A co-worker of mine woke up this morning to find his “Obama for President” sign has been removed from his. Upon looking around he noticed that ALL Obama signs from his neighborhood had been removed. He wrote a letter to the Gainesville Sun and copied me on it:

During the evening of October 13, someone, or some group of individuals, stole every Obama for President lawn sign from Deer Run, the subdivision in which I reside. When I realized that my sign was also gone, I was immediately angered that someone would infringe upon my right to freely express my opinion, and especially when doing so on my own property. I also became determined to spread the word about the thefts and the apparent hypocrisy that I see from this crime, which is invigorating me to not let these scoundrelous tactics stifle my opinion.

Since the target of all the thefts were Obama signs, I think we can conclude that the thieves are McCain supporters, or at least right-leaning in their ideology, and as a result a few ironic observations came to mind. Foremost is the fact that the republican party is tightly aligned with religion, especially in the southeastern United States. How ironic is it that someone representing the party of religion is stealing signs in the middle of the night. Do you not practice “Thou shalt not steal”, or does that not apply in your campaign against Obama? Just as grand of an irony is the fact that many right-leaning people favor strict law enforcement and harsh punishment, in order to deter criminal behavior. Yet, here they are stealing signs in the middle of the evening.

So bravo anti-Obama, sign stealing people. By your actions, you expose the hypocrisy that underlies the foundations of your personal ideological beliefs, and at a minimum you motivated me, and perhaps others, to be more involved with this and future campaigns.

G. Bouchard

If you’re thinking of voting for John McCain because you believe Obama to be a “radical”, read this article. It’s from the well respected and non-partisan FactCheck.org .

Below is the Conclusion of the article: Read complete article here.

Voters may differ in how they see Ayers, or how they see Obama’s interactions with him. We’re making no judgment calls on those matters. What we object to are the McCain-Palin campaign’s attempts to sway voters – in ads and on the stump – with false and misleading statements about the relationship, which was never very close. Obama never “lied” about this, just as he never bragged about it. The foundation they both worked with was hardly “radical.” And Ayers is more than a former “terrorist,” he’s also a well-known figure in the field of education.

From FactCheck.org

Our Mission

We are a nonpartisan, nonprofit “consumer advocate” for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics. We monitor the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews and news releases. Our goal is to apply the best practices of both journalism and scholarship, and to increase public knowledge and understanding.

The Annenberg Political Fact Check is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. The APPC was established by publisher and philanthropist Walter Annenberg in 1994 to create a community of scholars within the University of Pennsylvania that would address public policy issues at the local, state and federal levels.

The APPC accepts NO funding from business corporations, labor unions, political parties, lobbying organizations or individuals. It is funded primarily by the Annenberg Foundation.

From National Journal Magazine:

It’s not the taxes — it’s the erosion of risk-sharing between the healthy and the sick.
by Ronald Brownstein

Saturday, Oct. 11, 2008

This week’s most important debate wasn’t the meandering town hall duel between Barack Obama and John McCain. That encounter was understandably scored by polls and most pundits as a win for Obama, who seemed steadier than an over-caffeinated McCain. But lackluster questions and a constrictive format meant it did little to clarify the decision facing voters.

Far more instructive was the argument Obama instigated with McCain last week over health care. In several speeches, Obama accurately framed the central contrast between the nominees’ approaches. The bedrock goal of Obama’s plan is to reinforce the sharing of risk and cost between healthy and sick, young and old. By contrast, McCain, hoping to expand choice, would erode risk-sharing and accept sharper distinctions between the healthy and sick in both the availability and cost of coverage. One plan prizes solidarity; the other, autonomy.

Most Americans now receive their health insurance at work. That system promotes risk-sharing because employers don’t vary the premiums based on a worker’s age or health: The old and sick are subsidized by the young and healthy, who are then subsidized as they age.

McCain would upend that system. Today employers can deduct as a business expense the contributions they make to a worker’s health insurance premiums. Workers, though, are not taxed on the value of their employer’s contribution. That “exclusion” provides a powerful tax incentive for work-based coverage. McCain would end the exclusion so that workers pay taxes on their employer’s premium contribution. Instead, he would provide a tax credit ($2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families) that workers could apply to the cost of obtaining health insurance. In an ad this week, the Obama campaign described that trade as “the largest middle-class tax increase in history.”

That’s flat wrong. For all but the highest earners with the most-expensive insurance plans, the credit would more than offset the additional taxes workers would face from ending the exclusion, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center calculates. The real problem with McCain’s idea is that, without the economic incentive provided by the exclusion, more employers might stop offering coverage. And even employers who want to continue could find it difficult because younger workers would be likely to use their credit to buy stripped-down, cheaper coverage on their own. That would leave employers covering only older and sicker workers, which could quickly swell premiums to unaffordable levels. That concern prompted the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable to criticize McCain’s plan in an eye-opening New York Times article on Tuesday.

McCain’s camp insists that his proposal would not undermine employer-based coverage. But few experts agree. Several studies have projected that his plan would move about 20 million people from employer-based coverage to the individual insurance market. And in that market, older or sicker consumers face much higher costs than the healthy — if they can buy coverage at all.

McCain would further deregulate the individual market by allowing any insurance policy approved in any state to be sold in every state. He says that would provide consumers more choices, but it would also undercut state laws requiring insurers to cover specific treatments, like cervical or breast cancer screening for women. An insurer could locate in the one state that does not require it to fund mammograms (Utah) and sell in all 50 states. Even more worrisome, notes health economist Jonathan Gruber, is that insurance companies offering more-comprehensive policies for individuals would face the same risk as employers — losing healthy young workers to cut-rate plans from the least-regulated states. That would further unravel risk-sharing and increase prices for the sick.

Obama’s goals couldn’t differ more. Through incentives for (and mandates on) employers, the expansion of government programs, and new nationwide rules for insurers (such as requiring them to cover all applicants, regardless of their health), he wants to insure more Americans through large pools that promote risk-sharing.

McCain’s approach would save people money when they are young but expose them to greater financial and health risks as they age. It repudiates the essence of insurance, which aims to spread risk not only across the population but across an individual’s lifetime. Obama is wrong to portray McCain’s plan as a tax hike. And the Democrat’s alternative raises its own tough questions, especially about cost. But Obama does not exaggerate when he says that his rival is offering a “radical” new vision of how Americans can safeguard their health.

An interesting endorsement by the HSLF – read it:

One of the guiding principles of the Humane Society Legislative Fund is that we evaluate candidates based on a single criterion: where they stand on animal protection policies. We don’t make decisions based on party affiliation, or any other social issue, or even how many pets they have. We care about their views and actions on the major policy debates relating to animal welfare.

It stirs controversy to get involved in candidate elections. But we believe that candidates for office and current lawmakers must be held accountable, or they will see the animal protection movement as a largely irrelevant political constituency. In order to have good laws, we need good lawmakers, and involvement in elections is an essential strategy for any serious social movement, including our cause.

While we’ve endorsed hundreds of congressional candidates for election, both Democrats and Republicans, we’ve never before endorsed a presidential candidate. We have members on the left, in the center, and on the right, and we knew it could be controversial to choose either party’s candidate for the top office in the nation. But in an era of sweeping presidential power, we must weigh in on this most important political race in the country. Standing on the sidelines is no longer an option for us.

I’m proud to announce today that the HSLF board of directors—which is comprised of both Democrats and Republicans—has voted unanimously to endorse Barack Obama for President. The Obama-Biden ticket is the better choice on animal protection, and we urge all voters who care about the humane treatment of animals, no matter what their party affiliation, to vote for them.

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has been a solid supporter of animal protection at both the state and federal levels. As an Illinois state senator, he backed at least a dozen animal protection laws, including those to strengthen the penalties for animal cruelty, to help animal shelters, to promote spaying and neutering, and to ban the slaughter of horses for human consumption. In the U.S. Senate, he has consistently co-sponsored multiple bills to combat animal fighting and horse slaughter, and has supported efforts to increase funding for adequate enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act, Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, and federal laws to combat animal fighting and puppy mills.

In his response to the HSLF questionnaire, he pledged support for nearly every animal protection bill currently pending in Congress, and said he will work with executive agencies such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior to make their policies more humane. He wrote of the important role animals play in our lives, as companions in our homes, as wildlife in their own environments, and as service animals working with law enforcement and assisting persons with disabilities. He also commented on the broader links between animal cruelty and violence in society.

Obama has even on occasion highlighted animal protection issues on the campaign trail, and has spoken publicly about his support for animal protection. In reaction to the investigation showing the abuse of sick and crippled cows which earlier this year led to the largest meat recall in U.S. history, he issued a statement saying “that the mistreatment of downed cows is unacceptable and poses a serious threat to public health.” He is featured in Jana Kohl’s book about puppy mills, A Rare Breed of Love, with a photo of Obama holding Baby (shown above), the three-legged poodle rescued from an abusive puppy mill operation, and his political mentor, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), is the author of the latest federal bill to crack down on puppy mills.

Importantly, Obama’s running mate, Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) has been a stalwart friend of animal welfare advocates in the Senate, and has received high marks year after year on the Humane Scorecard. Biden has not only supported animal protection legislation during his career, but has also led the fight on important issues. He was the co-author with Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) in the 108th Congress on legislation to ban the netting of dolphins by commercial tuna fishermen. He was the lead author of a bill in the 107th Congress to prohibit trophy hunting of captive exotic mammals in fenced enclosures, and he successfully passed the bill through the Senate Judiciary Committee.

On the Republican ticket, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has also supported some animal protection bills in Congress, but has been inattentive or opposed to others. He has voted for and co-sponsored legislation to stop horse slaughter, and voted to eliminate a $2 million subsidy for the luxury fur coat industry. But he has largely been absent on other issues, and has failed to co-sponsor a large number of priority bills or sign onto animal protection letters that have had broad support in the Senate.

The McCain campaign did not fill out the HSLF presidential questionnaire, and has also not issued any public statements on animal welfare issues. He was silent during the downed animal scandal and beef recall, which played out during a high-point in the primary fight. Yet he did speak at the NRA convention earlier this year, and is the keynote speaker this weekend in Columbus, Ohio, at the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance rally—an extremist organization that defends the trophy hunting of threatened polar bears and captive shooting of tame animals inside fenced pens.

While McCain’s positions on animal protection have been lukewarm, his choice of running mate cemented our decision to oppose his ticket. Gov. Sarah Palin’s (R-Alaska) retrograde policies on animal welfare and conservation have led to an all-out war on Alaska’s wolves and other creatures. Her record is so extreme that she has perhaps done more harm to animals than any other current governor in the United States.

Palin engineered a campaign of shooting predators from airplanes and helicopters, in order to artificially boost the populations of moose and caribou for trophy hunters. She offered a $150 bounty for the left foreleg of each dead wolf as an economic incentive for pilots and aerial gunners to kill more of the animals, even though Alaska voters had twice approved a ban on the practice. This year, the issue was up again for a vote of the people, and Palin led the fight against it—in fact, she helped to spend $400,000 of public funds to defeat the initiative.

What’s more, when the Bush Administration announced its decision to list the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, Palin filed a lawsuit to reverse that decision. She said it’s the “wrong move” to protect polar bears, even though their habitat is shrinking and ice floes are vanishing due to global warming.

The choice for animals is especially clear now that Palin is in the mix. If Palin is put in a position to succeed McCain, it could mean rolling back decades of progress on animal issues.

Voters who care about protecting wildlife from inhumane and unsporting abuses, enforcing the laws that combat large-scale cruelties like dogfighting and puppy mills, providing humane treatment of animals in agriculture, and addressing other challenges that face animals in our nation, must become active over the next six weeks to elect a president and vice president who share our values. Please spread the word, and tell friends and family members that an honest assessment of the records of the two presidential tickets leads to the inescapable conclusion that Obama-Biden is the choice for humane-minded voters.

Those of us who have watched the Republican Party operate in the past, knew it would come to this.

From John Lewis, D-Georgia

“As one who was a victim of violence and hate during the height of the Civil Rights Movement, I am deeply disturbed by the negative tone of the McCain-Palin campaign. What I am seeing reminds me too much of another destructive period in American history. Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility in our political discourse.

“During another period, in the not too distant past, there was a governor of the state of Alabama named George Wallace who also became a presidential candidate. George Wallace never threw a bomb. He never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who were simply trying to exercise their constitutional rights. Because of this atmosphere of hate, four little girls were killed on Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama.

“As public figures with the power to influence and persuade, Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are playing with fire, and if they are not careful, that fire will consume us all. They are playing a very dangerous game that disregards the value of the political process and cheapens our entire democracy. We can do better. The American people deserve better.”

Finding One from the report:

For the reasons explained in section IV of this report, I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) provides

The legislature reaffirms that each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust.

Part of her interview with Larry King

You know, I really like Michelle Obama. Here she is with Jon Stewart.

http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/video_player/view/default/swf.jhtml

From the NYTimes – Oct 7, 2008 Editorial

Politics of Attack

It is a sorry fact of American political life that campaigns get ugly, often in their final weeks. But Senator John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin have been running one of the most appalling campaigns we can remember.

They have gone far beyond the usual fare of quotes taken out of context and distortions of an opponent’s record — into the dark territory of race-baiting and xenophobia. Senator Barack Obama has taken some cheap shots at Mr. McCain, but there is no comparison.

Despite the occasional slip (referring to Mr. Obama’s “cronies” and calling him “that one”), Mr. McCain tried to take a higher road in Tuesday night’s presidential debate. It was hard to keep track of the number of times he referred to his audience as “my friends.” But apart from promising to buy up troubled mortgages as president, he offered no real answers for how he plans to solve the country’s deep economic crisis. He is unable or unwilling to admit that the Republican assault on regulation was to blame.

Ninety minutes of forced cordiality did not erase the dismal ugliness of his campaign in recent weeks, nor did it leave us with much hope that he would not just return to the same dismal ugliness on Wednesday.

Ms. Palin, in particular, revels in the attack. Her campaign rallies have become spectacles of anger and insult. “This is not a man who sees America as you see it and how I see America,” Ms. Palin has taken to saying.

That line follows passages in Ms. Palin’s new stump speech in which she twists Mr. Obama’s ill-advised but fleeting and long-past association with William Ayers, founder of the Weather Underground and confessed bomber. By the time she’s done, she implies that Mr. Obama is right now a close friend of Mr. Ayers — and sympathetic to the violent overthrow of the government. The Democrat, she says, “sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect that he’s palling around with terrorists who would target their own country.”

Her demagoguery has elicited some frightening, intolerable responses. A recent Washington Post report said at a rally in Florida this week a man yelled “kill him!” as Ms. Palin delivered that line and others shouted epithets at an African-American member of a TV crew.

Mr. McCain’s aides haven’t even tried to hide their cynical tactics, saying they were “going negative” in hopes of shifting attention away from the financial crisis — and by implication Mr. McCain’s stumbling response.

We certainly expected better from Mr. McCain, who once showed withering contempt for win-at-any-cost politics. He was driven out of the 2000 Republican primaries by this sort of smear, orchestrated by some of the same people who are now running his campaign.

And the tactic of guilt by association is perplexing, since Mr. McCain has his own list of political associates he would rather forget. We were disappointed to see the Obama campaign air an ad (held for just this occasion) reminding voters of Mr. McCain’s involvement in the Keating Five savings-and-loan debacle, for which he was reprimanded by the Senate. That episode at least bears on Mr. McCain’s claims to be the morally pure candidate and his argument that he alone is capable of doing away with greed, fraud and abuse.

In a way, we should not be surprised that Mr. McCain has stooped so low, since the debate showed once again that he has little else to talk about. He long ago abandoned his signature issues of immigration reform and global warming; his talk of “victory” in Iraq has little to offer a war-weary nation; and his Reagan-inspired ideology of starving government and shredding regulation lies in tatters on Wall Street.

But surely, Mr. McCain and his team can come up with a better answer to that problem than inciting more division, anger and hatred.