Campaign-Promises.com

I watched, jaw-dropped, this week as another Obama association was exposed- this time Khalidi, spokesman for the PLO- that’s the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Not just an association- friends. This man, an absolute anti-Jewish, anti-American, hate-filled person, frequent dinner partner with Obama, a recipient of funds from Obama, and a fundraiser for Obama. Now one must ask himself, what motive would an anti-American, PLO member have in supporting an American candidate? Now imagine if McCain were to have the same connections come to light- he would be ripped to shreds. I don’t care who you’re voting for, but the obvious bias that allows Obama a permanent “get out of jail free” card is stunning. Wake up you guys! You are preparing to elect a man who has shown strong leanings that are anti-Israel, anti-Christian, anti-life, and anti-American. Quick, someone inject these people with a shot of eye-opener! I believe that if we elect this man, we are ensuring an absolute rejection of Israel when the crap hits the fan, not to mention he will surely encourage, possibly require land-for-peace deals. For any of you who appreciate democracy, you can understand the danger this would pose as we would further distance ourselves from our one friend in the middle east and break our promise to support democracy throughout the world. For those of you who believe the Bible, you understand the certain judgment sure to come on this land according to Genesis 12:3. Either way- trouble is brewing. For more information on this subject, I would recommend reading ‘Two Nations Under God’. This will help all understand the importance of supporting Israel.

Popularity: 48% [?]

Barack Obama’s senior advisers have drawn up plans to lower expectations for his presidency if he wins next week’s election, amid concerns that many of his euphoric supporters are harbouring unrealistic hopes of what he can achieve.

The sudden financial crisis and the prospect of a deep and painful recession have increased the urgency inside the Obama team to bring people down to earth, after a campaign in which his soaring rhetoric and promises of “hope” and “change” are now confronted with the reality of a stricken economy.

One senior adviser told The Times that the first few weeks of the transition, immediately after the election, were critical, “so there’s not a vast mood swing from exhilaration and euphoria to despair”.

The aide said that Mr Obama himself was the first to realise that expectations risked being inflated.

In an interview with a Colorado radio station, Mr Obama appeared to be engaged already in expectation lowering. Asked about his goals for the first hundred days, he said he would need more time to tackle such big and costly issues as health care reform, global warming and Iraq. “The first hundred days is going to be important, but it’s probably going to be the first thousand days that makes the difference,” he said. He has also been reminding crowds in recent days how “hard” it will be to achieve his goals, and that it will take time.

“I won’t stand here and pretend that any of this will be easy – especially now,” Mr Obama told a rally in Sarasota, Florida, yesterday, citing “the cost of this economic crisis, and the cost of the war in Iraq”. Mr Obama’s transition team is headed by John Podesta, a Washington veteran and a former chief-of-staff to Bill Clinton. He has spent months overseeing a virtual Democratic government-in-exile to plan a smooth transition should Mr Obama emerge victorious next week. The plans are so far advanced that an Obama Cabinet has been largely decided upon, with the expectation that most of his senior appointments could be announced shortly after election day.

Yet Mr Obama and his aides are under no illusions about the size of the challenges the Democrat will inherit if he enters the Oval Office. Tom Daschle, the party’s former leader in the US Senate and a strong contender for the post of White House chief-of-staff in an Obama administration, said last month that the winner next week would have only a 50 per cent chance of winning a second term in 2012.

Not only will the next president take office with the country sliding into a potentially long recession — and mired in debt — but the challenges abroad are immense. There is an unfinished war in Iraq, a worsening situation in Afghanistan and an unstable and nuclear-armed Pakistan to contend with. Iran appears intent on acquiring the bomb and there remains the ever-present threat from al-Qaeda and Islamic extremists.

If he wins, Mr Obama will inherit a Democratic-controlled Congress, and might even have the benefit of a 60-seat filibuster-proof “supermajority” in the Senate. Such a scenario would allow him to push through legislation largely unfettered by Republican opposition. Yet it also means that should the country still be mired in recession in three years’ time, voters — who have short memories — will probably blame him and the Democrats on Capitol Hill. Those stakes have led Mr Obama to conclude that while expectations need to be tempered, big things need to be achieved very early in his first term, when he will still have the political capital to achieve some of his most ambitious legislative goals.

Having promised “real” change, the pressure will be on him to deliver. In the Colorado interview, Mr Obama added: “The next president has got to come quickly out of the box.”

The early priorities being lined up if he takes power are a mixture of symbolism and substance. He plans to make a major address in a big Muslim country early in his first term. Having pledged on the campaign trail to close Guantanamo Bay, he is also determined to make early moves to rid America of the controversial prison. Yet what to do with the remaining inmates looms as an intractable problem, as many of their home governments refuse to allow them to return.

Mr Obama’s first legislative goals will be to follow through on his pledge to cut taxes for the middle class and raise them for the wealthiest Americans, and to push through a hugely expensive Bill to provide near-universal health insurance.

Popularity: 33% [?]

Independent analyses of the presidential candidates’ tax proposals show that those who make less than $250,000 a year would not see their taxes raised under Senator Barack Obama’s plans. Further, Mr. Obama would generally cut taxes more than Senator John McCain would for households with incomes less than $100,000 a year.

Mr. McCain would cut taxes generally on par with Mr. Obama for those making $100,000 to $250,000 a year, the analyses found, but those making $250,000 a year and above would typically pay less in taxes under Mr. McCain.

The analyses were conducted independently by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, and Deloitte, the accounting giant, at the request of The New York Times.

Mr. McCain has been sounding the traditional Republican tax-cutting theme, trying to convince voters that Mr. Obama, the Democratic nominee, wants to increase taxes and spread the wealth like a socialist.

Helped by the emergence of Joe the Plumber and using Mr. Obama’s own words, Mr. McCain has insisted that Mr. Obama’s tax policies would hurt small businesses and upwardly mobile individuals, while providing welfare for low-income Americans.

Complicated proposals
Mr. Obama has been fighting those accusations in stump speeches and commercials, in recent days asking members of his audience to raise their hands if they made less than $250,000 a year. Fewer than 3 percent of households make more than $250,000.

But the tax proposals are complicated, and tax bills are affected by personal variables. Analysts at the Tax Policy Center and Deloitte tried to explain the ramifications of the candidates’ plans by applying their tax policies to various situations.

Roberton Williams, principal research associate at the Tax Policy Center, said the analysis found that: “On the average, people with income below $100,000 would get more from Obama than from McCain. From $100,000 to $250,000, they’d be fairly even under Obama and McCain. For those over $250,000, Obama increases taxes.”

Mr. McCain’s plan includes extending President Bush’s income-tax cuts and doubling exemptions for dependent children to $7,000 by 2016. He would also give a refundable tax credit to households that buy health insurance and would impose taxes on employer-provided coverage.

Mr. Obama opposes extending President Bush’s tax cuts. Instead, he proposes various tax breaks, including a $500 tax credit for each person in a household who works, a larger child care tax credit, a $4,000 tax credit each year for the first two years of college, and eliminating all income taxes for those over 65 with income less than $50,000 a year.

To reduce the deficit and inequality, he would raise the tax rate for single households with incomes of $200,000 or more and for families with incomes over $250,000. He would also raise taxes on capital gains and dividends.

The median household income nationwide is $50,233, according to the Census Bureau. The Tax Policy Center found that, for married couples with incomes of $50,000, two children and both parents working, income taxes would be cut by $284 more under Mr. Obama’s plan — by $1,005, compared with $721 under Mr. McCain’s plan.

Deloitte also examined such a couple and found similar benefits; a $700 cut under Mr. McCain’s plan and $1,000 under Mr. Obama’s.

For married couples with incomes of $500,000 with two children and both parents working, the Tax Policy Center found that Mr. Obama would raise income taxes by $3,363, from $110,955 now, while Mr. McCain’s plans would leave taxes unchanged. Deloitte found that a $500,000-a-year couple would pay $3,100 more under Mr. Obama, with no change under Mr. McCain.

Clint Stretch, Deloitte’s managing principal of tax policy, said most families would benefit under Mr. McCain’s plan because of an increased exemption for each child. That, he said, would reduce taxes for low-income families by about $230 per child and for high-income families by about $800.

‘Welfare’
To help low-income families in particular, Mr. Obama would give a “Making Work Pay Credit” equal to 6.2 percent of a worker’s first $8,100 in wages. That would yield a tax credit of $500 for a single person, and $1,000 for a couple in which both adults work. As a result, a low-income couple now paying no income taxes might receive a $1,000 refund.

But Mr. McCain has told audiences that Mr. Obama’s “plan gives away your tax dollars to those who don’t pay taxes. That’s not a tax cut, that’s welfare.”

Mr. Obama responded last week in Kansas City, Mo.: “McCain is so out of touch with the struggles you are facing that he must be the first politician in history to call a tax cut for working people welfare.”

Mr. Obama wants to eliminate income taxes for people over age 65 who earn less than $50,000 a year. So under his plan, a single person that age with income of $50,000 would experience a $2,339 tax cut, according to the Tax Policy Center. Under Mr. McCain’s plans, that person’s taxes would remain unchanged.

“What Obama’s doing,” said Mr. Stretch of Deloitte, “is he’s taking more money from people like me, and spending it on exemptions for the elderly and on tax credits for education.”

But Mr. Stretch added, “When Obama says he cuts taxes for every working family under $150,000, I’d say that’s true.”

A single head of household with one child and $15,000 in income now receives a tax refund of $3,859, largely because of the earned income tax credit, according to the Tax Policy Center. That refund would increase by $500 under Mr. Obama’s plan. Under Mr. McCain’s plan there would be no change for that taxpayer.

According to Deloitte’s calculations, a single taxpayer who earns $35,000 a year and has no children would get a $500 tax cut under Mr. Obama’s plan — to $3,000 a year from the current $3,500. Mr. McCain would leave that person’s taxes unchanged.

Mr. McCain also proposes giving many households a $5,000 tax credit when they buy family health insurance, which costs $12,000 nationwide on average. But households would for the first time have to pay taxes on employer-provided insurance.

This story, “For Incomes Below $100,000, a Better Tax Break in Obama‚Äôs Plan,” originally appeared in the New York Times.

Popularity: 50% [?]

By: Andy Barr
October 31, 2008 01:16 PM EST

Republican Sen. Ted Stevens told Alaska voters Thursday night that he has “not been convicted of anything” — less than a week after being found guilty on all seven counts at his corruption trial.

During a debate with Democratic opponent and Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich, Stevens insisted on his innocence and said that he intends to ignore calls from his Republican colleagues to resign.

“I’m not going to step down. I have not been convicted,” Stevens said according to a transcript provided by the Anchorage Daily News .

“I have a got a case pending against me, and probably the worst case of prosecutorial misconduct by the prosecutors that is known. I had a talk this afternoon, with one of the attorneys here, a former U.S. attorney, who told me he was appalled by what went on in that case. So I think you’ll find out. I will succeed, and I will be found innocent.”

Stevens has previously said that he intends to appeal, but he did not mention that option during Thursday’s debate, instead stressing, inaccurately, that he had not been convicted.

Several GOP party leaders, including John McCain and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, have asked Stevens to step down in hopes of preserving his historically red Senate seat.

Polls taken prior to the conviction showed Begich already within striking distance of the seat Stevens has held since 1968.

On Wednesday, Sen. John Ensign, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, urged Stevens to “do the right thing” and resign.

“The statesman-like thing for Sen. Stevens would be to resign,” Ensign said in an interview on MSNBC. “I would like to see a special election in the state of Alaska so they can actually choose between a Republican and a Democrat running to see who they want to represent them in the United States Senate.”

“Sen. Stevens should do the right thing and resign so that we can have a special election to determine the best way to represent the people of the state of Alaska,” he added.

Asked what he would say to McCain and Palin in response to their calls for his resignation, Stevens said, “I would tell them that I understand that they make statements during the heat of the campaign. And probably they’ve been a little misinformed by their staff. But I wouldn’t hold it against them. I understand what they’re doing. They’re trying to get elected.”

“The case is still pending on the basis of motions which we filed for a new trial or for a dismissal of the case for prosecutorial misconduct,” he said. “I have not been convicted of anything.”

© 2008 Capitol News Company, LLC

Popularity: 39% [?]

Thursday, October 30, 2008 12:25 PM

By: David A. Patten

Sen. Barack Obama bought his eye-popping, prime-time TV extravaganza with $4 million and something else: “It was paid for with broken promises,” says Sen. John McCain.

McCain is slamming Obama for breaking pledges to abide by campaign finance reform and accept public financing for his campaign.

“When you’re watching this gauzy, feel-good commercial, just remember that it was paid for with broken promises,” McCain said Wednesday evening. “Twice he looked the American people in the eye and said he would sit down with me before he abandoned public financing. He didn’t mean a word of it. When it was in his interest to break his promise, he tossed it aside like it didn’t mean a thing.”

Obama’s campaign “is now being flooded with hundreds of millions of dollars in undisclosed and questionable donations,”McCain said.

Obama’s June flip-flop on financing drew sharp criticism from some quarters but not generally from the mainstream media. Conservative direct-marketing guru Richard Viguerie told Newsmax the shift is part of a larger pattern.

“The facts of life are that Senator Obama makes decisions that help advance his career, and promises and relationships are to be discarded if they interfere with his ambitions,” Viguerie said.

Obama is the first presidential candidate to opt out of the public system of financing presidential campaigns. That system, which is designed to reduce the influence of huge campaign contributions on presidential politics, would have limited Obama to the same $85 million that McCain received when he accepted public financing.

When Obama announced his decision in June to reverse course and reject public financing, his aides confided privately that it could mar Obama’s image as a reformer offering a new brand of politics.

At the time, Obama blamed his decision on McCain and the GOP. “We’ve already seen that [McCain] is not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies’ running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations,” Obama said.

Viguerie rejects that explanation as “nothing more than a small and transparent fig leaf.”

Obama’s decision to reject public financing was a sharp reversal from earlier promises:

Popularity: 36% [?]

By Andy Sullivan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – With the U.S. presidential election less than a week away, Democrat Barack Obama holds a steady lead over rival Republican John McCain in opinion polls, leading many pundits to say McCain is effectively finished.

Could the polls be wrong?

They have misled before. The most famous time came in 1948 when polls showed Republican Thomas Dewey on his way to winning the White House but missed the late surge that carried Democrat Harry Truman to victory.

More recently, polls showed Obama ahead of Democratic rival Hillary Clinton in the January New Hampshire primary by an average of 8 percentage points. Clinton won.

McCain’s campaign thinks it could happen again on November 4.

“All signs say we are headed to an election that may easily be too close to call by next Tuesday,” McCain pollster Bill McInturff wrote in a memo released on Tuesday.

Pollsters are careful to say their work does not predict a race’s outcome but only captures a snapshot of the electorate at a certain point in time.

And there is always the possibility of error in a discipline that combines science with a certain amount of guesswork.

“We are engaged to some degree in some artwork and assumption,” said pollster John Zogby, whose Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby tracking poll shows Obama leading by 7 percentage points.

Pollsters can’t simply tally up the results of their telephone surveys but must make educated guesses about who will actually show up to vote.

These “likely voter” models vary from poll to poll, leading to results that can vary as well.

Rasmussen Reports’ daily tracking poll on Wednesday showed Obama leading McCain by 3 percentage points, while a survey released on Tuesday by Pew Research Center for the People and the Press showed Obama leading McCain by 15 percentage points.

HIGHER TURNOUT AMONG BLACKS?

Gallup publishes two separate polls based on varying likely-voter models. Its traditional model showed Obama ahead by 2 percentage points on Wednesday, while its “expanded” model, which assumes higher turnout rates among minorities and young people, showed Obama leading by 7 percentage points.

Zogby’s poll and the Pew poll also assume that black voters, inspired by the chance to elect Obama as the first black president, will make up a higher percentage of the electorate this year.

But the McCain campaign argues that turnout will be high among all demographic groups, diluting any impact from black voters.

Another question is the “Bradley Effect” — the notion that white voters fearful of being labeled racist overstate their support of black candidates in polls.

That theory, named for a black 1982 California gubernatorial candidate who narrowly lost to a white opponent after leading in opinion polls, has been widely discounted.

But polls might be underweighting any racial backlash because intolerant voters tend to hang up on pollsters, said Pew Research Center president Andrew Kohut said.

“That could be a factor in a close election, but it’s probably not a factor in an election that seems as wide open as this,” Kohut said.

The increasing number of people who decline to participate in opinion polls, and the difficulty of reaching cellphone-only households pose challenges as well.

“When you get a 15 percent response rate, the people you get aren’t necessarily representative of the population as a whole,” said Nate Silver, a statistician who tracks opinion polls at the Web site FiveThirtyEight.com.

Despite these concerns, pollsters say they’re confident in their work. After all, it’s hard to overlook the fact that major polls have lined up closely with the actual vote in every presidential election since 1980.

“We bring a whole lot more science to who’s ahead and who’s behind than a handful of old white men sitting at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington having breakfast,” Zogby said.

Popularity: 24% [?]