Not sure that's how it works. If I had billions, I probably wouldn't give a rat's a$$ who was president. I'll let you know for sure once I do.
Obama gets another endorsement
- Thread starter zahntech
- Start date
- Status
Not sure that's how it works. If I had billions, I probably wouldn't give a rat's a$$ who was president. I'll let you know for sure once I do.
The Chicago Tribune just endorsed Obama.
And before you make an uneducated comment about how Obama is from Illinois, this the first time in the history of the paper that they have endorsed a Democrat for President.
www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-chicago-tribune-endorsement,0,1371034.story
chicagotribune.com
FROM THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE EDITORIAL BOARD
Tribune endorsement: Barack Obama for president
2:33 PM CDT, October 17, 2008
However this election turns out, it will dramatically advance America's slow progress toward equality and inclusion. It took Abraham Lincoln's extraordinary courage in the Civil War to get us here. It took an epic battle to secure women the right to vote. It took the perseverance of the civil rights movement. Now we have an election in which we will choose the first African-American president . . . or the first female vice president.
In recent weeks it has been easy to lose sight of this history in the making. Americans are focused on the greatest threat to the world economic system in 80 years. They feel a personal vulnerability the likes of which they haven't experienced since Sept. 11, 2001. It's a different kind of vulnerability. Unlike Sept. 11, the economic threat hasn't forged a common bond in this nation. It has fed anger, fear and mistrust.
On Nov. 4 we're going to elect a president to lead us through a perilous time and restore in us a common sense of national purpose.
The strongest candidate to do that is Sen. Barack Obama. The Tribune is proud to endorse him today for president of the United States.
-----------------------
On Dec. 6, 2006, this page encouraged Obama to join the presidential campaign. We wrote that he would celebrate our common values instead of exaggerate our differences. We said he would raise the tone of the campaign. We said his intellectual depth would sharpen the policy debate. In the ensuing 22 months he has done just that.
Many Americans say they're uneasy about Obama. He's pretty new to them.
We can provide some assurance. We have known Obama since he entered politics a dozen years ago. We have watched him, worked with him, argued with him as he rose from an effective state senator to an inspiring U.S. senator to the Democratic Party's nominee for president.
We have tremendous confidence in his intellectual rigor, his moral compass and his ability to make sound, thoughtful, careful decisions. He is ready.
The change that Obama talks about so much is not simply a change in this policy or that one. It is not fundamentally about lobbyists or Washington insiders. Obama envisions a change in the way we deal with one another in politics and government. His opponents may say this is empty, abstract rhetoric. In fact, it is hard to imagine how we are going to deal with the grave domestic and foreign crises we face without an end to the savagery and a return to civility in politics.
-----------------------
This endorsement makes some history for the Chicago Tribune. This is the first time the newspaper has endorsed the Democratic Party's nominee for president.
The Tribune in its earliest days took up the abolition of slavery and linked itself to a powerful force for that cause--the Republican Party. The Tribune's first great leader, Joseph Medill, was a founder of the GOP. The editorial page has been a proponent of conservative principles. It believes that government has to serve people honestly and efficiently.
With that in mind, in 1872 we endorsed Horace Greeley, who ran as an independent against the corrupt administration of Republican President Ulysses S. Grant. (Greeley was later endorsed by the Democrats.) In 1912 we endorsed Theodore Roosevelt, who ran as the Progressive Party candidate against Republican President William Howard Taft.
The Tribune's decisions then were driven by outrage at inept and corrupt business and political leaders.
We see parallels today.
The Republican Party, the party of limited government, has lost its way. The government ran a $237 billion surplus in 2000, the year before Bush took office -- and recorded a $455 billion deficit in 2008. The Republicans lost control of the U.S. House and Senate in 2006 because, as we said at the time, they gave the nation rampant spending and Capitol Hill corruption. They abandoned their principles. They paid the price.
We might have counted on John McCain to correct his party's course. We like McCain. We endorsed him in the Republican primary in Illinois. In part because of his persuasion and resolve, the U.S. stands to win an unconditional victory in Iraq.
It is, though, hard to figure John McCain these days. He argued that President Bush's tax cuts were fiscally irresponsible, but he now supports them. He promises a balanced budget by the end of his first term, but his tax cut plan would add an estimated $4.2 trillion in debt over 10 years. He has responded to the economic crisis with an angry, populist message and a misguided, $300 billion proposal to buy up bad mortgages.
McCain failed in his most important executive decision. Give him credit for choosing a female running mate--but he passed up any number of supremely qualified Republican women who could have served. Having called Obama not ready to lead, McCain chose Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. His campaign has tried to stage-manage Palin's exposure to the public. But it's clear she is not prepared to step in at a moment's notice and serve as president. McCain put his campaign before his country.
Obama chose a more experienced and more thoughtful running mate--he put governing before politicking. Sen. Joe Biden doesn't bring many votes to Obama, but he would help him from day one to lead the country.
-----------------------
McCain calls Obama a typical liberal politician. Granted, it's disappointing that Obama's mix of tax cuts for most people and increases for the wealthy would create an estimated $2.9 trillion in federal debt. He has made more promises on spending than McCain has. We wish one of these candidates had given good, hard specific information on how he would bring the federal budget into line. Neither one has.
We do, though, think Obama would govern as much more of a pragmatic centrist than many people expect.
We know first-hand that Obama seeks out and listens carefully and respectfully to people who disagree with him. He builds consensus. He was most effective in the Illinois legislature when he worked with Republicans on welfare, ethics and criminal justice reform.
He worked to expand the number of charter schools in Illinois--not popular with some Democratic constituencies.
He took up ethics reform in the U.S. Senate--not popular with Washington politicians.
His economic policy team is peppered with advisers who support free trade. He has been called a "University of Chicago Democrat"--a reference to the famed free-market Chicago school of economics, which puts faith in markets.
-----------------------
Obama is deeply grounded in the best aspirations of this country, and we need to return to those aspirations. He has had the character and the will to achieve great things despite the obstacles that he faced as an unprivileged black man in the U.S.
He has risen with his honor, grace and civility intact. He has the intelligence to understand the grave economic and national security risks that face us, to listen to good advice and make careful decisions.
When Obama said at the 2004 Democratic Convention that we weren't a nation of red states and blue states, he spoke of union the way Abraham Lincoln did.
It may have seemed audacious for Obama to start his campaign in Springfield, invoking Lincoln. We think, given the opportunity to hold this nation's most powerful office, he will prove it wasn't so audacious after all. We are proud to add Barack Obama's name to Lincoln's in the list of people the Tribune has endorsed for president of the United States.
Copyright © 2008, Chicago Tribune
And before you make an uneducated comment about how Obama is from Illinois, this the first time in the history of the paper that they have endorsed a Democrat for President.
www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-chicago-tribune-endorsement,0,1371034.story
chicagotribune.com
FROM THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE EDITORIAL BOARD
Tribune endorsement: Barack Obama for president
2:33 PM CDT, October 17, 2008
However this election turns out, it will dramatically advance America's slow progress toward equality and inclusion. It took Abraham Lincoln's extraordinary courage in the Civil War to get us here. It took an epic battle to secure women the right to vote. It took the perseverance of the civil rights movement. Now we have an election in which we will choose the first African-American president . . . or the first female vice president.
In recent weeks it has been easy to lose sight of this history in the making. Americans are focused on the greatest threat to the world economic system in 80 years. They feel a personal vulnerability the likes of which they haven't experienced since Sept. 11, 2001. It's a different kind of vulnerability. Unlike Sept. 11, the economic threat hasn't forged a common bond in this nation. It has fed anger, fear and mistrust.
On Nov. 4 we're going to elect a president to lead us through a perilous time and restore in us a common sense of national purpose.
The strongest candidate to do that is Sen. Barack Obama. The Tribune is proud to endorse him today for president of the United States.
-----------------------
On Dec. 6, 2006, this page encouraged Obama to join the presidential campaign. We wrote that he would celebrate our common values instead of exaggerate our differences. We said he would raise the tone of the campaign. We said his intellectual depth would sharpen the policy debate. In the ensuing 22 months he has done just that.
Many Americans say they're uneasy about Obama. He's pretty new to them.
We can provide some assurance. We have known Obama since he entered politics a dozen years ago. We have watched him, worked with him, argued with him as he rose from an effective state senator to an inspiring U.S. senator to the Democratic Party's nominee for president.
We have tremendous confidence in his intellectual rigor, his moral compass and his ability to make sound, thoughtful, careful decisions. He is ready.
The change that Obama talks about so much is not simply a change in this policy or that one. It is not fundamentally about lobbyists or Washington insiders. Obama envisions a change in the way we deal with one another in politics and government. His opponents may say this is empty, abstract rhetoric. In fact, it is hard to imagine how we are going to deal with the grave domestic and foreign crises we face without an end to the savagery and a return to civility in politics.
-----------------------
This endorsement makes some history for the Chicago Tribune. This is the first time the newspaper has endorsed the Democratic Party's nominee for president.
The Tribune in its earliest days took up the abolition of slavery and linked itself to a powerful force for that cause--the Republican Party. The Tribune's first great leader, Joseph Medill, was a founder of the GOP. The editorial page has been a proponent of conservative principles. It believes that government has to serve people honestly and efficiently.
With that in mind, in 1872 we endorsed Horace Greeley, who ran as an independent against the corrupt administration of Republican President Ulysses S. Grant. (Greeley was later endorsed by the Democrats.) In 1912 we endorsed Theodore Roosevelt, who ran as the Progressive Party candidate against Republican President William Howard Taft.
The Tribune's decisions then were driven by outrage at inept and corrupt business and political leaders.
We see parallels today.
The Republican Party, the party of limited government, has lost its way. The government ran a $237 billion surplus in 2000, the year before Bush took office -- and recorded a $455 billion deficit in 2008. The Republicans lost control of the U.S. House and Senate in 2006 because, as we said at the time, they gave the nation rampant spending and Capitol Hill corruption. They abandoned their principles. They paid the price.
We might have counted on John McCain to correct his party's course. We like McCain. We endorsed him in the Republican primary in Illinois. In part because of his persuasion and resolve, the U.S. stands to win an unconditional victory in Iraq.
It is, though, hard to figure John McCain these days. He argued that President Bush's tax cuts were fiscally irresponsible, but he now supports them. He promises a balanced budget by the end of his first term, but his tax cut plan would add an estimated $4.2 trillion in debt over 10 years. He has responded to the economic crisis with an angry, populist message and a misguided, $300 billion proposal to buy up bad mortgages.
McCain failed in his most important executive decision. Give him credit for choosing a female running mate--but he passed up any number of supremely qualified Republican women who could have served. Having called Obama not ready to lead, McCain chose Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. His campaign has tried to stage-manage Palin's exposure to the public. But it's clear she is not prepared to step in at a moment's notice and serve as president. McCain put his campaign before his country.
Obama chose a more experienced and more thoughtful running mate--he put governing before politicking. Sen. Joe Biden doesn't bring many votes to Obama, but he would help him from day one to lead the country.
-----------------------
McCain calls Obama a typical liberal politician. Granted, it's disappointing that Obama's mix of tax cuts for most people and increases for the wealthy would create an estimated $2.9 trillion in federal debt. He has made more promises on spending than McCain has. We wish one of these candidates had given good, hard specific information on how he would bring the federal budget into line. Neither one has.
We do, though, think Obama would govern as much more of a pragmatic centrist than many people expect.
We know first-hand that Obama seeks out and listens carefully and respectfully to people who disagree with him. He builds consensus. He was most effective in the Illinois legislature when he worked with Republicans on welfare, ethics and criminal justice reform.
He worked to expand the number of charter schools in Illinois--not popular with some Democratic constituencies.
He took up ethics reform in the U.S. Senate--not popular with Washington politicians.
His economic policy team is peppered with advisers who support free trade. He has been called a "University of Chicago Democrat"--a reference to the famed free-market Chicago school of economics, which puts faith in markets.
-----------------------
Obama is deeply grounded in the best aspirations of this country, and we need to return to those aspirations. He has had the character and the will to achieve great things despite the obstacles that he faced as an unprivileged black man in the U.S.
He has risen with his honor, grace and civility intact. He has the intelligence to understand the grave economic and national security risks that face us, to listen to good advice and make careful decisions.
When Obama said at the 2004 Democratic Convention that we weren't a nation of red states and blue states, he spoke of union the way Abraham Lincoln did.
It may have seemed audacious for Obama to start his campaign in Springfield, invoking Lincoln. We think, given the opportunity to hold this nation's most powerful office, he will prove it wasn't so audacious after all. We are proud to add Barack Obama's name to Lincoln's in the list of people the Tribune has endorsed for president of the United States.
Copyright © 2008, Chicago Tribune
That is seriously delusional. I hope you do not really believe that and are simply trying to be provocative. But given the ridiculous listing of so-called Obama endorsements you provided and the general bent of your participation in this thread thus far, I have my doubts. Sorry to break it down like that, but I don't have time to pretend.
Obama is not going to take your guns or abandon Israel.
The tactics that you ascribe to the Obama campaign are the farthest thing from what he or the Democratic party or liberal ideology represent.
There will be no retribution against those who voted for someone else. The entire idea is so absurd and offensive that I cannot fathom how someone could apparently believe it.
And frankly, given the damage to our civil rights that continues under the current administration, your comments would be laughable if they were not so sad.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/in-philly-conse.html
In Philly, Conservative Talk Radio Host Backs Obama
October 17, 2008 3:44 PM
On his talk show on WPHT today, conservative Philadelphian Michael Smerconish endorsed Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.
Listen HERE.
Smerconish did so by reading a couple paragraphs from his pending op-ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer.
"I’ve decided," he said. "My conclusion comes after reading the candidates’ memoirs and campaign platforms, attending both party conventions, interviewing both men multiple times, and watching all primary and general election debates.
"John McCain is an honorable man who has served his country well. But he will not get my vote. For the first time since registering as a Republican 28 years ago, I’m voting for a Democrat for president.
"I may have been an appointee in the George H.W. Bush administration, and master of ceremonies for George W. Bush in 2004, but last Saturday I stood amidst the crowd at an Obama event in North Philadelphia," says the Republican.
Smerconish has given us some more from his op-ed:
"Terrorism. The candidates disagree as to where to prosecute the war against Islamic fundamentalists. Barack Obama is correct in saying the front line in that battle is not Iraq, it’s the Afghan-Pakistan border. Osama bin Laden crossed that border from Tora Bora in December 2001, and we stopped pursuit. The Bush administration outsourced the hunt for bin Laden and, instead, invaded Iraq.
"No one in Iraq caused the death of 3,000 Americans on 9/11. Our invasion was based on a false predicate, so we have no business being there, regardless of whether the surge is working. Our focus must be the tribal-ruled FATA region in Pakistan. Only recently has our military engaged al-Qaeda there in operations that mirror those Obama was ridiculed for recommending in August 2007.
"Last spring, Obama told me, 'It’s not that I was opposed to war [in Iraq]. It’s that I felt we had a war that we had not finished.' Even Sen. Joe Lieberman conceded to me just last Friday that 'the headquarters of our opposition, our enemies today,' is the FATA."
Smerconish is taking a lot of heat from his fellow GOPers, as one might imagine.
- jpt
In Philly, Conservative Talk Radio Host Backs Obama
October 17, 2008 3:44 PM
On his talk show on WPHT today, conservative Philadelphian Michael Smerconish endorsed Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.
Listen HERE.
Smerconish did so by reading a couple paragraphs from his pending op-ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer.
"I’ve decided," he said. "My conclusion comes after reading the candidates’ memoirs and campaign platforms, attending both party conventions, interviewing both men multiple times, and watching all primary and general election debates.
"John McCain is an honorable man who has served his country well. But he will not get my vote. For the first time since registering as a Republican 28 years ago, I’m voting for a Democrat for president.
"I may have been an appointee in the George H.W. Bush administration, and master of ceremonies for George W. Bush in 2004, but last Saturday I stood amidst the crowd at an Obama event in North Philadelphia," says the Republican.
Smerconish has given us some more from his op-ed:
"Terrorism. The candidates disagree as to where to prosecute the war against Islamic fundamentalists. Barack Obama is correct in saying the front line in that battle is not Iraq, it’s the Afghan-Pakistan border. Osama bin Laden crossed that border from Tora Bora in December 2001, and we stopped pursuit. The Bush administration outsourced the hunt for bin Laden and, instead, invaded Iraq.
"No one in Iraq caused the death of 3,000 Americans on 9/11. Our invasion was based on a false predicate, so we have no business being there, regardless of whether the surge is working. Our focus must be the tribal-ruled FATA region in Pakistan. Only recently has our military engaged al-Qaeda there in operations that mirror those Obama was ridiculed for recommending in August 2007.
"Last spring, Obama told me, 'It’s not that I was opposed to war [in Iraq]. It’s that I felt we had a war that we had not finished.' Even Sen. Joe Lieberman conceded to me just last Friday that 'the headquarters of our opposition, our enemies today,' is the FATA."
Smerconish is taking a lot of heat from his fellow GOPers, as one might imagine.
- jpt
Steve,
What do you think are Warren Buffet's reasons for endorsing Obama then?
Regrads,
Danny
EVERYONE is lining up to endorse him now that its clear he has won.
I mean come on. The Chicago Tribune for the first time in its HISTORY (161 years!) endorsed a Democrat for President.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/17/ichicago-tribunei-endorse_n_135690.html
I mean come on. The Chicago Tribune for the first time in its HISTORY (161 years!) endorsed a Democrat for President.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/17/ichicago-tribunei-endorse_n_135690.html
I think you're discounting/demeaning these recent endorsements and not giving Obama any credit for having gained these endorsements because on his merits. Based on your rationale "now that its clear he has won", how can you explain the Tribune's 100% Republican endorsements in the past against Democratic candidates who also appeared to have "clearly won" at this stage of the campaign? Clinton v. Dole as the most recent example. Please don't use the "The Chicago Tribune is now a liberal paper" or the "Chicago Tribune..Illinois Senator duh!" arguments.
Regards,
Danny
Newspaper edtors are just people like anyone else...they just have a vehicle to make thier opinions known.
To be honest I don't value thier opinions more than anyone elses.
JZ
You would think now wouldn't you?
Read this:
http://mccainpalin2008.blogspot.com/2008/10/obama-wants-reporting-voter-fraud-to-be.html
& this
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/18/the-unfairness-doctrine-64206259/
among many others.
This guy is so full of himself he can't stand a dissenting opinion that he'll sic the Justice Department on you.
If Bush did what Obama is trying to do - 50% of the population would be in jail right now.
Last edited:
News flash: This is not news to me.
I completely support Obama's efforts to expose this sham voter fraud investigation.
Your notion that 50% of the population would be in jail is more baseless paranoia.
Perhaps you have forgotten the GOP efforts in 2004 to fire US Attorneys who would not prosecute voter fraud on the eve of the 2004 election because the US Attorneys realized, despite their membership in the GOP, that it was illegal and politically motivated. That investigation is ongoing as we speak.
In 2008, the GOP is up to the same old tricks.
You and others have bought into the false notion that voter registration errors somehow equate to voting fraud. There is no evidence of a connection between the two. But don't take my word for it, how about the Republican Secretary of State of Florida or Florida's Republican Governor:
Gov. Crist: False voter registrations not big problem in Florida
Gov. Charlie Crist said he doesn't believe false voter registrations are a serious problem in Florida. And the ACORN group said it is being set up.
BY MARC CAPUTO
[email protected]
TALLAHASSEE -- Breaking with the talking points of his fellow Republicans in Washington, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist said he does not think voter fraud and the vote-registration group ACORN are a major problem in the Sunshine State.
''I think that there's probably less [fraud] than is being discussed. As we're coming into the closing days of any campaign, there are some who enjoy chaos,'' Crist told reporters.
Crist made his comments as the Republican National Committee hosted a conference call with reporters to tie Democrat Barack Obama to suspicious voter-registration cards submitted by ACORN across the nation and in four Florida counties, including Broward.
In the Broward case, an unknown person tried to re-register a longtime voter named Susan S. Glenckman. Broward officials caught the error in August when it was brought to their attention by ACORN.
During the Wednesday Republican conference call, national party spokesman Danny Diaz focused more on a case in Orange County, where someone used an ACORN-stamped voter-registration card to sign up Mickey Mouse.
But Crist's Republican Secretary of State, Kurt Browning, said he doesn't think ACORN is committing systematic voter fraud. And Crist said that settles the matter because ''I have enormous confidence'' in Browning.
Like ACORN spokesmen, Browning says the false voter registration forms could be blamed on unethical canvassers or on citizens who themselves fill out fictitious voter cards.
REGISTERING VS. VOTING
Elections officials point out that while voter-registration fraud is relatively easy, vote fraud is far more difficult because a criminal would have to evade multiple layers of computer-system and identity checks. They also say the system is not overwhelmed with phony registrations, as Diaz suggested during the conference call.
ACORN's head Florida organizer, Brian Kettenring, went a step further, saying the group was being framed in the Mickey Mouse case -- though he wasn't sure who was behind it.
''We have a substantial reason to believe someone probably got one of our cards and submitted it to the elections office without us knowing,'' Kettenring said.
But Diaz, the national Republican spokesman, said Wednesday that there is no way ACORN is a victim, considering ''the volume'' of registration-fraud complaints and investigations in numerous states.
''When you sign the Dallas Cowboys in Nevada, Mickey Mouse in Florida, a 7-year-old girl in Connecticut,'' Diaz said, ``their argument that this is all some kind of a conspiracy is laughable on its face.''
Diaz, echoing previous statements from the party and John McCain's campaign, said Obama hasn't been honest about his links to ACORN.
Obama told reporters Tuesday that Republicans are engaging in distractions. He said his campaign has nothing to do with ACORN and that ACORN is probably the victim of lazy card gatherers or card signers who make up names or fraudulently fill out registration cards.
ACORN submits all registration cards -- even ones it knows are phony -- because it's illegal to destroy the cards in Florida, and Browning said the group should even turn in incomplete registration cards.
REJECTED
Kettenring said the group has quality-control checks to alert officials of suspicious cards. Although it flagged the Glenckman problem in Broward, ACORN never saw the Mickey Mouse card, Kettenring said.
A housing, poverty and wage advocacy group, ACORN stands for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. It has signed up more than 150,000 new Florida voters out of the 1.3 million it registered in the past two years nationwide.
Echoing Browning and other county elections supervisors, Mary Cooney, a spokeswoman for Broward County Election Supervisor Brenda Snipes, said the office had a good working relationship with ACORN.
But Cooney said the office began tracking ACORN registrations after noticing about 10 percent of the 16,000 registration cards it submitted were returned by the post office as undeliverable.
Cooney said the returned mail wasn't suspicious, but it was worthy of note. Cooney said that, if the office had suspected real fraud, it would have turned the matter over to the state attorney's office. But it didn't.
Obama had downplayed his ties to ACORN on his ''fight the smears'' website, saying that his most extensive work with ACORN was when he represented the group along with the U.S. Justice Department in a lawsuit. Turns out, he also trained some ACORN community organizers at a seminar, so Obama's website was changed to reflect that he was never ''hired'' as a trainer.
McCain campaign manager Rick Davis made much of that in a conference call last week, urging reporters to ask Obama: ``What were you teaching them? Were you teaching them how to evade the law?''
Davis also said anyone who believes ACORN isn't up to something bad is ``naive.''
But the day before, when Crist was asked whether he had any suspicions or evidence that ACORN was up to anything illegal or unethical, he gave a quick and brief reply: ``No.''
**
But don't let reality dissuade you from another insane diatribe against Obama.
Week of 7.27.07
Web-Extended Interview: David Iglesias
This Week: About the Show | Interview: David Iglesias | Viewer Comments | Transcript
David Iglesias, the former U.S. attorney of New Mexico, talks to NOW about the pressure he says he received from the Justice Department to engage in "unlawful activities," his resistance, and why he believes it cost him his job. This is a longer version of the interview that appeared in the broadcast.
NOW: As the U.S. Attorney of New Mexico you were asked to investigate and prosecute instances of voter fraud. What was the nature of this alleged voter fraud?
DAVID IGLESIAS (DI): I was aware that the Justice Department was interested in having U.S. attorneys investigate and prosecute voter fraud going back to 2002. In New Mexico, I wasn't really aware of that being a potential large scale issue until the summer of 2004. So I set up a taskforce in September 2004 to investigate. I made it state, local and federal law enforcement, and I had made sure that the FBI was involved, and that the Justice Department, public integrity section in Washington was involved. I made sure that there were both Democrat and Republican officials as part of this voter fraud effort because I wanted to allay the fears of New Mexicans that this was some kind of partisan witch hunt.
NOW: And did you find prosecutable cases?
DI: No. We looked at well over 100 cases ... Upon reviewing the evidence and looking at the FBI reports, and actually talking to the FBI agent in charge of this, I concluded, as did the public integrity section at main Justice [Department] and at the local FBI office, that we didn't have any prosecutable cases.
NOW: Clearly, voter fraud is a crime. When do efforts to ferret out those few offenders cross the line into something more inappropriate where you are engaging in an effort to strike legitimate voters from the rolls?
DI: Are you putting pressure on the U.S. Attorneys to try to file indictments immediately before an election? If so, that is inappropriate. In fact, there's a longstanding policy in the Justice Department to not do that. And it appears, in some districts, there was pressure put on us to engage in unlawful activities. And that is not what the Justice Department stands for.
NOW: One press account described it as, "A misuse of power of the Department of Justice in the service of the Republican Party." Do you agree?
DI: I think that handsomely covers the issue, yet.
NOW: You said the Justice Department made it clear that if the U.S. Attorneys believed there was voter fraud than you needed to investigate and prosecute it. How did they make that clear?
"... there was pressure put on us to engage in unlawful activities."
DI: This refers to emails that we received with memoranda attached to them in the fall of 2002, 2004 and then again in 2006. [They] admonished U.S. Attorneys to work closely with election officials to offer assistance and investigate and prosecute what appeared to be voter fraud cases.
NOW: Was there any explanation ever given as to why there was this interest?
DI: No, there was no explanation. I had assumed that was the historic practice of the Justice Department. But I subsequently learned that this administration has made it a priority.
NOW: So you're saying prosecuting cases of voter fraud is not something that traditionally has been high on the list of priorities for U.S. attorneys in New Mexico or elsewhere in the country?
DI: That's correct. You have to understand there are approximately 4,000 federal criminal laws and we're tasked to enforce them all ... it's impossible to enforce every possible law. So every administration has to come up with a list of priorities and this was a priority every two years during the election cycle for the Bush Administration.
NOW: It wasn't only officials at the Department of Justice who were expressing an interest in pursuing such cases. You were getting requests from other individuals, correct?
DI: That's correct. In fact, there was a Republican attorney, Pat Rogers, who was a prominent local attorney who tried to pressure me to come up with cases. He would send emails to my assistant, who I had tasked with running this election fraud taskforce ... And I had lunch with Mr. Rogers last fall and he expressed his concern about what he believed to be this systemic, ongoing election fraud. I did not know at the time that he belonged to an organization called the American Center for Voting Rights. He did not disclose to me that he was representing any other interest. And I've also found out that the Republican Party was very interested in stamping out what it believed to be instances of voter fraud.
NOW: The State Republican Party or the National Republican Party?
DI: Both. But who contacted me or some of my assistants was the State Republican Party.
NOW: What interest would they have in seeing you pursue cases of voter fraud?
DI: If they believe there to be prosecutable cases, it obviously sends a strong message. You don't violate federal criminal laws. But I do understand there are some allegations that, in battleground states such as New Mexico, prosecuting even a few cases sends a very strong message and could actually result in suppressing minority voting. It was never made that blunt. It was never that clearly presented to me. And a lot of this I'm reconstructing since leaving office on March 1 [2007].
NOW: What was the nature of the allegations that Rogers and other state GOP officials that you heard from or had contact with?
DI: They singled out ACORN [Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now] as an entity that they thought was engaging in this systemic election fraud. Specifically, they believed there to be a plan to register individuals who were not legally entitled to vote. Under-aged people, people who perhaps were felons, people who perhaps were not American citizens.
But it was generally that there were people voting who did not have the legal right to vote. And that may skew the result. And I believe this to be as a direct result of Al Gore's razor thin victory over George Bush in 2000.
NOW: Remind us of what happened in the 2000 election in your state?
DI: Al Gore won New Mexico by a very small margin. If memory serves me, it was approximately 344 votes. It was the smallest margin of victory of any of the 50 states. I distinctly recall hearing among Republican Party activists, there was a belief that George Bush actually won the 2000 election [in New Mexico]. And that somehow Gore stole the election. So I think there was this belief that let's not let this happen again. That's what I believe to be the genesis of them attempting to put pressure on me to find prosecutable cases.
NOW: In one press account you're quoted as characterizing Mr. Rogers' interest in this issue as "obsessive."
"There appears to be a growing body of evidence that suggests that there's voter suppression going on throughout the country."
DI: Yes. I was aware of grumbling within the State Republican Party. I had friends of mine who were attorneys. One was a former federal prosecutor himself and he would tell me during the course of early 2005 through mid-2006 ... "The Republicans are still upset with you. They still expect you to prosecute cases."
So I knew there was this belief that was I intentionally not prosecuting prosecutable cases. And I knew Rogers, as a prominent Republican, who had actually represented the State Republican Party in some civil litigation related to the voter ID issue ... I knew he was interested in the issue. And then I was also aware of the emails and phone calls he had been leaving with my assistant, who I had tasked with prosecuting this. So I knew there was a tremendous amount of dissatisfaction of me not prosecuting any cases.
What I believed, however, was consistent with historic practice—that the Justice Department would insulate me from any partisan political pressure. As it turns out, they didn't do that. And that was one of the bases for forcing my resignation.
NOW: Whether it was face-to-face conversations with people like Mr. Rogers or the buzz out there about you from your critics, did any of these conversations or any of these criticisms ever make you feel uncomfortable or pressured?
DI: That's a hard question to answer. It made me angry because I knew what we were doing. And I kept asking myself, "How can they possibly criticize me when they don't know the evidence. They've not looked at the evidence. They've not looked at the FBI reports. I have." Why would they think that a Bush appointee—who had run for public office—I had ran for state attorney general —would intentionally not prosecute a righteous case? That the one thing that I never understood. But I think in their zeal and their obsession for getting anything indicted, they let their theories get in the way of the facts and get in the way of the evidence, which they only knew a very small portion of.
NOW: In retrospect, do you believe they were rightly motivated or do you believe they were motivated by partisan politics?
DI: They were clearly partisan. I can't reach into their minds and tell you what they were thinking but I am very disturbed to read accounts of what appears to be "voter caging" in Arkansas and other parts of the country. There appears to be a growing body of evidence that suggests that there's voter suppression going on throughout the country. I'm not sure if that happened in New Mexico. All I know is there was an attempted pressure put on me by local Republicans to indict voter fraud cases. I resisted that. I thought I was going to be protected by the Bush Justice Department and I was wrong in that assumption.
NOW: Did any state Republicans complain to the White House about you?
DI: They did ... I believe they spoke to Karl Rove. I know that Senator Pete Domenici called and complained to President Bush about my alleged lack of zealousness in voter fraud issues. But I didn't know any of this until after I left office. The hearings have resulted in thousands of pages of documents and emails and what not. And I've been able to find out what was going on behind my back.
NOW: Why do you think you were fired from your position?
DI: I've maintained from day one for illicit, partisan political reasons. Specifically not coming up with voter fraud cases, number one. And number two not rushing forward indictments involving prominent Democrats during the election cycle. And thirdly, and this is a possible, since the evidence, it hasn't rolled out yet. But my reserve military duty being gone from the office a lot, I was called an absentee landlord. I believe it's a combination of those three reasons.
NOW: How would you characterize the act of enlisting a U.S. attorney in activities that will benefit a political party at the polls?
DI: It's reprehensible. It's unethical. It's unlawful. It very well may be criminal ... I know it's a marked departure from prior administrations, both Republican and Democrat, who understood that U.S. attorneys, as chief federal law enforcement officials, have to stay out of politics. And that's consistent with what Former Attorney General John Ashcroft told me in the summer of 2001. When he said, "Politics cannot enter into your decision making as a US attorney."
NOW: Where do you believe it went off the rails?
"That's why there has been such a circling of the wagons around Karl Rove and Harriet Miers and Sarah Taylor. I believe there to be incriminating, possibly criminally incriminating evidence contained in those e-mails and other memoranda."
DI: Once Alberto Gonzales took over from Ashcroft, I don't think he ever fully understood that his role as the Attorney General was for the United States of America, that his client was the American public. It wasn't serving the needs of the President. I think that's where the train left the rails.
NOW: Do you think the problems surrounding the U.S. attorneys' firings, as well as what we're learning about some of these voter suppression efforts has tainted the party?
DI: It's tainted the party and it's tainted the Justice Department, which is a real shame. It's a tragedy because, for many years, the only agency that really had a standing as the untouchable agency from partisan politics was the Justice Department. And unfortunately, what's happened over the passed couple of years has tarred it with a very, very ugly brush ... It's a serious problem. The American people have the right to believe that "prosecutive" decisions are made on the basis of evidence alone. And right now, that's called into question.
Every president has the right to set their priorities. But they have to stay within the rules. I mean, this entire scandal in one sense is about the rule of law. And this sordid affair was an attempt to use the power of the Justice Department in an unethical and unlawful way.
NOW: Trying to use the office of a U.S. Attorney for partisan political purposes is unethical. But you're saying it is actually illegal?
DI: Right. That's why there has been such a circling of the wagons around Karl Rove and Harriet Miers and Sarah Taylor. I believe there to be incriminating, possibly criminally incriminating evidence contained in those e-mails and other memoranda. That's why the White House doesn't want to produce it to Congress.
Web-Extended Interview: David Iglesias
This Week: About the Show | Interview: David Iglesias | Viewer Comments | Transcript
David Iglesias, the former U.S. attorney of New Mexico, talks to NOW about the pressure he says he received from the Justice Department to engage in "unlawful activities," his resistance, and why he believes it cost him his job. This is a longer version of the interview that appeared in the broadcast.
NOW: As the U.S. Attorney of New Mexico you were asked to investigate and prosecute instances of voter fraud. What was the nature of this alleged voter fraud?
DAVID IGLESIAS (DI): I was aware that the Justice Department was interested in having U.S. attorneys investigate and prosecute voter fraud going back to 2002. In New Mexico, I wasn't really aware of that being a potential large scale issue until the summer of 2004. So I set up a taskforce in September 2004 to investigate. I made it state, local and federal law enforcement, and I had made sure that the FBI was involved, and that the Justice Department, public integrity section in Washington was involved. I made sure that there were both Democrat and Republican officials as part of this voter fraud effort because I wanted to allay the fears of New Mexicans that this was some kind of partisan witch hunt.
NOW: And did you find prosecutable cases?
DI: No. We looked at well over 100 cases ... Upon reviewing the evidence and looking at the FBI reports, and actually talking to the FBI agent in charge of this, I concluded, as did the public integrity section at main Justice [Department] and at the local FBI office, that we didn't have any prosecutable cases.
NOW: Clearly, voter fraud is a crime. When do efforts to ferret out those few offenders cross the line into something more inappropriate where you are engaging in an effort to strike legitimate voters from the rolls?
DI: Are you putting pressure on the U.S. Attorneys to try to file indictments immediately before an election? If so, that is inappropriate. In fact, there's a longstanding policy in the Justice Department to not do that. And it appears, in some districts, there was pressure put on us to engage in unlawful activities. And that is not what the Justice Department stands for.
NOW: One press account described it as, "A misuse of power of the Department of Justice in the service of the Republican Party." Do you agree?
DI: I think that handsomely covers the issue, yet.
NOW: You said the Justice Department made it clear that if the U.S. Attorneys believed there was voter fraud than you needed to investigate and prosecute it. How did they make that clear?
"... there was pressure put on us to engage in unlawful activities."
DI: This refers to emails that we received with memoranda attached to them in the fall of 2002, 2004 and then again in 2006. [They] admonished U.S. Attorneys to work closely with election officials to offer assistance and investigate and prosecute what appeared to be voter fraud cases.
NOW: Was there any explanation ever given as to why there was this interest?
DI: No, there was no explanation. I had assumed that was the historic practice of the Justice Department. But I subsequently learned that this administration has made it a priority.
NOW: So you're saying prosecuting cases of voter fraud is not something that traditionally has been high on the list of priorities for U.S. attorneys in New Mexico or elsewhere in the country?
DI: That's correct. You have to understand there are approximately 4,000 federal criminal laws and we're tasked to enforce them all ... it's impossible to enforce every possible law. So every administration has to come up with a list of priorities and this was a priority every two years during the election cycle for the Bush Administration.
NOW: It wasn't only officials at the Department of Justice who were expressing an interest in pursuing such cases. You were getting requests from other individuals, correct?
DI: That's correct. In fact, there was a Republican attorney, Pat Rogers, who was a prominent local attorney who tried to pressure me to come up with cases. He would send emails to my assistant, who I had tasked with running this election fraud taskforce ... And I had lunch with Mr. Rogers last fall and he expressed his concern about what he believed to be this systemic, ongoing election fraud. I did not know at the time that he belonged to an organization called the American Center for Voting Rights. He did not disclose to me that he was representing any other interest. And I've also found out that the Republican Party was very interested in stamping out what it believed to be instances of voter fraud.
NOW: The State Republican Party or the National Republican Party?
DI: Both. But who contacted me or some of my assistants was the State Republican Party.
NOW: What interest would they have in seeing you pursue cases of voter fraud?
DI: If they believe there to be prosecutable cases, it obviously sends a strong message. You don't violate federal criminal laws. But I do understand there are some allegations that, in battleground states such as New Mexico, prosecuting even a few cases sends a very strong message and could actually result in suppressing minority voting. It was never made that blunt. It was never that clearly presented to me. And a lot of this I'm reconstructing since leaving office on March 1 [2007].
NOW: What was the nature of the allegations that Rogers and other state GOP officials that you heard from or had contact with?
DI: They singled out ACORN [Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now] as an entity that they thought was engaging in this systemic election fraud. Specifically, they believed there to be a plan to register individuals who were not legally entitled to vote. Under-aged people, people who perhaps were felons, people who perhaps were not American citizens.
But it was generally that there were people voting who did not have the legal right to vote. And that may skew the result. And I believe this to be as a direct result of Al Gore's razor thin victory over George Bush in 2000.
NOW: Remind us of what happened in the 2000 election in your state?
DI: Al Gore won New Mexico by a very small margin. If memory serves me, it was approximately 344 votes. It was the smallest margin of victory of any of the 50 states. I distinctly recall hearing among Republican Party activists, there was a belief that George Bush actually won the 2000 election [in New Mexico]. And that somehow Gore stole the election. So I think there was this belief that let's not let this happen again. That's what I believe to be the genesis of them attempting to put pressure on me to find prosecutable cases.
NOW: In one press account you're quoted as characterizing Mr. Rogers' interest in this issue as "obsessive."
"There appears to be a growing body of evidence that suggests that there's voter suppression going on throughout the country."
DI: Yes. I was aware of grumbling within the State Republican Party. I had friends of mine who were attorneys. One was a former federal prosecutor himself and he would tell me during the course of early 2005 through mid-2006 ... "The Republicans are still upset with you. They still expect you to prosecute cases."
So I knew there was this belief that was I intentionally not prosecuting prosecutable cases. And I knew Rogers, as a prominent Republican, who had actually represented the State Republican Party in some civil litigation related to the voter ID issue ... I knew he was interested in the issue. And then I was also aware of the emails and phone calls he had been leaving with my assistant, who I had tasked with prosecuting this. So I knew there was a tremendous amount of dissatisfaction of me not prosecuting any cases.
What I believed, however, was consistent with historic practice—that the Justice Department would insulate me from any partisan political pressure. As it turns out, they didn't do that. And that was one of the bases for forcing my resignation.
NOW: Whether it was face-to-face conversations with people like Mr. Rogers or the buzz out there about you from your critics, did any of these conversations or any of these criticisms ever make you feel uncomfortable or pressured?
DI: That's a hard question to answer. It made me angry because I knew what we were doing. And I kept asking myself, "How can they possibly criticize me when they don't know the evidence. They've not looked at the evidence. They've not looked at the FBI reports. I have." Why would they think that a Bush appointee—who had run for public office—I had ran for state attorney general —would intentionally not prosecute a righteous case? That the one thing that I never understood. But I think in their zeal and their obsession for getting anything indicted, they let their theories get in the way of the facts and get in the way of the evidence, which they only knew a very small portion of.
NOW: In retrospect, do you believe they were rightly motivated or do you believe they were motivated by partisan politics?
DI: They were clearly partisan. I can't reach into their minds and tell you what they were thinking but I am very disturbed to read accounts of what appears to be "voter caging" in Arkansas and other parts of the country. There appears to be a growing body of evidence that suggests that there's voter suppression going on throughout the country. I'm not sure if that happened in New Mexico. All I know is there was an attempted pressure put on me by local Republicans to indict voter fraud cases. I resisted that. I thought I was going to be protected by the Bush Justice Department and I was wrong in that assumption.
NOW: Did any state Republicans complain to the White House about you?
DI: They did ... I believe they spoke to Karl Rove. I know that Senator Pete Domenici called and complained to President Bush about my alleged lack of zealousness in voter fraud issues. But I didn't know any of this until after I left office. The hearings have resulted in thousands of pages of documents and emails and what not. And I've been able to find out what was going on behind my back.
NOW: Why do you think you were fired from your position?
DI: I've maintained from day one for illicit, partisan political reasons. Specifically not coming up with voter fraud cases, number one. And number two not rushing forward indictments involving prominent Democrats during the election cycle. And thirdly, and this is a possible, since the evidence, it hasn't rolled out yet. But my reserve military duty being gone from the office a lot, I was called an absentee landlord. I believe it's a combination of those three reasons.
NOW: How would you characterize the act of enlisting a U.S. attorney in activities that will benefit a political party at the polls?
DI: It's reprehensible. It's unethical. It's unlawful. It very well may be criminal ... I know it's a marked departure from prior administrations, both Republican and Democrat, who understood that U.S. attorneys, as chief federal law enforcement officials, have to stay out of politics. And that's consistent with what Former Attorney General John Ashcroft told me in the summer of 2001. When he said, "Politics cannot enter into your decision making as a US attorney."
NOW: Where do you believe it went off the rails?
"That's why there has been such a circling of the wagons around Karl Rove and Harriet Miers and Sarah Taylor. I believe there to be incriminating, possibly criminally incriminating evidence contained in those e-mails and other memoranda."
DI: Once Alberto Gonzales took over from Ashcroft, I don't think he ever fully understood that his role as the Attorney General was for the United States of America, that his client was the American public. It wasn't serving the needs of the President. I think that's where the train left the rails.
NOW: Do you think the problems surrounding the U.S. attorneys' firings, as well as what we're learning about some of these voter suppression efforts has tainted the party?
DI: It's tainted the party and it's tainted the Justice Department, which is a real shame. It's a tragedy because, for many years, the only agency that really had a standing as the untouchable agency from partisan politics was the Justice Department. And unfortunately, what's happened over the passed couple of years has tarred it with a very, very ugly brush ... It's a serious problem. The American people have the right to believe that "prosecutive" decisions are made on the basis of evidence alone. And right now, that's called into question.
Every president has the right to set their priorities. But they have to stay within the rules. I mean, this entire scandal in one sense is about the rule of law. And this sordid affair was an attempt to use the power of the Justice Department in an unethical and unlawful way.
NOW: Trying to use the office of a U.S. Attorney for partisan political purposes is unethical. But you're saying it is actually illegal?
DI: Right. That's why there has been such a circling of the wagons around Karl Rove and Harriet Miers and Sarah Taylor. I believe there to be incriminating, possibly criminally incriminating evidence contained in those e-mails and other memoranda. That's why the White House doesn't want to produce it to Congress.
I don't know but probably many of the same reasons you like him. I don't think having $ makes his opinion any more "pure" than before. He's got biases and subjectivity like everyone else. I'm sure he has insights that few of us do because of his wealth and contact with other wealthy individuals, but his expertise in my opinion has only been proven in that realm-not the political one. When he buys U.S. stocks, that is a lot more meaningful to me because it's his field and he is accepting the risk.
Look at the way the UK is going, if you like it vote Obama.
Things that will happen in your country.
Cameras everywhere.
Good Bye 2nd Amendment
Ease up on iimigration
People with counterattack with all the benefits you will have from a socialist system.
AUTHOR: Benjamin Franklin (1706–90)
QUOTATION: Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
ATTRIBUTION: BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor, November 11, 1755.—The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, ed. Leonard W. Labaree, vol. 6, p. 242 (1963).
Things that will happen in your country.
Cameras everywhere.
Good Bye 2nd Amendment
Ease up on iimigration
People with counterattack with all the benefits you will have from a socialist system.
AUTHOR: Benjamin Franklin (1706–90)
QUOTATION: Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
ATTRIBUTION: BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor, November 11, 1755.—The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, ed. Leonard W. Labaree, vol. 6, p. 242 (1963).
I don't think it was purely (or even mostly) on merits alone. I think they (Trib) want to jump on the winner bandwagon just like everyone else.
No one wants to be tied to a loser. I think it will be amazing the endorsements that come out in the next few weeks.
I mean, what has changed in the last 6 months? Why not endorse the candidate then? Simple, you want to see how things play out.
The Tribune is CLEARLY not a liberal paper. Never has, never will be. They just want to be on the bandwagon. Like FOX.
So how about all the previous Democratic presidents, whom the Tribune didn't endorse, that were likewise ahead at this stage. Why didn't the Tribune "jump on the bandwagon then? Your statement completely and unfairly dismisses their rationale for endorsing Obama, the first ever Democratic candidate they have ever endorsed.
Regards,
Danny
Exactly. Can't win these days.
Patriot Act is also supported by Obama.
What I was talking about Biden's record on 2nd Amendment, and Obama's welfare plan.
Just wanted to thank you for your comments as a UK resident. I lived in the UK for a number of years as well. I think you're correct and it's sad to see the direction the US is going, toward that social system of the UK.
Cheers.
Colin Powell has now endorsed Obama. I can remember people saying they would have voted for him if he ran.
Just watched the interview on Meet the Press. Essentially, without specifics, he is voting for Obama as the Greater of Two Goods.
Regards,
Danny
Hmm...
I guess "warmonger" Rumsfeld will be next to support Obama.
I guess "warmonger" Rumsfeld will be next to support Obama.
As predicted.
Now watch the extreme right wing attack Powell as a traitor and a racist.
The specifics are worth noting. Powell is concerned about the divisiveness in the GOP. Powell recognizes Obama's intellectual depth. Powell is concerned about who McCain would put on the Supreme Court. And Powell thinks Palin is not ready to be President. Video of Powell's interview here.
- Status
