Thats no surprise that he is surprised. He is so entrenched in a party that would do ANYTHING to keep the presidency even if it was a bad idea in the long term the way an Obama/Clinton ticket would be.

Having watched the Republican primary debates, I know that Romney, McCain, and Guilliani would all do anything and say anything that they believe would help them win in November. The idea that a politician like Obama would not take the easy path and pick a running mate just because her selection would placate a block of voters is simply foreign to them.

This whole thing – well known Republicans camping out in Denver at the DNC to grab media attention – seems really creepy to me.  I knew it was coming.  The PR Newswire for Journalists releases over the last week or two have included many press releases about RNC events in Denver and press events revolving around Republican celebrities.

I’ve been watching closely, and I haven’t seen a similar barrage of press releases from Democratic groups that plan to make appearances in Minneapolis at the Republican National Convention.

Romney exploits Democratic tensions

By Andrew Ward in Denver
Published: August 26 2008 23:14 | Last updated: August 26 2008 23:14

Mitt Romney on Tuesday sought to exploit lingering tensions between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as he entered enemy territory to launch a fierce attack on the Democrats.

The former Massachusetts governor, who is among the favourites for the Republican vice-presidential nomination, said he was surprised Mr Obama had not picked Mrs Clinton as running mate.

Speaking to reporters on the fringe of the Democratic convention in Denver, Mr Romney said an Obama-Clinton ticket would have posed the biggest threat to the Republicans and predicted her absence would alienate Clinton supporters.

Recent polls have shown up to 30 per cent of Clinton supporters plan to vote for John McCain, the Republican candidate, or stay at home.

Mr Romney said Mr Obama’s attempt to add foreign policy heft by picking Joe Biden as running mate would backfire when voters learned more about the Delaware senator’s views.

“His record of being wrong on foreign policy is as long as his number of years in foreign policy,” he said, citing Mr Biden’s opposition to the cold war arms build-up against the Soviet Union, the first Gulf war and the surge strategy in Iraq.

Mr Romney said the presence of two senators on the Democratic ticket undermined Mr Obama’s promise to change Washington, drawing a contrast with Mr McCain’s years of military service before entering politics.

He declined to comment on his own vice-presidential prospects but highlighted his experience outside Washington both as governor and in business.

He said Mr Obama miscalculated last week by attacking Mr McCain for owning several homes and dismissed suggestions that the issue could hurt his own vice-presidential chances.

Mr Romney, a wealthy former private equity executive, said he owned three homes – “one less than John Kerry” – but predicted voters would reject Democratic efforts to stoke the “politics of envy”.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008

I signed up for an account when it first was announced in an RNC press release. I was really curious to see what kinds of suggestions would come from the everyday Republicans who have some distance from the financial corruption that seems to have become a hallmark for so many Republicans holding federal office. I’d long been convinced that once you go down a few layers in either the Democratic Party of the Republican Party you will find people who hold remarkably similar values and positions. (Warning: If you sign up for an account you WILL receive several fund raising emails from the McCain campaign.)

When I popped in today I was very happy to see some Republicans speaking out on issues in a way that calls back to the days of small government and personal liberty that were such an important part of the GOP in the pre-Reagan years.

Here are a sampling of some of the best:

Douglas – Plainfield, NJ on August 1, 2008

Values : Same-sex Marriage
The idea that prohibiting same-sex marriage could be construed as “protecting American values” disgusts me as an American committed to the values of freedom and equality. The state has no place telling gay couples that they are lesser citizens than their heterosexual friends and neighbors. Opposition to same-sex marriage on the part of the GOP is a prime example of the manipulation of bigotry in the hearts of certain voters for electoral gain, and is recognized by many observers as such. If the GOP wants to be seen as a party of serious ideas, it ought to drop opposition to same-sex marriage.

Values : Religious Liberty
Republicans should refrain from calling the USA a Christian country. It is not. I doubt some submitters’ claims that the founders would be rolling in their graves to hear me say this. Very early on, in a treaty with Morocco, both a Muslim state and an early ally of ours (a friendship forged at a time when support for our country was sparse), we indicated that we were not a Christian country, but a country open to all religions. Were we guided by values provided by our founders’ faiths? Most certainly, but are we bound by their faith? Absolutely not. Talk of the United States as a Christian country create animosity abroad and offends patriotic citizens of other faiths at home, and is thus inappropriate and unwarranted.

Jose H. – Pinecrest, FL on August 1, 2008

Values, Other
Here are a few common sense ideas that we can have on our platform and compete with the Democrats because most Americans want them and value them: 1. support Scientific research, including stem cell research 2. support clean air and water; reduce CO2 emmisions 3. support education and teachers at all levels 4. support workers rights to form unions 5. support diversifying oil alternatives (e.g.nuclear power plants) 6. support NAFTA 7. support U.S. citizen privacy issues 8. support universal health care 9. improve our relationships with our allies 10.curb the spread of nuclear power 11. take out Al Quada wherever it hides Let us not get beat on simple issues which are true to American values.

Robert – Raleigh, NC on August 1, 2008

Energy: Other
Gas taxes are used to fund the nation’s infrastructure. The current state of our nation’s roadway system is proof that infrastructure maintenance and construction is woefully underfunded. Repealing the gas tax would be a mistake.

Energy : Global warming
Subsidize clean energies, and reduce or cut out subsidies to fuels that contribute greenhouse gases to the environment.

Energy : Wind/Solar
The government should attempt to make these cleaner fuels more competitive with conventional fossil fuels. Fast-tracking clean power plants would be an important part of bringing these clean fuels to the market faster, and would reduce the initial investments required to bring these online.

Values : Same-sex Marriage
I do not feel that a constitutional amendment is necessary. If a state chooses to allow same-sex marriage that is the right of the state. If a state chooses not to observe same-sex marriage, that should be the right of the state. The federal government should not be in the business of restricting an individual’s rights when it does not interfere with the public’s welfare.

Values : Right to Bear Arms
I agree with the position of the current Supreme Court of an individual’s right to bear arms. However, it worries me that every individual has his or her own agenda when they purchase a gun. The individual’s right must be weighed against the public’s right to feel safe.

Douglas – Fort Lewis, WA on August 1, 2008

Values: Flag Protection
is my brand of patriotism that thinks that a Flag Burning Amendment is not only a bad idea, but is a potentially dangerous movement as well. When we boil down to it, flag desecration is a form of political expression, a founding principle of America. I know the folks that actually do it are stupid, but we’ve got to acknowledge that stupid people have rights too. The government should not try and be a rapist and make those unbathed hippies love the flag and what it stands for. We must ask ourselves: what’s the point of freedom of speech if we only protect political speech we agree with?

Rex – Weston, MA on August 1,2008

Values: Abortion
This is the greatest single weakness in this election. I believe that McCain was chosen because he was not captive to the current party ideology on such issues and abortion and birth control. Being against both is both intrusive and anit-Republican in the sense of impinging on personal freedom. It turns off more voters than it turns on. What would resonate with the electorate would be to go back to controlling the Federal government’s tendency to intrude ever more into our lives, through taxes AND programs. Please, if you want to have any hope of success soft pedal the “family values” code words for Federal intrusion to mold everyone to a minority view of correctness!!!

Anonymous on August 1, 2008

Health Care: Health care reform
Health care reform is desperately needed. And privatization, where there is a profit motive, will not work. My wife recently had a baby, and we had a few medical complications involved with the pregnancy. All throughout the process, our concern ended up not of being “what is the best medical care we can receive” but instead “will the insurance company cover this procedure”. And our doctor wasted significant amounts of time fighting with the insurance company to obtain coverage for medically necessary verifications. For the most part, the rest of the civilized world has some form of federal medical insurance. Even the US does in the form of Medicare, which until the prescription drug benefit was added, generally was a successful program. Instead of reinventing the wheel (or as some would say breaking the wheel) and using tax incentives and other gimmicks to give tax breaks to the upper classes, lets do the right thing. There are certain problems too large for the private sector to solve. Medical insurance has been proven to be one of those issues.

I don’t want to put words in the mouths of these individuals but from where I sit, it appears that there are people out there looking for major reforms to the GOP. I wish them luck. I think many old-school Republicans are waking up and taking a look at what has become of their party. With any luck, some will take a look at the issues at stake in November and vote for Obama, but I bet there will be even more who vote the party ticket even if they have to hold their nose to do it.

According to Newsweek, the RNC spent about three million dollars to air a thirty second TV spot in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. The advertisement is (ironically) titled “Balance”.

The announcer speaks over a series of images and has this to say:

Announcer: “Record gas prices. A climate in crisis. John McCain says solve it now with a balanced plan: Alternative energy, conservation, suspending the gas tax, and more production here at home. He’s pushing his own party to face climate change. But Barack Obama? For conservation, but he just says no to lower gas taxes, no to nuclear, no to more production. No new solutions. Barack Obama: Just the party line. The Republican National Committee is responsible for the content of this advertising.”

The Newsweek story takes a little time to explore the misleading claim about Obama’s position on nuclear energy and goes on to point out that while Barack Obama does tend to vote with his party (97% in 2007), John McCain voted for President Bush’s position on Senate matters 95% of the time in 2007.

The people at FactCheck.org at the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania go further and analyze the ad’s content line by line and claim by claim.

No to Lower Gas Taxes

Yes, its true that Obama, like many independent energy analysts, opposed the Memorial Day to Labor Day “Gas Tax Holiday” that McCain supports. Obama looked to the experts who pointed out that this “solution” would not do much to help American consumers in the near future and could quite likely create higher prices down the road as a result of the increased consumption and demand that typically accompanies reduced prices. The ad fails to mention that McCain’s “lower gas taxes” credentials are based on a three month period and will probably leave some less news junkie viewers feeling that McCain’s proposal to reduce gasoline taxes are meant to be permanent.

No to Nuclear

This claim by McCain and the RNC was already debunked in Distorting Obama but FactCheck goes into more detail in this analysis. Obama has clearly stated supports nuclear energy as long as its safe and clean and the industry addresses the long term storage of its waste products. In his comprehensive Energy plan he says “it is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power from the table.” McCain is more aggressive about building nuclear power plants but does not address the findings of the International Atomic Energy Agency that show that the price of uranium has also increased fivefold since 2001 and will continue to increase with increased demand for nuclear energy. The IAEA does expect that supply will be able to keep up with demand for the next seventeen years, but there is a lot of doubt beyond that point.

No to More Production

While it is true that Obama opposes new drilling Outer Continental Shelf the ad does not mention that both McCain and Obama oppose drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

The offshore drilling debate is a HUGE red herring in this debate. FactCheck and other sites have pointed out that lifting the ban put in place by Presidents Reagan and Bush would not help American consumers. The potential harm – both economically in terms of tourism money and environmentally – to coastal communities aside, any new drilling would not bring more oil to market before 2017.

The Department of Energy itself says:

The The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017. Total domestic production of crude oil from 2012 through 2030 in the OCS access case is projected to be 1.6 percent higher than in the reference case, and 3 percent higher in 2030 alone, at 5.6 million barrels per day. For the lower 48 OCS, annual crude oil production in 2030 is projected to be 7 percent higher—2.4 million barrels per day in the OCS access case compared with 2.2 million barrels per day in the reference case. Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.

Ignoring all that, the fact is we couldn’t drill for oil off shore right now even if 100% of American citizens and 100% of American politicians and 100% of American oil companies wanted to begin immediately. The NY Times reported last month that a Dearth of Ships Delays Drilling of Offshore Oil and says “Demand is so high that shipbuilders, the biggest of whom are in Asia, have raised prices since last year by as much as $100 million a vessel to about half a billion dollars.” This increased demand is spurring shipbuilders to construct more drilling ships but thats not going to solve the problem.

The NY Times article says: “Robert L. Long, the chief executive office of Transocean, the world’s largest drilling company, said he has nine deepwater rigs under construction, eight of which are already under contract for periods ranging from four to seven years once they leave the shipyards. He expects to receive the ships between the beginning of 2009 and the end of 2010.”

No New Solutions

The claim that Barack Obama has “no new solutions” for energy is an attempt to keep the Republican spun taking point alive that claims that Obama’s call for change is all frosting and no cake. This has been a central theme of the RNC ads and press releases since it became clear that Senator Obama would get the Democratic party nomination.

The FactCheck.org analysts saw this as the most misleading claim in the entire ad, saying:

The ad’s most misleading claim is that Obama proposes “no new solutions” to the intertwined climate change and energy crises. In fact, Obama has an entire Web page dedicated to his proposals for the future of energy policy. One is a 10-year, $150 billion spending plan that would go toward clean coal technology; further development of plug-in hybrid cars; and commercialization of wind, solar and other renewable fuels. The RNC and McCain may not like all of Obama’s ideas, just as Obama may not support all of McCain’s, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t exist. While McCain recently proposed The Lexington Project, which includes spending $2 billion annually toward clean coal technology advancement, McCain doesn’t have a plan comparable to Obama’s in scale of spending. In addition, Obama’s spending proposal predates McCain’s Lexington Project by over six months.

One of the most depressing aspects of American politics for me is the basic fact that many people assume that campaign ads on TV must have some basis in fact. There are laws preventing Johnson & Johnson from claiming that, in addition to not causing tears, their baby shampoo can also cure cancer and reduce your home heating bills. The Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc. has a team of lawyers who will keep thier marketing department from stepping over the line and making the company vulnerable to lawsuits.

When it comes to political ads, like this one from the the Republican National Committee under the leadership of President George W. Bush, there is no such team to slow things up when the truth gets thrown out the window. Unlike J&J, with a brand name and reputation to maintain to guarantee future earnings, the twin brands of “George W. Bush” and “Republican party” have been so devalued over the last 7 years that there is no real incentive for the RNC and other party bodies from throwing bull manure in every direction and hoping some sticks.

The GOP is at it again

This is nothing new for the GOP. FactCheck.org debunked a similar claim the GOP made against Senator Kerry back in 2004. Back the claims ran all over TV but the lies and misleading parts of that claim were never properly exposed at the time.

The President misled voters and reporters in a March 20 speech when he claimed that Kerry “voted over 350 times for higher taxes on the American people” during his 20-year Senate career. Bush spoke of “yes” votes for “tax increases.”

But in fact, Kerry has not voted 350 times for tax increases, something Bush campaign officials have falsely accused Kerry of on several occasions. On close examination, the Bush campaign’s list of Kerry’s votes for “higher taxes” is padded. It includes votes Kerry cast to leave taxes unchanged (when Republicans proposed cuts), and even votes in favor of alternative Democratic tax cuts that Bush aides characterized as “watered down.”

They are using the same technique this time to try to make it look like Senator Obama has voted to increase taxes every time he has had the chance. Just like in 2004, the math used is not remotely accurate and takes huge stretches of one’s imagination to come up with the inflated “94 votes” they claim.

From FactCheck.org

The McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee both claim that Obama has voted 94 times “for higher taxes.” We find that their count is padded.

After looking at every one of the 94 votes that the RNC includes in its tally, we find:

• Twenty-three were for measures that would have produced no tax increase at all; they were against proposed tax cuts.
• Seven of the votes were in favor of measures that would have lowered taxes for many, while raising them on a relative few, either corporations or affluent individuals.
• Eleven votes the GOP is counting would have increased taxes on those making more than $1 million a year – in order to fund programs such as Head Start and school nutrition programs, or veterans’ health care.
• The GOP sometimes counted two, three and even four votes on the same measure. We found their tally included a total of 17 votes on seven measures, effectively padding their total by 10.
• The majority of the 94 votes – 53 of them, including some mentioned above – were on budget measures, not tax bills, and would not have resulted in any tax change. Four other votes were non-binding motions related to conference report negotiations.

It’s true that most of the votes the GOP counts would either have increased taxes for some, or set budget targets calling for such increases. But by repeating their inflated 94-vote figure, the McCain campaign and the GOP falsely imply that Obama has pushed indiscriminately to raise taxes for nearly everybody. A closer look reveals that he’s voted consistently to restore higher tax rates on upper-income taxpayers but not on middle- or low-income workers. That’s consistent with what he’s said he’d do as president, which is to raise taxes only on those making more than $250,000 a year.

People have often wondered where the idea that the Democrat party is somehow damaged and divided after a long primary season where more people were engaged and more people paid attention to election issues than any other time in my voting life. The idea that more people paying attention to the issues at stake in this election is only bad for one party. The Republicans cannot truly fight Obama on the issues. He is painted as a liberal by the right wing pundits but only with superficial strokes of the brush.

You can see that both the RNC and conservative commentators stick to a few simplistic ideas like the idiotic one that Obama will sit down with terrorists without ‘preconditions’. This is a vague enough thing that it allows people who are frightened to fill in all kinds of horrible ideas about what would happen at those talks. If they get into the details of exactly what Obama has in mind, when hes been given the opportunity to speak and write about his foreign policy ideas in depth, this issue disappears along with most others.

When a man’s choice of church and the business practices of one campaign donor was really a reasonable basis on which to select a person to hold the most powerful elected position in the USA are totally lost and may as well just pack it all in now.

The fact is, Democratic party voters and activists are more engaged and more excited about November 4th than was the case in 2004 – and this scares the hell out of the RNC. Can anyone else remember a time when two candidates ran neck and neck through the entire primary season? Usually the candidate has the nomination well wrapped up soon after Super Tuesday. This year primary voters were a part of the process right through the very end.

The RNC spin machine wants to take all that energy that voters displayed in the primaries and corrupt it for their own benefit. This is why they spend so much effort talking about Obama and Clinton and so little talking about McCain. They will do anything they can to drain that energy away and make people honestly believe that the majority of Clinton supporters would consider McCain a decent choice in the light of Clinton’s loss.

The sad thing is that the Senator Clinton, and her campaign, have made things easy on the Republicans. In this digital age they have access to all kinds of material to work with to use Clinton as a foil to fence against Obama. Clinton is a far better speaker than is John McCain so it only makes sense that would use her words to debate Obama instead of their own candidates.

When you don’t care about context, thats an easy scheme to implement. This RNC press release came across my desk today and I wanted to share it.

I did a full capture so you can see the whole thing. In this one they reach way way back to a Clinton appearance on the Christian Broadcasting Network’s “The 700 Club” in late February at the peak of the primary season when both candidates were scrambling for delegates.

Mr. Rezko is not in the same league as Republican lobbyist and Tom Delay’s pal Jack Abramoff, but when the Republican National Committee can’t find anything good to say about their candidate they have to take what they can get.

Unlike Abramoff’s patrons who are under investigation or indictment, Barak Obama is NOT under investigation or being charged with anything related to the Rezko crimes.

This new RNC site contains a YouTube hosted video with lots one lovely photoshopped picture of Rezko & Obama and a second mashup of two different photos designed to make it look like they are pals.

The photos have been masked to remove any possible context from the picture and are used to zoom around the screen and make the two look joined at the hip as well as a little news feed to keep you up to date on the latest “Headlines” about Rezko. In this context Headlines refers to RNC press releases as opposed to … ya know.. NEWS headlines.

The whole aim is to cast doubts on Obama’s judgement and fitness to serve in office. The fun part of all this is that it took less than five minutes over on OpenSecrets.org to discover that Mr. Rezko was an equal opportunity donor.

He donated money to over two dozen candidates and issue groups over the period for which there are electronic, searchable records. Those candidates are of both parties, but one two time recipient of Mr. Rezko’s largess jumped out at me.

To the best of my recollection, George W. Bush was running for President in October of 1999 and December of 2003. During those campaigns Mr. Rezko donated $5,000 to Mr. Bush.

This is the same George W. Bush who, according to the RNC’s Party Leadership page, heads the very organization that has created and promoted RezkoJudgement.com. Now that takes REAL balls.

When I see such stunning hypocrisy right there out in the open I can understand why Blanca DeBree loves her Republicans. If the National Democratic party tried something like this they’d be flayed alive on Fox News and the rest of the TV news channels, but the thing is, the RNC will get away with it.

And of course, it wouldn’t be a proper Republican “viral” ad without the requisite “Angry Black Man” shot included for good measure.