Presidential Race @ MindSay

The Obama camp has been threatening television and radio stations to keep them from airing anti-Obama ads.

The latest target is the NRA and stations in Pennsylvania.

Earlier this week, the National Rifle Association's Political Victory Fund released a series of radio and television spots to educate gun owners and sportsmen about Barack Obama's longstanding anti-gun record. In response to the NRA-PVF ads, a clearly panicked Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) are doing everything they can to hide Obama's real record by mounting a coordinated assault on the First Amendment.

They have gone to desperate and outrageous lengths to try to silence your NRA by bullying media outlets with threats of lawsuits if they run NRA-PVF's ads.

The Obama camp is particularly angry with an NRA ad entitled "Hunter" which lays out Obama's record on gun control.

You can see the "Hunter" ad -- Go Here Now.

Other NRA ads include "Way of Life" and another focusing on Joe Biden's record, "Defend Freedom, Defeat Obama."

This week, Obama's campaign general counsel Bob Barr wrote to stations in Pennsylvania seeking to censor the ads.

"Unlike federal candidates, independent political organizations do not have a 'right to command the use of broadcast facilities,'" Bauer writes. "Moreover, you have a duty 'to protect the public from false, misleading or deceptive advertising.'"

"This advertising is false, misleading, and deceptive," Bauer continued. "We request that you immediately cease airing this advertising."

The NRA says Obama's camp are sending out these "intimidating cease and desist letters" to cable operators and television stations, threatening their FCC licenses if they run the ads.

The NRA charged that "Obama and the DNC have been using strong-arm tactics reminiscent of Chicago machine politics to try and cover up the truth and silence NRA by forcing the stations to assist them in hiding Obama's radical anti-gun record."

And now, Obama and the DNC have opened a new front in their assault on your First Amendment rights by calling on their followers to contact these station managers to demand that the stations not run NRA-PVF's ads.

NRA stands behind the accuracy of these ads, and NRA attorneys have responded to the Obama campaign's despicable and abusive attempt to trample on the First Amendment by sending a thorough rebuttal to station managers. This rebuttal clearly and conclusively refutes the Obama campaign's fallacious claims that the ads are inaccurate.

The NRA has set up a web site detailing its position on Obama at www.gunbanobama.com.

A copy of the NRA's letter to station, written by its counsel Cleta Mitchell, follows below:

MEMORANDUM
CLIENT-MATTER NUMBER
999100-0130

TO: Station Managers

FROM: Cleta Mitchell, Esq.
Counsel to National Rifle Association

DATE: September 25, 2008

RE: Documentation for Advertising by National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund ("NRA-PVF")

This firm serves as counsel to the National Rifle Association (“NRA”) and the National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund ("NRA-PVF"), which is the federal political action committee of the NRA and the sponsor of certain advertising purchased and soon-to-be purchased on your station. It has come to my clients’ attention that the Obama for President campaign is engaging in an effort to prevent or stop the airing of certain ads by NRA-PVF, falsely alleging that the ads are ‘inaccurate’. The Obama presidential campaign apparently relies on an article appearing in the Washington Post on September 23, 2008 to support its contention hat the NRA-PVF ads should not be aired.

The Washington Post is hardly an objective news source on any subject related to the issues to which the NRA is dedicated, having spent decades attacking not only the NRA but also fighting against the legislation and policies NRA supports to protect the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as supporting every conceivable government proposal or policy any officeholder or candidate suggests to weaken and disrupt the guarantees of the Second Amendment. It is therefore no surprise that the Washington Post would now attack the NRA for advertisements which truthfully disclose the anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment record of Barack Obama, the candidate supported by the Washington Post.

Attached please find the point-by-point refutation of the Washington Post’s article about the NRA-PVF ads regarding Obama’s record on the Second Amendment, as well as an article disclosing the bias of the decidedly not neutral “FactChecker” on which the Washington Post article is ostensibly based.

The NRA devotes 100% of its time and resources to protecting the Second Amendment and fighting for government policies and legislation furtherance of the rights of the American people to keep and bear arms.

The legislative and policy record of candidates and officeholders such as Barack Obama are well known and documented by the NRA on an ongoing basis. NRA-PVF’s advertising during the 2008 election cycle is based on that extensive research and documentation, which is being furnished to you with this Memorandum.

Accordingly, we respectfully request that your station disregard the shamefully false assertions from the Obama campaign and its attorneys regarding the NRA-PVF ads and that the ads run in accordance with the purchase(s) made by NRA-PVF in the media buy.

Big Brown loses Belmont Stakes, thus failing to win the Triple Crown despite being overwhelmingly favored to be the first horse in 30 years to do so.  In fact, Big Brown came in dead last--so far back that his time off the winner's pace wasn't charted.

 

This is interesting in more than just a horse racing sense.  Big Brown, you may recall, won the Kentucky Derby by beating a filly--a filly who was publically rooted for by Hillary and Chelsea Clinton.  The defeat of this filly, the only one in the race, by a horse named Big Brown could be taken as a foreshadowing that Barack Obama was going to beat out Hillary Clinton in their race.  And so it came to pass.

 

(The filly broke her legs in that race, and had to be put down.  Hillary Clinton is still alive and kicking, but her presidential hopes have been put down.)

 

Now, however, Big Brown has failed to win the final race that would have given him the prize.  This could be taken as a foreshadowing that Obama will come up short in his final race, the general election in November.  Presumably Obama's handling of the terrorism issue will be what will ultimately does him in--the winner at Belmont was named Da' Tara.  The logical assumption would be that Obama will lose to John McCain, the other major party nominee...though since Da' Tara was the longest shot on the board perhaps this could be seen as a good sign for Bob Barr or another candidate.  (You have your daydreams, and I'll have mine.)

 

Could any of that really be true?  Of course not, no more than asking a Magic 8-Ball or trying to read tea leaves--horse races have exactly zero bearing on presidential elections.  But if Obama doesn't win, it will certainly make a nice story that will no doubt be around for the next 200 years.

Darnell

I had the worst conversation today. Ever have one of those conversations where someone says something and you instantly get a headache? Yeah, it was one of those, man.

I was talking to a neighbor and somehow we got onto the upcoming election. We were chatting away about the people running when another neighbor made his way up the steps and saw us. He comes over to say hello when he hears what we're talking about. He says, "Yeah, choosing between Clinton and Obama is going to be tough."

"Well, I can't vote in the Democratic primary anyway, I'm registered  Republican, so I don't get much say there," I say.

"Dude, the primaries are over."

"Um, no they aren't."

 "Yeah, they are. We have to choose between Obama and Clinton."

"Yeah, for the primary."

"No, dude, they're it. That's it."

"Actually, dude, you need to read the newspaper once in a while. They are both Dems, which means they really can't run against each other past the primaries. We haven't finished our primary yet. In the end, which ever one of them wins the primaries at the very, very end will run against McCain probably. I think Paul is still there, but he doesn't have a chance in hell."

"Oh, that doesn't make any sense."

"So who are you going to vote for?"

"Oh, I don't vote." And he skips away into the sunset holding some flowers and whistling "Home on the Range." Ok, I made that part up.

At least he knew who some of the candidates were, although his face went blank when I mentioned McCain and Paul. But the whole conversation gave me a headache and it almost became a migraine at the close of it.

How hard is it to watch the news or read a newspaper once in a while, ya know?

Republicans warn about Ron Paul supporters crashing caucuses

 

By Steve Walsh

 

Missouri Republicans hold county and local caucuses Saturday - and party leadership is warning about rumors regarding followers of former GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul.

 

Rumors are the Paul followers plan to flood the caucuses and will try to overturn the already established rules regarding how Missouri's delegation will vote at the National Convention in St. Paul this summer. Missouri Republican Party Executive Director Jared Craighead says this is only a rumor, but it's important to get out the word that Missouri's delegates are committed to John McCain.

 

Craighead says it's unfortunate that there appears to be a campaign underway to give misinformation to those attending caucuses that delegates elected at the congressional district level will be able to change the rules regarding the voting for the presidential nominee. Craighead makes it clear Missouri's delegates are bound to support the winner of the February 5th Presidential Primary - and that was Senator John McCain.

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

 

Notice that the article refers to Ron Paul as a "former GOP presidential candidate"? I guess someone forgot to tell Ron Paul that he dropped out.

By John Tompkins The Facts

Published January 19, 2008

One question that has haunted Congressman Ron Paul on the campaign trail is his future — how long does he intend to run? And will he run as a third-party candidate if he doesn’t secure the Republican nomination?

Meanwhile, Paul also has another nomination on his mind — for re-election to his congressional seat. This year, he drew an opponent for the Republican nomination in Friendswood City Councilman Chris Peden.

How long will he run?

For the time being, Paul said he for sure will remain in the 2008 presidential campaign until the Super Tuesday primaries Feb. 5, when more than 20 states will have their primaries.

“I think Feb. 5 is a good target point,” he told one reporter in New Hampshire.

After that, he would have to evaluate his financial standing and the level of support he has received before continuing his campaign, he has said.

Many supporters and analysts also wonder if Paul will run as a third-party candidate if he does not win the Republican nomination, given the amount of money he has received from a broad spectrum of voters.

Campaign spokesman Jess Benton said Paul constantly is asked about how far he will take his quest to win the White House.

“He’s probably been asked that 1,000 times,” Benton said. “The answer’s always the same.”

The second front

While he’s campaigning for president throughout the nation, Paul also is fighting to keep his congressional seat here at home in the 10-county 14th District along the Texas Gulf Coast.

His congressional campaign will have no conflict with his running for president, said Mark Elam, Paul’s congressional campaign manager.

“Under Texas law he is allowed to run for Congress and president at the same time,” Elam said. “There are some states that don’t allow it.”

Paul has represented the area in Congress since returning to the U.S. House in 1996. He previously served in Congress from 1976-84.

Paul also is not the first person to run for the White House while also trying to hold onto his incumbent spot in Congress. The Texas Legislature passed a law in 1959 allowing then-Sen. Lyndon Baines Johnson to run as John F. Kennedy’s running mate in 1960 while also campaigning for his spot in the Senate. Texas Sen. Lloyd Bentsen used the law to do the same thing in 1988 while the running mate for Democrat Michael Dukakis.

Most recently Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., ran on the ticket with Al Gore in 2000 while also running for his spot in the Senate.

All three were able to keep their incumbent congressional spots; only Johnson won the vice presidency.

As to whether Paul’s presidential bid will help or hurt his congressional campaign, Elam said he wasn’t sure. Those who don’t know much about Paul either will like him or dislike him because of his Libertarian-leaning views, he said.

“He gets more national exposure,” he said. “It’s probably pretty much a wash.”

Peden was not available for comment late Friday, but his Web site declares he chose to run because Paul does not do a lot for his local district because of his ideals.

“We need someone who understands not just the theory of conservative politics, but the practice of conservative government,” he said. “We need a congressman who is known for results and not just rhetoric.”

Whether Paul will choose to remain in the national campaign or put his full focus on remaining in the House is still in question, and the results of the Republican primaries might not provide the final answer.

Independent streak

Paul repeatedly has said in interviews he would not run for president as a third-party candidate because he’s too focused on winning the Republican nomination.

He has run before as the Libertarian Party candidate in 1988 and said it was hard to do simple things such as get on a ballot or participate in a debate.

“It was difficult and it was tedious,” he said. “It’s easier with a major party.”

Responding to their own supporters, the Libertarian Party even drafted a resolution asking Paul to run on its ticket should he lose the Republican nomination. Paul refused.

There isn’t any kind of scenario in which Paul could envision himself running, he said. If he gave his supporters an arbitrary amount of money to raise for running a third-party campaign, they likely would raise that amount, he said with a laugh.

He’s said in the past he’s 99.9 percent sure he would stop his campaign with the Republican nomination.

If he would run as a third-party candidate, he said, he likely would do it as an independent rather than as a Libertarian.

“There’s too many people we’ve brought together,” Paul said of his many kinds of supporters. “I have a lot of Democrats who express interest in what I’m doing,” with foreign policy.

Paul’s supporters are mixed on whether they would want him to run as a third-party candidate.

John Goes, a volunteer for Paul in Iowa and South Carolina, said he wants Paul to win the Republican nomination because it would give him a better chance of winning the presidency.

“I don’t care to influence it one way or the other,” he said. “Most of the donors, they want to win.”

Though he didn’t think a third-party candidacy would be a good idea in the long run, he likely still would support Paul if he chose to continue his bid outside the Republican Party, Goes said.

Paul volunteer Shelly Roche joined Paul’s campaign after a friend’s brother, who had served in the military in Iraq, shot himself. She said she would support Paul’s campaign whether he was running for the Republican nomination or if he was running on his own.

“I think that would be great if it came to that,” she said. “The more exposure he gets, the more opportunity there is for people to learn.”

Whether or not Paul becomes president, he and his supporters say his campaign is the start of something that could continue into future campaigns. There will be more candidates who push the same ideas of limited federal government and less foreign intervention, they said.

“This is going to be the beginning of something very, very big for this country,” Paul said.