Jennifer Rubin - World-of-Newave.info http://answers.world-of-newave.info/jennifer-rubin.htm Latest news and articles about Jennifer Rubin en-us Copyright (c)2004-2008.ยง/Newave SARL. All rights reserved. webmaster@world-of-newave.com (Webmaster) Thu, 28 Aug 2008 20:15:45 GMT Thu, 28 Aug 2008 20:15:45 GMT Newave Lisa XML Engine v1.0 - http://www.world-of-newave.info/about.htm 60 http://www.world-of-newave.info/images/wi8831.gif World-of-Newave.info - Knowledge and Informational Database http://www.world-of-newave.info/ 88 31 {ISSUES > BIAS AND BALANCE} - Levin, MacCallum falsely accused Obama of inconsistency on whether Iranian Revolutionary Guard should be designated a terrorist group http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/levin-maccallum-falsely-accused-obama-of-inconsistency-20080651310.htm http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/levin-maccallum-falsely-accused-obama-of-inconsistency-20080651310.htm Sat, 07 Jun 2008 01:59:19 GMT During the June 4 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Mark Levin falsely asserted that Sen. Barack Obama "lied to" the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) when he "told them today that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards should be designated a terrorist group after voting against a bill designating them a terrorist group a year ago." Similarly, on the June 5 edition of Fox News' The Live Desk, anchor Martha MacCallum, referring to "whether or not the Guard should be considered -- on the world stage -- a terrorist organization," asserted that Obama "seems to be changing his tune on the significant issue." In fact, Obama has consistently supported designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, having co-sponsored a bill in 2007 to do that. Obama said he would have voted against the bill Levin referenced -- the Kyl-Lieberman resolution -- because it "states that our military presence in Iraq should be used to counter Iran," not because the resolution expressed the sense of the Senate that "the United States should designate Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization." Following MacCallum's assertion on Live Desk that Obama "seems to be changing his tune," Fox News blogger and correspondent Griff Jenkins noted that Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor pointed out that Obama "co-sponsored a bill that would designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization." Indeed, as The New York Times, FactCheck.org, and Obama's website all noted, Obama did co-sponsor a bill that expressed the sense of the Congress that "[t]he Secretary of State should designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization." Moreover, Obama has not said that he would have voted against the Kyl-Lieberman resolution because of its designation of the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. Rather, he has repeatedly criticized the resolution for including a passage asserting "that the manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region, the prospects for democracy for the people of the region, and the health of the global economy." Indeed, shortly after the Kyl-Lieberman resolution passed on September 26, 2007, Obama's office released a statement indicating why he "would have opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment had he been able to vote today." The statement did not mention the resolution's provision declaring the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization: Senator Obama clearly recognizes the serious threat posed by Iran. However, he does not agree with the President that the best way to counter that threat is to keep large numbers of troops in Iraq, and he does not think that now is the time for saber-rattling towards Iran. In fact, he thinks that our large troop presence in Iraq has served to strengthen Iran -- not weaken it. He believes that diplomacy and economic pressure, such as the divestment bill that he has proposed, is the right way to pressure the Iranian regime. Accordingly, he would have opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment had he been able to vote today. On November 1, 2007, Obama introduced a resolution "[c]larifying that the use of force against Iran is not authorized by the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq, any resolution previously adopted, or any other provision of law." The next day, Obama's Senate office released a statement that the resolution would "undo damage caused by Senate's passage of [the] Kyl-Lieberman amendment." Neither the statement nor the resolution itself mentioned the Kyl-Lieberman resolution's designation of the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. Rather, in the statement, Obama asserted that the Kyl-Lieberman amendment "states that our military presence in Iraq should be used to counter Iran" and that along with the Iraq war authorization, it "opened the door to an attack on Iran": Yesterday evening, U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) introduced Senate Joint Resolution 23, a legislative proposal specifying that the use of force against Iran is not authorized by any previous action of Congress. This would include the authorization of the use of force against Iraq; the recently passed Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which states that our military presence in Iraq should be used to counter Iran; and any resolution previously adopted by Congress. "There is absolutely no reason to trust that this Administration will not use existing congressional authorization to justify military action against Iran," said Senator Obama. "The Iraq War authorization and the recently passed Kyl-Lieberman amendment have opened the door to an attack on Iran, and Congress must now shut that door. We need aggressive diplomacy and economic pressure, which is why I support sanctions on Iran. Those efforts must not be linked to the use of our military presence in Iraq and the region, because we have seen what this Administration does when you trust them to do the right thing but give them an opening to do the wrong thing." Given concerns about the Bush Administration's expansive view of executive authority, and the likelihood that any attack on Iran would come from our military presence already in Iraq and the region, this resolution is necessary to remove any suggestion that Kyl-Lieberman or any other existing provision of law or resolution authorizes the President to attack Iran. Instead, the President will have to get specific statutory authorization from the Congress to use force against Iran. In a December 4, 2007, Democratic presidential debate, Obama similarly said of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment: OBAMA: There was another problem with the resolution that we haven't spoken about, and that was that it suggested that we should structure in some way our forces in Iraq with the goal of blunting Iranian influence in Iraq. Now, this is a problem on a whole bunch of fronts, but number one, the reason that Iran has been strengthened was because of this misguided war in Iraq. We installed -- helped to elect a government in Iraq that we knew had connections with Iran. And so the notion somehow that they're not going to have influence and that we may be using yet another justification for a continuing mission in Iraq I think is an extreme problem and one of the reasons why this was a bad idea. Levin and MacCallum's assertions echoed Sen. John McCain's reported accusation during a June 4 blogger conference call that Obama "switched" his position on the issue. The call was transcribed by National Review Online blogger Jim Geraghty: Jen Rubin [Commentary magazine blogger and humanevents.com columnist]: What did you think of Obama saying he felt the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps should be designated a terrorist organization, after voting against a bill to do that a few months ago? McCain: Well, he's switched on several issues, but this one is remarkable. One he was categorical in his statement when he opposed that legislation. Then he goes before AIPAC and supports it. I know he's changing on the surge, he's trying to change on his pledge to negotiate with dictators without preconditions. ... The American people will not buy this. ... He doesn't have the experience or the knowledge to make the judgments that are necessary. From the June 4 edition of ABC Radio Networks' The Mark Levin Show: LEVIN: I think one of the things that bothers me the most about Barack Obama is he's a liar. We've talked about this before -- excuse me -- he lies about his past. He lies about his relationships. He lies about his true intentions. And he was in front of the American Israel Political -- or excuse me -- Public Affairs Council [sic], AIPAC, and he lied to those people and got a standing ovation. He told them today that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards should be designated a terrorist group after voting against a bill designating them a terrorist group a year ago. And that vote passed 76-22, one of the 22 senators to vote against it was Barack Obama. The Republicans voted 47-2 for it. Democrats 29-20 for it. Even [Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid [D-NV] voted for it. Barack Obama is a radical extremist and he's a liar. So to go in front of all these Jews at this organization in Washington and say that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard should be legally designated as a terrorist organization when he voted against it a few months ago is a disgrace. Now, will anyone in the lib media pick up on this? No, they won't. And not only will I tell you why they won't, you're going to hear why they won't. From the June 5 edition of Fox News' The Live Desk: MacCALLUM: All right, well, now that the general election is indeed upon us we will hear more about the specific issues and the differences between the two candidates. One they have been far apart on is whether the Iranian Revolutionary Guard -- and Iran very much a central foreign policy issue to consider for everybody here -- whether or not the Guard should be considered -- on the world stage -- a terrorist organization. Now that classification brings with it a lot of connotations. So now, interestingly, for the very first time, Barack Obama seems to be changing his tune on the significant issue. So listen to this. OBAMA [video clip]: We should work with Europe, Japan, and the Gulf states to find every avenue outside the United Nations to isolate the Iranian regime, from cutting off loan guarantees and expanding financial sanctions to banning the export of refined petroleum to Iran, to boycotting firms associated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, who Quds Forces have rightly been labeled a terrorist organization. MacCALLUM: "Rightly been labeled a terrorist organization." Griff Jenkins is a blogger and Fox News correspondent. He was on that McCain -- John McCain conference call, which we're going to play for you in just a minute. But, Griff, this was -- this was a moment that made a lot of people sit up and say, "What did he say?" JENKINS: Well, look, Martha, let the general election beatings begin. Here's what's on the blogs about this. There's several writing about it today, mostly on the right, and they're saying this is what happens in a general election when a candidate has been very far to the left in his position -- or right, but left in this case -- and he has to work his way back to the center to get more appeal. Jennifer Rubin, as you pointed out on our conference call yesterday, was whacking away about this with Senator McCain. And now a lot of people have picked it up today. One blogger actually wrote -- Phil Kline over at the americanspectator.org -- was writing that Obama has, quote, "a Mitt Romney problem," meaning that he has to struggle to explain sort of evolving positions. MacCALLUM: Very interesting. And real quick, Griff, he did sort of qualify. He said the Quds Force of the Revolutionary Guard should be considered a terrorist organization. Is that a distinction that he's making? JENKINS: Well, look, here's what the Obama camp is telling me. They're telling me, look, this is absolutely not true that he's changed his position at all. They say they've considered the Iranian National [sic] Guard a terrorist organization, and put forth their own legislation standing up to Iran, and, in fact, Martha, if I could call for a statement today I got from Tommy Vietor from the Obama campaign. Here's what they tell me. That -- well, let me just give it -- MacCALLUM: Hang on one second. I think we got it coming. Yeah, here's Tommy Vietor's -- JENKINS: There we are. MacCALLUM: Go ahead. JENKINS: "Barack Obama co-sponsored a bill that would designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, so John McCain's stubborn repetition of outright falsehoods just adds to his troubling pattern of making misleading, partisan attacks without knowing the facts." So, you know, I think it's going to be continued to be debated -- MacCALLUM: Yeah. JENKINS -- with digging and digging and everything that Senator Obama has said about this. MacCALLUM: And no doubt in these town halls and these debates, this is going to be a major issue that we're going to keep a very close eye on. Mediamatters.Org Levin, MacCallum falsely accused Obama of inconsistency on whether Iranian Revolutionary Guard should be designated a terrorist group {new window}   Mediamatters.Org - During the June 4 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Mark Levin falsely asserted that Sen. Barack Obama "lied to" the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) when he "told them today that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards should be designated a terrorist group after voting against a bill designating them a terrorist group a year ago." Similarly, on the June 5 edition of Fox News' The Live Desk, anchor Martha MacCallum, referring to "whether or not the Guard should be considered -- on the world stage -- a terrorist organization," asserted that Obama "seems to be changing his tune on the significant issue." In fact, Obama has consistently supported designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, having co-sponsored a bill in 2007 to do that. Obama said he would have voted against the bill Levin referenced -- the Kyl-Lieberman resolution -- because it "states that our military presence in Iraq should be used to counter Iran," not because the resolution expressed the sense of the Senate that "the United States should designate Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization." Following MacCallum's assertion on Live Desk that Obama "seems to be changing his tune," Fox News blogger and correspondent Griff Jenkins noted that Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor pointed out that Obama "co-sponsored a bill that would designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization." Indeed, as The New York Times, FactCheck.org, and Obama's website all noted, Obama did co-sponsor a bill that expressed the sense of the Congress that "[t]he Secretary of State should designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization." Moreover, Obama has not said that he would have voted against the Kyl-Lieberman resolution because of its designation of the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. Rather, he has repeatedly criticized the resolution for including a passage asserting "that the manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region, the prospects for democracy for the people of the region, and the health of the global economy." Indeed, shortly after the Kyl-Lieberman resolution passed on September 26, 2007, Obama's office released a statement indicating why he "would have opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment had he been able to vote today." The statement did not mention the resolution's provision declaring the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization: Senator Obama clearly recognizes the serious threat posed by Iran. However, he does not agree with the President that the best way to counter that threat is to keep large numbers of troops in Iraq, and he does not think that now is the time for saber-rattling towards Iran. In fact, he thinks that our large troop presence in Iraq has served to strengthen Iran -- not weaken it. He believes that diplomacy and economic pressure, such as the divestment bill that he has proposed, is the right way to pressure the Iranian regime. Accordingly, he would have opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment had he been able to vote today. On November 1, 2007, Obama introduced a resolution "[c]larifying that the use of force against Iran is not authorized by the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq, any resolution previously adopted, or any other provision of law." The next day, Obama's Senate office released a statement that the resolution would "undo damage caused by Senate's passage of [the] Kyl-Lieberman amendment." Neither the statement nor the resolution itself mentioned the Kyl-Lieberman resolution's designation of the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. Rather, in the statement, Obama asserted that the Kyl-Lieberman amendment "states that our military presence in Iraq should be used to counter Iran" and that along with the Iraq war authorization, it "opened the door to an attack on Iran": Yesterday evening, U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) introduced Senate Joint Resolution 23, a legislative proposal specifying that the use of force against Iran is not authorized by any previous action of Congress. This would include the authorization of the use of force against Iraq; the recently passed Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which states that our military presence in Iraq should be used to counter Iran; and any resolution previously adopted by Congress. "There is absolutely no reason to trust that this Administration will not use existing congressional authorization to justify military action against Iran," said Senator Obama. "The Iraq War authorization and the recently passed Kyl-Lieberman amendment have opened the door to an attack on Iran, and Congress must now shut that door. We need aggressive diplomacy and economic pressure, which is why I support sanctions on Iran. Those efforts must not be linked to the use of our military presence in Iraq and the region, because we have seen what this Administration does when you trust them to do the right thing but give them an opening to do the wrong thing." Given concerns about the Bush Administration's expansive view of executive authority, and the likelihood that any attack on Iran would come from our military presence already in Iraq and the region, this resolution is necessary to remove any suggestion that Kyl-Lieberman or any other existing provision of law or resolution authorizes the President to attack Iran. Instead, the President will have to get specific statutory authorization from the Congress to use force against Iran. In a December 4, 2007, Democratic presidential debate, Obama similarly said of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment: OBAMA: There was another problem with the resolution that we haven't spoken about, and that was that it suggested that we should structure in some way our forces in Iraq with the goal of blunting Iranian influence in Iraq. Now, this is a problem on a whole bunch of fronts, but number one, the reason that Iran has been strengthened was because of this misguided war in Iraq. We installed -- helped to elect a government in Iraq that we knew had connections with Iran. And so the notion somehow that they're not going to have influence and that we may be using yet another justification for a continuing mission in Iraq I think is an extreme problem and one of the reasons why this was a bad idea. Levin and MacCallum's assertions echoed Sen. John McCain's reported accusation during a June 4 blogger conference call that Obama "switched" his position on the issue. The call was transcribed by National Review Online blogger Jim Geraghty: Jen Rubin [Commentary magazine blogger and humanevents.com columnist]: What did you think of Obama saying he felt the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps should be designated a terrorist organization, after voting against a bill to do that a few months ago? McCain: Well, he's switched on several issues, but this one is remarkable. One he was categorical in his statement when he opposed that legislation. Then he goes before AIPAC and supports it. I know he's changing on the surge, he's trying to change on his pledge to negotiate with dictators without preconditions. ... The American people will not buy this. ... He doesn't have the experience or the knowledge to make the judgments that are necessary. From the June 4 edition of ABC Radio Networks' The Mark Levin Show: LEVIN: I think one of the things that bothers me the most about Barack Obama is he's a liar. We've talked about this before -- excuse me -- he lies about his past. He lies about his relationships. He lies about his true intentions. And he was in front of the American Israel Political -- or excuse me -- Public Affairs Council [sic], AIPAC, and he lied to those people and got a standing ovation. He told them today that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards should be designated a terrorist group after voting against a bill designating them a terrorist group a year ago. And that vote passed 76-22, one of the 22 senators to vote against it was Barack Obama. The Republicans voted 47-2 for it. Democrats 29-20 for it. Even [Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid [D-NV] voted for it. Barack Obama is a radical extremist and he's a liar. So to go in front of all these Jews at this organization in Washington and say that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard should be legally designated as a terrorist organization when he voted against it a few months ago is a disgrace. Now, will anyone in the lib media pick up on this? No, they won't. And not only will I tell you why they won't, you're going to hear why they won't. From the June 5 edition of Fox News' The Live Desk: MacCALLUM: All right, well, now that the general election is indeed upon us we will hear more about the specific issues and the differences between the two candidates. One they have been far apart on is whether the Iranian Revolutionary Guard -- and Iran very much a central foreign policy issue to consider for everybody here -- whether or not the Guard should be considered -- on the world stage -- a terrorist organization. Now that classification brings with it a lot of connotations. So now, interestingly, for the very first time, Barack Obama seems to be changing his tune on the significant issue. So listen to this. OBAMA [video clip]: We should work with Europe, Japan, and the Gulf states to find every avenue outside the United Nations to isolate the Iranian regime, from cutting off loan guarantees and expanding financial sanctions to banning the export of refined petroleum to Iran, to boycotting firms associated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, who Quds Forces have rightly been labeled a terrorist organization. MacCALLUM: "Rightly been labeled a terrorist organization." Griff Jenkins is a blogger and Fox News correspondent. He was on that McCain -- John McCain conference call, which we're going to play for you in just a minute. But, Griff, this was -- this was a moment that made a lot of people sit up and say, "What did he say?" JENKINS: Well, look, Martha, let the general election beatings begin. Here's what's on the blogs about this. There's several writing about it today, mostly on the right, and they're saying this is what happens in a general election when a candidate has been very far to the left in his position -- or right, but left in this case -- and he has to work his way back to the center to get more appeal. Jennifer Rubin, as you pointed out on our conference call yesterday, was whacking away about this with Senator McCain. And now a lot of people have picked it up today. One blogger actually wrote -- Phil Kline over at the americanspectator.org -- was writing that Obama has, quote, "a Mitt Romney problem," meaning that he has to struggle to explain sort of evolving positions. MacCALLUM: Very interesting. And real quick, Griff, he did sort of qualify. He said the Quds Force of the Revolutionary Guard should be considered a terrorist organization. Is that a distinction that he's making? JENKINS: Well, look, here's what the Obama camp is telling me. They're telling me, look, this is absolutely not true that he's changed his position at all. They say they've considered the Iranian National [sic] Guard a terrorist organization, and put forth their own legislation standing up to Iran, and, in fact, Martha, if I could call for a statement today I got from Tommy Vietor from the Obama campaign. Here's what they tell me. That -- well, let me just give it -- MacCALLUM: Hang on one second. I think we got it coming. Yeah, here's Tommy Vietor's -- JENKINS: There we are. MacCALLUM: Go ahead. JENKINS: "Barack Obama co-sponsored a bill that would designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, so John McCain's stubborn repetition of outright falsehoods just adds to his troubling pattern of making misleading, partisan attacks without knowing the facts." So, you know, I think it's going to be continued to be debated -- MacCALLUM: Yeah. JENKINS -- with digging and digging and everything that Senator Obama has said about this. MacCALLUM: And no doubt in these town halls and these debates, this is going to be a major issue that we're going to keep a very close eye on.
Media Matters - Levin, MacCallum falsely accused Obama of inconsistency on whether Iranian Revolutionary Guard should be designated a terrorist group {...} On his radio show, Mark Levin falsely asserted that Sen. Barack Obama "lied to" the American Israel Public Affairs Committee when he "told them today that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards should be designated a terrorist group after voting against a bill designating them a terrorist group a year ago." Similarly, Fox News' Martha MacCallum asserted that Obama "seems to be changing his tune on the significant issue." In fact, Obama has consistently supported designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, having co-sponsored a bill in 2007 to do that. {...}
Published: June 7, 2008, 1:59 am - Indexed: June 7, 2008, 10:21 am - Page Size: 33KB
Category: Society > Issues > Business > Media > Bias and Balance

]]> Society > Issues > Business > Media > Bias and Balance {ISSUES > BIAS AND BALANCE} - Harwood calls McCain's willingness to consider raising Social Security taxes -- contradicting "no new taxes" pledge -- "candor" and "truth-telling" http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/harwood-calls-mccain-s-willingness-to-consider-20080721628.htm http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/harwood-calls-mccain-s-willingness-to-consider-20080721628.htm Wed, 30 Jul 2008 19:36:59 GMT New York Times political writer and CNBC chief Washington correspondent John Harwood described Sen. John McCain's apparent willingness to consider raising Social Security taxes -- a reversal from his previously stated position -- as an example of the candidate engaging in "truth-telling" and "candor." McCain recently backed away from a "no new taxes" pledge by saying "nothing's off the table" in seeking a solution to achieve the long-term solvency of Social Security during the July 27 edition of ABC's This Week. Indeed, after host George Stephanopoulos asked if "payroll taxes are on the table," McCain responded: "There is nothing that's off the table. I have my positions, and I'll articulate them. But nothing's off the table." But while McCain had previously pledged there would be "no new taxes" in a McCain administration, Harwood said of McCain's newfound "candor": "That's the Straight Talk Express, which people got to know so well about John McCain in 2000." During the July 28 edition of MSNBC Live, anchor David Shuster reported that "John McCain yesterday, as you know, was asked about fixing Social Security and the prospect of raising the payroll tax, and McCain said everything is on the table." Shuster continued: "Well, conservatives are aghast, because that very position by Obama is what Republicans base their charge that Obama will raise taxes. What's been the fallout today for McCain with his conservative base?" Responding to Shuster's question, Harwood asserted that McCain's shift in position "might provide some countervailing help with -- for him in the middle of the electorate, some of those independents he's trying to reach out to, because that's truth-telling from John McCain." Harwood added: "That's the Straight Talk Express, which people got to know so well about John McCain in 2000." Harwood later added: "[I]t's a risky position for John McCain to take politically, especially with a conservative base, but it's also one of candor." In contrast with Harwood's opinion that McCain's reversal constituted an act of "truth-telling," the Associated Press reported in a July 28 article that McCain "drew a sharp rebuke Monday from conservatives after he signaled an openness to a higher payroll tax for Social Security, contrary to previous vows not to raise taxes of any kind." The report further noted that McCain's apparent flip "drew a strong response Monday from the Club for Growth, a Washington anti-tax group. McCain's comments, the group said in a letter to the Arizona senator, are 'shocking because you have been adamant in your opposition to raising taxes under any circumstances.' " Further undermining Harwood's assertion that McCain's stated willingness to consider raising Social Security taxes constituted "truth-telling," McCain reportedly backtracked two days later, and in a "bit of political fence-mending" after he "had angered some fiscal conservatives" with his comment, McCain once again vowed not to raise taxes, according to a July 30 article in the Los Angeles Times. From the Times article: Across the country, in Nevada, Republican John McCain engaged in a similar bit of political fence-mending. Appearing at a town hall meeting in Sparks, he flatly ruled out raising taxes if elected president. "I think the worst thing that could happen to America in these very tough economic times is to raise someone's taxes," McCain said in response to a question. "I won't do it." McCain had angered some fiscal conservatives by seeming to suggest in recent interviews that he would consider higher payroll taxes to fund Social Security. The Club for Growth, an anti-tax group, sent an open letter Monday expressing concern about McCain's comments, and the Obama campaign piled on by asserting that McCain had flip-flopped on the question. The Arizona senator addressed the matter when a small girl in the audience at Reed High School asked him if he would raise taxes as president. He drew whoops and cheers from the audience of several hundred with a one-word response: "No." Later, at a private fundraiser on the east shore of Lake Tahoe, McCain alluded to that. "Some people say, 'Well, McCain says he wants to sit down and work these issues out,' " he told donors. "Of course I do, but I have a clear record of opposing tax increases, and I'll stand by that record." From the 4 p.m. ET hour of the July 28 edition of MSNBC Live: SHUSTER: Now it's time for the focus on the U.S. economy. John McCain was touring an oil field and Barack Obama met with top economic advisers this afternoon, this as the battle heats up over who will be commander in chief of the sagging U.S. economy. Here is some of what we've heard today. OBAMA [video clip]: -- an energy policy that doesn't just reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but creates millions of new high wage jobs from our investment in renewable sources of energy. McCAIN [video clip]: Senator Obama opposes offshore drilling. He opposes reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. He -- he -- he opposes storage of spent nuclear fuel, and so he is the Dr. No of the -- America's energy future. SHUSTER: John Harwood is CNBC's chief Washington correspondent and a political writer for The New York Times, and he joins us from outside where Obama's been meeting with his all-star team of economic advisers today. And John, was -- was Obama simply listening to his advisers, or is he offering specifics as to what he thinks needs to be done to help the economy? HARWOOD: I just spoke, David, to Governor Jon Corzine of New Jersey, former head of Goldman Sachs, the big Wall Street investment firm. He said Barack Obama was purely in listening mode today. Of course he's been running, as you know, David, on a set of tax spending trade policies for months now. He gave no indication he was going to change those policies, but he was going around the room listening to people -- business, labor, the head of Google, you had Bob Rubin, the former Treasury secretary, Paul Volcker, former Federal Reserve chairman -- all these people providing input for Barack Obama. And I think part of it was the reassurance that Barack Obama hopes will be conveyed by those presidential-looking images of him sitting around the table, being counseled by these very wise economic figures, David. SHUSTER: And John, on the other side, John McCain yesterday, as you know, was asked about fixing Social Security and the prospect of raising the payroll tax, and McCain said everything is on the table. Well, conservatives are aghast, because that very position by Obama is what Republicans base their charge that Obama will raise taxes. What's been the fallout today for McCain with his conservative base? HARWOOD: Well, it's a problem with his conservative base. It might provide some countervailing help with -- for him in the middle of the electorate, some of those independents he's trying to reach out to, because that's truth-telling from John McCain. That's the Straight Talk Express, which people got to know so well about John McCain in 2000, because most people, David, know that if you're really going to solve Social Security, you've got to do something on the spending side, which John McCain has already indicated he is willing to do, and on the tax side. So far Barack Obama has only indicated that he's willing to raise that cap on the payroll tax. He hasn't signaled anything that he's willing to do on the spending side, so it's a risky position for John McCain to take politically, especially with a conservative base, but it's also one of candor. We'll see whether Barack Obama responds with any different tack of his own on that issue. From the July 27 edition of ABC's This Week: STEPHANOPOULOS: Social Security -- you're a longtime supporter of the private accounts, as President Bush called for them. McCAIN: I am a supporter of sitting down together and putting everything on the table and coming up with an answer. So, there is nothing I would take off the table. There was nothing I would demand. I think that's the way that Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill did it. And that's what we have to do again. STEPHANOPOULOS: In the past you said there was essentially -- you told The Wall Street Journal -- McCAIN: No, I have said and will say -- I will say that everything has to be on the table, if we're going to reach a bipartisan agreement. I've been in bipartisan negotiations before. I know how you reach a conclusion. We all have to sit down together with everything on the table. STEPHANOPOULOS: So, that means payroll tax increases are on the table as well? McCAIN: There is nothing that's off the table. I have my positions, and I'll articulate them. But nothing's off the table. I don't want tax increases. Of course I'd like to have young Americans have some of their money put into an account with their name on it. But that doesn't mean that anything is off the table -- STEPHANOPOULOS: With their payroll taxes diverted into accounts -- McCAIN: I say that everything is on the table that has to be on the table, the way Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan did. From the February 17 edition of ABC's This Week: STEPHANOPOULOS: No. 1 issue right now, the economy. McCAIN: Mm-hmm. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Obama went at that on Tuesday night as well. OBAMA [video clip]: I admired Sen. McCain when he stood up and said that it offended his conscience to support the Bush tax cut for the wealthy in the time of war. [edit] But somewhere along the road to the Republican nomination, the Straight Talk Express lost its wheels because now he's is all for those same tax cuts. STEPHANOPOULOS: He says basically you've sacrificed your principles for the sake of the nomination. McCAIN: Well, for a long time I have said that I thought the tax cuts ought to be made permanent. For a long time back, I said, look, we've got to have spending restraint, the way that Reagan did when he restored our economy when it was in the tank, thanks to then-President Carter's mismanagement of the economy, and we entered into a great period of prosperity in America. Spending restraint is why our base is not energized. Spending restraint is why we are having to borrow money from China, and we've got to have spending restraints, in my view. But to impose on the American people what essentially would be a tax increase of thousands of dollars per family in America is not something I think -- well, I'm sure it would be bad for the economy of this country. STEPHANOPOULOS: So on taxes, are you a "read my lips" candidate -- no new taxes, no matter what? McCAIN: No new taxes. I do not -- in fact, I could see an argument, if our economy continues to deteriorate, for lower interest rates, lower tax rates, and certainly decreasing corporate tax rates, which are the second-highest in the world, giving people the ability to write off depreciation in a year, elimination of the AMT [alternative minimum tax]. There's a lot of things that I would think we should to relieve that burden, including, obviously, as we all know, simplification of the tax code. STEPHANOPOULOS: But under no circumstances would you increase taxes? McCAIN: No. Mediamatters.Org Harwood calls McCain's willingness to consider raising Social Security taxes -- contradicting "no new taxes" pledge -- "candor" and "truth-telling" {new window}   Mediamatters.Org - New York Times political writer and CNBC chief Washington correspondent John Harwood described Sen. John McCain's apparent willingness to consider raising Social Security taxes -- a reversal from his previously stated position -- as an example of the candidate engaging in "truth-telling" and "candor." McCain recently backed away from a "no new taxes" pledge by saying "nothing's off the table" in seeking a solution to achieve the long-term solvency of Social Security during the July 27 edition of ABC's This Week. Indeed, after host George Stephanopoulos asked if "payroll taxes are on the table," McCain responded: "There is nothing that's off the table. I have my positions, and I'll articulate them. But nothing's off the table." But while McCain had previously pledged there would be "no new taxes" in a McCain administration, Harwood said of McCain's newfound "candor": "That's the Straight Talk Express, which people got to know so well about John McCain in 2000." During the July 28 edition of MSNBC Live, anchor David Shuster reported that "John McCain yesterday, as you know, was asked about fixing Social Security and the prospect of raising the payroll tax, and McCain said everything is on the table." Shuster continued: "Well, conservatives are aghast, because that very position by Obama is what Republicans base their charge that Obama will raise taxes. What's been the fallout today for McCain with his conservative base?" Responding to Shuster's question, Harwood asserted that McCain's shift in position "might provide some countervailing help with -- for him in the middle of the electorate, some of those independents he's trying to reach out to, because that's truth-telling from John McCain." Harwood added: "That's the Straight Talk Express, which people got to know so well about John McCain in 2000." Harwood later added: "[I]t's a risky position for John McCain to take politically, especially with a conservative base, but it's also one of candor." In contrast with Harwood's opinion that McCain's reversal constituted an act of "truth-telling," the Associated Press reported in a July 28 article that McCain "drew a sharp rebuke Monday from conservatives after he signaled an openness to a higher payroll tax for Social Security, contrary to previous vows not to raise taxes of any kind." The report further noted that McCain's apparent flip "drew a strong response Monday from the Club for Growth, a Washington anti-tax group. McCain's comments, the group said in a letter to the Arizona senator, are 'shocking because you have been adamant in your opposition to raising taxes under any circumstances.' " Further undermining Harwood's assertion that McCain's stated willingness to consider raising Social Security taxes constituted "truth-telling," McCain reportedly backtracked two days later, and in a "bit of political fence-mending" after he "had angered some fiscal conservatives" with his comment, McCain once again vowed not to raise taxes, according to a July 30 article in the Los Angeles Times. From the Times article: Across the country, in Nevada, Republican John McCain engaged in a similar bit of political fence-mending. Appearing at a town hall meeting in Sparks, he flatly ruled out raising taxes if elected president. "I think the worst thing that could happen to America in these very tough economic times is to raise someone's taxes," McCain said in response to a question. "I won't do it." McCain had angered some fiscal conservatives by seeming to suggest in recent interviews that he would consider higher payroll taxes to fund Social Security. The Club for Growth, an anti-tax group, sent an open letter Monday expressing concern about McCain's comments, and the Obama campaign piled on by asserting that McCain had flip-flopped on the question. The Arizona senator addressed the matter when a small girl in the audience at Reed High School asked him if he would raise taxes as president. He drew whoops and cheers from the audience of several hundred with a one-word response: "No." Later, at a private fundraiser on the east shore of Lake Tahoe, McCain alluded to that. "Some people say, 'Well, McCain says he wants to sit down and work these issues out,' " he told donors. "Of course I do, but I have a clear record of opposing tax increases, and I'll stand by that record." From the 4 p.m. ET hour of the July 28 edition of MSNBC Live: SHUSTER: Now it's time for the focus on the U.S. economy. John McCain was touring an oil field and Barack Obama met with top economic advisers this afternoon, this as the battle heats up over who will be commander in chief of the sagging U.S. economy. Here is some of what we've heard today. OBAMA [video clip]: -- an energy policy that doesn't just reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but creates millions of new high wage jobs from our investment in renewable sources of energy. McCAIN [video clip]: Senator Obama opposes offshore drilling. He opposes reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. He -- he -- he opposes storage of spent nuclear fuel, and so he is the Dr. No of the -- America's energy future. SHUSTER: John Harwood is CNBC's chief Washington correspondent and a political writer for The New York Times, and he joins us from outside where Obama's been meeting with his all-star team of economic advisers today. And John, was -- was Obama simply listening to his advisers, or is he offering specifics as to what he thinks needs to be done to help the economy? HARWOOD: I just spoke, David, to Governor Jon Corzine of New Jersey, former head of Goldman Sachs, the big Wall Street investment firm. He said Barack Obama was purely in listening mode today. Of course he's been running, as you know, David, on a set of tax spending trade policies for months now. He gave no indication he was going to change those policies, but he was going around the room listening to people -- business, labor, the head of Google, you had Bob Rubin, the former Treasury secretary, Paul Volcker, former Federal Reserve chairman -- all these people providing input for Barack Obama. And I think part of it was the reassurance that Barack Obama hopes will be conveyed by those presidential-looking images of him sitting around the table, being counseled by these very wise economic figures, David. SHUSTER: And John, on the other side, John McCain yesterday, as you know, was asked about fixing Social Security and the prospect of raising the payroll tax, and McCain said everything is on the table. Well, conservatives are aghast, because that very position by Obama is what Republicans base their charge that Obama will raise taxes. What's been the fallout today for McCain with his conservative base? HARWOOD: Well, it's a problem with his conservative base. It might provide some countervailing help with -- for him in the middle of the electorate, some of those independents he's trying to reach out to, because that's truth-telling from John McCain. That's the Straight Talk Express, which people got to know so well about John McCain in 2000, because most people, David, know that if you're really going to solve Social Security, you've got to do something on the spending side, which John McCain has already indicated he is willing to do, and on the tax side. So far Barack Obama has only indicated that he's willing to raise that cap on the payroll tax. He hasn't signaled anything that he's willing to do on the spending side, so it's a risky position for John McCain to take politically, especially with a conservative base, but it's also one of candor. We'll see whether Barack Obama responds with any different tack of his own on that issue. From the July 27 edition of ABC's This Week: STEPHANOPOULOS: Social Security -- you're a longtime supporter of the private accounts, as President Bush called for them. McCAIN: I am a supporter of sitting down together and putting everything on the table and coming up with an answer. So, there is nothing I would take off the table. There was nothing I would demand. I think that's the way that Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill did it. And that's what we have to do again. STEPHANOPOULOS: In the past you said there was essentially -- you told The Wall Street Journal -- McCAIN: No, I have said and will say -- I will say that everything has to be on the table, if we're going to reach a bipartisan agreement. I've been in bipartisan negotiations before. I know how you reach a conclusion. We all have to sit down together with everything on the table. STEPHANOPOULOS: So, that means payroll tax increases are on the table as well? McCAIN: There is nothing that's off the table. I have my positions, and I'll articulate them. But nothing's off the table. I don't want tax increases. Of course I'd like to have young Americans have some of their money put into an account with their name on it. But that doesn't mean that anything is off the table -- STEPHANOPOULOS: With their payroll taxes diverted into accounts -- McCAIN: I say that everything is on the table that has to be on the table, the way Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan did. From the February 17 edition of ABC's This Week: STEPHANOPOULOS: No. 1 issue right now, the economy. McCAIN: Mm-hmm. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Obama went at that on Tuesday night as well. OBAMA [video clip]: I admired Sen. McCain when he stood up and said that it offended his conscience to support the Bush tax cut for the wealthy in the time of war. [edit] But somewhere along the road to the Republican nomination, the Straight Talk Express lost its wheels because now he's is all for those same tax cuts. STEPHANOPOULOS: He says basically you've sacrificed your principles for the sake of the nomination. McCAIN: Well, for a long time I have said that I thought the tax cuts ought to be made permanent. For a long time back, I said, look, we've got to have spending restraint, the way that Reagan did when he restored our economy when it was in the tank, thanks to then-President Carter's mismanagement of the economy, and we entered into a great period of prosperity in America. Spending restraint is why our base is not energized. Spending restraint is why we are having to borrow money from China, and we've got to have spending restraints, in my view. But to impose on the American people what essentially would be a tax increase of thousands of dollars per family in America is not something I think -- well, I'm sure it would be bad for the economy of this country. STEPHANOPOULOS: So on taxes, are you a "read my lips" candidate -- no new taxes, no matter what? McCAIN: No new taxes. I do not -- in fact, I could see an argument, if our economy continues to deteriorate, for lower interest rates, lower tax rates, and certainly decreasing corporate tax rates, which are the second-highest in the world, giving people the ability to write off depreciation in a year, elimination of the AMT [alternative minimum tax]. There's a lot of things that I would think we should to relieve that burden, including, obviously, as we all know, simplification of the tax code. STEPHANOPOULOS: But under no circumstances would you increase taxes? McCAIN: No.
Media Matters - Harwood calls McCain's willingness to consider raising Social Security taxes -- contradicting "no new taxes" pledge -- "candor" and "truth-telling" {...} On MSNBC, John Harwood described Sen. John McCain's apparent willingness to consider raising Social Security taxes -- a reversal from his previously stated position that there would be "no new taxes" in a McCain administration -- as an example of McCain's engaging in "truth-telling" and "candor." Harwood added: "That's the Straight Talk Express, which people got to know so well about John McCain in 2000." {...}
Published: July 30, 2008, 7:36 pm - Indexed: July 31, 2008, 12:33 am - Page Size: 29KB
Category: Society > Issues > Business > Media > Bias and Balance

]]> Society > Issues > Business > Media > Bias and Balance {ISSUES > BIAS AND BALANCE} - Media advance false claim that Obama's reported transition plans are unusual or unprecedented -- but Presidents Bush, Clinton, Reagan, and Carter also planned ahead http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/media-advance-false-claim-that-obama-s-reported-20080775033.htm http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/media-advance-false-claim-that-obama-s-reported-20080775033.htm Sat, 26 Jul 2008 01:24:07 GMT On the July 24 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto, guest host David Asman falsely claimed of Sen. Barack Obama's reported plans for a White House transition months before the November election: "It's never been done before." After Temple University assistant professor Marc Lamont Hill said, "I'm not convinced that it's never been done before," Asman replied: "Well, I can't think of an example, and you can't think of an example. ... That's two out of two people." Similarly, during the July 24 edition of MSNBC Live, host David Shuster said that the Obama campaign "released some confirmation today that they have started to organize a transition team should Obama win. That does seem a little premature, right?" U.S. News & World Report's Kenneth Walsh replied, in part: "[T]his is very early, and it plays into this notion that the Republicans are talking about, about Obama being too arrogant, that he has sort of a sense of inevitability that has set in there." In addition, reports by the San Francisco Chronicle, the Los Angeles Times, and The Boston Globe, like MSNBC Live hosts Alex Witt and Contessa Brewer, uncritically reported attacks by either the McCain campaign or the Republican National Committee criticizing Obama for setting up a transition team before the election. However, as New York University professor of public service Paul C. Light noted in a July 25 column on The Huffington Post, "Obama has plenty of historical precedent to draw upon." Indeed, as Light noted and a Media Matters for America review* confirms, Presidents George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, and Jimmy Carter all planned for a White House transition months before the election. In a July 25 column on The Huffington Post, Light wrote: The question is not why Obama made the decision, but why Sen. John McCain has not. Instead [sic] attacking the Obama campaign for "dancing in the end zone," McCain should have appointed his own planning team long ago. Obama has plenty of historical precedent to draw upon. On the Republican side of the aisle, Ronald Reagan began his 1980 planning effort in early spring under a senior confidant. The planning produced the fastest transition to governing in modern history, which translated directly into Reagan's victories on budget and tax cuts only six months into the term. George W. Bush also began his planning early, which produced a remarkably disciplined transition that laid [sic] set the stage for another round of tax cuts. It is hard to imagine how the transition could have succeeded without it. Given the Florida impasse, it is hard to imagine how the Bush transition could have succeeded without the pre-election planning. On the Democratic side, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton also began their planning early, but waffled when it came time to use the plans. Under intense pressure from their campaign staffs who rightly complained about a lack of consultation, both decided to start planning again [sic] all over again the morning after the election. [...] The decision not to plan for the transition is not just presumptuous on McCain's part, it is irresponsible. The next president faces a huge agenda of national problems that must be addressed as soon as possible. Instead of criticizing Obama for planning, McCain should congratulate him for taking an essential step toward governing. If anyone should have moved first, it should have been McCain. He is the one with the long resume after all. Similarly, Congressional Quarterly blogger and PoliticalWire.com editor Taegan Goddard wrote: "It's standard procedure for all presidential campaigns to begin this process early since there are less than three months between the election in November and the inauguration in January." Indeed, Presidents George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, and Jimmy Carter all began their transition plans well before the November election: President George W. Bush As Media Matters for America documented, in a chapter from The Nerve Center: Lessons in Governing from the White House Chiefs of Staff (Texas A&M University Press, 2004), University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill associate professor Terry Sullivan wrote that in the spring of 1999, then-Gov. George W. Bush asked Clay Johnson, who later became the executive director of the Bush-Cheney transition team, to "develop a plan for what we should do after we win." During the summer of 2000, Bush agreed with Johnson's assertion that it would be "irresponsible not to be doing this" and "approved Clay Johnson's program" for a presidential transition. Sullivan sourced the information to a September 2002 interview with Johnson. From Sullivan's chapter: The former Chiefs of Staff had convened in Washington to invest their substantial and collective reputations in publicly underscoring the respectability of and need for early planning. By their collective appearance, they hoped the country would understand that it no longer could afford presidential candidates, or media, or voters who thought such planning presumptuous. Beginning in the spring of 1999, Governor Bush reorganized his staff, moving his then Chief of Staff Joe Albaugh into the campaign as director and Clay Johnson, III from Appointments Director to Chief of Staff. Governor Bush then charged Johnson to "develop a plan for what we should do after we win." A year later with the primary season behind him and the prospects of the general campaign settling in, Candidate Bush worried about their planning effort finding its way into the campaign coverage. Having thought through this problem for almost a year, Johnson responded by stressing the necessity of the task. "It has to happen," he recalls telling the Governor, "We just have to figure out the best way to spin it. It's irresponsible not to be doing this." Persuaded and committed to his earlier decision, Candidate Bush took Johnson's advice. Thus, the former Chiefs of Staff reached a second of their goals when, only a few days after the [June 2000, Washington] Forum [on the Role of the White House Chief of Staff] and bolstered by Johnson's own argument, the Bush for President senior campaign staff approved Clay Johnson's program, setting out eight goals for their presidential transition still five months in the future, if at all. In a chapter in The White House World: Transitions, Organization, and Office (Texas A&M University Press, 2003) -- reprinted elsewhere -- Johnson similarly wrote: In the spring of 1999, I was Gov. George W. Bush's appointments director, in charge of a small group that helped the governor appoint about four thousand people to different state boards and commissions and full-time positions. When the governor decided to run for president, he asked me to succeed his chief of staff, who was leaving to direct the campaign. He also asked me to develop a plan for setting up his new administration, or as he put it, "develop a plan for what we should do after we win." [...] In the spring of 2000 I also began to visit with the likes of Jim Baker, George Shultz, and Ed Meese, who had been involved in setting up and guiding previous administrations at the highest levels. I thought the most important conclusions from all this input were as follows: *Campaign leaders should not be in charge of the transition. Campaigns are about winning, whereas transitions are about preparing to govern. By necessity, campaign leaders are unlikely to have any time to work on the transition before the election. [...] Based on this review of past efforts, our transition team laid out the following [eight] goals for ourselves to prepare to assume all executive-branch responsibilities by inauguration day. [...] These goals were agreed to by Governor Bush and senior campaign officials around June, 2000, and with running-mate Richard Cheney in August. No one working on the campaign wanted to or really could focus on transition issues, so those discussions were to be brief or discussed over lunch. Echoing his reported assertion that "[i]t's irresponsible not to be doing this," Johnson wrote in a paper for the July/August 2008 edition of Public Administration Review: This is to lay out my personal thoughts and recommendations regarding the upcoming presidential transition of 2008, based on my experience as the executive director of the presidential transition of 2000, the research I did to prepare for that assignment, and the resources I know this next administration will inherit. General. Six months or so before the election, designate someone to, at a minimum, plan the transition and, preferably, prepare to be the executive director or chief operating officer of the transition. Don't worry about jinxing the campaign or being too presumptuous: It is irresponsible for anybody who could be president not to prepare to govern effectively from day one. ... Every candidate must prepare to govern, starting months before the conventions when each officially becomes the candidate. President Bill Clinton In Presidential Transitions: From Politics to Practice (Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2000), University of Vermont professor John P. Burke wrote of the Clinton transition team: Although a host of difficulties would soon crop up, a failure to recognize the need to move early on transition matters was not one of them. Indeed, following what now had became a tradition among presidential candidates, Clinton began to think about his presidency well before election day. Shortly after the July [13-16] 1992 Democratic National Convention, he tapped his campaign chairman, Mickey Kantor, to head up a small transition planning operation. During an October 30, 2000, panel discussion at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), W. Harrison Wellford, who served as White House transition adviser, said: The emphasis on planning early, absolutely critical. No doubt about it. How could you possibly make all those appointments, get ready for a submission of a budget, prepare your inaugural address, get your policy agenda clarified and streamlined and disciplined and not have done anything before the Wednesday after the, the election victory? You can't do it. I mean, 75 days just isn't enough time. So sensible early planning is an absolute must. [...] We had a team that began to meet in Rhode Island, great secrecy, in June of '92. Bob Rubin, Bob White, a group of people that became critical to the Administration later on, met day after day putting together an elaborate critique of the Bush budget and a proposal for a new budget. A lot of work on key appointments, trying to get the domestic policy focused clear, and so forth. Never leaked out. There was never a single word in the press about it, which we were all very, very proud. Only seven of us were doing it. And we thought that we had a really great package of advice to give the new President if he -- well, to give Clinton if he became the new President. President Ronald Reagan Senior Reagan aide Edwin Meese wrote in his book, With Reagan: The Inside Story (Regnery Gateway, 1992), about his early discussions relating to Reagan's transition plans: Late in 1979 an old friend, Pendleton James, had asked me what he could do to help Reagan in the coming presidential election. I told him that he could best use his talents by preparing a plan for the presidential personnel operation -- just in case we won. Pen, a leading professional in the executive search business, had served as a presidential personnel staff member in the Nixon White House and was well qualified to oversee the personnel-picking process that would face a new administration. When I first mentioned this to Pen, he thought I was joking; the following spring, when the subject came up again, he asked if I were serious. I assured him that I was, and he began quietly to plan for a personnel operation from his Los Angeles office. In September of 1980, he moved to a small office in Alexandria, Virginia -- away from the campaign headquarters -- where he assembled a small staff who were not involved in the campaign itself. Most of them had previous experience in other administrations. In two months this group, many of them working part time in the evenings, had compiled the necessary data on some three thousand appointments that would have to be made. They also developed a system for recruiting qualified candidates and handling the thousands of expected recommendations and applications. In a chapter in The In and Outers: Presidential Appointees and the Problems of Transient Government in Washington (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987), George Mason University professor James P. Pfiffner wrote: Ronald Reagan was the second presidential candidate [after Carter] to begin to plan in a significant way for a possible takeover of the government before his nomination by his party. In November 1979, Edwin Meese asked Pendleton James to put together a plan for a personnel operation to prepare for a possible Reagan victory. In April 1980, he was asked to implement the plan, and he began operations near Washington. The leaks that had plagued the early Carter efforts did not occur, and the personnel operation was clearly subordinate to Meese, who was in charge of the transition from beginning to end and who also played a major role in the campaign. An April 3 Congressional Research Service report prepared for Congress stated of the "Carter-Reagan Transition": As early as April 1980, Ronald Reagan began planning for a possible presidential transition when he met with a group of defense and foreign policy advisers before the Republican convention. The advisers were asked to prepare specific policy and budget recommendations for use in the first months of a Reagan Administration to enable him to begin work immediately after the inauguration. Coordinated by William Graham, an engineer with a California defense consulting firm, the experts included former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, former President Ford, former White House chief of staff Alexander Haig, Senators John Tower and Richard Stone, Governor Bill Clements, former Cabinet member Casper Weinberger, and former Ambassador Anne Armstrong. Following the Republican convention in July 1980, nearly 300 advisers were asked by Mr. Reagan to serve on 23 task forces to prepare reports due before Inauguration Day on economic and domestic issues. During an October 30, 2000, panel discussion at AEI, former senior Reagan aide Richard V. Allen said: So Dave Brady asked us eight basic questions. And while we will eventually get around to responding in one way or another to all eight of those questions. The first question, obviously, is the most important, what are the major obstacles to a successful transition? And I think you can reduce it all to one principle obstacle, and that is time as has been mentioned here. Jack has mentioned it and Marty has mentioned it too. And in the grand sphere of the ideological tradition of the People's Republic of China which has, I think today the campaign of the three requires, I'm going to speak today about the two musts, the ten do's and the one don't. Of course, the first one is again, obvious, prepare early. I can remember a conversation with pre-candidate Ronald Reagan in 1979 on an airplane ride from Houston to Los Angeles after a fundraiser discussing -- he was writing his announcement speech and discussing personnel. At that point he already reminded me in that discussion that we had a team leader and that was Ed Meese who by November 1979 had long since started the process of the preparations of transition and deployed our former colleagues in the Nixon Administration and his friend Pen James to be looking into personnel aspects while the policy aspects were under development. So I think that from that standpoint that was probably the earliest practical application of the principle of being prepared that I know of. In Presidential Transitions, Burke wrote: Over the summer of 1980, the Reagan campaign was successful (unlike Carter four years earlier) in obtaining a favorable ruling from the Federal Elections Commission allowing it to raise private funds for the transition, as long as its operations were kept separate from the campaign. In September, the Presidential Transition Trust was formed and housed in the former headquarters of the Bush campaign in Alexandria, Virginia. President Jimmy Carter Jack Watson, former chief of staff to President Jimmy Carter, participated in a May 31, 2000, Heritage Foundation discussion about "Achieving a Successful Transition." A Heritage report based on that event stated that "Carter's transition process effectively began on May 11 of the election year [1976]": Jimmy Carter's transition process effectively began on May 11 of the election year, when senior campaign aide Jack Watson wrote a memo to Carter recommending that he establish a small, confidential group: It was a memorandum that basically said, "Mr. President, unlike so many of the Presidents who have come into the White House, certainly in this century, you have had no federal government experience, save that in the United States Navy. You don't have a Washington network. You are the governor" -- or former governor at that time -- "of a southern state. You've not been a national figure before you entered the presidential primaries in New Hampshire and Iowa caucuses. I think it would be a good idea quietly to pull together, separate from the campaign, a small group of people who would begin in the lowest-profile way possible, quietest most controlled way possible, to start gathering certain information and facts, putting that information and those facts, those recommendations together so that when and if you are elected President in November, you can commence the transition with something of a head start." Watson followed up with other memos outlining his thoughts. As soon as Carter received the nomination on June 10 [Carter officially accepted the nomination on July 15, 1976, at the Democratic National Convention], he instructed Watson to go ahead with his plan. By the time of the presidential election, Watson had a group working 14-hour days, seven days a week, essentially developing a checklist for Carter in the event he should win. Watson's final pre-election memo, sent to Carter on November 3, contained specific steps for the transition. In a September 2000 paper, Brookings Institution senior fellow emeritus Stephen Hess wrote: "During the summer [of 1976] Carter created a small transition office in Atlanta, headed by Jack Watson, that compiled 'a working list' of about 75 prospective candidates for high-level positions." From the July 24 edition of MSNBC Live: SHUSTER: Yeah, in fact, regarding this statement the McCain campaign issued, where it says, "John McCain has dedicated his life to serving, improving, and protecting America, Barack Obama spent an afternoon talking about it." It does seem that this gets -- this rubs right up against the idea that Americans don't necessarily like to look back at somebody's previous experience. For example with Bob Dole, they want to look forward. Is that a problem for John McCain? Julie? JULIE MASON (Houston Chronicle White House correspondent): Yeah, it sure is. I mean, Obama's talking about change, he's talking about dynamic change, and -- and McCain's sort of resting on the laurels of the past. That's not really the right message. But I think he had a good point about the victory lap. I mean, I think that's really going to resonate with people. SHUSTER: And if I can, the Obama campaign put out a note, or at least some confirmation today that in fact they have started to organize a transition team should Obama win. That does seem a little bit premature, right? WALSH: Yeah. Well, I mean, you know, historians and political scientists like this sort of thing -- that - they -- they don't like how sort of slipshod some transition processes are. But this is very early, and it plays into this notion that the Republicans are talking about, about Obama being too arrogant, that he -- sort of a sense of inevitability has set in there. And Americans don't like the idea that, you think, that -- that -- that a candidate thinks that he's got the thing won without really pushing at it and trying really hard, and so I think that that's a danger. Putting out this transition statement, I think, was not a smart thing to do. SHUSTER: Ken Walsh, chief White House correspondent for U.S. News and World Report; Julie Mason, White House correspondent for the Houston Chronicle. Again, thank you both. From the July 24 edition of Your World with Neil Cavuto: ASMAN: The McCain campaign criticizing Barack Obama today for a report he's already planning his presidential transition, issuing this statement. Quote, this is McCain speaking now: "Before they've even crossed the 50-yard line, the Obama campaign is already dancing in the end zone with a new White House transition team. The American people are more concerned with Barack Obama's poor judgment and readiness to lead than his inaugural ball." Now, if Obama is planning his transition right now, could this be seen as an arrogant move? Obama supporter Marc Lamont Hill is with us now. Marc, great to see you. Thanks for joining us. HILL: Always a pleasure. ASMAN: So let me put up a picture of one of my favorite newspapers, by the way, The New York Sun. Yesterday in the cover of The New York Sun, there was a picture of Barack Obama with a couple of other senators on his Mideast trip. And you see the other senators holding their -- their coats sort of awkwardly in their hand, but there is Obama with a coat behind his -- his back, his hand in his pocket. This is clearly the most comfortable presidential candidate I have ever seen. This guy is so comfortable in that role, but when does it become a swagger and something that turns voters off? HILL: Well, I think there are moments where you can overstep your bounds, to be sure. I think the moment where they had the presidential seal with his name on top of it. ASMAN: That would be one of those moments, yes, absolutely. HILL: That's over -- that's over -- that's over the top. But I don't think this is over the top. I think that planning your transition is a very smart thing to do. And if you listen to the Obama campaign, what they've said is, not only are we doing this but we encourage Senator McCain to do the exact same thing. ASMAN: Yeah, I know, you can say that, but how many other presidential candidates have actually done that this early in the campaign? HILL: Well, when you run based on change, you can make the argument that just because we haven't done it before, doesn't mean we shouldn't do it now. ASMAN: OK, but Mark, you -- you answered -- within that answer, you've answered my question. It's never been done before. Why now? HILL: No, I'm not -- I'm not. Dave, I'm not convinced that it's never been done before. I think because there's such a media -- there's been so much media attention based on -- ASMAN: Well, I can't think of an example and you can't think of an example. HILL: Well, well, I mean -- ASMAN: That's two out of two people. HILL: Well, no, no, but my point is I don't think this information always leaks. I think part of the point here is because there's an expectation that he is presumptuous and arrogant, it becomes more of a media story. Many candidates, in fact, I -- I would -- I would argue, do begin to think about transitions just like many people before they win a primary begin thinking about their running mate. It could be seen as presumptuous, but everybody does it. ASMAN: People think about it, but again, it's -- it's attitude. Again, part of the problem with Obama is experience. He doesn't have the experience a lot of people are worried about that and -- and background, but the experience issue is not helped if -- if he is seen to be swaggering. HILL: But it's -- but it's a tightrope. Because, you know, people say why is he going around the world giving speeches in Germany rather than being here with the American people. ASMAN: Well, he wanted to do it at the Brandenburg Gate, which only presidents do, for goodness's sakes! HILL: No, no, but -- but the very same people say that he doesn't have the foreign policy experience and that foreign leaders won't respect him. So -- ASMAN: Yeah, but speaking at the Brandenburg Gate is not going to give you foreign policy experience. HILL: No it's not. ASMAN: It gives him a fat head. HILL: I -- I would agree that's more of a photo op than it is a -- a legitimate campaign move. Again, I was critical of that move just like I was about the seal. But the decision to make a transition team, I disagree. ASMAN: OK. HILL: I think that is absolutely significant. I think -- I encourage John McCain ASMAN: Mark Lamont Hill. ASMAN: -- to do the same thing and he's not going to win. ASMAN: Always a pleasure to see you, Marc, thanks very much. America's Election Headquarters, now. * Media Matters did not examine the transition plans of George H.W. Bush, because, unlike the other presidents examined, he came from the outgoing administration. Mediamatters.Org Media advance false claim that Obama's reported transition plans are unusual or unprecedented -- but Presidents Bush, Clinton, Reagan, and Carter also planned ahead {new window}   Mediamatters.Org - On the July 24 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto, guest host David Asman falsely claimed of Sen. Barack Obama's reported plans for a White House transition months before the November election: "It's never been done before." After Temple University assistant professor Marc Lamont Hill said, "I'm not convinced that it's never been done before," Asman replied: "Well, I can't think of an example, and you can't think of an example. ... That's two out of two people." Similarly, during the July 24 edition of MSNBC Live, host David Shuster said that the Obama campaign "released some confirmation today that they have started to organize a transition team should Obama win. That does seem a little premature, right?" U.S. News & World Report's Kenneth Walsh replied, in part: "[T]his is very early, and it plays into this notion that the Republicans are talking about, about Obama being too arrogant, that he has sort of a sense of inevitability that has set in there." In addition, reports by the San Francisco Chronicle, the Los Angeles Times, and The Boston Globe, like MSNBC Live hosts Alex Witt and Contessa Brewer, uncritically reported attacks by either the McCain campaign or the Republican National Committee criticizing Obama for setting up a transition team before the election. However, as New York University professor of public service Paul C. Light noted in a July 25 column on The Huffington Post, "Obama has plenty of historical precedent to draw upon." Indeed, as Light noted and a Media Matters for America review* confirms, Presidents George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, and Jimmy Carter all planned for a White House transition months before the election. In a July 25 column on The Huffington Post, Light wrote: The question is not why Obama made the decision, but why Sen. John McCain has not. Instead [sic] attacking the Obama campaign for "dancing in the end zone," McCain should have appointed his own planning team long ago. Obama has plenty of historical precedent to draw upon. On the Republican side of the aisle, Ronald Reagan began his 1980 planning effort in early spring under a senior confidant. The planning produced the fastest transition to governing in modern history, which translated directly into Reagan's victories on budget and tax cuts only six months into the term. George W. Bush also began his planning early, which produced a remarkably disciplined transition that laid [sic] set the stage for another round of tax cuts. It is hard to imagine how the transition could have succeeded without it. Given the Florida impasse, it is hard to imagine how the Bush transition could have succeeded without the pre-election planning. On the Democratic side, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton also began their planning early, but waffled when it came time to use the plans. Under intense pressure from their campaign staffs who rightly complained about a lack of consultation, both decided to start planning again [sic] all over again the morning after the election. [...] The decision not to plan for the transition is not just presumptuous on McCain's part, it is irresponsible. The next president faces a huge agenda of national problems that must be addressed as soon as possible. Instead of criticizing Obama for planning, McCain should congratulate him for taking an essential step toward governing. If anyone should have moved first, it should have been McCain. He is the one with the long resume after all. Similarly, Congressional Quarterly blogger and PoliticalWire.com editor Taegan Goddard wrote: "It's standard procedure for all presidential campaigns to begin this process early since there are less than three months between the election in November and the inauguration in January." Indeed, Presidents George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, and Jimmy Carter all began their transition plans well before the November election: President George W. Bush As Media Matters for America documented, in a chapter from The Nerve Center: Lessons in Governing from the White House Chiefs of Staff (Texas A&M University Press, 2004), University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill associate professor Terry Sullivan wrote that in the spring of 1999, then-Gov. George W. Bush asked Clay Johnson, who later became the executive director of the Bush-Cheney transition team, to "develop a plan for what we should do after we win." During the summer of 2000, Bush agreed with Johnson's assertion that it would be "irresponsible not to be doing this" and "approved Clay Johnson's program" for a presidential transition. Sullivan sourced the information to a September 2002 interview with Johnson. From Sullivan's chapter: The former Chiefs of Staff had convened in Washington to invest their substantial and collective reputations in publicly underscoring the respectability of and need for early planning. By their collective appearance, they hoped the country would understand that it no longer could afford presidential candidates, or media, or voters who thought such planning presumptuous. Beginning in the spring of 1999, Governor Bush reorganized his staff, moving his then Chief of Staff Joe Albaugh into the campaign as director and Clay Johnson, III from Appointments Director to Chief of Staff. Governor Bush then charged Johnson to "develop a plan for what we should do after we win." A year later with the primary season behind him and the prospects of the general campaign settling in, Candidate Bush worried about their planning effort finding its way into the campaign coverage. Having thought through this problem for almost a year, Johnson responded by stressing the necessity of the task. "It has to happen," he recalls telling the Governor, "We just have to figure out the best way to spin it. It's irresponsible not to be doing this." Persuaded and committed to his earlier decision, Candidate Bush took Johnson's advice. Thus, the former Chiefs of Staff reached a second of their goals when, only a few days after the [June 2000, Washington] Forum [on the Role of the White House Chief of Staff] and bolstered by Johnson's own argument, the Bush for President senior campaign staff approved Clay Johnson's program, setting out eight goals for their presidential transition still five months in the future, if at all. In a chapter in The White House World: Transitions, Organization, and Office (Texas A&M University Press, 2003) -- reprinted elsewhere -- Johnson similarly wrote: In the spring of 1999, I was Gov. George W. Bush's appointments director, in charge of a small group that helped the governor appoint about four thousand people to different state boards and commissions and full-time positions. When the governor decided to run for president, he asked me to succeed his chief of staff, who was leaving to direct the campaign. He also asked me to develop a plan for setting up his new administration, or as he put it, "develop a plan for what we should do after we win." [...] In the spring of 2000 I also began to visit with the likes of Jim Baker, George Shultz, and Ed Meese, who had been involved in setting up and guiding previous administrations at the highest levels. I thought the most important conclusions from all this input were as follows: *Campaign leaders should not be in charge of the transition. Campaigns are about winning, whereas transitions are about preparing to govern. By necessity, campaign leaders are unlikely to have any time to work on the transition before the election. [...] Based on this review of past efforts, our transition team laid out the following [eight] goals for ourselves to prepare to assume all executive-branch responsibilities by inauguration day. [...] These goals were agreed to by Governor Bush and senior campaign officials around June, 2000, and with running-mate Richard Cheney in August. No one working on the campaign wanted to or really could focus on transition issues, so those discussions were to be brief or discussed over lunch. Echoing his reported assertion that "[i]t's irresponsible not to be doing this," Johnson wrote in a paper for the July/August 2008 edition of Public Administration Review: This is to lay out my personal thoughts and recommendations regarding the upcoming presidential transition of 2008, based on my experience as the executive director of the presidential transition of 2000, the research I did to prepare for that assignment, and the resources I know this next administration will inherit. General. Six months or so before the election, designate someone to, at a minimum, plan the transition and, preferably, prepare to be the executive director or chief operating officer of the transition. Don't worry about jinxing the campaign or being too presumptuous: It is irresponsible for anybody who could be president not to prepare to govern effectively from day one. ... Every candidate must prepare to govern, starting months before the conventions when each officially becomes the candidate. President Bill Clinton In Presidential Transitions: From Politics to Practice (Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2000), University of Vermont professor John P. Burke wrote of the Clinton transition team: Although a host of difficulties would soon crop up, a failure to recognize the need to move early on transition matters was not one of them. Indeed, following what now had became a tradition among presidential candidates, Clinton began to think about his presidency well before election day. Shortly after the July [13-16] 1992 Democratic National Convention, he tapped his campaign chairman, Mickey Kantor, to head up a small transition planning operation. During an October 30, 2000, panel discussion at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), W. Harrison Wellford, who served as White House transition adviser, said: The emphasis on planning early, absolutely critical. No doubt about it. How could you possibly make all those appointments, get ready for a submission of a budget, prepare your inaugural address, get your policy agenda clarified and streamlined and disciplined and not have done anything before the Wednesday after the, the election victory? You can't do it. I mean, 75 days just isn't enough time. So sensible early planning is an absolute must. [...] We had a team that began to meet in Rhode Island, great secrecy, in June of '92. Bob Rubin, Bob White, a group of people that became critical to the Administration later on, met day after day putting together an elaborate critique of the Bush budget and a proposal for a new budget. A lot of work on key appointments, trying to get the domestic policy focused clear, and so forth. Never leaked out. There was never a single word in the press about it, which we were all very, very proud. Only seven of us were doing it. And we thought that we had a really great package of advice to give the new President if he -- well, to give Clinton if he became the new President. President Ronald Reagan Senior Reagan aide Edwin Meese wrote in his book, With Reagan: The Inside Story (Regnery Gateway, 1992), about his early discussions relating to Reagan's transition plans: Late in 1979 an old friend, Pendleton James, had asked me what he could do to help Reagan in the coming presidential election. I told him that he could best use his talents by preparing a plan for the presidential personnel operation -- just in case we won. Pen, a leading professional in the executive search business, had served as a presidential personnel staff member in the Nixon White House and was well qualified to oversee the personnel-picking process that would face a new administration. When I first mentioned this to Pen, he thought I was joking; the following spring, when the subject came up again, he asked if I were serious. I assured him that I was, and he began quietly to plan for a personnel operation from his Los Angeles office. In September of 1980, he moved to a small office in Alexandria, Virginia -- away from the campaign headquarters -- where he assembled a small staff who were not involved in the campaign itself. Most of them had previous experience in other administrations. In two months this group, many of them working part time in the evenings, had compiled the necessary data on some three thousand appointments that would have to be made. They also developed a system for recruiting qualified candidates and handling the thousands of expected recommendations and applications. In a chapter in The In and Outers: Presidential Appointees and the Problems of Transient Government in Washington (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987), George Mason University professor James P. Pfiffner wrote: Ronald Reagan was the second presidential candidate [after Carter] to begin to plan in a significant way for a possible takeover of the government before his nomination by his party. In November 1979, Edwin Meese asked Pendleton James to put together a plan for a personnel operation to prepare for a possible Reagan victory. In April 1980, he was asked to implement the plan, and he began operations near Washington. The leaks that had plagued the early Carter efforts did not occur, and the personnel operation was clearly subordinate to Meese, who was in charge of the transition from beginning to end and who also played a major role in the campaign. An April 3 Congressional Research Service report prepared for Congress stated of the "Carter-Reagan Transition": As early as April 1980, Ronald Reagan began planning for a possible presidential transition when he met with a group of defense and foreign policy advisers before the Republican convention. The advisers were asked to prepare specific policy and budget recommendations for use in the first months of a Reagan Administration to enable him to begin work immediately after the inauguration. Coordinated by William Graham, an engineer with a California defense consulting firm, the experts included former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, former President Ford, former White House chief of staff Alexander Haig, Senators John Tower and Richard Stone, Governor Bill Clements, former Cabinet member Casper Weinberger, and former Ambassador Anne Armstrong. Following the Republican convention in July 1980, nearly 300 advisers were asked by Mr. Reagan to serve on 23 task forces to prepare reports due before Inauguration Day on economic and domestic issues. During an October 30, 2000, panel discussion at AEI, former senior Reagan aide Richard V. Allen said: So Dave Brady asked us eight basic questions. And while we will eventually get around to responding in one way or another to all eight of those questions. The first question, obviously, is the most important, what are the major obstacles to a successful transition? And I think you can reduce it all to one principle obstacle, and that is time as has been mentioned here. Jack has mentioned it and Marty has mentioned it too. And in the grand sphere of the ideological tradition of the People's Republic of China which has, I think today the campaign of the three requires, I'm going to speak today about the two musts, the ten do's and the one don't. Of course, the first one is again, obvious, prepare early. I can remember a conversation with pre-candidate Ronald Reagan in 1979 on an airplane ride from Houston to Los Angeles after a fundraiser discussing -- he was writing his announcement speech and discussing personnel. At that point he already reminded me in that discussion that we had a team leader and that was Ed Meese who by November 1979 had long since started the process of the preparations of transition and deployed our former colleagues in the Nixon Administration and his friend Pen James to be looking into personnel aspects while the policy aspects were under development. So I think that from that standpoint that was probably the earliest practical application of the principle of being prepared that I know of. In Presidential Transitions, Burke wrote: Over the summer of 1980, the Reagan campaign was successful (unlike Carter four years earlier) in obtaining a favorable ruling from the Federal Elections Commission allowing it to raise private funds for the transition, as long as its operations were kept separate from the campaign. In September, the Presidential Transition Trust was formed and housed in the former headquarters of the Bush campaign in Alexandria, Virginia. President Jimmy Carter Jack Watson, former chief of staff to President Jimmy Carter, participated in a May 31, 2000, Heritage Foundation discussion about "Achieving a Successful Transition." A Heritage report based on that event stated that "Carter's transition process effectively began on May 11 of the election year [1976]": Jimmy Carter's transition process effectively began on May 11 of the election year, when senior campaign aide Jack Watson wrote a memo to Carter recommending that he establish a small, confidential group: It was a memorandum that basically said, "Mr. President, unlike so many of the Presidents who have come into the White House, certainly in this century, you have had no federal government experience, save that in the United States Navy. You don't have a Washington network. You are the governor" -- or former governor at that time -- "of a southern state. You've not been a national figure before you entered the presidential primaries in New Hampshire and Iowa caucuses. I think it would be a good idea quietly to pull together, separate from the campaign, a small group of people who would begin in the lowest-profile way possible, quietest most controlled way possible, to start gathering certain information and facts, putting that information and those facts, those recommendations together so that when and if you are elected President in November, you can commence the transition with something of a head start." Watson followed up with other memos outlining his thoughts. As soon as Carter received the nomination on June 10 [Carter officially accepted the nomination on July 15, 1976, at the Democratic National Convention], he instructed Watson to go ahead with his plan. By the time of the presidential election, Watson had a group working 14-hour days, seven days a week, essentially developing a checklist for Carter in the event he should win. Watson's final pre-election memo, sent to Carter on November 3, contained specific steps for the transition. In a September 2000 paper, Brookings Institution senior fellow emeritus Stephen Hess wrote: "During the summer [of 1976] Carter created a small transition office in Atlanta, headed by Jack Watson, that compiled 'a working list' of about 75 prospective candidates for high-level positions." From the July 24 edition of MSNBC Live: SHUSTER: Yeah, in fact, regarding this statement the McCain campaign issued, where it says, "John McCain has dedicated his life to serving, improving, and protecting America, Barack Obama spent an afternoon talking about it." It does seem that this gets -- this rubs right up against the idea that Americans don't necessarily like to look back at somebody's previous experience. For example with Bob Dole, they want to look forward. Is that a problem for John McCain? Julie? JULIE MASON (Houston Chronicle White House correspondent): Yeah, it sure is. I mean, Obama's talking about change, he's talking about dynamic change, and -- and McCain's sort of resting on the laurels of the past. That's not really the right message. But I think he had a good point about the victory lap. I mean, I think that's really going to resonate with people. SHUSTER: And if I can, the Obama campaign put out a note, or at least some confirmation today that in fact they have started to organize a transition team should Obama win. That does seem a little bit premature, right? WALSH: Yeah. Well, I mean, you know, historians and political scientists like this sort of thing -- that - they -- they don't like how sort of slipshod some transition processes are. But this is very early, and it plays into this notion that the Republicans are talking about, about Obama being too arrogant, that he -- sort of a sense of inevitability has set in there. And Americans don't like the idea that, you think, that -- that -- that a candidate thinks that he's got the thing won without really pushing at it and trying really hard, and so I think that that's a danger. Putting out this transition statement, I think, was not a smart thing to do. SHUSTER: Ken Walsh, chief White House correspondent for U.S. News and World Report; Julie Mason, White House correspondent for the Houston Chronicle. Again, thank you both. From the July 24 edition of Your World with Neil Cavuto: ASMAN: The McCain campaign criticizing Barack Obama today for a report he's already planning his presidential transition, issuing this statement. Quote, this is McCain speaking now: "Before they've even crossed the 50-yard line, the Obama campaign is already dancing in the end zone with a new White House transition team. The American people are more concerned with Barack Obama's poor judgment and readiness to lead than his inaugural ball." Now, if Obama is planning his transition right now, could this be seen as an arrogant move? Obama supporter Marc Lamont Hill is with us now. Marc, great to see you. Thanks for joining us. HILL: Always a pleasure. ASMAN: So let me put up a picture of one of my favorite newspapers, by the way, The New York Sun. Yesterday in the cover of The New York Sun, there was a picture of Barack Obama with a couple of other senators on his Mideast trip. And you see the other senators holding their -- their coats sort of awkwardly in their hand, but there is Obama with a coat behind his -- his back, his hand in his pocket. This is clearly the most comfortable presidential candidate I have ever seen. This guy is so comfortable in that role, but when does it become a swagger and something that turns voters off? HILL: Well, I think there are moments where you can overstep your bounds, to be sure. I think the moment where they had the presidential seal with his name on top of it. ASMAN: That would be one of those moments, yes, absolutely. HILL: That's over -- that's over -- that's over the top. But I don't think this is over the top. I think that planning your transition is a very smart thing to do. And if you listen to the Obama campaign, what they've said is, not only are we doing this but we encourage Senator McCain to do the exact same thing. ASMAN: Yeah, I know, you can say that, but how many other presidential candidates have actually done that this early in the campaign? HILL: Well, when you run based on change, you can make the argument that just because we haven't done it before, doesn't mean we shouldn't do it now. ASMAN: OK, but Mark, you -- you answered -- within that answer, you've answered my question. It's never been done before. Why now? HILL: No, I'm not -- I'm not. Dave, I'm not convinced that it's never been done before. I think because there's such a media -- there's been so much media attention based on -- ASMAN: Well, I can't think of an example and you can't think of an example. HILL: Well, well, I mean -- ASMAN: That's two out of two people. HILL: Well, no, no, but my point is I don't think this information always leaks. I think part of the point here is because there's an expectation that he is presumptuous and arrogant, it becomes more of a media story. Many candidates, in fact, I -- I would -- I would argue, do begin to think about transitions just like many people before they win a primary begin thinking about their running mate. It could be seen as presumptuous, but everybody does it. ASMAN: People think about it, but again, it's -- it's attitude. Again, part of the problem with Obama is experience. He doesn't have the experience a lot of people are worried about that and -- and background, but the experience issue is not helped if -- if he is seen to be swaggering. HILL: But it's -- but it's a tightrope. Because, you know, people say why is he going around the world giving speeches in Germany rather than being here with the American people. ASMAN: Well, he wanted to do it at the Brandenburg Gate, which only presidents do, for goodness's sakes! HILL: No, no, but -- but the very same people say that he doesn't have the foreign policy experience and that foreign leaders won't respect him. So -- ASMAN: Yeah, but speaking at the Brandenburg Gate is not going to give you foreign policy experience. HILL: No it's not. ASMAN: It gives him a fat head. HILL: I -- I would agree that's more of a photo op than it is a -- a legitimate campaign move. Again, I was critical of that move just like I was about the seal. But the decision to make a transition team, I disagree. ASMAN: OK. HILL: I think that is absolutely significant. I think -- I encourage John McCain ASMAN: Mark Lamont Hill. ASMAN: -- to do the same thing and he's not going to win. ASMAN: Always a pleasure to see you, Marc, thanks very much. America's Election Headquarters, now. * Media Matters did not examine the transition plans of George H.W. Bush, because, unlike the other presidents examined, he came from the outgoing administration.
Media Matters - Media advance false claim that Obama's reported transition plans are unusual or unprecedented -- but Presidents Bush, Clinton, Reagan, and Carter also planned ahead {...} On Fox News, David Asman falsely claimed of Sen. Barack Obama's reported plans for a White House transition months before the November election: "It's never been done before." Similarly, on MSNBC Live , U.S. News & World Report's Kenneth Walsh asserted that Obama is preparing for taking office "very early, and it plays into this notion that the Republicans are talking about, about Obama being too arrogant, that he has sort of a sense of inevitability that has set in there." However, a Media Matters review confirms that Presidents George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, and Jimmy Carter all planned for a White House transition months before the election. {...}
Published: July 26, 2008, 1:24 am - Indexed: July 26, 2008, 1:02 pm - Page Size: 49KB
Category: Society > Issues > Business > Media > Bias and Balance

]]> Society > Issues > Business > Media > Bias and Balance {SCIENCE > NEWS} - Free site lets you build your own social network http://articles.world-of-newave.info/science/news/free-site-lets-you-build-your-own-social-network-20080731427.htm http://articles.world-of-newave.info/science/news/free-site-lets-you-build-your-own-social-network-20080731427.htm Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:29:56 GMT Of late, Michael Rubin?s life has been transformed by a website that lets anyone create their own online social network within minutes free of charge. The site, called Ning, allows the mild-mannered family man from Santa Cruz, Calif., to inhabit more personas than a superhero as he dashes heroically between several of his social networks. Mr. [...] Features.Csmonitor.Com Free site lets you build your own social network {new window}   Features.Csmonitor.Com - Of late, Michael Rubin?s life has been transformed by a website that lets anyone create their own online social network within minutes free of charge. The site, called Ning, allows the mild-mannered family man from Santa Cruz, Calif., to inhabit more personas than a superhero as he dashes heroically between several of his social networks. Mr. [...]
Free site lets you build your own social network | csmonitor.com {...} Feel constricted by Facebook or MySpace? Ning may be your next thing. {...}
Published: July 24, 2008, 6:29 pm - Indexed: July 28, 2008, 10:15 am - Page Size: 41KB
Category: Science > News

]]> Science > News {LITERATURE > CYBERPUNK} - HOWTO make 36-hour perfect cookies in 3 hours http://articles.world-of-newave.info/arts/literature/genres/cyberpunk/howto-make-36-hour-perfect-cookies-in-3-hours-20080759315.htm http://articles.world-of-newave.info/arts/literature/genres/cyberpunk/howto-make-36-hour-perfect-cookies-in-3-hours-20080759315.htm Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:59:31 GMT Inflamed by the New York Times's article on perfect chocolate cookies (in which it is revealed that the two secrets are: one, a little salt prior to baking; two, aging the dough for 36 hours in the fridge), the Ideas in Food blog tried (successfully) to shortcut the process by vacuum-sealing the dough: From the Times story by David Leite: At 12 hours, the dough had become drier and the baked cookies had a pleasant, if not slightly pale, complexion. The 24-hour mark is where things started getting interesting. The cookies browned more evenly and looked like handsomer, more tanned older brothers of the younger batch. The biggest difference, though, was flavor. The second batch was richer, with more bass notes of caramel and hints of toffee. Going the full distance seemed to have the greatest impact. At 36 hours, the dough was significantly drier than the 12-hour batch; it crumbled a bit when poked but held together well when shaped. These cookies baked up the most evenly and were a deeper shade of brown than their predecessors. Surprisingly, they had an even richer, more sophisticated taste, with stronger toffee hints and a definite brown sugar presence. At an informal tasting, made up of a panel of self-described chipper fanatics, these mature cookies won, hands down. The second insight Mr. Rubin offered had to do with size. His cookies are six-inch affairs because he believes that their larger size allows for three distinct textures. ?First there?s the crunchy outside inch or so,? he said. A nibble revealed a crackle to the bite and a distinct flavor of butter and caramel. ?Then there?s the center, which is soft.? A bull?s-eye the size of a half-dollar yielded easily. Now, Ideas in Food: What I can tell you is that the dough darkened and became fully saturated, similar to the way that the dough usually looks after a couple of days in the refrigerator. It also changed the texture of the dough, making it a bit more elastic to the touch. The just made dough was too soft to shape and needed to chill, so I left in the fridge for about three hours before baking. The resulting cookies were pretty damn good. They had a slightly cakey texture in the center with chewy yet crisp edges and rich buttery, caramel flavors. It was impossible to eat just one and I was thankful that I had not baked off the entire batch. Link (via MeFi)... Boingboing.Net HOWTO make 36-hour perfect cookies in 3 hours {new window}   Www.Boingboing.Net - Inflamed by the New York Times's article on perfect chocolate cookies (in which it is revealed that the two secrets are: one, a little salt prior to baking; two, aging the dough for 36 hours in the fridge), the Ideas in Food blog tried (successfully) to shortcut the process by vacuum-sealing the dough: From the Times story by David Leite: At 12 hours, the dough had become drier and the baked cookies had a pleasant, if not slightly pale, complexion. The 24-hour mark is where things started getting interesting. The cookies browned more evenly and looked like handsomer, more tanned older brothers of the younger batch. The biggest difference, though, was flavor. The second batch was richer, with more bass notes of caramel and hints of toffee. Going the full distance seemed to have the greatest impact. At 36 hours, the dough was significantly drier than the 12-hour batch; it crumbled a bit when poked but held together well when shaped. These cookies baked up the most evenly and were a deeper shade of brown than their predecessors. Surprisingly, they had an even richer, more sophisticated taste, with stronger toffee hints and a definite brown sugar presence. At an informal tasting, made up of a panel of self-described chipper fanatics, these mature cookies won, hands down. The second insight Mr. Rubin offered had to do with size. His cookies are six-inch affairs because he believes that their larger size allows for three distinct textures. ?First there?s the crunchy outside inch or so,? he said. A nibble revealed a crackle to the bite and a distinct flavor of butter and caramel. ?Then there?s the center, which is soft.? A bull?s-eye the size of a half-dollar yielded easily. Now, Ideas in Food: What I can tell you is that the dough darkened and became fully saturated, similar to the way that the dough usually looks after a couple of days in the refrigerator. It also changed the texture of the dough, making it a bit more elastic to the touch. The just made dough was too soft to shape and needed to chill, so I left in the fridge for about three hours before baking. The resulting cookies were pretty damn good. They had a slightly cakey texture in the center with chewy yet crisp edges and rich buttery, caramel flavors. It was impossible to eat just one and I was thankful that I had not baked off the entire batch. Link (via MeFi)...
HOWTO make 36-hour perfect cookies in 3 hours - Boing Boing {...}
Published: July 16, 2008, 2:59 pm - Indexed: July 17, 2008, 5:22 pm - Page Size: 53KB
Category: Arts > Literature > Genres > Cyberpunk

]]> Arts > Literature > Genres > Cyberpunk {INTERNET > GOOGLE} - Wrapup: Google Developer Days and Google I/O http://articles.world-of-newave.info/computers/internet/searching/search-engines/google/wrapup-google-developer-days-and-google-i-o-2008079774.htm http://articles.world-of-newave.info/computers/internet/searching/search-engines/google/wrapup-google-developer-days-and-google-i-o-2008079774.htm Fri, 04 Jul 2008 18:34:46 GMT Posted by Elizabeth Yin & Min Li Chan, Google Developer ProgramsMay and June were exciting months for our developer team. Not only is it the start of summer in the Bay Area, but also the start of Google I/O and Google Developer Days around the world. Many of the team dispersed to various parts of the globe to meet with developers. Here's a quick recap of where we've been, and where we're heading.San Francisco, May 28-29We started the summer with Google I/O. This two-day conference was our biggest developer gathering to date. While we'd love for every single software developer to come to these events, we realize that isn't possible. So we've recorded as many of the sessions as we could and made them available online. We've posted videos and presentations more than 70 sessions for you to view.Yokohama, June 10Shortly after Google I/O, we kicked off our 2008 Google Developer Days. The first stop was Yokohama, Japan. Andy Rubin and Takuya Oikawa started the day before 1100 developers, highlighting the Android user interface, the Earth API's 3D graphics, and announcing Japan's new Google Developer API Expert program. Videos and sessions are now available.Beijing, June 12Two days later, Marissa Mayer and Kai-Fu Lee opened Developer Day in Beijing for more than 2,000 developers, highlighting the effort between Google and local developer communities to collectively make the web better as a platform. Notably, we welcomed several new Chinese networks to the OpenSocial community, including 51.com, 51wan.com, Douban.com, Hainei.com, Tianji.com, Xiaonei.com, and YiQi.com. These networks join a few others that have already launched in China, including MySpace.cn and Tianya.cn, as well as CityIN.com, which has shipped a sandbox for developers. Beijing videos and sessions are here.Taipei, June 14Next on the schedule was Taipei's first Google Developer Day, with 900 developers. In the developer showcase, we invited three developers to demonstrate web applications they'd built using Google APIs: Wei-chih Chiang, a student of Yi Shou University and his Photo Note site, Jun-Chieh Huang, founder of ischool, a website that integrates Google services for elementary and high schools in Taiwan, and FunP, a social website integrating OpenSocial features. Here are the Taipei videos and sessions.Sydney, June 18Rounding out the Asia-Pacific Developer Days was an intimate group of 450 developers in Sydney right by scenic Darling Harbor. In addition to folks from Google, we were excited to have Daniel Reyes, Head of Engineering from MySpace AU, stop by to share his team's work with Gears. Also of note were six local developers who showcased their app at our speedgeeking contest: contest winners Casey and Dan Russell of CleanCruising, Nick Lothian of Scootle, Ken Hoetmer of Quikmaps, Tom Horn of the Patrick O'Brien Mapping Project, Tak Tran with the Collaborative Autobiography site, and Tim Savage with the SEQ Brisbane Water Levels gadget.Mexico City, June 23 John Farrell and Alfonso Luna opened our first Developer Day in Mexico City. 500 enthusiastic developers joined us from all over Central and South America, with a crowd of them gathering as early as 6am, well ahead of the 9am start time. Check out sessions.Sao Paulo, June 27Alexandre Hohagen and Paulo Golgher welcomed 750 developers to Developer Day in Sao Paulo, the largest event in Google Brazil's history. The crowd was especially excited to hear Eduardo Thuler's announcement of orkut's upcoming support of OpenSocial in Brazil.Our Developer Days don't stop there, though. After a summer break, look for the team to hit the road again, including a new date in Bangalore. September 16 - London, England September 18 - Paris, France September 23 - Munich, Germany September 25 - Madrid, Spain October 11 - Bangalore, India October 21 - Milan, Italy October 24 - Prague, Czech Republic October 28 - Moscow, Russia Stay tuned for registration details for these Developer Days. Googleblog.Blogspot.Com Wrapup: Google Developer Days and Google I/O {new window}   Googleblog.Blogspot.Com - Posted by Elizabeth Yin & Min Li Chan, Google Developer ProgramsMay and June were exciting months for our developer team. Not only is it the start of summer in the Bay Area, but also the start of Google I/O and Google Developer Days around the world. Many of the team dispersed to various parts of the globe to meet with developers. Here's a quick recap of where we've been, and where we're heading.San Francisco, May 28-29We started the summer with Google I/O. This two-day conference was our biggest developer gathering to date. While we'd love for every single software developer to come to these events, we realize that isn't possible. So we've recorded as many of the sessions as we could and made them available online. We've posted videos and presentations more than 70 sessions for you to view.Yokohama, June 10Shortly after Google I/O, we kicked off our 2008 Google Developer Days. The first stop was Yokohama, Japan. Andy Rubin and Takuya Oikawa started the day before 1100 developers, highlighting the Android user interface, the Earth API's 3D graphics, and announcing Japan's new Google Developer API Expert program. Videos and sessions are now available.Beijing, June 12Two days later, Marissa Mayer and Kai-Fu Lee opened Developer Day in Beijing for more than 2,000 developers, highlighting the effort between Google and local developer communities to collectively make the web better as a platform. Notably, we welcomed several new Chinese networks to the OpenSocial community, including 51.com, 51wan.com, Douban.com, Hainei.com, Tianji.com, Xiaonei.com, and YiQi.com. These networks join a few others that have already launched in China, including MySpace.cn and Tianya.cn, as well as CityIN.com, which has shipped a sandbox for developers. Beijing videos and sessions are here.Taipei, June 14Next on the schedule was Taipei's first Google Developer Day, with 900 developers. In the developer showcase, we invited three developers to demonstrate web applications they'd built using Google APIs: Wei-chih Chiang, a student of Yi Shou University and his Photo Note site, Jun-Chieh Huang, founder of ischool, a website that integrates Google services for elementary and high schools in Taiwan, and FunP, a social website integrating OpenSocial features. Here are the Taipei videos and sessions.Sydney, June 18Rounding out the Asia-Pacific Developer Days was an intimate group of 450 developers in Sydney right by scenic Darling Harbor. In addition to folks from Google, we were excited to have Daniel Reyes, Head of Engineering from MySpace AU, stop by to share his team's work with Gears. Also of note were six local developers who showcased their app at our speedgeeking contest: contest winners Casey and Dan Russell of CleanCruising, Nick Lothian of Scootle, Ken Hoetmer of Quikmaps, Tom Horn of the Patrick O'Brien Mapping Project, Tak Tran with the Collaborative Autobiography site, and Tim Savage with the SEQ Brisbane Water Levels gadget.Mexico City, June 23 John Farrell and Alfonso Luna opened our first Developer Day in Mexico City. 500 enthusiastic developers joined us from all over Central and South America, with a crowd of them gathering as early as 6am, well ahead of the 9am start time. Check out sessions.Sao Paulo, June 27Alexandre Hohagen and Paulo Golgher welcomed 750 developers to Developer Day in Sao Paulo, the largest event in Google Brazil's history. The crowd was especially excited to hear Eduardo Thuler's announcement of orkut's upcoming support of OpenSocial in Brazil.Our Developer Days don't stop there, though. After a summer break, look for the team to hit the road again, including a new date in Bangalore. September 16 - London, England September 18 - Paris, France September 23 - Munich, Germany September 25 - Madrid, Spain October 11 - Bangalore, India October 21 - Milan, Italy October 24 - Prague, Czech Republic October 28 - Moscow, Russia Stay tuned for registration details for these Developer Days.
Official Google Blog: Wrapup: Google Developer Days and Google I/O {...}
Indexed: July 4, 2008, 6:34 pm - Page Size: 80KB
Category: Computers > Internet > Searching > Search Engines > Google

]]> Computers > Internet > Searching > Search Engines > Google {ISSUES > BIAS AND BALANCE} - Wallace let Pawlenty falsely assert Obama has "changed his views" on whether Iranian Revolutionary Guard should be designated a terrorist group http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/wallace-let