WWTBAM Bored

It has taken months but it seems the NY Times is finally, after a fashion, looking into some of the unsavory things about Obama's campaign. After doing a piece on William Ayers (which essentially bought the current Obama campaign line about the extent of their relationship), now they report on Obama's fictitious donors who have given a bundle to his campaign.

http://tinyurl.com/4h8dz9

This isn't exactly news; it's been widely reported on right wing and anti-Obama sites for months, but it's taken the Times a lot longer to get to it since they've been so busy hopping the shuttle up to Alaska to check up on Sarah Palin's tanning bed and her former librarian.

Giving a fictitious name on a campaign contribution is illegal, and the most likely reason for this is to get around campaign finance contribution limits.

The Times said it reviewed Obama's records, but I've seen other "reviews" which have come up with much more extensive lists of questionable donors.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

silverscreenselect wrote:It has taken months but it seems the NY Times is finally, after a fashion, looking into some of the unsavory things about Obama's campaign. After doing a piece on William Ayers (which essentially bought the current Obama campaign line about the extent of their relationship), now they report on Obama's fictitious donors who have given a bundle to his campaign.

http://tinyurl.com/4h8dz9

This isn't exactly news; it's been widely reported on right wing and anti-Obama sites for months, but it's taken the Times a lot longer to get to it since they've been so busy hopping the shuttle up to Alaska to check up on Sarah Palin's tanning bed and her former librarian.

Giving a fictitious name on a campaign contribution is illegal, and the most likely reason for this is to get around campaign finance contribution limits.

The Times said it reviewed Obama's records, but I've seen other "reviews" which have come up with much more extensive lists of questionable donors.

Obama has approximately 4,000,000 individual donors, and we're talking about a few hundred questionable donations. (As The New York Times points out, by the way, similar problems exist on McCain's list, although not as many, probably because he doesn't have anywhere nearly as many small donors.) So he's been better than 99.9% successful at screening out inappropriate donations.

More to the point, there's no evidence that he's actively encouraging unlawful donations. There isn't even any evidence that he (or anyone in his campaign) has deliberately turned a blind eye to these issues.

McCain really should have done what Norm Coleman just announced he's doing -- pulling all of his negative advertisements off the air. (I don't know whether Coleman actually did what he claims, and there may be issues over whether an advertisement is in fact negative, but in McCain's case, at least, the latter point would not be an issue.)

I'm not interested in why you, or McCain, think Obama should not be President. I'm guessing very few undecided voters are interested in this tack either. Tell us why you think McCain should be President. If you can. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:It has taken months but it seems the NY Times is finally, after a fashion, looking into some of the unsavory things about Obama's campaign. After doing a piece on William Ayers (which essentially bought the current Obama campaign line about the extent of their relationship), now they report on Obama's fictitious donors who have given a bundle to his campaign.

http://tinyurl.com/4h8dz9

This isn't exactly news; it's been widely reported on right wing and anti-Obama sites for months, but it's taken the Times a lot longer to get to it since they've been so busy hopping the shuttle up to Alaska to check up on Sarah Palin's tanning bed and her former librarian.

Giving a fictitious name on a campaign contribution is illegal, and the most likely reason for this is to get around campaign finance contribution limits.

The Times said it reviewed Obama's records, but I've seen other "reviews" which have come up with much more extensive lists of questionable donors.

Obama has approximately 4,000,000 individual donors, and we're talking about a few hundred questionable donations. (As The New York Times points out, by the way, similar problems exist on McCain's list, although not as many, probably because he doesn't have anywhere nearly as many small donors.) So he's been better than 99.9% successful at screening out inappropriate donations.

More to the point, there's no evidence that he's actively encouraging unlawful donations. There isn't even any evidence that he (or anyone in his campaign) has deliberately turned a blind eye to these issues.

McCain really should have done what Norm Coleman just announced he's doing -- pulling all of his negative advertisements off the air. (I don't know whether Coleman actually did what he claims, and there may be issues over whether an advertisement is in fact negative, but in McCain's case, at least, the latter point would not be an issue.)

I'm not interested in why you, or McCain, think Obama should not be President. I'm guessing very few undecided voters are interested in this tack either. Tell us why you think McCain should be President. If you can. --Bob

Duh. McCain should be president because he's not Obama. Duh!

Bob78164 wrote:I'm not interested in why you, or McCain, think Obama should not be President. I'm guessing very few undecided voters are interested in this tack either. Tell us why you think McCain should be President. If you can. --Bob

I can't other than if he [McCain] is president, it would mean Obama isn't. That a pretty darn good reason. He was never even close to being my choice.

Now, tell my why you think Obama should be president.

Rexer25 wrote: Duh. McCain should be president because he's not Obama. Duh!

That is what I said.

But all I hear about why Obama should be president, even from his own campaign, is that he is not Bush. You can get that with McCain, without the risk.

Bob Juch wrote:zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I assume that, if this was a plot by the Obama campaign, they would have been able to come up with some LESS OBVIOUS PHONY DONOR NAMES!!!!

franktangredi wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I assume that, if this was a plot by the Obama campaign, they would have been able to come up with some LESS OBVIOUS PHONY DONOR NAMES!!!!

Well, maybe they are part Sicilian. They KNOW that if they used silly names then you'd think that it wasn't officially sanctioned by the campaign. But perhaps, they know the media is smarter than that, so they use normal names knowing that the media would be suspicious of them using silly names as a diversion, but to be even smarter they use silly names because the media would expect them not to because using them would be too obvious they were trying to be sneaky.

BackInTex wrote:

franktangredi wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I assume that, if this was a plot by the Obama campaign, they would have been able to come up with some LESS OBVIOUS PHONY DONOR NAMES!!!!

Well, maybe they are part Sicilian. They KNOW that if they used silly names then you'd think that it wasn't officially sanctioned by the campaign. But perhaps, they know the media is smarter than that, so they use normal names knowing that the media would be suspicious of them using silly names as a diversion, but to be even smarter they use silly names because the media would expect them not to because using them would be too obvious they were trying to be sneaky.

Be careful. I think the next thing that happens after giving that speech is that you keel over dead.

You know, all the replies are concerned with talking about the fake donors, etc. I thought that the main point of SSS's post was to point out that the New York Times was finally doing some real investigative reporting. Could it be that the Obama faithful there at the newspaper are wavering?

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:I'm not interested in why you, or McCain, think Obama should not be President. I'm guessing very few undecided voters are interested in this tack either. Tell us why you think McCain should be President. If you can. --Bob

I can't other than if he [McCain] is president, it would mean Obama isn't. That a pretty darn good reason. He was never even close to being my choice.

Now, tell my why you think Obama should be president.

First and foremost, the next President will get two or three Supreme Court appointments. McCain will make bad ones, and Obama will make good ones.

Second, I trust that Obama understands the issues in a way McCain simply doesn't. For example, during the primaries, when Hillary floated the idea of a gas tax holiday (I can't remember McCain's position on this issue), Obama opposed it because it wouldn't work. He was right.

Third, I strongly prefer Obama's approach to tax policy. I make plenty of money. I can afford to pay more taxes, particularly if it will help pay for the regulation that will avoid the 40% hit my retirement accounts have taken in the last month. My secretary, on the other hand, could probably use a bit of a tax cut -- paying for gas and other necessities is a significantly higher fraction of her net income than it is for me.

Fourth, I trust Obama's judgment more in connection with foreign policy. He has demonstrated himself to be analytical and to make fact-based decisions, rather than ideology-based decisions. He's even shown the capacity to learn from mistakes and change course. After the last eight years, that's a refreshing change.

That's off the top of my head; I'm sure if I gave it some thought I could come up with plenty of others. --Bob

Hey SSS-

This one is for you!

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:I'm not interested in why you, or McCain, think Obama should not be President. I'm guessing very few undecided voters are interested in this tack either. Tell us why you think McCain should be President. If you can. --Bob

I can't other than if he [McCain] is president, it would mean Obama isn't. That a pretty darn good reason. He was never even close to being my choice.

Now, tell my why you think Obama should be president.

First and foremost, the next President will get two or three Supreme Court appointments. McCain will make bad ones, and Obama will make good ones.

Second, I trust that Obama understands the issues in a way McCain simply doesn't. For example, during the primaries, when Hillary floated the idea of a gas tax holiday (I can't remember McCain's position on this issue), Obama opposed it because it wouldn't work. He was right.

Third, I strongly prefer Obama's approach to tax policy. I make plenty of money. I can afford to pay more taxes, particularly if it will help pay for the regulation that will avoid the 40% hit my retirement accounts have taken in the last month. My secretary, on the other hand, could probably use a bit of a tax cut -- paying for gas and other necessities is a significantly higher fraction of her net income than it is for me.

Fourth, I trust Obama's judgment more in connection with foreign policy. He has demonstrated himself to be analytical and to make fact-based decisions, rather than ideology-based decisions. He's even shown the capacity to learn from mistakes and change course. After the last eight years, that's a refreshing change.

That's off the top of my head; I'm sure if I gave it some thought I could come up with plenty of others. --Bob

Obama had to have one of the moderators during a primary explain the capital gains tax to him, so I don't know how much of a grasp on the issues he has. His usual stance is to talk as vaguely as possible, slant his talk to whichever group he is addressing, and then gauge public reaction as he "refines" his position. That's bad in domestic affairs but at least there's some justification. If more people want a certain domestic policy, there's an arguable reason to do it.

In foreign affairs, this is recklessly insane. You can't take a Gallup poll on how to deal with the Koreans or the Iranians. His understanding of the Russia/Georgia situation showed considerable naivete, to say the least.

The biggest problem I see with an Obama administration is that the Democrats in Congress will be pretty much forced to toe the party line and praise whatever bit of silliness that Obama proposes as the greatest reforms since the New Deal. That in turn will cause the Republicans to criticize him for being a radical Marxist. There won't be any significant tax reform or energy reform under Obama. There won't be any significant improvements in health care. We won't have a significantly improved regulatory structure. So what we will wind up with is a rubber stamp Congress that passes fancy sounding, do-nothing legislation with a handful of nearly meaningless bandaids that don't make anything better for anyone and is at the same time being criticized for being nutty socialists by the Republicans.

It will take one crisis, foreign or domestic, for people to see that Obama is all talk with little backbone, common sense, or good judgment.