Obama shuffles rules after DNC raffle ruckus
By Sara Burnett, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published July 9, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
Updated July 9, 2008 at 6:06 a.m.
Photo by Jae C. Hong
Barack Obama
Barack Obama's campaign changed the rules of a highly publicized fundraiser Tuesday, after gambling regulators said the contest - a chance at one of 10 trips to the Democratic National Convention - was an illegal lottery.
"We are happy to have resolved this issue working closely with state officials," said Nick Kimball, spokesman for the Obama campaign in Minnesota, where the controversy surfaced, according to the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune.
A spokesman for the Colorado secretary of state said Democrats would have to get a license if they were conducting "a standard raffle where they're buying tickets" in order to win.
But under new rules, supporters don't have to donate money to win one of the trips, which include a seat for Obama's acceptance speech at Invesco Field at Mile High and meeting the candidate.
Instead, the campaign will choose 10 people based on "individuals' stories and other factors," said Matt Chandler, Colorado press secretary for the Obama campaign.
The campaign announced the contest Monday, minutes after officials confirmed Obama would give his speech at Invesco rather than the Pepsi Center, a switch that sources said could add $3 million to the cost of staging the Democratic National Convention.
In an e-mail to supporters, campaign manager David Plouffe said the campaign had "reserved a special place for a few of the people who brought us this far."
"If you make a donation of $5 or more between now and midnight on July 31st, you could be one of 10 supporters chosen to fly to Denver and spend two days and nights at the convention, meet Barack backstage, and watch his acceptance speech in person," the e-mail stated.
It included a link to the Obama Web site and the words: "Make a donation now and you could have a front row seat to history."
The solicitation prompted an inquiry by the head of the Minnesota Gambling Control Board and the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, the Star-Tribune reported Tuesday.
The Twin Cities is the site of the Republican National Convention.
Doug Forsman, a special agent who works in the public safety department's gambling enforcement division, said the fundraiser constituted a lottery, which can be conducted only by the Minnesota State Lottery.
Forsman told the newspaper he gave the Obama campaign two options: either state online that the contest was void in Minnesota or give people the option to participate without donating. The campaign chose to change its Web site, the Star-Tribune said.
On Tuesday night the Web site included a separate link where people could participate in the contest without donating.
The fundraising strategy is not a new one, and not limited to the Obama campaign, which also offered dinners with the candidate during the primary season.
In January, Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign sent out an e-mail from Clinton's daughter, Chelsea. In it, Chelsea Clinton said the campaign would select an "online supporter" to sit with her during a debate in Los Angeles and to meet Hillary Clinton.
Rocky staff writer Bill Scanlon contributed to this report.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
July 9, 2008
2:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
clyde writes:
But... But... But... IT'S THE MESSIAH!!!!! What are a few earthly laws to the Chosen One?
July 9, 2008
3:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
roger44 writes:
I can't figure out why people would donate money to someone who lies to them. Obama lost my vote when he said he supports ethanol.
July 9, 2008
6:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
danirobi writes:
Once again, it's the Democrats breaking the rules and Obama breaking his promises....
July 9, 2008
6:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Jim_in_Erie writes:
And another, albeit a minor, goof on the part of this wonder dude.
Of course his supporters will, as some already have, claim this is no big deal.
And, by itself, they are correct.
It's a fairly minor goof.
But how many 'minor' goofs does it take before someone begins to look like that is their primary attribute?
Anyone can make 'a' mistake, or even a few. But Nobama is looking like a candidate for the Guinness World Record!
And please, don't play this one off as the fault of his staff.
If he can't pick any better then he has so far, what are we to assume about his 'judgment' on really important matters?
Nobama...typical politician....nothing new....nothing different...nothing special.
July 9, 2008
7:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
sheepherder writes:
IMPEACH OBAMA! Oh wait, he hasn't been elected.
July 9, 2008
7:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
blu_boi writes:
"Instead, the campaign will choose 10 people based on "individuals' stories and other factors"
This is probably a better idea than the lottery, now obama's people can make sure they get the proper mix of 10 people. Male and female Hispanic, male and female white, male and female asian, gay and lesbian, male and female black. They can also make sure there are no Muslim/Islamic headgear on the choosen and that they are all devoted disciples of the messiah.
July 9, 2008
7:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
newshound writes:
Behind the scenes at the DNC...."We have to start instituting ways to "possibly" reward people for donating money."......"No, we promise them a chance and take their money, hell we have to find a way to pay for all this right?"
Put 'em in the Oval Office so they can manage the country's finances. That'll be a smart move.
July 9, 2008
8:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
NeilC writes:
The mere fact that there are 'regulators' for this sort of thing demonstrates how truly sick our government is. Eventually, our government will reduce almost all of our freedom, while our country's economy and infrastructure rots.
Meanwhile, politicians and civil service bureaucrats continue to receive an increasing larger portion of the national wealth.
July 9, 2008
8:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
cooperjtd writes:
politics is politics is politics is politics.... it's the same thing every 4 years, but yet people seem surprised or offended when politicians play politics.
July 9, 2008
8:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
DenverDan writes:
Oh my god. After this, how can I vote for him?
July 9, 2008
8:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
What a dufus. The clown put his kids up to TV interviews, after whining that they should not be filmed. Now the flipflop clown is crying about how he screwed up.
Now the moron is doing the same thing after his illegal attempts to defraud voters was revealed to be a con game commonly committed to steal money from unsuspecting citizens.
Only morons would vote for the moron known as Obama bin Flipflop.
July 9, 2008
8:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
blu_boi writes:
artstarzz, to see what obama will do for the country you need look no further than Chicago's first congressional district. Would you walk down those streets alone at night? Is the standard of living higher now than before he arrived from Hawaii? Is gang violence down, the cost of living lower, unemployment down, wages up, is the air cleaner, children safer? How about racial tension? Did he solve that problem in Chicago?
July 9, 2008
8:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
LuvAmerica writes:
Gosh if this fires up the right wing purity brigade as the ultimate litmus test of character, morality, and intelligence, then McCain's egregious violation of campaign finance laws certainly heralds the arrival of Satan!
July 9, 2008
8:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
blu_boi writes:
artstarzz, I walk the streets of our town with no worries. There are less than a thousand people living here so I know most everyone and our constitutional right to be armed has not been taken away. Obama has no use for small towns or the people enjoying small town life and he doesn't respect our right to defend ourselves.
An armed society is a polite society.
July 9, 2008
8:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
SPUD writes:
Mayor Hick said this is going to be the "greenist" convention on record. How much more energy will it take for Mile High to be rigged for one night? It sounds like a "BIG" carbon footprint. But, the Dems are doing it so it alright! Their feet aren't as big or maybe Gore can sell the DNC some carbon credits. What a joke!
July 9, 2008
9:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
art, do you feel insecure enough about what other people post against Obama, you have to respond to every single one? Why should I vote for Obama?
Is it because of his plan to raise taxes against oil companies, which ultimately get passed onto the consumer.... which is quite the opposite of Obama's opinion that it would lead to lower prices at the pump? Is it because he wants to get the federal government involved in retirement accounts (socialized retirement), even when the government has messed up Social Security? Is it his plan for universal health care, even though the state of Massachussetts has found that to be a financial disaster? Is it because he has racists at his church influencing his opinions? Is it because he's friends with a homegrown terrorist? Is it his flip-flopping with which way the wind blows? I could go on with some of his other flaws, but I don't have the time to sit here and type it all.
Where's the "change" he talks about? We'll have a different President in office, whether it's McCain or Obama, so "change" is going to happen. blu_boi is right, what has Obama even done in his own district to warrant much attention? Don't even provide a link to his site, I know enough about his true stances that I don't need to read the spin on his site.
This is a sign of the failure to know the rules beforehand, and I think it's only a indication of things to come if he becomes President.
By the way, you talk about Hickenlooper, who's done a decent job as Denver Mayor.... not great, but decent. What about Ritter? I can't remember a Governor doing as little as Ritter in the time he's been in office. He has no political background, just work as a DA. Guess that shoots down the lack of experience being a positive, huh? He tried to pass a tax increase on properties only to find out that it was against the TABOR amendment, with the judge saying a tax freeze is a tax increase. What is it with Democrats and tax increases? Anyway, you put all your hopes in a man that borders on clueless. I won't, I'm not voting for Obama.
July 9, 2008
9:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
psu96 writes:
i see the trolls are still at it
July 9, 2008
9:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
blu_boi writes:
YOITA, He’ll probably have them write an essay, 1,000 words or less, on “How to Wash the Messiah’s Feet” or "The Heavenly Rewards of Falling Under Obama's Bus".
July 9, 2008
10:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
navymom writes:
Amen, Cwillyrun1. I agree wholeheartedly. People do not understand that taxes on businesses, ultimately, get passed on to the consumer. If you overtax them, they move out of the country. If a business cannot make a profit, it cannot stay in business long. Businesses going out of business or out of the country results in lost jobs. Lost jobs leads to increases in foreclosures, bankruptcies and homelessness.
Big oil has become the scapegoat for all things wrong with our economy. Why does no one look at the fact that the profit margins of the oil companies are not any larger than those of other companies. This industry is providing a lot of high paying jobs that will be lost if Obama has his way.
Socialized medicine does not work. Just go to Canada. I know because my husband's grandmother had to be brought out of Canada where the socialized medical system almost allowed her to die when she lived there with her last husband.
As for Social Security, it would be more solvent if Congress had not stolen money from the fund for all these years to fund other social programs.
I can't imagine Obama's proposals for socialism working and will not be voting him for that reason.
July 9, 2008
11 a.m.
Suggest removal
danirobi writes:
Hey check out this video...apparently if you come to America, you should have to learn english, American's should learn your language...
http://www.redstate.com/stories/elect...
July 9, 2008
11:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
LoFat writes:
Deny Barak Yomama in 08 Vote McCain !! (in honor of all the blind DNC true believers) :-)
July 9, 2008
11:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"We'll have a different President in office, whether it's McCain or Obama, so "change" is going to happen"
cwilly et al...are you guys still confused about mccain representing a third bush term?
i thought we'd cleared this up but there still seems to be some confusion....
July 9, 2008
11:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
junglegymco writes:
Ah the repubiCANT whiners are at it again. Instead of recognizing that Obama is man enough to make MINOR adjustments when something isn't perfect, the RepubliCANTS whine and whine and lie and stomp their feet and say, "OOO Daddy - Obama thought about something and made an adjustment! WAAAAAA I want a President who will NEVER MODIFY his stance, even when it's ABSOLUTE CR*P and cost us THOUSANDS OF LIVES, TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS, and SADDLES GENERATIONS OF AMERICANS WITH DEBT.
Yeah, that's the ticket - vote McSame in '08 for 100 years of Iraq, more tax breaks for the wealthy and a Police state like you've never seen before. Go McBush McSame!
July 9, 2008
11:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
LoneTreeLady75 writes:
Yiota is always the first to bring race into ANY story, stop feeding him and just ignore him.
July 9, 2008
11:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
How funny. Every time I see a Obama headline I know I will get entertained by the right 3rd graders. Some of the blogs is so ridiculous that only a third grade mentally challenged kid would write. Keep entertaining me. I love it.
Vote for Obama 08
Not the 82 yr old robot that won't even be alive if he is elected to 2 terms. And may not make the 1st one. Think about a 90 yr old man in charge of our country.
July 9, 2008
11:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
navymom, your post was excellent, and expanded on some thoughts I've had too. Some people like it simple because they don't understand cause and effect. I totally agree with you about Social Security...... if it wasn't raided for funding other social programs, there wouldn't be the concern there is now of whether that fund will have very much solvency in the future.
July 9, 2008
11:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
jay, the only confusion is what's going on in your head. I think we've already beaten that like a dead horse before, haven't we? You didn't want anymore of it then, but you're back for more now?
I'd rather have something resembling a third term for George Bush (which McCain isn't, but whatever) than a second term of Jimmy Carter. His (mis)administration was the worst! To this day, he's still the village idiot among Presidents.
July 9, 2008
11:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
LoneTreeLady75 writes:
LOL. "Want to be" eh? I guess you weren't around when I had to explain the context of my screename. Anywho, im back in CO for awhile so whether you like it or not, I will be posting on both RMN and DP. :) You, like many of your RMN blogging pals, believe "ignorant and assanine" only derive from people that do not share the same beliefs as you. Talk about ignorant and assanine. Stupidity is contagious, so I perfer not to get into it with you on these forums. Ill continue to post as often as I want to, and will just ignore you. Have a great day!
July 9, 2008
12:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Finding_Forever writes:
Gasp! A story that involves Obama, and there are only 60 comments?!? Blasphemy!
July 9, 2008
12:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"I'd rather have something resembling a third term for George Bush (which McCain isn't, but whatever) than a second term of Jimmy Carter."
another right wing myth by our own cwilly.
one more time.
obama's platform is nearly identical to that of hillary's...which is in turn nearly identical to her husbands.
therefore, since mccain represents a third bush term and obama most closely represnts a third clinton term (no matter what rush tells you cwilly)...we can look at their respective track records and determine which set of policy stances is best for the country.
here are the numbers:
http://www.dems.gov/index.asp?Type=B_...{D68CD0B2-1442-4804-9F6B-AF67DE7FF585}&DE={FDD09C4F-E958-4E13-A92B-179C2FAC6FEA}&Design=PrintView
July 9, 2008
12:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
jay, I think you should quite listening to Rush and think for yourself. Just because someone has an opinion on something doesn't mean they have to listen to someone else for it. But hey, you're a follower and not a leader, so we understand why you have issues.
Obama's platform is about raising taxes, maybe not directly to the people, but in the end, it's the people paying for it. The last time a President taxed oil companies the way Obama plans on doing it was when Jimmy Carter was President. What happened was long lines at the gas pump and high prices, due to those taxes. I guess you're just not old enough to know about it and uneducated enough to not have learned about it. The last time this country had an underqualified President was Jimmy Carter, and now we have another underqualified candidate some people want for President.... Obama. But hey, keep listening to Rush and if anyone makes a comment that resembles anything Rush has said, you keep right up with the footsoldier rants. It's all you got chump!
July 9, 2008
12:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
MisterD writes:
I can't believe all of you anti-obama people.....Have you checked what McCan't has done for Arizona. The whole state is going broke can't afford to pay state employees, lay offs and the largest city ready to file for bankruptcy.
July 9, 2008
12:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"jay, I think you should quite listening to Rush and think for yourself. Just because someone has an opinion on something doesn't mean they have to listen to someone else for it"
i'm not sure what you're talking about cwilly....i'm just making the observation that you and rush are spouting the same right wing myths.
"Obama's platform is about raising taxes, maybe not directly to the people, but in the end, it's the people paying for it."
what did you think was going to happen after the last 8 years of republian fiscal irresponsibility, cwilly?
remember what happened after similar behavior by reagan? bush the smarter had to go back on his infamous promise.
again...mcsame represents most closely a third bush term...while obama most closely represents a third clinton term.
here are those numbers in case you missed them the first time.
i'd want to run away from the data too...if i were you...but you can't get away from the facts....and lying about them isn't going to do your credibility any favors.
http://www.dems.gov/index.asp?Type=B_...{D68CD0B2-1442-4804-9F6B-AF67DE7FF585}&DE={FDD09C4F-E958-4E13-A92B-179C2FAC6FEA}&Design=PrintView
July 9, 2008
12:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Finding_Forever writes:
Hey LTL75 and Yiota,
The correct spelling is "asinine". Next time you guys want to use big words like ignorant and asinine, one of you should atleast make sure its spelled correctly.
July 9, 2008
12:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
SASQUATCH
Have you ever considered getting help? Your one of those mentally challenged 3rd graders I was talking about.
July 9, 2008
12:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
LoneTreeLady75 writes:
LOL @ Finding (cool name by the way). You are correct. I got so wrapped up in "showing him", I didnt bother to review the post. Proof positive that stupidity is contagious. You have a great day as well Finding.
July 9, 2008
12:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
YourMom writes:
Wow, YIOTA. I think you have your party affiliation mixed up. The Republicans have been trying to take away free speech since 9/11.
The evidence is all over the news if you care to understand what your party has become.
July 9, 2008
1:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
KW writes:
jay - How do you like Obama's policy stance on Iraq?
July 9, 2008
1:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
kw, we've already gone over this...is your willful ignorance kicking in again?
i'm all for redeploying our combat troops so we can actually fight those responsible for 9/11 and who actually pose a threat to this country.
you don't agree?
July 9, 2008
1:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
blu_boi writes:
YourMom, have you checked out how the DNC and the city of Denver are handling the free speech issue? They are requiring permits and licenses to assemble in Denver during the convention. If you give your speech on a soap box it will be called a "stage" and that permit will cost more plus you will be required to have insurance in case you fall off. If more than 150 people assemble to listen to your speech you will be charged $75 for the permit plus $75 for not getting the permit ahead of time. If 2,500 people stop to listen to you the charge is $400.
I'm sure Minneapolis-Saint Paul will be charging citizens who want to exercise their "rights" as well.
July 9, 2008
1:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
Man I get so tired of every election we have to hear the same song & dance. And that is "that guy is going to raise your taxes" or I'm going to give you tax cuts".
Well let me tell you a pretend story:
A guy goes out one weekend and buys a new $500,000 house then he goes over to the Hummer dealer and buys a $60,000 Hummer. And of course we have to have a new boat to tow behind that Hummer. So we go over to a boat dealer and by us a new $60,000 boat. WOW did we just spend a lot of money. But the good news is our monthly bills came down.
Can somebody me out there that has a brain show me how that works. Bottom line is you people that are buying this tax cut BS tell me how you pay the bill this country has racked up. You want tax relief. TELL YOUR GOVERNMENT TO STOP SPENDING!!!!! And that goes for both parties.
July 9, 2008
1:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
YourMom writes:
blu_boi: Oh, I don't disagree with you one bit. The they also did the same thing during the 2004 elections in New York during the Republican Convention. However, since 9/11 you have seen more clampdown on the media to the point where journalists have had to reveal their sources in a court of law.
YIOTA: Reporters, bloggers, protesters. As far as your claim on the renewal of the Patriot Act, or the USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006, this happened in February of 2006 well before the Democrats controlled Congress.
I'm not sure what your point is.
July 9, 2008
2:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
DenverDan writes:
We are more divided now than ever. 51% of us making discussions for 49% of us. Can McCain or Obama make us feel as one again?
July 9, 2008
2:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
YourMom writes:
YIOTA: Also, what do you think would happen if I went down in front of the Denver Police Department wearing a shirt that says "Bin Laden is the Bomb" and began praying to Mecca?
July 9, 2008
2:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Boulder_Badger writes:
Barack Obama will save the USA if wishing is all that is needed.
If hard work and sweat are needed ... then solutions will be rarer than hens teeth. (Hint: birds don't have teeth).
July 9, 2008
2:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Finding_Forever writes:
LOL Yiota,
It's a free world, so if you want to go around disrespecting the English language, more power to you brother! As a proprietor of an English degree, I couldn't resist correcting you and LTL75's ignorance (I used one of you and LTL75's "big words"). Also, I'm too old for the sandbox, but I will get back to work. Thanks for the suggestion though!
July 9, 2008
2:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
YourMom writes:
Boulder_Badger: So what has your President done that created a solution for a problem that YOU were personally facing?
July 9, 2008
2:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
YourMom writes:
MarineGrunt: I'm sure he would be pleased that it was found and cleaned up. What would you expect?
July 9, 2008
2:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Finding_Forever writes:
Marine, is that from an episode of the Chappelle Show?? If so thats one of my favroite episodes, hilarious!
July 9, 2008
2:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Finding_Forever writes:
favorite*
July 9, 2008
2:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Finding_Forever writes:
oh and before Yiota gets on me about the yellow cake fiasco, I know its uranium oxide, I just thought maybe Marine was talking about Dave Chappelle.
July 9, 2008
2:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
TruthHurts writes:
It is amazing what experts the Republicans have become in identifying flip flops..... could be because they have been doing it for years.... and Teflon John (McBlame) is world class in this practice. And when you catch Teflon John (McBlame) in them his classic response..."It never happened." Oh yeah....the Republicans have a real winner there.....
July 9, 2008
2:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
YourMom writes:
Marine: In theory, it was a lie about WMD's to an extent. They found no stockpiles of chemical or bio weapons. They even hauled out the portable WMD lab they "found" at one point. Remember that?
I just find it extremely suspicious that this yellowcake is being found now, less than four months from the general elections.
July 9, 2008
3:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
jax writes:
What is the secret of his power over his listeners? They speak of his magnetism...Under his hypnotic gaze, humanity crosses a threshold from which one can see the abyss.
He knows how to please, impress and charm the people from whom he wants support. The savior admired by his own as he drags them into his deception. This exterminating angel feared and hated by all others, leads his people to a shameful defeat without precedent. That his political assurances and strategic declarations have created a false sense of hope in this depressed country is undeniable.
Society rallies behind him: the judicial, the educational, the industrial, the economic establishments give him their support. Few politicians of this century have aroused, in their lifetime, such love and so much hate; few have inspired so much disagreement. Words of his enigmatic personality are everywhere and all seem to respond to a curiosity on the part of a public being haunted by the desire to find an answer.
We think we know everything about the forces that shape this man. And yet, there are elements that escape us. How does he impose profound and unquestionable optimism as an immutable ideal that motivate people to be lead blindly by his word and his word alone? Would he even be considered, with his lack of knowledge and lack of experience, to be a leader of this country, if this country were not underneath economic crises and war?
The fact is that he is beloved by his people, by the citizens who pledged to him a fidelity that borders on the irrational. It is idolization on a national scale. One has to see the crowds who acclaim him, hear their declarations of worship that they bestow upon him. He is going to save them. Do they not see the mask that covers his face? Do they not detect the catastrophe that will come to this land?
He counts on the people of this country because of their naïveté, their weaknesses, their need to be saved and he is right. He uses it and it will work against them, but for him.
Is he shrewder than he shows? Certainly he is more charismatic, exceedingly more eloquent of word, than his adversaries. However members of the opposition unmasked him almost immediately, seeing through his articulate speeches and refused to let themselves be duped by repetitive promises. He does not recognize the conflict of his philosophies and to the ends it creates. From this moment on events will cascade. Trepidation will descend on this country as other forces close around us and take from us what we hold so dear.
Later, in the history of the United States, among the first names that will surge to mind will be that of a well spoken man who thought to reign by pledging salvation and then selling the souls of his people to the thousand demons of hate on the other side of the world because he intentionally left his country powerless.
He is Barrack Hussein Obama.
July 9, 2008
3:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
RightDownTheMiddle writes:
Sasquatch....
If only you were like bigfoot...a hoax.
Then we wouldn't have to suffer through your lame cut and pasted talking points every other comment....
July 9, 2008
3:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
DenverDan writes:
Jax
Deep man deep, pass the joint dude. All things good about a person, you make it bad. Wow that is deep.
Now, I will vote for the old guy because of you man.
July 9, 2008
3:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
YourMom writes:
Marine: Sure, there were limited numbers of weapons found scattered around the country but they were either too old or too poorly designed for use which would validate the whole "they were from '91 argument." The way the case for war was presented to the American people, it made it sound like Saddam had his hand on the little red button to rain down apocalypse on America. Obviously, Iraq didn't have the capability to hit America with his weapons program. He didn't even have the capability to hit anyone beyond the middle east. Unfortunately, far too many people bought into the "sky is falling" bit and the war was sold to the majority.
It was said from the start of the war that Saddam's WMD's are buried in the sand in Syria. Obviously, we can't just go in there and dig the desert up (well, without a war). If huge stockpiles of weapons are found at a later time buried somewhere in the Middle East, I'll never say another word about it.
I guess all I'm saying is show me the advanced weapons program that was all over the news.
July 9, 2008
3:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
jax, it appears you are doing your best to attack obama the man instead of addressing his policy stances.
why is that?
marine....let's be clear.
iraq did not the wmd's for which we went to war.
iraq was not a threat to the US.
iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
iraq had no operational relationship with al qaeda.
July 9, 2008
3:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
YourMom writes:
Marine: Yes, the intel you mentioned plus the fabricated intel regarding the yellowcake. That's why when they found the yellowcake recently I thought "not this again."
On a side note, are you currently in the service?
July 9, 2008
4:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
KW writes:
"i'm all for redeploying our combat troops so we can actually fight those responsible for 9/11 and who actually pose a threat to this country." -jay
That's nice jay, but I wasn't asking about YOUR Iraq policy.
So lets try this again... How do you feel about OBAMA'S Iraq policy stance?
July 9, 2008
4:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
jax writes:
DenverDan: Thanks, glad you liked it. You'll have to smoke your joint by yourself though.
jay: Read between the lines and your question will be answered.
July 9, 2008
4:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"Read between the lines and your question will be answered."
I reread your post again and see nothing at all about specific policy stances...why is that?
kw...do you have a point?
July 9, 2008
4:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
Hey jay, I think I'll call you an Al Sharpton robot......... you and him have a lot of the same abilities to spout left wing gibberish and fantasies.
The fiscal irresponsibility is also laying at the feet of Clinton. Maybe you just don't like to educate yourself on the facts, jay, but several actions taken during the Clinton administration have had negative impacts, so it's not all on the Bush administration. And lest you forget, 9/11 DID have an impact on the economy. I guess you'll blame Bush for that too....... even the illiterate are entitled to a deluded opinion. Sorry jay, but tax, tax, tax is not the answer. If you want to give your money away to the government, don't accept your IRS refund, that is, if you're a person who doesn't owe each year. As it's been shown so many times in the past..... the favorite thing for Democrats (tax, tax, tax) does not work! You've been led to the trough too many times and now you just accept giving your money away.
Hey jay, Reagan rescued us from the nightmare that was Jimmy Carter. Learn your history!
I have to laugh at you, I really do. And in some ways I feel sorry for you. You call McCain "McSame", but Obama's the one that voted for the new FISA rules today, in line with what President Bush wanted. I guess that makes Obama the same as Bush. You can't hide from the facts. You can deny, and spin, and twist it however you want, but some of us like to be informed about reality and others, like you, want to be led by the hand by a dream. That kind of dream you have is both nightmare and fantasy.
July 9, 2008
4:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
dilligaf....... CNN had something on McCain and how he's criticized spending as out of control. He doesn't believe taxing over and over is the answer. I haven't heard anything like that from Obama. His answer isn't to reduce spending, but to add taxes.
July 9, 2008
4:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
HSTOWEL writes:
I wonder if Oblabba and his crew will be raffling off any Reverend Wright tapes to make money for his campaign?
July 9, 2008
4:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
HSTOWEL writes:
Nobama in 08 or any other time!
July 9, 2008
4:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"The fiscal irresponsibility is also laying at the feet of Clinton. Maybe you just don't like to educate yourself on the facts, jay, but several actions taken during the Clinton administration have had negative impacts, so it's not all on the Bush administration"
never said it was ALL on the bush administration...but seriously...let's take a look at those numbers once again:
http://www.dems.gov/index.asp?Type=B_...{D68CD0B2-1442-4804-9F6B-AF67DE7FF585}&DE={FDD09C4F-E958-4E13-A92B-179C2FAC6FEA}&Design=PrintView
see anything there that makes you think this mess we are in isn't the republican's fault?
"Sorry jay, but tax, tax, tax is not the answer"
never said it was cwilly...but what do you think we've had to do over and over in order to pay for republican spending?
here are those pesky numbers again:
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
finally...shall we go through the mcsame bs detector exercise in order to put to rest any doubt that mccain represents a third bush term or are you going to concede the point and save us the time?
July 9, 2008
4:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
DenverDan writes:
It must be hard for all of you on the right to stand up for what has happened over the past eight years. This is not left vs. the right, this is about the past vs. the futher.
OMAMA 08 Biiitccchs bet it......
July 9, 2008
4:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
KW writes:
I'm sorry jay, I guess I wasn't specific enough and I've confused you.
I was asking how you felt about Obama's latest policy stance regarding Iraq. You know, the one he's whipping out now. Not the dilly of a lulu he posted on his website (which I'm sure he'll be changing soon) in order to clinch the nomination.
Thinking voters already knew he could never follow through on that silly promise. It was just a vote getter. You knew that too, didn't you? You also understand there are a great deal more revisions to come as well, don't you?
How does this make you feel? Are you alright with all these changes and revisions being thrown at you at once?
Just want you to know we're here for you little buddy. If you need a shoulder you just let us know, alright?
July 9, 2008
4:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
marinegrunt....... your posts are some of the most sensible I've read today. I wonder if some people here excuse the fact Saddam killed his own people, in mass, with chemical weapons (including mustard gas)? I guess they may even be okay with him having thousands tortured and killed by acid baths to intimidate their families? Genocide is okay for them, because they have no compassion for other people's suffering, and they think the U.S. should never do anything against leaders like that? I watched something last week, I believe it was on Discovery or NatGeo, but it's something I had already known. Saddam Hussein fashioned his rule after that of the Nazi party. The Republican Guard was a version of the SS. I'm not naive about what Hussein represented, and I'm sure you aren't either.
See ya dude!
July 9, 2008
5 p.m.
Suggest removal
FormerObamaSupporter12 writes:
How many free passes is this con artist going to get?
First Rezko, Ayers, Wright and the rest of his cronies now this.
Yes, impeach Obama.
Just today he pissed of Merkel of Germany
and voted YES for FISA effectively squashing the 4th amendment.
Senator Clinton voted no. Read her press release:
http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statem...
July 9, 2008
5:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
Cwillyrun1
You know I have heard this same BS from every guy that runs for office. Talk is cheap. Now all of you cons won't want to admit it but Clinton did lower spending which caused the surplus. And he did it in a way that made a lot of people mad. And that was with cutting defence spending. Now before all of you jump and say he weakened our military he did not. He did it by shuting down bases that where serving no purpose. And if he did weaken it, it sure didn't look like it when just a year and a halve later we brought the Taliban to it's knees with little effort and a year later stormed through Iraq with ease. See defence is our #1 cost. And it is needed. But we have not been defence spending we've been offence spending. We think we need to go fight wars and nation build all the time.
July 9, 2008
5:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
Sorry, jay, but knowing the McCain and Bush butted heads for years, and disagreed quite often, I can see they're not the same. But you can listen to others say it and after awhile, it just becomes so. I like to think for myself, not have others do it for me. You are the opposite, you are a follower jay. Sorry, I'm not wasting my time on your Democratic propoganda, but nice try. Well really, it wasn't a nice try, but I didn't want to hurt your feelings again.
July 9, 2008
5:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
Another thing I left out was he signed a welfare reform bill that took millions off welfare and put them in the work force. But that didn't do to much good because under Bush a lot of them got layed off and there jobs out sourced.
July 9, 2008
5:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
Actually dilligaf, I do give credit for Clinton reducing spending. It was smart to do it. I wish it was a litmus test for both candidates, "do you plan on reducing spending" and the other one I want is, "will you raise taxes across the board?" so we know what their plans are. I believe spending has to be reduced, especially when it comes to pork in the budgets.
July 9, 2008
5:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"Sorry, jay, but knowing the McCain and Bush butted heads for years, and disagreed quite often, I can see they're not the same."
let's try this again.
cwilly can you tell me which of mccain's policy stances on the major issues before the country are strategically different than bush's?
that's a very easy question.
if you have a leg to stand on, it will be apparent.
those issues, according to the latest polling are:
economy/taxes
iraq
healthcare
iraq
corruption
my guess is you can't make your case, cwilly.
let's be adults and not pout about it alright?
yes, kw, i have heard rush say that obama has "flipflopped" on his iraq stance...i just didn't think anyone was still spouting that myth as it has been debunked so much over the last few days.
oh well...no surprises when it comes to you my little rushian footsoldier.
again man...lay off the rush.
July 9, 2008
5:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
Lay off the Al Sharpton, jay........ and Messy Jesse Jackson while you're at it too! I know you're just their footsoldier......
Guess what jay, Obama voted for the new FISA rules, going along with Bush's stance. That must mean he's another Bush, using your logic. Argue with that.
Yep, Bush doesn't want to raise taxes and neither does McCain, but Obama does.
Yep, Bush wants to stabilize Iraq and so does McCain, but Obama wants to cut and run. Then all of the deaths of U.S. servicemen and women fighting against the terrorists there will be in vain. And the odds are if the U.S. were to cut and run, the terrorists won't be fighting the U.S. over there, so they'll come here to do it again.
Yep, Bush is against the flawed idea of socialized health care and so is McCain, but Obama's for it despite it's huge, huge failure in Massachussetts. The state is now asking the federal government to bail them out, and I hope the feds don't. Why should we pay for their mistake? It's also failed in Oregon.
Going back to Iraq again? Yep, Bush and McCain aren't cowards...... Obama probably believes the best way to stand up to a bully is to run away as fast as you can.
Now the last one, corruption. I'm sure you'll try really, really hard to work that one out, but I think all three are the same on that. Bush, McCain and Obama aren't corrupt, in my opinion.
So then, take your advice and don't whine, or go crying to mommy, just deal with it and move on.
July 9, 2008
5:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
i'll ask again....
which of mccain's policy stances on the major issues before the country today are strategically different than bush's, cwilly.
just list them.
if you can't, please don't try to run from the mcsame association again, okay?
July 9, 2008
5:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
KW writes:
I said "revision" jay, never used the words "flip flop." Is that what Obama's revision looked like to you?
BTW - You better tell the folks at moveon.orgasm and dailykos that you debunked the "revision" (as Obama put it) fiasco. Those people are frothing at the mouth over there.
On the other hand, you seem to be taking things rather well. Good for you to keep up the spirits I suppose. Whatever gets you through these tough times is ok by me.
July 9, 2008
6:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
KW writes:
artstarzz - You may be in need of some voter help from somewhere if you want Obama in '08. Those Hillary supporters don't seem to be flocking to Obama's side like the left had predicted.
From The Gallup Poll (not the biased polls jay uses):
Obama 46%
McCain 44%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/108718/Gal...
That's well within the margin of error my friend.
Two other important facts to consider:
1) People being polled by telephone aren't going to reveal any racial bias. They reserve those feelings for the secluded privacy of the secret ballot voting booth.
2) This poll doesn't reflect Obama's FISA vote today.
On another note... This headline from The Gallup Poll is telling as to why we might find so many Obama supporters here at the RMN:
'Obama Makes Gains Among Less Educated'
"Closes 7 point gap among voters with high school education or less"
http://www.gallup.com/fvideo.aspx?i=t...(.D6YjMAykYObU3uBGecrx2j-C8PVOnYhQaa
Just a thought!
July 9, 2008
6:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
mrfxx writes:
Yes - we understand "cause and effect". We also understand that while corporations factor in the 35% tax rate to their prices, many end up paying little if anything in taxes because they manipulate tax law. My sympathy for business is in a dictionary.
As far as McCain vs Obama on "flip flops" - I think they are in a dead heat. The differences of what they are "flip flopping" on is interesting.
Here are just a few of the 1,170,000 hits when I searched for obama mccain "flip flop":
US candidates practise their U-turns at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7...
Obama and McCain - flip-flop, flip-flop
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/art...
CNN poll: Voters say both candidates flip-flop
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/0...
The Flip-Flop Brothers at http://www.slate.com/id/2194083/
July 10, 2008
10:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
KW writes:
Gas - Only $1 to $1.50 more per gallon than after Katrina. We weathered that. Cut out the Starbucks a few times a week (like most people have) and you can offset that whopping extra $15 a week expense.
Food - Plentiful, readily available, don't see the crisis.
Housing - Again, prices are balancing out to normal and affordable, many people made a killing but like with the gas situation the market will change. When it does the market will begin a new upswing. This happens every 10 - 15 years but perhaps you never paid attention before.
The War - Obama is learning that we'll be in Iraq a long time. He's coming around... And this by his own admission.
Taxes - Whatsa matter, are they too low? Obama will raise them so I don't see how electing him will help in this arena.
art - We are electing a president here. There isn't any national or world crisis needing fixing so I'm not sure what you are referring to.
If you need to be "saved" perhaps you should visit a church.
July 10, 2008
10:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
that's right kw...you just keep wearing those rose colored glasses. i wonder why nearly 9 out of 10 americans think things are going in the wrong direction and the vast majority believe they're worse of today than they were before the republicans took over?
sounds like you're once again in the vast minority in your attempts to rationalize away the failures that we've seen over the last near decade
hey, quick question...do you think we're going to have to raise taxes to pay for the fiscal policies of the last 8 years?
July 10, 2008
10:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
navymom writes:
Has anyone checked out the percentage of no votes on Barack Obama in his first term in congress? In the second half of the 109th Congress, his first, he missed just under 2% of the votes in Congress. Since he announced his bid for the presidency, he has missed 43.5% of the votes in the Senate in the current 110th Congress. I know that McCain has also missed a lot of votes while campaigning, but we have at least had a long time to get to know where McCain stands on the issues. Obama is a newcomer, unknown to the vast majority of people until he was elected to the Senate and took office in '05. All we really know of him is the controversies that surround him and his constantly flip-flopping positions. We are being asked to take his word that he is who he says he is and that he means what he says, with absolutely no way of verifying if he is a man of his word.
I know that opinions and positions of candidates change, but when you have a newcomer who votes liberal when he bothers to vote at all and then tries to move to the center after he is practically guaranteed the nomination, it seems to be pretty suspicious and disingenuous to me. It seems that he wanted to stay left of Hillary during the primary, which is where is short voting record puts him, and then try to convince us that he is really a moderate after all after Hillary is no longer an opponent.
July 10, 2008
11:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"All we really know of him is the controversies that surround him and his constantly flip-flopping positions."
no, navymom...that's what YOU think you know about him because you've chosen willful ignorance.
www.barackobama.com
educate yourself instead of making a fool out of yourself.
July 10, 2008
1:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
navymom writes:
I have educated myself. I listen to the policies and views of Obama and then I check out his voting record.
Case in point, Obama says that oil companies don't need government handouts and should in fact be taxed on their profits so that the money can be given back to the consumer, (ignoring the fact that tax get passed to the consumer by companies anyway). Yet on 7/29/05, Obama voted with both parties to give 14.5 billion in tax breaks and incentives to the oil companies to promote the building of new refineries, new drilling and new nuclear power plants (all of which Obama seems to be against now, just 2 years later). The oil companies have tried to do all these things to some extent. Yes they have millions of acres of oil leases, but in many areas they are stopped from drilling by the states and environmental groups. If they are allowed to drill, the process is slowed by an extremely slow permitting process. The same goes for permitting for new refineries and power plants. I know a lot of this because I own a business that is involved with the industry (which, by the way, provides my family, my employees families and the families of many more small business' employees with a better living than we have had in a long time) and have firsthand knowledge. The state of Colorado wants to go even further and shut things down for several months a year because we might interfere with the mating of the prairie dogs, one particular toad species, a other animals (forget the fact that snowmobiles, ski resorts, four-wheelers and other tourist activities could also keep the poor prairie dog from procreating). But I digress. Back to Obama, this seems like a big flip-flop to me.
Next case of flip-flopping that no one has touched on yet. Just this spring on 3/13/08, Obama voted for a moratorium on earmarks for the fiscal year 2009. A good thing right? Well go to this sight (Obama's own sight)and you will see that Obama himself in '07 was the King of Earmarks. He garnered millions of dollars in earmarks for his home state for infrastructure upgrades such as sewer, water towers, etc. that I would have had to pay for on my property taxes if my hometown did these upgrades. Now my taxes are paying for city parks in Chicago, new theaters in Chicago as well as hundreds of millions more in earmarks. All that in just 2007. He hasn't disclosed 2008 or earlier years. He is definitely not a taxpayer hero. McCain on the other hand does not ask for earmarks.
Obama voted on 3/29/06, against both parties when he voted no on the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2006. This bill regulates lobbying, privately-funded travel and gifts from lobbyist to Congress, basically ethics rules for Congress and lobbyists. Obama must not have wanted to have to abide by these rules, because he is one of the few to vote against it. Yes, McCain voted against it also.
Continued in the next post.
July 10, 2008
1:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
navymom writes:
I could go on an on with bills for which he has voted contrary to how I believe he should have voted or with votes he has not even bothered to cast but would still call me a fool because I do not happen to agree with you and don't put Obama up on the pedestal that others have him on. I am not blind to McCain or Bushes weaknesses either. I just prefer not to vote for Obama, which is my right. I also prefer not to call people names. I don't stoop to that level because I have been raised by parents who taught me that calling names if wrong and I have enough of an education to use my words more constructively and wisely.
July 10, 2008
1:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
navymom writes:
I could go on an on with bills for which he has voted contrary to how I believe he should have voted or with votes he has not even bothered to cast but you would still call me a fool because I do not happen to agree with you and don't put Obama up on the pedestal that others have him on. I am not blind to McCain's or Bush's weaknesses either. I just prefer not to vote for Obama, which is my right. I also prefer not to call people names. I don't stoop to that level because I have been raised by parents who taught me that calling names is wrong and I have enough of an education to use my words more constructively and wisely.
Corrected just in case anyone mistakes my typos for ignorance or poor grammar and spelling instead of my fingers moving too fast on the keys and missing keys!
July 10, 2008
1:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"I have educated myself. I listen to the policies and views of Obama"
well then why do you make claims like this:
"All we really know of him is the controversies that surround him and his constantly flip-flopping positions."
either you understand where his policy stances lie or you don't.
which is it?
July 10, 2008
2:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
navymom writes:
Obama earmarks address is http://obama.senate.gov/press/070621-...
Forgot that in my earlier post!
July 10, 2008
2:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
navymom writes:
I can understand his stated policy stances and still believe that he is still an unknown. Obama has not been around long enough and has such a short flip-flopping record that believing that his stated policy stances ARE actually what HE believes is questionable. Does he even know what he believes? He says that he is for better health care, yet misses the opportunity to vote on bills related to health care. So does he really want better health care? I don't know.
My earlier posts just go to highlight the fact that people need to take a close look at what he says he believes and how that differs from how he votes. Maybe instead of saying that he is a flip-flopper we just need to point out the fact that the way he votes doesn't agree with the words coming out of his mouth.