The Respectfully Republican Conversation

Rosemary, is McCain going to do the townhall meeting on the 4th?  He didn't seem to like that idea.  I'll have to tape it because we may be at family's house. 

Obama has too many other obligations...yeah, right.  Oh, I so hope he doesn't become our next president!

Shirley

Lady,

That's exactly the point.  Which one is more capable of ending the war quicker?  This is an out of body experience for me.  I just don't believe this is happening.  We're at war on 2 different fronts, and we might be putting the least experienced of them all in the White House, a man who thinks Iran is a small country that doesn't really pose a threat to us or Israel.  Until one of his thought police took him aside, that is.  All I can say is God help us.

On Point:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2kFrFIFizkU

Shirley,

I'm not sure that's been accepted by McCain yet.  After I heard that date on TV yesterday, I didn't hear another word about it.

Rosemary--That was just too incredible.  I've never seen anything so blatantly false in my life.  They should just run these statements side by side with the actuality and maybe the public would finally get it.

Rosemary, may I post that link on another board?  Or, would it even help! <sigh>

Someone told me that youtube was an old one.  How can we tell?  I don't see a date.  If it's old then it's a nothing.  People are entitled to change their mind as circumstances change. 

I kinda agree on the loans, but at the same time I don't.  A lot of people really did not know what they would be in for.  It's hard to tell because I don't know the type of loans they purchased.  It's like playing the game under and over.  What people fail to realize, you will get under, but it's for a short time, then you go over to pay back the under.  And it can be confusing to some.  But at best they are for the short term, and did the lenders explain that?  Plus, they're enticing because some don't even ask for a downpayment.  You just pay some closing costs. 

As to buying the house across the street.  If they can find a lender to give them a loan while they already have one, they just move out and let the first house go back to lender.  They are only out their downpayment if they had to put anything down in the first place. 

Shirley,

Something enticed all those people into signing on the dotted line.  Interest rates have been hovering around 6%, why didn't they just take a fixed loan?  When this happened back in the 80's everyone took a hard hit.  Even the banks.  They wound up with hundreds of foreclosed properties and selling them in down markets wasn't helping the situation for homeowners in those neighborhoods either.  Then they go do the same thing all over again.  We need to get more women in top offices.  We have looong memories for what works and what doesn't. 

Rosemary, this angers me to tears.  What the H are the dems thinking?  It's hurting EVERYBODY!  Not only at the pumps, but in most of our lives.

I heard that McCain was supposed to give a speech tonight.  I don't know what time.  Obama is saying that McCain is political posturing...flip-flopping.  Eight years ago McCain was against offshore drilling.  But things have changed.  Obama wants to tax windfall taxes and create alternative energy.  When is this nut case gonna figure out that not only do we need alternative energy, but we need to drill.  McCain has changed his mind because he sees what's happening.  We do need to be independent. 

Oh my gosh, I can't even think about Obama winning the election.  I JUST CAN'T! 

Shirley

Shirley,

We may not have to worry about Obama getting in.  He's against off-shore drilling, McCain is for it.  What a nice turn of events.  McCain wants the States to decide.  Bush is coming out tomorrow asking the congress to act on off-shore drilling.  What's nice about having Rep. Governors, they're for it in their respective States, and now the onus will be on the dems in congress.  Let them do themselves in.  Who cares if McCain upsets the environmentalists, there's more of us who want drilling then not.

Plus, Obama did the dumbest thing possible.  He hired one of Hillary's advisors which is a total snub to Hillary and her supporters.  Hillary fired her. 

Then he's in Michigan and his supporters were booing when Hillary's name was brought up.  I just hope he keeps offending Hillary in small ways.  They're saying only a quarter of us former Hillary voters are voting for McCain.  We need more.

Rosemary-

Here  is an excerpt little from szone.us that explains them pretty well and the difference between them and PACs.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

According to the IRS, a Section 527 (§527) entity is a tax-exempt organization created to receive and disburse funds to influence or attempt to influence the nomination, election, appointment or defeat of candidates for public office. While 527s can seek to mobilize voters and run issue ads, they are specifically prohibited from directly advocating (endorsing) the election of any specific candidate, or coordinating with any candidate’s campaign.

The definition of a 527 sounds very similar to the old Political Action Committees (PACs). However, there are important differences between the two. The biggest difference is that PACs were allowed to specifically endorse their favored candidate(s). Yet while PACs were able to endorse their favored candidates, they were strictly regulated by the Federal Election Commission (FEC), and they were limited as to the sources of their contributions.

While 527s are not allowed to endorse any candidate – and this is the big point – they are NOT prohibited from attacking the candidate they oppose. In a two-man race, the ability to attack one candidate is a defacto endorsement of the other.

Unlike PACs, 527s are permitted to accept contributions in any amount from any DOMESTIC source. Contributions from foreign sources are not allowed; however, this prohibition is in question as a result of huge contributions from liberal billionaire George Soros and others who arguably derive much of their huge wealth from abroad.

McCain-Feingold, we were promised, would bring an end to so-called “soft money” that was regularly donated to the major party political machines (RNC and DNC) for general party purposes. Soft money was most often used by the political parties to buy “issue ads.” The end of soft money certainly sounded good, but I remember wondering back then, why were the Democrats and the media so solidly behind this? Now I know. They knew about 527s.

527s: A Side Effect Of McCain-Feingold

With the adoption of campaign finance reform in the form of McCain-Feingold, soft or unregulated money was supposed to have been removed from the election process. Yet nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is there is more soft money now than there ever was, and it is almost totally unregulated.

While the Internal Revenue Code section authorizing 527 organizations existed prior to 2002, they were not widely used as they are today until McCain-Feingold came along and prohibited the endorsement of political candidates and placed new restrictions, supposedly, on the use of soft money.

Now, instead of the respective campaigns or national party organizations directing the use of soft money contributions, and thereby being held accountable by the FEC, the current mountain of soft money is in the hands of skilled and not-so-skilled political operatives who run the 527s. By the way, anyone can form a 527, raise money and run ads.

Those Scathing 527 Ads

Political hate speech has never been more prevalent. As noted above, 527s are not allowed to endorse any particular candidate specifically; however, they are not prohibited from attacking the candidate(s) they oppose. You can’t endorse your guy, but you can blast the guy you oppose with unlimited amounts of money. And when there are only two candidates in a race, what’s the difference?

Many of these ads, as you may have seen, have made wild and near slanderous claims. This would not have been possible if these vast sums of money were still in the hands of PACs and or the national party committees (RNC and DNC), because the candidates would have been held responsible.

In the present situation, these highly funded 527 groups are only constrained by their conscience and sense of decency. Based on some of the scathing ads put out by these groups, some of them are severely lacking in either of these qualities.

No doubt, this has been the nastiest presidential race ever.

Are The Campaigns Coordinating With 527s?

Election laws prohibit the campaigns from coordinating with these 527s, but there have been claims by both sides that such coordination is going on. Kerry claimed that Bush was in cahoots with the Swift Boat Vets, and Bush claimed that Kerry was coordinating with groups like Moveon.org, ACT and others. Naturally, both camps claim there has been no coordination, and that they have no control over these 527 groups or the content of their ads.

Whether you believe there has been coordination or not, it is important to note that many of the largest 527 groups are staffed and run by veteran political operatives. So even if there is no direct coordination, I find it hard to believe that there is not some level of communication going on.

Which brings us to an interesting scenario. Everyone knows that there are some things the candidates and campaigns would like to say, but good taste and decorum prevent them from doing so. The 527 organizations, on the other hand, can be as nasty and repugnant as they wish, as we’ve no doubt seen. The candidates remind us that they are not coordinating with the 527s, and in some cases condemn the ads, but one wonders if they aren’t happy that the message got out. I think they call this “plausible deniability.”

The Major 527s Groups

As noted earlier, the Democrats got a significant head start in the 527 sweepstakes. The GOP was hesitant in the beginning about having 527 groups out there that they might not be able to control. And they were confident, in light of McCain-Feingold, that these groups would be ruled in violation of the law by the Federal Election Commission, or at least strictly regulated. So they were not aggressive in pursuing 527s. The Democrats, on the other hand, never hesitated and built a massive lead in 527 funding.

There are hundreds of 527 organizations, so let’s focus mainly on the top 10. You’ve probably heard of some of these.

Media Fund, America Coming Together (ACT), Service Employees International Union, American Federation of Municipal Employees, Moveon.org, New Democrat Network, Club For Growth, EMILY’s List, AFL-CIO, and Voices For Working Families.

These 10 groups have a lot in common. With one exception, they are all Democrat-friendly, anti-Bush groups. The one exception is the Club for Growth, which is a conservative 527.

These groups have reportedly raised over $150 million combined (and maybe a lot more than that). It really sounds like they took the big money out of politics, doesn’t it? Conservative-leaning 527s got a late start but have reportedly raised about $36 million. That’s over a 4-to-1 advantage for the Democrats.

You’ve no doubt heard about the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth 527, but they are not listed in the top 10 above. That’s because they are small in the grand scheme. The Swift Boat 527 was initially funded with just $100,000 and on a shoestring got their first ad on the air. Because of the firestorm that ad created, the Swift Boat Vets have since raised a lot more money, but they are still small in comparison to those listed above.



The Major 527 Donors

So who are the major players in the 527 sweepstakes? There are a handful of “big givers” that have made astoundingly large contributions to various 527s. They include Peter Lewis who has reportedly donated over $14 million, George Soros reportedly over $12 million and Steven Bing reportedly over $8 million. Who are these people?

Of the three listed above, Steven Bing is likely the least known to the general public. He is a major Hollywood producer and power broker who was a big supporter of Bill Clinton. So it is not at all unusual that he would give generously to unseat Bush.

Perhaps slightly more well known is Peter Lewis, CEO of Progressive Insurance, and he is reportedly a billionaire. Lewis is a long time advocate of far left causes, including the legalization of marijuana. (Strange for the founder of an insurance company, don’t you think?)

That brings us to international financier and multi-billionaire George Soros. While Soros comes in second in contributions (so far), he is far and away the most active of the mega-givers. Soros has pledged to spend whatever it takes to topple Bush, no matter the cost. In late September, when Bush pulled ahead, Soros reportedly said he would spend another $20 million of his own money if necessary.

Soros has written a book, made the talk show circuit, and has taken out giant spreads in national newspapers. Beyond his far-left agenda, Soros has a seething hatred of Bush. Soros has compared the Bush administration to Nazi Germany and Bush personally to Hitler.

The Impact of 527s on the Election

Without a doubt, 527 groups have and will likely continue to have a major impact on this election. But not in quite the way you might think. It is natural to assume that the mega-funded Democrat leaning 527s would have savaged and shredded Bush to bits by now. And yet as of this writing, the President still holds a slight lead in most of the polls. How can this be?

Here is how political analyst Dick Morris (former senior Clinton advisor) explains it, in two parts. First, Morris argues that the American middle (right-leaning Democrats and the left-leaning Republicans) can only take so much. He believes that the scathing attacks leveled at President Bush have overloaded the American middle. Many of these voters were turned off by the negative 527 attacks.

Second, Morris reminds us that something similar occurred in 1996 when the far right was blasting away at Clinton (in attacks that were down right tame by today’s low, low standards.) Clinton never flinched, never acknowledged them and never gave them any additional fuel to run on. Morris believes Bush did exactly the same thing by refraining from publicly responding to, or complaining about, the firestorm of attacks from the 527s.

Morris believes that John Kerry, on the other hand, made a tactical mistake with his public outrage over the Swift Boat ads. He called on the FEC to have the ads taken off the air. As a result, a small under-funded 527 group rose to national attention. And the story was the focus of attention for several weeks.

Aside from the ad controversy, another activity by the 527 groups that can affect the election is mobilization of the vote. Democratic-leaning 527 groups have been very active in voter registration drives and other attempts to get out the vote. They have especially appealed to young people, who prior to now have felt that they really had no voice in the political process.

Should We Get Rid Of 527s?

There are a couple of good arguments here. The pro-527 crowd believes that these independent groups serve a positive function. Clearly, they provide a medium for free debate. Because they are (supposedly) independent from the national political parties, they can bring facts and issues (and trash) to the political debate via their ads and other activities.

They also take some of the control of the political process away from the Democrats and Republicans (for better or worse). They also argue that their presence makes it more likely that third-party candidates could have a real shot in the future and challenge today’s two-party system.

Many Republicans argue that we should not eliminate 527s. Even though the Republicans gambled that 527s would be outlawed this year, and lost, they believe GOP-leaning 527s will raise more money than the Democrat-leaning groups next time around.

On the other hand, there are those who believe that 527s are dangerous and should be eliminated. They believe that the proliferation of 527s should scare you, no matter your political affiliation. They warn of the dangers in allowing one or a handful of super-wealthy people to have such an incredibly disproportionate and unregulated impact on our political process.

President Bush and John McCain called for the elimination of the 527 organizations from the political process. Some have argued that they did so only because the left-leaning 527s have so much more money. John Kerry also finally said that 527s should be eliminated or more tightly regulated. Some said this was only because the left-leaning groups had already done most of their damage.

C
alls To Abolish The FEC

Those who still support McCain-Feingold point to the Federal Election Commission as the source of the problem. The FEC was assigned the job of writing the regulations to enforce McCain-Feingold. No less than McCain and Feingold themselves have criticized the FEC for issuing regulations that bore little resemblance to the law.

In September, a federal district judge struck down 15 of 19 regulations issued by the FEC to govern campaign finance. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly said in her opinion that the regulations had created an “immense loophole” that allowed continued abuse of soft money contributions. This rebuke came on the heels of the Supreme Court’s chastisement of the FEC in its “ McConnell” decision that upheld the McCain-Feingold law.

In response to the Supreme Court’s reprimand, FEC Chairman Brad Smith arrogantly remarked, “Now and then the Supreme Court issues a decision that cries out to the public, ‘We don’t know what we’re doing!’ McConnell is such a decision.” This kind of blatant disregard to the intent of laws regulating elections has led many to call for the FEC to be abolished and replaced with a more responsible agency. I can’t say that I disagree with them.

Finally, there is still the question of why the Federal Election Committee didn’t put a stop to the 527s earlier this year. I’m sure there’s a juicy story about how they voted 4 to 2 not to regulate 527s and to conduct “more study,” when the Bush campaign fully expected the FEC to shut down the 527s.

Conclusions

There are good things and bad things about the Section 527 groups. On the positive side, they provide a marketplace of ideas and free speech, well beyond what the traditional political parties might bring to the table or disclose. Such free speech should not be eliminated.

Yet on the negative side, some of these large groups are highly influenced by a handful of billionaires who think they should be able to buy an election. And I must add that some of the 527 ads have been over the top, and have only served to further divide and polarize the electorate.

There is also the problem of the source of the donations. The law says that 527 donations can only come from domestic sources. Yet as alluded to earlier, there are growing concerns that some of the 527 money raised this year may have come from foreign sources. Control on this issue is imperative if 527s are to continue. We don’t want foreigners influencing our elections.

If the goal of McCain-Feingold was to eliminate soft money from the political process, then it was a huge failure. One has to wonder if many in the Congress voted for McCain-Feingold to look good publicly, knowing full well that 527s would ensure the free flow of soft money.

Finally, if the government decides to leave 527s in place, and regulate them, then they need to revamp the Federal Election Commission. Its current structure with three appointed Democrats and three appointed Republicans is a recipe for inaction and/or failure.

Thanks Susie,

That surely explains it. I don't think it will be up to McCain to allow 527's.  Sounds like they come from others and McCain won't have control of them.

Someone explained why it is so important not to have a normal trial for those detainees in gitmo.  It seems that we lost Bin Laden because of the last trial where we had to share information with the World Trade Center bombers back in the 90's during their trial. 

We were listening in on his cell phone, and when that info came out, Bin Laden's phone went dead.  Plus, we had to share intelligence on something like 200 names we had accumulated.  In other words it was a total disaster for us.  Thanks to the court we'll have to do that sharing of intelligence all over again.  And Obama is all for the detainees to have trials in our courts instead of the military courts. 

McCain is calling Obama naive over this, but McCain isn't doing a good job in explaining to the general public why it would be better for the U.S. to use tribunals, or the military courts.  And of course, Al Qaeda will be sending their reporters to the trials.  Not that they'll need to, we will have to hand them all we have anyway.  What a mess.

Susie, I remember how scared the dems were trying to make us when Goldwater was running.  They did a good job!

Shirley

I've seen the commercial where the baby is used.  Stupid.  However, I suppose not everyone knows that McCain was not talking about us FIGHTING in Iraq 100 years.  So, that ad could cause problems.  What liars!

Shirley

The dems better watch it.  The majority of Americans want us to drill. 

Ya know, it's not ONLY the price at the pump.  The price of oil is afftecting just about EVERYTHING in our daily life. 

I would like to see the dems ride bikes to the WH.  Yeah, that'd be cute.  Or, perhaps, get a moped.  Get rid of all their luxuries, boats, yachts, whatever they have that consumes oil.  Oh, and for sure get rid of their SUVs and stop riding in limos.  I'm furious!

Anneshirley posted the artice about Obama on the other presidential site.

Here's the video about the baby and 100 years in Iraq from Move On.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=vH6_SDxQD2s&amp;feature=related

I agree with all you way, ladies.  I feel like a political pinata.  Or a football.  Do these idiots not listen to the majority of the Americans?  Don't these idiots see what's happening to our econmy BECAUSE of the rising fuel costs?  They should be held accountable.  But will the dem constituents have the nerve to vote these idiots out of office?  I think not. 

I'm tired of all the talk about alternative energy.  Yeah, I'm for it.  But, the talking should have been put into action years ago.

And now one dem (I'm sure you've seen it on tv) said perhaps we should nationalize our refineries.  WTH!

I'm sick to death of this whole "debate."

BTW, why is Obama wearing a flag pin now?  Is that another one of his FLIP-FLOPS!