Libertarian Party Says Obama 'Sold Out' Liberty on FISA Compromise

The Libertarian Party condemned Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama for recently stating he does not oppose the Bush administration's program of illegally spying on U.S. citizens. "Obama has sold out liberty in his refusal to stand up to Republicans on FISA," says Libertarian Party spokesperson Andrew Davis.

"We have come to expect Republicans to hold a contempt for basic protections of civil liberties," says Davis. "To see this same type of reckless disregard for the Constitution from Democrats--especially their presidential nominee--is extremely unfortunate. Democrats were given a chance to stand up to Republicans after the 2006 election, but they have failed to do so time and time again ever since. Obama's refusal to state a clear opposition to the President's illegal program of domestic surveillance is just one more example of how both Republicans and Democrats have failed the American people."

In an interview last week with ABC News' Senior National Correspondent Jack Tapper, Obama stated, "I haven't opposed, for example, the national security surveillance program, the NSA program," adding that he believed the program could be done without violating the Constitution.

"Perhaps it is in Obama's nature as a big-government liberal to trust the government with unchecked power," Davis adds, "but supporting a proposal to give the government blanket permission to spy on American citizens should give voters an idea of how much Obama respects the Constitution and privacy rights."

The Libertarian Party has called repeatedly to reject any amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that empowers the government to spy on U.S. citizens, which includes the most recent "compromise" by Republicans and Democrats. Additionally, Libertarian Party candidate for president Bob Barr recently issued a video that blasted supporters of the recent FISA amendments.

McCain: "U.S. Shouldn't Put Vital Ties With Canada At Risk Over NAFTA"

"U.S. Sen. Barack Obama does not understand this. He has called NAFTA 'devastating' and 'a big mistake,' characterizations that are out of touch with the reality of NAFTA in Michigan. What truly would be devastating is to jeopardize the trade expansion of NAFTA through a misguided, isolationist impulse that would inevitably and understandably alienate a key partner like Canada." -- John McCain

U.S. Shouldn't Put Vital Ties With Canada At Risk Over NAFTA
By Sen. John McCain
Detroit Free Press
June 20, 2008

As one end of the bridge that connects America to our neighbors to the north, Detroit knows well that a close U.S.-Canada relationship is vitally and increasingly important.

In Michigan alone, 221,000 jobs are supported by trade with Canada. NAFTA countries comprise by far the largest export market for Michigan manufacturers. Last year, Michigan businesses sent more than $23 billion of exports to Canada, more than 20 times the total of their exports to China.

At a time when Michigan's auto industry faces serious pressure, $11 billion of vehicles and parts were exported to Canada. The task for the next president will be to build on these ties in order to make North America more secure, more prosperous, and more open to opportunity for all our citizens.

The North American Free Trade Agreement has provided our economy with a framework in which we can become more competitive. We will never achieve our goals by simply demanding the unilateral reopening of the treaty or threatening to unilaterally abrogate it. Such a move would be the height of economic and foreign policy irresponsibility.

What is needed is the cooperative work of partners to reduce the burden of complying with NAFTA's rules of origin and to reduce border delays so they do not become impediments to trade or the equivalent of a tariff. Perhaps most of all, those who would lead our countries must work to ensure that the benefits of NAFTA are understood throughout our countries, and not jeopardized through "cowboy diplomacy."

U.S. Sen. Barack Obama does not understand this. He has called NAFTA "devastating" and "a big mistake," characterizations that are out of touch with the reality of NAFTA in Michigan. What truly would be devastating is to jeopardize the trade expansion of NAFTA through a misguided, isolationist impulse that would inevitably and understandably alienate a key partner like Canada.

Our economic ties are not all that so closely binds Canada and the United States. Whether it comes to the protection of our national security, the future of our environment, or the flows of our energy, we rely on the cooperative relations Canada and the United States have forged. We import more of our oil and more of our natural gas from Canada than any other country.

As governments, we have made real progress in keeping our borders closed to terrorists and open to trade. In extending our security partnership with Canada, we can ensure continued flows of people and commerce while maintaining security on which these very flows depend.

In countless areas of international security, from Afghanistan to Haiti to proliferation, our common interests require common action. Sen. Obama's take-it-or-leave-it approach to dealing with America's friends would not rebuild the alliance relationships we need.

On my watch, America will listen to the views of our democratic allies. When we believe action is necessary, whether military, economic or diplomatic, we will try to persuade our friends that we are right. But we, in return, must be willing to be persuaded by them.

Canada and the United States have a shared destiny. We are both continental powers, nations shaped by our diverse heritage and our frontier experience. We are also both Arctic nations. And because of this common geography, we must be acutely aware of the perils posed by global warming and take immediate steps to reverse its effects.

I was among the first in Congress to introduce legislation to curb greenhouse gasses. We must also work to ensure reliable energy supplies and increase sources of renewable energy. Canada is America's largest energy supplier and not one that we need fear will pose a threat to our energy security.

As you read this, I'm scheduled to be visiting Ottawa to demonstrate how much we value our relationship and the economic and security benefits it brings -- for Michigan and all of America. Allies and partners like Canada cannot be taken for granted. If I am elected president, they will not be.

Read John McCain's Op-Ed

McCain - Rep. Eric Cantor On Fox News' "Just In"

"So really, what we are hearing, as you suggest, is that Barack Obama says that Osama Bin Laden should not be subjected to death in the death penalty." -- Rep. Eric Cantor

Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA)
Fox News' "Just In"
June 19, 2008

Laura Ingraham: "Of course Congressman, there [Barack Obama] is talking about Osama Bin Laden and bringing him to justice. We do not want to make him a martyr. Does that mean that if Osama Bin Laden was convicted in an American court, he could not get the death penalty? I'm confused."

Rep. Cantor: "Well, that would sure seem to me the way to interpret that comment as well. I mean look Laura, first of all, let's call it how it is Barack Obama needs to stop trying to apologize for America to the rest of the world. There is no reason that we should have to do that, and the fact is that most Americans understand what the motivations were behind Osama Bin Laden and the 9/11 attacks. John McCain has said it once, he's said it again, if he becomes president, he will make sure that Osama Bin Laden is either executed in the courtroom or killed on the battlefield, period. Here we have Barack Obama trying to apologize, trying to say that we ought not make him a martyr. Frankly, I believe the definition of a martyr is someone who dies for his cause or is killed for his cause. So really, what we are hearing, as you suggest, is that Barack Obama says that Osama Bin Laden should not be subjected to death in the dea th penalty. That is not where most Americans are, and obviously it demonstrates again the world view that Barack Obama would approach the awesome task of being commander in chief, not something that the American people would really approve of."

Watch Rep. Eric Cantor.

McCain - Editorials Raise Questions About Barack Obama's Iraq Position

"Listen closely to Sen. Barack Obama's talk on Iraq and one thing becomes clear very quickly: it makes absolutely no sense." -- New Hampshire Union Leader

"Sen. Barack Obama told Iraq's foreign minister this week that he plans to visit the country between now and the presidential election. We think that's a good thing, not because Sen. John McCain has been prodding the candidate to do it but because it will give Mr. Obama an opportunity to refresh his badly outdated plan for Iraq." -- The Washington Post

A Plan For Defeat: Obama's Iraq Doublespeak
Editorial
New Hampshire Union Leader
June 18, 2008

Listen closely to Sen. Barack Obama's talk on Iraq and one thing becomes clear very quickly: it makes absolutely no sense.

Here is Sen. Obama speaking in Michigan yesterday, explaining what he told Iraq's foreign minister: " ... an Obama administration will make sure that we continue with the progress that's been made in Iraq ... that we won't act precipitously, but that we will move to end U.S. combat forces in Iraq."

What progress in Iraq? That would be the progress made under Gen. David Petraeus' "surge" strategy, which Sen. Obama opposed. Back when Obama was criticizing the surge and calling for rapid withdrawal from Iraq (aka, surrender), Sen. John McCain was pushing for more troops and a plan for victory. Now that the policy Obama opposed has turned the tables, decimated al-Qaida in Iraq and made victory possible, Obama says he wants to "continue the progress."

But how? Gen. Petraeus says further troop reductions must come only after certain gains on the ground are made. Obama says exactly the opposite: withdrawals will come, gains or no.

Obama's initial plan was to withdraw within 16 months of his inauguration. But something funny happened on the way to the surrender. The surge worked. Now he is paying lip service to our success by claiming that he wants to continue it. The problem is, he cannot do both.

The United States cannot hold both of Obama's goals simultaneously because they are opposed to each other. One is based on improved conditions on the ground, the other ignores those conditions entirely. The only way to achieve both is through pure luck. Without that, the very troops working to accomplish one goal will be withdrawn to meet the other.

The United States cannot base its defense policy on crossed fingers. (That's what got us into this mess, remember?) It must have a comprehensive plan to win the war, not two competing plans, one to win and one to lose, operating at the same time.

Read The Union Leader Editorial

Mr. Zebari's Message
Iraq's foreign minister has a chat with Barack Obama.
Editorial
Washington Post
June 18, 2008

Sen. Barack Obama told Iraq's foreign minister this week that he plans to visit the country between now and the presidential election. We think that's a good thing, not because Sen. John McCain has been prodding the candidate to do it but because it will give Mr. Obama an opportunity to refresh his badly outdated plan for Iraq. To do that, the Democrat needs to listen more to dedicated Iraqi leaders like Hoshyar Zebari, the foreign minister -- who, it seems, didn't hold back during their telephone conversation.

Mr. Obama laid out his current strategy for Iraq in November 2006, shortly before announcing his candidacy for president. At the time, Iraq appeared to be on the verge of a sectarian civilian war, and Mr. Obama was trying to distinguish himself in the Democratic primary race by offering a timetable for withdrawal. Nineteen months later, the situation in Iraq has changed dramatically, with violence down 75 percent from its peak and the Iraqi government and army in control of most of the country. But Mr. Obama has not altered his position: He still proposes withdrawing most U.S. troops according to a fixed timetable, set to the most rapid pace at which commanders have said American forces could be pulled out.

Mr. Zebari, who has served as foreign minister in every Iraqi government since 2003, finds Mr. Obama's proposal worrying. In a meeting with Post editors and reporters Tuesday, he said that after all the pain and sacrifices of the past five years, "we are just turning the corner in Iraq." A precipitous withdrawal, he said, "would create a huge vacuum and undo all the gains and achievements. And the others" -- enemies of the United States -- "would celebrate."

Mr. Zebari said he told Mr. Obama that "Iraq is not an island." In other words, an American withdrawal that destabilized the country would also roil the region around it and embolden U.S. adversaries such as al-Qaeda and Iran. "We have a deadly enemy," Mr. Zebari said. "When he sees that you commit yourself to a certain timetable, he will use this to increase pressure and attacks, to make it look as though he is forcing you out. We have many actors who would love to take advantage of that opportunity." Mr. Zebari says he believes U.S. forces can and should be drawn down. His point is that reductions should be made gradually, as the Iraqi army becomes stronger.

The foreign minister said "my message" to Mr. Obama "was very clear ... Really, we are making progress. I hope any actions you will take will not endanger this progress." He said he was reassured by the candidate's response, which caused him to think that Mr. Obama might not differ all that much from Mr. McCain. Mr. Zebari said that in addition to promising a visit, Mr. Obama said that "if there would be a Democratic administration, it will not take any irresponsible, reckless, sudden decisions or action to endanger your gains, your achievements, your stability or security. Whatever decision he will reach will be made through close consultation with the Iraqi government and U.S. military commanders in the field." Certainly, it makes sense to consult with those who, like Mr. Zebari, have put their lives on the line for an Iraq that would be a democratic U.S. ally. Mr. Obama ought to listen carefully to what they are saying.

Read The Washington Post Editorial.

Obama to Host Economic Discussion with Democratic Governors on Friday

This Friday, June 20, Senator Barack Obama will host an economic discussion with Democratic governors in Chicago. At the meeting, Senator Obama and the governors will discuss working together to reverse the effect of eight years of the Bush economy on state budgets and looking beyond conventional Washington thinking to develop innovative solutions to the economic challenges the American people are facing every day.

McCain - Senator McConnell On Barack Obama's "Gradual Adjustment" To Higher Gas Prices

"Their presidential nominee even admits it. He says the high price of gas isn't the problem. The problem, he says, is that prices went up too quickly." -- Senator Mitch McConnell

Senator Mitch McConnell
Washington, D.C.
June 12, 2008

Senator Mitch McConnell: "Their presidential nominee even admits it. He says the high price of gas isn't the problem. The problem, he says, is that prices went up too quickly. If he had his way, he would have raised prices but much more slowly. He would have preferred that gas prices go up much more slowly than the $1 increase we've seen under this new Democratic Congress over the past year. He would have preferred they go up more slowly than the astonishing $1.73 increase per gallon of gasoline we've seen in just the 17 months since Democrats took over Congress in January 2007. As the Democratic nominee put it in an interview earlier this week, he would have preferred a gradual adjustment in gas prices, presumably so Americans wouldn't notice the shock of it all.


"We used to think $4-a-gallon gasoline was simply unthinkable. Our friends on the other side were apparently thinking about it all along. I think I would have preferred a gradual readjustment, said the Democratic nominee."

Watch Senator McConnell.

Watch Barack Obama's "Gradual Adjustment" Comment.

McCain - Barack Obama Says He Voted With President Bush "For The Most Part"

"And the truth of the matter is that the only bills that I voted for, for the most part, since I've been in the Senate were introduced by Republicans with George Bush." -- Barack Obama

Barack Obama
KMOV [St. Louis, MO] Interview
June 10, 2008

Reporter: "For a couple of days, they've been saying you voted to raise taxes something like 94 times. That seems to be the drumbeat that's going to happen during this campaign. Are you going to raise taxes in a big way for average Americans?"

Senator Obama: "I mean this is the standard fare of politics. And the truth of the matter is that the only bills that I voted for, for the most part, since I've been in the Senate were introduced by Republicans with George Bush. You know, they were the majority for a big chunk of the time I was there."

Watch Barack Obama's KMOV Interview

Obama Statement on Trade Deficit Increase

Senator Obama released the following statement today in response to the news of the trade deficit increase.

Today we learned that the trade deficit jumped to its highest level in 13 months. This is not an accident. This is yet another sign of the failed economic policies of the Bush administration that John McCain seeks to extend – policies that reflect unprecedented fiscal irresponsibility and borrowing from abroad. Rather than get America’s fiscal house in order, Senator McCain is proposing $300 billion more in tax breaks and loopholes for big corporations and the wealthiest Americans, and he hasn’t explained how he’d pay for them. Just this week, John McCain reaffirmed his commitment to special interest-driven economic policies that will widen the trade deficit, but won’t help American automakers secure fair treatment in South Korea, and won’t ensure that China stops devaluing its currency and tilting the playing field against American workers. As President, Barack Obama will stand up for fiscal responsibility by restoring fairness to our economy, investing in a renewable energy future, and adopting a trade policy that serves the interests not just of multinational corporations but of America’s hardworking families.

Barr Calls for Debates with McCain, Obama: Include Libertarian Party, Nominee Demands

John McCain has proposed ten weekly town hall forums before the Democratic and Republican conventions convene. Barack Obama says he looks forward to several debates during the campaign. “The apparent willingness of both presidential contenders to break the mold and engage in an extended dialogue with the American people is a welcome change from the past,” observes Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate for president.

The principal problem in past presidential campaigns, however, was too few voices, not too few debates. Despite all of the shouting and campaign hoopla, “on most major issues the differences between the Republican and Democratic candidates pale compared to their similarities,” says Barr. Both favor a huge Leviathan state centered in Washington, prepared to regulate most every aspect of life across America and to intervene in most every foreign squabble overseas. “It is time for the American people to see a clash of ideas as well as of candidates,” Barr insists.

Rock-the-Debates has called for “free, open and inclusive debates” that include all candidates with a mathematical chance of being elected. Barr says he would be pleased to begin at New York’s Federal Hall next week, as Sen. McCain suggested, or at a later time, if preferred by Sen. Obama. “The critical issue is not place or format, but a willingness to engage in a rich, wide-ranging, and informative discussion that includes the American people.”

Our nation faces critical challenges in the years ahead. We can no longer accept “the tyranny of the status quo,” says Barr. The American people deserve to know that they have a real choice come November. “Let the debates begin!

"Obama's Evolving Position On Talking To Iran"

"But now Obama has put a major condition on his willingness to meet with Iran: he will meet only if such a meeting advances the interests of the U.S. That is not much different from the Bush Administration's position on negotiations with Iran." -- ABC News

Obama's Evolving Position On Talking To Iran
By Jonathan Karl
ABC News
June 4, 2008

Sen. Barack Obama's position on talking to Iran has been evolving since last year's CNN/Youtube debate, when he said he would be willing to meet "without precondition" with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea during the first year of his administration.

During a speech before a pro-Israel group on Wednesday, however, Obama, D-Ill., who clinched the delegates necessary to claim the Democratic nomination on Tuesday, presented an entirely different position:

"Contrary to the claims to some, I have no interest in sitting down with our adversaries just for the sake of talking. But as president of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leaders at a time and place of my choosing if and only if it can advance the interest of the United States. That is my position. I want to be absolutely clear."

Compare that with what Obama said during the CNN/Youtube debate:

QUESTION: Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?

OBAMA: "I would. And the reason is this: the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous. Ronald Reagan constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when he called them an evil empire. He understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward. And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them."

But now Obama has put a major condition on his willingness to meet with Iran: he will meet only if such a meeting advances the interests of the U.S.

That is not much different from the Bush Administration's position on negotiations with Iran.

Secretary Rice has said repeatedly that she would meet with Iran if it agreed to suspend its enrichment program. As she says often, "The question is not why won't the U.S meet with Iran. The question is why won't Iran meet with the U.S."

Read The ABC News Article

Obama Statement on GM Plant Closings

Senator Barack Obama today released the following statement regarding the GM plant closings.

"My heart goes out to the workers and families affected by the closing of these GM plants, including the Janesville plant that I visited a few months ago. Today's news is a painful reminder not only of the challenges America faces in our global economy, but of George Bush’s failed economic policies. For eight long years, we’ve had an energy policy that funds both sides in the war on terror without promoting fuel efficiency or helping make our auto companies more competitive. That’s part of the reason thousands of more Americans in Wisconsin and Ohio will no longer be able to count on a paycheck at a time when they’re already being pinched by rising costs. Unlike John McCain, I’m not in this race to extend the failed Bush economic policies; I’m in this race to end them.

I’ve proposed investing $150 billion over ten years in green energy and creating up to five million new green jobs. We’ll finally provide domestic automakers with the funding they need to retool their factories and make fuel-efficient and alternative fuel cars. And we’ll invest in efforts to make sure that the cars of the future are made where they always have been -- in the United States. Because the fight for American manufacturing is the fight for America’s future – and I believe that’s a fight this country will win."

Barack Obama Vs. The Washington Post

"Still, the rapidly improving conditions should allow U.S. commanders to make some welcome adjustments -- and it ought to mandate an already-overdue rethinking by the 'this-war-is-lost' caucus in Washington, including Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.)." -- The Washington Post

Today, not even a full day after Barack Obama accused discussion of the Surge's success in Iraq as being "spin", The Washington Post editorializes about "The Iraqi Upturn" which flies in the face of Obama's accusations:

Yesterday, Barack Obama Said "We Don't Need Any More Spin About How The Surge Is Succeeding" But "To Recognize Where We Are In Iraq":

Barack Obama: "We don't need more spin about the surge that was supposed to get the Iraqis to step up. We don't need any more spin about how the surge is succeeding in doing what it was supposed to do which was to get the Iraqis to stand up and take responsibility for their own future so we could start bringing our troops home. We don't need more tough talk from George Bush or John McCain, because the Taliban's still fighting in Afghanistan. The terrorists who hit us on 9/11 are still at large. We don't need more leaders who just see what they want to see in Iraq -- it's time to recognize where we are in Iraq." (Barack Obama, Remarks, Rapid City, SD, 5/31/08)

Watch Barack Obama: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5thPwpddUg

Today, The Washington Post In "The Iraqi Upturn" Writes About Where We Are In Iraq:

The Iraqi Upturn
Don't look now, but the U.S.-backed government and army may be winning the war.
Editorial
The Washington Post
June 1, 2008

There's been a relative lull in news coverage and debate about Iraq in recent weeks -- which is odd, because May could turn out to have been one of the most important months of the war. While Washington's attention has been fixed elsewhere, military analysts have watched with astonishment as the Iraqi government and army have gained control for the first time of the port city of Basra and the sprawling Baghdad neighborhood of Sadr City, routing the Shiite militias that have ruled them for years and sending key militants scurrying to Iran. At the same time, Iraqi and U.S. forces have pushed forward with a long-promised offensive in Mosul, the last urban refuge of al-Qaeda. So many of its leaders have now been captured or killed that U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, renowned for his cautious assessments, said that the terrorists have "never been closer to defeat than they are now."

Iraq passed a turning point last fall when the U.S. counterinsurgency campaign launched in early 2007 produced a dramatic drop in violence and quelled the incipient sectarian war between Sunnis and Shiites. Now, another tipping point may be near, one that sees the Iraqi government and army restoring order in almost all of the country, dispersing both rival militias and the Iranian-trained "special groups" that have used them as cover to wage war against Americans. It is -- of course -- too early to celebrate; though now in disarray, the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr could still regroup, and Iran will almost certainly seek to stir up new violence before the U.S. and Iraqi elections this fall. Still, the rapidly improving conditions should allow U.S. commanders to make some welcome adjustments -- and it ought to mandate an already-overdue rethinking by the "this-war-is-lost" caucus in Washington, including Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

Gen. David H. Petraeus signaled one adjustment in recent testimony to Congress, saying that he would probably recommend troop reductions in the fall going beyond the ongoing pullback of the five "surge" brigades deployed last year. Gen. Petraeus pointed out that attacks in Iraq hit a four-year low in mid-May and that Iraqi forces were finally taking the lead in combat and on multiple fronts at once -- something that was inconceivable a year ago. As a result the Iraqi government of Nouri al-Maliki now has "unparalleled" public support, as Gen. Petraeus put it, and U.S. casualties are dropping sharply. Eighteen American soldiers died in May, the lowest total of the war and an 86 percent drop from the 126 who died in May 2007.

If the positive trends continue, proponents of withdrawing most U.S. troops, such as Mr. Obama, might be able to responsibly carry out further pullouts next year. Still, the likely Democratic nominee needs a plan for Iraq based on sustaining an improving situation, rather than abandoning a failed enterprise. That will mean tying withdrawals to the evolution of the Iraqi army and government, rather than an arbitrary timetable; Iraq's 2009 elections will be crucial. It also should mean providing enough troops and air power to continue backing up Iraqi army operations such as those in Basra and Sadr City. When Mr. Obama floated his strategy for Iraq last year, the United States appeared doomed to defeat. Now he needs a plan for success.

Read The Washington Post Editorial

Michelle Obama To Get Out The Vote In Billings And Kalispell Monday

On the heels of Senator Barack Obama’s visit to Montana, Michelle Obama will make her first visit to Big Sky Country on Monday, June 2nd, rallying supporters and volunteers at a Get Out the Vote Canvass Kickoff in Billings and a Get Out the Vote Phonebank in Kalispell.

The Billings event is free and open to the public, however tickets are required. Tickets are available on a first-come, first-served basis to anyone who signs up for a Get-Out-the-Vote shift before Election Day – committing to knock on at least 50 doors or make 100 phone calls. Volunteers will have the option of doing their door-to-door canvassing immediately following the event with Michelle Obama. Door-to-door canvass packets will be provided and the campaign will conduct a brief canvass training before canvassers depart to go door-to-door.

The phonebank in Kalispell begins at 3:45 PM. Michelle Obama will arrive after the phonebank is already underway. The event is free and open to any volunteer who brings their cell phone and participates in the phonebank, but space is limited and an RSVP to phonebank is required. Individuals without cell phones or who would rather go door-to-door will have that option as well.

Volunteers can RSVP to phonebank by visiting the Obama Campaign headquarters in Kalispell, located at 20 Four Mile Drive, or call the office at 406-257-5203.

Obama Calls on Iowans to “Stand for Change” on January 3rd

Ten months after kicking off his campaign for President at the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Illinois, Barack Obama today delivered a speech in Des Moines, Iowa where he called on Iowans to “Stand for Change” by caucusing for him on January 3rd. He laid out his case for why he is the one candidate who will bring change we can believe in as President and finally change the broken, divisive politics of Washington, D.C.

In his remarks, Obama discussed the toll that the same old Washington politics has taken on the Iowans he’s met, his more than two decades of bringing about change when it wasn’t easy or convenient, and how he’s the best candidate to win in November by building a coalition for change and progress that stretches through Blue States and Red States.

After successfully building a grassroots movement for change over the last ten months that has defied conventional Washington thinking, Obama called on Iowans to embrace the legacy of hope that has been a guiding force behind some of the country’s greatest moments and stand for change with him in seven days.

As Prepared for Delivery:
Remarks of Senator Barack Obama
Our Moment Is Now
Thursday, December 27th, 2007
Des Moines, Iowa

Ten months ago, I stood on the steps of the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Illinois, and began an unlikely journey to change America.

I did not run for the presidency to fulfill some long-held ambition or because I believed it was somehow owed to me. I chose to run in this election – at this moment – because of what Dr. King called “the fierce urgency of now.” Because we are at a defining moment in our history. Our nation is at war. Our planet is in peril. Our health care system is broken, our economy is out of balance, our education system fails too many of our children, and our retirement system is in tatters.

At this defining moment, we cannot wait any longer for universal health care. We cannot wait to fix our schools. We cannot wait for good jobs, and living wages, and pensions we can count on. We cannot wait to halt global warming, and we cannot wait to end this war in Iraq.

I chose to run because I believed that the size of these challenges had outgrown the capacity of our broken and divided politics to solve them; because I believed that Americans of every political stripe were hungry for a new kind of politics, a politics that focused not just on how to win but why we should, a politics that focused on those values and ideals that we held in common as Americans; a politics that favored common sense over ideology, straight talk over spin.

Most of all, I believed in the power of the American people to be the real agents of change in this country – because we are not as divided as our politics suggests; because we are a decent, generous people willing to work hard and sacrifice for future generations; and I was certain that if we could just mobilize our voices to challenge the special interests that dominate Washington and challenge ourselves to reach for something better, there was no problem we couldn’t solve – no destiny we couldn’t fulfill.

Ten months later, Iowa, you have vindicated that faith. You’ve come out in the blistering heat and the bitter cold not just to cheer, but to challenge – to ask the tough questions; to lift the hood and kick the tires; to serve as one place in America where someone who hasn’t spent their life in the Washington spotlight can get a fair hearing.

You’ve earned the role you play in our democracy because no one takes it more seriously. And I believe that’s true this year more than ever because, like me, you feel that same sense of urgency.

All across this state, you’ve shared with me your stories. And all too often they’ve been stories of struggle and hardship.

I’ve heard from seniors who were betrayed by CEOs who dumped their pensions while pocketing bonuses, and from those who still can’t afford their prescriptions because Congress refused to negotiate with the drug companies for the cheapest available price.

I’ve met Maytag workers who labored all their lives only to see their jobs shipped overseas; who now compete with their teenagers for $7-an-hour jobs at Wal-Mart.

I’ve spoken with teachers who are working at donut shops after school just to make ends meet; who are still digging into their own pockets to pay for school supplies.

Just two weeks ago, I heard a young woman in Cedar Rapids who told me she only gets three hours of sleep because she works the night shift after a full day of college and still can’t afford health care for a sister with cerebral palsy. She spoke not with self-pity but with determination, and wonders why the government isn’t doing more to help her afford the education that will allow her to live out her dreams.

I’ve spoken to veterans who talk with pride about what they’ve accomplished in Afghanistan and Iraq, but who nevertheless think of those they’ve left behind and question the wisdom of our mission in Iraq; the mothers weeping in my arms over the memories of their sons; the disabled or homeless vets who wonder why their service has been forgotten.

And I’ve spoken to Americans in every corner of the state, patriots all, who wonder why we have allowed our standing in the world to decline so badly, so quickly. They know this has not made us safer. They know that we must never negotiate out of fear, but that we must never fear to negotiate with our enemies as well as our friends. They are ashamed of Abu Graib and Guantanamo and warrantless wiretaps and ambiguity on torture. They love their country and want its cherished values and ideals restored.

It is precisely because you’ve experience these frustrations, and seen the cost of inaction in your own lives, that you understand why we can’t afford to settle for the same old politics. You know that we can’t afford to allow the insurance lobbyists to kill health care reform one more time, and the oil lobbyists to keep us addicted to fossil fuels because no one stood up and took their power away when they had the chance.

You know that we can’t afford four more years of the same divisive food fight in Washington that’s about scoring political points instead of solving problems; that’s about tearing your opponents down instead of lifting this country up.

We can’t afford the same politics of fear that tells Democrats that the only way to look tough on national security is to talk, act, and vote like George Bush Republicans; that invokes 9/11 as a way to scare up votes instead of a challenge that should unite all Americans to defeat our real enemies.

We can’t afford to be so worried about losing the next election that we lose the battles we owe to the next generation.

The real gamble in this election is playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expecting a different result. And that’s a risk we can’t take. Not this year. Not when the stakes are this high.

In this election, it is time to turn the page. In seven days, it is time to stand for change.

This has been our message since the beginning of this campaign. It was our message when we were down, and our message when we were up. And it must be catching on, because in these last few weeks, everyone is talking about change.

But you can’t at once argue that you’re the master of a broken system in Washington and offer yourself as the person to change it. You can’t fall in line behind the conventional thinking on issues as profound as war and offer yourself as the leader who is best prepared to chart a new and better course for America.

The truth is, you can have the right kind of experience and the wrong kind of experience. Mine is rooted in the real lives of real people and it will bring real results if we have the courage to change. I believe deeply in those words. But they are not mine. They were Bill Clinton’s in 1992, when Washington insiders questioned his readiness to lead.

My experience is rooted in the lives of the men and women on the South Side of Chicago who I fought for as an organizer when the local steel plant closed. It’s rooted in the lives of the people I stood up for as a civil rights lawyer when they were denied opportunity on the job or justice at the voting booth because of what they looked like or where they came from. It’s rooted in an understanding of how the world sees America that I gained from living, traveling, and having family beyond our shores – an understanding that led me to oppose this war in Iraq from the start. It’s experience rooted in the real lives of real people, and it’s the kind of experience Washington needs right now.

There are others in this race who say that this kind of change sounds good, but that I’m not angry or confrontational enough to get it done.

Well, let me tell you something, Iowa. I don’t need any lectures on how to bring about change, because I haven’t just talked about it on the campaign trail. I’ve fought for change all my life.

I walked away from a job on Wall Street to bring job training to the jobless and after school programs to kids on the streets of Chicago.

I turned down the big money law firms to win justice for the powerless as a civil rights lawyer.

I took on the lobbyists in Illinois and brought Democrats and Republicans together to expand health care to 150,000 people and pass the first major campaign finance reform in twenty-five years; and I did the same thing in Washington when we passed the toughest lobbying reform since Watergate. I’m the only candidate in this race who hasn’t just talked about taking power away from lobbyists, I’ve actually done it. So if you want to know what kind of choices we’ll make as President, you should take a look at the choices we made when we had the chance to bring about change that wasn’t easy or convenient.

That’s the kind of change that’s more than just rhetoric – that’s change you can believe in.

It’s change that won’t just come from more anger at Washington or turning up the heat on Republicans. There’s no shortage of anger and bluster and bitter partisanship out there. We don’t need more heat. We need more light. I’ve learned in my life that you can stand firm in your principles while still reaching out to those who might not always agree with you. And although the Republican operatives in Washington might not be interested in hearing what we have to say, I think Republican and independent voters outside of Washington are. That’s the once-in-a-generation opportunity we have in this election.

For the first time in a long time, we have the chance to build a new majority of not just Democrats, but Independents and Republicans who’ve lost faith in their Washington leaders but want to believe again – who desperately want something new.

We can change the electoral math that’s been all about division and make it about addition – about building a coalition for change and progress that stretches through Blue States and Red States. That’s how I won some of the reddest, most Republican counties in Illinois. That’s why the polls show that I do best against the Republicans running for President – because we’re attracting more support from Independents and Republicans than any other candidate. That’s how we’ll win in November and that’s how we’ll change this country over the next four years.

In the end, the argument we are having between the candidates in the last seven days is not just about the meaning of change. It’s about the meaning of hope. Some of my opponents appear scornful of the word; they think it speaks of naivete, passivity, and wishful thinking.

But that’s not what hope is. Hope is not blind optimism. It’s not ignoring the enormity of the task before us or the roadblocks that stand in our path. Yes, the lobbyists will fight us. Yes, the Republican attack dogs will go after us in the general election. Yes, the problems of poverty and climate change and failing schools will resist easy repair. I know – I’ve been on the streets, I’ve been in the courts. I’ve watched legislation die because the powerful held sway and good intentions weren’t fortified by political will, and I’ve watched a nation get mislead into war because no one had the judgment or the courage to ask the hard questions before we sent our troops to fight.

But I also know this. I know that hope has been the guiding force behind the most improbable changes this country has ever made. In the face of tyranny, it’s what led a band of colonists to rise up against an Empire. In the face of slavery, it’s what fueled the resistance of the slave and the abolitionist, and what allowed a President to chart a treacherous course to ensure that the nation would not continue half slave and half free. In the face of war and Depression, it’s what led the greatest of generations to free a continent and heal a nation. In the face of oppression, it’s what led young men and women to sit at lunch counters and brave fire hoses and march through the streets of Selma and Montgomery for freedom’s cause. That’s the power of hope – to imagine, and then work for, what had seemed impossible before.

That’s the change we seek. And that’s the change you can stand for in seven days.

We’ve already beaten odds that the cynics said couldn’t be beaten. When we started ten months ago, they said we couldn’t run a different kind of campaign.

They said we couldn’t compete without taking money from Washington lobbyists. But you proved them wrong when we raised more small donations from more Americans than any other campaign in history.

They said we couldn’t be successful if we didn’t have the full support of the establishment in Washington. But you proved them wrong when we built a grassroots movement that could forever change the face of American politics.

They said we wouldn’t have a chance in this campaign unless we resorted to the same old negative attacks. But we resisted, even when we were written off, and ran a positive campaign that pointed out real differences and rejected the politics of slash and burn.

And now, in seven days, you have a chance once again to prove the cynics wrong. In seven days, what was improbable has the chance to beat what Washington said was inevitable. And that’s why in these last weeks, Washington is fighting back with everything it has -- with attack ads and insults; with distractions and dishonesty; with millions of dollars from outside groups and undisclosed donors to try and block our path.

We’ve seen this script many times before. But I know that this time can be different.

Because I know that when the American people believe in something, it happens.

If you believe, then we can tell the lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over.

If you believe, then we can stop making promises to America’s workers and start delivering – jobs that pay, health care that’s affordable, pensions you can count on, and a tax cut for working Americans instead of the companies who send their jobs overseas .

If you believe, we can offer a world-class education to every child, and pay our teachers more, and make college dreams a reality for every American.

If you believe, we can save this planet and end our dependence on foreign oil.

If you believe, we can end this war, close Guantanamo, restore our standing, renew our diplomacy, and once again respect the Constitution of the United States of America .

That’s the future within our reach. That’s what hope is – that thing inside us that insists, despite all evidence to the contrary, that something better is waiting for us around the corner. But only if we’re willing to work for it and fight for it. To shed our fears and our doubts and our cynicism. To glory in the task before us of remaking this country block by block, precinct by precinct, county by county, state by state.

There is a moment in the life of every generation when, if we are to make our mark on history, this spirit must break through

This is the moment.

This is our time.

And if you will stand with me in seven days – if you will stand for change so that our children have the same chance that somebody gave us; if you’ll stand to keep the American dream alive for those who still hunger for opportunity and thirst for justice; if you’re ready to stop settling for what the cynics tell you you must accept, and finally reach for what you know is possible, then we will win this caucus, we will win this election, we will change the course of history, and the real journey – to heal a nation and repair the world – will have truly begun.

Thank you.

OBAMA VOWS TO PROTECT KIDS AND BAN TOYS WITH LEAD

CALLS FOR GETTING TOUGH WITH CHINA ON PRODUCT SAFETY STANDARDS

GREENFIELD, IA – Today, Senator Barack Obama called for a ban on toys with more than a trace amount of lead. Over 400,000 children in the United States are currently suffering from lead poisoning from a variety of sources, including toys. Over 80 percent of the toys in this country come from China.

“When I criticized China’s product safety standards recently, an official at China’s foreign ministry said I was being ‘unobjective, unreasonable, and unfair,’” said Senator Obama. “Now, don’t get me wrong: as president, I’ll work with China to keep harmful toys off our shelves. But I’ll also immediately take steps to ensure that all toys are independently tested before they reach our stores, and I’ll significantly increase penalties on companies that break the rules. Because protecting our children isn’t ‘unreasonable’ – it’s our most important obligation as parents and as Americans.”

In 2005, Obama introduced the Lead-Free Toys Act, which would require the Consumer Product Safety Commission to ban children’s products containing more than a trace amount of lead. Following news reports that millions of Chinese-made toys were being recalled because of lead paint, he has also directly pressured toy manufacturers and Bush administration officials to do a better job protecting American children from the threat of imported toys, especially those manufactured in China.

As President, Obama will enact a plan to protect Americans from unsafe products. In addition to banning lead-tainted toys and increasing fines for companies that fail to disclose known safety hazards with their products, Obama will:

1. Double the funding for the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and make sure it has the inspectors it needs to ensure that the goods we’re buying are safe.

2. Expand the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s regulatory powers, and help the agency respond quickly and efficiently when it’s alerted to a problem.

3. Increase fines for companies that fail to disclose known safety hazards with the products they’re making.

4. Appoint a chairman with a proven record of standing up for consumer safety.

Click here for more on Senator Obama’s plan:
http://iowa.barackobama.com/IALeadToys

Obama Vows to Protect Workers from Unfair Trade Deals

New TV Ad “Enough” Highlights Obama’s Commitment to American Workers

U.S. Senator Barack Obama today discussed his commitment to fight for fair trade for America’s workers, reject trade agreements that weren’t in American workers’ best interest, and enforce the agreements we do have. The Obama Campaign also released a new television ad, Enough, in which Obama vows to end tax breaks for companies moving jobs overseas and reward companies that invest in America. To view “Enough”, click HERE.

The Bush Administration has done little to protect Americans whose livelihoods are being threatened by globalization and changes in technology. By failing to enforce U.S. trade agreements, overseas companies and workers have been given an unfair and sometimes illegal advantage over American workers.

“American workers deserve better. When I’m President, we’ll make sure our trading partners live up to their agreements,” Obama said. “We’ll have a trade representative who’s actually representing American workers. And we’ll do more to stop countries like China from acting unfairly when it comes to trade – because no country should get a free pass if they’re bending the rules.”

Obama will make enforcement the top priority of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Office, and he will increase resources for the USTR so it can carry out its responsibility to protect American interests. As President, Obama will only negotiate trade agreements that benefit American workers and have strong and enforceable labor and environmental standards in the body of the agreement. In addition, Obama will help workers hurt by the effects of globalization get back on their feet by strengthening training programs and providing assistance for health care costs.

“When I’m President, we’ll give you training before you lose your job if there’s a good chance it will get shipped overseas,” Obama said. “We’ll give you an education account that you can use to retrain. We’ll help ensure that losing your job doesn’t also mean losing your health care by giving you some extra money to pay for it. And we’ll make sure employers give you an additional month’s notice before letting you go – so you have 90 days’ notice, instead of just 60. We’re not going to be able to stop globalization in its tracks, but what we can do is have a President who’s standing up for American farmers and workers. That’s why I’m running for President.”

Below is the script of “Enough”:
B&W still of BO
BO VO:
I’m Barack Obama and I approve this message.
BO speaking to town hall sized crowd
BO Synch: Ordinary people all across the country are struggling from paycheck to paycheck.

If the plant moves to China, and you’ve been working there for 20, 30 years and suddenly you have the rug pulled out from under ya…

And you don’t have healthcare, and you don’t have a pension, you’re on your own.

We gotta stop giving tax breaks to companies that are moving overseas and give those tax breaks to companies that are investing right here in IA

In the United States of America.
Barack Obama for President
Iowa.barackobama.com

Approved by Barack Obama. Paid for by Obama for President.
Enough is enough.
For more information on Obama’s plan, click here: iowa.barackobama.com/TradeEnforcement

Obama Discusses Plan to Protect Retirement Security

Today, in Washington, IA, Senator Barack Obama discussed his commitment to protecting retirement security for all Americans. Citing Cedar Rapids resident David Hartgrave, whose $1500 a month pension was cut to under $400 after his company folded, Senator Obama said that as President, he will change laws that protect credit card companies and banks, instead of the American people.

“It’s time to end the outrage of CEOs cashing out while workers lose their pensions. Right now, bankruptcy laws are more focused on protecting banks than the secure retirement that middle class Americans have earned,” said Senator Obama. “It’s time to stop cutting back the safety net for working people while we protect golden parachutes for the well-off. If you work hard and play by the rules, then you’ve earned every dollar of your pension. If a company goes bankrupt, then workers need to be our top priority – not an afterthought.”

Barack Obama has a record of fighting for working families that goes back more than two decades. In the U.S. Senate, he fought against a bankruptcy bill that did more to protect credit card companies and banks than to help working people.

As President, Obama will fight for middle class families by requiring the government to match some of the savings of workers making less than $75,000 a year. He’ll also create an automatic workplace pension enrollment policy that would require employers to enroll employees in retirement accounts. Obama’s retirement security plan will:

Limit circumstances when retirement benefits can be cut, and increase the wages and benefits that workers can claim in bankruptcy court.

Require companies to disclose their pension fund investments, and press them to make their funds solvent.

End the outrage of executives getting bonuses while workers watch pensions disappear.

To read more about Obama’s plan, click here [http://iowa.barackobama.com/RetirementSecurityFactSheet].