Obama for America

BILL BENNETT: "Carol's piece was good; it was accurate, except there's one more thing you need to know. The 2003 bill, the more you look into this, the worse it is for Barack Obama to deny it because if you look into the record – and Carol did a good job – you will see the 2003 bill had exactly the same language as the federal bill, and Barack Obama voted against it. This was not about Roe v. Wade, this was not about abortion; this was about protecting these babies when they are alive, after seven months, five months, six months, whether it be an abortion or through birth or through any other means. Barack Obama, what he's saying is just false. Check the record. The more you dig into it, the worse it looks. He should just say whatever he wants, something else. 'I was naive, I didn't realize how close it was to the federal act.' He cannot say it was different from the federal act. It was the same." [CNN, 6/30/08]

REALITY: Illinois and Federal "Born Alive" Legislation Were Not the Same, Which Is Why NARAL Did Not Oppose Federal Legislation

Illinois And Federal Born Alive Infant Protection Acts Did Not Include Exactly The Same Language. The Illinois legislation read, "A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law." The Born Alive Infant Protections Act read, "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being 'born alive' as defined in this section." [SB 1082, Held in Health and Human Services, 3/13/03; Session Sine Die, 1/11/05; BAIPA, Public Law 107-207]

NARAL Did Not Oppose Federal BAIPA Because of Its Clear Legal Difference Between A Fetus In Utero Versus A Child That's Born. NARAL Executive Vice President Mary Jane Gallagher said, "We, in fact, did not oppose this bill. There's a clear legal difference now between a fetus in utero versus a child that's born. And when a child is born, they deserve every protection that this country can provide them." In a statement, NARAL said, "Consistent with our position last year, NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Last year's committee and floor debate served to clarify the bill's intent and assure us that it is not targeted at Roe v. Wade or a woman's right to choose." [CNN, 8/5/02; NARAL release, 6/13/01]

Chicago Daily Herald: Major Difference Between State And Federal BAIPA Was That "The Federal One Stripped Out Any Language That Could Have Been Used To Challenge" Roe V. Wade. "Perhaps on no other issue is Keyes' rhetoric against Obama as harsh as on abortion. Keyes repeatedly accuses Obama of favoring 'infanticide' because of Obama's vote against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. The failed measure would have required doctors to provide medical attention to fetuses born alive during a rare type of abortion procedure. Keyes pointed out a similar measure sailed through Congress. But there was a major difference between the state and federal versions: the federal one stripped out any language that could have been used to challenge the landmark Roe v. Wade abortion legalization decision. Despite that, Keyes continues to hammer Obama with the "infanticide" charge virtually daily on the campaign trial. Obama, who pointed out state law already required doctors to care for fetuses born alive during botched abortions, said he's "deeply offended" by Keyes' assertion because he knows it's false. Beyond that, Obama would have voted against the ban on late-term abortions that Bush signed - but federal judges since have put on hold - and Keyes would have voted for it." [Chicago Daily Herald, 9/20/04]

REALITY: Obama Said He Would Have Supported Federal Born Alive Legislation Because It Made a Distinction Between a Fetus in Utero and Child That is Born

Obama Said He Would Have Supported Federal Born-Alive Legislation. The Chicago Tribune reported, "Obama said that had he been in the US Senate two years ago, he would have voted for the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, even though he voted against a state version of the proposal. The federal version was approved; the state version was not. Both measures required that if a fetus survived an abortion procedure, it must be considered a person. Backers argued it was necessary to protect a fetus if it showed signs of life after being separated from its mother…the difference between the state and federal versions, Obama explained, was that the state measure lacked the federal language clarifying that the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade." [Chicago Tribune, 10/4/04]

BORN ALIVE PRINCIPLE WAS ALREADY THE LAW IN ILLINOIS

Illinois Law Already Stated That In The Unlikely Case That An Abortion Would Cause A Live Birth, A Doctor Should "Provide Immediate Medical Care For Any Child Born Alive As A Result Of The Abortion." The Chicago Tribune reported, "'For more than 20 years, Illinois law has required that when 'there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support,' an abortion may only be performed if a physician believes 'it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.' And in such cases, the law requires that the doctor use the technique 'most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus' and perform the abortion in the presence of 'a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion.'" [Chicago Tribune, 8/17/04]

Illinois Law Stated That A Doctor Must Preserve The Life And Health Of A Fetus If In The Course Of An Abortion, There Is Reasonable Likelihood Of Sustained Survival. The Illinois Compiled Statutes stated that any physician who intentionally performs an abortion when, in his medical judgment based on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support, shall utilize that method of abortion which, of those he knows to be available, is in his medical judgment most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus. No abortion shall be performed or induced when the fetus is viable unless there is in attendance a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion. Subsequent to the abortion, if a child is born alive, the physician required to be in attendance shall exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion. Violation of these statutes constituted a Class 3 felony. [Illinois Compiled Statutes, 720 ILCS 510/6]

04:38 PM | Permalink

RHETORIC: Antoin "Tony" Rezko, perhaps the most important fund-raiser for Obama's early political campaigns...

REALITY: REZKO WAS NOT OBAMA’S MOST IMPORTANT FUNDRAISER

Obama Said Rezko “Wasn’t My Largest Fundraiser But He Was A Significant Fundraiser.” “So fast-forward to the U.S. Senate race. Tony joined my finance committee. He wasn't my largest fund-raiser but he was a significant fundraiser. [Chicago Sun-Times Editorial Board Meeting Transcript, 3/14/08]

RHETORIC: Rezko was “a friend who helped the Obamas buy a home in 2005.”

REALITY: REZKO DID NOT HELP THE OBAMAS PURCHASE THEIR HOME

Politifact Ruled That The Claim That Obama Needed Rezko To Purchase His Home Was “False.” Politifact reported, “The first statement is accurate. It comes from an interview Obama had with the Chicago Tribune, published on Nov. 1, 2006: ‘It was ‘already a stretch’ to buy the house, Obama said, so the vacant lot was not affordable for his family.’ The second quote is based on a Time magazine reporter asking Obama for a March 6, 2008, story: ‘Did you generally or expressively state a need for help in buying both or either of the tracts?’ Obama: ‘No, I didn’t need help.’ This isn’t the ‘gotcha’ it’s made out to be. If Obama had no interest in the vacant lot next to the home (other than the sliver he purchased from Rezko a year later), he would have no reason to tell Rezko he needed help buying it. The answer is not a contradiction of his first statement. We rule this GOP claim False, too.”
[Politifact, 6/19/08]

Zorn: “The Deal Could Have Gone Down Without Rezko” And The Rezkos Did Not Fund The Purchase Of The Obama’s House. Eric Zorn wrote, “The deal could have gone down without Rezko.” “The Obamas did not receive or borrow any money from the Rezkos to buy their house.” [Chicago Tribune, 6/10/08]

The Sellers Did Not Discount The Price Of The House Based On The Lot, Obamas Made Several Offers For The House Including The Highest. Bloomberg reported, “Burton said a campaign adviser discussed the sale with Wondisford by phone and followed up with an e-mail to Wondisford repeating his points. Wondisford responded: ‘I confirm that the three points below are accurate,’ according to the e-mail, provided to Bloomberg News and authenticated through records shown by the adviser. The e-mail says that the sellers ‘did not offer or give the Obamas a ‘discount’ on the house price on the basis of or in relation to the price offered and accepted on the lot.’ It also says that ‘in the course of the negotiation over the sales price,’ Obama and his wife, Michelle, ‘made several offers until the one accepted at $1.65 million, and that this was the best offer you received on the house.’” [Bloomberg, 2/18/08]

RHETORIC: Obama sometimes worked on their cases. In at least one instance, he represented the nonprofit company that owned Grove Parc, Woodlawn Preservation and Investment Corp., when it was sued by the city for failing to adequately heat one of its apartment complexes.

REALITY: BOSTON GLOBE IS THE FOURTH PAPER TO REPORT ON OBAMA SINGLE APPEARANCE IN COURT ON A PROJECT WHERE WORK WAS ONGOING

Zeldin: “No One Who Has Ever Practiced Law…Could Argue, With A Clear Conscience, That These Five Hours On Behalf Of A Church Group…Equated Knowingly Representing A Chicago Slumlord.” Michael Zeldin, a former independent counsel and federal prosecutor wrote “No one who has ever practiced law, let alone Mrs. Clinton, could argue, with a clear conscience, that these five hours on behalf of a church group that partnered with a man who at a later point in time would be alleged to be a scoundrel equated to knowingly representing a Chicago slumlord. Yet she could not resist leveling the accusation.” [Wall Street Journal, 1/31/08]

Chicago Tribune Looked Through 260 Civil And Criminal Cases, And Out Of 260 Cases, Obama Filed One Appearance For Central Woodlawn In February 1994; Building In Question Was A “Former Slum” On Which “Work Was Ongoing.” The Chicago Tribune reported, “At the Tribune's request, Cook County Circuit Court Chief Judge Timothy Evans produced a list of all 260 civil and criminal cases in which the firm filed appearances, and the Tribune separately examined 1990s lawsuits that Rezmar Corp. listed in applications for government grants. The paper also examined files from the Illinois Housing Development Authority and the city housing department, as well as the hundreds of clients Obama listed in the unusually frank ethics disclosure reports he filed as a state senator from December 1995 through April 2004. Those and other records disclosed five instances in which Obama did legal work for ventures that included Rezmar Corp. The case of City of Chicago vs. Central Woodlawn Limited Partnership is one example. In 1992, that community group partnered with Rezmar Corp. to rehab the former slum apartment building at 6107-6115 S. Ellis Ave. As work was ongoing, city officials sued the developers, alleging 16 serious code violations at the property, including a dangerously dilapidated porch. Obama and a co-counsel filed appearances in February 1994, but the court records show they appeared on behalf of Central Woodlawn, Rezko's non-profit partner, not Rezko or his company.” [Chicago Tribune, 1/23/08]

• Obama Filed An Appearance On Behalf Of WPIC In 1994. The Los Angeles Times reported, “In 1994, Obama appeared in Cook County court on behalf of Woodlawn Preservation & Investment Corp., defending it against a suit by the city, which alleged that the company failed to provide heat for low-income tenants on the South Side during the winter.” [Los Angeles Times, 4/6/08]

• Obama Did Not Directly Represent Rezko Or His Firms; Obama Did Represent “On A Very Limited Basis” Ventures In Which Rezko Participated With Others. The Chicago Sun-Times reported, “‘Senator Obama did not directly represent Mr. Rezko or his firms. He did represent on a very limited basis ventures in which Mr. Rezko's entities participated along with others,’ according to the e-mail from Obama's staff.” [Chicago Sun-Times, 4/23/07]

RHETORIC: Obama translated that belief into legislative action as a state senator. In 2001, Obama and a Republican colleague, William Peterson, sponsored a successful bill that increased state subsidies for private developers. The law let developers designated by the state raise up to $26 million a year by selling tax credits to Illinois residents. For each $1 in credits purchased, the buyer was allowed to decrease his taxable income by 50 cents.

REALITY: SB 1135 WAS A BIPARTISAN BILL THAT HOUSING ADVOCATES SUPPORTED

Peterson Said The Bill Was The Culmination Of Bipartisan Work And Work With Housing Advocates. Senator Peterson said, “Senate Bill 1135 amends the Illinois Income Tax Act and the Housing Authorities Act to create credits for donations to certain affordable housing projects. This bill is a culmination of several hearings that were held over the past year, and work with the Chicago Rehab Network, and also a bill that Senator Obama and I sponsored last year, Senate Bill 1676.” [Peterson Floor Statement, 3/29/01, p. 47]

• September 2001: Obama Affordable Housing Bill Receives Praise from YMCA Leader. The Hyde Park Herald reported, “Tax credits are crucial to construction and maintenance of affordable housing, according to Pat Abrams of the Renaissance Collaborative, the company that restored the Wabash YMCA, 3763 S. Wabash Ave. “The only way to do affordable housing these days is through tax credits,” Abrams said, adding that available federal tax credits have remained unchanged in recent years. “Federal tax credits have been frozen for a decade, if not longer,” she said…. Renaissance Collaborative used federal tax credits in its work at the Wabash YMCA, but, according to Abrams, a dearth of funding dragged the project out. “It took us approximately six years to get all the funding that was necessary to redo this building, which is really an incredibly long time when you start to think about what inflation does to prices,” she said.” [Hyde Park Herald, 09/05/2001]

• September 2001: Obama Affordable Housing Bill Receives Praise from Rep. Currie. The Hyde Park Herald reported, “Currie said there is actually a decrease in the commitment of the federal government to affordable housing issues. “The federal government has pulled back on its commitment through Section 8 and certain kinds of other federal programs,” she said.” [Hyde Park Herald, 09/05/2001]

• September 2001: Obama Affordable Housing Bill Has “Broader Implications.” Hyde Park Herald reported, “Funding for affordable housing has broader implications than simply increasing available units, according to Joyce Probst, Policy Director of the Chicago Rehab Network, a citywide affordable housing policy and advocacy group that fought for creation and passage of this legislation. “Once people’s housing costs are affordable, that allows them to make other choices: to invest in education, to have appropriate medical care, to have the nutrition that they need, everything that people need for their lives,” she said. “What we’re seeing instead is that people are paying disproportionate amounts for housing costs, and they’re having to make very hard choices about how much food they have available to their family or how much education they can pursue. Or people are living in substandard units or they’re crowding, they’re doubling up. That is not a good living situation for children or for families,” Probst added. These implications mean the future of the city is linked to the future of affordable housing.” [Hyde Park Herald, 9/5/01]

RHETORIC: Grove Parc Plaza opened there in 1990 as a redevelopment of an older housing complex. The buildings had a new owner and a major renovation funded by the federal government. Even the name Grove Parc Plaza was new.

REALITY: GROVE PARC’S PROBLEMS WERE DECADES OLD, HUD WAS “EAGER TO SELL”

Grove Parc Has Been A Troubled Site Since The 1960s. “Hinsberger argued the development's size has made it unmanageable since it was built in the late 1960s. Grove Parc went through a foreclosure in the late 1970s, facing similarly poor housing conditions, paving the way for Lane's group to step in as an owner.” [Chicago Tribune, 2/25/07]

Grove Parc Had “Sat In HUD’s Inventory For Years” And Was “Eager To Sell.” The Chicago Tribune reported, “In 1988, WPIC acquired Grove Parc Plaza, formerly Woodlawn Gardens, from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The 504-unit, nine-building complex lines South Cottage Grove Avenue from East 61st to East 63rd Streets. It had sat in HUD's inventory for years. Eager to sell the dilapidated, partially vacant complex, HUD dealt it for $1. WPIC, with the help of a $6 million loan from HUD and $1.6 million of its own funds, by April of 1990 turned the complex into a renovated Section 8 low-income apartment complex with a waiting list of 400 qualified families.” [Chicago Tribune, 4/15/95]

Grove Parc Was Destined To Failure Because The Funding Was Never There. Chicago NPR reported, “But there's widespread agreement that things started going wrong fast. ‘The development was doomed to failure,” said Leon Finney, one of Grove Parc’s architects. “Leon Finney runs The Woodlawn Organization, which co-developed the project. Finney says the development was just never capable of bringing in enough money to pay the bills. The buildings were hard to secure and tenants damaged the property, driving up repair costs. ‘It was an interesting theory, but in practice there was not enough to make it work.’” [Chicago NPR, 8/13/07]

RHETORIC: But Obama has contended that he knew nothing about any problems in Rezmar's buildings.

REALITY: OBAMA SAID THAT HIS OFFICE FOLLOWED UP WITH HOUSING COMPLAINTS AS A MATTER OF ROUTINE

Gibbs: Obama “Did Follow Up On Constituency Complaints About Housing As [A] Matter Of Routine.” The Chicago Sun-Times reported, “Did the senator ever complain to anyone -- government officials, Rezmar or Rezko -- about the conditions of Rezmar's buildings? ‘Senator Obama did follow up on constituency complaints about housing as [a] matter of routine,’ Gibbs wrote.” [Chicago Sun-Times, 4/23/07]

Obama Said That While He And His Aides Did Not Recall Complaints About Rezko Properties, It Was “Possible” That It Could Have Happened. “Obama said in the interview Monday that he was unaware of the scope of properties owned by Rezmar or the problems surrounding them. He said none of the affected residents personally sought his help and that aides at his state Senate district office did not recall any inquiries. Still, he said it was ‘possible’ that during his tenure in the legislature that a constituent may have written or called his office ‘saying, ‘We're in a building, and we're unhappy with the service here.’’” [Chicago Tribune, 4/24/07]

RHETORIC: She had previously received campaign contributions from Rezmar and said she had regarded the company as a model, one of the city's best affordable housing developers.

REALITY: REZKO WAS A LONGTIME FRIEND AND FUNDRAISER FOR PRECKWINKLE

Preckwinkle Had “A Long Friendship With Rezko” And Rezko Served On Preckwinkle’s “Campaign Finance Committee For Years.” The Chicago Sun-Times reported, “Preckwinkle, the South Side alderman, has a long friendship with Rezko. She got more than $30,000 in campaign contributions from Rezko, his family and business associates over the years. And Rezko served on her campaign finance committee for years.” [Chicago Sun-Times, 4/24/07]

RHETORIC: In 1998 the two men created a limited partnership to build an apartment building for seniors on Chicago's South Side. Obama wrote letters on state Senate stationery supporting city and state loans for the project.

REALITY: COTTAGE VIEW TERRACE IS A SUCCESS AND EVERY LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIAL, AS WELL AS THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO AND THE HYDE PARK-KENWOOD COMMUNITY COUNCIL SUPPORTED IT

Alderman Toni Preckwinkle And Representative Lou Jones Wrote Letters Of Support For The Project. Alderman Toni Preckwinkle and Representative Lou Jones wrote letters of support for Cottage View Terrace to IHDA and DOH. [Preckwinkle Letter, 10/27/98; Jones Letter, 10/30/98]

Webber: Cottage View Terrace Would Turn A Vacant Lot “Into A Community Asset.” Henry Webber was the Vice President for Community Affairs at the University of Chicago. Webber wrote, “Your loan proceeds, couple with Trust Fund monies from the Illinois Housing Development Authority, will give the developer an opportunity to turn a vacant lot in West Hyde Park into a community asset. Not only will this project create high-quality housing; it will house a range of social service programs targeted to seniors and create job opportunities for community residents. Cottage View will have a significant impact on West Hyde Park and significantly contribute to the momentum already generated by other positive signs of community revitalization.” [Webber Letter, 10/30/98]

Grossman: Cottage View Terrace “Would Provide An Aesthetic And Commercial Boost To The Community. Robert Grossman served as the Chairman of the Hyde Park-Kenwood Conservation Community Council. Robert Grossman wrote, “The project would provide an aesthetic and commercial boost to the community. It will resolve a nagging problem of uncontrolled parking along the vacant lot and adjoining alley…We look forward to their return to the CCC for further consideration and, based on what we have seen thus far, final approval.” [Grossman Letter, 10/21/98]

5/2006: Cottage View Terrace “Successfully Completed Inspection Without Finds Or Violations Of Regulations.” Rosalyn Banks-Jordan, an Associate Asset Manager for the Illinois Housing Development Authority, wrote in a cover letter to the inspection report, “Please note that this development has successfully completed the inspection without findings or violations of regulations.” [IHDA Letter, 5/15/06]

• 2006: There Were No Tenant Complaints To IHDA About Cottage View Terrace. According to the Loan Rating Form 2006, Cottage View Terrace had No “Tenant Complants Received By IHDA” in the past year. [IHDA Loan Rating Form 2006, 5/1/2006]

• 2006: Cottage View Terrace Received Perfect Scores For “Decent, Safe, Sanitary Housing” And Every Other “Physical” Category. According to the Loan Rating Form 2006, Cottage View Terrace received a perfect score in each of nine categories that described the physical condition of the building, including “Decent, Safe, Sanitary Housing.” [IHDA Loan Rating Form 2006, 5/1/2006]

• 2006: Cottage View Terrace Got “A” Ratings For Management, Physical And Market, High “B” Rating For Financial. According to the audit grades, the overall Management, Physical and Market categories got “A” ratings, including a perfect score for Physical and near perfect for Management. The Financial aspect was .12 off an “A” rating. [IHDA Loan Rating Form 2006, 5/1/2006]

RHETORIC: In 2000 Davis asked the nonprofit Woods Fund of Chicago for a $1 million investment in a new development partnership, Neighborhood Rejuvenation Partners. Obama, a member of the board, voted in favor, helping Davis secure the investment.

REALITY: GLOBE IS THE SECOND PAPER TO OMIT THE FACT THAT A MEMBER OF THE WOODS FUND BOARD WORKED FOR NEIGHBORHOOD REJUVENATION PARTNERS; MAJOR INVESTORS INCLUDING THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO AND LASALLE BANK ALSO SUPPORTED NEIGHBORHOOD REJUVENATION PARTNERS

Sun-Times Omitted Stanback’s Direct Connection To Neighborhood Rejuvenation Partners. Media Matters reported, “Despite noting that Stanback ‘worked for Davis,’ Novak omitted Stanback's direct link to Neighborhood Rejuvenation Partners. The December 27, 2000, The December 27, 2000, agreement of limited partnership (p.4) through which Neighborhood Rejuvenation Partners was formed lists both Stanback and Davis as ‘principals.’ Subsequent Woods Fund documents -- such as its 2002 annual report and 2003 annual report -- listed Stanback as a member of the board of directors, and stated that ‘[o]ne of the Fund's Directors was an employee of the general partner of Neighborhood Rejuvenation Partners, L.P.’ and left that position in 2003. According to the limited partnership agreement, the general partner of Neighborhood Rejuvenation Partners is Davis Associates Managers LLC.” [MediaMatters, 11/29/07]

Neighborhood Rejuvenation Partners Was An Affordable Housing Fund Sustained By Major Donations. The Chicago Tribune reported that Neighborhood Rejuvenation Partners “ is an affordable housing fund supported by $17 million in donations from institutions such as the University of Chicago and LaSalle Bank. It was started and is managed by the Davis Group, a Chicago-based developer headed by Allison Davis.” [Chicago Tribune, 2/16/03]

• NRP Has Invested More Than $640 Million Since 2001. “Chicago-based Neighborhood Rejuvenation Partners (NRP) is a real estate development capital pool established by The Davis Group, with investors representing some of the city’s largest education, corporate and financial institutions and foundations. Since its inception in 2001, NRP has become one of the city’s best-funded developers, investing more than $640 million to strengthen communities and create premier urban properties of exceptional quality and value.” [Press Release, Undated]

Woods Fund Made A Capital Commitment Of One Million Dollars In December 2000. Under the heading “Investment in Neighborhood Rejuvenation Partners, LP,” the Woods Fund of Chicago reported, “In December 2000, a capital commitment was made to Neighborhood Rejuvenation Partners, LP in the amount of $1,000,000. No capital has been contributed to date.” [Form 990, Filed 8/19/01]

• The Woods Fund Contributed The Minimum Amount For A Limited Partner. Under Section 3.03 Capital Commitments, “Each Limited Partner which is accepted by the General Partner shall make a Capital Commitment of no less than $1,000,000; provided, however, that the General Partner may, in its sole discretion, permit smaller Capital Commitments.” [Agreement of Limited Partnership, 12/27/00]

RHETORIC: In the midst of the uproar, a small group of Lawndale residents gathered to rally against the Democratic candidate for the US Senate, Barack Obama. Obama's Republican opponent, Alan Keyes, trailed badly in the polls and was not seen as a serious challenger. But the organizers had a simple message: Cecil Butler had donated $3,000 to Obama's campaign. Habitat had close ties to Obama. And Obama had remained silent about Lawndale's plight.

REALITY: KEYES TRIED TO BUS SUPPORTERS TO LAWNDALE GARDENS TO PROTEST BUT ENDED UP AT A POLICE STATION

Keyes Was Invited To Lawndale By “Ex-Cons Who Are Fed Up With The Democratic Party” But The Rally Did Not Occur At Lawndale Gardens Because Keyes “Found Himself On The Wrong Side Of The Law.” But last Friday afternoon a crowd milled around the mother-and-child statue at the corner of Kedzie and Douglas, waving Keyes placards and getting ready to board a charter bus with the candidate's name on the side. The bus was scheduled to take them to Lawndale Manor, the crumbling low-income housing project overseen by Cecil Butler, a contributor to Obama's campaign. It never got that far. It ended up instead at the 11th District police station, where the Republican candidate found himself on the wrong side of the law. Keyes was invited to Lawndale by members of V.O.T.E. 4 Hip Holitics, an inner-city political action group founded by ex-cons who are fed up with the Democratic Party. [Chicago Reader, 10/29/04]

Keyes Held His Rally In Front Of The 11th District Police Station. “As Hunter spoke, there was a sudden commotion. Everyone rushed toward the corner of Roosevelt and Homan. The flatbed truck had been pulled over by the police, and Carter was being handcuffed…Reverend Hunter grabbed a megaphone and announced a change in the itinerary. ‘We need to descend on the police station and tell them they can't take our citizens off the streets,’ he said. ‘This is not Russia. Why do we live like this when so many of America's dollars have come to this community? This stuff has to end, and it can end with your vote.’ Hunter led the flock, including the candidate, back onto the bus. Ten minutes later everyone was in the lobby of the 11th District police station at Kedzie and Harrison, demanding Carter's release. On the other side of the desk, the police looked bemused and bewildered. Hunter spoke quietly with the shift commander, while Keyes stood beside his press secretary, Connie Hair, who was taping the confrontation with a video camera.” [Chicago Reader, 10/29/04]

12:02 PM | Permalink

“It is absurd that the same group of people who have failed to kill or capture Osama bin Laden for over six years are now arguing about what we should do if we capture him. Barack Obama will redouble our efforts against al Qaeda, target their leaders wherever we find them, increase our forces in Afghanistan and finish the fight there. In short, he will do what the Bush Administration hasn’t done and John McCain won’t do -- make our top priority bringing bin Laden to justice and shutting down al Qaeda before they attack again. A bad decision that George Bush made and John McCain fully supported --to divert forces from Afghanistan to Iraq -- left Osama bin Laden free to promote his vicious brand of violence, and empty tough talk can’t reverse that fact or make up for bad judgment.” --Richard Danzig, former Secretary of the Navy

OBAMA HAS REPEATEDLY SAID HE SUPPORTS THE DEATH PENALTY FOR BIN LADEN

Obama Said That He Would Order A Trial That Observed International Standards And Osama Would Qualify For The Death Penalty Because He Perpetrated Heinous Crimes. Obama said, “The first thing I'd support is his capture, which is something this administration has proved incapable of achieving. I would then, as president, order a trial that observed international standards of due process. At that point, do I think that somebody who killed 3,000 Americans qualifies as someone who has perpetrated heinous crimes, and would qualify for the death penalty. Then yes.” [AP, 7/20/07]

Susan Rice Said Osama Would Have A Fair And Transparent Military Process Or Judicial Process And Would Be Eligible For The Death Penalty. Susan Rice said, “He would put him [Osama Bin Laden] in, if he were captured as opposed to killed. There would have to be a fair and transparent military process or judicial process. That is how we lock people away and make them eligible for the death penalty.” [CNN, 6/18/08]

OBAMA HAS CONSISTENTLY SAID HE SUPPORTS THE DEATH PENALTY FOR TERRORISTS AND HEINOUS CRIMES

Obama Said That He Supported The Death Penalty For Heinous Crimes Including Terrorism. Obama said, “That was something about him that I respected. Because my own views on the death penalty are very complicated. I've said that in theory I don't object to the death penalty for heinous crimes--terrorism, mass murder, child killers. But, in its application, it's been racially biased, highly unreliable, inconsistent. So for me to try to pretend that I was a cheerleader for the death penalty, simply to score a political point, that wasn't reflective of my views. And I figured I was going to beat him by 20 points anyway.”
[The New Republic, 11/29/07]

Obama Said He Supported The Death Penalty For Terrorists. “Obama, at the time, said the bill would unfairly target minorities, stating, ‘There's a strong overlap between gang affiliation and young men of color ... I think it's problematic for them to be singled out as more likely to receive the death penalty for carrying out certain acts than are others who do the same thing.’ Obama opposes the death penalty except for terrorists, serial killers and child-murderers, but his campaign added that he does not support the death penalty as it is currently administered in this country.” [The Hill, 3/14/07]

OBAMA HAS MADE CLEAR THAT HE WILL GO AFTER OSAMA BIN LADEN IN PAKISTAN

Obama: There Are Terrorists Holed Up In The Mountains In Pakistan Who Killed 3,000 Americans And If Musharraf Won’t Act, We Will. Obama said, “I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.”
[The War We Need To Win, 8/1/07]

Obama: “I Firmly Believe That If We Know The Whereabouts Of Bin Laden And His Deputies And We Have Exhausted All Other Options, We Must Take Them Out.” Obama wrote in an op-ed, “Relying on Pakistan while we fight the wrong war in Iraq has not worked. Because of that policy, bin Laden and members of his inner circle who bear direct responsibility for the murder of 3,000 Americans are plotting new attacks. If Pakistan cannot or will not take out these high-level terrorist targets and we have actionable intelligence about where they are, then I would take action to protect the American people. I firmly believe that if we know the whereabouts of bin Laden and his deputies and we have exhausted all other options, we must take them out.” [Globe Gazette op-ed, 8/12/07]

Obama: We Shouldn’t Need Permission To Go After Folks That Killed 3,000 Americans. Obama said, “Sen. McCain and George Bush all suggested that I said something wrong when I said we should be going after bin Laden, in high-value targets, and if we've got him in our sites, we should ask for Pakistan's cooperation, we should ask Pakistan to take him out. But if they don't, we shouldn't need permission to go after folks that killed 3,000 Americans.” [Philadelphia Inquirer, 3/24/08]

Obama: If We Have Actionable Intelligence Against Bin Laden Or Other Key Al Qaeda Officials And Pakistan Won’t Strike Them, We Should. Obama said, “With respect to Pakistan, I never said I would bomb Pakistan. What I said was that if we have actionable intelligence against bin Laden or other key al Qaeda officials, and we -- and Pakistan is unwilling or unable to strike against them, we should. And just several days ago, in fact, this administration did exactly that and took out the third-ranking al Qaeda official.” [Cleveland Presidential Debate, 2/26/08]

Obama Said That Iraq Distracted Us From The Real Battle With Osama Bin Laden In Afghanistan And Pakistan. Obama said, “Instead of working to fix our economy and lift up hardworking families, they've fought to extend a war that's costing thousands of lives and billions of dollars without making us any safer -- a war that has strengthened our enemies and distracted us from the real battle with Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and Pakistan.” [Michigan Messenger, 6/2/08]

Obama Said The US Would Be Justified In Taking “Unilateral Military Action To Eliminate An Imminent Threat” Against An Individual, Said That Al Qaeda Met His Standard. Obama wrote, “We should start with the premise that the United States, like all sovereign nations, has the unilateral right to defend itself against attack. As such, our campaign to take out Al Qaeda base camps and the Taliban regime that harbored them was entirely justified—and was viewed as legitimate even in most Islamic countries. It may be preferable to have the support of our allies in such military campaigns, but our immediate safety can’t be held hostage to the desire for international consensus; if we have to go it alone, then the American people stand ready to pay any price and bear any burden to protect our country. I would also argue that we have the right to take unilateral military action to eliminate an imminent threat to our security— so long as an imminent threat is understood to be a nation, group, or individual that is actively preparing to strike U.S. targets (or allies with which the United States has mutual defense agreements), and has or will have the means to do so in the immediate future. Al Qaeda qualifies under this standard, and we can and should carry out preemptive strikes against them wherever we can. Iraq under Saddam Hussein did not meet this standard, which is why our invasion was such a strategic blunder. If we are going to act unilaterally, then we had better have the goods on our targets.” [Audacity of Hope, p. 308-209]

EXPERTS: OBAMA’S RIGHT, WASHINGTON’S WRONG

Washington Post: Obama “Has The Better Half Of The Argument” On Pakistan. The Washington Post wrote in an editorial, “Mr. Obama recently has taken a number of foreign policy positions with which we disagree, but on this it strikes us that he has the better of the argument -- both on substance and on the importance of debate. Faced with such "actionable intelligence," of course any president will weigh risks against potential benefits, and it's impossible to predict that calculus. The costs of action -- in civilian lives, reputation or an ally's stability -- may be too great. It's crucial, as the Sept. 11 commission went on to say, to "reach out, listen to, and work with other countries that can help." But the principle that the United States will defend itself by going after terrorist enemies in foreign countries, even without those nations' permission if necessary, is, as Joseph R. Biden Jr. pointed out later in the Democratic debate, already U.S. policy…And, if Mr. Obama is wrong, what would they do about the terrorist training camps in Waziristan? We'd like to hear their answers to that not-so-hypothetical question.” [Washington Post, 8/9/07]

Lee Hamilton: Al-Qaeda Cannot Be Permitted To Have A Sanctuary In Pakistan. McClatchy reported, “Lee Hamilton, the president of the Wilson Center, said he was "very sympathetic" to Obama's stance. Hamilton is a former Democratic chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and he co-chaired the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel that Congress appointed last year to study the situation in Iraq and make policy recommendations. ‘It seems to me if we've learned anything at all about fighting terrorism, we've learned that we cannot permit al-Qaida to have sanctuaries,’ Hamilton said. ‘Far preferable that Musharraf take them out. But if he does not, we must.’” [McClatchy, 8/1/07]

Sorensen: Obama’s Bold Language On Pakistan Criticized By “Same Old Washington Experts.” Ted Sorensen wrote in a op-ed, “Obama's bold call for American action to seize Osama bin Laden in Pakistan - if our undemocratic, unpopular and unreliable ally the Musharraf regime will not - has been loudly castigated by Obama's Democratic and Republican opponents, using the same old Cold War rhetoric from the same old Washington experts who have dominated the capital's foreign-policy thinking throughout the 20 years that the Bush and Clinton families have controlled the White House.” [Des Moines Register, Ted Sorensen Op-Ed, 8/20/07]

Josh Marshall: Obama’s Position On Pakistan “Clearly Unobjectionable.” Josh Marshall wrote, “But I think he's done a pretty good job so far refusing to get put in that box. And the truth is that I think Obama's actual words are so clearly unobjectionable that this is all Kabuki theater of a particularly strained and disingenuous sort. All Obama said was that if we have actionable intelligence about the whereabouts of high-value al Qaeda targets in Pakistan, and Pakistan won't act, we will act. Clearly, no Republican can quibble with this. They're on the record for invading countries because they might become dangers to us at some point in the future. They're hardly in a position to disagree with Obama if he says we'll hunt down people who committed mass casualty terror attacks within our borders. And I'm not sure Democrats are in much of a position to do so either. The unspoken truth here, I suspect, is that Obama has struck on the central folly of our post-9/11 counter-terrorism defense policy -- strike hard where they aren't and go easy where they are. I think everyone can see this. But Obama got there first. So they need to attack him for saying it. [Talking Points Memo, Josh Marshall, 8/9/07]

Smerconish: Grateful To Obama For Being The First Presidential Candidate “Willing To Say Something Substantive About Our Failure To Find Osama Bin Laden In Pakistan.” Michael Smerconish wrote, “Yours truly, a two-time, Bush 43-supporting political pundit who worked in an appointed capacity in the administration of Bush 41, offers you his gratitude for being the first among A-level presidential aspirants willing to say something substantive about our failure to find Osama bin Laden in Pakistan…Which is why I think it's appalling that your words have been labeled naïve and ridiculed from both the left and the right. Especially when there can be no legitimate debate about these sentiments you offered: ‘There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.’ ‘We can't send millions and millions of dollars to Pakistan for military aid, and be a constant ally to them, and yet not see more aggressive action in dealing with al-Qaeda.’ Who could take issue with any of that?” [Huffington Post, Michael Smerconish, 8/16/07]

Capital Times Columnist: Obama Was The “One Candidate” Who Would Fight A War In The Right Places. Dave Zweifel wrote, “Obama is one candidate who understands that it can be won if we fight it in the right places.” [Capital Times, 8/8/07]

AZ Republic Columnist: Obama Has Clarity In Foreign Policy, “Transgression Isn’t His Policy, But Stating It Out Loud. Robert Robb wrote, “Now, none of Obama's competitor-critics are willing to say that they would not do what Obama said he would do. In other words, no one is taking the position that, as president, if there is such actionable intelligence and Musharraf doesn't act, he or she would take a pass. In fact, most are hinting that they would do precisely what Obama said he would do. So, apparently Obama's transgression isn't his policy, but stating it out loud…However, it would not seem that safe haven for terrorists who constitute a credible threat to attack the United States is something about which strategic ambiguity serves the national interest. Here clarity would seem to be in order, and Obama has the doctrine right: The United States will take action to eliminate those threats irrespective of sovereignty issues.” [Arizona Republic, 8/8/07]

01:15 PM | Permalink

WHAT OBAMA ACTUALLY SAID IN THE FORTUNE INTERVIEW:

Obama: My Core Position Has Never Changed That "I've Always Been A Proponent Of Free Trade And I've Always Been A Believer That We Have To Have Strong Environmental Provisions And Strong Labor Provisions In Our Trade Agreements." Obama said, "But my core position has never changed. It's been consistent if you look all the way through. I've always been a proponent in free trade and I've always been a believer that we have to have strong environmental provisions and strong labor provisions in our trade agreements. And that we gotta be better arguers. You know the Chinese love free trade. But they are tough as nails when it comes to (inaudible). Right? I mean they will resist any calls to stop manipulating the currency. It's no secret they have consistently crouched on our intellectual property and our copyright laws. There are all sorts of non tariff barriers. Now that doesn't make them antitrade it just means they're just trying to work the systems to their advantage and my only point has been that we should make sure begin our trade negotiations that our interests and our values are adequately reflected." [Fortune Interview, 6/18/08]

Obama: There May Be A Modest Aggregate Benefit In Terms Of Lowering Prices For Consumers But NAFTA Had An Adverse Affect On Certain Communities That Saw Jobs Move To Mexico And Millions Of People In Mexico Were Displaced And Are Contributing To The Immigration Crisis. Obama said, "I'm not a big believer in just doing things unilaterally; I'm a big believer in opening up a dialogue and figuring out how we can make this work for all people. And by the way, just going back to NAFTA for a second, I don't dispute that there may have been some modest aggregate benefit in terms of lowering prices on consumer goods for example. But I would also argue that not only did it have an adverse affect on certain communities that saw jobs move down to Mexico but for example our agricultural section pretty much devastated a much less efficient Mexican farming system. But from a pure economic, you know if you're just an economist looking at this in an abstract way you would say well a more efficient producer displaced a less efficient producer in Mexico, there's nothing wrong with that. As a practical matter those are millions of people in Mexico who are displaced. Many of whom now are moving up to the United States, contributing to the immigration concerns that people are feeling. And so, those human factors should be taken into account. They may not override or every single decision that we make in respect to trade, but to pretend those costs aren't there, that those costs aren't real, and my job as president to take those into account, I think, does no service to free trade. And its part of what has fed the protection incentive and the anti-immigration incentive that is out there in both parts and you know I think that if we manage trade more effectively, if we're better partners, if we are thinking about the dislocations that occurs as a consequence of it, if were true to our belief that labor and environmental standards should be a part of raising living standards around the world instead of a race to the bottom, then we can have free trade and it will be sustainable and we will have political support over the long run." [Fortune Interview, 6/18/08]

BUT OBAMA HAS BEEN CONSISTENT:

HE WOULD NOT REPEAL NAFTA...

Obama Would Not Scrap NAFTA. The AP reported, "Obama was also pressed on trade deals like the North American Free Trade Agreement. He said he disagrees with more liberal rivals such as Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who want to scrap the deal. A better approach is tougher enforcement of labor and environmental standards, he said." [AP, 9/22/07]

Obama Said That Repealing NAFTA Would "Probably Result In More Job Losses Than Job Gains." The Chicago Tribune reported, "Obama, when asked whether he would repeal NAFTA, has said business relationships among the countries were now so entrenched that reversing the trade deal "would probably result in more jobs losses in the United States than job gains." Instead, he said the treaty should be amended." [Chicago Tribune, 2/26/08]

BUT HAS REPEATEDLY SAID HE WOULD RENEGOTIATE IT TO PROVIDE BETTER LABOR AND ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS

Obama Said That He Would Use The Hammer Of A Potential Opt-Out As Leverage To Renegotiate Labor And Environmental Standards For NAFTA. Obama said, "I will make sure that we renegotiate, in the same way that Senator Clinton talked about. And I think actually Senator Clinton's answer on this one is right. I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced. And that is not what has been happening so far." [Ohio Debate, 2/26/08]

Obama Said He Would Support Renegotiating NAFTA. "Obama said, if elected, he would press for NAFTA's renegotiation because the current deal contains inadequate labor and environmental standards. 'As part of any current or future trade agreement negotiations, our nation must address the dislocations caused by expanded global trade,' Obama said, 'by maintaining workers' basic benefits and helping them retrain and by providing communities hit with plant closings with tools and strategies to remain viable.'" [Chicago Tribune, 9/27/04]

Obama Said As President He Would Contact Mexico And Canada's Leaders "To Try To Amend NAFTA." The AP reported, "I would immediately call the president of Mexico, the president of Canada, to try to amend NAFTA, because I think that we can get labor agreements in that agreement right now. And it should reflect the basic principle that our trade agreements should not just be good for Wall Street; it should also be good for Main Street." [AP, 8/8/07]

Obama Would Renegotiate NAFTA. Obama said, "I will make sure that we renegotiate...I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced. And that is not what has been happening so far. That is something that I have been consistent about. I have to say, Tim, with respect to my position on this, when I ran for the United States Senate, the Chicago Tribune, which was adamantly pro-NAFTA, noted that, in their endorsement of me, they were endorsing me despite my strong opposition to NAFTA...And as president, what I want to be is an advocate on behalf of workers. Look, you know, when I go to these plants, I meet people who are proud of their jobs. They are proud of the products that they've created. They have built brands and profits for their companies. And when they see jobs shipped overseas and suddenly they are left not just without a job, but without health care, without a pension, and are having to look for seven-buck-an-hour jobs at the local fast-food joint, that is devastating on them, but it's also devastating on the community. That's not the way that we're going to prosper as we move forward." [Democratic Debate, 2/27/08]

Obama Said NAFTA And CAFTA Were Not In The Best Interest Of The American Worker "Because They Did Not Contain The Sorts Of Labor Provisions And Environmental Provisions" That They Should Have. "The AP reported, "Obama said he supports the foreign trade deal, which is especially important to labor and U.S. manufacturers. He said active trading is a key way to keep the United States competitive. 'We're not going to draw a moat around the United States' economy. If we do that, then China is still trading, India is still going to be trading,' said Obama, who voted against the recent Central American Free Trade Agreement and opposes the pending trade deal with South Korea. 'I think that NAFTA and CAFTA did not reflect the interests of American workers but reflected the interests of the stock owners on Wall Street, because they did not contain the sorts of labor provisions and environmental provisions that should have been embedded and should have been enforceable in those agreements,' he said." [AP, 10/10/07]

07:47 PM | Permalink

MCCAIN RHETORIC: Obama Will Enact the Largest Tax Increase Since World War II. “No matter which of us wins in November, there will be change in Washington. The question is what kind of change? Will we enact the single largest tax increase since the Second World War as my opponent proposes, or will we keep taxes low for families and employers? This election offers Americans a very distinct choice about what kind of change we will have. This is especially true for the small business community.” [McCain speech to the NFIB, 6/10/08]

THE FACTS: BARACK OBAMA IS ACTUALLY PROPOSING A MIDDLE CLASS TAX CUT. JOHN MCCAIN WILL PROVIDE NEARLY $2 TRILLION IN CORPORATE TAX CUTS AND WILL MAKE PERMANENT THE BUSH TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY. ORDINARY AMERICANS WILL ONLY SEE A SMALL FRACTION OF THE TAX CUTS JOHN MCCAIN IN PROVIDING.

Obama Will Provide Real Middle Class Tax Relief. Barack Obama is the only candidate who has a real middle class relief plan – he will provide $1,000 in a refundable tax credit to working families, create a universal mortgage interest credit for homeowners who cant benefit from a mortgage tax incentive available to wealthier Americans, and create a $4,000 college tax credit for middle class families. [Barack Obama, 11/07/07]

McCain’s Tax Plan Will Double the Size of Bush’s Tax Cuts. According to recent study from the Center for American Progress Action Fund, “McCain’s three major new tax cuts – cutting corporate tax rates, expensing for corporate investment, and repealing the AMT – would cost the federal government more than $2 trillion in tax revenue over 10 years... They will approximately double the cost of Bush tax cuts.” [Robert Gordon and James Kvaal, “Five Easy Pieces and Two Trillion Dollars,” Center for American Progress Action Fund, 3/08]

McCain’s Tax Plan is More Regressive than the Bush Tax Cuts; Nearly 60 Percent of the Benefits Go to the Top One Percent. As a study from the Center for American Progress Action Fund recently noted, “The McCain plan to cut corporate taxes and eliminate the AMT is very regressive as well as very expensive. The plan delivers the vast majority of its benefits to high-income taxpayers and very little to tens of millions of middle-class families. … The McCain tax cuts together are even more regressive than the Bush tax cuts. … The bottom 60 percent of tax payers get only 4 percent of the benefit, while the bottom 80 percent get only 9 percent.” The study also noted that the top 1 percent of income earners will receive 58 percent of the benefits of the McCain tax plan. By contrast, 31 percent of the Bush tax cuts went to top 1 percent of income earners. [Robert Gordon and James Kvaal, “Five Easy Pieces and Two Trillion Dollars,” Center for American Progress Action Fund, 3/08]

McCain Supports the Bush Tax Cuts that He Once Said were “Too Tilted to the Wealthy,” and “Go to the Most Fortunate Among Us, At The Expense of Middle-Class.” In late 2007, McCain promised, “I will not let the Democrats roll back the Bush tax cuts.” During a January 2008 GOP debate, McCain said: “I think it’s very important that we make the Bush tax cuts permanent.” And on an episode of Fox News Sunday, McCain said, “We need to make Bush tax cuts permanent.” [Associated Press, 10/10/2007; McCain Press Release, 12/18/2007; MSNBC/FAU GOP Debate, 1/24/2008; Fox News Sunday transcript, 2/3/2008]

McCain Said The Bush Tax Cuts Were “Too Tilted To The Wealthy, And I Still Do.” “In May 2001, Mr. McCain was one of only two Republicans -- the other was Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island -- to vote against President Bush's $1.35 trillion 10-year tax cut. … Later, he said he also opposed the 2003 tax cut because it, too, disproportionately benefited the rich. ‘I just thought it was too tilted to the wealthy, and I still do,’ Mr. McCain told Stephen Moore, a member of The Wall Street Journal editorial board, in an interview published on Nov. 26, 2005. These days, Mr. McCain says at almost every campaign stop that he wants to make those tax cuts permanent rather than have them expire, as the law stipulates, because getting rid of them would have the effect of a tax hike.” [The New York Times, 3/3/08]

McCain Said He Could Not “In Good Conscience” Support the Bush Tax Cuts That “Go to the Most Fortunate Among Us, At The Expense of Middle-Class Americans Who Most Need Tax Relief.” “I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle class Americans who most need tax relief.” [Congressional Record, 5/26/01]

MCCAIN RHETORIC: “Senator Obama’s plans would add to the difficulties of small business in other ways, too. Currently, there are the 21.6 million sole proprietorships filing under the individual income tax. When Senator Obama talks about raising income tax rates on those making over 250,000 dollars — that includes these businesses as well. He also proposes increases in dividend and capital gains taxes. Under Senator Obama’s tax plan, Americans of every background would see their taxes rise – seniors, parents, small business owners, and just about everyone who has even a modest investment in the market. He proposes to eliminate the Social Security earnings cap, and thereby to increase the tax on employers. He proposes to eliminate the secret ballot for union votes, and to raise the minimum wage and then index it, which is a sure way to add to your costs and to slow the creation of new jobs. You work hard in small businesses to grow and to create new jobs and opportunities for others — and the federal government shouldn’t make your work any harder.” [McCain speech to the NFIB, 6/10/08]

THE FACTS: OBAMA’S TAX PLAN IS FOCUSED ON RELIEF FOR WORKING AMERICANS, SENIORS AND SUPPORTING INNOVATION

Barack Obama Will Only Raise Taxes for Those Earning Over $250,000 Per Year: In an interview with CNBC, Barack Obama stated, “And I think that we have an economy that's been out of balance for too long, so the general principle of raising taxes on higher income Americans like myself, and providing relief to those who haven't benefited as much from this new global economy, I think is a sound one. And keep in mind on all of these proposals, what I've said is, let's make sure that we define the well-off so that we're not hitting the middle class, you know. I generally define well-off as people who are making 250,000 dollars a year or more. And that means, for example, if we raise the capital gains tax, I will exempt people who are essentially small investors, and really capture those who have done very, very well over the last two decades.” [CNBC, 06/09/08]

Less than 2 Percent of Small Businesses Would be Affected by Rolling Back the Bush Tax Cuts on the Wealthy: According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, less than 2 percent of individual tax filers who report small business income fall into the top two marginal tax rates. [Tax Policy Center, 4/27/07]

Barack Obama is the Only Candidate to Propose Cutting the Capital Gains Tax Rate to Zero for Start Ups and Small Businesses: Barack Obama has stated, “As we make these changes, we'll be sure to encourage growth and innovation. So we'll exempt start-up companies and small businesses from capital gains to give them an added boost. Because when more Americans tap that well of opportunity, all of us are better off.” [Barack Obama, 9/17/07] John McCain’s economic proposal lacks such a provision. [JohnMcCain.com]

Barack Obama is the Only Candidate to Propose Tax Relief for Low and Middle Income Seniors: Obama will eliminate all income taxation of seniors making less than $50,000 per year. This will provide an immediate tax cut averaging $1,400 to 7 million seniors and relieve millions from the burden of filing tax returns. John McCain’s tax proposal lacks such a provision. [Barackobama.com; JohnMcCain.com]

Obama Will Provide Real Middle Class Tax Relief. Barack Obama is the only candidate who has a real middle class relief plan – he will provide $1,000 in a refundable tax credit to working families, create a universal mortgage interest credit for homeowners who cant benefit from a mortgage tax incentive available to wealthier Americans, and create a $4,000 college tax credit for middle class families. [Barack Obama, 11/07/07]

MCCAIN RHETORIC: “As president, I intend to act quickly and decisively to promote growth and opportunity. I intend to keep the current low income and investment tax rates. And I will pursue tax reform that supports the wage-earners and job creators who make this economy run, and help them to succeed in a global economy. Serious reform is needed to help American companies compete in international markets. I have proposed a reduction in the corporate tax rate from the second highest in the world to one on par with our trading partners; to keep businesses and jobs in this country.” [McCain speech to the NFIB, 6/10/08]

THE FACTS: MCCAIN’S TAX PLAN CREATES MORE CORPORATE TAX HAVENS

John McCain’s Tax Plan Creates More Corporate Tax Havens: According to the Center for American Progress, “…McCain would create a potent new form of tax shelter through his pro¬posal to provide for immediate expens¬ing of investments in equipment and technology. As Avi-Yonah explains in his forthcoming paper, because McCain’s plan does not end the deductibility of interest paid by corporations, his expens¬ing proposal will let corporations obtain negative tax rates—making investments that are not only tax-free, but that can also reduce taxes owed on other income. Corporations need only borrow to pur¬chase equipment or technology, deduct the interest payments on that loan, and then immediately expense the entire cost of the equipment or technology. This tax shelter will allow corporations, and individuals using the corporate tax form, to avoid hundreds of billions of dollars in taxes. This tax shelter would also erode the individual income tax base by giving individuals strong incen¬tives to organize their affairs through corporations.” [Center for American Progress Action Fund, March 2008]

MCCAIN RHETORIC: “And as we expand markets for Americans products, we must do more tax reform here at home. I will propose and sign into law a reform to permit the first-year expensing of new equipment and technology. We’re also going to keep the low rate on capital gains, so that businesses like yours can expand and create jobs instead of just sending more of your earnings to the government. And so parents can spend and save more for their own children, I will propose to double the size of the child tax exemption. I will also propose as well a middle-class tax cut – a phase-out of the Alternative Minimum Tax to save more than 25 million middle-class families as much as 2,000 dollars in a single year.” [McCain speech to the NFIB, 6/10/08]

THE FACTS: MCCAIN'S TAX PLAN IS REGRESSIVE

John McCain’s Expensing Proposal Creates More Corporate Tax Havens: According to the Center for American Progress, “…McCain would create a potent new form of tax shelter through his pro¬posal to provide for immediate expens¬ing of investments in equipment and technology. As Avi-Yonah explains in his forthcoming paper, because McCain’s plan does not end the deductibility of interest paid by corporations, his expens¬ing proposal will let corporations obtain negative tax rates—making investments that are not only tax-free, but that can also reduce taxes owed on other income. Corporations need only borrow to pur¬chase equipment or technology, deduct the interest payments on that loan, and then immediately expense the entire cost of the equipment or technology. This tax shelter will allow corporations, and individuals using the corporate tax form, to avoid hundreds of billions of dollars in taxes. This tax shelter would also erode the individual income tax base by giving individuals strong incen¬tives to organize their affairs through corporations.” [Center for American Progress Action Fund, March 2008]

McCain’s Tax Plan is More Regressive than the Bush Tax Cuts; Nearly 60 Percent of the Benefits Go to the Top One Percent: As a study from the Center for American Progress Action Fund recently noted, “The McCain plan to cut corporate taxes and eliminate the AMT is very regressive as well as very expensive. The plan delivers the vast majority of its benefits to high-income taxpayers and very little to tens of millions of middle-class families. … The McCain tax cuts together are even more regressive than the Bush tax cuts. … The bottom 60 percent of tax payers get only 4 percent of the benefit, while the bottom 80 percent get only 9 percent.” The study also noted that the top 1 percent of income earners will receive 58 percent of the benefits of the McCain tax plan. By contrast, 31 percent of the Bush tax cuts went to top 1 percent of income earners. [Center for American Progress Action Fund]

MCCAIN RHETORIC: “Another of my disagreements with Senator Obama concerns the estate tax, which he proposes to increase to a top rate of 55 percent. The estate tax is one of the most unfair tax laws on the books, and the first step to reform is to keep it predictable and keep it low. After a lifetime building up a business, and paying taxes on every dollar that business earns, that asset should not be subjected to a confiscatory tax.” [McCain speech to the NFIB, 6/10/08]

THE FACTS: OBAMA HAS A RESPONSIBLE PLAN FOR THE ESTATE TAX; MCCAIN HAS FLIP FLOPPED ON THE ESTATE TAX

Barack Obama Will Create a $7 Million Estate Tax Exemption for Couples and a 45 Percent Rate: According to Bloomberg News, “Both candidates [Obama and Clinton would allow President George W. Bush's tax cuts to expire for workers in the top two tax brackets and set the estate-tax rate at 45 percent with a $7 million exemption.” [Bloomberg.com, 03/13/08]

2006: McCain Voted to Move Forward with Legislation to Permanently Repeal The Estate Tax. McCain voted with all but one of his Republican colleagues for cloture on the Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act, which failed in the Senate, 57-41. [Vote #164, H.R. 8, 6/8/06, 57-41]

2006: Mccain: “I Remain Opposed To Full Repeal Of The Estate Tax.” In a speech on the Senate floor, McCain stated that he opposed the full repeal of the estate tax: “In his 1906 State of the Union Address, President Theodore Roosevelt proposed the creation of a Federal inheritance tax. Roosevelt explained: "The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the State because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government." Additionally, in a 1907 speech he said: "Most great civilized countries have an income tax and an inheritance tax. In my judgement both should be part of our system of federal taxation." He noted, however, that such taxation should "be aimed merely at the inheritance or transmission in their entirety of those fortunes swollen beyond all healthy limits." I agree with President Roosevelt, and I remain opposed to full repeal of the estate tax.” [Congressional Record, 6/8/06]

2006: McCain Said Repealing Estate Tax Would Expand Deficit Too Much. McCain and other moderate Senators "argued that, given domestic spending demands and need to fund military operations in Iraq, the repeal [of the estate tax] sought by Frist and President Bush would expand the deficit by too much." [Roll Call, 6/5/06]

2003: McCain Voted Against Accelerating The Repeal Of The Estate Tax. In 2003, McCain voted against Senator Kyl's amendment to S.Con.Res. 23 that would have accelerated the repeal of the estate tax from 2010 to 2009. McCain was one of four Republicans to vote against the amendment, which passed 51-48. [Vote #62, S.Amdt 288 to S.Con.Res. 23, 3/20/03, 51-48]

2002: McCain Voted Against A Permanent Repeal Of The Estate Tax. In 2002, McCain was one of two Republicans to vote against a permanent extension of the estate tax repeal. The motion failed, with a vote of 54-44. [Vote #151, S. Amdt 3833 to H.R. 8, 6/12/02, 54-44]

2001: McCain Voted Against Phasing Out The Estate Tax. In 2001, McCain was one of two Republicans to vote against the tax cut package that included an elimination of the estate tax over 10 years. The bill passed, 58-33. [Vote #170, H.R. 1836, 5/26/01, 58-33]

MCCAIN RHETORIC: “It is not enough, however, to make little fixes here and there in the tax code – especially if you’re a small business owner filing under the individual tax. What we need is a simpler, a flatter, and a fair tax code. As president, I will propose an alternative tax system. When this reform is enacted, all who wish to file under the current system could still do so. And everyone else could choose a vastly less complicated system with two tax rates and a generous standard deduction.” [McCain speech to the NFIB, 6/10/08]

THE FACTS: MCCAIN HAS NOT SAID HOW HE WOULD PAY FOR THIS PLAN

McCain Has Not Outlined the Details or the Cost of this Proposal: John McCain has still not provided the details of this proposal nor how he would pay for it so it would either provide no meaningful relief to working families or add to the $5.7 trillion debt John McCain has already proposed to put our country in. [John McCain.com, http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/4dbd2cc7-890e-47f1-882f-b8fc4cfecc78.htm; “The Budget According to McCain: Part I,” FactCheck.org, 5/13/08; NY Times, 4/27/08]

MCCAIN RHETORIC: “As for health care policy, I believe that the best way to help small businesses and employers afford health care is not to increase government control of health care but to bring the rising cost of care under control and give people the option of having personal, portable health insurance...As it is, the traditional tax-subsidy that supports private insurance is concentrated on a subset of American workers and a portion of our businesses. My health care reform will end that unfair bias in the law, while helping to make health insurance more affordable for every American. We’re going to offer every individual and family in America a large tax credit to buy their health care, so that their health insurance is theirs to keep even when they move or change jobs. My plan would allow those who want to stick with employer provided health insurance to do so. But I want to give individuals greater choice, rather than give small business no choice at all.”

THE FACTS: MCCAIN’S HEALTH CARE PLAN WOULD BURDEN SMALL BUSINESS AND MAKE IT HARDER FOR AMERICANS TO GET HEALTH INSURANCE

McCain’s Plan Will Create More Instability for Small Business Premium Costs: According to the Center for American Progress, “To help small businesses, the majority of states take steps to cap premium rates within a certain range (technically called a “rate band”), and many states will also cap the annual increase in premiums… The McCain plan could very well create a rush to the bottom among insurers in these rules. McCain’s idea to allow insurance companies to sell policies over state lines will weaken small business protections by enabling businesses to simply market insurance policies around the country from states with weak protections. There would be no reason for an insurance company to sell a policy anywhere other than from states with weak insurance rules… But one reason these state rules exist is to prevent wild swings in price. McCain will offer much less predictability for small businesses on insurance costs, which will weaken small businesses.” [“Small Business is in Trouble Under McCain Plan”, The Wonk Room, 4/25/08]

McCain’s Plan Could Increase Costs for Many Americans and Make it Harder for Many Individuals to Obtain Insurance: According to Len Burman of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, “Removing or reducing employers’ incentives to sponsor health insurance would have mixed effects on coverage. While some young, healthy people might be induced to acquire coverage in the individual nongroup market under a different set of incentives, the loss of [employer-sponsored insurance] ESI could be particularly devastating to old and unhealthy workers who would face prohibitively high health insurance premiums in the private nongroup market in the vast majority of states.” And according to the Des Moines Register, “The proposal should scare the heck out of the millions of Americans who rely on employer-based coverage. Iowans who have tried to buy affordable coverage on their own know they need more than a tax credit and good health. Sometimes they need a winning lottery ticket…” The McCain plan “forc[es] millions of Americans to shop for their own coverage in a profit-driven, private-insurance sector.” [Len Burman, Testimony to House Committee on the Budget, 10/18/07; Des Moines Register, 5/3/08]

Small Business Owners Opposes McCain Plan to Eliminate the Employer Tax Exclusion: According to NFIB, “NFIB members do NOT want the current tax exclusion eliminated nor capped, but think the tax position of those purchasing health insurance on the individual market should receive equivalent tax benefits to those in employer-based plans.” [Small-Business Owners and Health Care Policy: NFIB Health-Care Survey – Summary of Results]

McCain’s Health Care Plan Falls Short; Tax Credit is Less Than Half of the Cost of an Average Family Health Care Plan. As the Wall Street Journal noted, under the McCain health care plan “the existing tax break for employer-sponsored insurance would be eliminated, taking a step away from the work-based model in place for the last half century and toward an individual market.” Instead, he would provide tax credits – $2,500 per individual and $5,000 per family – to allow workers to purchase health insurance in the open market. However, these tax credits are far less than what an average health care plan currently costs. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the average annual cost for heath care insurance coverage in 2007 was $4,479 for single coverage and $12,106 for family coverage. [“Employer Health Benefits 2007 Annual Survey,” Kaiser Family Foundation, 9/11/07; “‘Call To Action’ On Health Care Reform,” John McCain 2008 press release, 4/29/08; Wall Street Journal, 10/11/07]

MCCAIN RHETORIC: “In so many ways, we need to make a clean break from the worst excesses of both political parties. And for Republicans, it starts with reclaiming our good name as the party of spending restraint. Somewhere along the way, too many Republicans in Congress became indistinguishable from the big-spending Democrats they used to oppose. The only power of government that could stop them was the power of veto, and it was rarely used. If that authority is entrusted to me, I will use the veto as needed. I will veto every bill with earmarks. I will seek a constitutionally valid line-item veto to end pork-barrel spending once and for all. And I will lead broad reforms that remove the many corporate tax loopholes that are costly, unfair to smaller business competitors, and inconsistent with a free-market economy.” [McCain speech to the NFIB, 6/10/08]

THE FACTS: MCCAIN’S EARMARK PLAN IS “LARGELY FANTASY.”

Center for American Progress Action Fund: At Most, Eliminating All Earmarks Will Yield $18.3 Billion in Annual Savings. According to the Center for American Progress, “The Office of Management and Budget analysis found earmarks totaling $16.9 billion, and the Taxpayers for Commonsense analysis found $18.3 billion. Both show that earmarks account for only about 0.6 percent of government spending. More importantly, neither earmark tally would put a dent in the massive spending cuts required to offset McCain’s tax proposals… In order to get a bigger number, McCain and his staff turned to a three-year-old analysis by the Congressional Research Service…” [Center for American Progress Action Fund, 4/17/08]

Washington Post Fact Checker: McCain Proposal to Eliminate S100 Billion a Year in Earmarks is “Largely Fantasy.” “John McCain boasts that he can save $100 billion a year ‘immediately’ by eliminating the so-called earmarks that legislators attach to spending bills to finance pet projects, usually in their home state. But he has refused to say exactly which projects he would cut, and his estimates of the amount of money that is being spent on earmarks have been challenged by independent experts. … … McCain's talk about eliminating $100 billion a year in earmarks is largely fantasy. His advisers are now promoting a more realistic plan of eliminating $100 billion in overall spending. But it is difficult to take even that promise very seriously given the fact that the senator refuses to identify exactly which projects he will be cut. To use a phrase coined by George H.W. Bush, this is ‘voodoo economics,’ based more on wishful thinking than on hard data or carefully considered policy proposals.” [Washington Post, 5/23/08]

Wall Street Journal: McCain’s Plans To Eliminate Earmarks Will Not Pay For Lost Revenue From His Tax Cuts. “When asked Wednesday, after a town-hall meeting in Exeter, N.H., how he would balance his proposed budget, Sen. McCain responded, ‘By eliminating wasteful and pork-barrel spending, to start with.’ How much would that get him? In fiscal 2008, there were 11,737 appropriation earmarks totaling $16.8 billion. That is down from a peak in 2005, when there were nearly 13,500 earmarks totaling almost $19 billion. Eliminating earmarks wouldn't restore revenue lost by Sen. McCain's other propositions, including a litany of tax cuts. He plans to not raise taxes, but he also plans to increase the size of the military and institute health-care overhauls.” [Wall Street Journal, 3/14/08]

02:46 PM | Permalink

ABC Incorrectly Writes: "Barack Obama's position on talking to Iran has been evolving since last year's CNN/Youtube debate, when he said he would be willing to meet 'without precondition' with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea during the first year of his administration. During a speech before a pro-Israel group on Wednesday, however, Obama, D-Ill., who clinched the delegates necessary to claim the Democratic nomination on Tuesday, presented an entirely different position...now Obama has put a major condition on his willingness to meet with Iran: he will meet only if such a meeting advances the interests of the U.S." [ABC, 6/4/08]

REALITY: Obama has consistently said he is willing to meet, without preconditions but with preparation, the leaders of Iran. This could include, but is not limited to, Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad is not the most powerful person in Iran, and his status is uncertain as there will be Presidential elections in Iran in 2009.

OBAMA HAS SAID HE WOULD BE WILLING TO MEET WITH THE LEADERS OF IRAN

Obama Said He Would Be Willing To Meet Without Precondition With The Leaders Of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, And North Korea. Obama was asked "Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?" Obama responded, "I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous." [CNN, Youtube Debate, 7/24/07]

Obama Said He'd Be Willing To Meet Without Precondition The Leaders Of Iran. Asked if he were still willing to meet without pre-condition during your first year with Fidel Castro, Kim Jung Il, Hugo Chavez, Obama said, "I do. Now, I did not say that I would be meeting with all of them. I said I'd be willing to. Obviously, there is a difference between pre-conditions and preparation. Pre-conditions, which was what the question was in that debate, means that we won't meet with people unless they've already agreed to the very things that we expect to be meeting with them about. And obviously, when we say to Iran, 'We won't meet with you until you've agreed to all the terms that we've laid out,'" from their perspective that's not a negotiation, that's not a meeting." [Meet the Press, 11/11/07]

Obama Said That He Would Be Willing To Meet With Iranian Leaders After Sufficient Preparation. Obama said, "I would be willing to meet with Iranian leaders if we had done sufficient preparations for that meeting." [CNN, 5/20/08]

Obama Said He'd Be Willing To Meet At Some Point With The Leaders Of Iran. Obama said, "But what I have said is that at some point I would be willing to meet. And that is a position -- I mean, what's puzzling is that we view this as in any way controversial when this has been the history of U.S. diplomacy until very recently." [Watertown, SD Press Avail, 5/16/08]

Obama Said The Approach He's Suggesting Is Tough But Engaged Diplomacy Like What Was Carried Out By Kennedy, Nixon, And Reagan. Obama said, "The approach I am suggesting, the tough but engaged diplomacy that I am suggesting is the kind that was carried out by John Kennedy, it was carried out by Richard Nixon, and it was carried out by Ronald Reagan. There is a strong bipartisan tradition of engaging in that kind of diplomacy. You mirror military strength with aggressive, effective, tough diplomacy. That's what's been lacking." [Watertown, SD Press Avail, 5/16/08]

OBAMA IS WILLING TO MEET WITH AHMADINEJAD BUT AHMADINEJAD MAY NOT BE THE RIGHT PERSON SINCE HE'S NOT THE MOST POWERFUL PERSON IN IRAN AND MAY BE OUT OF POWER SHORTLY AFTER OBAMA TAKES OFFICE

Obama Said That He Would Be Willing To Meet With Iranian Leaders After Sufficient Preparation Had Been Done But Ahmadinejad Might Not Be The Right Person. "Obama said Tuesday that 'this obsession with Ahmadinejad is an example of us losing track of what's important.' 'I would be willing to meet with Iranian leaders if we had done sufficient preparations for that meeting,' Obama said. 'Whether Ahmadinejad is the right person to meet with right now, we don't even know how much power he is going to have a year from now. He is not the most powerful person in Iran.'" [CNN, 5/20/08]

Obama Said There Was No Reason Why He Would Necessarily Meet With Ahmadinejad Before We Know That He's Actually In Power. Obama said, "There's no reason why we would necessarily meet with Ahmadinejad before we know that he was actually in power. He's not the most powerful person in Iran." [Reuters, 5/27/08]

Obama Said That Ahmadinejad Is Not The Most Powerful Leader In Iran So He Might Not Be The Person That We Would Meet With. MS. KELLY: Senator, do you assume too much about men like Ahmadinejad? In other words, that you could reason with someone as irrational as he is? SEN. OBAMA: First of all, he's not the most powerful leader in Iran, so he might not be the person that we would need to meet with. But more importantly, the reason that you have discussions and diplomacy is not because you assume reason or good motives on the other side. That would be naive. What you assume is that if you are very clear about the need to stand down on nuclear weapons, that you are very clear about the need to stop funding Hezbollah and Hamas and to stop threatening Israel, and you have engaged in those direct talks, and you're listening about what their interests are, number one, we get a better sense of what their true interests are, number two, you have sent a message to the world that we are not the impediment of making progress, that they're the ones who are holding up progress, which allows us then to strengthen our alliances to impose the kinds of tough sanctions that may be necessary to change their behavior. [Fox News, 5/20/08]

Obama Said He Would Not Restrict Meetings To Ahmadinejad But Would Also Seek To Meet With Clerics Who Are The Ultimate Authority. "Obama's response: 'I would include Ahmadinejad to the extent that he is part of an Iranian government, but I would not restrict my meetings to him. I don't know where he will be a year or year and a half from now.' (Ahmadinejad could lose in 2009.) Obama said he would also seek to meet 'with negotiators who may have more power than (Ahmadinejad), including the clerics who are the ultimate authority.'" [Philadelphia Inquirer, 4/17/08]

Obama Said Iran's President Is Kind Of "Nutty" But He's Not The Most Powerful Person In Iran. "Obama in response to a question from a Sioux City voter about how he would negotiate with extremists in the Mideast, said, 'When I talk to Iran, the president is kinda nutty, but he's not the most powerful person.' If the clerics who run Iran were willing to work with the U.S. against terrorists, stop funding terrorist organizations and not seek nuclear weapons Obama said he would consider easing sanctions." [Chicago Sun Times, 1/2/08]

THE IRAQ STUDY GROUP RECOMMENDED MEETING WITH THE IRAN WITHOUT PRECONDITIONS, AT THE LEVEL OF SECRETARY OF STATE OR PRESIDENT

The Bi-Partisan Iraq Study Group Report Recommended That The U.S. Engage In Direct Diplomacy With Iran And Syria Without Preconditions. "Dealing with Iran and Syria is controversial. Nevertheless, it is our view that in diplomacy, a nation can and should engage its adversaries and enemies to try to resolve conflicts and differences consistent with its own interests. Accordingly, the Support Group should actively engage Iran and Syria in its diplomatic dialogue, without preconditions." [Iraq Study Group Report]

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRECONDITIONS AND PREPARATION

Obama Has Been Explicit About The Need For Low Level Talks With A Presidential Summit Coming Only If There Were Progress In Those Negotiations. "Obama has also been explicit about the need to start with lower-level talks, a presidential summit coming only if there were progress in those negotiations." [Time, 5/22/08]

Obama Said That He Would Not Refuse To Meet Iran Until They Have Agreed To Every Position That We Want But He Would Have Preparation Starting With Lower Level Diplomatic Contacts. "Preconditions, as applies to a country like Iran, for example, was a term of art, because this administration has been very clear that it will not have direct negotiations with Iran until Iran has met preconditions that are essentially what Iran views and many other observers would view as the subject of the negotiations. For example, their nuclear program. The point is, is that I would not refuse to meet until they agreed to every position that we want, but that doesn't mean that we would not have preparation. And the preparation would involve starting with lower-level diplomatic contacts, having our diplomat core work through with Iranian counterparts an agenda." [Watertown, SD Press Avail, 5/16/08]

Obama Said There Was A Difference Between Preparation And Preconditions. The Kansas City Star reported, "'The argument was that I would invite Hugo Chavez over to my house, and we'd pop open a beer and we'd start talking…That's the lack of preparation. There's no one that would meet another head of state without preparation. Preconditions refer to something specific. We've refused to talk to Iran until they meet preconditions.' Obama admitted that his willingness to try a new approach to foreign policy was his way of rocking the political boat. 'I've been trying to challenge some conventional wisdom,' Obama said. 'And the purveyors of conventional wisdom have gotten uncomfortable. I don't mind that discomfort. I think our foreign policy is all messed up.'" [Kansas City Star, 8/20/07]

Obama: Nobody Expects You Would Meet with Hostile Leaders Without Having Done the Appropriate Groundwork. Obama said, "Nobody expects that you would suddenly just sit down with them for coffee without having done the appropriate groundwork," he said. "But the question was: Would you meet them without preconditions? And part of the Bush doctrine has been to say no." [Washington Post, 7/27/07]

01:07 PM | Permalink

OBAMA HAS CONSISTENTLY URGED THAT IRAN'S REVOLUTIONARY GUARD BE LABELED WHAT IT IS: A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION

Obama Cosponsored The Iran Counter-Proliferation Act, Which Would Designate The Iranian Revolutionary Guard As A Terrorist Organ, Prohibit Trade With Iran, Freeze Iranian Officials' Assets, Help Combat Terrorist Financing. In 2007, Obama cosponsored legislation expressing the Senate of the Senate on a variety of existing and proposed sanctions against Iran and providing mechanisms to assure a supply of nuclear fuel for peaceful means. "This legislation urges the Administration to pursue measures in the international financial sector to restrict financing in Iran and encourages foreign state-owned entities to cease investment in Iran's energy sector. It prohibits all imports from and exports to Iran. It forbids any action that would extend preferential trade treatment to Iran or that would lead to Iranian accession to the WTO. And it freezes assets of senior Iranian officials and their families...The bill prevents the United States from moving forward with a multi-billion dollar nuclear cooperation agreement with Moscow until the President certifies that Russia has suspended its nuclear assistance and the transfers of any conventional weapons and missiles to Iran...The Iran Counter-Proliferation Act also seeks to bring to light the names of companies that continue to feel it is appropriate to do business with the mullahs in Tehran. It requires the Administration to submit an annual report to Congress listing any foreign investments in Iran's energy sector since January 1 of this year and a determination on whether such investment is sanctionable under the Iran Sanctions Act. And it requires a report listing companies with American operations, whether or not they are incorporated in the United States, which invest in Iran...This legislation will reduce our contributions to the World Bank by the percentage of total money the World Bank loans to entities in Iran...The Iran Counter-Proliferation Act calls on the Administration to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a Foreign Terrorist Organization and to add it to the Treasury's list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists. Funding is increased for the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence to strengthen the Treasury's efforts to combat unlawful or terrorist financing...This legislation designates $10 million in funding to enhance our friendship with the people of Iran by identifying young Iranians to visit the United States under U.S. exchange programs." [S. 970, 110th Congress, Introduced 3/22/07; Congressional Record, 3/22/07]

Obama Spokesman: Obama Supports Designating The Revolutionary Guard As A Terrorist Organization And Said Obama Objected To Aggressive Passages In The Resolution. Politico.com reported, "Obama spokesman Bill Burton said Obama supports designating the Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization. He objects, Burton said, to another passage of the resolution, which finds that: The manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of... Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region." [Politico, 9/7/07]

OBAMA OPPOSED KYL-LIEBERMAN BECAUSE ITS LANGUAGE SAID THE US MILITARY IN IRAQ SHOULD BE USED TO COUNTER IRAN, WHILE IN FACT IT HAS STRENGTHENED IRAN

Campaign Statement: "Senator Obama Clearly Recognizes The Serious Threat Posed By Iran," However, "He Thinks That Our Large Troop Presence In Iraq Has Served To Strengthen Iran - Not Weaken It." The Obama campaign said in a statement, "Senator Obama clearly recognizes the serious threat posed by Iran. However, he does not agree with the President that the best way to counter that threat is to keep large numbers of troops in Iraq, and he does not think that now is the time for saber-rattling towards Iran. In fact, he thinks that our large troop presence in Iraq has served to strengthen Iran - not weaken it. He believes that diplomacy and economic pressure, such as the d