Powell endorses Obama as 'transformational'

Mike Allen, Jonathan Martin Mike Allen, Jonathan Martin Sun Oct 19, 9:55 am ET

Retired General Colin L. Powell, one of the country's most respected Republicans, stunned both parties on Sunday by strongly endorsing Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) for president on NBC's "Meet the Press" and laying out a blistering, detailed critique of the modern GOP.

Powell said the election of Obama would "electrify the world."

"I think he is a transformational figure," Powell said. "He is a new generation coming ... onto the world stage and on the American stage. And for that reason, I'll be voting for Senator Barack Obama."

As a key reason, Powell said: "I would have difficulty with two more conservative appointments to the Supreme Court, but that's what we'd be looking at in a McCain administration."

Powell, once considered likely to be the nation's first African-American presidential nominee, said his decision was not about race.

Moderator Tom Brokaw said: "There will be some ... who will say this is an African-American, distinguished American supporting another African-American because of race."

Powell, who last year gave Republican John McCain's campaign the maximum $2,300, replied: "If I had only had that in mind, I could have done this six, eight, 10 months ago. I really have been going back and forth between somebody I have the highest respect and regard for, John McCain and somebody I was getting to know, Barack Obama. And it was only in the last couple of months that I settled on this."

"I can't deny that it will be a historic event when an African-American becomes president," Powell continued, speaking live in the studio. "And should that happen, all Americans should be proud — not just African-American, but all Americans — that we have reached this point in our national history where such a thing could happen. It would also not only electrify the country, but electrify the world."

Obama communications director Robert Gibbs said the two men spoke for 10 minutes at 10 a.m., and that the candidate thanked Powell for his endorsement and said "he looked forward to taking advantage of his advice in the next two weeks and hopefully over the next four years."

Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki said the campaign had not been told of the endorsement: "We didn’t know until General Powell spoke on 'Meet The Press' ."

Powell, making his 30th appearance on "Meet the Press," said he does not plan to campaign for Obama. He led into his endorsement by saying: "We've got two individuals — either one of them could be a good president. But which is the president that we need now — which is the individual that serves the needs of the nation for the next period of time.

"And I come to the conclusion that because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities — and you have to take that into account — as well as his substance — he has both style and substance, he has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president."

Powell said that he is "troubled" by the direction of the Republican Party, and said he began to doubt McCain when he chose Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate.

"Not just small towns have values," he said, responding to one of Palin's signature lines.

"She's a very distinguished woman, and she's to be admired," he said. "But at the same, now that we have had a chance to watch her for some seven weeks, I don't believe she's ready to be president of the United States, which is the job of the vice president. And so that raised some question in my mind as to the judgment that Senator McCain made."

The endorsement is likely to help the Illinois senator convince skeptical centrists that he is ready to handle the challenges of commander in chief, and undercuts McCain argument that he is better qualified on national-security issues.

The Arizona senator, appearing on "Fox News Sunday," sought to minimize the endorsement by noting his support from other former secretaries of state and retired military flag officers.

"This doesn’t come as a surprise," McCain said. "But I'm also very pleased to have the endorsement of four former secretaries of state ... and I'm proud to have the endorsement of well over 200 retired generals and admirals. I respect and continue to respect and admire Secretary Powell."

While McCain only reiterated his respect for Powell when asked about the move, others in the GOP were more candid.

One prominent conservative who knows both McCain and Powell said that for all the secretary of state's criticism of McCain and his praise of Obama, the move had less to do with the two candidates for president than the current occupant of the Oval Office.

"Powell cares a lot about his reputation with Washington elites and he thinks he was badly damaged by his relationship with the Bush administration," said this Republican. "So this is a way to make up for what he regarded as not being treated well by the Bush administration, not being given the due deferenece he thinks he deserves."

And that Powell would make his decision known in the closing weeks of the election, as it becomes increasingly clear that Obama is the favorite, reflects a calculated political move, says this source.

"Let's be honest – do we think Powell would be doing this if Obama had been trailing six or seven points in the polls?" the source asked, deeming Powell's endorsement "a Profile in Conventional Wisdom."

A friend of the former secretary of state sharply dismissed the idea that Powell's move had anything to do with making up for his service in the Bush years.

"Anybody who is making the argument about 'rehabiliation' was not listening to what he had say today," said the friend, suggesting Powell clear that he was unhappy with the state of the party. "It's absolute horseshit."

Rush Limbaugh suggested Powell's move was very much related to Obama's status as the first African-American with a chance to become president.

"Secretary Powell says his endorsement is not about race," Limbaugh wrote in an email. "OK, fine. I am now researching his past endorsements to see if I can find all the inexperienced, very liberal, white candidates he has endorsed. I'll let you know what I come up with.

"I was also unaware of his dislike for John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia. I guess he also regrets Reagan and Bush making HIM a 4-star and Secretary of State AND appointing his son to head the FCC. Yes, let's hear it for transformational figures."

But others in the party were less dismissive, acknowledging the heft of the respected retired four-star general and the popularity he enjoys across the country.

"The Powell endorsement is a big deal," said Scott Reed, Bob Dole's campaign manager in 1996 and a close friend of McCain campaign manager Rick Davis. "It has been bantered about since August, and shows both Powell and Obama know how to make an impact in the closing days of a tight campaign."

"What that just did in one sound bite -- and I assume that sound bite will end up in an ad -- is it eliminated the experience factor," said former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a Republican, in an appearance on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos. "How are you going to say the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the former National Security Adviser, former Secretary of State was taken in?"

Powell, 71, also used his Meet the Press appearance to criticize McCain and his campaign for invoking the former domestic terrorist William Ayers.

"Sen. McCain says he a washed-up old terrorist—then why does he keep talking about him?" Powell asked.

"They're trying to connect [Obama] to some kind of terrorist feelings, and I think that's inappropriate," Powell said. "Now I understand what politics is all about — I know how you can go after one another. And that's good. But I think this goes too far. And I think it has made the McCain campaign look a little narrow. It's not what the American people are looking for. And I look at these kinds of approaches to the campaign, and they trouble me. And the party has moved even further to the right, and Governor Palin has indicated a further rightward shift."

Powell said he has "heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion [that Obama's] a Muslim and might be associated with terrorists."

"This is not the way we should be doing it in America. I feel strongly about this particular point," Powell said. "We have got to stop polarizing ourselves in this way. And John McCain is as non-discriminatory as anyone I know. But I'm troubled about the fact that within the party, we have these kinds of expressions."

Powell, a four-star Army general, was national security adviser to President Ronald Reagan; chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the 1991 Persian Gulf war, when George H.W. Bush was president; and was President George W. Bush’s first secretary of State.

Powell has consulted with both Obama and McCain, and the general’s camp had indicated in the past that he would not endorse.

Powell said that as he watched McCain, the Republican “was a little unsure as to how to deal with the economic problems that we were having, and almost every day, there was a different approach to the problem, and that concerned me, sensing that he didn't have a complete grasp of the economic problems that we had."

Powell said a big job of the new president will be “conveying a new image of American leadership, a new image of America’s role in the world.”

“I think what the president has to do is to start using the power of the Oval Office and the power of his personality to convince the American people and to convince the world that America is solid, America is going to move forward … restoring a sense of purpose,” he said.

"This Powell endorsement is the nail in the coffin," said one Republican official, speaking anonymously to offer candid thoughts about the party's nominee. "Not just because of him, but the indictment he laid out of the McCain campaign."

How to Cure This Sick System

Fact and Comment

How to Cure This Sick System

Steve Forbes 10.06.08, 12:00 AM ET


Not even during the Great Depression did we witness what is now unfolding--a sizable number of big financial institutions going under. What enabled their taking on so much debt and so many questionable assets was, primarily, the easy-money policy of the Federal Reserve. Chairmen Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke created massive amounts of excess liquidity. If the dollar had been kept stable relative to gold, as it was between the end of WWII and the late 1960s, the scale of the bingeing in recent years would have been impossible.

The first prescription for a cure is to formally strengthen the dollar and announce it publicly. A year ago August the price of gold was more than $650 per ounce. In late 2003 it had breached $400. The Fed should declare that its goal for gold is around $500 to $550. That would stabilize the buck--and stability is essential if animal spirits and risk taking are to revive.

Also of immediate urgency is for regulators to suspend any mark-to-market rules for long-term assets. Short-term assets should not be given arbitrary values unless there are actual losses. The mark-to-market mania of regulators and accountants is utterly destructive. It is like fighting a fire with gasoline.

Think of the mark-to-market madness this way: You buy a house for $350,000 and take out a $250,000 30-year fixed-rate mortgage. Your income is more than adequate to make the monthly payments. But under mark-to-market rules the bank could call up and say that if your house had to be sold immediately, it would fetch maybe $200,000 in such a distressed sale. The bank would then tell you that you owe $250,000 on a house worth only $200,000 and to please fork over the $50,000 immediately or else lose the house.

Absurd? Obviously. But that's what, in effect, is happening today. Thus institutions with long-term assets are having to drastically reprice them downward. And so the crisis feeds on itself.
The SEC should immediately reverse its foolish decision to get rid of the so-called uptick rule in short-selling. That would provide a small road bump to the short-selling that's helping to destroy financial institutions.

At the same time the SEC should promulgate an emergency rule (which we thought was already the rule): No naked short-selling. That is, you have to own or borrow shares in a company before you can short it. The rules should make clear that short-sellers must have ample documentation proving they truly possess the shares at the time of the short sale. Otherwise, each violation will result in heavy fines. That wouldn't be a road bump but a wall of Everest-like proportions.

Regulators should also be told to instruct banks to keep their solvent customers solvent. The last thing the economy needs right now is for the banking system to seize up.
The federal government should also consider setting up a new Resolution Trust Corp., which was devised during the savings and loan crisis nearly 20 years ago as a dumping ground for bad S&L assets. Today's bad assets could then be liquidated in an orderly way. And, finally, the financial industry should be encouraged to create new exchanges for exotic instruments. This would result in the standardization of these things, which would mean more transparency.

These steps would quickly revive financial markets. Already mortgage rates are coming down. It won't be long before American homeowners start an avalanche of refinancings, which would be an enormous boon to confidence and the economy.

What Makes Our Ever Changing 400 List Possible

Prophet of Innovation--by Thomas K. McCraw (Harvard University Press, $35). An excellent, thorough and smoothly written biography of Joseph Schumpeter, the greatest economist of the 20th century. Too bad most politicos--and economists--don't fully grasp his insights.

Born in 1883 in a province of the old Austro-Hungarian Empire that is now part of the Czech Republic, Schumpeter recognized at a young age that the critical factor in economic progress was the entrepreneur, the innovator. To him it was the risk taker who brought about new products and services and more efficient ways of making and doing things. A free-market, capitalist economy, he emphasized, meant constant change, often disruptive and disorienting to traditional ways of doing things. Competition wasn't just the jousting of existing firms that had similar products but also encompassed the threat that came from a truly new product, new technology or new type of organization.

Schumpeter made the distinction between an inventor and an innovator: The innovator takes an idea or product and figures out how to produce it efficiently and profitably. His term describing one process, "creative destruction," has become a catchphrase of our own era.

Schumpeter's perceptions here were profound, although most of his time's economists--and politicians--downplayed or ignored them. Today, though, things seem different. Even Demo-crats occasionally pay lip service to the risk takers' and entrepreneurs' importance to economic growth. Yet Democratic policies, such as raising the cost of capital and reducing its availability, would devastate them. Similarly, while economists doff their caps to Schumpeter, their professional research downplays innovation because it is impossible to quantify and not conducive to mathematical models. So the appreciation of this genius is still superficial.

One drawback is that Schumpeter was not a "feel-good" economist like Keynes, whose apostles believed that properly manipulating government fiscal and monetary tools would generate perpetual prosperity, with nary a bust or a bout of irrational exuberance. Innovation, however, is not a smooth process but comes in fits and starts. That's why, Schumpeter pointed out, a healthy economy is subject to cycles of boom and bust.

In the early 1980s, for example, personal computers became the hot new product. Then came the inevitable shakeout. Many companies, such as Atari, Commodore and Osborne, bit the dust.

But PCs became more powerful. Innovators learned to network PCs, enabling them to easily replace expensive mainframe computers with the significantly cheaper and more versatile PCs.

In the early 20th century the automobile went through similar booms and busts: Before World War I there were more than 300 auto manufacturers in the U.S. Another vivid testimony to innovation's disruption and destruction is today's fast-shrinking newspaper industry, a victim of the Internet.

Schumpeter recognized that a dynamic economy creates wide inequality. A successful entrepreneur, his investors and even some of his employees (think Microsoft) will get rich.

However, this is not the kind of static inequality one sees in semifeudalistic, oligarchic economies that exist in South America and elsewhere, where the same handful of people are wealthy and everyone else struggles. A truly capitalist economy will see the players change repeatedly. Facts back up Schumpeter's insight. IRS data show that 75% of the very top income earners in the mid-1990s are no longer in that category.

Growing up in a turbulent part of Europe made Schumpeter realize that life did not follow a smooth-running, gentle path. In contrast, Britons such as John Maynard Keynes tended to see the economy in more static terms. Even American economists tended toward a rather static view of the world. Harvard's late, once renowned John Kenneth Galbraith wrote a book in the 1960s whose thesis was that major corporations such as Ford Motor Co. were the epitome of economic development and lived by their own laws rather than those of the marketplace. Today once formidable giants, such as Ford and General Motors, are struggling just to stay alive financially.

Schumpeter was a genius at dissecting the ideologies and prejudices of other economists. Karl Marx, for example, also observed the dynamic nature of entrepreneurial capitalism. But he mistakenly concluded that this kind of change would inevitably, inexorably impoverish the workers. Instead--as Schumpeter laid out time and time again--an entrepreneurial economy means more people earning more and enjoying a higher standard of living. Adam Smith celebrated the importance of free trade, low taxes, property rights, the enforcement of contracts in enabling people to get richer. But he had very little appreciation of the crucial role individual entrepreneurs and innovators play in the process.

Schumpeter acknowledged that governments would have to play a role--one hopes a constructive one--in creating conditions in which creative destruction could play out. In the U.S., for instance, farm subsidies helped ameliorate the political backlash when technology and manufacturing sharply reduced employment in the agricultural sector. A century ago one in 4
Americans made his or her living in agriculture; today it's fewer than one in 75.

What made Schumpeter especially insightful was that he was truly a multidisciplinary individual. He was well versed in politics, sociology and history. By the time he finished his secondary education he had mastered six languages. He would look upon the bulk of today's economists, with their obsession with numbers and regression analysis, as hideously narrow-minded and suffering from academic constipation.

As he grew older, Schumpeter became pessimistic about democratic capitalism. He observed that the sons and daughters of successful entrepreneurs often became leftists or outright socialists. His own varied life undoubtedly added to his gloomy outlook. He had moved numerous times and seen convulsions aplenty. World War I broke up the Austro-Hungarian Empire, creating, among other things, the state of Austria--what wags dubbed "a bureaucracy without an empire." After the war Schumpeter served briefly as its finance minister. It was a disastrous experience. Knowing the right things to do does not automatically make them politically possible.

He lasted less than a year in the job. Only when inflationary conditions worsened did subsequent ministers adopt some of his policies. The rise of Nazism in Germany--Schumpeter taught there until the early 1930s, at which time he accepted an offer from Harvard--was a personally vivid example of how a great nation can self-destruct and threaten civilization itself.

Schumpeter would certainly take a dim view of what many politicians in America are offering up these days. But the actual history of Britain and the U.S., after his death in 1950, might have lightened the darkness of his long-term outlook. As long as a society remains free, entrepreneurs can prevent ossification. The U.S.' great comeback under President Ronald Reagan is one vivid example, as is Britain's under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Once taxes were cut and structural reforms made, Britain morphed from the sick man of Europe into Europe's most dynamic large economy. Schumpeter would also have been astonished by the fall of the Soviet Union.

www.ruffcommunications.com

Battleground Update: The Red States Get Redder, The Blue States Get Purpler

Andrew Romano

The current Real Clear Politics electoral map reflects the latest polls; it is not a prediction of the outcome

One week ago today, I launched Stumper's general-election coverage with an in-depth look at where the "Race for the White House" stood in the wake of the Democratic and Republican nominating conventions. While the national polls had swung about 9 points in John McCain's direction since the Democrats left Denver, the Real Clear Politics electoral map still tilted every so slightly toward Barack Obama, 273 to 265. But the Illinois senator's slim lead was hardly set in stone--as I noted at the time. "No battleground state polls have been released since the second day of the Republican Convention," I wrote. "If the national surveys are right and McCain has in fact received a 5-point post-St. Paul bounce, that enthusiasm will almost certainly trickle down." I promised to revisit the map once the dust had settled.

Well, now it has. And what it shows is ... drumroll, please ... more of the same. According to Real Clear Politics, this week's map, posted above, is identical to last week's. Obama is still leading 273 electoral votes to 265.

Does that mean that Obama has emerged unscathed? Hardly. The Democratic nominee may have managed to maintain his razor-thin eight-vote margin--but he's done it by the skin of his teeth. Even if McCain has yet to flip a state, a closer look at the latest battleground polling reveals that the Arizonan's gains have, in fact, trickled down. They've had two effects. First, a handful of red states that Obama once hoped to win now seem either out of reach or more favorable to McCain, whether temporarily or permanently. And second, McCain is suddenly within striking distance in a group of Blue States where Obama until recently enjoyed a comfortable lead. The result: a campaign that once boasted about redrawing the electoral map by targeting an unprecedented 18 battlegrounds has been forced to focus on a more familiar swath of states--and even play defense in places it had hoped to win easily. In the last week, the Red States have gotten redder--and the Blue States have gotten purpler.

Take Montana and Georgia. In 2004, George W. Bush won the former by 20.5 percent and the later by 16.6 percent. But after clinching the Democratic nomination in early June, Obama put both states on his target list and deployed hundreds of volunteers and staffers to Atlanta and Helena to open field offices and register voters. He had reason for optimism. In early July, Rasmussen showed Obama ahead in Montana by 5 points; at the same time, an Insider Advantage poll put him a mere 2 points behind McCain in Georgia. But the latest surveys from those same firms tell a different story. According to an Insider Advantage sounding released last Thursday, McCain now leads 56-38 in the Peach State--an 18-point gulf. Meanwhile, the first postconvention poll by Rasmussen gives the Republican an 11-point advantage in the Treasure State, 53-42. Real Clear Politics has McCain ahead by an average of 13.4 percent in the former and 9.0 percent in the latter. Which means they may be out of reach.

The news for Obama in the key Bush states of Ohio and Florida isn't any better. In late July, the battle for the Sunshine State was tied at about 45 percent on average, and after Denver, Obama trailed by as little as 2.6 percent. But in the post-St. Paul period, McCain's Florida numbers have skyrocketed. Since last Monday, four surveys have hit the wires, with PPP (McCain +5), Quinnipiac (+7) and Insider Advantage (+8) all showing a growing lead for McCain; only FOX News still puts Obama within striking distance. According to the RCP average, McCain now boasts his largest edge (5 percent) since late June. The McCainward shift in the Buckeye State looks much the same. Of the six polls released since St. Paul, five show the Arizonan ahead--boosting him to his biggest RCP lead in this crucial, close-run battleground (2.5 percent) since mid-May. Even Virginia, a Bush state where Obama had held McCain to a tie for much of the cycle, seems to have drifted right. There, McCain now leads by 2.6 percent, 49.3 to 46.7--the largest margin for either candidate since May. The Republican nominee has also edged ahead in the latest polls out of New Mexico and Nevada--both Red in 2004, both leaning toward Obama before St. Paul.

But the most troubling developments for the Dems are probably in two states Kerry won in 2004: Pennsylvania and Minnesota. At the end of July, Obama led in the Keystone State by a whopping nine points, 51.7 percent to 41.7 percent; at the start of September he was ahead by a healthy five, 47.4 to 42.4. The three polls released since St. Paul, however, show McCain closing fast. In the Quinnipiac survey, McCain trails by a measly three points after lagging by seven in mid-August; Strategic Vision and Rasmussen put him within two. Overall, Obama's average lead in Pennsylvania--2.3 percent--is his smallest since capturing the nomination. And while a CNN/Gallup poll released between the conventions gave Obama a 12-point lead in Minnesota, the two soundings out since the GOP left the state earlier this month suggest that McCain is either tied with Obama at 45 percent (Star Tribune) or trailing by a statistically insignificant 2-percent margin (Survey USA). Couple that with the surprising 46 Obama-43 McCain result in the latest Wisconsin survey, and the Rust Belt and upper Midwest are starting to look too close for Chicago's comfort.

It's not all doom and gloom for Obama. So far this month, he's seems to have solidified his narrow margin in Michigan and New Hampshire (states McCain is hoping to flip) while expanding his edges in the Bush states of Iowa and Colorado, where he now leads by 9.7 percent and 2.3 percent, respectively. If he wins these states in November--along with Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Wisconsin and New Mexico--he wins the White House. New Democratic registrations and Chicago's sophisticated field operation will surely help. But what the last week of polling has shown beyond any doubt is that McCain's successful convention and shocking choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate have shifted the map ever so slightly to the right, transforming a landscape that favored Obama into a landscape that favors, well, no one. For the next six weeks, then, expect Obama and Joe Biden to play defense (Pennsylvania, Michigan) as well as offense (Colorado, Virginia, Nevada) while focusing much of their attention on the king of all swing states: Ohio. But don't expect the final map to look all that different from 2004.

UPDATE, Sept. 16: Prof. Charles Franklin of the University of Wisconsin agrees with our analysis:

Among the strong Republican states, McCain has gained more than 8 points over Obama since shortly before the conventions, turning a 14 point lead into a 22.5 point margin, a huge gain. Among the strong Democratic states, the effect of the conventions is a tiny 2 point move in McCain's direction, from an Obama lead of 12 points before to 10 points now. But the rest of the states, rated lean or toss up, have also shown movement. These swing states had a 1.5 point Obama lead before the conventions, and that has now turned into a 3 point McCain lead, a 4.5 point shift.

www.ruffcommunications.com

Clintons instigating a fight where all Dems will lose

by Lou Ransom

Obviously, the Clintons, Bill and Hillary (not George), are harder to get rid of than gum on the bottom of the shoe.

Sen. Barack Obama, on his way to his christening as the Democratic nominee for president of the United States, still has a considerable wad of Clinton under his shoe, and it looks like he’ll have to carry it all the way through the Democratic National Convention and into the general election.

It wasn’t supposed to be that way. Obama tallied the most delegates, won the most states and raised the most money. For two months now, he has been the “presumptive” nominee. But Clinton supporters, and at least one of the Clintons, believes we presumed too much.

The Clintons bargained hard and threw their considerable Democratic weight around, and finagled not only prime speaking spots during the convention but also got Obama to agree to allow a roll call vote on Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. Her supporters, who have lost none of their ardor despite their candidate’s defeat, will get a chance to cast a vote for Clinton at the convention.

The Clintons argue that such a vote will allow her supporters to have their voices heard. Hillary also said that it will be some sort of “catharsis” (releasing strong or repressed emotions) for her supporters.

Frankly, what has been heard loud and clear since the end of the primary season are the voices of Hillary supporters, vowing never to vote for Obama or worse, to switch their Democratic votes to Republican John McCain.

They have burned up the blogs and overpowered the op-eds on their way to expressing:

1. Hillary was done in by a sexist media.

2. Hillary was done in by the sexist Democratic leadership.

3. Hillary was done in by the media’s infatuation with and kid gloves treatment of Obama.

4. All of the above.

But some Clinton supporters, and perhaps the Clintons themselves, are hoping for a do-over. They are poised to make noise at the Democratic Convention, but it is not clear what they want. Do they want the roll call to declare Clinton the winner? That’s not likely, but if it did, it would rip the Democratic Party asunder because it would seem that the nomination was stolen from the “presumptive” nominee, Obama. His supporters would then have a hard time supporting another nominee. Do they want Clinton on the Obama ticket? That isn’t likely either because it would amount to a co-presidency and would set up four years of controversy and competition within the White House. In effect, the Clintons would accomplish what Rev. Jesse Jackson only whispered about.

It is clear that some Clinton supporters will never vote for Obama. They would rather stay home.

And what does Bill Clinton want? He wants his “legacy” rehabilitated. He wants better relations with Black voters, who sharply rebuked him for his behavior during the primaries. He wants to reclaim the moniker of “first Black president” despite his absence of melanin. It may not happen. He may have gone too far. He still hedges when asked if Obama is qualified to be president. This from a man who spent the last two years of his presidency answering charges of a tryst with a female White House intern.

So now we are on the verge of a convention during which a floor fight is promised, and some of the delegates plan to be quite vocal in their support of someone other than the presumptive nominee.

That is hardly the kind of unity Hillary and Barack talked about in Unity, New Hampshire. It is not the kind of unified party that would strike fear into the Republicans. It is not the type of unity that points to a viable future for the Democratic Party. It is far short of the kind of unity that will be necessary to put a Democrat in the White House after eight horrendous years of George Bush.

This is a telling point for Obama. He is being watched to see if he is presidential timbre. His actions at this convention are the first real test of his leadership. He should not falter here.

Obama needs to man-up and reclaim this convention. It is supposed to be “Obama time” not Clinton redux. He should make sure that his voice is the voice of the Democratic Party, and all those disgruntled Clinton supporters should fall in behind him or they can bet the party will simply just fall behind.

Lou Ransom is executive editor of the Chicago Defender. He can be reached via email at lransom@chicagodefender.com.

www.ruffcommunications.com

GOP convention turns to plea for hurricane aid

By GLEN JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer 17 minutes ago

Republicans hurried to turn the opening day of their national convention into a fundraising drive for hurricane victims, with presidential candidate John McCain's wife and first lady Laura Bush appealing for Gulf Coast help. McCain visited a disaster relief center in Ohio.

Party officials in St. Paul kept a watchful eye on still-dangerous Hurricane Gustav Monday to decide next steps for their shortened convention. They said they still expected McCain to address the convention at Thursday night's finale.

McCain's wife, Cindy, and Mrs. Bush were expected to address the abbreviated session on relief efforts.

Mrs. Bush told Texas delegates she and Cindy McCain would talk about "what people around the country, as well as the people here — the delegates here — can do to help specific states."

President Bush, whose administration was widely accused of a botched handling of the Katrina disaster three years ago, traveled to Texas rather than to St. Paul, where he had been scheduled to speak on the opening night of the Republican National Convention. Bush planned visits to Austin and San Antonio to visit staging grounds for hurricane response efforts. There was no word on whether he would address the convention at some point by satellite.

Democrats also swung their attention to the hurricane.

Presidential nominee Barack Obama altered his campaign schedule to return to his Chicago headquarters to monitor the storm's progress. His 16 campaign offices in North Carolina solicited non-perishable goods for Gustav's victims. Other state campaign organizations may do the same, Obama aides said.

Obama has said he may visit storm-damaged areas once things have "settled down."

Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden canceled plans to march in a Labor Day parade in Pittsburgh to monitor storm developments. "Our focus right now should be on what's happening in the Gulf," he said.

The Republican convention remained in limbo on its first day. At McCain's behest, party leaders called off the usual festivities and planned only a truncated meeting in the afternoon.

Gustav weakened somewhat to a Category 2 storm as it neared landfall along the mostly evacuated Louisiana coast. The National Hurricane Center said the storm, with 110-mph winds, should hit somewhere southwest of New Orleans by midday.

In Waterville, Ohio, McCain visited a disaster relief center, and helped pack cleaning supplies and other items into plastic buckets that will be sent to the Gulf Coast area.

Linda Green, who runs the center, thanked McCain for directing Republicans to avoid "hoopla" at the convention and respecting the needs of storm victims instead.

"Each one should use whatever gift he or she has received to serve others faithfully administering God's grace in its various forms," the Arizona senator said, reading from Green's business card.

"And as the hurricane strikes Louisiana as we speak, all Americans I know will be motivated by those words of serving others and using whatever gifts we have to help our fellow Americans," McCain told reporters.

McCain, who visited Mississippi on Sunday, said that while there is now better coordination among federal, state and local authorities, there are still problems.

"There's still, I think, not as much communications equipment as we want. There's still not enough search-and-rescue capabilities, although they're trying to fix that. It's not perfect, but I think that it's dramatically different than it was in response to Katrina," McCain said in an interview broadcast on NBC's "Today" show. The interview was taped on Sunday.

Cindy McCain and his new running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, arrived in the convention city Sunday night.

Laura Bush made a round of delegates breakfasts. She told Texas delegates at her first stop that she's proud to finally get her wish to vote for a Republican woman on a presidential ticket.

While she and the president had been surprised by McCain's pick Palin, "We know what kind of women Alaska produces. We know how tough and strong she is," Mrs. Bush said.

The mood among the Louisiana delegation remained upbeat as the storm approached. Speaking at a breakfast Monday, former Gov. Buddy Roemer told home-state delegates: "The early returns from Louisiana are good, to put it in political terms." But he added, "I've won and lost elections in the last hour and the same is true with hurricanes — it's not over 'til it's over."

Party officials were attempting to refocus convention efforts, at least in part, toward raising funds for relief efforts.

The Ohio delegation held a riverboat cruise on the Mississippi Sunday night as planned, but turned the event into a relief fundraiser. Kevin DeWine, deputy GOP chairman for Ohio, said some $20,000 was raised.

Concerned about negative images of partying delegates while Gulf Coast residents suffer, the Republican National Committee and the McCain campaign were trying to police activities on the convention sidelines.

That included a warning to Louisiana delegates against traditional alcohol-laced "hurricane parties" — following reports of a late-night celebration on Sunday ahead of the storm's landfall on Monday.

The GOP also is overseeing an effort by the American Red Cross and the Minneapolis-based Target department store chain to assemble comfort packs for Gulf Coast residents at the Minneapolis convention center on Monday.

GOP Chairman Robert "Mike" Duncan said on Sunday that certain legal requirements had to be met despite the decision to truncate the convention in order to legally place McCain and Palin's names in nomination.

One piece of business slated for Monday was of special interest to delegations from Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina: a rule to cement their leadoff status for the 2012 campaign. It declares that no state can hold its primary or caucus before the first Tuesday in March, except for Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

They, in turn, cannot hold their votes before the first Tuesday in February, a stark contrast to this year, when Iowa held its caucuses on Jan. 3, and New Hampshire and South Carolina held their primaries on Jan. 8 and Jan. 19, respectively.

"It pushes back the calendar and it slows it down, and that's a big gift for us," said Tom Rath, a New Hampshire delegate and member of the Credentials Committee.

Protesters planned to go forward with a peace march that had been expected to draw 50,000 people to the state capital.

"Our voices will be front and center, and it will be the main news that is happening," said Jess Sundin, spokeswoman for the Coalition to March on the RNC and Stop the War. Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press.

www.ruffcommunications.com

A lesson from Cindy McCain

Dawn Turner Trice

September 1, 2008

I'm still amazed at the number of people who brand Michelle Obama as an angry black woman who's un-American. But those who don't like her, or her husband, Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama, won't no matter what. I suppose that's OK.

But this isn't so much about Michelle Obama as it is about the other woman who may be our first lady: Cindy McCain.

At some point this week during the Republican National Convention, as Sen. John McCain gets ready to accept his party's nomination for president, the McCain clan will take the stage. For those who don't already know, one child looks a wee bit different from the others.

She has dark hair and deep caramel-colored skin. Bridget McCain is 17 and was born in Bangladesh. She was the subject of a nasty smear campaign by Republicans during the 2000 primary. They said Bridget was McCain's love child, the product of an affair.

Dawn Turner Trice

As the true story goes, Cindy McCain was traveling in Bangladesh when she came upon two children who needed medical help. McCain decided to bring both back home. She and her husband adopted Bridget. Another couple, at Cindy McCain's urging, adopted the other child.

I know we've heard a lot of other things about McCain, but that she adopted a child in need speaks volumes about her. That she adopted a brown child (long before Angelina and Madonna made it trendy and hip), and didn't let that child's skin color obscure her need, rounds McCain out even more.

Everybody knows Cindy McCain is loaded. But this isn't about money. Such an adoption asks your family, including your children, to extend themselves in a way that lends more than lip service to the idea of colorblindness.

It's one thing to believe one way when it comes to race. But when you get your children involved, that's quite another.

I remember during President George W. Bush's first term when he wanted to nominate Judge Charles Pickering, a conservative Republican, to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. This time it was the Democrats launching a smear campaign that accused Pickering of being a racist who had made some racially insensitive rulings.

During a profile on CBS' "60 Minutes," some of those complicated rulings were explained. But what spoke volumes about Pickering and race was that when his Mississippi school district began to integrate, he and his wife decided not to send their children to private schools as their friends were doing. Their children attended the public school, which soon became mostly black.

I consider myself open-minded when it comes to race. But I've always believed that I will be tested when (years and years and years from now) my daughter brings home a man of a different race and introduces him to her parents as the man she hopes to marry.

Will I say: "Oh . . . him? Really?"

Or will I say to her, as my mother said to me: "Honey, if he treats you well, you have my blessings."

To be clear, I'm not saying that McCain or Pickering is totally free of prejudice. We do live in a country where it's impossible to avoid the taint.

The point is that people are complicated. And if we sit in our little partisan echo chambers, we don't get enough information to see any of these people with more clarity. Conservative Republicans, liberal Democrats, wealthy heiresses and black women with Ivy League educations don't fit into neat boxes.

But neither do civil rights leaders often accused of race-baiting and chasing television cameras. Last week, during the Democratic National Convention in Denver, I spent some time with the controversial Rev. Al Sharpton.

Check out my essay, "An hour with 'Uncle Al' " at Exploring Race at chicagotribune.com/race.

www.ruffcommunications.com

Palin's VP Selection Speech

August 29, 2008- realclearpolitics.com

Palin's VP Selection Speech

By Sarah Palin

Dayton, Ohio

PALIN: Thank you so much.

And I thank you, Senator McCain and Mrs. McCain, for the confidence that you have placed in me. Senator, I am honored to be chosen as your running mate.

(APPLAUSE)

I will be honored to serve next to the next president of the United States.

(APPLAUSE)

I know that when Senator McCain gave me this opportunity, he had a short list of highly qualified men and women. And to have made that list at all, it was a privilege. And to have been chosen brings a great challenge.

I know that it will demand the best that I have to give, and I promise nothing less.

(APPLAUSE)

First -- first, there are a few people whom I would like you to meet. I want to start with my husband, Todd.

(APPLAUSE)

And Todd and I are actually celebrating our 20th anniversary today. And I promised him...

(APPLAUSE)

I had promised Todd a little surprise for the anniversary present, and hopefully he knows that I did deliver.

And then we have as -- after my husband, who is a lifelong commercial fisherman, lifetime Alaskan. He's a production operator.

(APPLAUSE)

Todd is a production operator in the oil fields up on Alaska's North Slope. And he's a proud member of the United Steelworkers union. And he's a world-champion snow machine racer. (APPLAUSE)

Todd and I met way back in high school. And I can tell you that he is still the man that I admire most in this world.

(APPLAUSE)

Along the way, Todd and I have shared many blessings. And four out of five of them are here with us today.

Our oldest son, Track, though, he'll be following the presidential campaign from afar. On September 11th of last year, our son enlisted in the United States Army.

(APPLAUSE)

Track now serves in an infantry brigade. And on September 11th, Track will deploy to Iraq in the service of his country. And Todd and I are so proud of him and of all the fine men and women serving this country (inaudible)

(APPLAUSE)

AUDIENCE: USA! USA! USA!

PALIN: Next to Todd is our daughter, Bristol, another daughter, Willow, our youngest daughter, Piper, and over in their arms is our son, Trig, a beautiful baby boy. He was born just in April.

(APPLAUSE)

PALIN: His name is Trig Paxson Van Palin.

Some of life's greatest opportunities come unexpectedly. And this is certainly the case today.

I never really set out to be involved in public affairs, much less to run for this office. My mom and dad both worked at the local elementary school. And my husband and I, we both grew up working with our hands. I was just your average hockey mom in Alaska, raising...

(APPLAUSE)

We're busy raising our kids. I was serving as the team mom and coaching some basketball on the side. I got involved in the PTA and then was elected to the city council, and then elected mayor of my hometown, where my agenda was to stop wasteful spending, and cut property taxes, and put the people first.

(APPLAUSE)

I was then appointed ethics commissioner and chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. And when I found corruption there, I fought it hard, and I held the offenders to account.

(APPLAUSE)

Along with fellow reformers in the great state of Alaska, as governor, I've stood up to the old politics as usual, to the special interests, to the lobbyists, the big oil companies, and the good-old- boy network.

(APPLAUSE)

When oil and gas prices went up so dramatically and the state revenues followed with that increase, I sent a large share of that revenue directly back to the people of Alaska. And we are now -- we're now embarking on a $40 billion natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence.

(APPLAUSE)

I signed major ethics reform. And I appointed both Democrats and independents to serve in my administration. And I championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. In fact, I told Congress -- I told Congress, "Thanks, but no thanks," on that bridge to nowhere.

(APPLAUSE)

If our state wanted a bridge, I said we'd build it ourselves. Well, it's always, though, safer in politics to avoid risk, to just kind of go along with the status quo. But I didn't get into government to do the safe and easy things. A ship in harbor is safe, but that's not why the ship is built.

Politics isn't just a game of competing interests and clashing parties. The people of America expect us to seek public office and to serve for the right reasons.

(APPLAUSE)

PALIN: And the right reason is to challenge the status quo and to serve the common good.

Now, no one expects us to agree on everything, whether in Juneau or in Washington. But we are expected to govern with integrity, and goodwill, and clear convictions, and a servant's heart.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, no leader in America has shown these qualities so clearly or present so clear a threat to business as usual in Washington as Senator John S. McCain.

(APPLAUSE)

PALIN: This -- this is a moment when principles and political independence matter a lot more than just the party line. And this is a man who has always been there to serve his country, not just his party.

(APPLAUSE)

And this is a moment that requires resolve and toughness, and strength of heart in the American president. And my running mate is a man who has shown those qualities in the darkest of places, and in the service of his country.

(APPLAUSE)

A colleague once said about Senator McCain, "That man did things for this country that few people could go through. Never forget that." And that speaker was former Senator John Glenn of Ohio.

(APPLAUSE)

And John Glenn knows something about heroism. And I'm going to make sure nobody does forget that in this campaign. There is only one candidate who has truly fought for America, and that man is John McCain.

(APPLAUSE)

PALIN: This is a moment -- this is a moment when great causes can be won and great threats overcome, depending on the judgment of our next president.

In a dangerous world, it is John McCain who will lead America's friends and allies in preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

(APPLAUSE)

It was John McCain who cautioned long ago about the harm that Russian aggression could do to Georgia and to other small democratic neighbors and to the world oil markets.

It was Senator McCain who refused to hedge his support for our troops in Iraq, regardless of the political costs.

(APPLAUSE)

And you know what? As the mother of one of those troops, and as the commander of Alaska's National Guard, that's the kind of man I want as our commander in chief.

(APPLAUSE)

AUDIENCE: USA! USA! USA!

PALIN: Profiles in courage: They can be hard to come by these days. You know, so often we just find them in books. But next week when we nominate John McCain for president, we're putting one on the ballot.

(APPLAUSE)

PALIN: To serve as vice president beside such a man would be the privilege of a lifetime. And it's fitting that this trust has been given to me 88 years almost to the day after the women of America first gained the right to vote.

(APPLAUSE)

I think -- I think as well today of two other women who came before me in national elections.

I can't begin this great effort without honoring the achievements of Geraldine Ferraro in 1984...

(APPLAUSE)

... and of course Senator Hillary Clinton, who showed such determination and grace in her presidential campaign.

(APPLAUSE)

It was rightly noted in Denver this week that Hillary left 18 million cracks in the highest, hardest glass ceiling in America...

(APPLAUSE)

... but it turns out the women of America aren't finished yet and we can shatter that glass ceiling once and for all.

(APPLAUSE)

So for my part, the mission is clear: The next 67 days I'm going to take our campaign to every part of our country and our message of reform to every voter of every background in every political party, or no party at all.

PALIN: If you want change in Washington, if you hope for a better America, then we're asking for your vote on the 4th of November.

My fellow Americans, come join our cause.

(APPLAUSE)

Join our cause and help our country to elect a great man the next president of the United States.

And I thank you, and I -- God bless you, I say, and God bless America. Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

Sarah Palin, the Governor of Alaska, is the presumptive Republican vice presidential nominee.

www.ruffcommunications.com

August 29, 2008 - americanthinker.com

The Case for Palin

symposium
C. Edmund Wright writes:

Is it Sarah Palin for Vice President? It is beginning to look like the Alaskan Governor has re-emerged as a serious candidate to be John McCain's running mate. If this is the case, there are some risks involved of course, but there is a big upside to this pick.

Update: Chicago Tribune says it is Palin, accord to a Republican source.

A: Energy: Sarah Palin is right on the energy issues. When you are the governor of Alaska, that's a big deal. She is way ahead of Obama, Biden and in fact McCain on this issue. She also wants to take McCain to ANWR and show him how ugly the area is that would be set aside for drilling. That's a bold stance.

cartoon by Brett Noel
B: Hillary: At the risk of being condescending to women voters, you have to think that the disaffected Hillary Clinton vote would be very interested in the pick of Palin. At least some of the Hillary vote is the "sisterhood of the travelling pant-suit" mindset, and this is a group that will focus on the gender of the candidate.

C: Can't hit the girl: Joe Biden's debate style could be described as offensive under any circumstances, but he would be thrown off stride by having to go head to head with Palin. Even Hillary Clinton, in no way as "girlish" as Palin is, gained traction on this very issue with her debates in New York while running for Senate.

D: Andrea Mitchell: The prospect of McCain's naming of Palin was extremely upsetting to this worn-out NBC liberal. That's a good thing. When Republicans start to make a smart move, it is always upsetting to folks like Mitchell. Mitchell tried to make the case that naming Palin brings the ethical problems of Alaskan politics into the fray and thus a bad move for McCain. Uh Andrea, Palin was elected precisely because she is not part of that. She is not Ted Stevens or Frank Murkowski. That's the point.

E: Conservative Base: Palin will thrill the base. She is a conservative reformer. She is pro-life and with five kids, has cred on this issue. She is pro energy production. She is not a big government type. She is the one pick who can excite the base with no collateral damage to other potential voters.

F: Central Casting: Quite frankly, Palin is very attractive. A liberal pundit a few weeks ago even referred to her as "naughty school teacher hot." It was meant as a compliment. Few women politicians in the Democrat Party have ever been accused of that by the way. But in addition to that, she is a hunter, likes to fish and has a bit of the tough outdoorsy Alaskan independence to her. For crying out loud, shows about Alaska are all the rage now on cable.

G: Life issue: Palin recently had her fifth child, a Downs Syndrome baby. She chose to have the baby anyway. Here we have a woman with a fantastic career, four healthy children already delivered and every reason in the world to not have this fifth. Unless, that is, you really really believe in life in the womb and are willing to live that way. This makes her maybe the most profoundly capable pro-life advocate in the GOP today. This is in very stark contrast to where Obama and Biden are on this issue and will mutliply the cold calculation of the Obama stance on this issue.

The names are bouncing around like crazy today. They run the spectrum from Lieberman to Palin. And of course, it could be a name not discussed. But if it is Palin, there is a classic risk-reward equation in play. The potential rewards are very interesting.

www.ruffcommunications.com

Political HaySurge Protection

Political HaySurge Protection
By Jennifer Rubin
Published 1/10/2008 12:08:49 AM

Six months ago, pundits were predicting that congressional Republicans' patience with the Iraq war had run out. Led by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, they were going to storm the Oval Office, deliver the news that no more funding would be forthcoming and thereby save their skins in the 2008 elections. Things have a funny way of working out.

General Petraeus did not just win the rhetorical argument in September because MoveOn.org overplayed its hand. He won because facts on the ground had shifted, Democrats who returned reported significant progress and commentators not known for their support of the war concurred that the surge was working. President Bush got his breathing room.

Fast forward a few months. Now the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post are in agreement. The Democrats' unseemly denial of reality and refusal to recognize the surge has indeed worked has become painfully obvious. Popular opinion on the war has turned and continued funding seems assured. While the future of Iraq's political stability remains in doubt, those who supported the surge are no longer the ones with egg on their faces.

The political ramifications of the last six months are now being played out in the presidential primaries. On the Democratic side Barack Obama's claim to fame -- opposing the war from the get-go -- and determination to withdraw troops immediately may, to some segment of the Democratic electorate, seem oddly out of sync. His anti-war credentials, while still overwhelmingly lauded by the Democratic base, pack a less powerful punch now that the Iraq war has disappeared from the front pages.

ON THE REPUBLICAN side the results are starker. John McCain has revived his political fortunes based in large part on his role in criticizing Donald Rumsfeld and supporting a revision of the Iraq strategy when other Republicans were "looking at their shoes." This offers more than "I told you so" brownie points for him. It clearly places his commander-in-chief credentials above all rivals and cements his image as the "straight talker" who does not trim his views to popular opinion. He has been able to utilize his support of the surge to advance the notion that despite his lifetime in Washington he is indeed the most effect "agent of change" in the race.

The success of the surge has also complicated the plans of McCain's opponents. While Romney tried to leave wiggle room if the surge did not work as planned (it only was "apparently" succeeding he told a debate audience in New Hampshire in September), his less-than-full-throated support looks less wise in retrospect. Coupled with the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, the surge and McCain's support for it has arguably made Romney's CEO experience looks less relevant than McCain's. McCain can credibly argue that it is not simply enough for a president to collect information and assemble advisers (who often disagree).

To look ahead to the general election, the surge may also have changed the landscape for the Republicans as a whole. If progress continues, the GOP will not face searing headlines and escalating body counts. The traditional image of the GOP as the more responsible and less skittish party in national security may be restored somewhat and the Democrats' willingness to "cut and run" again becomes a viable campaign issue.

So the lessons of the surge are familiar ones, but ones repeatedly forgotten by politicians anxious to seek safer ground in any controversy. Short-term political gain does not always translate into long-term electoral success. The public in the end will reward political courage -- in part because it is so rare.

And once again, political prognostication is a fool's game given the inability to foresee events weeks, let alone months, down the road. When in doubt and when all else fails, Republicans might be advised to do the right thing -- be resolute against American foes, trust reliable advice from our military, and ignore the howls from the media and liberal establishment.

In the end, it just might pay off.Jennifer Rubin writes from northern Virginia.

www.ruffcommunications.com