Here's some links for you.
- So just so I can't be accused of only giving one side of the argument, apparently the Obama campaign put out a Spanish language ad in a few states that includes comments from Rush Limbaugh about immigration. It's ad designed to appeal to Latin voters for Obama by trying to point out a link between McCain and Limbaugh's anti-immigrant comments. Here's the link from Newsweek: http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/19/obama-fights-fire-with-fire-predictably-enough-that-whole-postpartisan-thing-was-never-going-to-work-out-was-it.aspx
Now, I have to say, this is inherently unfair to John McCain. McCain is for immigration reform and Limbaugh is against it. The two just don't mesh and this was not a good thing for the Democrats to do. And Limbaugh's comments were taken out of context. The article also states that Limbaugh is anti-McCain because of his immigration stances. So tying the two together was the wrong thing to do.
- The same article also talks about Obama's relationship with Franklin Raines. As I mentioned before, Raines was chief of Fannie Mae, which of course just collapsed. He's apparently been giving advice to Obama... maybe. The Obama camp denied this through spokesman Bill Burton, saying it was a lie. The article says it might be true but there was a Washington Post story that says that they have had communication. Neither Raines or Obama denied the story. McCain put an ad out pointing this out. This would seem not to be the best relationship: asking advice from the chief of a financial organization that has taken an historic tumble, to put it lightly. Not a good thing for the Dems.
- Another thing from that article: Obama's camp is saying McCain supports companies who ship jobs oversees. This is untrue. McCain wants to lower the tax rate for businesses to encourage them to bring jobs back to the US. The Dems are not saying this, just that he supports these companies, but not why so they are being deceptive here.
But I will also say that Obama has said he is considering this idea as well. You can find out more information about that from this article from the Wall Street Journal: http://www.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB121366164848479237.html
- The article also mentions that it has been said that McCain has flip-flopped on regulation. McCain has always said in the past that he was for less regulation. Now he's been calling for more regulation based on the banking crisis. The article points out that McCain did say at one point that "there is role for oversight"--especially in response to "the sub-prime lending crisis". The article states that statements like these are consistent with McCain's current rhetoric. So by Obama only pointing out his past statements, he's being one-sided.
I always believe a person is entitled to change their opinions so I'll give McCain this one. Hopefully he stays consistent with it, though.
There. It can't be said that I won't point out untruths put out there by the Democrats as well. However, as this article also points out the Democrats had to take this tactic because the Republicans were already doing this. If they hadn't, they'd lose the election. I'm not saying that to justify it, but just to point out that they were forced into a corner and had to come out swinging. They may at some point had to take this tactic anyway, maybe they wouldn't have, but they were forced into doing it because of the attacks of the Republicans
- I have time to share one more article...It's this article from Time: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1841380,00.html
The funny thing about this article for me is that for all of McCain's talk about being against earmarks and how he's going to veto the first earmark that comes across his desk as President, this article shows that he's already telling people that there are certain cases where the earmarks are worthwhile and he would not deny the earmarks. He's been against some very worthwhile things that could have used an earmark. (See the article) The article also points out that as President, McCain would be hard pressed to deny every earmark. He just can't do it. So how can he run on a platform of saying earmarks = bad? They are needed in some form.
- I'm tired. It's 12:30 at night now. Hope you enjoy the reading!
No comments:
Post a Comment