The Brand New Respectful Presidential Campaign Thread

As both parties get closer to choosing a candidate we will have these mysterious smears thrown at both. The press loves it, the candidates families get embarrassed, Nancy Grace gets new material, and it doesn't matter to many. We aren't surprised at the exposures, just wonder what they will dig up next. Many of us probably take a sigh of relief it isn't our "naughties" in the press.

Amy--there's an interesting article today in the Times on McCain and the appearances of impropriety.

As head of the Commerce Committee and also as author of McCain-Feingold, McCain is, and I believe should be, held to a higher standard than his fellow senators. I particularly think it important  because a large part of his campaign is based on his integrity and his rejection of earmarks and doing favors for lobbyists. As chairman of the Commerce Committee, McCain should not have sent the two letters on behalf of Paxson to the FCC. 

Let me emphasis that my original post said nothing of an improper relationship.  It doesn't matter if the lobbyist is his boyhood friend, a brother-in-law, or a mistress (whatever), doing favors for lobbyists, particularly if it's someone like McCain who states repeatedly that he holds himself to the highest principles, is wrong. In the article, the lobbyist admits to the Times that she sent the information to McCain's office so the FCC letters could be prepared. 

Of course, it gets much more attention if the media thinks he was influenced by a woman because of a romantic involvement (and much more attention from the public), but in my view that's neither here nor there in this issue. The issue is that he interferred in the affairs of government on behalf of a friend and, perhaps, unduly influenced a decision because of his position. The Chairman of the FCC openly rebuked McCain with respect to sending the letters.  It was a fair rebuke, and I think it's fair that the Times published this information. I wasn't planning to vote for McCain, but if I had been sitting on the fence, I would have wanted to know this information.

I hope you're correct, that the Times didn't sit on this until now for political reasons. That would certainly have been wrong.

. 

Amy,

But it wasn't his issue to be aware of. I had a consulting business for some twenty years, working for telecoms, all of them in the northeast, and finally Verizon Global Networks, and some of our work dealt with the FCC, including getting the baby bells, like Bell Atlantic and NYNEX, permission to compete in the long distance business.  It took many many years to get the FCC to agree to allow the baby bells to operate in the long distance world, well beyond 400 days or 800 days. Anything of any importance that goes before the FCC, Jackson excluded, is a long process.  It doesn't matter, as I said before, if this lobbyist was a good friend or a minor friend or not even a friend at all.  It wasn't part of McCain's business to pressure the FCC to come up with a decision, which is why this  looks suspicious to those in the business.  She could have easily gone to the FCC directly, and asked why the decision was taking so long.  The FCC would have told her directly--hold your horses until we get imput from everyone involved, which would have included the other telecoms that would be adversely affected by a positive decision for Paxson. 

I just read the McCain interview and it would appear you're correct.  The Times has been working on this for a long time and also sought McCain's input.  I gather, at least by inference, that the Times waited until it had sufficient evidence on the story of lobbyist influence to run its story.  When I first read the Times story, I did not think that the Times was suggesting an affair, just improper influence.  I think that other news organizations are playing up the affair angle, no doubt for sales.  Too bad! 

Some new info, and fascinating:  here is a link to The New Republic's story on this story.  It talks about how the Times began its investigation and the in-fightings in the Times newsroom regarding publication.  Interesting reading for those of you who like this stuff.  I do!

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=8b7675e4-36de-43f5-afdd-2a2cd2b96a24 

We all know that being a public figure - and you definitely become one when you toss your hat into the political arena - means that copious amounts of press (both good and bad) come with the territory. Info like the NYT story on McCain is par for the course. I gotta defend my fellow journalists here and say that this story was released when it was because the reporting/source checking needed to keep the NYT from getting sued for libel was finally complete (I understand this story has been in the works for about five months). Giving the NYT a "Shame on you!" is like blaming the messenger, imo.

Amy, personally I find Obama's healthcare plan to be confusing, or at least, inconsistent.  So I don't think Clinton was misinterpreting - I think she was trying to find a way to explain the inconsistency. 

Maybe you can clarify it for me.  Here's my understanding of Obama's plan:

• Obama believes that every American, given the opportunity to buy affordable healthcare coverage, will do so.  His plan therefore is to ensure that affordable healthcare coverage is available to everyone.  His premise is that this will translate to 100% coverage.
• However, the plan differs for children.  As Obama says, because children cannot make the decision for themselves as to whether or not to purchase healthcare insurance, he will mandate that every child has health care coverage, i.e. all parents must buy health insurance coverage for their children.  By mandating parents to buy coverage, Obama ensures that 100% of children will be covered. 
• So here's the inconsistency:  If Obama is confident that 100% of adults will purchase healthcare coverage for themselves provided that it's affordable (as he very often states), why does he then assume that these same adults may not provide the necessary coverage for their children?  He's not mandating coverage for adults because he assumes 100% compliance. But he is mandating coverage for children because he assumes that he may not get 100% compliance?  Huh?  If affordable healthcare coverage is available, wouldn't it be logical to think that before they even cover themselves, parents will ensure that their children are covered?  So if Obama is concerned that parents may not cover their kids (and therefore he must mandate it), how can he at the same time say that he's sure that all adults will cover themselves? 

I know I promised "no opinions" here.  I'm just confused and would appreciate help from someone who can explain the logic of Obama's health plan. 

There is NO WAY 100% of the people will buy health care even if it is reasonably priced! That is a pipe dream, there will always be free loaders no matter the price! Oops! Strike that opinion and let me take it to the other thread where one is allowed an opinion!

Paulette,

You are certainly allowed to have opinions here.  The "no opinions" rule is one that I laid out for myself after some of the ugliness on the previous thread.  I'm trying, really, but I do have to say that I agree with you, Connie and Shirley that not everyone will choose to buy healthcare coverage even if it's affordable.  I think that was Clinton's point in the debate last night, saying that Obama's plan doesn't really provide 100% coverage.

I'll shut up now. 

HI,

I am from Massachusetts and this is the place where both health insurance is mandated and the governor is proposing that the children of illegal aliens pay in-state rates for public colleges.  The mandated health insurance is beginning to run into some bumps in the road.  It really needs to shake out for a while longer to see if it is working.  It became effective last July 1 and everyone is supposed to have had insurance by December 31.  I know for a fact that not everyone did.  The way they are tracking it is through our tax returns - there is a new form to fill out.  I don't think we will be able to judge it until after the tax season is over.  I know I haven't done my tax return yet as I usually put it on extension and do it in October.  It will be interesting to see how it shakes out.

As far as the in-state tuition rates for children of illegal aliens goes, personally, I don't have a problem with it because those kids are usually American citizens by birth.  Why should a state resident who is an American Citizen be denied the same rates as others?  Is this a sins of the Father thing?  I heard such a sad story I have to share it - a girl was brought here illegally as an infant.  Her adopted mother is an American citizen.  This girl knew she was adopted, but she never knew she was here illegally.  The adoptive mother passed away in her 50's.  Somehow an investigation began and it came to light that the girl was here illegally.  The response was deport her to her country of origin - she didn't speak the language, she had no family there and yet, she was being forced to leave the only country and family she knew.  Is that right?  I don't think so.

There was another story - a legal immigrant in the service went missing in Iraq.  His wife was here illegally.  Yup, the federal government wanted to deport her.  Her husband was in the service to gain American citizenship.  At the last minute, our senator intervened and she was not deported.  Would that have been right?  Her husband gave his life (most likely) for this country and that is how they wanted to treat her.  Another story, there was raid on a factory and hundreds of illegal immigrants were rounded up and sent all around the country to different holding places.  No one even checked to see if these folks had kids.  Slowly, over the next week, it was discovered that some of these kids were in school at the time of the raid and there was no adult to come home to.  Even though the folks rounded up told the authorities that they had children, nothing was done at the federal level - it was all handled at the state level - tracking down the kids and making certain they were safe.  Was that right?  I am glad I live in a state that has some compassion for people.     

Anne, I believe there are certain circumstances where leniency is in order.  No, the kids should have have been left alone.  And no, the woman should never have even been considered to be exported.  And no, the adoptee should have never been deported.  But, somehow we need to clamp down on illegal immigrants.  There are many people here legally.  I do not think that if a baby is born in this country and their parents are illegals, that the baby should be a citizen of the U.S.  Does that sound mean?  Perhaps. 

I have a heart.  I really do.  But we've got to do something. 

We welcome immagration.  But, it has to be done in a more organized fashion.

Shirley  

Paulette,

Being a product of the "system" out of unusual circumstance, I could not disagree with you more. Granted,some people do manipulate and use the system and some are stuck there . Some, like my self and my siblings , have all educated themselves out the "system". We all own our own homes , and are living the "American Dream". We also give back and try to motivate others to overcome as we did. We were first generation on welfare , Mom handicapped(horrible car accident on way home from work, drunk driver), father died cancer. My sister is the Executive Director of the housing program in a surrounding area that is very depressed and every year there are families that buy their own homes and get out of the "system". I am sorry your experience was so negative. Most people do aspire to live better and do not have money for a Lexus or manicured nails on section 8. Please do not let a few swindlers be the face of many. I can only say that my life experience has been very different and I have a positive outlook on the ability for people to pull themselves out of poverty if given the proper  tools and the opportunity.  I can not negate your  life experience as I am sure you can not negate mine.I only hope someone comes along that restores your faith in society.............  I personally do not care whom people vote for, that is such a personal decision. There is no wrong or right answer , only what is right for the individual. My husband and I are polar opposites as far as politics are concerned. It pains me that in this free society , people attack each other for having what our forefathers fought and died for, a right to free expression. Saying nasty things about people because they have different views than you is juvenile, at best. Rock on to all the candidates, I wish them all well, I hope my guy wins but I wish everyone a clean , honest campaign.     

Benita

p.s . Great thread Amy ! I have enjoyed reading all the educated , well thought , diverse opinions.  

Amy,

So if I understand correctly, when you say "Obama is realistic in that 100% of people can, but won't necessarily buy the healthcare", this means that while Obama's healthcare program will make affordable healthcare available to everyone, it will not provide universal or 100% coverage, except for children. 

If I've interpreted you correctly, then I agree.  And this is exactly what Clinton has been saying.  My confusion comes from the fact that this is absolutely not what I have heard Obama say dozens of times.  It's your interpretation of his plan.  What Obama actually says is that his plan will provide "universal" coverage.  He has said repeatedly (as recently as during the debate this week) that he believes that every person in America will choose to buy insurance if it is affordable. 

Here are a couple of quotes from Obama's speech announcing his health care plan:

• My plan begins by covering every American....If you are one of the 45 million Americans who don't have health insurance, you will have it after this plan becomes law.  Not true.  His plan provides every American with the option to buy affordable insurance, but it does not cover every American since the decision to get coverage is up to them and we all seem to agree (except Obama) that there will be some people who won't buy the insurance. 
• The time has come for affordable, universal health care in America.  Obama's plan provides affordable heath care, but not universal health care. 
• http://www.barackobama.com/2007/05/29/cutting_costs_and_covering_ame.php

And from his speech to the Congressional Black Caucus on Jan. 21st: "My core belief is that people desperately want coverage, and my plan provides those same subsidies. If they are provided those subsidies and they have good, quality care that's available, then they will purchase it. That is my belief. " http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Health_Care.htm

Here's a neutral source assessment of Obama's and Clinton's plans:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/theyve_got_you_covered.html

On another topic, did anyone see this about the campaign funding that's gone to the superdelegates from Clinton & Obama?  It was mentioned on the news shows and was in most of the major newspapers within the past week.

"Obama's political action committee has doled out more than $694,000 to superdelegates since 2005, the study found, and of the 81 who had announced their support for Obama, 34 had received donations totaling $228,000.

Clinton's political action committee has distributed about $195,000 to superdelegates, and only 13 of the 109 who had announced for her have received money, totaling about $95,000."  http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/02/superdelegates.html

It looks like Obama doesn't want to leave much to chance (or to the strength of his policies).

No, universal means EVERYONE is covered. Not what Obama has said or implied at all, I don't think...

I agree with you 150%, Benita. One - or even 1,000 bad apples driving expensive cars does not a whole rotten bunch make. Sure there are people who will take advantage of any system (just stop and think of all the people you work with who take office supplies home), but I believe there are more people who truly want more for themselves and their children than there are folks just out trying to "lazy" their way through life (but I've always been an eternal optimist! )

And truth be told we are ALL illegal immigrants (or the decendants of them) unless we were here before the Mayflower landed. The "tired, poor and those yearning to breathe free" thing has no citizenship clause as far as I know (meaning the American melting pot has ALWAYS encouraged people to come here to make better lives for themselves first, citizenship later). Since there are so many people like the ones Anne mentioned that are illegals due to circumstance, maybe we should be working harder to find ways to help support the folks who are working to change their immigration status so they can become citizens instead of looking to "send them back" to wherever they came from...

(I think if the Native Americans at Plymouth Rock would have had border patrols and fences, this section of the continent would be a lot less crowded, lol...)