Donald Trump aka "The Donald", has surged to being ranked second among likely Republican primary voters.
Some facts about "The Donald":
1. He started working for...his father, in fact his "Trump Organization" of which he is CEO, is something his parent's created.
2. He has twice had to have his casino operations declare bankruptcy
3. He is twice divorced, after the second divorce (from Marlena), he married a stick-figure model who is 24 years his junior. His comment on the point was that he was married to "his life" meanign his work, and his ex-wives weren't comfortable with that. Sure..I'm sure Ivana Trump was really unhappy you worked hard. Maybe it was that you treated her like dirt and never paid any attention to her (or your joint children) - most women I know can stand some separation, but they don't much care for being treated like cast-off toys.
4. At one time he wanted to be a film director
5. He supports socialized medicine
6. After the 2008 financial crisis, he apparently defaulted on payments to Deutsche Bank (or rather his casino did)), he claimed that the crisis was a "natural disaster" and he invoked (apparently) force majeur protections in the contract. Deutsche obviously didn't agree.
7. He spends a LOT of time golfing
8. He believes that Barack Obama isn't a citizen
He's neither self-made, nor is he particularly socially "pure" on issues many conservatives use to judge others. He is a bombastic, smart, ego-centric man, he's not Mr. "common sense" nor is he someone who made billions (as he claims) from his smart real-estate dealings, his parents and he appear to have been closer to starting as slum-lords than as Frank Lloyd Wright reborn. All of which I say with a healthy respect for the man, he gets his name in lights, he lives very well, and SOME things he's done have borne out very well indeed. If you want to be larger than life, you don't get larger than "the Donald."
However, the point of this post is to discuss the last point in the list - his support for the "birther" movement. The issue isn't about whether Obama is a citizen, has produced his bona fides to satisfy his most virulent and extreme critics, it is about Trump's (and others) support for such demands that Obama do so. The bottom line of the birther movement is this, Barack Obama COULD produce his long-form birth certificate and, according to the birthers, that is what he should do.
That raises two very important questions:
Presumably, or at least that's what we all assume, were Obama to do so, that would be the end of the discussion. My question for you is, do you really believe that? (and if so, why?)
The second is, if Barack Hussien Obama were instead named John Thomas Martin, and rather than being born in Hawaii, he'd been born in Panama to American parents, would you ask for this from him?
I'll address the first point first. Barack Obama has complied with the same law every other President has complied with. He has provided his birth certificate, it has been validated, and he has been accepted as the President. In short, he's met the requirements of the law. To ask him to do more would be asking him to take time from his job to answer foolish, irrelevant questions. What if the question was whether Obama was truly a man? Should he allow "independent" doctors to examine him? What right of privacy exists in this nation when a man can be compelled by mob rule to expose his medical records for their prurient review? Should he submit himself (and MUCH MORE IMPORTANTLY) the Office of the President of the United States, to the stupidest and vilest barbs of those who will not believe this person, because of their own political belligerence, no matter what he says?
I suspect very strongly that if Obama released his long-form birth certificate, too few of the 45% of Republicans who question his citizenship would be satisfied (because anything other than about 99% would be far too few), they would ask for more, and more, and more. It would not stop here. It will never stop. Someone who makes this kind of demand isn't concerned with facts, they believe Obama is a Muslim because they hear it but mostly because they WANT to believe anything which is (in their mind) defaming or derogutory. The issue of his birth isn't the issue, the issue is the conduct and easily manipulated feelings of those so filled with fear and hate that they'd believe Obama secretly wants to create "re-education camps" or is willing to kill your grandparents.
On the second point (and then I'll tie these together), this question is steeped in religious and racial bias. Barack Obama should no more be obligated to provide his proof of citizenship (and no less) than John McCain, Ronald Reagan, or John Kennedy. It is akin to asking a black man to prove he is allowed to vote, when you never ask a white man to do so. It is pathetic, it is a disgusting reminder of our racist under-current, it is revolting, and it is wrong. On this principle alone Obama is not only right to refuse, he is OBLIGATED TO REFUSE, for he is obligated to support and defend to the law, not to respond to the ugly, hate-filled and deranged demands of those who despise him with all their soul (like Limbaugh). And they hate him for no reasons other than they don't like his politics or his color or his religion (or all of the above). His job, not just as President, but as a citizen, is to absolutely refuse to allow this unlawful intrusion into his privacy. To do less would be to do something "truly unprescedented." To do less would be to agree that any elected official should be compelled to respond to any question, no matter how deranged, even if the official has fully complied with the law. This question isn't reasonable, this isn't asking him what he had for breakfast, it is a side-long stab at maligning his reputation, and he absolutely should not dignify it with a reply.
And that's what weaves both these points together; this is about the precedents we set, both in respecting the rule of law, and in what we demand of the Office of the President. Someone like Donald Trump, who ought to recognize the need to not distract the country or that office onto garbage, thinks only in the frame of "why not put this to rest" since so many have questions, rather than saying what should be said, "Those of you with questions can go to hell, he owes you nothing, and for the respect of the Presidency, let alone his personal right to privacy, he should absolutely NOT give you anything more." Trump proves he is totally unfit for the office not because he wants to "satisfy" constituents, but because he believes the question should be addressed at all.
Mr. Trump may be doing a service to the country by advancing his “birther” questions … as it has prompted FactCheck to issue an updated rejection of the claim with particular evaluation of Mr. Trump’s claims.
ReplyDeleteIt’s funny that President Obama is the focal point of the citizenship question when two Republican nominated candidates of the past eight would be more questionable. John McCain was not born in the United States but instead of American parents who were stationed in the Panama Canal Zone. And Barry Goldwater was born in the territory of Arizona in 1909, but Arizona did not become a state until 1912 … in both instances, it did not permit them from being on the ballot.
Since you mentioned John Kennedy, is it appropriate that the question of religion instructions dictating political policy be discussed ? You may recall the speech that candidate Kennedy gave in Houston to a group of religious leaders :
“I believe in an America...
-- where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote;
-- where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference;
-- and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.
I believe in an America...
-- that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source;
-- where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and
-- where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.
Today, our political system is tied up over abortion … healthcare reform was threatened because of it and the issue almost created a government shutdown on Friday. In the end, Speaker Boehner accepted a compromise that did not include a prohibition that Planned Parenthood would not get funding while getting a commitment for a vote in the Senate on the PP funding question … plus obtaining funding for private schools …. which include Catholic, Baptist and Islamic schools.
Candidate Kennedy said No to the Pope, but today, IMO, many politicians kowtow to religious leaders.
MN Central.
ReplyDeleteThank you for such an eloquent and poignant reminder of how great we are, and can be, if we try and if we remember to respect the liberties of others - even and especially of those with whom we may not agree.
More proof that Mr. Trump is connecting ....
ReplyDeleteSarah Palin lauded Donald Trump's efforts to raise doubts about President Obama's citizenship in a Fox News interview.
Said Palin: "More power to him. He's not just throwing stones, you know -- from the sidelines. He's digging in there. He's paying for researchers to know why President Obama would have spent $2 million to not show his birth certificate. So more power to him."
She added: "I think he was born in Hawaii because there was the birth announcement put in the newspaper. But obviously, if there's something there that the president doesn't want people to see on that birth certificate, then he seems to go to great lengths to make sure it isn't shown, and that's kind of perplexing for a lot of people."
Sounds to me like a Dream Ticket ... Trump and Palin in 2012 ... I would have thought it would be Palin and Trump but apparently, a stone-thrower takes preference to a Hockey Mom.
Oh, ya, I forget to mention that it should not be forgotten that Mr. Trump talked about running for President under the Reform banner in 1999 ... maybe if he doesn't win the Republican nomination, he could ask Governor Jesse Ventura to join him as that party's nominee.
Trump is a joke. The only reason anyone considers him a serious candidate is because he has name recognition and enough money to finance his own campaign. If the republicans want a businessman to run look at Herman Cain from Atlanta, he was CEO at a few companies that got better with him at the helm and did not go bankrupt or have scandals when he left.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the birther thing it is a waste of time. Two things sealed it for me. One, Obama ran against a Clinton in the primary, if there was a way to kick him completely out Hillary would have been waving it over her head at the democratic national convention. Two, birth announcement in the Honolulu paper on August 5, 1961. Today to get that for a baby born in Kenya on Aug 4 would be easy, in 1961 it would take planning. Now while I can easily believe various people have groomed Obama to run for president, only the tin foil hat crowd believes that started the day he was born, more likely it started in his twenties.
Now while I don't think the long form certificate would show Obama is not a citizen I do think there is something on there he has worked hard to keep out of the public eye. Maybe it listed his parents religion as Muslim, very damaging to a campaign post 9/11 while we are fighting muslim fanatics in Afghanistan. I would really like to see the blank forms side by side, just to see what information is on the long form that is not on the short form. While I don't agree with Obama on most of what he does I have never thought he was stupid so there must be some reason he doesn't just pop out the long form and say "see nothing there, dumbass".
oh one thing for Minnesota Central. The funding for vouchers in DC was not kowtowing to religious leaders. The vouchers can be used at any private school, religious or not. And it was the DC parents who wanted it. In all the studies done of the voucher program in DC the students participating in it did better on entrance exams and had a higher graduation rate from high school. My brother lives in DC and when the voucher program was killed a lot of residents were very mad about it. 95% of DC voted for Obama and he killed a program over 80% of them supported.
ReplyDeleteTtucker,
ReplyDeleteFirst, thanks for reading my comment on the DC voucher program.
My review of various GAO evaluations and DOE reports leads me to believe that the lackluster progress of the original program warrants it to be terminated. I wrote link roughly a year ago that it was a waste of taxpayer dollars. The new bill … the Boehner bill, H.R. 471 would authorize the appropriation of $20 million for each of fiscal years 2012 through 2016 for the District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Program, which provides scholarships for private-school tuition to parents of students who reside in the District of Columbia and meet certain criteria. … Using Dick Armey of Freedom Works figures that the average scholarship is $6,620, then roughly 3,000 students could apply … but the Washington DC school system is not 3,000 … SOAR will leave over 50,000 students out of the program.
Yes, I know that non-religious schools can participate in the program, yet if you read my March 29th commentary, Catholic schools benefited greatly. I suspect that those Catholic schools offer scholarships to needy students but why should taxpayers pay for students to attend those schools ? Mr. Boehner attended a private, all-male high school – possibly on scholarship --- and no tax payers provided scholarships then. I, also, attended a similar private, all-male Catholic high school ( I am older than Mr. Boehner but I am familiar with his school as our schools competed in sports) (BTW, Chip Cravaack also attended a Cincinnati all-male private Catholic high school and he voted for the bill) … at my high school reunion last fall, the class donated over $100,000 to provide scholarships … if you want your child to attend a private school, you should pay … taxpayers should only pay for public schools. And this is not a comment about Catholic schools, as Baptist and Islamic schools are likely to participate.
If you buy the co-mingling funds argument that Planned Parenthood should not receive government funding for pap smears and other medical tests since those dollars help offset the costs of operating facilities where abortions are performed, then is it not logical to acknowledge that scholarship dollars help pay for buildings, teachers, equipment, etc. that are necessary to educate non-scholarship students ? By providing government funds, the tuition costs for other private students can be less … and who are the families that send their children to private schools ? Well, according to a Heritage Foundation study, in 2007 more than 37 percent of Representatives and 45 percent of Senators sent their own children to private school, more than double the national average of 11.5 percent.
If Boehner wants to fix the Washington DC educational system, funding a few scholarships does not address the scope of the problem.
Is now the time when every government program is being questioned that Congress should resurrect one that benefits so few ?
Regards,
Mac Hall
Ttucker,
ReplyDeleteWith all due respect, if I am understanding your comment, you believe that Trump is a joke and the birther business is a waste of time, but then assert that you are suspicious that something is being hidden … isn’t that the real purpose of the birther campaign, namely to promote “FUD” — fear, uncertainty and doubt ?
It reminds me of Dick Tuck taunting Richard Nixon … it sets the stage for frivolous lawsuits … already ten states are considering laws to require birth records when filing for elective office … and just this week, the Kansas State Objections Board rejected a request to compel Obama to produce a valid birth certificate to prove that he meets the citizenship requirements to run for president … they did not reject the request because of the merits of the case but because of standing as Obama has not filed for election yet … wanna bet the lawsuit will be return when he does ?
And that leads to Obama having to expend legal fees to address these issues … and remember when you hear Trump and others state that Obama has spent millions with lawyers fighting this “birther” lawsuits, that is what they are talking about … as they file court actions, he has to respond … using the same law firm that John Kerry used and I don’t recall anyone questioning Kerry’s birth status.
Another reason to push birth records may be because some people may not have them. Not because they will run for elective office, but instead to deny them the right to vote. Kansas has just changed its voter registration law to accept birth certificates prior to registering the voter. Now, we think that everyone is born in a hospital, but I had one employee who had a son that was born at home … this is probably not as rare as you would think. This is a problem for many older citizens. Then there is the problem for someone like my bride … will she have to show a certified copy of her birth certificate and marriage license to register to vote using her married name ? It’s a slippery slope, which serves no good purpose other than to slow the process of registering and voting.
BTW, have you seen a Hawaiian “long form” birth record …
it includes the name of the hospital, the name of the attending physician, name and address of the parents, birthplace of the parents, the race of the parents and the race of the baby. The same type of items found on mine and my bride. There is no mention of religion on mine nor on the Hawaiian form.
Pushing FUD has election value … have you heard anyone say “I could never vote for somebody that is that fat” or “I hope he doesn’t win, because I could not stand listening to him talk for the next four years with that accent” or “Did you know he/she was a ____” fill in the blank – Muslim, Catholic, Jew, the anti-Christ, … or Gay … heck, I will bet that someday the word will get out that a candidate is a vegetarian.
I am a believer in listening to the Message and not the Messenger.
When Pat Paulsen campaigned for President he brought a little levity to the contest by proclaiming that he was proud to be a homo sapien, but his most honest and insightful quote was "I must choose my words carefully in order to avoid any negative interpretation. Among politicians, this is a tactic known as lying"
Ignore the Messenger … ignore the flag pin … if you respond to the non-sense, you fall for FUD.
Regards,
Mac Hall
Mac, equally with every post and every comment from you, you represent what I aspire to be as a blogger.
ReplyDeleteThank you; you continue to be one of the best examples there is of quality writing, insight, and research in the blogosphere.
True it does not contain religion. I googled and found a site that compared the certificate Obama released with the one he didn't. The things on the long form and not on the short one are the parent's birthplace, occupation, address and age. The short form just has name and race. The long form also contains the hospital name, attending physicians signature, registrars signature and parents signature. It also shows if you are a twin or triplet and if so what order you were born in. From what I read the differences are because when Hawaii became a state the royal family left certain benefits that can only be used by native Hawaiians and these other fields are used to determine elegibility to those. Here is a good site with a picture of what Obama released that is fully accepted by the state dept as proof of citizenship.
ReplyDeletehttp://urbanlegends.about.com/od/barackobama/a/obama_birth_certificate.htm Now in the article it says it is signed by the state registrar and in DGs other Trump post she says it is signed by the attending physician, if so it must be on the back.
My only problem with this whole thing is Obama could resolve it with one phone call.
Tucker,
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with MN Central, and in fact it's central to my point, witch hunts like "what's on his long form birth certificate? If he didnt' have anything to hide, he wouldn't object." are so totally wrong, so totally disrespectful of liberty as to offend our sense of decency.
Obama isn't responsible to submit his long form birth certificate, not to you, me, his mom, not anyone. He doesn't have to prove there's nothing to hide, others have the burden of proof to show cause to intrude into his private, personal life.
Put another way, George Bush SAYS he volunteered for overseas duty when he enlisted/joined the naitonal Guard, yet, the Texas AG purged many of the records about George Bush in 1998, including, (it seems), redacting (blacking out) that portion of his enlistment papers which shows whether or not he truly volunteered. Now, while I'd LOVE to hang Bush for lying, and HE's the one who put this in the public eye - would you agree that we have the RIGHT to see Bush's original enlistment form? Texas lawyers (for the AG as I recall) argued (successfully) that we don't, that it is an intrustion into his privacy.
Obama is President, if he gave them his long-form birth certificate and it showed nothing, they'd (the witch hunters) would want something else, they would demand yet another thing, and so on. His responsibility is to comply (only) with the law, just as ALL of his predecessors have done, to do more is to set a prescedent that people are entitled to dig into the personal details of any elected official, no matter how trivial, murcurial or irrelevant. They aren't, it's as simple as that and whether Barack Obama's father was a uniterian, Muslim, Zoarastrian, Hindu, Shinto, Confuscianist, Daoist, or Eastern Orthadox Jew, is of ABSOLUTELY no relevence. Those who would make it so are merely showing their own religious bigottry and intolerance. Our question should NOT be "what's on the long form birth certificate" but rather should be "what the hell is wrong with you people? Why do you want to make an issue out of every last detail of Obama's life, is your hatred so all-consuming that you see windmills in a wheat field?"
Pen, There is one difference between Obama's birth certificate and Bush's national guard record. It is a requirement listed in the constitution that the president be born in the United States and there is not one that he serve in the military. Now I don't think that means he needs to make it public but it should mean that anyone on the ballot shows a birth certificate to the chief justice of the supreme court or something. I didn't see anything on a long form that would be worth hiding, I am betting the reason he hasn't shown it is he is getting a good laugh at people like Trump. Conspiracy theories are a good distraction. I saw a poll the other day where 24% of democrats still believe Bush helped plan 9/11 and 16% aren't sure. Think about that for a minute, all those people believe a sitting president attacked our own country and killed over 3000 civilians so he could attack another country. I disagree with 95% of what Obama is doing but I would never accuse him of intentionally killing American civilians just to advance his goals. Some people are just stupid.
ReplyDeleteOh and Pen you are right about setting a bad precedent and I had not thought about that angle. It is kind of like the police asking to search your car when you get stopped for speeding. A lawyer friend of mine says always tell them no. If too many people say yes then it is no longer an unreasonable search and you have lost some of your constitutional rights.
ReplyDeleteI haven't seen such a poll and doubt it's veracity.
ReplyDeleteObviously I don't believe Bush attacked the country, however, I DO believe he lied about the actual threat and/or ignored facts he didnt' find convenient and thus moved us into a war which was very VERY ill-advised. He did it for a myriad of reasons, but one certainly appears to have been simply the access to Iraqi oil for the benefit of US Oil companies. While not as craven as attacking your own country, it's kissing-cousin to being as immoral.
With respect to the 95% of what Obama does which you don't agree with, would that include the bank bailout and financial stimulus? Would it include actually asking the rich to pay what they paid in taxes in 2000, rather than what they pay today, so as to not have the country approach bankruptcy or cause the middle class to pay more in health care expenses?
yes it would. The whole bailout was organized by Paulson and put together in Geithners office and the biggest benificiary of it is Goldman Sachs where Paulson used to be ceo. Why should the government give AIC 85 billion when they had 1.6 trillion in assets? Do what most people would have to, sell a bunch of them at 40-50% of value and raise the 85 billion on your own.
ReplyDeleteAnd my whole argument on the tax deal is that we just need a real honest to god spending freeze. Not cuts, just a freeze. But a real one. If the budget last yr was 3.2 trillion then it is 3.2 trillion this yr. No automatic increases unless you want to decrease something else by an equal amount. Several economist, including some very liberal ones, believe that a real freeze would eliminate the deficit in 5-7 yrs and if we kept it going pay off the entire national debt in 15-20 yrs. That is with no tax changes, up or down, and no spending cuts. Another part of my problem is with how he defines rich. I know a lot of people with a family income of 250-300k. They are mostly doctors and people who own their own business and a good percentage of them did not make that kind of money until they had spent 10 yrs in school and another 5-10 building their practice or 10 yrs building up their business. They didn't inherit money or get where they are easily. Also most of them already pay a good bit of taxes, they have larger houses so their property taxes are pretty high and their kids go to private school but they have to pay school tax for the public school they don't even use. What I don't get is why you are so in favor of the government bailing out the super rich when they screw up but wanting to tax the crap out of people just a little above middle class.
Oh and the US oil companies made little to nothing off Iraq. Most of the contracts when to Russian and European oil companies.
Tuck,
ReplyDeleteWho organized the bailout and who benefited I will not dispute, but DO remember that Hank Paulson was Bush's animal, and Bush, not Obama, organized the bank bailouts.
However, with that said, also recognize that while America in many ways got bilked by the bailouts, there have been enormous successes as well.. Nearly all the TARP money has been repaid, we saved GM and Chrysler and 2M jobs, and without the bailout and stimulus, we'd have experienced the 2nd Great Depression in less than 100 years, and both times brought about by the same irresponsible and reckless speculation and profiteering of Wall Street.
They shouldn't have been rewarded, but we did HAVE to act - Obama's "overpayments" to Wall Street were (by and large) far less than Bush's, and far less than McCain voted to support as well (as I recall). So if you blame Obama for overpaying, I assume you blame the Republicans at least as much, if not moreso?
Absolutely. I still think that a large part of the reason McCain lost was because he stopped campaigning to fly to DC and sign onto the bailout with Bush and Obama. His biggest appeal with conservatives was his efforts to reduce spending, audit Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when problems first started appearing, and opposing wasteful spending. So in the middle of the campaign he tosses that out to show unity with the guy he is running against, stupid move.
ReplyDeleteAs far as taxing the rich here are some numbers for you. In 2008 (latest figures I could find tonight) the total household income for all households making over 200k per yr, was 1.35 trillion, the deficit is 1.3 trillion. So if you want to define rich as over 200k per yr and close the deficit by taxing the rich you would need to take away all exemptions and deductions and tax their gross income at about 98%. If you change your definition of rich to over 150k you could drop the tax rate to about 60%, at 100k you could make it 35%. So a family with the dad making 50k and the mom making 50k you would need to take 35k of that to get rid of the deficit. None of this would pay down the debt either just keep it from getting larger. You have to have some spending cuts and fairly large ones.
NOTE : This comment was meant for the FactCheck Trump commentary ... but the Blogger browser is not permitting me to make leave a comment on that entry.
ReplyDelete= = = = = = = = = = = = =
CONSIDER : Mark Dagostino, a ten-year veteran of People magazine who
ghostwrote the Hulk Hogan memoir My Life Outside the Ring, is attributed to be Tim Pawlenty's ghostwriter on Courage to Stand ... err ... Mr. Pawlenty calls him a "collaborator". Based on Mr. Pawlenty's admission in the book that when he wants to relax, he goes to hockeyfights.com.
Should we believe that Mr. Pawlenty's "family time" is spent with Mary, Anna and Mara gathered around watching men flay away at each other in hockey gear ... or is this an effort to create the "macho-man" image as is prevalent in the pages of People magazine ?
CONSIDER : Since at least 2008, there have been assertions that Bill Ayers wrote a book entitled "Dreams From My Father" which lists the author as Barack Obama.
QUERY : Does it matter if someone employs a "collaborator", "ghostwriter" or "editor" ... does that infer that the credited author has no ability to generate creative thoughts?
Mr. Trump is now pushing the Ayers/Obama conspiracy ... Mr. Trump was on Laura Ingram's radio program last week, then on Sean Hannity's television program ... and then during the Boca Raton TaxEnoughAlready event ...
“They say ‘Dreams of My Father’ was genius, and they give [Obama] full credit, and now it’s coming out that Bill Ayers wrote it. That’s what started him on this road where he became president.”
Somehow, if the ghostwriter was Tony Schwartz or Meredith McIver, it probably would not carry the impact of insinuating that it was Bill Ayers.
Note :Tony Schwartz wrote Mr. Trump’s “The Art of the Deal” while Meredith McIver wrote several of his others including “How to Get Rich,” “Think Success,” and “Trump 101”.
For what its worth, I am a big believer in "ignore the messenger but listen to the message" ... that said, the message that Mr. Trump is trying to portray is that President Obama is not entitled to be President based on his birth status and now is not intellectually component to be a leader ... that message should be rejected on its merits ... and therefore the messenger must be discounted also.
Actually, I suggest anyone interested in the "messenger" to watch the C-SPAN replay of Mr. Trump's Boca Raton speech .. the "messenger" was rambling and amateurish. For someone who has spent so much time in the media, it was pathetic.
While FactCheck has performed a valuable service in evaluating the birther claim, I hope it does not have to waste its resources taking up Mr. Trump's latest assertion.
TUCK WRITES : I still think that a large part of the reason McCain lost was because he stopped campaigning to fly to DC and sign onto the bailout with Bush and Obama. His biggest appeal with conservatives was his efforts to reduce spending, audit Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when problems first started appearing, and opposing wasteful spending. So in the middle of the campaign he tosses that out to show unity with the guy he is running against, stupid move.
ReplyDeleteQuestion : Did McCain lose because he lost the Conservatives or because he lost the independents ?
Considering that the Presidency is determined by the Electoral College, to accept your premise, you would have to identify the states that you believe flipped to Obama based on Conservatives deciding not to participate.
Yes, TARP did have an impact … but probably not at the Presidential level. IMO, the first victim of the TaxEnoughAlready movement was Norm Coleman. Coleman lost because of TARP … there were rumblings amongst the hardcore MN-GOP for Coleman’s stance on climate change, fuel efficiency, SCHIP, just to name a few, but when he voted for TARP, that was the last straw. Coleman has admitted that TARP hurt him … and if you want proof, just look at the votes that McCain got in Minnesota versus Coleman. Remember again that the Presidency is determined by the Electoral College and every Minnesotan that went to vote on Election Day knew that the polls said that MN was safely in Obama’s column … so how many votes did McCain get … 1,275,409 … and how many votes did Coleman get …1,212.206 … that’s right 63,203 voters went to the polls knowing that their vote would not alter the Obama victory, but they were unwilling to give Norm Coleman another term. The opportunity to “waste” a vote on McCain was okay, but when it came to the US Senate race, they would rather “send a message” and cast their ballot for the Independence Party candidate, Dean Barkley, that – once again -- everyone knew would never win.
IMO, McCain did not lose because of failing to maintain the Conservatives but instead once he committed to the Conservatives by becoming the John McCain that independent voters did not know … he wasn’t the “Maverick” … he was just another politician.
Coleman did not lose to Franken by a couple of hundred votes … he lost by 63,203 Conservatives that had had enough of his RINO antics.
YES, the TARP vote may have had some impact in some races … but McCain wasn’t the only one that made that choice … John Kline (R-MN-02) voted for TARP … he won quite easily … so did Boehner, and many other Republicans … now that it’s history there are lot of people that complain about TARP but they voted for it … conversely, Tim Walz (D-MN-01) voted against TARP and he destroyed his opponent Dr. Brian Davis – a Mayo physician who ran on a Drill Baby Drill, No Healthcare banner.
Besides if TARP was really the key factor in who got your vote, you were sorta stuck … Bush signed it after McCain and Obama voted for it.
TARP was the right thing to do … and if you look at the stock market, I think you will agree that it has recovered … even with all its failings, we have recovered.
Mac Hall