, in a context of the steady decline of birth rates, it is 'following a path that could lead to its departure from history'.48 This theme of an impending collapse of a Christian Europe is not exclusive to the Catholic hierarchy but also comes from Protestant environs. Although some of these voices specifically denounce the ongoing 'Islamization of Europe',49 the emerging consensus seems to focus on the need for a more assertive and aggressive defence of 'Christian' values that would bring about the 're-Christianization' of Europe. In this scenario it is not surprising that many nationalist parties find in the appeals of the Church, notably the Vatican, a confirmation of their own message and an ally in the need for urgent action against the decadence and the collapse of a Christian Europe that looms on the horizon. Eric Kaufmann has written that the growth of a European Islam may lead to an indigenous nationalist response (in the form of stronger nationalist parties) or 'may lead to a renewed emphasis on Christian identity'.50 Those variables, however, are not necessarily opposed and need not to exclude each other. The latest developments in European nationalist groups indicate that, particularly in opposition to visions of a Muslim takeover, a more Christian direction within these parties is already under way.
Toward philo-Semitism?
While anti-Semitism has been absent from the narrative of some parties (the Northern League, for example), distrust of Jews—perceived as alien, rootless, and engaged in international conspiracies against the unity of the nation—has long been a trait of European extreme-right parties (for instance, the National Front in France). In more recent times, however, there has been a discursive shift in many of these parties to a decidedly pro-Jewish direction. This trend has been uneven, and some parties, like Germany's National Democratic Party (NPD), remain decidedly loyal to their anti-Semitic origins.51 A case in point is the Flemish Vlaams Belang that went from hardly taking any notice of Jews52 to—in an increasingly anti-Islamic context—the staunch support of Judaism and Zionism.53 Filip Dewinter has often professed his support of and admiration for Jews, both in Jewish and in mainstream media. He repeatedly mentions the 'Judeo-Christian',54 foundations of Europe and the West. 'Jewish values are European values', he stated in an interview, 'and Jewish civilization is one of the roots of Western civilization'.55 The party has vowed to defend the Jewish communities against attacks from Muslims, which Dewinter described as 'the first pogroms in Belgium since World War II'.56 Israel is also praised as a 'natural ally' of Europe because it is 'the only nation with freedom of speech, freedom of religion, rule of law [in the Middle East]. It's a paradox, but even the Arabs in Israel have more political rights and more freedom than their brothers in the Arab countries. Israel struggles for survival and security in a region that's ruled by bloody dictators'.57 An interesting case is the British National Party that has recently been trying to distance itself from anti-Semitism, one of the driving forces of the party since its origins. The party leader has criticized the rabid 'blame-the-Jew' mentality,58 and stated that for the BNP the idea 'that “the Jew is the enemy” is simply over for us now' because the party wants to 'get on with the real struggles'.59 The party has given space to voices that openly profess admiration for Israel. A BNP member announced that the party 'has moved on in recent years, casting off the leg-irons of conspiracy theories and the thinly veiled anti-Semitism which has held this party back for two decades'. Instead the party identified as 'the real enemies of the British people' two groups: 'home grown Anglo-Saxon Celtic liberal leftists' and 'the Crescent Horde, the endless wave of Islamists who are flocking to our shores to bring our island nations into the embrace of their barbaric desert religion'. Thus, the anti-Semitic 'lunatic fringe of the Nationalist movement' should be rejected and Israel's 'nationalist' stance praised. After all, 'the 21st century is the Islamic century. Unless we start to resist the threat of Islamic extremism then within 100 years the West will have become Eurabia'.60 In France Marine Le Pen, who vowed to 'de-demonize' the image of the party, has made overtures to the French Jewish community and, as a member of the European parliament, has registered with the Delegation for Relations with Israel. She was behind the decision to send National Front members to a demonstration in memory of a French Jew killed in a hate-crime, and told the media that she wanted to put an end to a 'number of misunderstandings' between the party and the Jewish community who, Marine Le Pen said, 'have nothing to fear from the National Front'.61 'The French community, who are increasingly victims of attacks by Islamic radicals', she said on one occasion, 'should be able to turn to us for support'.62 For this show of solidarity with Jews, more traditional voices close to the party have accused her of trying to create, together with the Flemish Vlaams Belang, an 'axis' of rapprochement with the Jewish community in order to confront Muslims.63 Guillaume Faye, one of France's New Right main theorists, advocates that those who defend European identity should get rid of an obsessive and 'chronic anti-Judaism' because the real danger is colonization from 'the third world and Islam'.64
Recently a few voices in academia have argued that 'Muslims' have replaced 'Jews' as the new transnational Other in exclusionary discourses in the European Union. 'Welcome to the new Europe, in which the Jews are no longer persecuted but revered as cosmopolitan ancestors', observed Dominic Boyer.65 For Matti Bunzl, the modern form of anti-Semitism has run its historical course and 'there simply is no debate on the legitimacy of the Jewish presence in Europe'. Whereas anti-Semitism is a thing of the past, 'designed to protect the purity of the ethnic nation-state, Islamophobia is marshalled to safeguard the future of European civilization'.66 To other scholars anti-Semitism provides an accurate model regarding how Muslims are increasingly perceived as perpetual aliens to the indigenous culture.67 Some remarkable differences between the treatment and status of Jews in the past and the situation of Muslims in today's Europe should not be underestimated, however, and the fact remains that traditional anti-Semitism can resurge in other forms—in a ferocious form of anti-Zionism, for example—and can even manifest itself in anti-Jewish violence perpetrated by Muslim youths (visible during the second Palestinian Intifada 2000-2006).68 Yet, an increasing number of acknowledgments by some extreme-right parties of the Jewish contribution to European culture, and support of Israel, may serve as evidence that the traditional demonization of Jews is taking a backseat to a new, fierce stigmatization of Muslims in narratives of belonging and exclusion in Europe.
Beyond nationalism?
Nationalism has long been identified as a core, and perhaps as the most-important, feature of extreme right-wing parties.69 Further, these parties proudly declare themselves to be the only 'authentic' national forces of the country, and a majority of them feature variations of 'nation' in their own names. It has been observed that in some intellectual circles, such as those around the European New Right, nationalism was running out of fashion, replaced by an allegiance to a wider source of cultural identity, such as Europe. I believe that this development is not restricted to these rather small circles. I argue here that although conceding that nationalism may have more than one centre of control,70 the height to which the notions of 'Europe' and 'West' have reached in the narratives of the European extreme-right warrants a closer look at the hypothesis that the 'defence' of the original communities by these groups has been increasingly extended to a European level and does not limit itself to the borders or territories of the country. This trajectory can be seen across the spectrum of extreme-right parties and has become more intense in recent years. In some respect this post-national discourse, the greater focus on European and Western borders and traditions, complements the nationalist stance, but has also the potential to compete with it. The emphasis on a broader entity—Europe or the West—emanates both from the need collectively to defend indigenous Europeans from the 'New World Order' and its globalist ethos (which erases traditions and roots),71 and from fears of, and struggle against, Islamization.
A recurring theme of transformation of Europe into a new geo-political entity dominated by Muslims called Eurabia emerges in many of the discourses. The work of Jewish historian Bat Ye'or,72 is becoming a reference, and such concepts as Eurabia and Dhimmitude (referring to the subjected status of Christians and Jews under Islamic governance) have entered the vocabulary of the extreme-right (and, one might add, some sectors of the mainstream right as well). Asked to define his party, Flemish Party leader Filip Dewinter replied, 'We are the defenders of Western civilization, with its two pillars: Judeo-Christianity and the heritage of the ancient Greece'. Bat Ye'or is hailed as someone who was able both to unveil the 'shameful political shift' that led European elites and Arab leaders to concoct together the formation of Eurabia, and to point out 'how European politicians are kowtowing to Islam'. Bat Ye'or sheds light on dynamics that were previously in the dark. Dewinter explains it thus: 'I never understood how European politicians could be so short sighted. It seems so absurd. Again, Bat Ye'or explains how this fits into a larger pattern of creating a new political entity called Eurabia. It's not just weakness or ill judgement. It's part of a plan'. Dewinter adds, 'These Eurabian-minded politicians think they can consolidate their political power by making an alliance with the Muslim world. By selling out Europe to its worst enemies. They hope a strong Eurabia will be able to counterbalance the power of the United States'. This Eurabia path is thus leading Europe to a catastrophe: 'It puts at stake the physical survival of our European nations. We could go down the road of Lebanon'.73 The focus here is on the survival of Europe, and potentially the entire West, with the threat to the Flemish community as part of a broader Europe-wide struggle. The Eurabian narrative is also gaining strength in the discourse of the British National Party. When Italian journalist and polemicist Oriana Fallaci passed away, the party praised her as someone who 'defied the civilizational transformation of Europe into Eurabia'.74 According to Nick Griffin, the BNP leader, 'We are deeply concerned about the mainly—though not exclusively—French elite project to morph the EU, Turkey and the Mahgreb into “Eurabia”. Bat Ye'or is 100% right about this'.75 In an article about the November 2005 riots in France Griffin described his party as 'the vanguard' in the 'struggle between the West and Islam', for if the party fails in its mission, 'Europe will be no more, and our grandchildren will curse us in their dhimmi status as they pay endless tribute and suffer ceaseless oppression, injustice, humiliation and rape in the lands that once belonged to their free forebears'.76 As written by a BNP columnist, 'This is in fact the start of World War 4, with its roots in the victory of Charles Martel over Islam in the Battle of Tours in 732 AD. Islam is once again awakening, and the West must awaken as well'.77
The Northern League in Italy shares an analogous view regarding the need to defend Europe and the West in the face of the 'imperialist' designs of Islam. Northern League senior member Roberto Calderoli, decrying the West's abjuration of 'our Christian roots, identity and culture', argued in the party's newspaper for the launch of 'crusades of Western peoples, who still remember the battle of Lepanto', against Islam.78 When the Islamic threat—both in terms of 'colonization' and terrorism—is discussed in the party literature, it is typically framed as a danger not merely to the community but to the peoples of Europe and the West. The party claims to itself the role of supreme protector of the West against Islam; after all, 'We were the first to ring the alarm about the danger that Islam represents, about their inherent hostility toward the West'.79 'As preached by Oriana Fallaci', commented a party official, 'we need to show the pride of being Westerners, Christians and Padani'.80 Mogens Camre, member of the European Parliament with the Danish People's Party, also mentions the need to combat the 'real danger of an Islamization of Europe' as a top priority of its party. He explicitly frames the discourse in terms of a collective European identity, saying, 'We think the Muslim countries belong in the Middle Ages and we will not see our democratic countries being destroyed by people who think they should rule the world according to a book written in the Middle East in the 7th and 8th centuries'.81 Regarding the threat of 'Islamization', an Austrian Freedom Party official observes that there is a real 'threat regarding the cultural integrity of the European nations and peoples with its cultures and traditions … when Islamization threatens our laws, rules, habits and traditions it needs to be rolled back'. He added, 'Islamic countries must grant equal rights to Christians in their countries as Europe grants to Muslims who integrate into our society'.82 At the same time the new 'pan-European party' envisioned by four right-wing nationalist leaders (from Austria, France, Belgium, and Bulgaria) aims at rescuing Europe from the twin evils of 'globalization and Islamization'. 'Patriots of all the countries of Europe, unite!' exhorted the leader of Austria's Freedom Party at the conference where such plans were announced.83 At the heart of political parties commonly described as 'extreme-right', nationalism is still the dominant force. Yet it is difficult to deny the emergence—and the examples presented here reinforce this perception—of a growing turn toward post-nationalist dynamics and arguments in the discourse of many of such parties. It is as if there is a direct relationship between their concerns vis--vis an Islamic community or umma united by faith and mores, and the need of these parties to present themselves as representatives and first line of defence of a wider European (and Western) transnational community also bound by a common (Christian) faith and values. This dynamic emerges clearly in the way, for example, that a potential (and increasingly unlikely) EU membership of Turkey is depicted by the European extreme-right. Many anti-Turkey membership propaganda materials, from a different number of parties, portray a threatening Crescent over the map of Europe with the headline, 'Turkey No!' One of the ways that, in the last general elections, the Austrian Freedom Party promoted its anti-system image was to state repeatedly that, unlike mainstream parties, it rejected Turkey's membership in the EU.84 The alternative 'European project' promoted by leader of the French National Front Jean-Marie Le Pen, is based on a 'coherent group of peoples belonging to a Christian civilization [and] sharing a common culture',85 which effectively excludes any Muslim countries (like Turkey). Raising the spectre of a 'true Islamic invasion of Europe' in the eventuality of Turkey's membership in the European Union, the Northern League has been continually campaigning for a popular referendum that 'will allow all citizens to have their say on a historical issue that will seal the destiny of our peoples'.86 It has been argued that the debate on Turkish membership transformed Turkey into the '“other” for self-definition of what it was to be defined as a European'.87 More to the point, Casanova wrote that after 30 years of immigration from territories outside of Europe, the Turkish question is part of a broader issue in which 'Islam' is identified as the 'utterly other'. Yet, the rejection of Islam by European extreme-right parties is dismissed by the same author as merely 'nativist' and 'nationalist'.88 As I have attempted to show in this section, a third 'Europeanist' dimension could be added, regardless of how different this 'Europe' is from the one currently promoted by Brussels. An increased 'European identity'—going beyond a mere attachment to the original homelands—in these parties is certainly associated with the prominent role that Islam plays as the 'other' in contemporary discourses about 'what it means' to be an European in the 21st century.89
From the periphery to the centre?
The question of the adoption by the mainstream right of themes and issues previously 'owned' by extreme-right parties (such as those dealing with law and order or immigration, for instance) has been addressed with some regularity by the literature on the extreme right.90 Hainsworth has edited a volume on these parties, containing the telling subtitle 'From the Margins to the Mainstream', in which he concludes by stating that 'in a variety of situations, they have influenced the agendas, policies and discourses of major political parties and governments'.91 In this section I will address the ways in which the increasing importance of the issue of 'Islam' has led to a de facto mainstreaming of opinions and policies previously deemed too 'extreme' and relegated to the periphery of the political spectrum by centrist parties.
But before illustrating and discussing this point, I will focus on another crucial consequence that this emphasis on Islam has had for the extreme right. In fact, recent years have witnessed a growing assimilation by these parties of a number of issues that are 'respectable', that are morally compelling for a substantial majority of public opinion and rooted in relatively consensual attitudes and inclinations. In short, the extreme right has co-opted issues that a large number of mainstream politicians, both on the mainstream Right and Left, find hard to disagree with, if not fully support. This development has rendered the distinction between what is 'mainstream' and what should be categorized as 'extreme' difficult and, at times, hopelessly muddied. For example, the situation of women in Muslim communities—and the issue of women's rights in general—illustrate this point well. When the situation of women in Islam is discussed, the European extreme right puts forward arguments that, in a not-so-distant past, were considered to be positions exclusive to progressive and feminist groups in the West. The extreme right has been visibly active in its rejection of several cultural practices associated with Islam—ranging from the use of the headscarf and forced marriages, to honour-killings and female genital mutilation—by using arguments similar to those employed by mainstream groups that denounce inequalities and discrimination against women. This development can be seen across the continent. Danish People's Party MEP Mogens Camre stated that 'headscarves and burkhas are a discrimination of women. The real effect is to keep women apart from society and prevent them from obtaining freedom and equality. No society can develop without equality and freedom for women'.92 One of the most popular books in Denmark, Islamists and Naivists, was co-written by two figures of the country's political mainstream (both Social Democrats, one a feminist) and denounces the 'totalitarian' impulses of Islam and its claim to control every single aspect of the lives of its adherents, and especially of women. As one of the writers observed, 'If a woman doesn't wear a headscarf, the Islamists will exert maximum pressure and use the threat of violence to make sure that she does. It is that zealous attempt to apply Islamist principles that is as authoritarian as Nazism or communism'.93
In recent years the theme of 'oppression of women' under Islam has become a major theme of the literature of the Italian Northern League. According to League writers, the condition of Muslim women is a tell-tale sign of Islam's 'backwardness', and is incompatible with the mores of a superior Western civilization that strives for gender equality. A party MP commented that the Western way of life 'is based on civilized [notions of] democracy and respect for others … rooted in the DNA of each citizen', while Islam's way of life 'is based on uncivilized traditions such as sharia, the death penalty, lex talionis … infibulation, polygamy, the idea that inside families men are superior to women. These are all uncivilized traditions'.94 When the Italian parliament refused to decide on a motion submitted by the Northern League coalition regarding 'violations against women's freedom in the name of religion', a party MP showed her outrage by declaring that 'in order to not offend Islamic susceptibilities', the parliament decided to ignore the fact that 'that in our country there are women and girls who are “slaves” or subjected to personal restrictions or forced [to accept] polygamy in the name of a religious faith that does not recognize the principle of equality between men and women'.95 The British National Party has also intervened in favour of women's rights, specifically in the context of media reports about the establishment of Sharia courts and a two-tier legal system in Britain.96 The BNP accused the media, and particularly the BBC, of ignorance about 'the abuse women and minorities suffer under Sharia laws the world over'. It continued: 'Women are beaten, raped, murdered, mutilated and oppressed by Muslim “culture” and English law should never turn its back on these vulnerable members of their society'. Like the Northern League, the BNP stresses gender equality in their denunciations of Islam. The party warns that the government's failure to stop Islamic law from taking hold, 'would be a travesty and a direct refutation of western morals that posit that all people are created equal and stand the same in the eyes of the law'.97
The debate about the use of the headscarf in French public schools provides an example of an issue that conflates the questions of separation of Church and State and of gender equality, and has mobilized on the same front different forces of the political spectrum from the extreme right to feminists and progressives. For example, one of the strongest supporters of banning the hijab was a prominent feminist, Elisabeth Badinter, who denounced the scarf as the 'oppression of a sex' and at odds with the Western tradition of women's emancipation.98 A Socialist and former president of SOS Racisme defended a left-wing policy of immigration quotas, and of setting as a precondition for potential immigrants the respect for both 'lacit [secularism] and gender equality'.99 One should not be surprised, then, that Le Pen repeatedly raised in his speeches the need to enforce the principle of separation of Church and State while decrying the measures taken by the French government,100 to 'institutionalize' Islam in the country. These efforts, Le Pen said, marked the end of the principle of lacit and the first stage of the official financing of Islam in France under the pressure of its burgeoning 'migrant and demographic force'.101 The necessity of maintaining religious and cultural neutrality in public schools has also been invoked by the Freedom Party in Austria as a reason to ban the use of the headscarves by both teachers and students.102 Denmark's People's Party was behind a proposal to ban 'culturally specific' headgear, except for those cultural manifestations that reflected a Christian-Jewish background.103 On this issue the Italian Northern League leads the fight against any attempt to remove Christian symbols from schools, and has even argued that in order to prevent a Muslim 'takeover' of public institutions, the Italian Constitution should explicitly strengthen the 'Christian identity' of the country.104
The increased political focus on Islam has also made a fierce opposition to the ritual slaughter of animals—particularly the production of halal meat, the only one permissible according to Sharia law—a major theme of extreme-right narratives. In this opposition these movements have often joined animal rights groups in protesting against halal food on the basis that it promotes an inhumane and barbaric method of slaughter. The British National Party has been active on this front, and even broke the news story that halal meat was served in many schools across the country because of an increasing number of Muslim students. The party quoted from a report by an animal rights group arguing that the practice caused considerable animal suffering. A BNP official added that 'we really don't like the way these animals are killed'.105 The party affirmed not only that 'this is an issue of animal welfare', but that 'parents have a right to know if their sons and daughters are unknowingly being fed on ritually slaughtered meat'.106 The Danish People's Party has launched a campaign to ban halal slaughter because 'consideration of religious minorities should not be prioritized over consideration of animals'.107 Similar accusations of cruelty to animals and calls by both the extreme right and animal welfare organizations to ban ritual slaughter have been reported in Austria,108 France,109 and Italy.110
At the same time, in no small part because of the pressure the 'Islamic question' places on contemporary European societies, 'governing parties' and politicians have shifted public policies and discourses toward positions that previous observers in academia have dismissed as extreme and exclusionary. A case in point is the growing relevance that cultural norms and values play in discussions of immigration, national identities, and national belongings across Europe. For the last 20 years, scholars have argued that contemporary extreme-right parties no longer held 'classic' racist positions in their discriminatory and exclusionist positions vis--vis other individuals and communities. Pierre-Andr Taguieff describes this transformation from 'biological racism' (based on inequality and hierarchy of races) to a new, 'differentialist' form of racism in which exclusion was based on cultural differences. This new cultural racism advocates the 'right to difference' in which different cultures, viewed as incommensurable 'totalities', needed to be preserved and separated in order not to corrupt the 'authenticity' and 'integrity' of each culture. Such a perspective views culturally distinct groups as aliens whose absorption into the prevalent culture provides mainstream society with a fruitless and potentially disastrous task.111 This distinction introduced by Taguieff, since its first formulation, has been widely used in the study of the extreme right in Europe and beyond Europe.112 Stolcke, in a similar manner, added the notion of 'cultural fundamentalism' to the debate over anti-immigrant and racist groups. This form of exclusion was thus based on the assumption that cultures are incommensurable, with the caveat that, contrasting with racist theories, cultural fundamentalism 'has a certain openness which leaves room for requiring immigrants, if they wish to live in our midst, to assimilate culturally'.113
Yet, as we progress toward the end of the first decade of the new century, even a detached observer cannot fail to notice that a great cultural revival has been taking hold of mainstream European politics. Though an emphasis on cultural aspects has of course existed before (see for example Germany's long-term reluctance to give citizenship to gastarbeiter, many of whom are Muslim Turks), particularly since the late nineties, the emphasis on culture in regard to immigration, both in mainstream discourse and policies, has become conspicuous. In a 1997 article, political scientist Giovanni Sartori warned about the challenges posed to pluralistic European communities by massive immigration, particularly that from Islamic countries. Referring to the danger that 'cultural strangers' represented, Sartori wrote that 'strangers who are unwilling to give in exchange for what they get, who wish to remain “alien” to the point of challenging the very laws of the land that hosts them, are bound to elicit fear, rejection, and hostility'.114 These arguments have been reinforced after the terrorist attacks of Muslim extremists both in America and Europe. Models of immigrant integration—from the multicultural (as in Britain or the Netherlands) to those focused on assimilation (as with the case of France)—have been questioned and revamped due to the unavoidable reality of the increased growth of separated communities that do not engage with and many times refuse, if are not downright hostile to, the norms and values of the broader society. The growing awareness of the danger that Islamic extremism represents for Europe's civil societies created a political need for intervention, for the sake of national security. Thus, underlying this cultural revival are not only worries about Europe's cultural demise but, importantly, an urgent need to address the real issue of radical Islamist activity on European soil. This is the starting point from which a wave of new policies toward immigrants and newcomers have sprung to life across Europe, and not only has urged the need for but has often imposed as a condition for entering or remaining within the country 'integration' and acceptance of 'indigenous' norms and values. These policies are intimately linked with a more pronounced emphasis on 'national' identity and values to which immigrants must demonstrate allegiance. This urged reassertion of national identity and liberal values not only emerges from conservatives,115 but cuts across the ideological spectrum. David Goodhart, a progressive, argues that the left must discard 'the fallacy that nationalism and national feeling is only and necessarily a belligerent and xenophobic force'.116
In this sense, it is true that civic integration policies have acquired an obligatory (and coercive) character.117 The Netherlands set the pace in revising an existent integration law and warning newcomers to 'be aware of Dutch values and keep the country's norms'. Immigrants are now required to pass an immigration test that includes a DVD showing gay and topless women.118 Such citizenship tests, for a long time unknown in Europe, are becoming the norm. In Denmark, the ministry of integration website instructs potential citizens 'to work, pay tax, don't hit your children, and show respect for equal rights between sexes'.119 Britain introduced an American-style citizenship ceremony, and has launched citizenship tests. These measures were preceded by a vigorous debate in which mainstream politicians, both from the left and the right, argued for a more active assertion of 'core' national values. Former Home Secretary David Blunkett vowed to 'protect the rights and duties of all citizens and confront practices and beliefs that hold them back, particularly women. The left has to be consistent about defending core values, rather than retreating into moral relativism when its commitments are tested'.120 In an op-ed piece David Davis, the shadow home secretary (from 2003 to June 2008), asked, 'Are we going to find the compromises to preserve the freedoms, the tolerance, the give-and-take, that characterize the most open, vital and creative society in history? Or are we going to allow the splintering of loyalties, the division of communities, that will corrode the foundations of that society?'121 There has been a growing public discussion about practices that are not part of British culture, for example forced marriages (particularly Muslim first-cousin marriages), and a cabinet minister warned about the 'genetic' dangers associated with inbreeding.122
France, under the initiative of then Interior minister Nicolas Sarkozy, adopted an obligatory 'social integration contract' (targeted at combating ethnic endogamy) for all new entrants. Further, before applying for permanent residence, immigrants to France must prove that they are 'well-integrated' into French society, meaning, among other things, that the applicant complies with the principles of the French Republic.123 As a sign that the times—and the boundaries of what is acceptable to propose—have indeed changed regarding integration policies for immigrants in Europe, Sarkozy vowed during the presidential campaign to create a Ministry for Immigration and National Identity, which led Jean-Marie Le Pen to accuse him of 'soliciting' in the National Front's territory.124 The first bill presented by the new Ministry targeted foreigners who wanted to join their families, and introduced tests to ascertain would-be immigrants' knowledge of French language, history, and 'Republican values'.125
Taken as a whole these examples, which are far from exhaustive, illustrate how in recent years there has been a clear shift in the discourse and policies regarding immigration. This shift has been driven by the relevance that the frame Islam-as-a-threat- to-European-security-and-values has gained in public opinion. Further, the discussion and the launch of new models of integration of immigrants has been linked with cultural narratives (a fact that is not often acknowledged and is sometimes denied by public officials), and the need for communities with cultural practices at odds with the indigenous majority to adjust and conform. There is an underlying cultural justification running through the new citizenship reforms and 'integration contracts' imposed on newcomers. In truth, the emphasis is on 'integration', and these new official measures reveal per se the belief in the possibility of integration of immigrants from different cultures, as with the case of Muslims. This optimism is close to non-existent in extreme-right narratives that promote instead the impossibility of such integration and the need for separation. Nevertheless, the trend toward cultural justifications in order to decide or determine a sense of belonging to the community—long considered a feature of the extreme-right—seems clear. This realization arguably raises the question of whether the concept 'extreme' is indeed malleable, varying according to circumstances and the politicians behind the discourses and-or policies. It depends on the messenger, not the message.126 With respect to this a note of caution is necessary. While mainstream discourse on Muslim immigration tends to be nuanced both in terms of the diagnosis and proposed solutions, the extreme-right view is framed both on an either-or scenario (assimilation or expulsion) and in an apocalyptic tone (the coming of Eurabia, the extinction of European peoples, etc.). Also, it could be argued that in championing Western and democratic values as a way of countering Islam, the extreme right is essentially striving for legitimacy by inoculating itself from accusations of racism and xenophobia, while pursuing in its ultimate quest for ethnic homogeneity.127 In any case, the extent or degree to which, particularly after September 11, 2001, the extreme right has influenced the establishment (mainstreaming of its positions) and/or was influenced by a favourable anti-Muslim environment (co-option of issues) certainly deserves further qualitative and quantitative investigation.
The 'spirit of decadence' goes mainstream?
Another point, however, merits reflection. Scholars, or even non-specialists, who have followed the extreme-right are aware that one of the driving forces of its ideology is the idea of decline, either of the nation or, increasingly, of Europe.128 In a context in which signs of irreversible 'decadence' are perceived to be everywhere, extreme-right leaders portray their groups as the 'last defenders' of their beleaguered communities, whose cultural identity, authenticity, and independence are threatened by national and global forces. The 'disappearance' or 'death' of the community is, in these narratives, a real possibility looming on the near horizon. The patriarch of the European extreme-right, Jean-Marie Le Pen, has repeatedly warned that France and Europe, due to massive immigration and demographic decline, were living on borrowed time. His daughter (and in line to become his successor at the head of the party) Marine Le Pen argues that 'if we go on like this, Europe will no longer be Europe, [but] will turn into an Islamic Republic'. Thus, she says, 'We are at a turning point, and if we don't protect our civilization it will disappear'.129 For the British National Party's leader, what is at stake is Europe's survival because of 'continued mass immigration and the high Muslim birthrate, coupled with our own suicidally low one'.130
Yet, in this regard, particularly since the last decade, the idea of an encroaching decadence, once viewed as fringe and 'marginal' has moved to the centre and is increasingly being adopted by conservative mainstream voices. Established scholars and many commentators, on both sides of the Atlantic, have in recent years written the script for the last days of Europe in which because of a demographic collapse, self-defeating multicultural policies and unfettered immigration, mostly from Muslim countries, Europe will undergo drastic changes that will transform it forever. Historian Bernard Lewis argued that because of Europe's unwillingness to battle for cultural and religious control, the only question remaining regarding its future would be, 'Will it be an Islamized Europe or Europeanized Islam?'131 Walter Laqueur delivered the 'epitaph for an old continent': Because of uncontrolled immigration, misguided multicultural policies that created parallel societies, aggravated by self-imposed ghettoization of Muslim immigrants and a severe demographic problem, Europe has reached the 'belated realization that the continent faced enormous problems with which it had not yet come to terms: that the issue at stake was not its emergence as the leading superpower but survival'.132 This theme of European decadence is also present in the work of Niall Ferguson who argues that due to demographic reasons Islam has a long-term advantage vis--vis Europe (and the West), 'a youthful society to the south and east of the Mediterranean is quietly colonizing, in the original sense of the word, a senescent and secularized continent to the north and west of it'.133 Significantly, the work of Edward Gibbon on The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776) is often cited as an ominous warning to the ongoing 'decline and fall' of Europe and the West.134
Other conservative voices that are part of the public debate are more dramatic and envision a future of warfare for Europe, with widespread violence triggered by an 'indigenous backlash' against Muslims. 'It is difficult to imagine any other future scenario for Western Europe than its becoming Islamicized or having a civil war', wrote a commentator.135 Steyn thinks likely in Europe's future a scenario of 'War—the decline into bloody civil unrest that these economic and demographic factors will bring; and Conquest—the recolonization of Europe by Islam'.136 Ralph Peters has warned that 'far from enjoying the prospect of taking over Europe by having babies, Europe's Muslims are living on borrowed time … I have no difficulty imagining a scenario in which U.S. navy ships are at anchor and U.S. marines have gone ashore at Brest, Bremerhaven or Bari to guarantee the safe evacuation of Europe's Muslims'.137 This grim scenario for Muslims in Europe is shared by voices on the left, such as the New Statesman, which had a cover story on 'The Next Holocaust' (of Europe's Muslims), with the rhetorical question, 'Do new pogroms beckon?'138 In all fairness, these prophecies of doom are also countered in the public sphere by those who see the new Europe as more of a paradise than an inferno.139
The noteworthy adoption by the extreme right of issues that have a relatively large consensus in the West (women's emancipation, for example), and the cultural shift of mainstream policies toward immigrants and newcomers lend tentative support to the hypothesis that the boundaries between extreme and reasonable or sound discourse have become increasingly indistinct. Matters are further complicated both because the extreme right uses Christianity as a sort of ideological shield, and mainstream conservative voices are also disseminating the catastrophic theme of 'decline and fall' of European nations under dual immigrant and demographic pressures.
Conclusion
In an attempt to anticipate what the future holds, Peter Jay and Michael Stewart wrote in 1987 of a post-millennium scenario in which the cross-national Europe First Movement, longing for a inward-looking Europe free of 'alien influences and undesirable immigrants', and proposing European-wide solutions, inter alia, to the erosion of European civilization and values, was able to supersede parochial nationalist parties and, in a period of economic breakdown, get hold by democratic means of the European Parliament and change in a isolationist, repressive, and exclusionist direction the European destiny.140 In this 'forecast' the issue of Islam was absent but, nevertheless, there are ongoing and systemic trends on the European ground that, if they do not confirm the 'apocalypse' pictured by the authors, give a fair amount of credibility to scenarios in which extremist European-wide groups claiming to be the last hope of a doomed culture and declining civilization could emerge and become a significant force. Across Europe, though recognizing the unevenness of the process, we are witnessing in different movements on the extreme-right the increase in post-national dynamics, the beckoning of an assertive Christian identity, the shedding of anti-Semitic origins, and the growing respectability of some of its positions in the public debate about the role of Islam in Europe. The aim of this article, obviously, is not to make sweeping claims but rather to reflect on the changes (and their significance) that have been occurring in the worldview of the extreme right, emanating in large part from the omnipresence of the theme of Islam, that point to new directions and, at the same time, pose new challenges to established consensus, both in academia and society in general.
Notes
1. UN (United Nations), 'Confronting Islamophobia: Education for Tolerance and Understanding', Seminar held in New York, December 2004. http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2004/webArticles/112204_Conference.asp
2. IW (Islamophobia Watch), 2005. http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/about-us/
3. EUMC (European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia) 'Muslims in the European Union: Discrimination and Islamophobia', December 2006. http://eumc.europa.eu/eumc/material/pub/muslim/Manifestations_EN.pdf
4. EC, 'Council Regulation (EC) No 1035/97 of 2 June 1997 Establishing a European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia', 1997. http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/fundamental_rights/pdf/arcg/1035_97_en.pdf
5. See R. Eatwell, 'Introduction: The New Extreme Right Challenge', in R. Eatwell and C. Mudde (Eds), Western Democracies and the New Extreme Right Challenge (London: Routledge, 2004) pp. 1-16.
6. J.-Y. Camus, 'Le nouvel ennemi: le monde arabo-musulman ou l'Islam', Le Monde, January 23, 2005.
7. J.-Y. Camus, Jean-Yves, 'Interview', Council of Europe, March 17, 2005.
8. 'Le reveil de L'ISLAM', Identit: revue d'tudes nationales, No. 6, March-April 1990.
9. See C. Mudde, The Ideology of the Extreme Right (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2000), pp. 103 and 173.
10. See P. Davies and D. Lynch, The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right (London: Routledge, 2002), p. 162; also, P. Ignazi, Extreme Right Parties in Western Europe (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006) p. 106.
11. M. Cox and P. Shearman. 'After the Fall: Nationalist Extremism in Post-communist Russia', in P. Hainsworth (Ed.), The Politics of the Extreme Right: From the Margins to the Mainstream (London: Pinter, 2000), p. 232.
12. On this discussion see Ignazi, op. cit., Ref. 10, pp. 8-10.
13. C. Coon, 'Islamophobia', The Humanist, 66(3) (May-June 2006), pp. 4-5.
14. EUMC, op. cit., Ref. 3, p. 61.
15. J. Csari, 'Introduction: Use of the Term “Islamophobia” in European Societies', in J. Csari (Ed.), Securitization and Religious Divides in Europe: Muslims in Western Europe after 9/11, Submission to the Changing Landscape of Citizenship and Security: 6th PCRD of European Commission (2006), p. 8.
16. See 'Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All', Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia (London: The Runnymede Trust, 1997).
17. See for example, C. Allen, The 'First' Decade of Islamophobia: 10 Years of the Runnymede Trust Report 'Islamophobia': A Challenge for Us All (2007), p. 26. http://www.chris-allen.co.uk
18. Csari, op. cit., Ref. 15, p. 8.
19. V. Geisser, La Nouvelle Islamophobie (Paris: ditions La Dcouverte, 2003), pp. 21-22.
20. M. Maussen, 'Anti-Muslim Sentiments and Mobilization in The Netherlands. Discourse, Policies and Violence', Csari, op. cit., Ref. 15, p. 101.
21. J. Bowen, 'Commentary on Bunzl', American Ethnologist, 32(4) (2005), p. 524.
22. C. Mouffe, 'The “End of Politics” and the Challenge of Right-Wing Populism', in F. Panizza (Ed.), Populism and the Mirror of Democracy (London: Verso, 2005), p. 59.
23. On this point see, for example, Mouffe, 'The “End of Politics” and the Challenge of Right-Wing Populism', in F. Panizza (Ed.), Populism and the Mirror of Democracy (London: Verso, 2005), p. 59; W. Laqueur, The Last Days of Europe: Epitaph for an Old Continent (New York: Thomas Dunne Books/St. Martin's Press, 2007), pp. 171-172.
24. See Maussen, op. cit., Ref. 20, pp. 102-103; Y. Karakasoglu, 'Anti-Islamic Discourses in Europe: Agents and Contents', paper presented at the conference Muslims in Europe and in the United States: A Transatlantic Comparison, CES Harvard, December 15-16, 2006.
25. H. Cleveland and M. Luyckx, 'Civilizations and Governance', Working Paper for the Seminar on Governance and Civilizations, Brussels, May 14-16, 1998, p. 22.
26. On this issue see also C. S. Liang, 'Europe for the Europeans: The Foreign and Security Policy of the Populist Radical Right', in C. S. Liang (Ed.), Europe for the Europeans: The Foreign and Security Policy of the Populist Radical Right (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2007) pp. 20-23.
27. J.-M. Le Pen, Jean-Marie, 'Discours de clture du XIIIe Congrs du Front National', November 18, 2007. http://www.frontnational.com/doc_interventions_detail.php?id_inter = 92
28. La Stampa, February 7, 2000.
29. See for example R. Guolo, 'I Nuovi Crociati: La Lega e L'Islam', Il Mulino, No. 391 (September/October 2000), pp. 890-901.
30. See C. Saint-Blancat and O. Schmidt di Friedberg, 'Why are Mosques a Problem? Local Politics and Fear of Islam in Northern Italy', Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 31(6) (2005), pp. 1083-1104.
31. AGI (Agenzia Giornalistica Italia), October 2, 2006.
32. 'Rimossa la raffigurazione della bataglia di Lepanto a Montecitorio', La Padania, March 25, 2007.
33. 'Chiudamo le porte di casa nostra a chi arriva dai paesi musulmani', La Padania, September 19, 2006.
34. 'Chiudamo le porte di casa nostra a chi arriva dai paesi musulmani', La Padania, September 19, 2006
35. N. Griffin, 'The European Intifada—Rising to Meet the Great Challenge of Our Age', November 21, 2005. http://www.bnp.org.uk
36. 'Together We Can Stop the Mega-Mosque', March 27, 2007 (BNP, British National Party). http://www.bnp.org.uk
37. 'St. George is for Life', July 4, 2006 (BNP, British National Party). http://www.bnp.org.uk
38. 'Muslims Fail Sensitivity Test Once Again', September 15, 2006 (BNP, British National Party). http://www.bnp.org.uk
39. 'Islamic takeover of Europe getting very nasty', November 2, 2006 (BNP, British National Party). http://www.bnp.org.uk
40. 'Christian adviser Appointed to Mosque—Muslims Welcome Move', March 30, 2007 (BNP, British National Party). http://www.bnp.org.uk
41. 'Mission Statement', Christian Council of Britain. 2007. The party has been accused by theologians and religious groups of using Christian themes in order to advance its political agenda. See, for example, 'BNP exploit racist fears and “Christian country” claims', Ekklesia, April 19, 2006.
42. The Voice of Freedom: The Newspaper of the British National Party, No. 93, March 2008.
43. T. Heydon, 'The Defense of Christian Civilisation', Identity: Magazine of the British National Party, February 2008.
44. 'New Far-Right Group Launches Its Mission to Defend European Identity', The Daily Telegraph, January 16, 2007.
45. 'Islamophobia Colors Austria Electioneering', IOL (IslamOnline.net). September 14, 2006.
46. Filip Dewinter, E-mail Interview. November 14, 2006.
47. R. Shorto, 'Keeping the Faith', The New York Times Magazine, April 8, 2007.
48. Benedict XVI, 'Address Of His Holiness Benedict XVI To The Participants In The Convention Organized By The Commission Of The Bishops', Conferences if The European Community (Comece)', March 24, 2007. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2007/march/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20070324_comece_en.html
49. Already in 1999, a Catholic bishop warned against the creation of mosques and cultural centres in Christian countries, proof of a 'clear program of expansion and reconquest'. See G. G. Bernardini, 'Bishop: Islam Expanding Conquests', Associated Press, October 13, 1999. The authors of an article written in the Catholic journal Studium, one of them a Jesuit, write for example that 'The Islamization of the West is neither a phantasm nor merely something feared: it is an intention and a fact that emerges from an objective examination of the evidence'. See R. A. M. Bertacchini and P. Vanzan, 'La Questione Islamica', Studium (January-February 2006), Year 102, p. 37. Georg Gaenswein, Pope Benedict XVI's private secretary, argued in an interview that 'attempts to Islamize the West cannot be denied', and warned against the danger that Islam represents to the identity of Europe. See 'Pope's private secretary warns of Islamization of Europe', Jerusalem Post, July 26, 2007.
50. E. Kaufmann, 'Breeding for God', Prospect: Politics, Essays, Argument, Issue 128 (November 2006), p. 29.
51. See G. Hentges, '“Popular Potential”: The Extreme Right and Germany's Peace movement', in The Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism and Racism at Tel Aviv University (Ed.), Antisemitism Worldwide (Tel-Aviv, 2002/2003), pp. 55-74.
52. Mudde, op. cit., Ref. 9, p. 100.
53. The nationalist Sweden Democrats (SD) have also shown a similar strong pro-Israel stance. Party Secretary Bjrn Sder has declared that the Swedish government and the West should back Israel, 'the only democratic state' in the Middle East. See B. Sder, 'Sweden should take a stance for Israel', 2006. http://www.bjornsoder.net/artiklar.php?action = fullnews&showcomments = 1&id = 1097836687
54. Dewinter, op. cit., Ref. 46.
55. F. Dewinter, 'Guess Who's Coming to Seder. Dewinter's Tale', The New Republic: A Journal of Politics and the Arts, Issue 4, 801, Vol. 236 (January 22, 2007), p. 13.
56. F. Dewinter, 'Right-Wing Party Threatens to Abolish Belgium, by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard', The Daily Telegraph, May 17, 2003.
57. Dewinter, op. cit., Ref. 46.
58. Griffin, op. cit., Ref. 35.
59. N. Griffin, 'The British National Party Goes Straight: Interview by Robert Locke', Think-Israel, September-October 25, 2005.
60. L. Barnes, 'Nationalism and Israel', July 28, 2006. http://www.bnp.org.uk
61. M. Le Pen, 'Le Front national et le Mouvement pour la France de Philippe de Villiers courtisent la communaut juive, Auteur: Christiane Chombeau', Le Monde, March 3, 2006.
62. M. Le Pen, 'Sympathy for the Devil? By Nicholas Simon', The Jerusalem Report, January 10, 2005. On this issue see also C. Chombeau, Le Pen fille & pre (Paris: ditions du Panama, 2007), pp. 295-297.
63. Le Pen, op. cit., Ref. 61.
64. G. Faye, La Nouvelle Question Juive (Paris: Les Editions du Lore, 2007), pp. 240-244.
65. D. Boyer, 'Welcome to the New Europe', American Eth
...
Sunday, June 07, 2009
Saturday, March 21, 2009
New Wave of Sangh Parivar Violence in Karnataka: Hindus Rescued Muslims
*"Hindutva People Attacked Us And Hindus Saved Us"*
The mega narrative called world and life has both big actors and small
actors. Big actors can call the shots but its not they who run the show.
They just spoil the show. It’s these small actors who keep the world going.
These thoughts were the ripples created by my tryst with a few victims of
one of the nineteen incidents (till 19 March) that have taken place in Udupi
and Dakshina Kannada districts of Karnataka after the Hindu Samajothsava
held on March 15 at Mangalore.
These boys were one of the first victims of the series of violence. These
boys namely: Aarif, Ahraf, Thaufeek, Sirajuddin, Hameed, Sarfaraz, Navman
and Rajesh, who were returning home (Mulky) on March 15 after a cricket
tourney in Brahmavar got caught in the traffic jam at Kaup where communal
disturbance had erupted.
Unaware of the communal disturbance the boys in their car imagined that the
traffic jam was because of some accident that they assumed had taken place
on the road. As they were waiting for the traffic to be cleared, a police
constable according to Hammed came to them and asked if there were women in
the car and when said “no” he asked the boys to run away.
Within a few minutes after this a group of 30-40 people returning from the
Hindu Samajothsava mobbed the car and asked if the people inside were
Muslims. Realizing the fact that they were Muslims, due the sticker pasted
on the front glass saying ‘Masha-Allah’ the attackers broke the frontal
glass first and then the back glass. Realizing the threat to their life the
boys inside the car opened the door and ran in different directions. But
before they escaped from the hands of the attackers, they were beaten quite
badly.
*“I am a Hindu”*
While they were being beaten, during their attempt to run, Rajesh, a Hindu,
was showing his ears being pierced and also his sacred thread to the
attackers as a proof to say that he was a Hindu. That being not enough he
also kept crying “I am a Hindu, I am a Hindu” but the attackers did not
spare him.
Rajesh after the incident was being taken to the house of Soori Shetty, who
rescued Rajesh, but Jagadeesh Achar a friend of Soori Shetty, took Rajesh to
his house because Rajesh was of his caste!!! That night, Rajesh speaking to
Jagadeesh Achar said “if we had spoken only in Kannada the attackers
wouldn’t have known that there are Muslims in the car.
*“Hindutva people attacked us and Hindus saved us”*
After opening the door and running in different directions Hameed crossing
all the fences that he faced reached a “Hindu house” where a lady, he said,
asking him to hide inside her house stood at the door with a sickle and
chased away the attackers who were chasing him. As this lady was fighting
the saffron brigade, Hameed escaped through the back door.
Aarif, once he opened the door to run, was caught by the attackers and
beaten with rod and a lathi. He said that escaping from their hands he ran
directly to a police near by holding whom tightly he said “save me, save me”
and the police expressing his helplessness said “run away from here.” On
understanding that the situation had “gone beyond the control of police”
Aarif ran towards the residential area and collapsed in the courtyard of a
“Hindu house” where, he said, two women took him in and served him water.
“They were the ones who later on took me to the hospital near by for first
aid”, said Aarif.
Thaufeek another boy said that escaping from the hands of the attackers ran
to a non-residential area and climbed a tree and hid himself behind the
leaves filled branches.
Saying that the very thought and memory of those moments scare him; Hameed
said “Hindutva people attacked us and Hindus saved us” and adds to it “Those
who attacked us are pawns in this game. The real culprits are the ones who
instigate these people to attack.”
*“Human life is more important”*
“All of us got scattered while we all ran for our lives and finally it was
one Soori Shetty, a localite, who using all his contacts brought us together
and ensured that we all are taken to the hospital” recollects Sirajuddin.
Soori Shetty said that his house is located near by the place where the
mishap took place on Sunday. That evening on hearing noise from the streets,
he said, he had come out of home to see what was happening. Soori Shetty
said that on realizing that there was a communal conflict he decided to do
his “duty.” Recollecting the incident he said “human life is more important
than religion and other things.”
How I wish the big actors had the wisdom of the small actors of this mega
narrative!!!
- *Samvartha 'Sahil'*
The mega narrative called world and life has both big actors and small
actors. Big actors can call the shots but its not they who run the show.
They just spoil the show. It’s these small actors who keep the world going.
These thoughts were the ripples created by my tryst with a few victims of
one of the nineteen incidents (till 19 March) that have taken place in Udupi
and Dakshina Kannada districts of Karnataka after the Hindu Samajothsava
held on March 15 at Mangalore.
These boys were one of the first victims of the series of violence. These
boys namely: Aarif, Ahraf, Thaufeek, Sirajuddin, Hameed, Sarfaraz, Navman
and Rajesh, who were returning home (Mulky) on March 15 after a cricket
tourney in Brahmavar got caught in the traffic jam at Kaup where communal
disturbance had erupted.
Unaware of the communal disturbance the boys in their car imagined that the
traffic jam was because of some accident that they assumed had taken place
on the road. As they were waiting for the traffic to be cleared, a police
constable according to Hammed came to them and asked if there were women in
the car and when said “no” he asked the boys to run away.
Within a few minutes after this a group of 30-40 people returning from the
Hindu Samajothsava mobbed the car and asked if the people inside were
Muslims. Realizing the fact that they were Muslims, due the sticker pasted
on the front glass saying ‘Masha-Allah’ the attackers broke the frontal
glass first and then the back glass. Realizing the threat to their life the
boys inside the car opened the door and ran in different directions. But
before they escaped from the hands of the attackers, they were beaten quite
badly.
*“I am a Hindu”*
While they were being beaten, during their attempt to run, Rajesh, a Hindu,
was showing his ears being pierced and also his sacred thread to the
attackers as a proof to say that he was a Hindu. That being not enough he
also kept crying “I am a Hindu, I am a Hindu” but the attackers did not
spare him.
Rajesh after the incident was being taken to the house of Soori Shetty, who
rescued Rajesh, but Jagadeesh Achar a friend of Soori Shetty, took Rajesh to
his house because Rajesh was of his caste!!! That night, Rajesh speaking to
Jagadeesh Achar said “if we had spoken only in Kannada the attackers
wouldn’t have known that there are Muslims in the car.
*“Hindutva people attacked us and Hindus saved us”*
After opening the door and running in different directions Hameed crossing
all the fences that he faced reached a “Hindu house” where a lady, he said,
asking him to hide inside her house stood at the door with a sickle and
chased away the attackers who were chasing him. As this lady was fighting
the saffron brigade, Hameed escaped through the back door.
Aarif, once he opened the door to run, was caught by the attackers and
beaten with rod and a lathi. He said that escaping from their hands he ran
directly to a police near by holding whom tightly he said “save me, save me”
and the police expressing his helplessness said “run away from here.” On
understanding that the situation had “gone beyond the control of police”
Aarif ran towards the residential area and collapsed in the courtyard of a
“Hindu house” where, he said, two women took him in and served him water.
“They were the ones who later on took me to the hospital near by for first
aid”, said Aarif.
Thaufeek another boy said that escaping from the hands of the attackers ran
to a non-residential area and climbed a tree and hid himself behind the
leaves filled branches.
Saying that the very thought and memory of those moments scare him; Hameed
said “Hindutva people attacked us and Hindus saved us” and adds to it “Those
who attacked us are pawns in this game. The real culprits are the ones who
instigate these people to attack.”
*“Human life is more important”*
“All of us got scattered while we all ran for our lives and finally it was
one Soori Shetty, a localite, who using all his contacts brought us together
and ensured that we all are taken to the hospital” recollects Sirajuddin.
Soori Shetty said that his house is located near by the place where the
mishap took place on Sunday. That evening on hearing noise from the streets,
he said, he had come out of home to see what was happening. Soori Shetty
said that on realizing that there was a communal conflict he decided to do
his “duty.” Recollecting the incident he said “human life is more important
than religion and other things.”
How I wish the big actors had the wisdom of the small actors of this mega
narrative!!!
- *Samvartha 'Sahil'*
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Assassination of Benazir Bhuto: A Passive Public
K.M.Sajad Ibrahim
Even after a year of the assassination of Benazir Bhuto, it is a mystery about her assassin. Even the world is silent about it. There is no doubt that the persons responsible for her muder are her own close relatives. Since this is an era of international terrorism, we can easily blame terrorists as responsible. This is the case of India as well. I remember the statement once made BJP leader, Sushma Swaraj during the bomb explosion that it was the drama of the Congress party to divert the attention of the public. Sushma Swaraj is one of the senior leaders of BJP and her statement is based on the tactics of the political parties. If we take into account of the many terrorist strikes in India, it was followed by some political crisis. It means that some political parties assume the role of terrorist. Our media is interested only the official version. Unlike past, our media is interested to promote the interest of the political parties and government and have no sense of an independent investigation. There are some exceptions like Tehalka.
While attending an international conference I had an opportunity to discuss the issue of Benazir Bhutoo’s assassination with an academician from Pakistan. According to him it was done none other than Asif Ali Zardari. In the video clipping of the incident there was one man with pistol, who later disappeared, was a staff of Zardari. His intention was clear that as long as Benazir was alive it was not possible for him to reach the power centre of Pakistan. Incidentally, he later became the President of Pakistan. Moreover, the present government, which is a pro-Benazir party, is not keen in the investigation of the Benazir’s assassination. All these support the case of the involvement of Asisf Ali Zardari in the incident. But persons who hold power control the state and determine its direction. This is the case of not Pakistan alone, but many countries of third world including India. People are fool, who believe in the official version, in democracy it is their own government.
Even after a year of the assassination of Benazir Bhuto, it is a mystery about her assassin. Even the world is silent about it. There is no doubt that the persons responsible for her muder are her own close relatives. Since this is an era of international terrorism, we can easily blame terrorists as responsible. This is the case of India as well. I remember the statement once made BJP leader, Sushma Swaraj during the bomb explosion that it was the drama of the Congress party to divert the attention of the public. Sushma Swaraj is one of the senior leaders of BJP and her statement is based on the tactics of the political parties. If we take into account of the many terrorist strikes in India, it was followed by some political crisis. It means that some political parties assume the role of terrorist. Our media is interested only the official version. Unlike past, our media is interested to promote the interest of the political parties and government and have no sense of an independent investigation. There are some exceptions like Tehalka.
While attending an international conference I had an opportunity to discuss the issue of Benazir Bhutoo’s assassination with an academician from Pakistan. According to him it was done none other than Asif Ali Zardari. In the video clipping of the incident there was one man with pistol, who later disappeared, was a staff of Zardari. His intention was clear that as long as Benazir was alive it was not possible for him to reach the power centre of Pakistan. Incidentally, he later became the President of Pakistan. Moreover, the present government, which is a pro-Benazir party, is not keen in the investigation of the Benazir’s assassination. All these support the case of the involvement of Asisf Ali Zardari in the incident. But persons who hold power control the state and determine its direction. This is the case of not Pakistan alone, but many countries of third world including India. People are fool, who believe in the official version, in democracy it is their own government.
Friday, December 26, 2008
Inviting Research Articles on Indian Gulf Migrants
Research articles are invited on Indian Gulf migrants to publish in a major research work by reputed publisher in Delhi. We are looking for academicians/experienced persons who have indepth knowledge on the issues of Gulf migrants, especially Keralites, in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Bharain and Oman. Those who are interested to contribute articles in this work may write the details to jasminsajad@gmail.com . The final selection is based on the decision of the jury constituted for this purpose. The work will be ready for publication by June/July 2009.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Impact of India’s Partnership with Israel: Major Implications By- K.M.Sajad Ibrahim
India’s relation with Israel since 1992 has been viewed as an outcome of the post-cold war scenario. With the demise of the Soviet Union, India lost its long time military supplier and principal diplomatic crutch. It has also grown increasingly disenchanted with Arab sympathy for Pakistan on the Kashmir issue. As a result of the diplomatic relations, India showed keen interest in developing high level military and commercial links with Israel, especially during the period of BJP led government of 1998-2004. Israel is now the second largest supplier of arms to India (after Russia). It provides India with missile radar, border monitoring equipment and other similar high-tech military hardwires. In addition, several thousand Indian soldiers have been provided with “anti-insurgency training in Israel”. The latest in the series was the launching of Israel’s spy satellite by India in January 2008 to enhance Israel’s intelligence-gathering capability. The geopolitical implications of the collaboration between India and Israel are grave and manifold. India’s close collaboration with Israel is fundamentally to woo the United States as well as to build a new strategic relation vis-Ã -vis Pakistan and China.
India and Palestine Question
India’s relation with the West Asia was formulated by Jawarlal Nehru in 1930s. Although Nehru took an impartial view regarding the Arab-Israeli differences in the initial period, he later took the stand of supporting the Arabs by taking into account of the denial of justice to the Palestinians. In the 1939 Resolution adopted by the Indian National Congress, it stated that “in Palestine the Jews have relied on British armed forces to advance their special privileges”. Even Gandhiji was not ready to recognize the Jewish nationalism, which was artificially created in Palestine at the cost of indigenous Arab population. Nehru indicted Zionism for fostering Jewish settlement in Palestine at the expense of the Arab population. Jayapraksh Narayan stated:
“No doubt the Jews were entitled as a persecuted people to compassion and some compensation for the wrongs heaped upon their innocent heads through the centuries. But it was certainly not the Arabs, least of all the Palestinians, who were the persecutors. If the Christian peoples and powers of the West, some of whom had tried mercilessly to exterminate the Jews, were anxious at least to salve their conscience and do a good turn to their victims, they had no right to do it at the cost of the Arabs”
Nehru in his letters to his daughter, Indira, during his prison days commented the British tactics in Palestine in favour of the Jewish immigrants violating the rights of the Palestine as another face of a colonial power. He saw the English in Palestine pitting “Jewish religious nationalism against Arab nationalism, and (making) it appear that (their) presence is necessary to act as an arbiter and to keep the peace between the two”. All these were some of the basic perspectives of Indian leaders regarding the Jewish colonialism in the pre-independence period.
The first task before India in its post independence period was to examine an appropriate solution to the Palestine question by becoming a member in the Special UN Committee. India supported the minority plan which recommended a federation of two Arab and Jewish states by opposing the partition plan of Palestine. (During this period the third world countries were not emerged as members of the UN General Assembly). The decision of India was influenced by the perception of Indian leaders on the Palestine question as well as the partition of India.
When Israel became a reality in 1948, India had several reservations in granting recognition to it. Nehru openly stated the reason as a gesture of supporting the stand of Arab countries. Moreover, India opposed U.N. membership for Israel in 1949. By 1950 a series of efforts had been made to influence the Indian government to recognize the state of Israel by the Jewish lobby as well as its counterpart in India. Finally, India accorded its recognition to the State of Israel in late 1950 without establishing any formal ties until 1992.
India’s Support to Palestinian Struggle
When Israel invaded Sinai on October 29, 1956 as a reaction to Egypt’s decision to nationalize Suez Canal, India condemned it as a re-imposition of European colonialism in the Afro Asian world. The attack of Egypt by Israel along with British and French forces was viewed as a flagrant violation of the UN Charter and all Indian political parties, from right to left, condemned it. India cosponsored resolutions in the General Assembly urging the withdrawal of French, British and Israeli forces from Egypt. In fact, the Suez crisis drew Egypt and India closer together and its relation with Israel to low point and ended all possibility for a bilateral tie.
The reemphasis given by India to the Arab cause out of Suez crisis of 1956 is reflected in the unstinting support of India to the case of Palestinian refugees. According to C.S. Jha, India’s permanent representative in the UN, stated in November 1959 that “the problem of Palestinian refugees is not merely an intensely human problem; it is one of great political importance and indeed affects the entire complex of political relations in the Middle East.” India’s hostility towards Israel increased even more after the death of Nehru in 1964. It was evident from India’s refusal to accept Israeli assistance in redeveloping the barren wastes of Rajastan. Similarly, Israeli offer of famine relief given in response to a plea by the UN Secretary General, U Thant was declined by India for political reasons. India condemned the Israeli invasion of Arab lands of Palestine in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. In December 1967, D.P.Dhar, a member of Indian delegation to the UN Special Committee, reiterated Indian position, which recognized the Palestinian as a people and not merely as refugees. It also emphasized the need of for a lasting solutions to ensure the just rights of the Arab people of Palestine on the basis of UN resolution 194 (III).
In the meantime, the Indian political atmosphere was not fully supporting the views of the government stand. The opposition parties in India, except the Communist parties, demanded a cautious approach in the 1967 war, promoting a neutral stand. The parties like Swathanthra party and Jana Sangh openly supported Israel. It happened on account of the neutral policy of Egypt during the Sino-Indian war of 1962 and Indo-Pak war of 1965. Similarly, the Indian press also took a negative approach to official Indian position in the 1967 war. The news papers like Times of India, Indian Express, Statesman and Hindustan Times made critical remarks on Indian policy of supporting the Arabs.
The first setback to India’s relation with West Asia came in 1969 when India was denied participation on the Rabat conference of Islamic leaders due to the opposition of Pakistan. The meeting was convened to condemn the burning of Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem. Moreover, under the initiative of Pakistan the meeting also condemned the communal riots in Ahmedabad. As a reaction to these developments, India recalled its Senior Envoys from Morocco and Jordan. Further, Indian Foreign Affairs Minister, Dinesh Singh held a meeting with his Israeli counterpart, Abba Eban in New York, as a first sign of improving relations with Israel. During the Indo-Pak war in November 1971, countries like Egypt and Syria took a neutral stand while countries like Kuwait, Jordan and Saudi Arabia condemned India. However, Israel took a pro-India stand by criticizing Pakistan actions in East Bengal.
However, India continued pro-Arab stand even in the 1973 Arab-Israeli war. At the same time India gradually moved away from the policy of supporting individual Arab countries by focusing exclusively on Palestine question. Hence in the post-1973 war period India gave more importance to support the struggles of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) led by Yasser Arafat. In this respect, India played considerable role in the UN to support the PLO’s bid for observer status in 1974. India became the first non-Arab government to extend formal diplomatic accreditation to the representatives of the PLO in January 1975. Moreover, India was a cosponsor of General Assembly Resolution 3379, which equated Zionism with racism in November 1975.
When Janata party came to power in 1977, there were speculations about the shift of India’s policy towards Palestine. It was during this period Moshe Dayan, Israeli Foreign Minister made an unofficial visit to India. However, there was no official action in supporting the relationship with Israel. When Camp David Accord was signed in September 1978 between Israel and Egypt, India opposed it along with the Arab world. In 1980 Indira Gandhi returned to power with the continued support of Palestinian struggle. It was during this period India accorded full diplomatic recognition to the Office of PLO in New Delhi. Moreover, Yasser Arafat paid state visits to India in 1980 and 1982. This line of Indian policy continued until early 1990s. The situation in West Asian witnessed a sea change when Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990. It was during this period the Soviet Union was disappearing from the world map marking the era of unipolar world. In the meantime, the P.L.O. lost its prestige in West Asia on account of its support to Saddam Hussain. The United States took the initiative of holding international Middle East Peace Conference immediately after expelling Iraq out of Kuwait in 1991. This marked new era in West Asia due to different varieties of diplomatic manoeuvring. As a consequence to these developments, India also made drastic changes in its policy towards West Asia.
Ties with Israel and Shift in India’s Foreign Policy
The decision of establishing formal ties with Israel was taken by P.V. Narasimha Rao, the Prime Minister of Congress government in January 1992. The decision was a surprising one, although it looked like a long awaited decision, as remarked by Indian media. In fact, the decision of India to start formal relation with Israel was based on changes in the international scenario. It was the beginning of post-cold war period war era with the disintegration of the Soviet Union, India’s strong ally for a long period. In the new situation India desired the support and collaboration with major international powers like the United States, especially in the wake of the political turmoil in Kashmir. In this respect India had two objectives in promoting its relation with the US. Firstly, to overcome the propaganda unleashed by Pakistan on Kashmir situation. Secondly, India required strategic cooperation with the US due to the demise of the Soviet Union, the leading exporter of arms to India. It was imperative for India to modernise Indian weaponry. At the same time India was fully aware of the complexities in establishing strong ties with the US. In this context India found Israel as a best option of appeasing the US line of policy. It is to be noted that India announced its decision to formally establish relations with Israel on the eve of Prime Minister Narasimha Rao’s visit to the US.
Moreover, the P.L.O. had already recognised the state of Israel to join as a party of the peace process in the Middle East. So India found a favourable occasion in justifying its ties with Israel. It was also remarked that India’s normal relation with Israel was helpful to get the status of a mediator in the on going peace negotiations. India’s relationship with Israel also marked the shift of India’s foreign policy from the traditional line of anti-colonial and anti-imperialist to economic and strategic developments. In the decade following this normalisation of ties, successive governments of both the centrist Congress and the rightist BJP, irrespective of party ideology, have rapidly forged extensive military, economic and political relationship. In fact, the shift within the Indian ruling classes from the official position of non-alignment and state-centred economic development towards a pro-United States policy facilitated and encouraged this change attitude towards Israel.
Milestones in the India-Israel Relations
The most important outcome in the Indo-Israel relationship was that India emrged Israel’s second largest trading partner in Asia after Hon Kong and Israel became India’s largest supplier of military equipment after Russia. Although India’s relation with Israel started at a low profile, a sea change took place after the NDA came to power in 1998. India soon became Israel’s closest ally in Asia with strategic, defence and intelligence cooperation growing rapidly. India became the biggest market for Israeli arms. Israel supplied not only military hard wares but also several high-techs, critical weaponry such as wide array of surveillance items, electronic warfare systems, a ground based Green Pine ABM radar, and phalcon airborne warning and control systems. These arms sales were part of a declared NDA policy to forge an alliance among India, United States and Israel.
The United States has given clearance to Israel’s delivery of phalcon reconnaissance aircraft to India, in marked contrast to Washington’s vigorous opposition to supplying them to China in 1998. The US forced Israel to cancel the deal to sell the phalcons to China out of concern altering the balance of power between China and Taiwan. In February 2003 an agreement was made to supply advanced Israeli avionic systems for the Indian Air Force’s new MIG-27 combat aircraft. There were reports about the collaboration between India and Israel on a missile defence system based on the Israel Arrow technology.
India-Israeli partnership has intensified since 1998 and later led to the visiting of India’s Home Minister, L.K.Advani and India’s External Affairs Minister, Jaswant Singh to Israel in quick succession in mid 2000. The delegates of the Indian team with L.K.Advani consisted of Heads of India’s intelligence agencies, RAW, IB, and Central Police Organisations fighting terrorism. In addition to this, India’s National Security Advisor, Brijesh Mishra and Services Chiefs have paid their visit to Israel since 1998, underlining the growing strategic cooperation between India and Israel. The top officials of Indian Navy also conducted goodwill visits to Israel.
The Israeli aid during the Kargil war in 1999 was considered by India as a cementing factor in the Indo-Israeli relationship. It was during the visit of Shimon Pares to India in January 2002 India and Israel made major agreements to fight ‘terrorism’. Ironically, the word ‘terrorism’ used by Israel was about the national liberation struggle of the Palestinians, which had been strongly supported by India until late 1980s. An Indian Foreign Ministry Spokesman said during the visit of Pares: “India finds it increasingly beneficial to learn from Israel’s experience in dealing with terrorism”. This line of Indian policy was in contradiction with the fundamental principle of Indian foreign policy, supporting all national liberation movements.
The most significant event in the Indo-Israeli relationship was the visit of Israeli Prime Minster, Ariel Sharon to India in September 2003. In fact, the visit engineered much controversy in the wake of the assassination of Palestinian leaders by Israeli military forces during the period. There were series of protests in different parts of India against the Israeli Prime Minister. However, the Indian government adopted a cautious step of either displeasing Sharon or giving much honour against the public sentiments. At the same time, there were many agreements during his visit as Sharon was accompanied by a large delegation of about 30 influential businessmen, eager to forge new contracts and open new markets in India.
When the UPA government under the Congress leadership came to power in mid-2004, it decided to follow the same line of the policy adopted by the earlier NDA regime. During the NDA rule the Congress party had criticised some of the close cooperation between India and Israel. But UPA government followed its relations with Israel without changing any policies. India’s Navel Chief Admiral Suresh Mehta visited Israel in January 2008 to finalise several key defence projects. It was reported that Mehta had reviewed efforts to enhance the Israeli-origin barak missiles defence system.
Major implications in the Indo-Israeli Relationship
The most important outcome in the Indo-Israeli relation is the aberration in the fundamental principle of Indian foreign policy. In the first four decades after independence, successive governments sought to project India as country dedicated to decolonisation. This posture offered the basis for the principled foreign policy of Nehruvian state which drew its own legitimacy from the tumultuous anti-colonial struggle that brought about independence for the subcontinent in the late 1940s. But when India decided to establish its ties with Israel, it had far reaching implications including military and intelligence cooperation against Pakistan and Islamic terrorism. In fact, India’s relation with Israel was not a normal one as it expanded into different vital fields, even foiled India’s traditional relations with Arab countries and Iran. It was viewed as a tactic used by the US to bring India into its strategic orbit. As a result, it lost its independent foreign policy initiatives in the post-cold war period.
The traders and business lobby in India and Israel played a crucial role in fostering the ties between the two countries for promoting their interests. The Indian business lobby was not interested any matters regarding the case of Palestinians. Since Palestine has little to offer financially or technologically, while Israel can sell to India what the US refuses to India, these pragmatists insisted that New Delhi had no option but to court the more “valuable” Israel. The official Israeli figures show that Israel exports to India valued $1.270 billion in 2006 and imports $1.433 billion to Israel. Agricultural, water and IT technologies in addition to fertilisers and diamonds are major mutual trade concerns. The State Bank of India became the first foreign bank to open a branch in Israel’s diamond exchange.
The India-Israeli alliance strengthens the US strategic designs for India and the region. India holds significant place in the September 20, 2002 National Security Strategy of the US, a policy document to support the actions of the current US President, George Bush. Like Israel in West Asia, the US needed a close ally in South Asia to confront terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan as well as to overcome the challenges posed by China. The Indo-US nuclear deal is the most significant outcome of this kind of policy initiatives of the United States.
“Pakistan factor” was another aspect which cemented the relation between India and Israel. For India, the growing nuclear arsenal of Pakistan and its support to terrorism in Kashmir and different parts of India were most important challenges. In the case of Israel, the nuclear capability of Pakistan and its support to Palestinian extremists posed a threat to its security. In this context Pakistan was a common threat to India and Israel and any alliance in this direction was considered as most valuable. There were reports about the Israeli clandestine support to Indian nuclear explosion, Pokhran II in May 1998. Even the Sangh Parivar was demanding for an alliance with Israel way back in 1960s and 1970s to face the “Islamic threat” from Pakistan and Kashmir.
India’s relationship with the West Asian countries, most specifically Iran, has been a point of contention in the Indo-Israeli partnership. Israel’s relationship with Iran is extremely antagonistic and unstable. Israel viewed Iran as the most important threat to its security in the region due to the kind of support it extended to Hezbollah and Palestinian extremists. In the case of India, Iran is considered as the most important ally in the region. India paid a lot of respect to Iran on account of its support to Kashmir issue against Pakistan. So India treated Iran as an ideal power in the region to counter Pakistan influence in West Asia. But with the inception of Indo-Israeli ties India’s traditional relationship with Iran badly damaged. Israel’s spy satellite, Tecsar (Polaris), was launched by India in January 2008 to enhance Israel’s intelligence gathering capability. In fact, the real objective behind the launching of the satellite was to undermine the Iranian nuclear programme. Moreover, India voted twice on the IAEA governing body against Iran under the compulsion from the United States. All these created rifts between India and Iran.
However, it is not possible to follow a negative policy towards the Arab countries by taking into account of many realities. It is estimated that more than five million Indian expatriate work in the Arab countries. Moreover, nearly $25 billion worth of Indo-Arab trade, including 60 per cent of Indian oil and gas imports worth $20 billion, is the basic support of Indian economy. In this respect, India had to follow a soft policy towards the question of Palestine. In order to overcome this dilemma an attempt had been made by Indian foreign policy makers to separate its Israeli policy from the Arab-Israeli conflict. To realise this objective, India has taken a more tactical neutral position on the Palestine question, publicly stating its continued support for the Palestinian case and making deliberative effort to further strengthen ties with ties Arab neighbours.
Conclusion
As a result of India’s new foreign policy decisions, its traditional line of supporting national liberation movements and ant-colonial and anti-imperial stands has been fizzled out. The Palestinians have been waging a struggle for their nationhood for the last six decades against Israeli illegal occupation of lands. India was one of the leading countries which extended all support to the Palestinian cause. India has always opposed the continued illegal occupation of West Bank and Gaza. However, India’s changed policy since 1992 is a blatant contradiction to its avowed policy of supporting the Palestinian cause due to the transformation in the international politics resulted in the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Moreover, India had enough justifications in establishing ties with Israel by taking into account of the factors like the recognition of Israel by the P.L.O. and some Arab countries. However, the current phase of India’s relation with Israel goes beyond the level of normalcy and reached a stage of much clandestine cooperation for defence and strategic purposes. Ironically, India wants to borrow the ideas of Israeli tactics of eliminating the Palestinian leaders in its efforts to combat terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir. For a long period India had been condemning these Israeli policies against the Palestinians. Now the cooperation in the same field with Israel is against its foreign policy principle and the support to the Palestinian struggle.
Moreover, India never used its relation with Israel to resolve the issue of Palestinians. At present India is in a commanding position of using its good offices to influence Israel. However, no attempt was made to pressurise Israel to withdraw its forces from the occupied territories. It is very unfortunate that on many occasions since 1992 India was not ready to condemn Israeli atrocities against the Palestinians by sticking to a passive stand of supporting a ‘peaceful solution’ to the crisis. The new diplomatic initiatives of India target only its vested interest against the traditional principle of solidarity with the third world countries. The current trends indicate India’s keen interest to develop close ties with imperialist global powers like the United States for economic and defence benefits undermining its values and principles. In other words, Indian foreign policy lost its direction as it is dictated by the external powers to realise their objectives.
Endnotes
N.V. Raj Kumar (Ed.), The Background of India’s Foreign Policy (New Delhi: Indian National Congress, 1952), p.57
Leonard A. Gordon, “Indian Nationalist Ideas about Palestine and Israel”, Jewish Social Studies, 37, Summer-Fall, 1975, p.223.
Jayaprakash Narayan, “The Arab-Israeli Question”, Indian and Foreign Review, Vol.6, July 15, 1969, pp.1-2.
Jawaharlal Nehru, Glimpses of World History (Bombay: Asia Publishing House, 1962), p.789.
For details see United Nations, Official Records of the General Assembly, Second Session, Supplement No.11, Document A/364 (UNSCOP Report)
G.Parthasarathi (ed.), Jawaharlal Nehru, Letters to Chief Ministers 1947-1964, Vol. 2, 1950-52, “1 October 1950”, (Delhi: Oxford University Press for the Jawaharlal Nehru Trust, 1986), p.217.
Subhash Kapila, India – Israel Relations: The Imperatives For Enhanced Strategic Cooperation, South Asia Analysis Group : Papers, cited at http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers2/paper131.html retrieved on 12-09-2008
Sudha Rao, The Arab-Israeli Conflict : The Indian View (Delhi: Orient Longman, 19720, p.60
Krishna Gopal and Kokila Krishna Gopal, West Asia and North Africa (New Delhi: V.I. Publications, 1981), pp.274-277.
Arthur G. Rubinoff, “Normalisation of India-Israel Relations: Stillborn for Forty Years”, Asian Survey, Vol.35, No.5, May 1995, p.493
Krishna Gopal Swamy, n.9, pp.278-279
Farah Naaz, West Asia: Changing Perspectives (Delhi: Shipra Publications, 2005), p.95.
See Indian Opinion on the West Asian Crisis (Bombay: Indo-Israeli Friendship League, 1967).
Arthur G. Rubinoff, n.10, p.498.
Ibid
K.R.Singh, “India and West Asia: Retrospects and Prospects” in Nancy Jetly (ed.), India’s Foreign Policy: Challenges and Prospects (New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House, 1999). p.227.
Raja Swamy, “The Case against Collaboration between Indian and Israel”, MR Zine,
30-08-06 cited in http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/swamy300806.html, retrieved on 11-09-08
Moshe Dayan, Breakthrough: A Personal Account of the Egypt-Israeil Peace Negotiations (New Delhi: Vikas, 1978), p.28.
Hindustan Times (New Delhi), March 27, 1980.
New York Times , January 30, 1992.
Nicola Nasser, “Indian - Israeli Ties Could Neutralize Delhi’s Palestinian Policy”, 12 July 2007, Arabic Media Internet Network, cited at http://www.amin.org/look/amin/en.tpl?IdLanguage=1&IdPublication=7&NrArticle=41334&NrIssue=1&NrSection=3 , retrieved on 09-09-2008
Ninan Koshy, “India and Israel Eye Iran”, FPIF foreign Policy in Focus, February 13, 2008, cited at http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4959 retrieved on 10-09-2008
Ninan Koshy, US plays matchmaker to India, Israel, Asia Times on line, June 10, 2003, cited http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/EF10Df03.html retrieved on 21-09-2008
Subhash Kapila, n.7.
Ninan Koshy, n.23.
Bansidhar Pradhan, “Globalisation and the Shift in India’s Palestine Policy”, in Anwar Alam (Ed.), India and West Asia in the Era of Globalisation (New Delhi: New Century Publications, 2008), pp.296-297.
Harsh V. Pant, “India-Israel Partnership: Convergence and Constraints”, The Middle East Review of International Affairs, Vol8, No.4, December 2004, cited at http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2004/issue4/jv8no4a6.html
Ninan Koshy, n.22.
Ramtanu Maitra, “Palestinians Pay for Indian Ambitions”, Asian Times on line, September 10, 2003, cited at http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/EI10Df03.html, retrieved on 25-09-2008.
Nicola Nasser, n.21.
Ninan Koshy, n.23.
S.R.Chaudhari, “Indo-Israeli N-Nexus”, The Hindu, February 10, 1999.
Adam C Castillo, India and Israel: A balancing alliance, International Relations and Security Network, cited at: http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?ID=19199 retrieved on 23-09-2008
Ninan Koshy, n.22.
Nicola Nasser, n.21.
Frederick Stakelbeck, Jr., "India and Israel Shape a New Strategic Relationship”, Global Politician , cited at http://www.globalpolitician.com/2345-israel
India and Palestine Question
India’s relation with the West Asia was formulated by Jawarlal Nehru in 1930s. Although Nehru took an impartial view regarding the Arab-Israeli differences in the initial period, he later took the stand of supporting the Arabs by taking into account of the denial of justice to the Palestinians. In the 1939 Resolution adopted by the Indian National Congress, it stated that “in Palestine the Jews have relied on British armed forces to advance their special privileges”. Even Gandhiji was not ready to recognize the Jewish nationalism, which was artificially created in Palestine at the cost of indigenous Arab population. Nehru indicted Zionism for fostering Jewish settlement in Palestine at the expense of the Arab population. Jayapraksh Narayan stated:
“No doubt the Jews were entitled as a persecuted people to compassion and some compensation for the wrongs heaped upon their innocent heads through the centuries. But it was certainly not the Arabs, least of all the Palestinians, who were the persecutors. If the Christian peoples and powers of the West, some of whom had tried mercilessly to exterminate the Jews, were anxious at least to salve their conscience and do a good turn to their victims, they had no right to do it at the cost of the Arabs”
Nehru in his letters to his daughter, Indira, during his prison days commented the British tactics in Palestine in favour of the Jewish immigrants violating the rights of the Palestine as another face of a colonial power. He saw the English in Palestine pitting “Jewish religious nationalism against Arab nationalism, and (making) it appear that (their) presence is necessary to act as an arbiter and to keep the peace between the two”. All these were some of the basic perspectives of Indian leaders regarding the Jewish colonialism in the pre-independence period.
The first task before India in its post independence period was to examine an appropriate solution to the Palestine question by becoming a member in the Special UN Committee. India supported the minority plan which recommended a federation of two Arab and Jewish states by opposing the partition plan of Palestine. (During this period the third world countries were not emerged as members of the UN General Assembly). The decision of India was influenced by the perception of Indian leaders on the Palestine question as well as the partition of India.
When Israel became a reality in 1948, India had several reservations in granting recognition to it. Nehru openly stated the reason as a gesture of supporting the stand of Arab countries. Moreover, India opposed U.N. membership for Israel in 1949. By 1950 a series of efforts had been made to influence the Indian government to recognize the state of Israel by the Jewish lobby as well as its counterpart in India. Finally, India accorded its recognition to the State of Israel in late 1950 without establishing any formal ties until 1992.
India’s Support to Palestinian Struggle
When Israel invaded Sinai on October 29, 1956 as a reaction to Egypt’s decision to nationalize Suez Canal, India condemned it as a re-imposition of European colonialism in the Afro Asian world. The attack of Egypt by Israel along with British and French forces was viewed as a flagrant violation of the UN Charter and all Indian political parties, from right to left, condemned it. India cosponsored resolutions in the General Assembly urging the withdrawal of French, British and Israeli forces from Egypt. In fact, the Suez crisis drew Egypt and India closer together and its relation with Israel to low point and ended all possibility for a bilateral tie.
The reemphasis given by India to the Arab cause out of Suez crisis of 1956 is reflected in the unstinting support of India to the case of Palestinian refugees. According to C.S. Jha, India’s permanent representative in the UN, stated in November 1959 that “the problem of Palestinian refugees is not merely an intensely human problem; it is one of great political importance and indeed affects the entire complex of political relations in the Middle East.” India’s hostility towards Israel increased even more after the death of Nehru in 1964. It was evident from India’s refusal to accept Israeli assistance in redeveloping the barren wastes of Rajastan. Similarly, Israeli offer of famine relief given in response to a plea by the UN Secretary General, U Thant was declined by India for political reasons. India condemned the Israeli invasion of Arab lands of Palestine in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. In December 1967, D.P.Dhar, a member of Indian delegation to the UN Special Committee, reiterated Indian position, which recognized the Palestinian as a people and not merely as refugees. It also emphasized the need of for a lasting solutions to ensure the just rights of the Arab people of Palestine on the basis of UN resolution 194 (III).
In the meantime, the Indian political atmosphere was not fully supporting the views of the government stand. The opposition parties in India, except the Communist parties, demanded a cautious approach in the 1967 war, promoting a neutral stand. The parties like Swathanthra party and Jana Sangh openly supported Israel. It happened on account of the neutral policy of Egypt during the Sino-Indian war of 1962 and Indo-Pak war of 1965. Similarly, the Indian press also took a negative approach to official Indian position in the 1967 war. The news papers like Times of India, Indian Express, Statesman and Hindustan Times made critical remarks on Indian policy of supporting the Arabs.
The first setback to India’s relation with West Asia came in 1969 when India was denied participation on the Rabat conference of Islamic leaders due to the opposition of Pakistan. The meeting was convened to condemn the burning of Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem. Moreover, under the initiative of Pakistan the meeting also condemned the communal riots in Ahmedabad. As a reaction to these developments, India recalled its Senior Envoys from Morocco and Jordan. Further, Indian Foreign Affairs Minister, Dinesh Singh held a meeting with his Israeli counterpart, Abba Eban in New York, as a first sign of improving relations with Israel. During the Indo-Pak war in November 1971, countries like Egypt and Syria took a neutral stand while countries like Kuwait, Jordan and Saudi Arabia condemned India. However, Israel took a pro-India stand by criticizing Pakistan actions in East Bengal.
However, India continued pro-Arab stand even in the 1973 Arab-Israeli war. At the same time India gradually moved away from the policy of supporting individual Arab countries by focusing exclusively on Palestine question. Hence in the post-1973 war period India gave more importance to support the struggles of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) led by Yasser Arafat. In this respect, India played considerable role in the UN to support the PLO’s bid for observer status in 1974. India became the first non-Arab government to extend formal diplomatic accreditation to the representatives of the PLO in January 1975. Moreover, India was a cosponsor of General Assembly Resolution 3379, which equated Zionism with racism in November 1975.
When Janata party came to power in 1977, there were speculations about the shift of India’s policy towards Palestine. It was during this period Moshe Dayan, Israeli Foreign Minister made an unofficial visit to India. However, there was no official action in supporting the relationship with Israel. When Camp David Accord was signed in September 1978 between Israel and Egypt, India opposed it along with the Arab world. In 1980 Indira Gandhi returned to power with the continued support of Palestinian struggle. It was during this period India accorded full diplomatic recognition to the Office of PLO in New Delhi. Moreover, Yasser Arafat paid state visits to India in 1980 and 1982. This line of Indian policy continued until early 1990s. The situation in West Asian witnessed a sea change when Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990. It was during this period the Soviet Union was disappearing from the world map marking the era of unipolar world. In the meantime, the P.L.O. lost its prestige in West Asia on account of its support to Saddam Hussain. The United States took the initiative of holding international Middle East Peace Conference immediately after expelling Iraq out of Kuwait in 1991. This marked new era in West Asia due to different varieties of diplomatic manoeuvring. As a consequence to these developments, India also made drastic changes in its policy towards West Asia.
Ties with Israel and Shift in India’s Foreign Policy
The decision of establishing formal ties with Israel was taken by P.V. Narasimha Rao, the Prime Minister of Congress government in January 1992. The decision was a surprising one, although it looked like a long awaited decision, as remarked by Indian media. In fact, the decision of India to start formal relation with Israel was based on changes in the international scenario. It was the beginning of post-cold war period war era with the disintegration of the Soviet Union, India’s strong ally for a long period. In the new situation India desired the support and collaboration with major international powers like the United States, especially in the wake of the political turmoil in Kashmir. In this respect India had two objectives in promoting its relation with the US. Firstly, to overcome the propaganda unleashed by Pakistan on Kashmir situation. Secondly, India required strategic cooperation with the US due to the demise of the Soviet Union, the leading exporter of arms to India. It was imperative for India to modernise Indian weaponry. At the same time India was fully aware of the complexities in establishing strong ties with the US. In this context India found Israel as a best option of appeasing the US line of policy. It is to be noted that India announced its decision to formally establish relations with Israel on the eve of Prime Minister Narasimha Rao’s visit to the US.
Moreover, the P.L.O. had already recognised the state of Israel to join as a party of the peace process in the Middle East. So India found a favourable occasion in justifying its ties with Israel. It was also remarked that India’s normal relation with Israel was helpful to get the status of a mediator in the on going peace negotiations. India’s relationship with Israel also marked the shift of India’s foreign policy from the traditional line of anti-colonial and anti-imperialist to economic and strategic developments. In the decade following this normalisation of ties, successive governments of both the centrist Congress and the rightist BJP, irrespective of party ideology, have rapidly forged extensive military, economic and political relationship. In fact, the shift within the Indian ruling classes from the official position of non-alignment and state-centred economic development towards a pro-United States policy facilitated and encouraged this change attitude towards Israel.
Milestones in the India-Israel Relations
The most important outcome in the Indo-Israel relationship was that India emrged Israel’s second largest trading partner in Asia after Hon Kong and Israel became India’s largest supplier of military equipment after Russia. Although India’s relation with Israel started at a low profile, a sea change took place after the NDA came to power in 1998. India soon became Israel’s closest ally in Asia with strategic, defence and intelligence cooperation growing rapidly. India became the biggest market for Israeli arms. Israel supplied not only military hard wares but also several high-techs, critical weaponry such as wide array of surveillance items, electronic warfare systems, a ground based Green Pine ABM radar, and phalcon airborne warning and control systems. These arms sales were part of a declared NDA policy to forge an alliance among India, United States and Israel.
The United States has given clearance to Israel’s delivery of phalcon reconnaissance aircraft to India, in marked contrast to Washington’s vigorous opposition to supplying them to China in 1998. The US forced Israel to cancel the deal to sell the phalcons to China out of concern altering the balance of power between China and Taiwan. In February 2003 an agreement was made to supply advanced Israeli avionic systems for the Indian Air Force’s new MIG-27 combat aircraft. There were reports about the collaboration between India and Israel on a missile defence system based on the Israel Arrow technology.
India-Israeli partnership has intensified since 1998 and later led to the visiting of India’s Home Minister, L.K.Advani and India’s External Affairs Minister, Jaswant Singh to Israel in quick succession in mid 2000. The delegates of the Indian team with L.K.Advani consisted of Heads of India’s intelligence agencies, RAW, IB, and Central Police Organisations fighting terrorism. In addition to this, India’s National Security Advisor, Brijesh Mishra and Services Chiefs have paid their visit to Israel since 1998, underlining the growing strategic cooperation between India and Israel. The top officials of Indian Navy also conducted goodwill visits to Israel.
The Israeli aid during the Kargil war in 1999 was considered by India as a cementing factor in the Indo-Israeli relationship. It was during the visit of Shimon Pares to India in January 2002 India and Israel made major agreements to fight ‘terrorism’. Ironically, the word ‘terrorism’ used by Israel was about the national liberation struggle of the Palestinians, which had been strongly supported by India until late 1980s. An Indian Foreign Ministry Spokesman said during the visit of Pares: “India finds it increasingly beneficial to learn from Israel’s experience in dealing with terrorism”. This line of Indian policy was in contradiction with the fundamental principle of Indian foreign policy, supporting all national liberation movements.
The most significant event in the Indo-Israeli relationship was the visit of Israeli Prime Minster, Ariel Sharon to India in September 2003. In fact, the visit engineered much controversy in the wake of the assassination of Palestinian leaders by Israeli military forces during the period. There were series of protests in different parts of India against the Israeli Prime Minister. However, the Indian government adopted a cautious step of either displeasing Sharon or giving much honour against the public sentiments. At the same time, there were many agreements during his visit as Sharon was accompanied by a large delegation of about 30 influential businessmen, eager to forge new contracts and open new markets in India.
When the UPA government under the Congress leadership came to power in mid-2004, it decided to follow the same line of the policy adopted by the earlier NDA regime. During the NDA rule the Congress party had criticised some of the close cooperation between India and Israel. But UPA government followed its relations with Israel without changing any policies. India’s Navel Chief Admiral Suresh Mehta visited Israel in January 2008 to finalise several key defence projects. It was reported that Mehta had reviewed efforts to enhance the Israeli-origin barak missiles defence system.
Major implications in the Indo-Israeli Relationship
The most important outcome in the Indo-Israeli relation is the aberration in the fundamental principle of Indian foreign policy. In the first four decades after independence, successive governments sought to project India as country dedicated to decolonisation. This posture offered the basis for the principled foreign policy of Nehruvian state which drew its own legitimacy from the tumultuous anti-colonial struggle that brought about independence for the subcontinent in the late 1940s. But when India decided to establish its ties with Israel, it had far reaching implications including military and intelligence cooperation against Pakistan and Islamic terrorism. In fact, India’s relation with Israel was not a normal one as it expanded into different vital fields, even foiled India’s traditional relations with Arab countries and Iran. It was viewed as a tactic used by the US to bring India into its strategic orbit. As a result, it lost its independent foreign policy initiatives in the post-cold war period.
The traders and business lobby in India and Israel played a crucial role in fostering the ties between the two countries for promoting their interests. The Indian business lobby was not interested any matters regarding the case of Palestinians. Since Palestine has little to offer financially or technologically, while Israel can sell to India what the US refuses to India, these pragmatists insisted that New Delhi had no option but to court the more “valuable” Israel. The official Israeli figures show that Israel exports to India valued $1.270 billion in 2006 and imports $1.433 billion to Israel. Agricultural, water and IT technologies in addition to fertilisers and diamonds are major mutual trade concerns. The State Bank of India became the first foreign bank to open a branch in Israel’s diamond exchange.
The India-Israeli alliance strengthens the US strategic designs for India and the region. India holds significant place in the September 20, 2002 National Security Strategy of the US, a policy document to support the actions of the current US President, George Bush. Like Israel in West Asia, the US needed a close ally in South Asia to confront terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan as well as to overcome the challenges posed by China. The Indo-US nuclear deal is the most significant outcome of this kind of policy initiatives of the United States.
“Pakistan factor” was another aspect which cemented the relation between India and Israel. For India, the growing nuclear arsenal of Pakistan and its support to terrorism in Kashmir and different parts of India were most important challenges. In the case of Israel, the nuclear capability of Pakistan and its support to Palestinian extremists posed a threat to its security. In this context Pakistan was a common threat to India and Israel and any alliance in this direction was considered as most valuable. There were reports about the Israeli clandestine support to Indian nuclear explosion, Pokhran II in May 1998. Even the Sangh Parivar was demanding for an alliance with Israel way back in 1960s and 1970s to face the “Islamic threat” from Pakistan and Kashmir.
India’s relationship with the West Asian countries, most specifically Iran, has been a point of contention in the Indo-Israeli partnership. Israel’s relationship with Iran is extremely antagonistic and unstable. Israel viewed Iran as the most important threat to its security in the region due to the kind of support it extended to Hezbollah and Palestinian extremists. In the case of India, Iran is considered as the most important ally in the region. India paid a lot of respect to Iran on account of its support to Kashmir issue against Pakistan. So India treated Iran as an ideal power in the region to counter Pakistan influence in West Asia. But with the inception of Indo-Israeli ties India’s traditional relationship with Iran badly damaged. Israel’s spy satellite, Tecsar (Polaris), was launched by India in January 2008 to enhance Israel’s intelligence gathering capability. In fact, the real objective behind the launching of the satellite was to undermine the Iranian nuclear programme. Moreover, India voted twice on the IAEA governing body against Iran under the compulsion from the United States. All these created rifts between India and Iran.
However, it is not possible to follow a negative policy towards the Arab countries by taking into account of many realities. It is estimated that more than five million Indian expatriate work in the Arab countries. Moreover, nearly $25 billion worth of Indo-Arab trade, including 60 per cent of Indian oil and gas imports worth $20 billion, is the basic support of Indian economy. In this respect, India had to follow a soft policy towards the question of Palestine. In order to overcome this dilemma an attempt had been made by Indian foreign policy makers to separate its Israeli policy from the Arab-Israeli conflict. To realise this objective, India has taken a more tactical neutral position on the Palestine question, publicly stating its continued support for the Palestinian case and making deliberative effort to further strengthen ties with ties Arab neighbours.
Conclusion
As a result of India’s new foreign policy decisions, its traditional line of supporting national liberation movements and ant-colonial and anti-imperial stands has been fizzled out. The Palestinians have been waging a struggle for their nationhood for the last six decades against Israeli illegal occupation of lands. India was one of the leading countries which extended all support to the Palestinian cause. India has always opposed the continued illegal occupation of West Bank and Gaza. However, India’s changed policy since 1992 is a blatant contradiction to its avowed policy of supporting the Palestinian cause due to the transformation in the international politics resulted in the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Moreover, India had enough justifications in establishing ties with Israel by taking into account of the factors like the recognition of Israel by the P.L.O. and some Arab countries. However, the current phase of India’s relation with Israel goes beyond the level of normalcy and reached a stage of much clandestine cooperation for defence and strategic purposes. Ironically, India wants to borrow the ideas of Israeli tactics of eliminating the Palestinian leaders in its efforts to combat terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir. For a long period India had been condemning these Israeli policies against the Palestinians. Now the cooperation in the same field with Israel is against its foreign policy principle and the support to the Palestinian struggle.
Moreover, India never used its relation with Israel to resolve the issue of Palestinians. At present India is in a commanding position of using its good offices to influence Israel. However, no attempt was made to pressurise Israel to withdraw its forces from the occupied territories. It is very unfortunate that on many occasions since 1992 India was not ready to condemn Israeli atrocities against the Palestinians by sticking to a passive stand of supporting a ‘peaceful solution’ to the crisis. The new diplomatic initiatives of India target only its vested interest against the traditional principle of solidarity with the third world countries. The current trends indicate India’s keen interest to develop close ties with imperialist global powers like the United States for economic and defence benefits undermining its values and principles. In other words, Indian foreign policy lost its direction as it is dictated by the external powers to realise their objectives.
Endnotes
N.V. Raj Kumar (Ed.), The Background of India’s Foreign Policy (New Delhi: Indian National Congress, 1952), p.57
Leonard A. Gordon, “Indian Nationalist Ideas about Palestine and Israel”, Jewish Social Studies, 37, Summer-Fall, 1975, p.223.
Jayaprakash Narayan, “The Arab-Israeli Question”, Indian and Foreign Review, Vol.6, July 15, 1969, pp.1-2.
Jawaharlal Nehru, Glimpses of World History (Bombay: Asia Publishing House, 1962), p.789.
For details see United Nations, Official Records of the General Assembly, Second Session, Supplement No.11, Document A/364 (UNSCOP Report)
G.Parthasarathi (ed.), Jawaharlal Nehru, Letters to Chief Ministers 1947-1964, Vol. 2, 1950-52, “1 October 1950”, (Delhi: Oxford University Press for the Jawaharlal Nehru Trust, 1986), p.217.
Subhash Kapila, India – Israel Relations: The Imperatives For Enhanced Strategic Cooperation, South Asia Analysis Group : Papers, cited at http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers2/paper131.html retrieved on 12-09-2008
Sudha Rao, The Arab-Israeli Conflict : The Indian View (Delhi: Orient Longman, 19720, p.60
Krishna Gopal and Kokila Krishna Gopal, West Asia and North Africa (New Delhi: V.I. Publications, 1981), pp.274-277.
Arthur G. Rubinoff, “Normalisation of India-Israel Relations: Stillborn for Forty Years”, Asian Survey, Vol.35, No.5, May 1995, p.493
Krishna Gopal Swamy, n.9, pp.278-279
Farah Naaz, West Asia: Changing Perspectives (Delhi: Shipra Publications, 2005), p.95.
See Indian Opinion on the West Asian Crisis (Bombay: Indo-Israeli Friendship League, 1967).
Arthur G. Rubinoff, n.10, p.498.
Ibid
K.R.Singh, “India and West Asia: Retrospects and Prospects” in Nancy Jetly (ed.), India’s Foreign Policy: Challenges and Prospects (New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House, 1999). p.227.
Raja Swamy, “The Case against Collaboration between Indian and Israel”, MR Zine,
30-08-06 cited in http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/swamy300806.html, retrieved on 11-09-08
Moshe Dayan, Breakthrough: A Personal Account of the Egypt-Israeil Peace Negotiations (New Delhi: Vikas, 1978), p.28.
Hindustan Times (New Delhi), March 27, 1980.
New York Times , January 30, 1992.
Nicola Nasser, “Indian - Israeli Ties Could Neutralize Delhi’s Palestinian Policy”, 12 July 2007, Arabic Media Internet Network, cited at http://www.amin.org/look/amin/en.tpl?IdLanguage=1&IdPublication=7&NrArticle=41334&NrIssue=1&NrSection=3 , retrieved on 09-09-2008
Ninan Koshy, “India and Israel Eye Iran”, FPIF foreign Policy in Focus, February 13, 2008, cited at http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4959 retrieved on 10-09-2008
Ninan Koshy, US plays matchmaker to India, Israel, Asia Times on line, June 10, 2003, cited http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/EF10Df03.html retrieved on 21-09-2008
Subhash Kapila, n.7.
Ninan Koshy, n.23.
Bansidhar Pradhan, “Globalisation and the Shift in India’s Palestine Policy”, in Anwar Alam (Ed.), India and West Asia in the Era of Globalisation (New Delhi: New Century Publications, 2008), pp.296-297.
Harsh V. Pant, “India-Israel Partnership: Convergence and Constraints”, The Middle East Review of International Affairs, Vol8, No.4, December 2004, cited at http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2004/issue4/jv8no4a6.html
Ninan Koshy, n.22.
Ramtanu Maitra, “Palestinians Pay for Indian Ambitions”, Asian Times on line, September 10, 2003, cited at http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/EI10Df03.html, retrieved on 25-09-2008.
Nicola Nasser, n.21.
Ninan Koshy, n.23.
S.R.Chaudhari, “Indo-Israeli N-Nexus”, The Hindu, February 10, 1999.
Adam C Castillo, India and Israel: A balancing alliance, International Relations and Security Network, cited at: http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?ID=19199 retrieved on 23-09-2008
Ninan Koshy, n.22.
Nicola Nasser, n.21.
Frederick Stakelbeck, Jr., "India and Israel Shape a New Strategic Relationship”, Global Politician , cited at http://www.globalpolitician.com/2345-israel
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Post US President Election Scenario
U.S. Politics Newsletter:
November 14, 2008Contents:
Transition News: Page 1
Read about President-Elect Obama and his team as they gear up for the While House
News in Politics: Page 8
With three Senate races still undecided there is still lots brewing in Washington D.C.
Possible Cabinet and Other Appointments: Page 17
Read about the people that are being considered for some of the highest positions in the country.
Transition News:
Obama and McCain to Meet:
Barack Obama and John McCain will meet in Chicago next week, the Obama-Biden transition team announced Friday.
"On Monday, President-elect Barack Obama and Senator John McCain will meet in Chicago at transition headquarters,” said transition spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter.
“It's well known that they share an important belief that Americans want and deserve a more effective and efficient government, and will discuss ways to work together to make that a reality. They will be joined in the meeting by Senator Lindsey Graham and Congressman Rahm Emanuel."
The two men spoke by phone Election Night, but have not met in person since the Al Smith dinner in New York on October 16.
Obama and Bush Meet and Lobby Each Other:
At their private Oval Office meeting on Monday, President-elect Barack Obama urged President Bush to support billions of dollars in aid for the struggling auto industry during the upcoming lame-duck session of Congress, according to three officials briefed on the meeting.
The officials said Bush privately expressed skepticism about taxpayer money for automakers on the heels of a string of government bailouts for other industries, and the president also urged Obama to help push through a free trade pact with Colombia – a key legacy item for the outgoing administration that is facing stiff resistance from Democrats on Capitol Hill.
But a senior Bush administration official seemed to downplay suggestions that Bush was offering a quid pro quo by saying the White House still believes the trade deal “deserves to pass on its own merits” without being linked to anything else.
The officials familiar with the meeting said Obama made the case that dramatic action needs to be taken this year – rather than after he is sworn into office – because the Big Three U.S. automakers are bleeding cash at an alarming rate.
One of the officials noted that about one in ten jobs in America are tied to the auto industry, and if one of the companies goes bankrupt it could have a massive spillover effect into the credit industry and other sectors. “The numbers are so staggering,” said the official. “It’s a huge piece of the financial fabric of the country.”
The senior Bush administration official said the White House is “open to ideas from Congress to accelerate funds they’ve already appropriated” to help the auto industry.
But the administration official said support would come “as long as funding will continue to go to viable firms and with strong taxpayer protections” linked to the auto industry aid.
An official in the auto industry told CNN that bringing the Colombian pact into the negotiations could be a poison pill that prevents passage of an auto industry package. But a senior Democratic aide suggested Congress may be willing to call Bush’s bluff and try to pass an auto industry aid package without the trade deal.
The senior aide said Democrats do not believe “this president wants to add the demise of GM to his legacy list.”
Obama Picks Representatives for Summit:
President-elect Barack Obama's transition team announced Wednesday that former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former Iowa Congressman Jim Leach will represent the incoming administration at the G-20 economic summit being hosted by President Bush on November 15.
Obama himself will not attend the summit.
Albright and Leach are "an experienced and bipartisan team," Obama Senior Foreign Policy Advisor Denis McDonough said in a statement.
McDonough also noted, however, that there is only "one president at a time in the United States," and that "President Bush should be commended for calling the summit."
Albright, a Democrat, served as secretary of state during the Clinton administration. Leach, a Republican, represented Iowa's second congressional district from 1977 to 2007. He endorsed Obama in August.
Bush announced the summit of the world's 20 largest industrialized nations and developing economies as a way to help coordinate the international response to the global financial meltdown.
Emmanuel Brushes Off Partisan Charges:
Rep. Rahm Emanuel insisted Sunday that he would help President-elect Barack Obama work in a bipartisan fashion, brushing off criticism that he would be a “hyper-partisan” chief of staff.
“President Obama is very clear, as you look at his career, both in the state senate, U.S. Senate, and the campaign, that we have to govern in a bipartisan fashion,” he said on ABC’s “This Week.”
“The challenges are big enough that there's going to be an ability for people of both parties, as well as independents, to contribute ideas to help meet the challenges on health care, energy, tax reform, education,” he said.
Obama announced last week that he had chosen Emanuel to be his chief of staff.
The Republican National Committee put out a press release shortly thereafter that said, “Obama’s Broken Promise: After promising change, Obama selects hyper-partisan wedded to special interests.” Minority Leader John Boehner called Emanuel an “ironic choice” for a president-elect who promised to “govern from the center.”
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, however, agreed with Democrats and called Emanuel a “wise choice.”
"Rahm knows Capitol Hill and has great political skills. He can be a tough partisan but also understands the need to work together. He is well-suited for the position of White House chief of staff," the South Carolina senator said.
Graham said he and Emanuel worked together during the presidential debate negotiations, and "when we hit a rough spot, he always looked for a path forward."
Emanuel, who has a reputation as a tough political infighter, is credited with helping Democrats take control of the House in 2006.
He was elected to the House in 2002 and is the fourth highest-ranking member of the chamber's Democratic leadership. He worked on President Clinton's first presidential campaign and served as a White House adviser to Clinton.
The Chicago politician said Sunday that it will take a joint effort from leaders of both parties to tackle the challenges facing the country.
“Because the challenges … whether on the national security front or on the economic, are looming large, and they're going to require both parties and leaders of both parties, as well as independents, to offer up ideas to how to meet those challenges,” he said.
Emanuel also said he thought Sen. John McCain would be a “partner” in working to solve those problems.
Questionnaire to Work for Obama:
The Obama campaign is seriously vetting all candidates for high level positions. Attached to this email you will find the questionnaire that prospective cabinet members are being required to complete. The nine page document asks for things ranging from all tax documents to all live in partners you have had to any political connections that could be exploited. Candidates must be willing to tell all to be considered for these jobs.
Biden Speaks to Foreign Leaders:
Vice President-elect Joe Biden spoke with eight foreign leaders earlier this week, the transition office announced Thursday, to express “his thanks and appreciation for their congratulations on the election.”
The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee talked to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Afghan president Hamid Karzai, King Abdullah of Jordan and Polish President Lech Kaczynski on Monday and Tuesday.
In addition, the country that got the most calls was Israel, with Biden speaking to three of its most senior politicians: Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Defense Minister (and former prime minister) Ehud Barak and Likud Party leader (and former Prime Minister) Binyamin Netanyahu.
The country’s Jerusalem Post reports that Livni told Biden to keep up the pressure on Iran’s nuclear program and to continue to fight against extremists in the region. Livni is running against both Netanyahu and Barak in Israel’s February elections to succeed Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.
Biden is expected to play an instrumental role in foreign policy in the Obama administration when they are sworn on January 20. When Republicans accused Obama during the campaign of not wholeheartedly supporting Israel, Biden beat back the accusations with his own friendship with the country during his 35-year tenure in the Senate.
“My support for Israel begins in my stomach, goes to my heart and ends up in my head,” Biden said to a Jewish group in late September. “I guarantee you, I would not have joined Barack Obama’s ticket as vice president, were [there] any doubt, even the slightest doubt, that he shares the same commitment to Israel that I share.”
The transition office has been regularly releasing the names of foreign leaders that President-elect Barack Obama has spoken with, evidence of Obama and Biden’s campaign pledge to “restore America’s standing in the world,” as Biden regularly put it on the stump.
Iran Blasts Obama’s Nuclear Criticisms:
Iran's parliament speaker has criticized U.S. President-elect Barack Obama for saying that Iran's development of a nuclear weapon is unacceptable.
Ali Larijani said on Saturday Obama should apply his campaign message of change to U.S. dealings with Iran.
"Obama must know that the change that he talks about is not simply a superficial changing of colors or tactics," Larijani said in comments carried by the semi-official Mehr News Agency.
"What is expected is a change in strategy, not the repetition of objections to Iran's nuclear program which will be taking a step in the wrong direction."
In his first post-election news conference Friday afternoon, Obama reiterated that he believes a nuclear-armed Iran would be "unacceptable." He also said he would help mount an international effort to prevent it from happening.
Larijani said U.S. behavior toward Iran "will not change so simply," but that Obama's election showed internal conditions in the United States have shifted.
Obama Facing High Expectations:
The overall public mood may still be sour at the moment, but a new national poll suggests that most Americans think Barack Obama will make major accomplishments as president of the United States.
Nearly two-thirds of those questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Thursday said President-elect Obama will change the country for the better. Twenty-five percent said he won't change the country either way, and only 9 percent indicated they think Obama will change the country for the worse.
"The bar is being set awfully high for an Obama presidency," said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.
According to the poll, most people think it's likely that Obama will improve race relations, improve economic conditions, bring stability to the financial markets, make the United States safer from terrorism, reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil, reduce global warming, win the war in Afghanistan, and remove U.S. troops from Iraq without causing a major upheaval in that country.
"That's a pretty big to-do list," said Holland.
In a question separate from whether Obama will change the country for the better, 76 percent of poll respondents said the country will be better off four years from now, while 19 percent say it will be worse.
Three-quarters of those polled also have a favorable view of Obama, up 12 points since the election. Among black Americans the number was 99 percent, while among Republicans it was 41 percent.
The overall 75 percent favorable rating "makes Obama the most popular president-elect in at least a quarter of a century," Holland said.
In November of 1980, after his landslide victory over incumbent President Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan's favorable rating was 67 percent. Eight years later, the elder George Bush had a favorable rating of only 50 percent immediately after his win in the 1988 election. When Bill Clinton beat Bush
four years later, his favorable rating was 60 percent just after the election.
And after the Florida recount ended in December of 2000, George W. Bush had a 59 percent favorable rating.
The CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll was conducted November 6-9, with 1,246 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey's sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Obama Launches Transition Website:
Barack Obama launched the official government Web site for the presidential transition on Thursday, giving it a look and feel that suggests the new president will utilize the Internet to a much greater degree than his predecessor.
The site is a slightly more formal-looking incarnation of Obama’s campaign web site that features a blue-shaded presidential seal and a countdown clock to the Inauguration on January 20. There are biographies not only of Obama and Joe Biden, but also the directors of his transition team: John Podesta, Valerie Jarrett and Pete Rouse. The web site outlines Obama’s policy agenda, on issues from Iraq to social security to urban policy.
While the site lacks the innovative community organizing tools that helped propel the Illinois senator to the presidency, one section of the site does ask for user-generated content, asking Americans to submit stories about “what this campaign and this election means to you” and “where President-Elect Obama should lead this country.”
There is a transition blog, which at the moment only features a video of Obama’s Tuesday victory speech in Chicago’s Grant Park.
One link on the site is sure to get a flood of clicks: the “Jobs” section.
“All staff appointments chosen for this administration will be committed to fulfilling Obama’s campaign promises, to rebuilding our government, and to serving the American people again,” the site says.
Obama to Resign Senate Seat:
President-elect Barack Obama has announced that he will officially resign his Senate seat as of this Sunday.
“It has been one of the highest honors and privileges of my life to have served the people of Illinois in the United States Senate,” he said in a statement released by his campaign Thursday.
“In a state that represents the crossroads of a nation, I have met so many men and women who’ve taken different journeys, but hold common hopes for their children’s future. It is these Illinois families and their stories that will stay with me as I leave the United States Senate and begin the hard task of fulfilling the simple hopes and common dreams of all Americans as our nation’s next President.”
Obama’s Senate office will close sometime within the next two months. His Senate staff will spend that time coordinating with his replacement, advising constituents with open requests, and archiving documents for Obama’s presidential library.
Several Illinois Democrats — including Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. and Iraq war veteran Tammy Duckworth, a former congressional candidate who now serves in Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s administration – have been mentioned as possible Senate replacements for Obama.
Blagojevich, who will appoint Obama’s successor, announced last week that he was assembling a panel to vet likely candidates. Obama’s replacement would be up for re-election in 2010.
Vice president-elect Joe Biden – who was also re-elected to his Delaware Senate seat on November 4 — told an interviewer several weeks ago that he would resign when he's sworn in as vice president in January.
Obama Questions What to Do with Guantanamo Bay Prisoners:
President-elect Obama's transition team has begun examining what to do with suspected terrorists at the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, which Obama has pledged to close, an aide said Monday.
Denis McDonough, a senior adviser to the incoming Democrat, told CNN no decisions have been made about what to do with the roughly 250 inmates there, "and there is no process in place to make that decision until his national security and legal teams are assembled."
But officials close to the Obama team said Monday that the incoming administration is pondering whether to try some of the Guantanamo Bay inmates in existing federal courts; set up a special national security court to deal with cases involving the most sensitive intelligence information; or release others.
The scenario would eliminate the military commissions set up by the Bush administration to prosecute some of the top al Qaeda figures now held at the facility, such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed — the lead plotter of the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington.
The commissions have been delayed for years by legal challenges, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled an earlier version of them unconstitutional in 2006.
In a full-page ad in The New York Times on Monday, the American Civil Liberties Union urged Obama to close the prison camp on his first day in office, "with the stroke of a pen."
But in an October 31 interview with CNN, Obama said only that he would close the facility "as quickly as we can do prudently."
"I am not going to give a time certain because I think what we have to do is evaluate all those who are still being held in Gitmo," he said. "We have to put in place appropriate plans to make sure they are tried, convicted and punished to the full extent of the law, and that's going to require, I think, a
review of the existing cases, which I have not had the opportunity to do."
News In Politics:
Probable Re-Count in Minnesota Senate Race:
For the second time in a week, Republican incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman's camp is labeling him the winner in Minnesota's far-from-over Senate race.
Coleman leads Democratic challenger Al Franken by just 206 votes as the first round of tallying comes to a close Monday evening.
"Sen. Coleman remains the winner in this election despite unexplained discrepancies in reporting …that have virtually all benefited the Franken campaign," Coleman spokesman Tom Erickson said in a statement.
That result means little at this point: Minnesota law mandates a recount when the margin of victory in a race is less than .5 percent.
This instance falls well within that gap — more than 2.4 million Minnesotans cast votes in this year's Senate race.
Coleman's lead has shrunk since votes were first tabulated earlier in the week. On Wednesday, he led by 725 votes. Representatives with the Coleman campaign have charged that irregularities in tabulation throughout the week have unfairly benefited their opponent, Al Franken.
Franken spokesman Andy Barr dismissed the claim. "As much as the Coleman campaign would like to play political games and baselessly cast doubt on this process," Barr wrote in an e-mail to CNN, "we will continue to work to ensure that every vote is properly counted."
Barr also suggested that it would be wrong for anyone to declare victory before the statewide hand recount is complete. That process is set to begin November 19, and could last until mid-December.
Senator-Elect Hagan Drops ‘Godless Lawsuit”:
U.S. Sen.-elect Kay Hagan withdrew her defamation and libel lawsuit Thursday against incumbent Sen. Elizabeth Dole for a campaign commercial that Hagan alleged questioned her Christianity.
Hagan spokeswoman Colleen Flanagan said the papers were filed Thursday afternoon in Wake County court, putting an end to the legal fight over a controversial TV ad in the final week of the campaign ultimately won by Hagan.
The ad only ran for a few days but became a hot issue. Dole brought up her campaign rival's attendance at a fundraiser hosted by an adviser to the Godless Americans Political Action Committee, an atheist advocacy group.
Flanagan said Hagan can spend her time better working to help families hurt by the bad economy instead of pursuing a lawsuit that "would just continue the focus on a very personal and negative attack against Kay."
"It's clear that the people of North Carolina have rejected personal attacks aimed at dividing people of this state instead of bringing them together to solve the problems at hand," Flanagan said.
Dole campaign spokesman Hogan Gidley declined to comment on ending the suit.
Dole's 30-second advertisement showed clips of some members of the Godless Americans committee talking about some of their goals, such as taking "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance and removing "In God We Trust" from U.S. currency.
It went on to question why Hagan went to the fundraiser. The ad ended with a picture of Hagan while another woman declares in the background, "There is no God!"
Hagan, a Greensboro Democrat and state senator, responded quickly to the commercial with the lawsuit and her own commercial accusing Dole of breaking the Bible's Ninth Commandment by bearing false witness. A Presbyterian church elder who teaches Sunday school, Hagan also held a news conference with her family and her pastor.
Dole called the lawsuit frivolous and the commercial factual and designed to question Hagan's agenda and associations -- not her faith.
The Republican's campaign also used the September fundraiser in Boston that Hagan attended at the home of Woody Kaplan in automated phone calls in the campaign's last weekend.
The fundraisers was not billed as a Godless Americans event, and other hosts included an ambassador and Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee. Dole's campaign sent a press release on the subject about a month before the event.
Hagan received nearly 53 percent of the vote in her upset of Dole, the one-term senator, former Cabinet secretary and head of the American Red Cross
Begich Pulls in the Lead in Alaska Senate Race
Republican Sen. Ted Stevens has fallen 814 votes behind Democratic challenger Mark Begich as vote counting continues in Alaska.
The Anchorage mayor was trailing Stevens in the initial count, which did not include at least 90,000 absentee, early and provisional ballots.
With nearly two-thirds of those votes now tallied, Begich has taken the lead. An estimated 40,000 ballots have yet to be counted – a majority of them from the area of the state that includes Anchorage, according to state elections officials.
Palin Blames Bush Record for GOP Loss:
Sarah Palin told local reporters in Alaska that unhappiness with the Bush administration’s Iraq war policy and spending record were responsible for the GOP ticket’s defeat this year.
“I think the Republican ticket represented too much of the status quo, too much of what had gone on in these last eight years, that Americans were kind of shaking their heads like going, wait a minute, how did we run up a $10 trillion debt in a Republican administration?” Palin told the Anchorage Daily News and Alaska’s KTUU Channel 2.
“How have there been blunders with war strategy under a Republican administration? If we're talking change, we want to get far away from what it was that the present administration represented and that is to a great degree what the Republican Party at the time had been representing. So people desiring change I think went as far from the administration that is presently seated as they could. It's amazing that we did as well as we did.”
Palin returned to Alaska last week amid growing speculation about her political future. The Alaska governor is slated to attend the Republican Governors Association’s meeting in Miami this week.
Who Can Save the Republican Party?:
As Republican leaders sift through the ruins of the 2008 election and debate the party's future at the Republican Governors Association meeting this week, one of the GOP's potential standard-bearers is instead on a Caribbean cruise.
But it isn't just any cruise and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney isn't just any Republican. Since the economy began its historic downturn six weeks ago, Romney's stock in his party appears to have skyrocketed.
The former business consultant and founder of Bain Capital handled economic issues during his campaign with an ease and confidence that seemed to elude Sen. John McCain. As the stock market tanked throughout the fall, a growing chorus of conservative pundits speculated Romney would have boosted the GOP ticket considerably more than Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin did.
Now the onetime front-runner for the Republican nomination is schmoozing influential party insiders on the National Review's annual cruise -- a gathering of 700 conservative activists and the same forum where Palin wowed the movement's media elite last year, beginning her meteoric rise from obscure governor to vice presidential nominee.
But even as Romney publicly declares he has no intentions to run again, several former aides said they believe he will, and this week's get-together with leading conservatives is only the latest sign the man who spent more than $50 million of his own money to vie for the party's nomination last year is itching to do it again.
After all, in many ways Romney's campaign for 2012 appeared to begin the instant he abandoned his primary bid in February. Instead of the conventional location befitting most losing candidates -- his home state, surrounded by friends and family -- Romney broke the news to grass-roots activists at a gathering in Washington.
The last-minute announcement was greeted with cries of surprise and was seen as a public attempt to bolster his standing with the key GOP voting bloc that largely broke former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's way through the first round of primary contests.
"There he was addressing the largest gathering every year of conservatives, and it was extremely symbolic in many ways," said Matt Lewis, a writer for the conservative Web site Townhall.com. "That's where he chose to say for the good of the movement he was going to get out. It was very well-received by most people, and he is now in a better position to garner more conservative support because of it."
After bowing out, Romney maintained a constant presence on the campaign trail and cable news circuit on McCain's behalf, signaling to political observers that he still harbored presidential ambitions, even after he was passed up for the No. 2 spot on the party's ticket.
Romney also has maintained close relationships with key supporters in the early voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire, according to party officials there, and could easily revive the infrastructure he built should he launch another bid.
If the economy continues to flail after four years of Democratic rule, Romney's economic acumen may be in demand when it comes to restoring GOP power to the White House.
Former Clinton Advisor to Run for VA Governor:
Hillary Clinton’s former campaign chairman filed papers Monday forming an exploratory committee to run for Virginia governor.
Terry McAuliffe was widely expected to make his decision after Election Day. The former Democratic National Committee chairman will now do a 60 day listening tour of the state.
In September, McAuliffe hired longtime Virginia political consultant Mo Elleithee to start planning a possible statewide campaign, should he decide to run. Elleithee spent the last year working alongside McAuliffe in the Clinton campaign as a senior spokesman, but in recent years he has also helped steer Tim Kaine and Mark Warner to signature Democratic victories in Virginia.
Should he run, McAuliffe will face off in next year’s Democratic primary against state Sen. Creigh Deeds and State House Rep. Brian Moran. Virginia’s Attorney General Bob McDonnell is expected to run for the Republican nomination unopposed.
Franken Files Suit Over Absentee Ballots:
Democrat Al Franken's campaign filed a lawsuit Thursday in Ramsey County, Minnesota, requesting the names of all individuals who filed a rejected absentee ballot in the Senate race between the former comedian and incumbent Republican Sen. Norm Coleman.
Mark Elias, lead recount attorney for Franken, said many absentee ballots are rejected for insufficient reasons, offering the example of an elderly woman who'd suffered a recent stroke which affected her signature, and kept it from matching the one her county had on file.
"This is not a lawsuit about putting ballots in the count or not in the count," Elias said. "This is about giving us access to the data that will allow us to determine whether or not there are lawful ballots…[that] weren’t counted."
The current tally of votes puts Coleman 206 votes ahead of Franken out of about 2.5 million cast in that contest. A hand recount of the Senate race is set to begin November 19.
Elias told reporters at a Thursday press conference that the campaign has asked each county for a list of the people whose absentee ballots were rejected. Elias, along with Franken spokesman Andy Barr, could not say exactly how many counties have offered their lists and how many have not, but added that Ramsey County has not.
The campaign's hope, according to Elias, is that Ramsey County would side in their favor and set a precedent that would immediately be followed by all counties in the state.
Elias and Barr could not say what they plan do with the lists of names if were given them but added that calling each person whose absentee ballot was rejected would not be out of the picture.
"Lets see what happens and then we will see what our next steps are," Elias said.
Whether or not any of the rejected ballots might be counted or not is unclear, but Elias said he does plan on making an appeal to Secretary of State Mark Ritchie's newly-formed canvassing board. A spokesman for the Secretary of State's office was not immediately available for comment.
Coleman campaign manager Cullen Sheehan fired back, calling the Franken team's efforts Thursday an attempt to "strong arm" officials into "counting invalid ballots in order to influence the outcome."
"We have grave concerns that the private information requested by the Franken campaign could lead to the harassment of Minnesota voters through visits by Franken campaign or Democratic Party operatives to their homes," said Sheehan.
Gun Sales Skyrocket After Obama Election:
Bernie Conatser has never seen business this good.
The owner of a gun shop in the Washington suburb of Manassas, Virginia, Conatser said sales have doubled or tripled the numbers he racked up in late October. Saturday, he said, he did as much business as he would normally do in a week.
"I have been in business for 12 years, and I was here for Y2K, September 11th, Katrina," Conatser said as a steady stream of customers browsed what remained of his stock. "And all of those were big events, and we did notice a spike in business, but nothing on the order of what we are seeing right now."
Weapons dealers in much of the United States are reporting sharply higher sales since Barack Obama won the presidency a week ago. Buyers and sellers attribute the surge to worries that Obama and a Democratic-controlled Congress will move to restrict firearm ownership, despite the insistence of campaign aides that the president-elect supports gun rights and considers the issue a low priority.
According to FBI figures for the week of November 3-9, the bureau received more than 374,000 requests for background checks on gun purchasers — a nearly 49 percent increase over the same period in 2007. Conatser said his store, Virginia Arms Company, has run out of some models — such as the AR-15 rifle, the civilian version of the military's M-16 — and is running low on others.
Such assault weapons are among the firearms that gun dealers and customers say they fear Obama will hit with new restrictions, or even take off the market.
Virginia gun owner Kyle Lewandowski said he was buying a .45-caliber pistol to "hedge my bets."
"Every election year, you have to worry about your rights being eroded a little bit at a time," he said. But he added, "I also knew, because of the Democrat majority and because of the election, everybody would have the same reaction I did."
Dealers in Colorado, Ohio, Connecticut and New Hampshire also reported seeing major increases.
Awkward Press Conference for Republican Governors:
Two hours before Thursday morning’s press conference at the Republican Governors Association — her first since the Republican presidential ticket lost last week — Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was still scheduled to appear alone. Instead, she spoke with a row of fellow governors standing silently behind her.
Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour told CNN producer Evan Glass that they all met at 9 a.m. — an hour-and-a-half before the press conference’s scheduled start time — and by then it had been "decided" that they'd all go out together.
An RGA official told CNN the reason for the change is a "long story."
He said that when the governors were all at their private morning meeting, someone brought up the desire to get beyond what happened in the McCain campaign and look towards 2009 and 2010.
Then, this source said, Palin piped up and said she agreed that she didn't want to talk about the past.
This source insists that it was then decided that the other governors in the meeting would go with her to her press conference as a "show of unity."
The source admitted that it may not have been easy for some "big egos" to go in and stand behind her, but they knew they'd be doing so.
Not present: the conference host, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist. A Florida GOP source tells CNN "he didn't know about it,” because he wasn't at the morning meeting.
In another shift, Palin — who had been slated to take questions for 20 minutes or so — took just four press queries.
Why did Texas Gov. Rick Perry cut it off so fast?
"We were running behind schedule," insisted the GOP official.
Palin may not have wanted to talk about the past, but her speech was almost entirely about the McCain campaign; she included little in the way of detailed ideas about the way forward for Republicans, the theme of the panel.
RNC to File Suit over Law Championed by McCain:
The Republican National Committee is taking aim at the campaign finance reform law that is one of the trademark legislative achievements of the party’s 2008 presidential nominee, Sen. John McCain.
The RNC announced Thursday that it will file two lawsuits challenging portions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, a major overhaul of federal campaign finance law enacted in 2002 that ban so-called “soft money” from the federal elections and that is commonly referred to as the “McCain-Feingold” bill after its two Senate sponsors.
A suit to be filed in Louisiana federal district court challenges the law’s limits on the amount of money national and state political parties may spend in coordination with candidates for seeking federal offices.
A second suit to be filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., challenges the McCain-Feingold bill’s ban on the use of “soft money” for activities that are not related to campaigns for federal office.
The RNC is charging that challenged portions of the law violate the First Amendment. “The RNC must have the ability to support state candidates, coordinate expenditures with our candidates, and truly engage in political activity on a national level,” RNC chairman Mike Duncan said in a statement released Thursday. “The RNC has operated under and complied with these provisions of the law since their enactment, and as applied it is unconstitutional,” Duncan added.
Duncan and RNC lawyers are set to discuss the two suits with reporters in a conference call Thursday afternoon.
McCain on Campaign Trail in Georgia:
Nine days after losing the presidential election to Barack Obama, John McCain is back on the campaign trail.
The former GOP presidential nominee will stump for fellow Republican senator Saxby Chambliss today in Georgia.
The freshman senator most likely faces a run-off election December 2 against Democrat Jim Martin, a former state lawmaker.
At the start of the campaign, Chambliss was the heavy favorite in the race. But the contest tightened, and neither candidate won more than 50 percent of the vote on Election Day, thanks in part to a third-party candidate who won 3 percent of the vote. The race appears headed to a runoff between Chambliss and Martin.
The runoff is expected to become official later this week, after the state certifies the election results. Unofficial tallies show Chambliss with 49.8 percent of the vote, just short of the 50 percent plus one vote need to win. Martin has 46.8 percent of the vote.
McCain will join Chambliss at a campaign rally in suburban Atlanta this afternoon. McCain won Georgia's presidential vote 52 percent to 47 percent. President Bush carried the state by 17 points in his 2004 re-election victory.
Former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee is expected to campaign for Chambliss in Georgia this weekend, and an appearance by another former Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, is also possible.
Martin is hoping that President-elect Obama will come down to Georgia for an assist. While there's no guarantee that will happen, Obama is dispatching campaign aides to Georgia to help Martin in his runoff efforts.
A victory by the Democrats in Georgia could help determine if the party reaches its goal of reaching 60 Senate seats, which would give the Democrats a filibuster-proof majority in the chamber. A filibuster is a move that allows the minority party in the Senate to stall and even block votes on legislation. Sixty votes are needed to overcome a filibuster.
Reid Will Keep Lieberman with the Democrats:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Sunday he's still trying to keep Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman within the Democratic caucus despite anger over Lieberman's support of Republican presidential nominee John McCain.
While he has opposed Democratic efforts to end the war in Iraq, "Joe Lieberman votes with me a lot more than a lot of my senators," Reid told CNN's "Late Edition."
"Joe Lieberman is not some right-wing nutcase," he said. "Joe Lieberman is one of the most progressive people ever to come from the state of Connecticut."
Lieberman, a Democrat-turned-independent, broke with the party over the war in Iraq and ran as an independent after losing the party's nomination in 2006. Since then, he has been the 51st vote that kept the Senate in Democratic hands.
Lieberman also was Al Gore's running mate on the 2000 Democratic ticket.
But this year, he was a fixture on the campaign trail with McCain — and now that Democrats have gained at least six seats in the chamber, Reid is under pressure from many Democrats to punish Lieberman for harsh criticism of Sen. Barack Obama in a speech at the Republican convention.
"Sen. Obama is a gifted and eloquent young man who can do great things for our country in the years ahead. But, my friends, eloquence is no substitute for a record," Lieberman said at the Republican convention in early September.
Lieberman charged that Obama had not reached across party lines to "get anything significant done" and said that the McCain-Palin ticket was "the real ticket for change."
Possible Cabinet and Other Appointments:
Secretary of State:
Senator Hillary Clinton:
Two sources close to the Obama transition team tell CNN that Senator Hillary Clinton’s name has been mentioned as a possible candidate for Secretary of State.
One source close to Hillary Clinton tells CNN that as of early yesterday, Senator Clinton had not been contacted by the transition team about a possible cabinet appointment. This same source tells CNN that Senator Clinton would not necessarily dismiss such an offer.
A spokesman for Hillary Clinton, Philippe Reines, tells CNN “Any speculation about cabinet or other administration appointments is really for President-Elect Obama's transition team to address.”
On Monday night, while walking into an awards ceremony in New York, Senator Clinton was asked if she would consider taking a post in the Obama administration. She replied, "I am happy being a Senator from New York, I love this state and this city. I am looking at the long list of things I have to catch up on and do. But I want to be a good partner and I want to do everything I can to make sure his agenda is going to be successful."
Clinton and Obama met on Thursday afternoon in Chicago. There has been no announcement of a position for her in the administration.
Senator John Kerry:
A current senator from Massachusetts and the former 2004 Democratic Candidate for president is rumored to be high on the list for the job.
Senator Chris Dodd:
Current senator from Connecticut and former presidential candidate who dropped out early and quickly endorsed Barack Obama in the primary season.
Governor Bill Richardson:
Current governor of New Mexico and former democratic presidential candidate. When he dropped out he endorsed Hillary Clinton for President. He has lots of foreign policy experience as a former Ambassador to the United Nations and also a former Secretary of Energy.
Richard Holbrooke:
Former Ambassador Richard Holbrooke is a top-ranking American diplomat, magazine editor, author, Peace Corps official, and investment banker. He is also the only person to have held the Assistant Secretary of State position for two different regions of the world (Asia from 1977–1981, and Europe from 1994–1996), and has been nominated seven times for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Secretary of Defense:
Secretary Robert Gates:
there are indications current Defense Secretary Robert Gates will stay at the post "for a certain period." Gates, the former CIA Director under the first President Bush, has been praised by members of both parties for his leadership at the Pentagon over the last two years. Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed, a former United States Army Captain and a member of the Armed Services Committee, is acting as the go-between with Gates.
Attorney General:
Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, who also served as that state's attorney general, is said to be a "very real possibility" for U.S. attorney general. Napolitano, who also endorsed Obama early in the primary process, was named earlier this week to the Obama transition team. She's also served as a U.S. attorney from Arizona.
Secretary of Commerce:
For Secretary of Commerce, former White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, Time Warner Chairman Dick Parsons, prominent Chicago Businesswoman Penny Pritzker, and University of California economist Laura Tyson are all under consideration.
Secretary of Treasury:
Speculation about Obama's treasury secretary has centered on Lawrence Summers, though he's faced controversy for sexist comments he made while serving as president of Harvard University.
Another name being mentioned: Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker.
"Though he's not a person who would stay four or eight years, given his age, but to get things started, [he] would be a fabulous choice," said Alan Blinder, the former vice chairman of the Fed.
Vice President’s Chief of Staff:
Ron Klain:
Ron Klain, former chief of staff for Vice President Al Gore, has agreed to serve in the same post under Vice President-elect Joe Biden, a Democratic source involved in the transition tells CNN.
Klain also served as general counsel of Gore's Florida recount effort, and was recently portrayed by Kevin Spacey in an HBO movie about the event. Reached by CNN, Klain would not confirm or deny reports he had accepted the position, but the Democratic source said it was a "done deal."
Klain previously worked with Biden when he served as chief counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee in the early 1990's. At that time, Biden was chairman of the committee.
Klain is a graduate of Georgetown University and Harvard Law School.
Willing to Serve:
Sarah Palin:
Former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin said Wednesday she would be honored to help out President-elect Barack Obama in his new administration, even if he did hang around with an "unrepentant domestic terrorist."
The Alaska governor said in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer that if Obama asked her for help on some of the issues she highlighted during this year's campaign, such as energy or services for special-needs children, "It would be my honor to assist and support our new president and the new administration."
"And I speak for other Republicans and Republican governors, also," said Palin, whom Sen. John McCain tapped as his running mate in August. "They would be willing also to seize this opportunity that we have to progress this nation together, in a united front."
But asked moments later about some of the tough rhetoric she hurled from the stump, she said she was "still concerned" about Obama's ties to former Weather Underground member-turned-Chicago college professor William Ayers.
"If anybody still wants to talk about it, I will," she said. "Because this is an unrepentant domestic terrorist who had campaigned to blow up, to destroy our Pentagon and our U.S. Capitol.
"That's an association that still bothers me, and I think it's fair to still talk about it," she continued. "However the campaign is over. That chapter is closed. Now is the time to move on and make sure all of us are doing all that we can to progress this nation."
Palin was attending the annual Republican Governors Association convention in Miami, Florida. She was interviewed for CNN's "The Situation Room" — the latest of several high-profile appearances for the ex-VP candidate — and will also appear Wednesday night on CNN's "Larry King Live."
Not on the List:
Al Gore:
Al Gore won't be serving in the Obama administration, his spokeswoman said Thursday.
The former vice president, winner of the Nobel prize for his environmental education efforts, had been considered a likely candidate for the post of "climate czar."
"Former Vice President Gore does not intend to seek or accept any formal position in government," Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider told the Washington Times. "He feels very strong right now that the best thing for him to do is to build support for the bold changes that we have to make to solve the climate crisis."
November 14, 2008Contents:
Transition News: Page 1
Read about President-Elect Obama and his team as they gear up for the While House
News in Politics: Page 8
With three Senate races still undecided there is still lots brewing in Washington D.C.
Possible Cabinet and Other Appointments: Page 17
Read about the people that are being considered for some of the highest positions in the country.
Transition News:
Obama and McCain to Meet:
Barack Obama and John McCain will meet in Chicago next week, the Obama-Biden transition team announced Friday.
"On Monday, President-elect Barack Obama and Senator John McCain will meet in Chicago at transition headquarters,” said transition spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter.
“It's well known that they share an important belief that Americans want and deserve a more effective and efficient government, and will discuss ways to work together to make that a reality. They will be joined in the meeting by Senator Lindsey Graham and Congressman Rahm Emanuel."
The two men spoke by phone Election Night, but have not met in person since the Al Smith dinner in New York on October 16.
Obama and Bush Meet and Lobby Each Other:
At their private Oval Office meeting on Monday, President-elect Barack Obama urged President Bush to support billions of dollars in aid for the struggling auto industry during the upcoming lame-duck session of Congress, according to three officials briefed on the meeting.
The officials said Bush privately expressed skepticism about taxpayer money for automakers on the heels of a string of government bailouts for other industries, and the president also urged Obama to help push through a free trade pact with Colombia – a key legacy item for the outgoing administration that is facing stiff resistance from Democrats on Capitol Hill.
But a senior Bush administration official seemed to downplay suggestions that Bush was offering a quid pro quo by saying the White House still believes the trade deal “deserves to pass on its own merits” without being linked to anything else.
The officials familiar with the meeting said Obama made the case that dramatic action needs to be taken this year – rather than after he is sworn into office – because the Big Three U.S. automakers are bleeding cash at an alarming rate.
One of the officials noted that about one in ten jobs in America are tied to the auto industry, and if one of the companies goes bankrupt it could have a massive spillover effect into the credit industry and other sectors. “The numbers are so staggering,” said the official. “It’s a huge piece of the financial fabric of the country.”
The senior Bush administration official said the White House is “open to ideas from Congress to accelerate funds they’ve already appropriated” to help the auto industry.
But the administration official said support would come “as long as funding will continue to go to viable firms and with strong taxpayer protections” linked to the auto industry aid.
An official in the auto industry told CNN that bringing the Colombian pact into the negotiations could be a poison pill that prevents passage of an auto industry package. But a senior Democratic aide suggested Congress may be willing to call Bush’s bluff and try to pass an auto industry aid package without the trade deal.
The senior aide said Democrats do not believe “this president wants to add the demise of GM to his legacy list.”
Obama Picks Representatives for Summit:
President-elect Barack Obama's transition team announced Wednesday that former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former Iowa Congressman Jim Leach will represent the incoming administration at the G-20 economic summit being hosted by President Bush on November 15.
Obama himself will not attend the summit.
Albright and Leach are "an experienced and bipartisan team," Obama Senior Foreign Policy Advisor Denis McDonough said in a statement.
McDonough also noted, however, that there is only "one president at a time in the United States," and that "President Bush should be commended for calling the summit."
Albright, a Democrat, served as secretary of state during the Clinton administration. Leach, a Republican, represented Iowa's second congressional district from 1977 to 2007. He endorsed Obama in August.
Bush announced the summit of the world's 20 largest industrialized nations and developing economies as a way to help coordinate the international response to the global financial meltdown.
Emmanuel Brushes Off Partisan Charges:
Rep. Rahm Emanuel insisted Sunday that he would help President-elect Barack Obama work in a bipartisan fashion, brushing off criticism that he would be a “hyper-partisan” chief of staff.
“President Obama is very clear, as you look at his career, both in the state senate, U.S. Senate, and the campaign, that we have to govern in a bipartisan fashion,” he said on ABC’s “This Week.”
“The challenges are big enough that there's going to be an ability for people of both parties, as well as independents, to contribute ideas to help meet the challenges on health care, energy, tax reform, education,” he said.
Obama announced last week that he had chosen Emanuel to be his chief of staff.
The Republican National Committee put out a press release shortly thereafter that said, “Obama’s Broken Promise: After promising change, Obama selects hyper-partisan wedded to special interests.” Minority Leader John Boehner called Emanuel an “ironic choice” for a president-elect who promised to “govern from the center.”
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, however, agreed with Democrats and called Emanuel a “wise choice.”
"Rahm knows Capitol Hill and has great political skills. He can be a tough partisan but also understands the need to work together. He is well-suited for the position of White House chief of staff," the South Carolina senator said.
Graham said he and Emanuel worked together during the presidential debate negotiations, and "when we hit a rough spot, he always looked for a path forward."
Emanuel, who has a reputation as a tough political infighter, is credited with helping Democrats take control of the House in 2006.
He was elected to the House in 2002 and is the fourth highest-ranking member of the chamber's Democratic leadership. He worked on President Clinton's first presidential campaign and served as a White House adviser to Clinton.
The Chicago politician said Sunday that it will take a joint effort from leaders of both parties to tackle the challenges facing the country.
“Because the challenges … whether on the national security front or on the economic, are looming large, and they're going to require both parties and leaders of both parties, as well as independents, to offer up ideas to how to meet those challenges,” he said.
Emanuel also said he thought Sen. John McCain would be a “partner” in working to solve those problems.
Questionnaire to Work for Obama:
The Obama campaign is seriously vetting all candidates for high level positions. Attached to this email you will find the questionnaire that prospective cabinet members are being required to complete. The nine page document asks for things ranging from all tax documents to all live in partners you have had to any political connections that could be exploited. Candidates must be willing to tell all to be considered for these jobs.
Biden Speaks to Foreign Leaders:
Vice President-elect Joe Biden spoke with eight foreign leaders earlier this week, the transition office announced Thursday, to express “his thanks and appreciation for their congratulations on the election.”
The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee talked to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Afghan president Hamid Karzai, King Abdullah of Jordan and Polish President Lech Kaczynski on Monday and Tuesday.
In addition, the country that got the most calls was Israel, with Biden speaking to three of its most senior politicians: Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Defense Minister (and former prime minister) Ehud Barak and Likud Party leader (and former Prime Minister) Binyamin Netanyahu.
The country’s Jerusalem Post reports that Livni told Biden to keep up the pressure on Iran’s nuclear program and to continue to fight against extremists in the region. Livni is running against both Netanyahu and Barak in Israel’s February elections to succeed Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.
Biden is expected to play an instrumental role in foreign policy in the Obama administration when they are sworn on January 20. When Republicans accused Obama during the campaign of not wholeheartedly supporting Israel, Biden beat back the accusations with his own friendship with the country during his 35-year tenure in the Senate.
“My support for Israel begins in my stomach, goes to my heart and ends up in my head,” Biden said to a Jewish group in late September. “I guarantee you, I would not have joined Barack Obama’s ticket as vice president, were [there] any doubt, even the slightest doubt, that he shares the same commitment to Israel that I share.”
The transition office has been regularly releasing the names of foreign leaders that President-elect Barack Obama has spoken with, evidence of Obama and Biden’s campaign pledge to “restore America’s standing in the world,” as Biden regularly put it on the stump.
Iran Blasts Obama’s Nuclear Criticisms:
Iran's parliament speaker has criticized U.S. President-elect Barack Obama for saying that Iran's development of a nuclear weapon is unacceptable.
Ali Larijani said on Saturday Obama should apply his campaign message of change to U.S. dealings with Iran.
"Obama must know that the change that he talks about is not simply a superficial changing of colors or tactics," Larijani said in comments carried by the semi-official Mehr News Agency.
"What is expected is a change in strategy, not the repetition of objections to Iran's nuclear program which will be taking a step in the wrong direction."
In his first post-election news conference Friday afternoon, Obama reiterated that he believes a nuclear-armed Iran would be "unacceptable." He also said he would help mount an international effort to prevent it from happening.
Larijani said U.S. behavior toward Iran "will not change so simply," but that Obama's election showed internal conditions in the United States have shifted.
Obama Facing High Expectations:
The overall public mood may still be sour at the moment, but a new national poll suggests that most Americans think Barack Obama will make major accomplishments as president of the United States.
Nearly two-thirds of those questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Thursday said President-elect Obama will change the country for the better. Twenty-five percent said he won't change the country either way, and only 9 percent indicated they think Obama will change the country for the worse.
"The bar is being set awfully high for an Obama presidency," said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.
According to the poll, most people think it's likely that Obama will improve race relations, improve economic conditions, bring stability to the financial markets, make the United States safer from terrorism, reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil, reduce global warming, win the war in Afghanistan, and remove U.S. troops from Iraq without causing a major upheaval in that country.
"That's a pretty big to-do list," said Holland.
In a question separate from whether Obama will change the country for the better, 76 percent of poll respondents said the country will be better off four years from now, while 19 percent say it will be worse.
Three-quarters of those polled also have a favorable view of Obama, up 12 points since the election. Among black Americans the number was 99 percent, while among Republicans it was 41 percent.
The overall 75 percent favorable rating "makes Obama the most popular president-elect in at least a quarter of a century," Holland said.
In November of 1980, after his landslide victory over incumbent President Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan's favorable rating was 67 percent. Eight years later, the elder George Bush had a favorable rating of only 50 percent immediately after his win in the 1988 election. When Bill Clinton beat Bush
four years later, his favorable rating was 60 percent just after the election.
And after the Florida recount ended in December of 2000, George W. Bush had a 59 percent favorable rating.
The CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll was conducted November 6-9, with 1,246 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey's sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Obama Launches Transition Website:
Barack Obama launched the official government Web site for the presidential transition on Thursday, giving it a look and feel that suggests the new president will utilize the Internet to a much greater degree than his predecessor.
The site is a slightly more formal-looking incarnation of Obama’s campaign web site that features a blue-shaded presidential seal and a countdown clock to the Inauguration on January 20. There are biographies not only of Obama and Joe Biden, but also the directors of his transition team: John Podesta, Valerie Jarrett and Pete Rouse. The web site outlines Obama’s policy agenda, on issues from Iraq to social security to urban policy.
While the site lacks the innovative community organizing tools that helped propel the Illinois senator to the presidency, one section of the site does ask for user-generated content, asking Americans to submit stories about “what this campaign and this election means to you” and “where President-Elect Obama should lead this country.”
There is a transition blog, which at the moment only features a video of Obama’s Tuesday victory speech in Chicago’s Grant Park.
One link on the site is sure to get a flood of clicks: the “Jobs” section.
“All staff appointments chosen for this administration will be committed to fulfilling Obama’s campaign promises, to rebuilding our government, and to serving the American people again,” the site says.
Obama to Resign Senate Seat:
President-elect Barack Obama has announced that he will officially resign his Senate seat as of this Sunday.
“It has been one of the highest honors and privileges of my life to have served the people of Illinois in the United States Senate,” he said in a statement released by his campaign Thursday.
“In a state that represents the crossroads of a nation, I have met so many men and women who’ve taken different journeys, but hold common hopes for their children’s future. It is these Illinois families and their stories that will stay with me as I leave the United States Senate and begin the hard task of fulfilling the simple hopes and common dreams of all Americans as our nation’s next President.”
Obama’s Senate office will close sometime within the next two months. His Senate staff will spend that time coordinating with his replacement, advising constituents with open requests, and archiving documents for Obama’s presidential library.
Several Illinois Democrats — including Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. and Iraq war veteran Tammy Duckworth, a former congressional candidate who now serves in Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s administration – have been mentioned as possible Senate replacements for Obama.
Blagojevich, who will appoint Obama’s successor, announced last week that he was assembling a panel to vet likely candidates. Obama’s replacement would be up for re-election in 2010.
Vice president-elect Joe Biden – who was also re-elected to his Delaware Senate seat on November 4 — told an interviewer several weeks ago that he would resign when he's sworn in as vice president in January.
Obama Questions What to Do with Guantanamo Bay Prisoners:
President-elect Obama's transition team has begun examining what to do with suspected terrorists at the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, which Obama has pledged to close, an aide said Monday.
Denis McDonough, a senior adviser to the incoming Democrat, told CNN no decisions have been made about what to do with the roughly 250 inmates there, "and there is no process in place to make that decision until his national security and legal teams are assembled."
But officials close to the Obama team said Monday that the incoming administration is pondering whether to try some of the Guantanamo Bay inmates in existing federal courts; set up a special national security court to deal with cases involving the most sensitive intelligence information; or release others.
The scenario would eliminate the military commissions set up by the Bush administration to prosecute some of the top al Qaeda figures now held at the facility, such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed — the lead plotter of the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington.
The commissions have been delayed for years by legal challenges, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled an earlier version of them unconstitutional in 2006.
In a full-page ad in The New York Times on Monday, the American Civil Liberties Union urged Obama to close the prison camp on his first day in office, "with the stroke of a pen."
But in an October 31 interview with CNN, Obama said only that he would close the facility "as quickly as we can do prudently."
"I am not going to give a time certain because I think what we have to do is evaluate all those who are still being held in Gitmo," he said. "We have to put in place appropriate plans to make sure they are tried, convicted and punished to the full extent of the law, and that's going to require, I think, a
review of the existing cases, which I have not had the opportunity to do."
News In Politics:
Probable Re-Count in Minnesota Senate Race:
For the second time in a week, Republican incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman's camp is labeling him the winner in Minnesota's far-from-over Senate race.
Coleman leads Democratic challenger Al Franken by just 206 votes as the first round of tallying comes to a close Monday evening.
"Sen. Coleman remains the winner in this election despite unexplained discrepancies in reporting …that have virtually all benefited the Franken campaign," Coleman spokesman Tom Erickson said in a statement.
That result means little at this point: Minnesota law mandates a recount when the margin of victory in a race is less than .5 percent.
This instance falls well within that gap — more than 2.4 million Minnesotans cast votes in this year's Senate race.
Coleman's lead has shrunk since votes were first tabulated earlier in the week. On Wednesday, he led by 725 votes. Representatives with the Coleman campaign have charged that irregularities in tabulation throughout the week have unfairly benefited their opponent, Al Franken.
Franken spokesman Andy Barr dismissed the claim. "As much as the Coleman campaign would like to play political games and baselessly cast doubt on this process," Barr wrote in an e-mail to CNN, "we will continue to work to ensure that every vote is properly counted."
Barr also suggested that it would be wrong for anyone to declare victory before the statewide hand recount is complete. That process is set to begin November 19, and could last until mid-December.
Senator-Elect Hagan Drops ‘Godless Lawsuit”:
U.S. Sen.-elect Kay Hagan withdrew her defamation and libel lawsuit Thursday against incumbent Sen. Elizabeth Dole for a campaign commercial that Hagan alleged questioned her Christianity.
Hagan spokeswoman Colleen Flanagan said the papers were filed Thursday afternoon in Wake County court, putting an end to the legal fight over a controversial TV ad in the final week of the campaign ultimately won by Hagan.
The ad only ran for a few days but became a hot issue. Dole brought up her campaign rival's attendance at a fundraiser hosted by an adviser to the Godless Americans Political Action Committee, an atheist advocacy group.
Flanagan said Hagan can spend her time better working to help families hurt by the bad economy instead of pursuing a lawsuit that "would just continue the focus on a very personal and negative attack against Kay."
"It's clear that the people of North Carolina have rejected personal attacks aimed at dividing people of this state instead of bringing them together to solve the problems at hand," Flanagan said.
Dole campaign spokesman Hogan Gidley declined to comment on ending the suit.
Dole's 30-second advertisement showed clips of some members of the Godless Americans committee talking about some of their goals, such as taking "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance and removing "In God We Trust" from U.S. currency.
It went on to question why Hagan went to the fundraiser. The ad ended with a picture of Hagan while another woman declares in the background, "There is no God!"
Hagan, a Greensboro Democrat and state senator, responded quickly to the commercial with the lawsuit and her own commercial accusing Dole of breaking the Bible's Ninth Commandment by bearing false witness. A Presbyterian church elder who teaches Sunday school, Hagan also held a news conference with her family and her pastor.
Dole called the lawsuit frivolous and the commercial factual and designed to question Hagan's agenda and associations -- not her faith.
The Republican's campaign also used the September fundraiser in Boston that Hagan attended at the home of Woody Kaplan in automated phone calls in the campaign's last weekend.
The fundraisers was not billed as a Godless Americans event, and other hosts included an ambassador and Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee. Dole's campaign sent a press release on the subject about a month before the event.
Hagan received nearly 53 percent of the vote in her upset of Dole, the one-term senator, former Cabinet secretary and head of the American Red Cross
Begich Pulls in the Lead in Alaska Senate Race
Republican Sen. Ted Stevens has fallen 814 votes behind Democratic challenger Mark Begich as vote counting continues in Alaska.
The Anchorage mayor was trailing Stevens in the initial count, which did not include at least 90,000 absentee, early and provisional ballots.
With nearly two-thirds of those votes now tallied, Begich has taken the lead. An estimated 40,000 ballots have yet to be counted – a majority of them from the area of the state that includes Anchorage, according to state elections officials.
Palin Blames Bush Record for GOP Loss:
Sarah Palin told local reporters in Alaska that unhappiness with the Bush administration’s Iraq war policy and spending record were responsible for the GOP ticket’s defeat this year.
“I think the Republican ticket represented too much of the status quo, too much of what had gone on in these last eight years, that Americans were kind of shaking their heads like going, wait a minute, how did we run up a $10 trillion debt in a Republican administration?” Palin told the Anchorage Daily News and Alaska’s KTUU Channel 2.
“How have there been blunders with war strategy under a Republican administration? If we're talking change, we want to get far away from what it was that the present administration represented and that is to a great degree what the Republican Party at the time had been representing. So people desiring change I think went as far from the administration that is presently seated as they could. It's amazing that we did as well as we did.”
Palin returned to Alaska last week amid growing speculation about her political future. The Alaska governor is slated to attend the Republican Governors Association’s meeting in Miami this week.
Who Can Save the Republican Party?:
As Republican leaders sift through the ruins of the 2008 election and debate the party's future at the Republican Governors Association meeting this week, one of the GOP's potential standard-bearers is instead on a Caribbean cruise.
But it isn't just any cruise and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney isn't just any Republican. Since the economy began its historic downturn six weeks ago, Romney's stock in his party appears to have skyrocketed.
The former business consultant and founder of Bain Capital handled economic issues during his campaign with an ease and confidence that seemed to elude Sen. John McCain. As the stock market tanked throughout the fall, a growing chorus of conservative pundits speculated Romney would have boosted the GOP ticket considerably more than Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin did.
Now the onetime front-runner for the Republican nomination is schmoozing influential party insiders on the National Review's annual cruise -- a gathering of 700 conservative activists and the same forum where Palin wowed the movement's media elite last year, beginning her meteoric rise from obscure governor to vice presidential nominee.
But even as Romney publicly declares he has no intentions to run again, several former aides said they believe he will, and this week's get-together with leading conservatives is only the latest sign the man who spent more than $50 million of his own money to vie for the party's nomination last year is itching to do it again.
After all, in many ways Romney's campaign for 2012 appeared to begin the instant he abandoned his primary bid in February. Instead of the conventional location befitting most losing candidates -- his home state, surrounded by friends and family -- Romney broke the news to grass-roots activists at a gathering in Washington.
The last-minute announcement was greeted with cries of surprise and was seen as a public attempt to bolster his standing with the key GOP voting bloc that largely broke former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's way through the first round of primary contests.
"There he was addressing the largest gathering every year of conservatives, and it was extremely symbolic in many ways," said Matt Lewis, a writer for the conservative Web site Townhall.com. "That's where he chose to say for the good of the movement he was going to get out. It was very well-received by most people, and he is now in a better position to garner more conservative support because of it."
After bowing out, Romney maintained a constant presence on the campaign trail and cable news circuit on McCain's behalf, signaling to political observers that he still harbored presidential ambitions, even after he was passed up for the No. 2 spot on the party's ticket.
Romney also has maintained close relationships with key supporters in the early voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire, according to party officials there, and could easily revive the infrastructure he built should he launch another bid.
If the economy continues to flail after four years of Democratic rule, Romney's economic acumen may be in demand when it comes to restoring GOP power to the White House.
Former Clinton Advisor to Run for VA Governor:
Hillary Clinton’s former campaign chairman filed papers Monday forming an exploratory committee to run for Virginia governor.
Terry McAuliffe was widely expected to make his decision after Election Day. The former Democratic National Committee chairman will now do a 60 day listening tour of the state.
In September, McAuliffe hired longtime Virginia political consultant Mo Elleithee to start planning a possible statewide campaign, should he decide to run. Elleithee spent the last year working alongside McAuliffe in the Clinton campaign as a senior spokesman, but in recent years he has also helped steer Tim Kaine and Mark Warner to signature Democratic victories in Virginia.
Should he run, McAuliffe will face off in next year’s Democratic primary against state Sen. Creigh Deeds and State House Rep. Brian Moran. Virginia’s Attorney General Bob McDonnell is expected to run for the Republican nomination unopposed.
Franken Files Suit Over Absentee Ballots:
Democrat Al Franken's campaign filed a lawsuit Thursday in Ramsey County, Minnesota, requesting the names of all individuals who filed a rejected absentee ballot in the Senate race between the former comedian and incumbent Republican Sen. Norm Coleman.
Mark Elias, lead recount attorney for Franken, said many absentee ballots are rejected for insufficient reasons, offering the example of an elderly woman who'd suffered a recent stroke which affected her signature, and kept it from matching the one her county had on file.
"This is not a lawsuit about putting ballots in the count or not in the count," Elias said. "This is about giving us access to the data that will allow us to determine whether or not there are lawful ballots…[that] weren’t counted."
The current tally of votes puts Coleman 206 votes ahead of Franken out of about 2.5 million cast in that contest. A hand recount of the Senate race is set to begin November 19.
Elias told reporters at a Thursday press conference that the campaign has asked each county for a list of the people whose absentee ballots were rejected. Elias, along with Franken spokesman Andy Barr, could not say exactly how many counties have offered their lists and how many have not, but added that Ramsey County has not.
The campaign's hope, according to Elias, is that Ramsey County would side in their favor and set a precedent that would immediately be followed by all counties in the state.
Elias and Barr could not say what they plan do with the lists of names if were given them but added that calling each person whose absentee ballot was rejected would not be out of the picture.
"Lets see what happens and then we will see what our next steps are," Elias said.
Whether or not any of the rejected ballots might be counted or not is unclear, but Elias said he does plan on making an appeal to Secretary of State Mark Ritchie's newly-formed canvassing board. A spokesman for the Secretary of State's office was not immediately available for comment.
Coleman campaign manager Cullen Sheehan fired back, calling the Franken team's efforts Thursday an attempt to "strong arm" officials into "counting invalid ballots in order to influence the outcome."
"We have grave concerns that the private information requested by the Franken campaign could lead to the harassment of Minnesota voters through visits by Franken campaign or Democratic Party operatives to their homes," said Sheehan.
Gun Sales Skyrocket After Obama Election:
Bernie Conatser has never seen business this good.
The owner of a gun shop in the Washington suburb of Manassas, Virginia, Conatser said sales have doubled or tripled the numbers he racked up in late October. Saturday, he said, he did as much business as he would normally do in a week.
"I have been in business for 12 years, and I was here for Y2K, September 11th, Katrina," Conatser said as a steady stream of customers browsed what remained of his stock. "And all of those were big events, and we did notice a spike in business, but nothing on the order of what we are seeing right now."
Weapons dealers in much of the United States are reporting sharply higher sales since Barack Obama won the presidency a week ago. Buyers and sellers attribute the surge to worries that Obama and a Democratic-controlled Congress will move to restrict firearm ownership, despite the insistence of campaign aides that the president-elect supports gun rights and considers the issue a low priority.
According to FBI figures for the week of November 3-9, the bureau received more than 374,000 requests for background checks on gun purchasers — a nearly 49 percent increase over the same period in 2007. Conatser said his store, Virginia Arms Company, has run out of some models — such as the AR-15 rifle, the civilian version of the military's M-16 — and is running low on others.
Such assault weapons are among the firearms that gun dealers and customers say they fear Obama will hit with new restrictions, or even take off the market.
Virginia gun owner Kyle Lewandowski said he was buying a .45-caliber pistol to "hedge my bets."
"Every election year, you have to worry about your rights being eroded a little bit at a time," he said. But he added, "I also knew, because of the Democrat majority and because of the election, everybody would have the same reaction I did."
Dealers in Colorado, Ohio, Connecticut and New Hampshire also reported seeing major increases.
Awkward Press Conference for Republican Governors:
Two hours before Thursday morning’s press conference at the Republican Governors Association — her first since the Republican presidential ticket lost last week — Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was still scheduled to appear alone. Instead, she spoke with a row of fellow governors standing silently behind her.
Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour told CNN producer Evan Glass that they all met at 9 a.m. — an hour-and-a-half before the press conference’s scheduled start time — and by then it had been "decided" that they'd all go out together.
An RGA official told CNN the reason for the change is a "long story."
He said that when the governors were all at their private morning meeting, someone brought up the desire to get beyond what happened in the McCain campaign and look towards 2009 and 2010.
Then, this source said, Palin piped up and said she agreed that she didn't want to talk about the past.
This source insists that it was then decided that the other governors in the meeting would go with her to her press conference as a "show of unity."
The source admitted that it may not have been easy for some "big egos" to go in and stand behind her, but they knew they'd be doing so.
Not present: the conference host, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist. A Florida GOP source tells CNN "he didn't know about it,” because he wasn't at the morning meeting.
In another shift, Palin — who had been slated to take questions for 20 minutes or so — took just four press queries.
Why did Texas Gov. Rick Perry cut it off so fast?
"We were running behind schedule," insisted the GOP official.
Palin may not have wanted to talk about the past, but her speech was almost entirely about the McCain campaign; she included little in the way of detailed ideas about the way forward for Republicans, the theme of the panel.
RNC to File Suit over Law Championed by McCain:
The Republican National Committee is taking aim at the campaign finance reform law that is one of the trademark legislative achievements of the party’s 2008 presidential nominee, Sen. John McCain.
The RNC announced Thursday that it will file two lawsuits challenging portions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, a major overhaul of federal campaign finance law enacted in 2002 that ban so-called “soft money” from the federal elections and that is commonly referred to as the “McCain-Feingold” bill after its two Senate sponsors.
A suit to be filed in Louisiana federal district court challenges the law’s limits on the amount of money national and state political parties may spend in coordination with candidates for seeking federal offices.
A second suit to be filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., challenges the McCain-Feingold bill’s ban on the use of “soft money” for activities that are not related to campaigns for federal office.
The RNC is charging that challenged portions of the law violate the First Amendment. “The RNC must have the ability to support state candidates, coordinate expenditures with our candidates, and truly engage in political activity on a national level,” RNC chairman Mike Duncan said in a statement released Thursday. “The RNC has operated under and complied with these provisions of the law since their enactment, and as applied it is unconstitutional,” Duncan added.
Duncan and RNC lawyers are set to discuss the two suits with reporters in a conference call Thursday afternoon.
McCain on Campaign Trail in Georgia:
Nine days after losing the presidential election to Barack Obama, John McCain is back on the campaign trail.
The former GOP presidential nominee will stump for fellow Republican senator Saxby Chambliss today in Georgia.
The freshman senator most likely faces a run-off election December 2 against Democrat Jim Martin, a former state lawmaker.
At the start of the campaign, Chambliss was the heavy favorite in the race. But the contest tightened, and neither candidate won more than 50 percent of the vote on Election Day, thanks in part to a third-party candidate who won 3 percent of the vote. The race appears headed to a runoff between Chambliss and Martin.
The runoff is expected to become official later this week, after the state certifies the election results. Unofficial tallies show Chambliss with 49.8 percent of the vote, just short of the 50 percent plus one vote need to win. Martin has 46.8 percent of the vote.
McCain will join Chambliss at a campaign rally in suburban Atlanta this afternoon. McCain won Georgia's presidential vote 52 percent to 47 percent. President Bush carried the state by 17 points in his 2004 re-election victory.
Former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee is expected to campaign for Chambliss in Georgia this weekend, and an appearance by another former Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, is also possible.
Martin is hoping that President-elect Obama will come down to Georgia for an assist. While there's no guarantee that will happen, Obama is dispatching campaign aides to Georgia to help Martin in his runoff efforts.
A victory by the Democrats in Georgia could help determine if the party reaches its goal of reaching 60 Senate seats, which would give the Democrats a filibuster-proof majority in the chamber. A filibuster is a move that allows the minority party in the Senate to stall and even block votes on legislation. Sixty votes are needed to overcome a filibuster.
Reid Will Keep Lieberman with the Democrats:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Sunday he's still trying to keep Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman within the Democratic caucus despite anger over Lieberman's support of Republican presidential nominee John McCain.
While he has opposed Democratic efforts to end the war in Iraq, "Joe Lieberman votes with me a lot more than a lot of my senators," Reid told CNN's "Late Edition."
"Joe Lieberman is not some right-wing nutcase," he said. "Joe Lieberman is one of the most progressive people ever to come from the state of Connecticut."
Lieberman, a Democrat-turned-independent, broke with the party over the war in Iraq and ran as an independent after losing the party's nomination in 2006. Since then, he has been the 51st vote that kept the Senate in Democratic hands.
Lieberman also was Al Gore's running mate on the 2000 Democratic ticket.
But this year, he was a fixture on the campaign trail with McCain — and now that Democrats have gained at least six seats in the chamber, Reid is under pressure from many Democrats to punish Lieberman for harsh criticism of Sen. Barack Obama in a speech at the Republican convention.
"Sen. Obama is a gifted and eloquent young man who can do great things for our country in the years ahead. But, my friends, eloquence is no substitute for a record," Lieberman said at the Republican convention in early September.
Lieberman charged that Obama had not reached across party lines to "get anything significant done" and said that the McCain-Palin ticket was "the real ticket for change."
Possible Cabinet and Other Appointments:
Secretary of State:
Senator Hillary Clinton:
Two sources close to the Obama transition team tell CNN that Senator Hillary Clinton’s name has been mentioned as a possible candidate for Secretary of State.
One source close to Hillary Clinton tells CNN that as of early yesterday, Senator Clinton had not been contacted by the transition team about a possible cabinet appointment. This same source tells CNN that Senator Clinton would not necessarily dismiss such an offer.
A spokesman for Hillary Clinton, Philippe Reines, tells CNN “Any speculation about cabinet or other administration appointments is really for President-Elect Obama's transition team to address.”
On Monday night, while walking into an awards ceremony in New York, Senator Clinton was asked if she would consider taking a post in the Obama administration. She replied, "I am happy being a Senator from New York, I love this state and this city. I am looking at the long list of things I have to catch up on and do. But I want to be a good partner and I want to do everything I can to make sure his agenda is going to be successful."
Clinton and Obama met on Thursday afternoon in Chicago. There has been no announcement of a position for her in the administration.
Senator John Kerry:
A current senator from Massachusetts and the former 2004 Democratic Candidate for president is rumored to be high on the list for the job.
Senator Chris Dodd:
Current senator from Connecticut and former presidential candidate who dropped out early and quickly endorsed Barack Obama in the primary season.
Governor Bill Richardson:
Current governor of New Mexico and former democratic presidential candidate. When he dropped out he endorsed Hillary Clinton for President. He has lots of foreign policy experience as a former Ambassador to the United Nations and also a former Secretary of Energy.
Richard Holbrooke:
Former Ambassador Richard Holbrooke is a top-ranking American diplomat, magazine editor, author, Peace Corps official, and investment banker. He is also the only person to have held the Assistant Secretary of State position for two different regions of the world (Asia from 1977–1981, and Europe from 1994–1996), and has been nominated seven times for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Secretary of Defense:
Secretary Robert Gates:
there are indications current Defense Secretary Robert Gates will stay at the post "for a certain period." Gates, the former CIA Director under the first President Bush, has been praised by members of both parties for his leadership at the Pentagon over the last two years. Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed, a former United States Army Captain and a member of the Armed Services Committee, is acting as the go-between with Gates.
Attorney General:
Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, who also served as that state's attorney general, is said to be a "very real possibility" for U.S. attorney general. Napolitano, who also endorsed Obama early in the primary process, was named earlier this week to the Obama transition team. She's also served as a U.S. attorney from Arizona.
Secretary of Commerce:
For Secretary of Commerce, former White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, Time Warner Chairman Dick Parsons, prominent Chicago Businesswoman Penny Pritzker, and University of California economist Laura Tyson are all under consideration.
Secretary of Treasury:
Speculation about Obama's treasury secretary has centered on Lawrence Summers, though he's faced controversy for sexist comments he made while serving as president of Harvard University.
Another name being mentioned: Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker.
"Though he's not a person who would stay four or eight years, given his age, but to get things started, [he] would be a fabulous choice," said Alan Blinder, the former vice chairman of the Fed.
Vice President’s Chief of Staff:
Ron Klain:
Ron Klain, former chief of staff for Vice President Al Gore, has agreed to serve in the same post under Vice President-elect Joe Biden, a Democratic source involved in the transition tells CNN.
Klain also served as general counsel of Gore's Florida recount effort, and was recently portrayed by Kevin Spacey in an HBO movie about the event. Reached by CNN, Klain would not confirm or deny reports he had accepted the position, but the Democratic source said it was a "done deal."
Klain previously worked with Biden when he served as chief counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee in the early 1990's. At that time, Biden was chairman of the committee.
Klain is a graduate of Georgetown University and Harvard Law School.
Willing to Serve:
Sarah Palin:
Former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin said Wednesday she would be honored to help out President-elect Barack Obama in his new administration, even if he did hang around with an "unrepentant domestic terrorist."
The Alaska governor said in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer that if Obama asked her for help on some of the issues she highlighted during this year's campaign, such as energy or services for special-needs children, "It would be my honor to assist and support our new president and the new administration."
"And I speak for other Republicans and Republican governors, also," said Palin, whom Sen. John McCain tapped as his running mate in August. "They would be willing also to seize this opportunity that we have to progress this nation together, in a united front."
But asked moments later about some of the tough rhetoric she hurled from the stump, she said she was "still concerned" about Obama's ties to former Weather Underground member-turned-Chicago college professor William Ayers.
"If anybody still wants to talk about it, I will," she said. "Because this is an unrepentant domestic terrorist who had campaigned to blow up, to destroy our Pentagon and our U.S. Capitol.
"That's an association that still bothers me, and I think it's fair to still talk about it," she continued. "However the campaign is over. That chapter is closed. Now is the time to move on and make sure all of us are doing all that we can to progress this nation."
Palin was attending the annual Republican Governors Association convention in Miami, Florida. She was interviewed for CNN's "The Situation Room" — the latest of several high-profile appearances for the ex-VP candidate — and will also appear Wednesday night on CNN's "Larry King Live."
Not on the List:
Al Gore:
Al Gore won't be serving in the Obama administration, his spokeswoman said Thursday.
The former vice president, winner of the Nobel prize for his environmental education efforts, had been considered a likely candidate for the post of "climate czar."
"Former Vice President Gore does not intend to seek or accept any formal position in government," Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider told the Washington Times. "He feels very strong right now that the best thing for him to do is to build support for the bold changes that we have to make to solve the climate crisis."
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Civic Initiative : Campaign Newsletter: October 10th
On the Campaign Trail:
Monday:
McCain/ Palin: New Mexico/ Florida
Obama/ Biden: North Carolina/ Delaware with no events scheduled
Tuesday:
McCain/ Palin: Tennessee/ Florida
Obama/ Biden: Tennessee/ Delaware with no events scheduled
Wednesday:
McCain/ Palin: Pennsylvania
Obama/ Biden: Indiana/ Florida
Thursday:
McCain/ Palin: Wisconsin
Obama/ Biden: Ohio/ Missouri
Friday:
McCain/ Palin: Wisconsin/ Ohio
Obama/ Biden: Ohio/ Missouri
Main Stories:
McCain Attack ad:
John McCain's campaign is released a new ad Monday taking aim at year-old comments from Barack Obama about the conflict in Afghanistan, calling them "dishonorable."
The ad comes as the Arizona senator's campaign aggressively steps up its attacks on Obama's readiness to be a commander-in-chief and raises questions about his background with only a month remain before voters weigh in.
"Who is Barack Obama? He says our troops in Afghanistan are ‘just air-raiding villages and killing civilians,’” the ad's announcer says. "How dishonorable."
The ad refers to an answer Obama gave at a August 2007 town hall meeting with New Hampshire voters, during which the Illinois senator was asked whether he had plans to shift U.S. troops out of Iraq to other terrorist hotspots like Afghanistan.
"We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there," Obama said of the U.S. mission in Afghanistan.
Those comments were immediately seized by GOP critics. The Republican National Committee sent out a press release shortly after the remarks calling them "offensive," and demanding he apologize. The McCain campaign has also highlighted the comments several times this campaign season. An AP Fact Check later reported Western forces had been killing civilians at a higher rate than insurgents.
"Congressional liberals voted repeatedly to cut off funding to our active troops," the ad also says. "Increasing the risk on their lives. How dangerous. Obama and congressional liberals."
The campaign says the ad will run nationally, though it did not reveal the extent of the buy.
Palin Makes Terrorist Connection to Obama:
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin on Saturday slammed Sen. Barack Obama's political relationship with a former anti-war radical, accusing him of associating "with terrorists who targeted their own country."
Palin's attack delivered on the McCain campaign's announcement that it would step up attacks on the Democratic presidential candidate with just a month left before the November general election.
"We see America as the greatest force for good in this world," Palin said at a fund-raising event in Colorado, adding, "Our opponent though, is someone who sees America it seems as being so imperfect that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country."
Palin made similar comments later at a rally in Carson, California.
Obama's Chicago home is in the same neighborhood as Bill Ayers, a founder of the radical Weather Underground that was involved in several bombings in the early 1970s, including the Pentagon and the Capitol, and the two have met several times since Obama's 1995 campaign for an Illinois state senate seat.
Biden’s Mother In Law Died:
Joe Biden's spokesman said the Delaware senator would be canceling campaign events Monday and Tuesday in the wake of his mother-in-law's death Sunday.
"Other details will follow, but we appreciate everyone's respect for the family's privacy during this difficult time," wrote Biden spokesman David Wade.
Bonny Jacobs, Jill Biden's mother, had been sick for a long time and was living in a hospice.
Wade announced Saturday that Sunday and Monday's events were canceled after doctors told the family to stay close by. He said the family is now together at home in Wilmington.
The death comes the same day Biden's son Beau deploys with his National Guard unit to a mobilization station in Texas before a tour in Iraq.
RNC Seeks Audit on Obama Campaign Funds:
The fund-raising prowess of the Obama campaign may be put under a microscope, if the Republican National Committee has its way.
The RNC announced that it plans to file a complaint with the Federal Election Committee Monday that seeks an audit of the more than $450 million donated so far to Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.
The complaint will address two issues highlighted in a recent Newsweek report about the Obama campaign’s fund-raising. First, the RNC will ask the federal agency responsible for enforcing campaign finance laws to audit and inquire into whether the Obama campaign accepted any money from foreign nationals, a contribution source prohibited under federal law.
“We believe that, based on the law, the Obama campaign has accepted contributions from foreign nationals and has knowingly done so through at least its failure to reasonably investigate where all this money is coming from,” RNC Chief Counsel Sean Cairncross told reporters Sunday.
The FEC defines foreign nationals as foreign governments, foreign political parties, foreign corporations, foreign associations, foreign partnerships, individuals who are foreign citizens, and immigrants to the U.S. who do not have a “green card,” showing they are permanent residents or are lawfully admitted to the country.
Second, the RNC plans to ask for an audit of possible excessive contributions to the Democratic nominee. “The Obama campaign has a track record of accepting these,” Cairncross told reporters, referring to recent FEC requests directed at the Obama campaign to explain what appear to be multiple small donations from single donors listed in the campaign’s finance reports which violate the contribution limits when aggregated.
The Obama campaign was quick to turn the McCain camp's critical eye back onto McCain's own fund-raising. “Because of campaign finance issues, John McCain has had to return over $1.2 million to donors who potentially violated the law with their contributions," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement Sunday. "We look forward to a thorough investigation into whether John McCain’s campaign has returned all of the money it raised from foreign nationals," Burton added.
The Obama campaign also responded to the RNC's claims that it may have received some contributions prohibited by federal law. "Without accepting a dime from the Washington lobbyists or corporate PACs that have funded John McCain's campaign, our campaign has shattered fundraising records with donations from more than 2.5 million Americans. We have gone above and beyond the transparency requirements by disclosing our bundlers and the levels of contributions they raise. We constantly review our donors for any issues and while no organization is completely protected from internet fraud, we will continue to review our fundraising procedures to ensure that we are taking every available to step to root-out improper contributions,” Burton said.
Obama: McCain looking for distractions:
Sen. Barack Obama on Sunday charged that Sen. John McCain's campaign is launching "Swift boat-style attacks" on him instead of addressing the country's problems.
"Sen. McCain and his operatives are gambling that they can distract you with smears rather than talk to you about substance. They'd rather try to tear our campaign down than lift this country up," Obama said at an event in Asheville, North Carolina.
"That's what you do when you're out of touch, out of ideas, and running out of time," he said.
The comments come a day after Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, McCain's running mate, claimed that Obama associated "with terrorists who targeted our own country."
The McCain campaign shot back on Sunday, saying its accusations are "true facts," and not "smears."
"The last four weeks of this election will be about whether the American people are willing to turn our economy and national security over to Barack Obama, a man with little record, questionable judgment, and ties to radical figures like unrepentant domestic terrorist William Ayers," McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said in a statement.
Palin’s Schedule Shows McCain On Defensive:
The McCain campaign announced Sarah Palin is set to make a stop in North Carolina Tuesday night, two days after the Republican VP candidate stumped in Nebraska — two reliably red states that haven't voted for a Democratic presidential candidate in at least three decades.
Palin's most recent travel schedule is the latest indication Barack Obama and the nation's ailing economy have put John McCain on the defensive, even in states where the prospect of a Democratic win was unthinkable only four years ago.
Palin's visit to North Carolina comes as most recent polls of the state show Obama and McCain essentially in a dead heat there. A CNN/Time Magazine/Opinion Research Corporation poll of North Carolina last month showed the candidates dead even, while some recent polls have even suggested a slight Democratic lead. CNN/Time Magazine/Opinion Research Corporation will release a new North Carolina poll Tuesday morning.
Then there’s the unknown variable of an anticipated rise in turnout in the African-American community. In 2006 that voting bloc made up 26 percent of North Carolina's electorate, with 85 percent voting for Sen. John Kerry. Obama is expected to win an even higher percentage of the black vote this cycle, with a higher expected turnout as well.
"The North Carolina of today is far more diverse than the North Carolina of twenty or even ten years ago," CNN Senior Political Researcher Alan Silverleib said. "The state’s changing economy has attracted thousands of new voters willing to pull the lever for a Democratic nominee. Second, the state’s sizable African-American voting bloc is extremely energized by Obama’s candidacy. Third, the economic downturn has made Tar Heel voters — just like voters in the rest of the country — much more receptive to the Democratic message of change."
Palin's appearance in the state comes more than five months after McCain held his last public event there, delivering a speech in early May at Wake Forest on his vision for judicial appointments. The event came the same day as Indiana and North Carolina's Democratic primaries and was largely overshadowed by the still-ongoing battle between Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton.
McCain-Palin spokesman Ben Porritt said Monday the campaign remains confident the Republican ticket will carry the state.
"This is a state that Barack Obama has put millions of dollars into," he said. "This is an opportunity to speak to our supporters there and makes sure they turn out."
Porritt also declined to say whether McCain has any plans to visit North Carolina before Election Day.
Obama and McCain Release Ads Before Debate:
Hours before they face each other on stage at the second presidential debate, John McCain and Barack Obama each accused the other of deliberate deception in new attack
"Who is Barack Obama?" asks the announcer in the new 30-second McCain spot, “Hypo.” The ad includes footage from a Missouri television station that reported "Obama's presidential campaign is asking Missouri law enforcement to target anyone who lies or runs a misleading television ad."
The reporter on that story, John Mills, has since dialed back those allegations, telling a Missouri newspaper that "in the retelling of the story, it got out of control… If they think a group has put out a misleading ad, they’re basically going to call a press conference and say the ad is misleading. I’m sure the Republicans would do the same thing."
The narrator in the McCain ad continues by citing a string of Obama ads whose claims have drawn criticism from independent fact check organizations. "How hypocritical," says the narrator. "Obama's Social Security attack was called 'a falsehood.' His health care attack … 'misleading'. Obama's stem cell attack … 'not true'. Barack Obama. He promised better. He lied."
In “Subject,” the Obama camp continues to paint McCain as dishonest and out-of-touch, using a quote from an anonymous campaign aide to the Republican nominee that appeared in Monday’s Daily News: "If we keep talking about the economic crisis, we’re going to lose."
“He’s out of ideas. Out of touch. And running out of time. But with no plan to lift our economy up, John McCain wants to tear Barack Obama down. With smears that have been proven false,” says the narrator in the 30-second spot.
"Why? McCain’s own campaign admits that if the election is about the economy, he’s going to lose,” continues the announcer, as an image of that Daily News quote flashes on the screen.
"But as Americans lose their jobs, homes and savings, it’s time for a President who’ll change the economy. Not change the subject."
The campaigns did not reveal the extent of their ad buys. The McCain camp said that “Hypo” would be “televised nationally”; the Obama team said “Subject” would air on national cable beginning Tuesday.
Newt Gingrich: McCain Facing “Crisis of His Career”:
John McCain faces the "crisis of his career," says former House Speak Newt Gingrich, who predicted the Republican nominee will lose the election unless he makes a public break from the economic bailout proposal.
In a column posted on the Web site of the conservative Human Events Tuesday, Gingrich says it is impossible for McCain to catch up in the national or state polls unless he taps into the anger many Americans feel toward the $700 billion bailout of Wall Street investment banks.
"If Senator McCain is not prepared to separate himself from the Bush-Paulson economic program, he has no opportunity to win," Gingrich writes. "The country is deeply fed up with the Bush presidency and angry about the Paulson bailout. If McCain is confused or uncertain about how bad this economic performance is, he will never get the country to listen to him."
Gingrich is the latest prominent conservative to criticize McCain for supporting the bill, which Congress passed last week. Speaking on CNN last week, radio host Glenn Beck said the Arizona senator will lose the election over the vote: I think he lost the election — there was a moment here for somebody here to rise up as a leader," Beck said.
The latest CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll confirms the majority of Americans remain deeply distrustful of the massive bailout package. According to the new survey released Tuesday, close to 60 percent say the plan will not treat taxpayers fairly, and more than half think the government will only get a little bit of the money back. More than half also said they don't think the government will spend the money properly.
"Just as Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan (as well as the House Republicans in 1994 with the Contract with America) created a large argument which led to a decisive result, so McCain has an opportunity to reach beyond the daily attacks and clever tactics and spend the last 28 days of this campaign making a large argument over America's future," Gingrich, a primary author of the 1994 Contract with America, also said.
But it may be impossible for McCain to publicly break with the president on the plan. The GOP nominee suspended his campaign two weeks ago to ensure the economic bailout package was passed. When he cast his vote for the bill last week, McCain said it was "significantly improved" from its original version and now included "strengthened protections and oversight" for taxpayers. Though the legislation did contain billions in earmarks, something McCain said he opposed.
McCain campaign aides have since said they are aiming to turn the narrative on the campaign trail away from the country's financial woes and the unpopular economic bailout — a strategy Gingrich sharply opposes.
"If McCain is prepared to declare that it is time for a fundamental change away from the failure of Bush-Paulson and away from the leftism of Obama …then he has a huge opportunity," Gingrich writes.
McCain: To Spend or Not to Spend?
Does John McCain recommend a spending freeze to help stabilize the economy, or want the government to purchase bad mortgages from struggling homeowners? Well, according to his answers during Tuesday night’s debate, both.
Early in the debate, McCain recommended that the federal government buy up bad mortgages from landowners and replace them with lower cost, fixed-rate mortgages, which he said would help keep Americans in their homes.
“I would order the Secretary of the Treasury to immediately buy up the bad home loan mortgages in America and renegotiate at the new value of the homes at the diminished value of the homes and let people make those, make the payments and stay in their homes,” McCain said. “Is it expensive? Yes.”
But later in the debate, when asked what sacrifices the American people would need to make to help revive the economy, McCain recommended a “spending freeze.” The Republican nominee said the government should cut wasteful programs and eliminate earmarks.
“We're going to have to tell the American people that spending is going to have to be cut in America,” McCain said. “And I recommend a spending freeze that except for defense, veterans affairs and some other vital programs, we'll just have to have an across the board freeze.”
Palin Takes Questions From Reporters:
Shortly before John McCain and Barack Obama took the stage for the second presidential debate, Governor Palin ventured back behind the curtain that separates her from those who cover her every public move, accompanied by senior aides (and a campaign photographer, who chronicled the historic summit between the Republican vice presidential nominee and the reporters who trail her.)
Palin shook hands and chatted with journalists in the press section of her campaign plane. After a few minutes of niceties, it turned into an unscheduled press conference.
A few highlights from the rare question-and-answer session, which included comments on William Ayers, her husband’s decision to testify in the Alaska trooper investigation – and what she thinks of Tina Fey's Palin impression on Saturday Night Live.
Indictment Handed Down in Palin E-Mail Hacking Case:
A federal grand jury in Knoxville, Tennessee, has indicted the son of a Democratic state legislator for allegedly hacking into a personal e-mail account belonging to Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, the Department of Justice said Wednesday.
David Kernell, 20, son of Memphis Democrat Mike Kernell, has turned himself into federal authorities for arrest and will be arraigned Wednesday morning before U.S. Magistrate Judge C. Clifford Shirley, the Department of Justice said.
Kernell was indicted on Tuesday by the grand jury on a single count of "intentionally accessing without authorization" the e-mail account of the Alaskan governor, the DOJ said. The indictment was unsealed on Wednesday.
Some of the contents of Palin's e-mail account were displayed briefly last month on the Internet. Although the displayed messages did not contain significant political disclosures, the McCain-Palin campaign issued a statement calling the incident "a shocking invasion of the governor's privacy and a violation of law."
McCain Mortgage Plan Shifts Costs to Taxpayers:
Under a mortgage rescue plan announced at the debate Tuesday night by Senator John McCain, much of the burden of paying to keep troubled borrowers in their homes will shift to taxpayers.
McCain's original plan called for lenders to write down the value of these mortgages, and take those losses. McCain unveiled the new $300 billion plan in response to the first question of the debate.
He said, "I would order the Secretary of Treasury to immediately buy up the bad home loan mortgages in America and renegotiate at the new value of those homes, at the diminished values of those homes, and let people make those - be able to make those payments and stay in their homes."
New York Times: McCain Campaign ‘Appalling’:
The New York Times issued a renewed scolding of John McCain in a sharply-worded editorial Wednesday morning, the latest salvo in the ongoing back-and-forth between the paper of record and the Arizona senator's White House bid.
"Senator John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin have been running one of the most appalling campaigns we can remember," the Tuesday editorial said. "They have gone far beyond the usual fare of quotes taken out of context and distortions of an opponent’s record — into the dark territory of race-baiting and xenophobia. Senator Barack Obama has taken some cheap shots at Mr. McCain, but there is no comparison."
Those comments come two weeks after senior McCain advisors derided the New York Times, calling the news outlet "an Obama advocacy organization" in response to an article in the paper that reported McCain campaign manager Rick Davis was still profiting from failed mortgage giant Freddie Mac.
The Times, McCain spokesman Michael Goldfarb said then, “obscures its true intentions — to undermine the candidacy of John McCain and boost the candidacy of Barack Obama — under the cloak of objective journalism.”
Top McCain a
Cindy McCain: On the Attack:
Cindy McCain, wife of Republican presidential candidate John McCain, appears to have sharpened her attacks against Barack Obama on the campaign trail in the final stretch of the race for the White House.
One day after she told a Tennessee newspaper Obama is running the "dirtiest campaign in American history," Mrs. McCain criticized the Illinois senator for voting against a bill to fund troops in Iraq, a regular line of attack from her husband’s campaign.
“The day that Senator Obama cast a vote not to fund my son when he was serving sent a cold chill through my body, let me tell you,” she told a Pennsylvania crowd before introducing her husband and Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin.
“I would suggest Senator Obama change shoes with me for just one day. I suggest he take a day and go watch our men and women deploying," she also said, to boisterous cheers from the campaign.
The vote Mrs. McCain is referencing came in May of 2007, when Obama was one of 14 senators who voted against a war-spending plan that would have provided emergency funds for American troops overseas.
National Rifle Association To Endorse McCain/Palin:
The National Rifle Association said Thursday it plans to endorse Sen. John McCain and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, citing Sen. Barack Obama's "anti-gun record."
"We will encourage gun owners, hunters and anyone who values freedom to vote McCain-Palin on November 4," Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's Executive Vice President, said in the statement.
Obama has been on poor terms with gun rights advocates, especially since his controversial remarks about rural residents of Pennsylvania were disclosed before the Pennsylvania Democratic primary. Obama lost to Sen. Hillary Clinton in that race despite investing substantial time campaigning in the battleground state.
The U.S. Supreme Court held for the first time in June of this year that the Second Amendment of the Constitution protects an individual right to own and carry a gun.
Obama Attack Ad:
Barack Obama's campaign is launching a new television ad that takes aim at John McCain's recently announced proposal to have the treasury buy Americans' bad mortgages.
"McCain would shift the burden from lenders to taxpayers, guaranteeing a loss of taxpayer money," the ad's narrator says.
"Who wins? The same lenders that caused the crisis in the first place."
Putting bad actors ahead of taxpayers? We can’t afford more of the same," the narrator also says.
McCain's original plan called for lenders to write down the value of the bad mortgages and take those losses. But the Republican presidential candidate unveiled a new $300 billion plan in response to the first question of Tuesday's presidential debate.
He said, "I would order the Secretary of Treasury to immediately buy up the bad home loan mortgages in America and renegotiate at the new value of those homes, at the diminished values of those homes, and let people make those - be able to make those payments and stay in their homes."
The government would convert failing mortgages into low-interest, FHA-insured loans.
See the ad here: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/10/09/vo.ad.tested.obama.cnn
Obama Purchasing 30 Min. of Network Air Time:
Barack Obama is buying 30 minutes of airtime on the major television networks just days before the presidential election, the Obama campaign confirms.
Sources with the Obama campaign say half hour blocks have been purchased on Wednesday, October 29 on CBS and NBC. The campaign is also in negotiations with Fox, though that day will conflict with the World Series if there is a game 6.
The buy was first reported by the Hollywood reporter earlier Thursday.
Evan Tracey of Campaign Media Analysis Group, CNN's consultant on ad spending, said it was unclear how much the blocs of air would cost, but noted 30 seconds alone in primetime usually runs between $80,000 and $125,000.
"This is a big platform, this is a big megaphone, the interest level is clearly there and people will watch," Tracey said.
Alaska Supreme Court Will Not Stop Palin Probe:
An investigation into Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's firing of her public safety commissioner can proceed, Alaska's Supreme Court ruled Thursday, clearing the way for a Friday report to the state Legislature on the issue.
The justices rejected an effort to halt the probe by the Republican vice presidential nominee's allies in the Legislature, who called the investigation an attempt by partisan Democrats to sabotage the GOP ticket.
The justices unanimously upheld an Anchorage judge's ruling last week that dismissed the Republican lawsuit and upheld subpoenas for top Palin allies.
Palin Ethics Report Kept Secret:
Sworn to secrecy, Alaska lawmakers have begun reviewing a lengthy and politically sensitive investigative report focusing on whether Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin abused her authority as governor.
The first-term Alaska governor has been accused of firing a state commissioner to settle a family dispute. But the report is also expected to touch on whether Palin's husband meddled in state affairs and whether her administration inappropriately accessed employee medical records.
The inquiry, approved by a legislative committee's bipartisan vote, began before Republican presidential nominee John McCain named Palin his running mate. Since then, the case has been dogged by accusations of political influence.
At their meeting Friday, lawmakers planned to vote to release the estimated 300-page report and some of the 1,000 or more pages of supporting documents. The 14-member legislative panel could recommend that the case be closed, that another committee continue to investigate, or that the matter be referred to criminal investigators.
In an effort to head off the report, McCain campaign spokesman Taylor Griffin released the campaign's own version of events. That report, which Griffin said was written by campaign staffers, says the Legislature has taken a legitimate policy dispute between a governor and one of her commissioners, and portrayed it as something inappropriate.
"The following document will prove Walt Monegan's dismissal was a result of his insubordination and budgetary clashes with Governor Palin and her administration," campaign officials wrote. "Trooper Wooten is a separate issue."
Biden Responds to Palin:
Joe Biden Thursday night told Sarah Palin not to lecture him on patriotism, after weeks of attacks mocking him for his statement the wealthy should be patriotic and pay higher taxes because not enough has been asked of them.
"Sarah Palin had great fun saying Joe Biden thinks paying taxes is patriotic. Well, let me tell you what Joe Biden thinks," the Delaware senator said at an outdoor rally. "Joe Biden thinks that anybody who takes millions of dollars offshore to avoid paying their fair share is unpatriotic."
The Obama-Biden campaign has accused John McCain of saying publicly he would close offshore banking loopholes, but saying otherwise in private.
"That is not patriotic and it will stop, it will stop in an Obama-Biden administration! Enough! I've had it up to here! Don't lecture me on patriotism," shouted Biden, getting drowned out by the applause of his supporters. "I'm dead tired of being taken advantage of. I'm getting tired of it."
Republican Backlash on McCain:
John McCain is facing a fresh round of anger from members of his own party deeply opposed to the Arizona senator's proposal for the federal government to purchase troubled mortgage loans.
The pointed backlash from several economic conservatives -- many of whom already distrust McCain's commitment to free-market principles -- couldn't come at a worse time for the Republican presidential nominee less than four weeks before Election Day as he stares at a significant deficit in national and state polls.
But at a time when McCain can't afford to worry about a lack of support from his party's base, several conservatives are openly criticizing the plan as a flagrant reward for reckless behavior among lenders.
In a sharply worded editorial on its Web site Thursday, the editors of The National Review -- an influential bastion of conservative thought -- derided the plan as "creating a level of moral hazard that is unacceptable" and called it a "gift to lenders who abandoned any sense of prudence during the boom years."
Prominent conservative blogger Michelle Malkin went one step further, calling the plan "rotten" and declaring on her blog, "We're Screwed '08."
More Attacks on McCain Health Care Plan:
With less than a month before Americans head to the polls, the liberal group Health Care for America Now released a series of ads Wednesday taking aim at Sen. John McCain and seven of his fellow Republican Congressional candidate’s health care plans.
“Under John McCain’s health care plan, 20 million people could lose insurance at work,” a woman who is battling cancer says. “He wants me to fight cancer and the insurance companies? Fine. I’ll take you both on.”
The group said it will spend $4.3 million on the 30-second TV and radio ads targeting McCain and seven congressional Republicans. The members of Congress will be personally targeted in their individual districts; ads attacking McCain will air in the crucial battleground state of Ohio.
Anger Is Crowd’s Overarching Emotion at McCain Rally:
There were shouts of "Nobama" and "Socialist" at the mention of the Democratic presidential nominee. There were boos, middle fingers turned up and thumbs turned down as a media caravan moved through the crowd Thursday for a midday town hall gathering featuring John McCain and Sarah Palin.
"It is absolutely vital that you take it to Obama, that you hit him where it hits, there's a soft spot," said James T. Harris, a local radio talk show host, who urged the Republican nominee to use Barack Obama's controversial former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., and others against him.
"We have the good Reverend Wright. We have [the Rev. Michael L. Pfleger. We have all of these shady characters that have surrounded him," Harris bellowed. "We have corruption here in Wisconsin and voting across the nation. I am begging you, sir. I am begging you. Take it to him."
Debate Coverage:
CNN Poll: Obama Won
A national poll of debate watchers suggests that Barack Obama won the second presidential debate.
Fifty-four percent of those questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey conducted after the debate ended said that Obama did the best job in the debate, with 30 percent saying John McCain performed better.
A majority, 54 percent, said Obama seemed to be the stronger leader during the debate, to 43 percent for McCain. By a greater than two to one margin — 65 percent to 28 percent — viewers thought Obama was more likeable during the debate.
"Obama had made some gains on the leadership issue even before the debate," said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "McCain's advantage on leadership shrunk from 19 points in September to just five points this weekend. If Obama can use this debate to convince Americans that he is a stronger leader than McCain, he may be difficult to defeat."
A majority of debate watchers polled thought Obama was more intelligent, by a 57 percent to 25 percent margin over McCain. Twice as many debate watchers also thought Obama more clearly expressed than McCain, with 60 percent giving the nod to the Democratic nominee and 30 percent to his GOP opponent.
New York Times:
Senators John McCain and Barack Obama debated for 90 minutes on Tuesday night before a nation in economic crisis, each promising anxious Americans that he had the better plan and vision to lead the country through what both men said was the most dire financial situation since the Great Depression. The gravity of the moment and the somber setting — a town-hall-style meeting in front of 80 selected voters who, when not asking questions, watched in silence, not applauding or laughing — produced an often stifled encounter, largely absent of dramatic confrontations or the personal exchanges that dominated the campaign over the past several days. There was no indication that the debate did anything to change the course of a campaign that appeared to be moving in Mr. Obama’s direction.
Mr. McCain chose not to use the evening — the second of three scheduled debates — to attack Mr. Obama’s background or character. But in a moment that caught the attention of people in both parties, he appeared agitated in criticizing Mr. Obama for a Senate vote he cast, referring to his opponent only as “that one.”
Mr. Obama placed the blame for the financial crisis on deregulation and the lack of fiscal discipline under President Bush, whom he repeatedly linked to Mr. McCain. Mr. McCain, at every opportunity, presented his opponent as an advocate of spending and higher taxes, while presenting himself as pragmatic, willing to reach across the aisle and sometimes at odds with Mr. Bush.
Mr. McCain sought to break through by highlighting a proposal under which the Treasury Department would buy up mortgages that had gone bad, and in effect refinance them at prices homeowners could afford.
Arriving in Nashville for the debate, Mr. McCain was under pressure to alter the dynamic of the race, with polls giving Mr. Obama an advantage nationally and in most battleground states and just four weeks left until Election Day. There were no obvious dramatic breakthrough moments by Mr. McCain; indeed, although the two men pummeled back and forth, it was Mr. Obama who more consistently drew sharp contrasts between the voting records and campaign promises of the two.
Mr. McCain kept his distance from the types of attacks on Mr. Obama’s background and character begun in recent days by his running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin. Not only did he not mention Bill Ayers, the 1960s radical that the McCain campaign — and Ms. Palin in particular — has sought to link to Mr. Obama, he did not mention Ms. Palin once.
Instead, standing in what he has long described as his favorite campaign setting – a town hall meeting, though one set up under extraordinary strict restrictions that limited any interaction between candidates and voter — he seemed more the McCain of an earlier campaign, repeatedly presenting himself as the agent who could end partisan division in Washington. Again and again, he criticized Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, invoking the names of such Democratic senators as Edward M. Kennedy and Russ Feingold, as well as his friend Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, who ran for vice president as a Democrat in 2000 but this year, as an independent, has endorsed Mr. McCain.
“I have a clear record of bipartisanship,” he said “The situation today cries out for bipartisanship. Senator Obama has never taken on his leaders of his party on a single issue. And we need to reform.”
Washington post:
Winner: That One
After their second debate, both Barack Obama and John McCain shook hands with the Nashville audience of 80 uncommitted voters. Both were well-received. But Obama stayed longer, and with McCain out of the room, the affection from the swing voters increased. He was mobbed, patted, beamed at, embraced. One woman wiggled up next to him. At one point, about 15 voters posed for a group picture like it was the last day of camp. The "Nashville '08 Debate" T-shirts are in the mail.
These uncommitted voters wanted to be next to Barack Obama, and the adulation from the audience helps explain why he won the debate. In the post-debate polls on CNN and CBS, he was the clear winner, and he also won Fox's focus group.
Obama's likeability is good for him and bad for McCain, of course, but it also undercuts McCain's credibility. It exposes the picture McCain has been painting of Obama in the last few days as a caricature. Since McCain's slide in the polls, he has started personal attacks questioning Obama's character and values. "Who is the real Barack Obama?" McCain asks on the stump and in his ads. Sarah Palin says Obama isn't from "regular" America. He's out of the mainstream, aides regularly say.
That cartoon version of Obama didn't show up for the 90-minute debate Tuesday. If it had, those audience members would have been waving garlic as they fled from the room rather than sticking around so they could tell their neighbors about it.
Instead, what they saw was a Democrat saying, "We will kill Bin Laden. We will crush al-Qaida." He said he thought America was a force for good. Obama also got to repeat those elements of his biography—his mother's death from cancer and his modest upbringing—that contradict the image of him as a spooky alien.
McCain, meanwhile, did not take Sarah Palin's advice. He did not attack. He pressed Obama repeatedly on issues, but he didn't attack Obama's character. (Don't worry, he will again tomorrow.) McCain stressed that he had a record people could check, while Obama offered nothing but rhetoric. That's fine as far as it goes, but McCain needs more.
McCain is in a tough spot. He's behind. Obama has the momentum, and McCain needs to take it away. He didn't necessarily do poorly—and he did much better on foreign policy than on domestic matters. But McCain needed to change the dynamic. You could see him trying. He pressed Obama on his opposition to the surge, the penalty Obama would impose on those who didn't sign up for a health-care plan, even that he was speaking too long. But this was all small stuff. A town-hall debate is a hard place to change the dynamic, and yet there are few opportunities in the remaining 27 days where he has such a big chance.
Polls Lean in Obama’s Favor
Many of the political pundits have been saying for the past week that the Presidential Election is now Barack Obama’s to lose. The reason why a majority of those that are closely following this campaign are able to say that is because of the POLLS.
Here’s a break down of the key states that Senator Obama has gained a lead over Senator McCain during the past weeks. We’ll take you through all of the major battleground states to show you what the polls are showing now, vs. two weeks ago vs. one month ago. These polls are taken from averages at www.realclearpolitics.com. As you’re reading, keep in mind that the margin of error is generally 2-4 points.
Once you’ve checked out all of the polls numbers, try creating your own electoral map to see which candidate is going to get the 270 Electoral Votes needed to win the election. There is an interactive one here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=1
National Average:
Today: Obama leads by 6.2
Two weeks ago: Obama up by 5.8
One month ago: Obama and McCain TIED.
Two months ago: Obama up by 3.2
Ohio (20 electoral votes):
Today: Obama leads by 3.1
Two weeks ago: Obama up by 2.0
One month ago: McCain up by 1.9
Two months ago: McCain up by 1.5
Pennsylvania (21 EV):
Today: Obama leads by 13.8
Two weeks ago: Obama up by 7.9
One month ago: Obama up by only 1.6
Two months ago: Obama up by 6.8
Michigan (17 EV):
Today: Obama leads by 8.2
Two weeks ago: Obama up by 7.0
One month ago: Obama up by 2.0
Two months ago: Obama up by 3.2
Note: The McCain campaign has now pulled much of their resources out of Mich.
Wisconsin (10 EV):
Today: Obama leads by 8.8
Two weeks ago: Obama up by 5.0
One month ago: Obama up by 2.7
Two months ago: Obama up by 7.2
New Hampshire (4 EV):
Today: Obama leads by 10.4
Two weeks ago: Obama up by 5.6
One month ago: Obama up by 3.3
Two months ago: Obama up by 1.4
Virginia (13 EV):
Today: Obama leads by 5.1
Two weeks ago: Obama up by 2.4
One month ago: McCain up by 1.4
Two months ago: McCain up by 0.6
Florida (27 EV):
Today: Obama leads by 3.1
Two weeks ago: Obama up by 3.0
One month ago: McCain up by 5.0
Two months ago: McCain up by 1.8
Missouri (11 EV):
Today: McCain leads by 0.4
Two weeks ago: McCain up by 1.7
One month ago: McCain up by 6.6
Two months ago: McCain up by 2.3
Colorado (9 EV):
Today: Obama leads by 4.0
Two weeks ago: Obama up by 4.4
One month ago: Obama up by 0.6
Two months ago: McCain up by 0.5
New Mexico (5 EV):
Today: Obama leads by 7.3
Two weeks ago: Obama up by 7.8
One month ago: Obama up by 3.8
Almost two months ago: Obama up by 1.0
Nevada (5 EV):
Today: Obama leads by 3.0
Two weeks ago: Obama up by 1.8
One month ago: McCain up by 1.0
Two months ago: Obama and McCain were TIED
Fact Checks:
McCains Proposed Health Care Tax Credit:
The Statement: At a campaign stop Saturday, Oct. 4, in Newport News, Virginia, Sen. Barack Obama discussed Sen. John McCain's health care plan. He argued that many people would lose their employer-provided health insurance, and would be left trying to buy health insurance plans for their families with the $5,000 tax credit the McCain plan offers. Obama said, "What Senator McCain doesn't tell you is that the average cost of a family health care plan these days is more than twice that much — $12,680. So where would that leave you? Broke."
The Facts: The figure Obama provided, $12,680, comes from a study published last month in the journal Health Affairs. That study found that "average annual premiums in 2008 are $4,704 for single coverage and $12,680 for family coverage."
That same study also reported the average cost workers pay for employer-provided health care coverage is $721 for singles and $3,354 for family coverage. The rest is covered by the employer. Those figures back up a conclusion from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center — that McCain's health plan, offering a tax credit of $2,500 per individual and $5,000 per family, initially would be a net tax cut for many. As the CNN Truth Squad has previously reported, the center calls McCain's health care plan a tax cut for virtually all Americans through 2013 and for the middle-class through 2018, which is as far as the center has projected. But the center says long-term, some of those benefits might erode if the tax credit did not keep up with costs of health care.
Obama, at his campaign stop, cited studies that suggest millions of Americans may lose their employer-provided health insurance under McCain's health plan. A study published in Health Affairs in September did estimate that 20 million people may lose employer-based coverage and take on other insurance coverage, and that plans would likely be "less generous." However, McCain says his plan would give people more options, increase competition, and lower costs.
It's impossible to say definitively whether millions of people would lose their health insurance under McCain's plan. And, how much it takes to leave someone "broke" depends on the family.
The Verdict: True. In the narrow set of circumstances Obama lays out, workers who lose employer-sponsored health insurance would need to spend "more than twice" the amount of McCain's tax credit in order to maintain the same plan they have today.
Does Obama Pal Around with Terrorists?
The Statement: Republican vice presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin said Saturday, October 4, that Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama is "someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country."
The Facts: In making the charge at a fund-raising event in Englewood, Colorado, and a rally in Carson, California, Palin was referring at least in part to William Ayers, a 1960s radical. In both appearances, Palin cited a front-page article in Saturday's New York Times detailing the working relationship between Obama and Ayers.
In the 1960s, Ayers was a founding member of the radical Weather Underground group that carried out a string of bombings of federal buildings, including the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol, in protest against the Vietnam War. The now-defunct group was labeled a "domestic terrorist group" by the FBI, and Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn — also a Weather Underground member — spent 10 years as fugitives in the 1970s. Federal charges against them were dropped due to FBI misconduct in gathering evidence against them, and they resurfaced in 1980. Both Ayers and Dohrn ultimately became university professors in Chicago, with Ayers, 63, now an education professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
Obama's Chicago home is in the same neighborhood where Ayers and Dohrn live. Beginning in 1995, Ayers and Obama worked with the non-profit Chicago Annenberg Challenge on a huge school improvement project. The Annenberg Challenge was for cities to compete for $50 million grants to improve public education. Ayers fought to bring the grant to Chicago, and Obama was recruited onto the board. Also from 1999 through 2001 both were board members on the Woods Fund, a charitable foundation that gave money to various causes, including the Trinity United Church that Obama attended and Northwestern University Law Schools' Children and Family Justice Center, where Dohrn worked.
CNN's review of project records found nothing to suggest anything inappropriate in the volunteer projects in which the two men were involved.
Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt told CNN that after meeting Obama through the Annenberg project, Ayers hosted a campaign event for him that same year when then-Illinois state Sen. Alice Palmer, who planned to run for Congress, introduced the young community organizer as her chosen successor. LaBolt also said the two have not spoken by phone or exchanged e-mail messages since Obama came to the U.S. Senate in 2005 and last met more than a year ago when they encountered each other on the street in their Hyde Park neighborhood.
The extent of Obama's relationship with Ayers came up during the Democratic presidential primaries earlier this year, and Obama explained it by saying, "This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood … the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago — when I was 8 years old — somehow reflects on me and my values doesn't make much sense."
The McCain campaign did not respond Saturday to a request for elaboration on Palin's use of the plural "terrorists."
Verdict: False. There is no indication that Ayers and Obama are now "palling around," or that they have had an ongoing relationship in the past three years. Also, there is nothing to suggest that Ayers is now involved in terrorist activity or that other Obama associates are.
Does McCain Support Tax-Havens for Corporations?
The Statement: In a campaign speech Friday, September 3 in Abington, Pennsylvania, Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama said Republican Sen. John McCain supports helping businesses avoid paying taxes. "My opponent supports tax havens that let companies avoid paying taxes here in America — tax havens that cost $100 billion every year. (W)hat will work is shutting down those tax havens and closing corporate loopholes."
The Facts: During an August 2007 trip to Bermuda, McCain told the Royal Gazette newspaper, that country's sole daily, that he was against legislation in Congress designed to clamp down on U.S. businesses that establish offices overseas in so-called "tax havens". "The industry … that's had such phenomenal success, has been good for both nations — I would oppose any measures that would upset that," the paper quoted him as saying.
But in the past, McCain had spoken out against such practices. "More and more U.S. companies are using this highly profitable accounting scheme that allows a company to move its legal residence to offshore tax havens such as Bermuda, where there is no corporate income tax, and shield its profits from taxes," he said during a 2002 Senate debate. "I applaud efforts to discourage this practice."
On the campaign trail, McCain has called for lowering the corporate tax rate to encourage companies to keep their offices in the United States. "If you're a business person, and you can locate any place in the world, then, obviously, if you go to the country where it's 11 percent tax versus 35 percent, you're going to be able to create jobs, increase your business, make more investment," he said during the September 26 presidential debate. "I want to cut that business tax. I want to cut it so that businesses will remain in the United States of America and create jobs."
A report released in July by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations said that some overseas banks help hide tax evasion "and add to the offshore abuses that cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $100 billion dollars each year." Subcommittee Chairman Sen. Carl Levin, a Democrat, and ranking minority member Sen. Norm Coleman, a Republican, condemned the practice in a written statement.
The Verdict: True, but incomplete. McCain did say he opposed cracking down on the "havens" and the $100 billion figure Obama cited is true, according to a Senate report. But McCain had spoken out against the offshore banking practice in the past and he advocates cutting tax rates in the United States to make moving offshore less attractive.
Obama’s Health Care Plan:
The Statement: In the vice-presidential debate on Thursday, October 2, in St. Louis, Republican nominee Gov. Sarah Palin said Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama proposes "to mandate health care coverage and have (a) universal, government-run program. And unless you're pleased with the way the federal government has been running anything lately, I don't think that it's going to be real pleasing for Americans to consider health care being taken over by the feds."
The Facts: Obama's health care plan, as described on his campaign Web site, does include a government mandate that all children be covered by health insurance. Beyond that, while the plan is "universal" in the sense that it aims to make health care coverage available to every American, it is not "universal" in the sense that a government mandate would require coverage for every adult. On Saturday, October 4 at a rally in Newport News, Virginia, Obama said his goal is to provide "affordable, accessible health care for every single American."
The Obama plan would increase the federal government's role in health care by requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing or chronic conditions and requiring all employers other than very small businesses to offer coverage to their employees or pay part of the costs to cover them. But it would also include existing private insurance options, would use existing providers and plans and would allow people to choose their own doctors and methods of insurance. According to Obama's Web site, people who are pleased with their current health care coverage and happy with their current doctor will not have to change anything. Employers that cannot afford health care for their employees would be eligible for subsidies.
The plan does propose creating a National Health Insurance Exchange. While it is not clear exactly how the exchange would operate and who would oversee it, according to Obama's Web site people could use the exchange to choose a private plan or a new public plan similar to that offered to federal employees and members of Congress.
The Verdict: Mostly False. Obama's plan would increase government's role in health care, and mandate coverage for children, but would include existing health care systems and not mandate universal coverage. There is no evidence in the plan to support Palin's claim that health care would be "taken over by the feds."
McCain’s Plan Gives 200 Million No Relief?
The Statement:
At a campaign stop Friday, October 3, in Abington, Pennsylvania, Sen. Barack Obama argued his opponent, Sen. John McCain, is "out of touch." Obama asked, "How else could he come up with an economic plan that leaves out more than 100 million middle-class taxpayers from any relief whatsoever?"
The Facts:
CNN/Money reported last month that the Obama campaign "says it bases that number on McCain's proposal to increase the exemption tax filers take for dependents, and adds that it is the 'only middle-class tax cut' the Republican nominee has offered."
The CNN Truth Squad has previously reported that the Tax Policy Center — the nonpartisan agency whose figures the Obama campaign regularly cites — says some members of the middle class would also benefit from other parts of McCain's tax plan.
Obama's assertion also ignores McCain's health-care plan altogether, which is part of his tax plan. As the CNN Truth Squad has reported, the Tax Policy Center says virtually all Americans would come out ahead initially under McCain's health plan, and the middle class would benefit through 2018, which is far ahead as the center projected.
Len Burman, the center's director, told CNN Friday, if you include McCain's health plan, Obama's assertion is "patently untrue." And Burman said that while "something like 100 million people are not affected by the McCain individual income tax cuts," millions would benefit from the corporate tax cuts McCain proposes — "anyone who owns stock, and that includes retirees with modest pensions and 401(k)s."
In his remarks, Obama referred to McCain's "economic plan" — not solely to his plan for individual income taxes.
In Thursday night's debate, Obama's running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, was even more off the mark, saying that under McCain's tax proposal, "100 million families, middle-class families, households to be precise, they got not a single change, they got not a single break in taxes." One hundred million "families" or "households" would include the vast majority of the U.S. population.
Verdict:
False. The Obama campaign bases its assertion on just one part of McCain's economic plan, while ignoring the tax consequences of the rest of the McCain plan.
Potential Impact of McCain’s Health Care Plan:
The Statement: During a campaign speech Wednesday, October 8, in Indianapolis, Indiana, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama criticized Republican opponent Sen. John McCain's health care plan. "Senator McCain didn't tell us about the studies that say his plan would cause 20 million Americans to lose their health insurance from their employer," Obama said.
The Facts: Obama is referring to one of the key elements of McCain's health care plan. McCain says his plan would eliminate the existing tax exemption for insurance premiums that are paid through employers. But in a major shift in how most Americans are covered, he would replace it with a health-insurance tax credit of $2,500 for individuals or $5,000 for families. The idea is that this money would allow workers to seek out and buy their own insurance.
"Eliminating the tax exclusion would greatly reduce the number of people who obtain health insurance through their employers," according to an analysis of McCain's plan by four professors from Columbia University, Harvard, Purdue and the University of Michigan, published on the Web site of the policy journal "Health Affairs." The analysis predicts "many employers would be quick to drop health benefits" because of such a change. It estimates that about 20 million people would lose their health coverage at work under the plan. But it says roughly that same number would enroll in "nongroup" coverage.
The McCain campaign says that "families will be able to choose the insurance provider that suits them best and the money would be sent directly to the insurance provider." The "Health Affairs" study says people likely would be able to find some nongroup coverage for less than they pay through their employers, but that this often would be because those plans offer less
coverage.
The Verdict: True, but incomplete. While the number of people analysts predict would lose coverage through their jobs is in line with the number Obama uses, most of those workers would not become uninsured under McCain's plan — they'd just get their health insurance in a different way.
Did McCain Say Iraq War Would Be Easy?
The Statement
Democratic Sen. Barack Obama said at the Oct. 7 presidential debate in Nashville, Tennessee, that when Republican opponent Sen. John McCain "was cheerleading the president to go into Iraq, he suggested it was going to be quick and easy, we'd be greeted as liberators."
The Facts
McCain repeatedly made comments like the ones Obama describes during the run-up to the March 20, 2003, invasion and in the days after.
On CNN's Larry King Live on Sept. 24, 2002, McCain said "I believe the success will be fairly easy." He said on CNN's Late Edition on Sept. 29, 2002 that "I believe that we can win an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time." He made the comments more than two weeks before the Senate voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refused to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.
McCain also said, on MSNBC's Hardball on March 24, 2003, that "there's no doubt in my mind that once these people (the Saddam Hussein regime) are gone that we will be welcomed as liberators."
The Verdict: True.
Has Obama Never ‘Taken On” Democratic Leaders?
The Statement
Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain said at the Oct. 7 presidential debate in Nashville, Tennessee, that Democratic opponent Sen. Barack Obama has "never taken on his leaders of his party on a single issue."
The Facts
Congressional Quarterly examined Obama's votes in the Senate. According to the analysis, Obama has voted with the Democratic Party 96 percent of the time during his tenure in the Senate.
CQ — a non-partisan and highly respected journal of congressional affairs — says McCain has voted in line with the Republican Party 86 percent of the time. McCain's total number of votes is much larger, since he has been in the Senate since 1986, while Obama is in his first term.
CQ also looked at what it deemed to be "key" votes. That analysis found Obama voted with his party on 29 out of 30 votes, which came out to 97 percent of the time. For McCain, CQ said there have been 335 "key" votes over the years, and that he voted with his party on 266 of them — 79 percent of the time.
However, the journal noted instances when Obama voted outside the party. In 2005, Obama was one of only 18 Democrats to vote in favor of a business-backed bill to limit class action lawsuits by forcing the most-expensive into federal court. The majority of Democrats voted against the bill, which was opposed by consumer groups and the trial lawyers lobby.
The journal also noted that Obama sided with Sen. Jim DeMint, R-South Carolina, who wanted greater disclosure of earmarks in an ethics bill, by voting against an attempt by Obama's home-state mentor, Democratic Whip Richard J. Durbin, to kill DeMint's disclosure amendment.
And, Obama has criticized leading Democrats, including former presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-New York, for voting to authorize the Iraq war in 2002. However, many of those comments were made in the context of the Democratic primary campaign and that vote was prior to his time in the Senate.
Verdict: False. While McCain is correct that Obama has supported the Democratic leadership almost all of the time, to say he's never differed with them is not true.
Monday:
McCain/ Palin: New Mexico/ Florida
Obama/ Biden: North Carolina/ Delaware with no events scheduled
Tuesday:
McCain/ Palin: Tennessee/ Florida
Obama/ Biden: Tennessee/ Delaware with no events scheduled
Wednesday:
McCain/ Palin: Pennsylvania
Obama/ Biden: Indiana/ Florida
Thursday:
McCain/ Palin: Wisconsin
Obama/ Biden: Ohio/ Missouri
Friday:
McCain/ Palin: Wisconsin/ Ohio
Obama/ Biden: Ohio/ Missouri
Main Stories:
McCain Attack ad:
John McCain's campaign is released a new ad Monday taking aim at year-old comments from Barack Obama about the conflict in Afghanistan, calling them "dishonorable."
The ad comes as the Arizona senator's campaign aggressively steps up its attacks on Obama's readiness to be a commander-in-chief and raises questions about his background with only a month remain before voters weigh in.
"Who is Barack Obama? He says our troops in Afghanistan are ‘just air-raiding villages and killing civilians,’” the ad's announcer says. "How dishonorable."
The ad refers to an answer Obama gave at a August 2007 town hall meeting with New Hampshire voters, during which the Illinois senator was asked whether he had plans to shift U.S. troops out of Iraq to other terrorist hotspots like Afghanistan.
"We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there," Obama said of the U.S. mission in Afghanistan.
Those comments were immediately seized by GOP critics. The Republican National Committee sent out a press release shortly after the remarks calling them "offensive," and demanding he apologize. The McCain campaign has also highlighted the comments several times this campaign season. An AP Fact Check later reported Western forces had been killing civilians at a higher rate than insurgents.
"Congressional liberals voted repeatedly to cut off funding to our active troops," the ad also says. "Increasing the risk on their lives. How dangerous. Obama and congressional liberals."
The campaign says the ad will run nationally, though it did not reveal the extent of the buy.
Palin Makes Terrorist Connection to Obama:
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin on Saturday slammed Sen. Barack Obama's political relationship with a former anti-war radical, accusing him of associating "with terrorists who targeted their own country."
Palin's attack delivered on the McCain campaign's announcement that it would step up attacks on the Democratic presidential candidate with just a month left before the November general election.
"We see America as the greatest force for good in this world," Palin said at a fund-raising event in Colorado, adding, "Our opponent though, is someone who sees America it seems as being so imperfect that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country."
Palin made similar comments later at a rally in Carson, California.
Obama's Chicago home is in the same neighborhood as Bill Ayers, a founder of the radical Weather Underground that was involved in several bombings in the early 1970s, including the Pentagon and the Capitol, and the two have met several times since Obama's 1995 campaign for an Illinois state senate seat.
Biden’s Mother In Law Died:
Joe Biden's spokesman said the Delaware senator would be canceling campaign events Monday and Tuesday in the wake of his mother-in-law's death Sunday.
"Other details will follow, but we appreciate everyone's respect for the family's privacy during this difficult time," wrote Biden spokesman David Wade.
Bonny Jacobs, Jill Biden's mother, had been sick for a long time and was living in a hospice.
Wade announced Saturday that Sunday and Monday's events were canceled after doctors told the family to stay close by. He said the family is now together at home in Wilmington.
The death comes the same day Biden's son Beau deploys with his National Guard unit to a mobilization station in Texas before a tour in Iraq.
RNC Seeks Audit on Obama Campaign Funds:
The fund-raising prowess of the Obama campaign may be put under a microscope, if the Republican National Committee has its way.
The RNC announced that it plans to file a complaint with the Federal Election Committee Monday that seeks an audit of the more than $450 million donated so far to Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.
The complaint will address two issues highlighted in a recent Newsweek report about the Obama campaign’s fund-raising. First, the RNC will ask the federal agency responsible for enforcing campaign finance laws to audit and inquire into whether the Obama campaign accepted any money from foreign nationals, a contribution source prohibited under federal law.
“We believe that, based on the law, the Obama campaign has accepted contributions from foreign nationals and has knowingly done so through at least its failure to reasonably investigate where all this money is coming from,” RNC Chief Counsel Sean Cairncross told reporters Sunday.
The FEC defines foreign nationals as foreign governments, foreign political parties, foreign corporations, foreign associations, foreign partnerships, individuals who are foreign citizens, and immigrants to the U.S. who do not have a “green card,” showing they are permanent residents or are lawfully admitted to the country.
Second, the RNC plans to ask for an audit of possible excessive contributions to the Democratic nominee. “The Obama campaign has a track record of accepting these,” Cairncross told reporters, referring to recent FEC requests directed at the Obama campaign to explain what appear to be multiple small donations from single donors listed in the campaign’s finance reports which violate the contribution limits when aggregated.
The Obama campaign was quick to turn the McCain camp's critical eye back onto McCain's own fund-raising. “Because of campaign finance issues, John McCain has had to return over $1.2 million to donors who potentially violated the law with their contributions," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement Sunday. "We look forward to a thorough investigation into whether John McCain’s campaign has returned all of the money it raised from foreign nationals," Burton added.
The Obama campaign also responded to the RNC's claims that it may have received some contributions prohibited by federal law. "Without accepting a dime from the Washington lobbyists or corporate PACs that have funded John McCain's campaign, our campaign has shattered fundraising records with donations from more than 2.5 million Americans. We have gone above and beyond the transparency requirements by disclosing our bundlers and the levels of contributions they raise. We constantly review our donors for any issues and while no organization is completely protected from internet fraud, we will continue to review our fundraising procedures to ensure that we are taking every available to step to root-out improper contributions,” Burton said.
Obama: McCain looking for distractions:
Sen. Barack Obama on Sunday charged that Sen. John McCain's campaign is launching "Swift boat-style attacks" on him instead of addressing the country's problems.
"Sen. McCain and his operatives are gambling that they can distract you with smears rather than talk to you about substance. They'd rather try to tear our campaign down than lift this country up," Obama said at an event in Asheville, North Carolina.
"That's what you do when you're out of touch, out of ideas, and running out of time," he said.
The comments come a day after Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, McCain's running mate, claimed that Obama associated "with terrorists who targeted our own country."
The McCain campaign shot back on Sunday, saying its accusations are "true facts," and not "smears."
"The last four weeks of this election will be about whether the American people are willing to turn our economy and national security over to Barack Obama, a man with little record, questionable judgment, and ties to radical figures like unrepentant domestic terrorist William Ayers," McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said in a statement.
Palin’s Schedule Shows McCain On Defensive:
The McCain campaign announced Sarah Palin is set to make a stop in North Carolina Tuesday night, two days after the Republican VP candidate stumped in Nebraska — two reliably red states that haven't voted for a Democratic presidential candidate in at least three decades.
Palin's most recent travel schedule is the latest indication Barack Obama and the nation's ailing economy have put John McCain on the defensive, even in states where the prospect of a Democratic win was unthinkable only four years ago.
Palin's visit to North Carolina comes as most recent polls of the state show Obama and McCain essentially in a dead heat there. A CNN/Time Magazine/Opinion Research Corporation poll of North Carolina last month showed the candidates dead even, while some recent polls have even suggested a slight Democratic lead. CNN/Time Magazine/Opinion Research Corporation will release a new North Carolina poll Tuesday morning.
Then there’s the unknown variable of an anticipated rise in turnout in the African-American community. In 2006 that voting bloc made up 26 percent of North Carolina's electorate, with 85 percent voting for Sen. John Kerry. Obama is expected to win an even higher percentage of the black vote this cycle, with a higher expected turnout as well.
"The North Carolina of today is far more diverse than the North Carolina of twenty or even ten years ago," CNN Senior Political Researcher Alan Silverleib said. "The state’s changing economy has attracted thousands of new voters willing to pull the lever for a Democratic nominee. Second, the state’s sizable African-American voting bloc is extremely energized by Obama’s candidacy. Third, the economic downturn has made Tar Heel voters — just like voters in the rest of the country — much more receptive to the Democratic message of change."
Palin's appearance in the state comes more than five months after McCain held his last public event there, delivering a speech in early May at Wake Forest on his vision for judicial appointments. The event came the same day as Indiana and North Carolina's Democratic primaries and was largely overshadowed by the still-ongoing battle between Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton.
McCain-Palin spokesman Ben Porritt said Monday the campaign remains confident the Republican ticket will carry the state.
"This is a state that Barack Obama has put millions of dollars into," he said. "This is an opportunity to speak to our supporters there and makes sure they turn out."
Porritt also declined to say whether McCain has any plans to visit North Carolina before Election Day.
Obama and McCain Release Ads Before Debate:
Hours before they face each other on stage at the second presidential debate, John McCain and Barack Obama each accused the other of deliberate deception in new attack
"Who is Barack Obama?" asks the announcer in the new 30-second McCain spot, “Hypo.” The ad includes footage from a Missouri television station that reported "Obama's presidential campaign is asking Missouri law enforcement to target anyone who lies or runs a misleading television ad."
The reporter on that story, John Mills, has since dialed back those allegations, telling a Missouri newspaper that "in the retelling of the story, it got out of control… If they think a group has put out a misleading ad, they’re basically going to call a press conference and say the ad is misleading. I’m sure the Republicans would do the same thing."
The narrator in the McCain ad continues by citing a string of Obama ads whose claims have drawn criticism from independent fact check organizations. "How hypocritical," says the narrator. "Obama's Social Security attack was called 'a falsehood.' His health care attack … 'misleading'. Obama's stem cell attack … 'not true'. Barack Obama. He promised better. He lied."
In “Subject,” the Obama camp continues to paint McCain as dishonest and out-of-touch, using a quote from an anonymous campaign aide to the Republican nominee that appeared in Monday’s Daily News: "If we keep talking about the economic crisis, we’re going to lose."
“He’s out of ideas. Out of touch. And running out of time. But with no plan to lift our economy up, John McCain wants to tear Barack Obama down. With smears that have been proven false,” says the narrator in the 30-second spot.
"Why? McCain’s own campaign admits that if the election is about the economy, he’s going to lose,” continues the announcer, as an image of that Daily News quote flashes on the screen.
"But as Americans lose their jobs, homes and savings, it’s time for a President who’ll change the economy. Not change the subject."
The campaigns did not reveal the extent of their ad buys. The McCain camp said that “Hypo” would be “televised nationally”; the Obama team said “Subject” would air on national cable beginning Tuesday.
Newt Gingrich: McCain Facing “Crisis of His Career”:
John McCain faces the "crisis of his career," says former House Speak Newt Gingrich, who predicted the Republican nominee will lose the election unless he makes a public break from the economic bailout proposal.
In a column posted on the Web site of the conservative Human Events Tuesday, Gingrich says it is impossible for McCain to catch up in the national or state polls unless he taps into the anger many Americans feel toward the $700 billion bailout of Wall Street investment banks.
"If Senator McCain is not prepared to separate himself from the Bush-Paulson economic program, he has no opportunity to win," Gingrich writes. "The country is deeply fed up with the Bush presidency and angry about the Paulson bailout. If McCain is confused or uncertain about how bad this economic performance is, he will never get the country to listen to him."
Gingrich is the latest prominent conservative to criticize McCain for supporting the bill, which Congress passed last week. Speaking on CNN last week, radio host Glenn Beck said the Arizona senator will lose the election over the vote: I think he lost the election — there was a moment here for somebody here to rise up as a leader," Beck said.
The latest CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll confirms the majority of Americans remain deeply distrustful of the massive bailout package. According to the new survey released Tuesday, close to 60 percent say the plan will not treat taxpayers fairly, and more than half think the government will only get a little bit of the money back. More than half also said they don't think the government will spend the money properly.
"Just as Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan (as well as the House Republicans in 1994 with the Contract with America) created a large argument which led to a decisive result, so McCain has an opportunity to reach beyond the daily attacks and clever tactics and spend the last 28 days of this campaign making a large argument over America's future," Gingrich, a primary author of the 1994 Contract with America, also said.
But it may be impossible for McCain to publicly break with the president on the plan. The GOP nominee suspended his campaign two weeks ago to ensure the economic bailout package was passed. When he cast his vote for the bill last week, McCain said it was "significantly improved" from its original version and now included "strengthened protections and oversight" for taxpayers. Though the legislation did contain billions in earmarks, something McCain said he opposed.
McCain campaign aides have since said they are aiming to turn the narrative on the campaign trail away from the country's financial woes and the unpopular economic bailout — a strategy Gingrich sharply opposes.
"If McCain is prepared to declare that it is time for a fundamental change away from the failure of Bush-Paulson and away from the leftism of Obama …then he has a huge opportunity," Gingrich writes.
McCain: To Spend or Not to Spend?
Does John McCain recommend a spending freeze to help stabilize the economy, or want the government to purchase bad mortgages from struggling homeowners? Well, according to his answers during Tuesday night’s debate, both.
Early in the debate, McCain recommended that the federal government buy up bad mortgages from landowners and replace them with lower cost, fixed-rate mortgages, which he said would help keep Americans in their homes.
“I would order the Secretary of the Treasury to immediately buy up the bad home loan mortgages in America and renegotiate at the new value of the homes at the diminished value of the homes and let people make those, make the payments and stay in their homes,” McCain said. “Is it expensive? Yes.”
But later in the debate, when asked what sacrifices the American people would need to make to help revive the economy, McCain recommended a “spending freeze.” The Republican nominee said the government should cut wasteful programs and eliminate earmarks.
“We're going to have to tell the American people that spending is going to have to be cut in America,” McCain said. “And I recommend a spending freeze that except for defense, veterans affairs and some other vital programs, we'll just have to have an across the board freeze.”
Palin Takes Questions From Reporters:
Shortly before John McCain and Barack Obama took the stage for the second presidential debate, Governor Palin ventured back behind the curtain that separates her from those who cover her every public move, accompanied by senior aides (and a campaign photographer, who chronicled the historic summit between the Republican vice presidential nominee and the reporters who trail her.)
Palin shook hands and chatted with journalists in the press section of her campaign plane. After a few minutes of niceties, it turned into an unscheduled press conference.
A few highlights from the rare question-and-answer session, which included comments on William Ayers, her husband’s decision to testify in the Alaska trooper investigation – and what she thinks of Tina Fey's Palin impression on Saturday Night Live.
Indictment Handed Down in Palin E-Mail Hacking Case:
A federal grand jury in Knoxville, Tennessee, has indicted the son of a Democratic state legislator for allegedly hacking into a personal e-mail account belonging to Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, the Department of Justice said Wednesday.
David Kernell, 20, son of Memphis Democrat Mike Kernell, has turned himself into federal authorities for arrest and will be arraigned Wednesday morning before U.S. Magistrate Judge C. Clifford Shirley, the Department of Justice said.
Kernell was indicted on Tuesday by the grand jury on a single count of "intentionally accessing without authorization" the e-mail account of the Alaskan governor, the DOJ said. The indictment was unsealed on Wednesday.
Some of the contents of Palin's e-mail account were displayed briefly last month on the Internet. Although the displayed messages did not contain significant political disclosures, the McCain-Palin campaign issued a statement calling the incident "a shocking invasion of the governor's privacy and a violation of law."
McCain Mortgage Plan Shifts Costs to Taxpayers:
Under a mortgage rescue plan announced at the debate Tuesday night by Senator John McCain, much of the burden of paying to keep troubled borrowers in their homes will shift to taxpayers.
McCain's original plan called for lenders to write down the value of these mortgages, and take those losses. McCain unveiled the new $300 billion plan in response to the first question of the debate.
He said, "I would order the Secretary of Treasury to immediately buy up the bad home loan mortgages in America and renegotiate at the new value of those homes, at the diminished values of those homes, and let people make those - be able to make those payments and stay in their homes."
New York Times: McCain Campaign ‘Appalling’:
The New York Times issued a renewed scolding of John McCain in a sharply-worded editorial Wednesday morning, the latest salvo in the ongoing back-and-forth between the paper of record and the Arizona senator's White House bid.
"Senator John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin have been running one of the most appalling campaigns we can remember," the Tuesday editorial said. "They have gone far beyond the usual fare of quotes taken out of context and distortions of an opponent’s record — into the dark territory of race-baiting and xenophobia. Senator Barack Obama has taken some cheap shots at Mr. McCain, but there is no comparison."
Those comments come two weeks after senior McCain advisors derided the New York Times, calling the news outlet "an Obama advocacy organization" in response to an article in the paper that reported McCain campaign manager Rick Davis was still profiting from failed mortgage giant Freddie Mac.
The Times, McCain spokesman Michael Goldfarb said then, “obscures its true intentions — to undermine the candidacy of John McCain and boost the candidacy of Barack Obama — under the cloak of objective journalism.”
Top McCain a
Cindy McCain: On the Attack:
Cindy McCain, wife of Republican presidential candidate John McCain, appears to have sharpened her attacks against Barack Obama on the campaign trail in the final stretch of the race for the White House.
One day after she told a Tennessee newspaper Obama is running the "dirtiest campaign in American history," Mrs. McCain criticized the Illinois senator for voting against a bill to fund troops in Iraq, a regular line of attack from her husband’s campaign.
“The day that Senator Obama cast a vote not to fund my son when he was serving sent a cold chill through my body, let me tell you,” she told a Pennsylvania crowd before introducing her husband and Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin.
“I would suggest Senator Obama change shoes with me for just one day. I suggest he take a day and go watch our men and women deploying," she also said, to boisterous cheers from the campaign.
The vote Mrs. McCain is referencing came in May of 2007, when Obama was one of 14 senators who voted against a war-spending plan that would have provided emergency funds for American troops overseas.
National Rifle Association To Endorse McCain/Palin:
The National Rifle Association said Thursday it plans to endorse Sen. John McCain and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, citing Sen. Barack Obama's "anti-gun record."
"We will encourage gun owners, hunters and anyone who values freedom to vote McCain-Palin on November 4," Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's Executive Vice President, said in the statement.
Obama has been on poor terms with gun rights advocates, especially since his controversial remarks about rural residents of Pennsylvania were disclosed before the Pennsylvania Democratic primary. Obama lost to Sen. Hillary Clinton in that race despite investing substantial time campaigning in the battleground state.
The U.S. Supreme Court held for the first time in June of this year that the Second Amendment of the Constitution protects an individual right to own and carry a gun.
Obama Attack Ad:
Barack Obama's campaign is launching a new television ad that takes aim at John McCain's recently announced proposal to have the treasury buy Americans' bad mortgages.
"McCain would shift the burden from lenders to taxpayers, guaranteeing a loss of taxpayer money," the ad's narrator says.
"Who wins? The same lenders that caused the crisis in the first place."
Putting bad actors ahead of taxpayers? We can’t afford more of the same," the narrator also says.
McCain's original plan called for lenders to write down the value of the bad mortgages and take those losses. But the Republican presidential candidate unveiled a new $300 billion plan in response to the first question of Tuesday's presidential debate.
He said, "I would order the Secretary of Treasury to immediately buy up the bad home loan mortgages in America and renegotiate at the new value of those homes, at the diminished values of those homes, and let people make those - be able to make those payments and stay in their homes."
The government would convert failing mortgages into low-interest, FHA-insured loans.
See the ad here: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/10/09/vo.ad.tested.obama.cnn
Obama Purchasing 30 Min. of Network Air Time:
Barack Obama is buying 30 minutes of airtime on the major television networks just days before the presidential election, the Obama campaign confirms.
Sources with the Obama campaign say half hour blocks have been purchased on Wednesday, October 29 on CBS and NBC. The campaign is also in negotiations with Fox, though that day will conflict with the World Series if there is a game 6.
The buy was first reported by the Hollywood reporter earlier Thursday.
Evan Tracey of Campaign Media Analysis Group, CNN's consultant on ad spending, said it was unclear how much the blocs of air would cost, but noted 30 seconds alone in primetime usually runs between $80,000 and $125,000.
"This is a big platform, this is a big megaphone, the interest level is clearly there and people will watch," Tracey said.
Alaska Supreme Court Will Not Stop Palin Probe:
An investigation into Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's firing of her public safety commissioner can proceed, Alaska's Supreme Court ruled Thursday, clearing the way for a Friday report to the state Legislature on the issue.
The justices rejected an effort to halt the probe by the Republican vice presidential nominee's allies in the Legislature, who called the investigation an attempt by partisan Democrats to sabotage the GOP ticket.
The justices unanimously upheld an Anchorage judge's ruling last week that dismissed the Republican lawsuit and upheld subpoenas for top Palin allies.
Palin Ethics Report Kept Secret:
Sworn to secrecy, Alaska lawmakers have begun reviewing a lengthy and politically sensitive investigative report focusing on whether Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin abused her authority as governor.
The first-term Alaska governor has been accused of firing a state commissioner to settle a family dispute. But the report is also expected to touch on whether Palin's husband meddled in state affairs and whether her administration inappropriately accessed employee medical records.
The inquiry, approved by a legislative committee's bipartisan vote, began before Republican presidential nominee John McCain named Palin his running mate. Since then, the case has been dogged by accusations of political influence.
At their meeting Friday, lawmakers planned to vote to release the estimated 300-page report and some of the 1,000 or more pages of supporting documents. The 14-member legislative panel could recommend that the case be closed, that another committee continue to investigate, or that the matter be referred to criminal investigators.
In an effort to head off the report, McCain campaign spokesman Taylor Griffin released the campaign's own version of events. That report, which Griffin said was written by campaign staffers, says the Legislature has taken a legitimate policy dispute between a governor and one of her commissioners, and portrayed it as something inappropriate.
"The following document will prove Walt Monegan's dismissal was a result of his insubordination and budgetary clashes with Governor Palin and her administration," campaign officials wrote. "Trooper Wooten is a separate issue."
Biden Responds to Palin:
Joe Biden Thursday night told Sarah Palin not to lecture him on patriotism, after weeks of attacks mocking him for his statement the wealthy should be patriotic and pay higher taxes because not enough has been asked of them.
"Sarah Palin had great fun saying Joe Biden thinks paying taxes is patriotic. Well, let me tell you what Joe Biden thinks," the Delaware senator said at an outdoor rally. "Joe Biden thinks that anybody who takes millions of dollars offshore to avoid paying their fair share is unpatriotic."
The Obama-Biden campaign has accused John McCain of saying publicly he would close offshore banking loopholes, but saying otherwise in private.
"That is not patriotic and it will stop, it will stop in an Obama-Biden administration! Enough! I've had it up to here! Don't lecture me on patriotism," shouted Biden, getting drowned out by the applause of his supporters. "I'm dead tired of being taken advantage of. I'm getting tired of it."
Republican Backlash on McCain:
John McCain is facing a fresh round of anger from members of his own party deeply opposed to the Arizona senator's proposal for the federal government to purchase troubled mortgage loans.
The pointed backlash from several economic conservatives -- many of whom already distrust McCain's commitment to free-market principles -- couldn't come at a worse time for the Republican presidential nominee less than four weeks before Election Day as he stares at a significant deficit in national and state polls.
But at a time when McCain can't afford to worry about a lack of support from his party's base, several conservatives are openly criticizing the plan as a flagrant reward for reckless behavior among lenders.
In a sharply worded editorial on its Web site Thursday, the editors of The National Review -- an influential bastion of conservative thought -- derided the plan as "creating a level of moral hazard that is unacceptable" and called it a "gift to lenders who abandoned any sense of prudence during the boom years."
Prominent conservative blogger Michelle Malkin went one step further, calling the plan "rotten" and declaring on her blog, "We're Screwed '08."
More Attacks on McCain Health Care Plan:
With less than a month before Americans head to the polls, the liberal group Health Care for America Now released a series of ads Wednesday taking aim at Sen. John McCain and seven of his fellow Republican Congressional candidate’s health care plans.
“Under John McCain’s health care plan, 20 million people could lose insurance at work,” a woman who is battling cancer says. “He wants me to fight cancer and the insurance companies? Fine. I’ll take you both on.”
The group said it will spend $4.3 million on the 30-second TV and radio ads targeting McCain and seven congressional Republicans. The members of Congress will be personally targeted in their individual districts; ads attacking McCain will air in the crucial battleground state of Ohio.
Anger Is Crowd’s Overarching Emotion at McCain Rally:
There were shouts of "Nobama" and "Socialist" at the mention of the Democratic presidential nominee. There were boos, middle fingers turned up and thumbs turned down as a media caravan moved through the crowd Thursday for a midday town hall gathering featuring John McCain and Sarah Palin.
"It is absolutely vital that you take it to Obama, that you hit him where it hits, there's a soft spot," said James T. Harris, a local radio talk show host, who urged the Republican nominee to use Barack Obama's controversial former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., and others against him.
"We have the good Reverend Wright. We have [the Rev. Michael L. Pfleger. We have all of these shady characters that have surrounded him," Harris bellowed. "We have corruption here in Wisconsin and voting across the nation. I am begging you, sir. I am begging you. Take it to him."
Debate Coverage:
CNN Poll: Obama Won
A national poll of debate watchers suggests that Barack Obama won the second presidential debate.
Fifty-four percent of those questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey conducted after the debate ended said that Obama did the best job in the debate, with 30 percent saying John McCain performed better.
A majority, 54 percent, said Obama seemed to be the stronger leader during the debate, to 43 percent for McCain. By a greater than two to one margin — 65 percent to 28 percent — viewers thought Obama was more likeable during the debate.
"Obama had made some gains on the leadership issue even before the debate," said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "McCain's advantage on leadership shrunk from 19 points in September to just five points this weekend. If Obama can use this debate to convince Americans that he is a stronger leader than McCain, he may be difficult to defeat."
A majority of debate watchers polled thought Obama was more intelligent, by a 57 percent to 25 percent margin over McCain. Twice as many debate watchers also thought Obama more clearly expressed than McCain, with 60 percent giving the nod to the Democratic nominee and 30 percent to his GOP opponent.
New York Times:
Senators John McCain and Barack Obama debated for 90 minutes on Tuesday night before a nation in economic crisis, each promising anxious Americans that he had the better plan and vision to lead the country through what both men said was the most dire financial situation since the Great Depression. The gravity of the moment and the somber setting — a town-hall-style meeting in front of 80 selected voters who, when not asking questions, watched in silence, not applauding or laughing — produced an often stifled encounter, largely absent of dramatic confrontations or the personal exchanges that dominated the campaign over the past several days. There was no indication that the debate did anything to change the course of a campaign that appeared to be moving in Mr. Obama’s direction.
Mr. McCain chose not to use the evening — the second of three scheduled debates — to attack Mr. Obama’s background or character. But in a moment that caught the attention of people in both parties, he appeared agitated in criticizing Mr. Obama for a Senate vote he cast, referring to his opponent only as “that one.”
Mr. Obama placed the blame for the financial crisis on deregulation and the lack of fiscal discipline under President Bush, whom he repeatedly linked to Mr. McCain. Mr. McCain, at every opportunity, presented his opponent as an advocate of spending and higher taxes, while presenting himself as pragmatic, willing to reach across the aisle and sometimes at odds with Mr. Bush.
Mr. McCain sought to break through by highlighting a proposal under which the Treasury Department would buy up mortgages that had gone bad, and in effect refinance them at prices homeowners could afford.
Arriving in Nashville for the debate, Mr. McCain was under pressure to alter the dynamic of the race, with polls giving Mr. Obama an advantage nationally and in most battleground states and just four weeks left until Election Day. There were no obvious dramatic breakthrough moments by Mr. McCain; indeed, although the two men pummeled back and forth, it was Mr. Obama who more consistently drew sharp contrasts between the voting records and campaign promises of the two.
Mr. McCain kept his distance from the types of attacks on Mr. Obama’s background and character begun in recent days by his running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin. Not only did he not mention Bill Ayers, the 1960s radical that the McCain campaign — and Ms. Palin in particular — has sought to link to Mr. Obama, he did not mention Ms. Palin once.
Instead, standing in what he has long described as his favorite campaign setting – a town hall meeting, though one set up under extraordinary strict restrictions that limited any interaction between candidates and voter — he seemed more the McCain of an earlier campaign, repeatedly presenting himself as the agent who could end partisan division in Washington. Again and again, he criticized Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, invoking the names of such Democratic senators as Edward M. Kennedy and Russ Feingold, as well as his friend Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, who ran for vice president as a Democrat in 2000 but this year, as an independent, has endorsed Mr. McCain.
“I have a clear record of bipartisanship,” he said “The situation today cries out for bipartisanship. Senator Obama has never taken on his leaders of his party on a single issue. And we need to reform.”
Washington post:
Winner: That One
After their second debate, both Barack Obama and John McCain shook hands with the Nashville audience of 80 uncommitted voters. Both were well-received. But Obama stayed longer, and with McCain out of the room, the affection from the swing voters increased. He was mobbed, patted, beamed at, embraced. One woman wiggled up next to him. At one point, about 15 voters posed for a group picture like it was the last day of camp. The "Nashville '08 Debate" T-shirts are in the mail.
These uncommitted voters wanted to be next to Barack Obama, and the adulation from the audience helps explain why he won the debate. In the post-debate polls on CNN and CBS, he was the clear winner, and he also won Fox's focus group.
Obama's likeability is good for him and bad for McCain, of course, but it also undercuts McCain's credibility. It exposes the picture McCain has been painting of Obama in the last few days as a caricature. Since McCain's slide in the polls, he has started personal attacks questioning Obama's character and values. "Who is the real Barack Obama?" McCain asks on the stump and in his ads. Sarah Palin says Obama isn't from "regular" America. He's out of the mainstream, aides regularly say.
That cartoon version of Obama didn't show up for the 90-minute debate Tuesday. If it had, those audience members would have been waving garlic as they fled from the room rather than sticking around so they could tell their neighbors about it.
Instead, what they saw was a Democrat saying, "We will kill Bin Laden. We will crush al-Qaida." He said he thought America was a force for good. Obama also got to repeat those elements of his biography—his mother's death from cancer and his modest upbringing—that contradict the image of him as a spooky alien.
McCain, meanwhile, did not take Sarah Palin's advice. He did not attack. He pressed Obama repeatedly on issues, but he didn't attack Obama's character. (Don't worry, he will again tomorrow.) McCain stressed that he had a record people could check, while Obama offered nothing but rhetoric. That's fine as far as it goes, but McCain needs more.
McCain is in a tough spot. He's behind. Obama has the momentum, and McCain needs to take it away. He didn't necessarily do poorly—and he did much better on foreign policy than on domestic matters. But McCain needed to change the dynamic. You could see him trying. He pressed Obama on his opposition to the surge, the penalty Obama would impose on those who didn't sign up for a health-care plan, even that he was speaking too long. But this was all small stuff. A town-hall debate is a hard place to change the dynamic, and yet there are few opportunities in the remaining 27 days where he has such a big chance.
Polls Lean in Obama’s Favor
Many of the political pundits have been saying for the past week that the Presidential Election is now Barack Obama’s to lose. The reason why a majority of those that are closely following this campaign are able to say that is because of the POLLS.
Here’s a break down of the key states that Senator Obama has gained a lead over Senator McCain during the past weeks. We’ll take you through all of the major battleground states to show you what the polls are showing now, vs. two weeks ago vs. one month ago. These polls are taken from averages at www.realclearpolitics.com. As you’re reading, keep in mind that the margin of error is generally 2-4 points.
Once you’ve checked out all of the polls numbers, try creating your own electoral map to see which candidate is going to get the 270 Electoral Votes needed to win the election. There is an interactive one here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=1
National Average:
Today: Obama leads by 6.2
Two weeks ago: Obama up by 5.8
One month ago: Obama and McCain TIED.
Two months ago: Obama up by 3.2
Ohio (20 electoral votes):
Today: Obama leads by 3.1
Two weeks ago: Obama up by 2.0
One month ago: McCain up by 1.9
Two months ago: McCain up by 1.5
Pennsylvania (21 EV):
Today: Obama leads by 13.8
Two weeks ago: Obama up by 7.9
One month ago: Obama up by only 1.6
Two months ago: Obama up by 6.8
Michigan (17 EV):
Today: Obama leads by 8.2
Two weeks ago: Obama up by 7.0
One month ago: Obama up by 2.0
Two months ago: Obama up by 3.2
Note: The McCain campaign has now pulled much of their resources out of Mich.
Wisconsin (10 EV):
Today: Obama leads by 8.8
Two weeks ago: Obama up by 5.0
One month ago: Obama up by 2.7
Two months ago: Obama up by 7.2
New Hampshire (4 EV):
Today: Obama leads by 10.4
Two weeks ago: Obama up by 5.6
One month ago: Obama up by 3.3
Two months ago: Obama up by 1.4
Virginia (13 EV):
Today: Obama leads by 5.1
Two weeks ago: Obama up by 2.4
One month ago: McCain up by 1.4
Two months ago: McCain up by 0.6
Florida (27 EV):
Today: Obama leads by 3.1
Two weeks ago: Obama up by 3.0
One month ago: McCain up by 5.0
Two months ago: McCain up by 1.8
Missouri (11 EV):
Today: McCain leads by 0.4
Two weeks ago: McCain up by 1.7
One month ago: McCain up by 6.6
Two months ago: McCain up by 2.3
Colorado (9 EV):
Today: Obama leads by 4.0
Two weeks ago: Obama up by 4.4
One month ago: Obama up by 0.6
Two months ago: McCain up by 0.5
New Mexico (5 EV):
Today: Obama leads by 7.3
Two weeks ago: Obama up by 7.8
One month ago: Obama up by 3.8
Almost two months ago: Obama up by 1.0
Nevada (5 EV):
Today: Obama leads by 3.0
Two weeks ago: Obama up by 1.8
One month ago: McCain up by 1.0
Two months ago: Obama and McCain were TIED
Fact Checks:
McCains Proposed Health Care Tax Credit:
The Statement: At a campaign stop Saturday, Oct. 4, in Newport News, Virginia, Sen. Barack Obama discussed Sen. John McCain's health care plan. He argued that many people would lose their employer-provided health insurance, and would be left trying to buy health insurance plans for their families with the $5,000 tax credit the McCain plan offers. Obama said, "What Senator McCain doesn't tell you is that the average cost of a family health care plan these days is more than twice that much — $12,680. So where would that leave you? Broke."
The Facts: The figure Obama provided, $12,680, comes from a study published last month in the journal Health Affairs. That study found that "average annual premiums in 2008 are $4,704 for single coverage and $12,680 for family coverage."
That same study also reported the average cost workers pay for employer-provided health care coverage is $721 for singles and $3,354 for family coverage. The rest is covered by the employer. Those figures back up a conclusion from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center — that McCain's health plan, offering a tax credit of $2,500 per individual and $5,000 per family, initially would be a net tax cut for many. As the CNN Truth Squad has previously reported, the center calls McCain's health care plan a tax cut for virtually all Americans through 2013 and for the middle-class through 2018, which is as far as the center has projected. But the center says long-term, some of those benefits might erode if the tax credit did not keep up with costs of health care.
Obama, at his campaign stop, cited studies that suggest millions of Americans may lose their employer-provided health insurance under McCain's health plan. A study published in Health Affairs in September did estimate that 20 million people may lose employer-based coverage and take on other insurance coverage, and that plans would likely be "less generous." However, McCain says his plan would give people more options, increase competition, and lower costs.
It's impossible to say definitively whether millions of people would lose their health insurance under McCain's plan. And, how much it takes to leave someone "broke" depends on the family.
The Verdict: True. In the narrow set of circumstances Obama lays out, workers who lose employer-sponsored health insurance would need to spend "more than twice" the amount of McCain's tax credit in order to maintain the same plan they have today.
Does Obama Pal Around with Terrorists?
The Statement: Republican vice presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin said Saturday, October 4, that Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama is "someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country."
The Facts: In making the charge at a fund-raising event in Englewood, Colorado, and a rally in Carson, California, Palin was referring at least in part to William Ayers, a 1960s radical. In both appearances, Palin cited a front-page article in Saturday's New York Times detailing the working relationship between Obama and Ayers.
In the 1960s, Ayers was a founding member of the radical Weather Underground group that carried out a string of bombings of federal buildings, including the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol, in protest against the Vietnam War. The now-defunct group was labeled a "domestic terrorist group" by the FBI, and Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn — also a Weather Underground member — spent 10 years as fugitives in the 1970s. Federal charges against them were dropped due to FBI misconduct in gathering evidence against them, and they resurfaced in 1980. Both Ayers and Dohrn ultimately became university professors in Chicago, with Ayers, 63, now an education professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
Obama's Chicago home is in the same neighborhood where Ayers and Dohrn live. Beginning in 1995, Ayers and Obama worked with the non-profit Chicago Annenberg Challenge on a huge school improvement project. The Annenberg Challenge was for cities to compete for $50 million grants to improve public education. Ayers fought to bring the grant to Chicago, and Obama was recruited onto the board. Also from 1999 through 2001 both were board members on the Woods Fund, a charitable foundation that gave money to various causes, including the Trinity United Church that Obama attended and Northwestern University Law Schools' Children and Family Justice Center, where Dohrn worked.
CNN's review of project records found nothing to suggest anything inappropriate in the volunteer projects in which the two men were involved.
Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt told CNN that after meeting Obama through the Annenberg project, Ayers hosted a campaign event for him that same year when then-Illinois state Sen. Alice Palmer, who planned to run for Congress, introduced the young community organizer as her chosen successor. LaBolt also said the two have not spoken by phone or exchanged e-mail messages since Obama came to the U.S. Senate in 2005 and last met more than a year ago when they encountered each other on the street in their Hyde Park neighborhood.
The extent of Obama's relationship with Ayers came up during the Democratic presidential primaries earlier this year, and Obama explained it by saying, "This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood … the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago — when I was 8 years old — somehow reflects on me and my values doesn't make much sense."
The McCain campaign did not respond Saturday to a request for elaboration on Palin's use of the plural "terrorists."
Verdict: False. There is no indication that Ayers and Obama are now "palling around," or that they have had an ongoing relationship in the past three years. Also, there is nothing to suggest that Ayers is now involved in terrorist activity or that other Obama associates are.
Does McCain Support Tax-Havens for Corporations?
The Statement: In a campaign speech Friday, September 3 in Abington, Pennsylvania, Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama said Republican Sen. John McCain supports helping businesses avoid paying taxes. "My opponent supports tax havens that let companies avoid paying taxes here in America — tax havens that cost $100 billion every year. (W)hat will work is shutting down those tax havens and closing corporate loopholes."
The Facts: During an August 2007 trip to Bermuda, McCain told the Royal Gazette newspaper, that country's sole daily, that he was against legislation in Congress designed to clamp down on U.S. businesses that establish offices overseas in so-called "tax havens". "The industry … that's had such phenomenal success, has been good for both nations — I would oppose any measures that would upset that," the paper quoted him as saying.
But in the past, McCain had spoken out against such practices. "More and more U.S. companies are using this highly profitable accounting scheme that allows a company to move its legal residence to offshore tax havens such as Bermuda, where there is no corporate income tax, and shield its profits from taxes," he said during a 2002 Senate debate. "I applaud efforts to discourage this practice."
On the campaign trail, McCain has called for lowering the corporate tax rate to encourage companies to keep their offices in the United States. "If you're a business person, and you can locate any place in the world, then, obviously, if you go to the country where it's 11 percent tax versus 35 percent, you're going to be able to create jobs, increase your business, make more investment," he said during the September 26 presidential debate. "I want to cut that business tax. I want to cut it so that businesses will remain in the United States of America and create jobs."
A report released in July by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations said that some overseas banks help hide tax evasion "and add to the offshore abuses that cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $100 billion dollars each year." Subcommittee Chairman Sen. Carl Levin, a Democrat, and ranking minority member Sen. Norm Coleman, a Republican, condemned the practice in a written statement.
The Verdict: True, but incomplete. McCain did say he opposed cracking down on the "havens" and the $100 billion figure Obama cited is true, according to a Senate report. But McCain had spoken out against the offshore banking practice in the past and he advocates cutting tax rates in the United States to make moving offshore less attractive.
Obama’s Health Care Plan:
The Statement: In the vice-presidential debate on Thursday, October 2, in St. Louis, Republican nominee Gov. Sarah Palin said Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama proposes "to mandate health care coverage and have (a) universal, government-run program. And unless you're pleased with the way the federal government has been running anything lately, I don't think that it's going to be real pleasing for Americans to consider health care being taken over by the feds."
The Facts: Obama's health care plan, as described on his campaign Web site, does include a government mandate that all children be covered by health insurance. Beyond that, while the plan is "universal" in the sense that it aims to make health care coverage available to every American, it is not "universal" in the sense that a government mandate would require coverage for every adult. On Saturday, October 4 at a rally in Newport News, Virginia, Obama said his goal is to provide "affordable, accessible health care for every single American."
The Obama plan would increase the federal government's role in health care by requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing or chronic conditions and requiring all employers other than very small businesses to offer coverage to their employees or pay part of the costs to cover them. But it would also include existing private insurance options, would use existing providers and plans and would allow people to choose their own doctors and methods of insurance. According to Obama's Web site, people who are pleased with their current health care coverage and happy with their current doctor will not have to change anything. Employers that cannot afford health care for their employees would be eligible for subsidies.
The plan does propose creating a National Health Insurance Exchange. While it is not clear exactly how the exchange would operate and who would oversee it, according to Obama's Web site people could use the exchange to choose a private plan or a new public plan similar to that offered to federal employees and members of Congress.
The Verdict: Mostly False. Obama's plan would increase government's role in health care, and mandate coverage for children, but would include existing health care systems and not mandate universal coverage. There is no evidence in the plan to support Palin's claim that health care would be "taken over by the feds."
McCain’s Plan Gives 200 Million No Relief?
The Statement:
At a campaign stop Friday, October 3, in Abington, Pennsylvania, Sen. Barack Obama argued his opponent, Sen. John McCain, is "out of touch." Obama asked, "How else could he come up with an economic plan that leaves out more than 100 million middle-class taxpayers from any relief whatsoever?"
The Facts:
CNN/Money reported last month that the Obama campaign "says it bases that number on McCain's proposal to increase the exemption tax filers take for dependents, and adds that it is the 'only middle-class tax cut' the Republican nominee has offered."
The CNN Truth Squad has previously reported that the Tax Policy Center — the nonpartisan agency whose figures the Obama campaign regularly cites — says some members of the middle class would also benefit from other parts of McCain's tax plan.
Obama's assertion also ignores McCain's health-care plan altogether, which is part of his tax plan. As the CNN Truth Squad has reported, the Tax Policy Center says virtually all Americans would come out ahead initially under McCain's health plan, and the middle class would benefit through 2018, which is far ahead as the center projected.
Len Burman, the center's director, told CNN Friday, if you include McCain's health plan, Obama's assertion is "patently untrue." And Burman said that while "something like 100 million people are not affected by the McCain individual income tax cuts," millions would benefit from the corporate tax cuts McCain proposes — "anyone who owns stock, and that includes retirees with modest pensions and 401(k)s."
In his remarks, Obama referred to McCain's "economic plan" — not solely to his plan for individual income taxes.
In Thursday night's debate, Obama's running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, was even more off the mark, saying that under McCain's tax proposal, "100 million families, middle-class families, households to be precise, they got not a single change, they got not a single break in taxes." One hundred million "families" or "households" would include the vast majority of the U.S. population.
Verdict:
False. The Obama campaign bases its assertion on just one part of McCain's economic plan, while ignoring the tax consequences of the rest of the McCain plan.
Potential Impact of McCain’s Health Care Plan:
The Statement: During a campaign speech Wednesday, October 8, in Indianapolis, Indiana, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama criticized Republican opponent Sen. John McCain's health care plan. "Senator McCain didn't tell us about the studies that say his plan would cause 20 million Americans to lose their health insurance from their employer," Obama said.
The Facts: Obama is referring to one of the key elements of McCain's health care plan. McCain says his plan would eliminate the existing tax exemption for insurance premiums that are paid through employers. But in a major shift in how most Americans are covered, he would replace it with a health-insurance tax credit of $2,500 for individuals or $5,000 for families. The idea is that this money would allow workers to seek out and buy their own insurance.
"Eliminating the tax exclusion would greatly reduce the number of people who obtain health insurance through their employers," according to an analysis of McCain's plan by four professors from Columbia University, Harvard, Purdue and the University of Michigan, published on the Web site of the policy journal "Health Affairs." The analysis predicts "many employers would be quick to drop health benefits" because of such a change. It estimates that about 20 million people would lose their health coverage at work under the plan. But it says roughly that same number would enroll in "nongroup" coverage.
The McCain campaign says that "families will be able to choose the insurance provider that suits them best and the money would be sent directly to the insurance provider." The "Health Affairs" study says people likely would be able to find some nongroup coverage for less than they pay through their employers, but that this often would be because those plans offer less
coverage.
The Verdict: True, but incomplete. While the number of people analysts predict would lose coverage through their jobs is in line with the number Obama uses, most of those workers would not become uninsured under McCain's plan — they'd just get their health insurance in a different way.
Did McCain Say Iraq War Would Be Easy?
The Statement
Democratic Sen. Barack Obama said at the Oct. 7 presidential debate in Nashville, Tennessee, that when Republican opponent Sen. John McCain "was cheerleading the president to go into Iraq, he suggested it was going to be quick and easy, we'd be greeted as liberators."
The Facts
McCain repeatedly made comments like the ones Obama describes during the run-up to the March 20, 2003, invasion and in the days after.
On CNN's Larry King Live on Sept. 24, 2002, McCain said "I believe the success will be fairly easy." He said on CNN's Late Edition on Sept. 29, 2002 that "I believe that we can win an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time." He made the comments more than two weeks before the Senate voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refused to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.
McCain also said, on MSNBC's Hardball on March 24, 2003, that "there's no doubt in my mind that once these people (the Saddam Hussein regime) are gone that we will be welcomed as liberators."
The Verdict: True.
Has Obama Never ‘Taken On” Democratic Leaders?
The Statement
Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain said at the Oct. 7 presidential debate in Nashville, Tennessee, that Democratic opponent Sen. Barack Obama has "never taken on his leaders of his party on a single issue."
The Facts
Congressional Quarterly examined Obama's votes in the Senate. According to the analysis, Obama has voted with the Democratic Party 96 percent of the time during his tenure in the Senate.
CQ — a non-partisan and highly respected journal of congressional affairs — says McCain has voted in line with the Republican Party 86 percent of the time. McCain's total number of votes is much larger, since he has been in the Senate since 1986, while Obama is in his first term.
CQ also looked at what it deemed to be "key" votes. That analysis found Obama voted with his party on 29 out of 30 votes, which came out to 97 percent of the time. For McCain, CQ said there have been 335 "key" votes over the years, and that he voted with his party on 266 of them — 79 percent of the time.
However, the journal noted instances when Obama voted outside the party. In 2005, Obama was one of only 18 Democrats to vote in favor of a business-backed bill to limit class action lawsuits by forcing the most-expensive into federal court. The majority of Democrats voted against the bill, which was opposed by consumer groups and the trial lawyers lobby.
The journal also noted that Obama sided with Sen. Jim DeMint, R-South Carolina, who wanted greater disclosure of earmarks in an ethics bill, by voting against an attempt by Obama's home-state mentor, Democratic Whip Richard J. Durbin, to kill DeMint's disclosure amendment.
And, Obama has criticized leading Democrats, including former presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-New York, for voting to authorize the Iraq war in 2002. However, many of those comments were made in the context of the Democratic primary campaign and that vote was prior to his time in the Senate.
Verdict: False. While McCain is correct that Obama has supported the Democratic leadership almost all of the time, to say he's never differed with them is not true.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Remarks of Senator Barack Obama
Daytona Beach, Florida
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Here in Florida, less than two months before election day, I know you’ve all been hearing a lot about politics. And we all know how important women will be in determining the outcome of this election. But as I stand here with all of you, I know this isn’t just about politics for me. This is personal. Because I come here today not just as a candidate for President – but as a son, a grandson, a husband and a father who’s seen firsthand, throughout my life, the challenges so many women face every day in this country.
Growing up, I saw my mother struggle to put herself through school and raise me and my sister on her own. She once had to turn to food stamps, but thanks to student loans, scholarships and a lot of hard work, her kids could attend some of the best schools in the country. I think women like her who work hard and pour everything they’ve got into their kids should be able to pay the bills and get ahead for a change – that’s why I’m running for President.
I saw my grandmother, who helped raise me, work her way up from the secretarial pool to middle management at a bank. But I also saw her hit a glass ceiling, as men no more qualified than she was moved up the corporate ladder ahead of her. I think women like her should be paid fairly and have the same chance to succeed as everyone else – that’s why I’m running for President.
I’ve seen my wife, Michelle, the rock of the Obama family, juggling work and parenting with more skill and grace than anyone I know. But I’ve seen how it’s torn at her. How sometimes, when she’s with the girls, she’s worrying about work – and when she’s at work, she’s worrying about the girls. It’s a feeling I share every day – especially these days, when I’m away so much, out on the campaign trail. And I think it should be a little easier for parents in this country to raise their kids and do their jobs – that’s why I’m running for President.
I know how hard the women of this country are working. I know the anxiety so many of you are feeling right now, as we stand in the midst of the most serious financial crisis of our time. We’ve seen three of America’s five largest investment banks fail or be sold off in distress. Our housing market is in shambles, and Monday brought the worst losses on Wall Street since the day after September 11th.
Everywhere you look, the economic news is troubling. But for so many of you, it isn’t really news at all. You’ve seen your home values falling, gas prices rising, and bills piling up month after month. So you’re working longer hours, or working more than one job just to get by. And then there are the jobs you do once the workday ends. Jobs like paying the bills, buying the groceries, making the dinner, doing the laundry, enforcing the bedtimes – the jobs you don’t get paid for, but that hold our families together. Jobs that still, even in the year 2008, too often fall to women.
So I know these are difficult days. But here’s what I also know. I know we can steer ourselves out of this economic crisis. That’s who we are. That’s what we’ve always done as Americans. Our nation has faced difficult times before. And at each of those moments, we’ve risen to meet the challenge because we’ve never forgotten that fundamental truth – that here in America, our destiny is not written for us, but by us.
But another thing I know is that we can’t steer ourselves out of this crisis by heading in the same, disastrous direction. We can’t change direction with a new driver who wants to follow the same old map. And that’s what this election is all about.
Yesterday, my opponent, Senator McCain, gave a speech in which his big solution to this worldwide economic crisis was to blame me for it. This is a guy who’s spent a quarter century in Washington. And after spending the entire campaign saying I haven’t been in Washington long enough, he apparently now is willing to assign me responsibility for all of Washington’s failures. I think it’s pretty clear that Senator McCain is a little panicked, and that at this point, he is willing to say anything, do anything, change any position, violate any principle to try and win this election. And that is sad to see. That’s not the politics we need.
So let’s be clear.
There’s only one candidate who – just this week – said a line he’s repeated 16 times on this campaign – quote – “the fundamentals of our economy are strong.”
There’s only one candidate who’s called himself “fundamentally a deregulator” when deregulation is part of the problem. My opponent actually wrote in the current issue of a health care magazine – the current issue – quote – “Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.”
So let me get this straight – he wants to run health care like they’ve been running Wall Street. Well, Senator, I know some folks on Main Street who aren’t going to think that’s a good idea.
There’s only one candidate whose choice for Treasury Secretary is a man who thinks we’re in a “mental recession” and has called the United States of America a – quote – “nation of whiners.”
There’s only one candidate whose campaign is being run by seven of Washington’s most powerful lobbyists.
And folks, it isn’t me.
I don’t take a dime from Washington lobbyists and special interests. They do not run my campaign. They will not run my White House. And they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I’m President of the United States.
So when John McCain says that lobbyists “won’t even get past the front gate” at his White House, my question is – who’s going to stop them?
Those seven lobbyists?
His campaign manager?
The economic advisor, who got a $40 million golden parachute when she was fired as a CEO?
Or maybe the 26 advisors and fundraisers who lobbied for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?
I mean, give me a break.
The same day my opponent attacked me for being associated with a Fannie Mae guy I’ve talked to for maybe 5 minutes in my entire life – the same day he did that – the head of the lobbying shop at Fannie Mae turned around and said wait a minute – “when I see photographs of Senator McCain’s staff, it looks to me like the team of lobbyists who used to report to me.”
Folks, you can’t make this stuff up.
So when you hear John McCain talk about taking on the ol’ boy network in Washington – know this, on the McCain campaign, that’s called a staff meeting.
At this defining moment, when the stakes could not be higher, we need real change – change that’s more than just a slogan, change that actually makes a difference in people’s lives. And that’s the kind of change I’ll bring to Washington when I’m President of the United States of America.
The other day, I laid out a few principals for a plan that would establish a real and permanent solution to our economic crisis. First, we have to make sure that whatever plan our government comes up with works not just for Wall Street, but for Main Street. We have to make sure it helps folks cope with rising prices, and sparks job creation, and helps homeowners stay in their homes. That’s the kind of help folks need right now.
We also have to make sure that any plan we come up with is temporary and restores tough oversight and accountability on Wall Street. Third, I want to make sure that we’re not rewarding some of the very CEOs who helped cause this mess. We’re not going to stand for that.
But if we’re serious about putting our economy on a firmer footing and lifting up our hardworking families, there are some additional changes we’re going to have to make, as well.
Because it’s an outrage that women are still making 77 cents for every dollar that men make in this country. Now, my opponent actually opposed legislation to help women get equal pay. Because, in his view, the reason women aren’t being paid fairly isn’t discrimination on the job – it’s because they need more education and training.
That isn’t change.
Change is finally closing that pay gap. It’s unacceptable that women in this country are losing thousands of dollars each year – money you could use for gas or groceries or college tuition. This isn’t just an economic issue for millions of American families – it’s about our most fundamental values as a nation: that we treat people fairly, that we reward hard work, and there are no second class citizens in our workplaces. That’s why I helped pass a law in Illinois to give 330,000 more women protection from paycheck discrimination. That’s why I co-sponsored legislation in the U.S. Senate to make it easier for women to challenge pay discrimination. And that’s why I won’t give up until women in this country are paid what they’ve earned, and not a penny less. That’s what change is.
Change isn’t a President who thinks Roe vs. Wade is a flawed decision and whose party platform outlaws abortion, even in cases of rape and incest. Change is a President who will stand up for choice – who understands that five men on the Supreme Court don’t know better than women and their doctors what’s best for a woman’s health. That’s why I fought so hard in Illinois and in Washington to stop laws that would’ve restricted choice. That’s why I’m committed to appointing judges who understand how law operates in our daily lives, judges who will uphold the values at the core of our Constitution. And that’s why I will never back down in defending a woman’s right to choose.
Change means refusing to accept an America where staying home with a new baby is treated as an unpaid vacation, and taking time off to take a sick parent to the hospital is a fireable offense. Change means making sure people have paid sick days and tax credits to help with childcare, and expanding the Family and Medical Leave Act to help millions of people care for their kids and their parents and participate in school activities like parent-teacher conferences and assemblies. Because no matter what you do for a living, we can all agree that raising our kids and taking care of our families is the most important job we have.
Change means keeping the promise of affordable, accessible health care for every single American. Under my plan, if you have health insurance, nothing changes for you, except that my plan will lower your health care costs. If you don’t, you’ll be able to get the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves.
And I’ll stop insurance companies from discriminating against those who are sick and need care the most. This is personal to me. My mother died of ovarian cancer at the age of 53. And I will never forget her lying in a hospital bed, in her final months, fighting with the insurance company over whether they’d cover her treatments because they claimed cancer was a pre-existing condition. That’s wrong, it’s not who we are, and we’re going to put an end to it.
Change means having a Vice President who’s spent his career working to improve women’s lives. Joe Biden wrote the Violence Against Women Act so we’d finally treat domestic violence like the heinous crime that it is. And in case you were wondering, John McCain voted against that legislation. As someone who raised small kids on his own, and took the train home every night from Washington to Delaware to tuck those kids into bed, Joe Biden also knows firsthand what it means to juggle work and family. And you won’t find a stronger champion for a woman’s right to choose than Joe Biden. So I’m proud to have him by my side in this campaign.
Finally, change means building an economy that rewards work, creates jobs you can raise a family on, and gives each of us the chance to get ahead. And let me tell you, when it comes to the economic policies we’ll pursue, Senator McCain and I couldn’t be more different.
John McCain voted nineteen times against raising the minimum wage – I’ll raise it.
He voted against Head Start, against hiring new teachers, against Pell Grants. I’ll invest in early childhood education, and recruit an army of new teachers to our schools, and provide a $4,000 tuition tax credit to help make college affordable for any middle class student who’s willing to serve their community or their country. You invest in America, America invests in you, and together, we’ll move this country forward.
He wants to give tax breaks to oil companies and companies that ship jobs overseas – I want to give a tax break to 95% of all working families and create jobs here at home by investing in renewable energy. And don’t be fooled by the tired old attacks my opponent is launching. He doesn’t want you to know this, but under my plan, tax rates will actually be lower than they were under Ronald Reagan. If you make less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increase one single dime. Not one dime. In fact, I offer three times the tax relief for middle-class families as Senator McCain does – because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle-class.
And I’ll protect Social Security, while John McCain wants to privatize it. Without Social Security half of elderly women would be living in poverty – half. But if my opponent had his way, the millions of Floridians who rely on it would’ve had their Social Security tied up in the stock market this week. Millions would’ve watched as the market tumbled and their nest egg disappeared before their eyes. Millions of families would’ve been scrambling to figure out how to give their mothers and fathers, their grandmothers and grandfathers, the secure retirement that every American deserves. So I know Senator McCain is talking about a “casino culture” on Wall Street – but the fact is, he’s the one who wants to gamble with your life savings.
So let’s be clear, when I’m President, we’re not going to gamble with Social Security. We’re not going to gamble with your ability to retire with dignity after a lifetime of hard work. We’re going to strengthen and protect Social Security so it’s a safety net our families can count on — today, tomorrow and always.
Florida, the stakes couldn’t be higher. The choice couldn’t be clearer. But still, we know that bringing the change we need won’t be easy. We know we’re up against a powerful, entrenched status quo in Washington that will say anything and do anything and fight with everything they’ve got to keep things just the way they are.
But I think we’re up for the challenge. We always have been. That’s why I’m standing here today. Because of what my mother and grandmother did for me – because of their hard work and sacrifice and unflagging love. That’s why all of us are here today – because of the women who came before us. Women who reached for the ballot and raised families and traveled those lonely roads to be the first ones in those boardrooms and courtrooms and battlefields and factory floors. Women like my friend Hillary Clinton who put those 18 million cracks in that glass ceiling so that my daughters – and all our sons and daughters – could dream a little bigger and reach a little higher.
Now it’s our turn. It’s our turn to make those sacrifices so the next generation doesn’t have to. Our turn to open the doors of opportunity that our daughters and granddaughters will one day walk through. Our turn to fulfill the promise of this great nation that each of us – no matter what our background or where we come from – each of us has the chance to make it if we try.
That’s what I think about whenever I get the chance to tuck my girls in at night. How I want them – and all our daughters – to have no limits on their dreams, no obstacles to their achievement, no goals beyond their reach. How I want them to have opportunities their mothers and grandmothers never could’ve imagined.
And I hope you’ll join me. I hope you’ll walk with me so that we can turn the page on the failed policies of the past. And if you’ll make that commitment – if you’ll knock on doors and make those calls and talk to your neighbors and give me your vote on November 4th, then together, we won’t just win an election, we will transform this nation.
Thank you, God bless you, and God bless America.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Here in Florida, less than two months before election day, I know you’ve all been hearing a lot about politics. And we all know how important women will be in determining the outcome of this election. But as I stand here with all of you, I know this isn’t just about politics for me. This is personal. Because I come here today not just as a candidate for President – but as a son, a grandson, a husband and a father who’s seen firsthand, throughout my life, the challenges so many women face every day in this country.
Growing up, I saw my mother struggle to put herself through school and raise me and my sister on her own. She once had to turn to food stamps, but thanks to student loans, scholarships and a lot of hard work, her kids could attend some of the best schools in the country. I think women like her who work hard and pour everything they’ve got into their kids should be able to pay the bills and get ahead for a change – that’s why I’m running for President.
I saw my grandmother, who helped raise me, work her way up from the secretarial pool to middle management at a bank. But I also saw her hit a glass ceiling, as men no more qualified than she was moved up the corporate ladder ahead of her. I think women like her should be paid fairly and have the same chance to succeed as everyone else – that’s why I’m running for President.
I’ve seen my wife, Michelle, the rock of the Obama family, juggling work and parenting with more skill and grace than anyone I know. But I’ve seen how it’s torn at her. How sometimes, when she’s with the girls, she’s worrying about work – and when she’s at work, she’s worrying about the girls. It’s a feeling I share every day – especially these days, when I’m away so much, out on the campaign trail. And I think it should be a little easier for parents in this country to raise their kids and do their jobs – that’s why I’m running for President.
I know how hard the women of this country are working. I know the anxiety so many of you are feeling right now, as we stand in the midst of the most serious financial crisis of our time. We’ve seen three of America’s five largest investment banks fail or be sold off in distress. Our housing market is in shambles, and Monday brought the worst losses on Wall Street since the day after September 11th.
Everywhere you look, the economic news is troubling. But for so many of you, it isn’t really news at all. You’ve seen your home values falling, gas prices rising, and bills piling up month after month. So you’re working longer hours, or working more than one job just to get by. And then there are the jobs you do once the workday ends. Jobs like paying the bills, buying the groceries, making the dinner, doing the laundry, enforcing the bedtimes – the jobs you don’t get paid for, but that hold our families together. Jobs that still, even in the year 2008, too often fall to women.
So I know these are difficult days. But here’s what I also know. I know we can steer ourselves out of this economic crisis. That’s who we are. That’s what we’ve always done as Americans. Our nation has faced difficult times before. And at each of those moments, we’ve risen to meet the challenge because we’ve never forgotten that fundamental truth – that here in America, our destiny is not written for us, but by us.
But another thing I know is that we can’t steer ourselves out of this crisis by heading in the same, disastrous direction. We can’t change direction with a new driver who wants to follow the same old map. And that’s what this election is all about.
Yesterday, my opponent, Senator McCain, gave a speech in which his big solution to this worldwide economic crisis was to blame me for it. This is a guy who’s spent a quarter century in Washington. And after spending the entire campaign saying I haven’t been in Washington long enough, he apparently now is willing to assign me responsibility for all of Washington’s failures. I think it’s pretty clear that Senator McCain is a little panicked, and that at this point, he is willing to say anything, do anything, change any position, violate any principle to try and win this election. And that is sad to see. That’s not the politics we need.
So let’s be clear.
There’s only one candidate who – just this week – said a line he’s repeated 16 times on this campaign – quote – “the fundamentals of our economy are strong.”
There’s only one candidate who’s called himself “fundamentally a deregulator” when deregulation is part of the problem. My opponent actually wrote in the current issue of a health care magazine – the current issue – quote – “Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.”
So let me get this straight – he wants to run health care like they’ve been running Wall Street. Well, Senator, I know some folks on Main Street who aren’t going to think that’s a good idea.
There’s only one candidate whose choice for Treasury Secretary is a man who thinks we’re in a “mental recession” and has called the United States of America a – quote – “nation of whiners.”
There’s only one candidate whose campaign is being run by seven of Washington’s most powerful lobbyists.
And folks, it isn’t me.
I don’t take a dime from Washington lobbyists and special interests. They do not run my campaign. They will not run my White House. And they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I’m President of the United States.
So when John McCain says that lobbyists “won’t even get past the front gate” at his White House, my question is – who’s going to stop them?
Those seven lobbyists?
His campaign manager?
The economic advisor, who got a $40 million golden parachute when she was fired as a CEO?
Or maybe the 26 advisors and fundraisers who lobbied for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?
I mean, give me a break.
The same day my opponent attacked me for being associated with a Fannie Mae guy I’ve talked to for maybe 5 minutes in my entire life – the same day he did that – the head of the lobbying shop at Fannie Mae turned around and said wait a minute – “when I see photographs of Senator McCain’s staff, it looks to me like the team of lobbyists who used to report to me.”
Folks, you can’t make this stuff up.
So when you hear John McCain talk about taking on the ol’ boy network in Washington – know this, on the McCain campaign, that’s called a staff meeting.
At this defining moment, when the stakes could not be higher, we need real change – change that’s more than just a slogan, change that actually makes a difference in people’s lives. And that’s the kind of change I’ll bring to Washington when I’m President of the United States of America.
The other day, I laid out a few principals for a plan that would establish a real and permanent solution to our economic crisis. First, we have to make sure that whatever plan our government comes up with works not just for Wall Street, but for Main Street. We have to make sure it helps folks cope with rising prices, and sparks job creation, and helps homeowners stay in their homes. That’s the kind of help folks need right now.
We also have to make sure that any plan we come up with is temporary and restores tough oversight and accountability on Wall Street. Third, I want to make sure that we’re not rewarding some of the very CEOs who helped cause this mess. We’re not going to stand for that.
But if we’re serious about putting our economy on a firmer footing and lifting up our hardworking families, there are some additional changes we’re going to have to make, as well.
Because it’s an outrage that women are still making 77 cents for every dollar that men make in this country. Now, my opponent actually opposed legislation to help women get equal pay. Because, in his view, the reason women aren’t being paid fairly isn’t discrimination on the job – it’s because they need more education and training.
That isn’t change.
Change is finally closing that pay gap. It’s unacceptable that women in this country are losing thousands of dollars each year – money you could use for gas or groceries or college tuition. This isn’t just an economic issue for millions of American families – it’s about our most fundamental values as a nation: that we treat people fairly, that we reward hard work, and there are no second class citizens in our workplaces. That’s why I helped pass a law in Illinois to give 330,000 more women protection from paycheck discrimination. That’s why I co-sponsored legislation in the U.S. Senate to make it easier for women to challenge pay discrimination. And that’s why I won’t give up until women in this country are paid what they’ve earned, and not a penny less. That’s what change is.
Change isn’t a President who thinks Roe vs. Wade is a flawed decision and whose party platform outlaws abortion, even in cases of rape and incest. Change is a President who will stand up for choice – who understands that five men on the Supreme Court don’t know better than women and their doctors what’s best for a woman’s health. That’s why I fought so hard in Illinois and in Washington to stop laws that would’ve restricted choice. That’s why I’m committed to appointing judges who understand how law operates in our daily lives, judges who will uphold the values at the core of our Constitution. And that’s why I will never back down in defending a woman’s right to choose.
Change means refusing to accept an America where staying home with a new baby is treated as an unpaid vacation, and taking time off to take a sick parent to the hospital is a fireable offense. Change means making sure people have paid sick days and tax credits to help with childcare, and expanding the Family and Medical Leave Act to help millions of people care for their kids and their parents and participate in school activities like parent-teacher conferences and assemblies. Because no matter what you do for a living, we can all agree that raising our kids and taking care of our families is the most important job we have.
Change means keeping the promise of affordable, accessible health care for every single American. Under my plan, if you have health insurance, nothing changes for you, except that my plan will lower your health care costs. If you don’t, you’ll be able to get the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves.
And I’ll stop insurance companies from discriminating against those who are sick and need care the most. This is personal to me. My mother died of ovarian cancer at the age of 53. And I will never forget her lying in a hospital bed, in her final months, fighting with the insurance company over whether they’d cover her treatments because they claimed cancer was a pre-existing condition. That’s wrong, it’s not who we are, and we’re going to put an end to it.
Change means having a Vice President who’s spent his career working to improve women’s lives. Joe Biden wrote the Violence Against Women Act so we’d finally treat domestic violence like the heinous crime that it is. And in case you were wondering, John McCain voted against that legislation. As someone who raised small kids on his own, and took the train home every night from Washington to Delaware to tuck those kids into bed, Joe Biden also knows firsthand what it means to juggle work and family. And you won’t find a stronger champion for a woman’s right to choose than Joe Biden. So I’m proud to have him by my side in this campaign.
Finally, change means building an economy that rewards work, creates jobs you can raise a family on, and gives each of us the chance to get ahead. And let me tell you, when it comes to the economic policies we’ll pursue, Senator McCain and I couldn’t be more different.
John McCain voted nineteen times against raising the minimum wage – I’ll raise it.
He voted against Head Start, against hiring new teachers, against Pell Grants. I’ll invest in early childhood education, and recruit an army of new teachers to our schools, and provide a $4,000 tuition tax credit to help make college affordable for any middle class student who’s willing to serve their community or their country. You invest in America, America invests in you, and together, we’ll move this country forward.
He wants to give tax breaks to oil companies and companies that ship jobs overseas – I want to give a tax break to 95% of all working families and create jobs here at home by investing in renewable energy. And don’t be fooled by the tired old attacks my opponent is launching. He doesn’t want you to know this, but under my plan, tax rates will actually be lower than they were under Ronald Reagan. If you make less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increase one single dime. Not one dime. In fact, I offer three times the tax relief for middle-class families as Senator McCain does – because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle-class.
And I’ll protect Social Security, while John McCain wants to privatize it. Without Social Security half of elderly women would be living in poverty – half. But if my opponent had his way, the millions of Floridians who rely on it would’ve had their Social Security tied up in the stock market this week. Millions would’ve watched as the market tumbled and their nest egg disappeared before their eyes. Millions of families would’ve been scrambling to figure out how to give their mothers and fathers, their grandmothers and grandfathers, the secure retirement that every American deserves. So I know Senator McCain is talking about a “casino culture” on Wall Street – but the fact is, he’s the one who wants to gamble with your life savings.
So let’s be clear, when I’m President, we’re not going to gamble with Social Security. We’re not going to gamble with your ability to retire with dignity after a lifetime of hard work. We’re going to strengthen and protect Social Security so it’s a safety net our families can count on — today, tomorrow and always.
Florida, the stakes couldn’t be higher. The choice couldn’t be clearer. But still, we know that bringing the change we need won’t be easy. We know we’re up against a powerful, entrenched status quo in Washington that will say anything and do anything and fight with everything they’ve got to keep things just the way they are.
But I think we’re up for the challenge. We always have been. That’s why I’m standing here today. Because of what my mother and grandmother did for me – because of their hard work and sacrifice and unflagging love. That’s why all of us are here today – because of the women who came before us. Women who reached for the ballot and raised families and traveled those lonely roads to be the first ones in those boardrooms and courtrooms and battlefields and factory floors. Women like my friend Hillary Clinton who put those 18 million cracks in that glass ceiling so that my daughters – and all our sons and daughters – could dream a little bigger and reach a little higher.
Now it’s our turn. It’s our turn to make those sacrifices so the next generation doesn’t have to. Our turn to open the doors of opportunity that our daughters and granddaughters will one day walk through. Our turn to fulfill the promise of this great nation that each of us – no matter what our background or where we come from – each of us has the chance to make it if we try.
That’s what I think about whenever I get the chance to tuck my girls in at night. How I want them – and all our daughters – to have no limits on their dreams, no obstacles to their achievement, no goals beyond their reach. How I want them to have opportunities their mothers and grandmothers never could’ve imagined.
And I hope you’ll join me. I hope you’ll walk with me so that we can turn the page on the failed policies of the past. And if you’ll make that commitment – if you’ll knock on doors and make those calls and talk to your neighbors and give me your vote on November 4th, then together, we won’t just win an election, we will transform this nation.
Thank you, God bless you, and God bless America.
McCain's Economic Speech in Green Bay
John McCain
Green Bay, Wisconsin
Thank you all very much. It's a great pleasure to be introduced by Governor Sarah Palin -- and I can't wait to introduce her to Washington.
If Governor Palin and I are elected in 46 days, we are not going to waste a moment in changing the way Washington does business. And we're going to start where the need for reform is greatest. In short order, we are going to put an end to the reckless conduct, corruption, and unbridled greed that have caused a crisis on Wall Street.
Here and all across our country, people are wondering what exactly is happening on Wall Street. And with good reason, they want to know how their government will meet the crisis. Clear answers are hard to come by in Washington.
As Senator Obama's leader in Congress memorably put it the other day -- and I quote -- "no one knows what to do." Perhaps given that reaction, it shouldn't surprise us that the Congressional leaders of this do-nothing Congress also said that they weren't going to take action until after the election, claiming that it wasn't their fault. I am hopeful that last night's discussions are a sign they have changed their mind and will take action soon. But any action should be designed to keep people in their homes and safe guard the life savings of all Americans by protecting our financial system.
There are certainly plenty of places to point fingers, and it may be hard to pinpoint the original event that set it all in motion. But let me give you an educated guess. The financial crisis we're living through today started with the corruption and manipulation of our home mortgage system. At the center of the problem were the lobbyists, politicians, and bureaucrats who succeeded in persuading Congress and the administration to ignore the festering problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
These quasi-public corporations lead our housing system down a path where quick profit was placed before sound finance. They institutionalized a system that rewarded forcing mortgages on people who couldn't afford them, while turning around and selling those bad mortgages to the banks that are now going bankrupt. Using money and influence, they prevented reforms that would have curbed their power and limited their ability to damage our economy. And now, as ever, the American taxpayers are left to pay the price for Washington's failure.
Two years ago, I called for reform of this corruption at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Congress did nothing. The Administration did nothing. Senator Obama did nothing, and actually profited from this system of abuse and scandal. While Fannie and Freddie were working to keep Congress away from their house of cards, Senator Obama was taking their money. He got more, in fact, than any other member of Congress, except for the Democratic chairmen of the committee that oversees them. And while Fannie Mae was betraying the public trust, somehow its former CEO had managed to gain my opponent's trust to the point that Senator Obama actually put him in charge of his vice presidential search.
This CEO, Mr. Johnson, walked off with tens of millions of dollars in salary and bonuses for services rendered to Fannie Mae, even after authorities discovered accounting improprieties that padded his compensation. Another CEO for Fannie Mae, Mr. Raines, has been advising Senator Obama on housing policy. This even after Fannie Mae was found to have committed quote "extensive financial fraud" under his leadership. Like Mr. Johnson, Mr. Raines walked away with tens of millions of dollars.
Senator Obama may be taking their advice and he may be taking their money, but in a McCain-Palin administration, there will be no seat for these people at the policy-making table. They won't even get past the front gate at the White House.
My friends, this is the problem with Washington. People like Senator Obama have been too busy gaming the system and haven't ever done a thing to actually challenge the system.
We've heard a lot of words from Senator Obama over the course of this campaign. But maybe just this once he could spare us the lectures, and admit to his own poor judgment in contributing to these problems. The crisis on Wall Street started in the Washington culture of lobbying and influence peddling, and he was square in the middle of it.
The financial services industry -- and there are many honest and honorable people who work in it -- plays a vital role in our economy. Mutual fund companies help Americans save for retirement. Banks and lending companies provide the mortgages that help us buy our homes. Investment firms supply the seed money that helps entrepreneurs create tomorrow's jobs. Insurance companies protect us against unknown risks.
Yet as the financial crisis continues and bailouts and bankruptcies mount, it's clear financial firms have lost the trust of the American people. That trust cannot be regained unless we adopt some fundamental reforms. Government has a clear responsibility to act and to defend the public interest. That is exactly what I intend to do.
First, to deal with the immediate crisis, I will lead in the creation of the Mortgage and Financial Institutions trust -- the MFI. The underlying principle of the MFI or any approach considered by Congress should be to keep people in their homes and safe guard the life savings of all Americans by protecting our financial system and capital markets. This trust will work with the private sector and regulators to identify institutions that are weak and fix them before they become insolvent. The MFI is an early intervention program to help financial institutions avoid bankruptcy, expensive bailouts and damage to their customers. This will get the Treasury and other financial regulatory authorities in a proactive position instead of reacting in a crisis mode to one situation after another.
The MFI will restore investor and market confidence, build sound financial institutions, assist troubled institutions and protect our financial system while minimizing taxpayer exposure. This is an important step, but it is not enough. I will also take the additional actions needed to make sure a crisis like this is never allowed to build and break over the American people again.
Second, I will propose and sign into law reforms to prevent financial firms from concealing their bad practices. An inexcusable lack of financial transparency allowed Wall Street firms to engage in reckless behavior that padded their profits and fattened executive bonuses when times were good, but now imperil the financial security of millions of Americans when their bets turned sour.
So much of the damage to our economy could have been avoided if these practices had been exposed to the light of day. Americans have a right to know when their jobs, pensions, IRAs, investments, and our whole economy are being put at risk by the recklessness of Wall Street. And under my reforms for the financial sector, that fundamental right will be protected.
Third, we need regulatory clarity. The lack of transparency in our financial markets went unnoticed by the regulatory agencies scattered throughout Washington charged with protecting the common good. We've got the SEC, the FDIC, the CFTC, the SIPC, the OCC, the Fed. At best, this confusing assortment of regulators and institutions was egregiously lax in carrying out their responsibilities. At worst, they engaged in the old Washington game of guarding their bureaucratic turf, instead of safeguarding the public interest and protecting investors.
Many in the financial services industry also either forgot or neglected their duty to act ethically and honorably. This shortcoming was aided and abetted by the creation of financial instruments that allowed lenders to escape any responsibility for the risk of their loans. In the past, lenders had to pay a price if they made a bad loan. Today, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac worked with Wall Street to bundle together all these dicey subprime loans and then pushed them off on investors who didn't have the tools of transparency needed to assess or even understand the risk.
The current system promotes confusion, encourages bureaucratic infighting and creates incentives for financial firms to cut corners. We need to enhance regulatory clarity by holding the same financial activity to one regulatory standard. We don't need a dozen federal agencies doing the job badly -- we need the best federal agencies to do the job right.
Fourth, we must ensure that consumers and investors are protected. Our regulatory system must protect consumers and investors by punishing individuals who engage in fraud, break contracts, or lie to customers -- like the predatory lenders who know you can't afford an adjustable rate mortgage, but mislead you into signing one. These actions are criminal and the people who commit them should be behind bars. And corporate governance rules will be reformed so that shareholders have a clear say in determining the pay of CEOs and other senior executives. On my watch, the consequences for corporate abuse will not be more enrichment, but more likely an indictment.
Fifth, in cases where failing companies seek taxpayer bailouts, the Treasury Department will follow consistent policies in deciding whether to guarantee loans. It must have well developed remedies for a financial crisis. With billions of dollars in public money at stake, it will not do to keep making it up as we go along.
Finally, the Federal Reserve should get back to its core business of responsibly managing our money supply and inflation. It needs to get out of the business of bailouts. The Fed needs to return to protecting the purchasing power of the dollar. A strong dollar will reduce energy and food prices. It will stimulate sustainable economic growth and get this economy moving again.
All of these measures will calm and help us to avoid future panics and disasters in the financial markets. But to get through this tough time for America, and to come out stronger, we need a strategy of economic growth. And the massive new tax burden that my opponent plans for the American economy is exactly the wrong answer. His tax increase -- along with the enormous new federal programs he proposes -- are the surest way to turn a recession into a depression. In every respect, the Obama tax hikes would make things even worse for the working people of this country.
I have proposed, and will sign into law, an economic recovery plan for working Americans that is directed to the middle class. It will grow this economy, create millions of jobs and bring opportunity back to Americans. You will get a tax policy that creates family prosperity and allows you to save for the future. I will not raise your taxes on income or investments. And we will simplify the tax code so people can understand it and do their tax returns themselves.
I will give every family a $5,000 credit to buy their own health insurance policy and let them chose their own doctor. This will make insurance affordable to every American.
I will double the child exemption from $3,500 to $7,000 to help families pay for the rising cost of living.
Under my plan, a married couple with two children making $35,000 will get $5,000 to pay for health insurance and additional medical expenses. This family would get another $1,050 from my child exemption. That adds up to over $6,000. That is a lot more than what any hardworking middle class family, gets under the Obama plan.
Business taxes will be cut from the second highest in the world at 35 percent to 25 percent. Tax incentives will spur investment in new plants and equipment. Research and development incentives will keep companies on the cutting edge of their industries. Healthcare costs will diminish. Companies will stop sending jobs overseas to low-cost, low-tax countries and start creating jobs here in America.
I will expand markets for our goods and services. A one in five of all jobs in this country are linked to world trade. In five states alone Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Colorado over 5 million jobs depend on trade. My economic recovery plan will create millions of jobs in America instead of driving them overseas.
I will adopt an "all of the above" energy policy which expands our use of oil, natural gas, clean coal and nuclear facilities. We will embark on a national mission to build an alternative energy base, creating millions of new jobs. We will create the most diversified energy economy in the world. And, I will return to the American economy the $700 billion dollars we send overseas every year to buy oil.
My opponent offers a very different economic future. He has continuously shifted his position on taxes. At the beginning of this campaign he promised to raise taxes on your savings and investments. He said he won't raise taxes for most people but he has voted 94 times in his short Senate career for tax increases and against tax cuts. He said he would only tax the rich, but he voted this year to raise taxes on those making just $42,000. Senator Obama has simply not given Americans good reason to trust him with your tax dollars.
My opponent is against lowering taxes on businesses which are the second highest in the world. He will impose mandated health insurance on businesses that would cost up to $12,000 per employee. He opposes free trade. He also wants to take away the fundamental right of workers to have a secret ballot when voting to be part of a union.
Now is not the time for these destructive policies that will cripple business growth, destroy jobs and hurt the middle class. Now is the time to take action to address this crisis and take action to put our economy back on a path of growth.
Even though Democratic leaders say they don't know what to do, I believe the deep problems afflicting our financial system won't be solved by one political party. There is only one candidate in this race who has a record of reaching across the aisle to work out the bipartisan solutions needed to move our country forward in times of crisis -- and I will bring that same spirit of bipartisan cooperation to the White House. It took members of both parties to get America into this mess, and it will take all of us, working together, to lead the way out.
Thank you.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Protests against the US Troops in Iraq continues in American Cities
There are many protests in American cities to withdraw the US troops from Iraq, especially at the time of the Presidential election. Some of them demand for the impeachment of Bush.
Report by: K.M.Sajad Ibrahim
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Obama on his first Middle East visit
Obama's visit to Afghanistan and Iraq is gaining more attention. His visit was to overcome the criticism that he had no experience on Middle East affairs. At the same time his political campaigning has been progressing with more public support.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Ground Zero New York (9/11 Site)
This is the site of the September 11 incident. The construction for the new buildings is in progress.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
US Presidential Candidates on Some Vital Issues
Some of the responses of the Presidential candidates on Vital Issues are stated below.
Economic Stimulus
Obama: Would pump $75 billion into the economy via tax cuts and direct spending targeted to working families, seniors, homeowners and the unemployed. Would provide an immediate $250 tax cut for workers and their families and an immediate, temporary $250 bonus to seniors in their Social Security Checks.
McCain: Would lower the corporate tax rate from 35 percent. Would allow first-year deduction of equipment and technology investments and establish a permanent research and development tax credit equal to 10 percent of wages spent on R&D.
Iraq
Obama: Opposed use of military force in Iraq. Voted for war spending bill that would have withdrawn most U.S. troops by March 2008. Supports phased redeployment of U.S. troops. Opposed Bush's plan to send additional troops to Iraq.
McCain: Voted for use of military force in Iraq. Supported Bush veto of war spending bill that would have withdrawn most U.S. troops by March 2008. Was an early proponent of sending additional American troops to Iraq.
Iran
Obama: Dd not vote on a September 2007 Senate resolution calling on the administration to declare Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization. Believes in using diplomatic efforts and would meet with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea during the first year of Presidency.
McCain: Did not vote on a September 2007 Senate resolution. Says military action is an option, but would consult with the congressional leaders before taking action.
Israel
Obama:Believes that Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state should never be challenged. Said that any agreement must preserve "Israel's identity as Jewish stateand "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel and it must remain undivided".
McCain: Has stated he is "proudly pro-Israel". Believes Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons poses an unacceptable risk to the United States and Israel. Says the U.S. must continue its long standing support for Israel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
