ABCNews.com Review Shows an Additional $100,000 in Rezko-Linked Contributions Not Returned by the Campaign

"We have returned any money that we know was associated to Mr. Rezko," Obama told Diane Sawyer on Wednesday morning during an appearance on "Good Morning America." "That is something that if there's additional information we don't know about, we'd be happy to return the money."

The Obama campaign says it has given away more than $85,000 in Rezko-linked contributions since Rezko was indicted on federal fraud and extortion charges in the fall of 2006.

An ABCNews.com review, however, has identified an additional $100,000 in contributions made to Obama from Rezko's associates that have not been returned, including $19,500 in contributions from Rezko's wife and employees of Rezko's business enterprises. The ABCNews.com review includes individuals who have been linked to Rezko in news reports, court documents and public records.

When asked to respond to the findings, campaign spokesman Bill Burton replied, "We think they are casting a wide net and overestimating."

These folks live in Indiana, home of the country's most restrictive photo-identification voter law. The U.S. Supreme Court is now scrutinizing whether that statute violates the first and 14th amendments, in the most contentious legal battle over voting since the high court issued a bitterly divided decision eight years ago that stopped Florida's recount and handed the presidency to George W. Bush.

If the law is upheld, voting rights advocates fear it will encourage conservative lawmakers across the country to enact equally restrictive measures. The high court's decision is expected in the summer - leaving time to impact November's general election.

Opponents, most of them Democrats, say requiring photo ID at the polls disproportionately affects the poor, the elderly and minorities - the most likely to lack photo identification.

But supporters, most of them Republicans, say such requirements are necessary to prevent voter fraud.

In states that narrowly lost fights that would force voters to produce this kind of identification, efforts are already underway to resurrect those more restrictive laws - in anticipation of a favorable ruling from the high court.

In Kansas, for example, GOP legislators announced Jan. 11 that passing such a law was a top priority for its 2008 session. The announcement came two days after oral arguments in the Indiana case.

"It is important that we protect the integrity of this next election," said Republican House leader Melvin Neufeld. Last year, a bill requiring photo ID and proof of U.S. citizenship was defeated in that chamber by a two-vote margin. It previously passed in the state Senate.

In Wisconsin, three similar laws have been vetoed by Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle, most recently last year. State Republicans have vowed to renew their fight in time for the presidential election.

Since Congress passed the Help America Vote Act in 2002 - a measure designed to avoid a repeat election disaster - seven states have passed photo ID laws. Six became mired in bitter legal battles: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio and Missouri.

Appellate courts have upheld ID laws in Arizona, Georgia and Michigan. Court rulings are pending in Indiana and Ohio. Missouri's regulation was struck down by that state's top court.

In the seventh state, Florida, voters may present signature-bearing ID if they don't possess photo identification.

No state goes as far as Indiana's 2005 regulations, which stipulate that every voter must present an ID issued by the state or the federal government. The document must contain:

- The voter's photograph.

- The voter's name (which has to be si]]>Thu, 24 Jan 2008 02:22:17 GMT 

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/01/thompson_continues_to_mull_fut.html?referrer=email

The Fix by Chris Cizzilla

Thompson Ends Race, Immediate Endorsement Unlikely

Former senator Fred Thompson (Tenn.) dropped out of the race for the Republican presidential nomination today, following months of lackluster campaigning and chaos within his campaign organization.

"Today I have withdrawn my candidacy for President of the United States," Thompson said in a terse statement. "I hope that my country and my party have benefited from our having made this effort. Jeri and I will always be grateful for the encouragement and friendship of so many wonderful people."

Those close to Thompson say that his mind has been elsewhere since his disappointing third-place finish in South Carolina's Republican presidential primary because he has been in Tennessee caring for his mother who is seriously ill. Those same sources suggested that Thompson, a politician turned TV and move star, is not likely to immediately endorse any of the remaining candidates in the field.

While one source close to Thompson suggests that several candidates have sought to reach out to him following his disappointing finish in South Carolina, campaign officials for Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and former governor Mitt Romney (Mass.) insist they have had no contact with Thompson.

It's not clear what if any value would come from a Thompson endorsement -- should he choose to proffer one. The arc of Thompson's campaign has been almost straight downward since he floated the idea of running for president last spring. Polling in the late spring/early summer showed Thompson surging into the lead nationally and in key early states. But a series of staff departures, slipups and a delayed formal announcement took the shine off of the movie star-turned senator's candidacy. Thompson placed third in Iowa, took just 1 percent of the vote in New Hampshire and, despite an intense push over the past ten days, could only muster a third place finish in South Carolina.

It had long been assumed that if Thompson dropped out he would almost certainly support McCain. Thompson was one of a handful of senators to support McCain's 2000 presidential bid, and the two men had been friends and allies in the Senate.

Thompson's conservative credentials could help McCain in northern Florida and in the state's panhandle in the increasingly crucial vote there on Jan. 29. But, if he is committed to not immediately endorsing McCain or any other candidate, that may well be a moot point.

The former star of "Law & Order" and several movies generated enormous interest and speculaton last spring and summer while he openly pondered whether to jump into the presidential campaign. For a while, many conservatives who were unhappy with the field of GOP candidates looked to Thompson as the solution. Thompson launched his campaign with bravado and an appearance on the "Jay Leno show," but it was all downhill from there, and he saw his poll numbers drop from the the high 20s and low 30s in early September to single digits by the start of this year. He also lost his camapign manager and many of his senior staff members even before his Labor Day weekend announcement.

For more on Thompson, make sure to read Mike Shear's piece in today's Post.

Kucinich, Hunter, Gravel cut from debates

Candidates didn't meet network's benchmarks; FCC complaint filed

updated 7:19 p.m. PT, Fri., Jan. 4, 2008

NEW YORK - ABC News is eliminating Republican presidential candidate Duncan Hunter and Democrats Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel from its prime-time presidential debates Saturday night because they did not meet benchmarks for their support.

The Republican debate three days before the New Hampshire primary will include Iowa caucus winner Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. It starts at 7 p.m. EDT.

Shortly after that 90-minute forum, Democrats Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Bill Richardson will take the stage at St. Anselm College in Manchester, N.H.

Kucinich filed a complaint with the the Federal Communications Commission on Friday, arguing that ABC is violating equal-time provisions by keeping him out of the debate and noting that ABC's parent Walt Disney Co. had contributed to campaigns involving the four Democrats who were invited.

"ABC should not be the first primary," the Ohio congressman said in papers filed at the FCC.

ABC said the candidates left out of the debates failed to meet benchmarks for their support that were outlined to each campaign prior to the Iowa caucus. Kucinich did not complain about these rules ahead of time, said spokeswoman Cathie Levine, who had no further comment since she hasn't seen the FCC filing.

ABC said it hoped to encourage more conversation and interaction among the candidates during the debates, which will both be moderated by Charles]]>Sat, 5 Jan 2008 10:57:28 GMTJohn McCain & Henry Kissinger

An editorial  —  1/02/2008 7:07 am

 

http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/editorial/265030

Only the surreal strategists who manage John McCain's presidential campaign would divine to top an endorsement by Sen. Joe "nothing but good news from Iraq" Lieberman with one that will give thinking Americans -- and a frightened world -- greater cause for alarm.

So it is that, on the heels of the Connecticut senator's campaign swing on behalf of McCain, comes the news that the Arizona senator is making the circuit with an even more disturbing advocate for even more disturbing foreign policies: Henry Kissinger.

The former secretary of state, whose name is synonymous in the civilized world with the term "war criminal" and whose sleazy business deals have advanced the interests of dictators, has added the dubious distinction of his support to the McCain campaign. So discredited is Kissinger that when President Bush proposed him as the chairman of the 9/11 Commission, there was near universal objection.

Kissinger is not conflicted about McCain. "I believe now that he's the best candidate to serve our nation in an extremely difficult and complicated period," he says.

Even more frightening, for McCain it's all about the next Cold War.

"We now face this threat of radical Islamic extremism," says McCain. "One of the reasons I feel so strongly about America's image in the world is because I think we'll win this struggle the same way we won the Cold War."

Those who amuse themselves with the notion that McCain is not that bad a player -- an old political misread given new life by his position on torture -- would do well to figure into their calculations the Kissinger factor. If the darkest player in post-World War II American foreign policy says a man should be president, that man definitely should not be president.

An editorial  —  1/02/2008 7:07 am

]]>Sat, 5 Jan 2008 07:48:57 GMTRed alert on a Romney adviser

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1064724

J. Cofer Black is Mitt Romney’s chief weapon against Islamo-fascism. The former CIA official chairs Romney’s Counterterrorism Policy Advisory Group.

However, the 9/11 Commission, the Congressional Joint Inquiry on 9/11 and the CIA’s inspector general all condemn Black for dropping the ball before Sept. 11, 2001. Thus, Black’s spot in Romney’s brain trust raises grave doubts about the Bay Stater’s national-security judgment.

At CNN/YouTube’s Nov. 28 debate, Romney said that when pondering terrorist interrogation, “I get that advice from Cofer Black, who is a person who was responsible for counterterrorism in the CIA for some 35 years.” Actually, this is false. Black served the CIA for 28 years and directed its Counterterrorist Center (CTC) for less than three - from June 1999 to May 2002.

 

In January 2000, Black’s CTC briefed top CIA, FBI and White House officials on what would turn out to be a 9/11 summit in Kuala Lumpur. Hijackers Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar attended. Alas, these two left Malaysia.

But in early March 2000, the CIA learned that Hazmi had flown to Los Angeles that Jan. 15, as did Mihdhar.

“No one outside of the Counterterrorist Center was told any of this,” the 9/11 Commission Report states. “The CIA did not try to register Mihdhar or Hazmi with the State Department’s TIPOFF watchlist.”

In January 2001, the CIA tied Mihdhar to “Khallad,” an al-Qaeda agent who bombed the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000. “Yet we found no effort by the CIA to renew the long-abandoned search for Mihdhar or his travel companions,” the 9/11 Commission concluded. It added that then-CIA Director George “Tenet and Cofer Black testified before Congress’s Joint Inquiry into 9/11 that the FBI had access to this identification from the beginning. But drawing on an extensive record . . . we conclude this was not the case.”

Were Mihdhar “watchlisted,” he could have been arrested when he returned from Mecca on July 4, 2001. Instead, he resumed his mass-murder plans.

These botched opportunities also prevented the FBI from activating a California source who knew Hazmi and Mihdhar. “The informant’s contacts with the hijackers, had they been capitalized upon, would have given the San Diego FBI field office perhaps the Intelligence Community’s best chance to unravel the Sept. 11 plot,” the Congressional Joint Inquiry’s declassified December 2002 report heartbreakingly observes.

Hazmi and Mihdhar finally were watchlisted on Aug. 23, 2001, 19 days before they plowed American Airlines [AMR] Flight 77 into the Pentagon.

As for flagging Hazmi and Mihdhar, “It should have been done,” the former CTC chief told the Joint Inquiry. “It wasn’t . . . And I think what contributed to that was (that) these same officers watching this operation were also doing a lot of other things.”

On Aug. 25, 2005, the Associated Press revealed that CIA Inspector General John Helgerson’s then-classified report “recommended disciplinary reviews” for Black, Tenet and former clandestine-service head Jim Pavett. Tenet’s successor, Porter]]>Sat, 5 Jan 2008 06:59:46 GMT December 31, 2007     Permalink

Why Ron Paul will take IA/NH and Why the Polls are WRONG

Diary Entry by Robert Johnson
http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=5377
 

PLYMOUTH, N.H., Dec. 21, 2007

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/21/eveningnews/main3640041.shtml

---

 

Ron Paul Won't Back Down

With an anti-Iraq War and anti-tax stance, presidential nominee Ron Paul has acquired voter support from both parties. Dean Reynolds examines why Paul can no longer be overlooked.

 

(CBS) His progress has been as gradual as a tortoise on ice, but Ron Paul can no longer be dismissed as the favorite of the fringe, reports CBS News correspondent Dean Reynolds.

Unlike other candidates consigned to the periphery, Paul has refused to go away. He is now in a tie for third in Iowa with supposed top-tier hopefuls.

And in live-free-or-die New Hampshire, he believes his anti-Iraq war, anti-tax, pro-freedom message with its libertarian tinge may resonate.

"People are flocking to the campaign," says Paul. "Maybe they've been starved for a campaign like this."

Paul's trip to Plymouth was promising: one woman told Reynolds that he was following the next president.

"Absolutely! No doubt," she says.

Paul's supporters are fervent - almost feverish - both on the ground and online.

He has used the Internet to drum up the bulk of an eye-popping 18 million dollars in this quarter alone from what he says are frustrated members of both parties and first-time voters. If money talks, Ron Paul is shouting.

"I am surprised," Paul says. "But I'm disappointed that I am surprised. Why shouldn't this be]]>Sun, 23 Dec 2007 19:21:25 GMT 

 

 

A post-Bush America is not about to fall at Europe's feet

The prospect of a more pliable US is largely an illusion. EU states must make some very serious, existential choices

Martin Kettle
Saturday November 10, 2007
The Guardian

If a week is a long time in politics, a year is an eternity. Yet this is an important time to look ahead. In 12 months we will at last know who is to succeed George Bush in the White House. Right now, the outcome of that contest is difficult to predict. Nevertheless the election will shape the context of international affairs until well into the coming decade. For those who want to set a course for Britain and Europe during those years, it is not too soon to start thinking and preparing.

For the moment, what is important is to recognise two things. The first is that the November 2008 election is absolutely not a shoo-in for the Democrats, despite their strong general poll position and Bush's unpopularity. A President Rudy Giuliani or a President Mitt Romney remains as open a possibility as a President Hillary Clinton or a President Barack Obama. The second is that the new US administration, of whatever party stripe, will preside over a far less benign political moment for the world than many, not least in our continent, currently assume.

That claim may seem perverse. Bush suffers unprecedentedly low ratings at home. He has also triggered unmatched hostility abroad. Visit America and you find bestselling Bush's Last Day bumper stickers and desk calendars, while 01/20/09 countdown clocks (see www.backwardsbush.com) are this season's must-have onscreen accessory. What's not to look forward to about January 2009, given that the Bush years have been so uniquely disastrous?

There can be no disputing that the world will greet Bush's departure as what a senior British diplomat calls, with risible understatement, a chance to get its breath back. And clearly the new president will take office amid more than the usual international goodwill and expectation. Western Europe is gagging for a Democrat to win. Gordon Brown's foreign policy instincts only make any sense if there is a Democratic successor, preferably Hillary Clinton. Interestingly, David Cameron's foreign policy top brass are also rooting for Clinton. But even Giuliani would represent a new start.

Obviously, the opportunity offered by Bush's departure should not be dismissed. Repairing America's relations with the rest of the world is important work. But it will not happen seamlessly or quickly. Politicians and policymakers on this side of the Atlantic must be careful not to let their expectations run ahead of reality. The prospect of a more pliable, Iraq-chastened and multilateralist US, willing to solve international problems on terms comfortable to Europeans, is an alluring one. But, as Kori Schake wisely points out in a pamphlet just issued by the Centre for European Reform, it is also mostly an illusion.

Indeed, if Schake's thesis is correct, the mutual incomprehension between Europe and America in the Bush years may quickly take on a new but scarcely less intractable form under his successor. Partly this is because most of the candidates of all parties take a very different line to most Europeans on global and international issues - including China, the Middle East, the Balkans, missile defence and Iran. There are important exceptions - climate change, trade and, above all, Iraq. Yet this does not mean that the incoming administration is likely to throw a switch and adopt what we might tag a European approach, whatever that quite means]]>Sat, 10 Nov 2007 02:08:46 GMT

ARTICLE SYNOPSIS:

Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R.-Texas) has raised $4.3 million online in 24 hours — much to the surprise of those who do not regard the congressman as a "top-tier" candidate.

Follow this link to the original source: "Who are Ron Paul's Donors?"

COMMENTARY:

The major media — ABC News in this case — finally seem to be sitting up straight and taking notice. The report noted that Rep. Paul raised just over $5 million in the most recent fundraising quarter, which ended September 30. The most newsworthy part of the story, however, was the fact that on November 5 the Paul campaign managed to raise another $4.3 million online in just 24 hours!

The Paul campaign had attached a catchy slogan to the one-day fundraiser, "Remember, Remember the fifth of November," borrowed from an old English nursery rhyme about Guy Fawkes. But the real engine behind the successful fundraising is pure 21st century. More than any other candidate, the Paul campaign has relied on grassroots support brought together by Website activity such as online chat forums and meetup groups. ABC News tracked down Trevor Lyman, the man behind the Website that coordinated Paul's successful fundraiser, in an attempt to explain how a candidate who has so far been largely ignored by the media can garner so much support. Lyman explained that someone suggested a mass one-day online fundraising drive in a Ron Paul meetup group.

The headline "Who are Ron Paul’s Donors?" reveals a sense of perplexity among those in the media concerning the Paul campaign. It is as though they still have not figured out how this former OB/GYN with a small town, country doctor image has managed to step into the ring, slug it out with "the big boys" like Giuiani, McCain, and Romney, and still remain on his feet.

Many in the media are even confused about how to label Ron Paul. Is he a conservative Republican? Is he a libertarian? Is he something impossible to describe in conventional political terminology?

Both the confusion — and Rep. Paul's extraordinary level of grassroots support — seem to stem from the same source, however: He is unlike any other candidate running for president this year, and for many years. We would probably need to go back to the presidential election of 1952, when Ohio Senator Robert A. Taft sought the Republican nomination, to find a leading candidate in the Paul model. Taft would undoubtedly confuse many Americans today, since, although he was unquestionably a conservative who opposed the New Deal, he shared many of Ron Paul's views, such as opposition to military intervention overseas. During the 1952 election year, influential opinion molders supporting General Dwight Eisenhower — a lifelong Democrat before he sought the Republican nomination — spread the mantra: "I like Taft, but he can't win," torpedoing the Ohioan's candidacy.

While many people today have given Rep. Paul even less chance of winning the nomination and election than Robert Taft had back in 1952, Paul enjoys advantages Taft never had. The rise of the Internet has broken the stranglehold of the mass media and the national party bigwigs to allow grassroots Americans to exchange ideas more freely.

In addition to allowing for a freer exchange of ideas, we have just seen how the Web also allows candidates with lesser name recognition to fund their campaigns. Given a fair chance, Ron Paul will be able to get a hearing for his message o]]>Wed, 7 Nov 2007 01:36:46 GMTRon Paul Is Our Seabiscuit

By Dictator Hater

I remember thinking last year during the election cycle that it was about time we got rid of the Republican's control over Congress. When the Democrats took control, I was only a tiny bit relieved and at the same time, quite suspicious of them. But, being an optimist, I had hope.

It turns out my suspicions were well-founded.

Since the Democrats took office, they've broken almost every promise they made in order to wheedle their way in. Even the progressive blogs are starting to reflect disappointment and disdain for these politicians who were supposed to be the Saviors of America. Even at that, I still see people towing the party line and they are going to vote for whom they consider the "lesser of evils" yet again, in the next presidential elections.

The only person running for President of the United States of America who is worth their salt is Ron Paul. But true to form, the mainstream media is conducting a blackout of which the likes have never been seen during my lifetime. Unless you want to count the lack of reporting of facts regarding September 11, 2001 and the run up to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

I keep hoping that one of these days people will understand there is no difference in political parties and no matter who is elected, you get more of the same. Everything goes to plan and we are in deeper trouble with each passing election.

But once in a while we see a shining star in the midst of all the darkness. Every now and again a Dark Horse that has the morals and statesmanship to lead this country back to greatness appears.

That man is Ron Paul. Ron Paul is our Seabiscuit in the Republican party. He's that tough little horse that no one thought could win in the face of incredible odds. He's pulling up from the rear with more than five million dollars in grassroots campaign donations this past quarter. He's gentle, yet tough. He's honest yet demanding of his people in that he's in this campaign to win, not just to place. And like Seabiscuit he can run to victory. But even Seabicuit needed support and those of us who want to see a real change in this country have got to take charge of ourselves by campaigning for him and by donating money to his campaign. He's the only politician I have ever donated money to and it did not leave a bad taste in my mouth.

Can you imagine the overwhelming energy that would overtake this country in the event he became the Republican Presidential Nominee?
It would be electric.

The Iraq war rages on and all the Democrats have done is to continue funding it to the tune of more and more billions.

Ron Paul will lead us out of this war if he is elected, not in a year, not in two, after he takes office as president, but immediately. He is not wishy-washy on this subject or any other one, for that matter. He says what he means and he means what he says.

If you don't believe me, look at his philosophical and political beliefs. Hear what he says in interviews and then compare them to his Texas Congressional voting record. He has said that there were plenty of times when he wanted to vote for something because he wanted it, but the Constitution did not allow it. Just think how great this country would be if all politicians had the guts and the gumption to stand on that platform and act on it.

Ron Paul would begin by voiding every Presidential Executive Order and Directive ever issued by all presidents. Now, that's what you call a good start!

I can always bet good money and win if there is something up for a vote and if it is bad for American taxpayers, it will become law. The Democrats and Republicans work as a tag team, playing good cop bad cop while they try and fool us into thinking there is a difference. Know this, there is no]]>Tue, 9 Oct 2007 11:21:17 GMT