Daily news sites

Charlotte – Greetings from the California delegation breakfast at the DNC where before he had a cup of coffee Democratic Party Chair John Burton – much like his ol’ palGuv Jerry Brown once did – just compared the Republicans to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels, for “telling the big lie,” a reference to several falsehoods GOP VP nominee Paul Ryan recently told.

“They lie and they don’t care if people think they lie… Joseph Goebbels – it’s the big lie, you keep repeating it,” Burton said Monday before the Blake Hotel breakfast. He said Ryan told “a bold-faced lie and he doesn’t care that it was a lie. That was Goebbels, the big lie.”

Reminded that Brown drew heat for comparing the messaging of Meg Whitman’s 2010 GOP gubernatorial campaign to Goebbels, he said sarcastically, “(Bleep) that’s right, she won the election!

Burton shrugged at Brown getting in trouble. “He won it big. Goddam he was in trouble.”

Burton is incensed by the distortions uttered by Ryan, who he referred to as a “horse’s ass.” (Although, as you’ll see in the below video, the Chairman is a bit off on his facts, too. Then-Sen. Obama was a candidate when he made comments about a GM plant.)

There’s a difference between lying and embellishing, Burton said. “Everybody who has run for office has embellished – except for me of course,” said the longtime politician. But if you can’t trust someone on the basic facts, he said, how can you trust them to tell you the truth on Medicare?

UPDATE: In response to the uproar over his (below) comments Monday, California Democratic Party Chair John Burton issued this statement: “To correct press reports of my recent comments about Republican lies, I did not call Republicans Nazis nor would I ever. In fact, I didn’t even use the word. “If Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, or the Republicans are insulted by my describing their campaign tactic as the big lie – I most humbly apologize to them or anyone who might have been offended by that comment.”

1. Johnson has a proven political career. Johnson was twice elected as Governor of New Mexico, meaning he's won more gubernatorial elections than Romney has and the same amount of general elections as Obama. This is not an Al Sharpton or Ralph Nader type candidate who hasn't won a thing. Johnson was the sitting governor of a state and there are only 50 individuals who can say that right now. While I understand the idea of a polling requirement to qualify for the debate, Johnson deserves an exemption here. He has the political background to receive some debate time.

2. After the countless political ads and conventions, can we really say we don't know Romney or Obama? Presidential debates are built up as the time when America is introduced to the candidates, but America has already been introduced to these individuals. Outside of the speeches by Chris Christie, Clint Eastwood and Rand Paul, I did not watch a second of the Republican National Convention. Outside of maybe Bill Clinton's speech, I probably won't be watching the Democratic National Convention. I already know who Romney and Obama are.

Meanwhile, America doesn't know who Johnson is - and that's not necessarily his fault. It's tough for a third-party candidate to compete against countless airtime for the Democratic and Republican conventions. It's also tough when you have three cable news networks uttering the words "Obama and Romney" 24 hours, 7 days a week. If the media covered Johnson more, I imagine his polling would reflect it. He's a long-shot candidate not because of his political career or stance on the issues. He's a long shot because of the two-party system and the media.

3. Johnson could make the other two candidates better. A great thing about a presidential primary is the fact the candidates normally feed off of each other because of the competition. For example, I thought Obama became a great candidate because of the lengthy battle he had with Hillary Clinton in 2008. I also thought Romney shined after Newt Gingrich destroyed him in the 2012 South Carolina primary election. Having Johnson on stage could sharpen the debate - and quite frankly, we need better debates in this nation.

4. According to one Website, Johnson would be a strong candidate if people voted on how they actually really felt about the issues. The Website ISideWith.com is a political survey site where readers can fill out a survey and find their ideal candidate. In many states, Johnson is competitive based on the amount of surveys filled out. He currently leads in the states of Texas, Arizona and Georgia - three good states to win on election night. He's also within one or two percentage points in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania - three more really nice delegate states. If Johnson was given more media time and allowed in the debates, the 2012 election would be a legitimate three-way race.

5. If you measure up all three candidates in terms of the most important issue in this campaign, Johnson wins hands down. The most important issue is jobs. The American economy is still struggling and unemployment is still above 8 percent in America, with the underemployment rates much higher. As Governor of New Mexico from 1995 to 2003, the amount of job growth during Johnson's two terms was 11.6 percent. During Romney's time as Governor of Massachusetts, job growth in the state ranked 47th out of 50th. It may be unfair to give all the credit or criticism to politicians when it comes to job growth. However, those are the numbers. Johnson's numbers are the best if you look at side to side. Why doesn't he get to debate?

Obama Fort Bliss: US President Barack Obama addresses troops inside the 1st Aviation Support Battalion Hangar August 31, 2012 at Fort Bliss, Texas. (Photo: MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images)

THE DAILY CALLER - President Barack Obama was greeted with fleeting applause and extended periods of silence as he offered profuse praise to soldiers and their families during an Aug. 31 speech in Fort Bliss, Texas.

His praise for the soldiers — and for his own national-security policies — won cheers from only a small proportion of the soldiers and families in the cavernous aircraft-hangar.

The audience remains quiet even when the commander-in-chief thanked the soldiers’ families, and cited the 198 deaths of their comrades in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The audience’s reaction was so flat that the president tried twice to elicit a reaction from the crowd.

“Hey, I hear you,” he said amid silence.

The selected soldiers who were arrayed behind the president sat quietly throughout the speech.

CNN and MSNBC ended their coverage of the speech before it was half-over.

The president’s speech to the soldiers is part of his constitutional duties as commander-in-chief.

But Obama and his wife are also trying to reach out to military families in several critical swing-states, including Virginia and Florida

That outreach, however, has been damaged by repeated flubs from the White House, including its public emphasis on soldiers’ wounds rather than on their accomplishments, and Obama’s effort to distance himself from the anti-jihad campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan.

For example, Obama gave Vice President Joe Biden the task of developing a post-war agreement with Iraq’s government in 2009. The effort failed, reducing U.S. gains from the campaign that killed almost 4,500 troops, and as well as thousands of jihadis and Sunni insurgents seeking to regain power. The subsequent withdrawal of nearly all U..S. troops has allowed Iran to increase its influence in Iraq. In turn, that influence helps it support Syria’s dictatorship against Sunni insurgents.

White House officials are trying to avoid additional flubs. On Friday, for example, White House officials rushed to debunk a report that the president had used an autopen to sign condolence letters to soldiers’ families.

Throughout Friday’s speech, the loudest reactions came when the president name-checked the nicknames of the soldiers’ brigades. Major military units have their own rival cheers, and those could be heard from portions of the audience when he referred to individual units.

The troops’ silence continued through several obvious applause-lines. {Read More}

KOB Eyewitness News 4 - At last Gary Johnson is included in presidential polling.

It's a major win for the Libertarian candidate who served two terms as Governor of New Mexico.

A Rasmussen poll reports of 1,000 likely American voters finds 16 percent have a favorable opinion of Johnson, while 20 percent view him unfavorably.

His biggest problem? 63 percent don't know enough about him to have an opinion.

In a horse race the poll shows President Barack Obama and GOP contender Mitt Romney neck and neck with 48 percent apiece, with Johnson far behind with 1 percent and 3 percent undecided.

Johnson has been in Tampa, Fla. finding plenty of people to talk to, even though he's not welcome at the Republican National Convention.

Johnson dropped out of the party to run for the Libertarian nomination.

"I'm gonna be the only candidate who does not want to bomb Iran," Johnson told a cheering crowd of Libertarians at an event honoring Ron Paul, the lion of Libertarian politics. "I'm gonna be the only candidate who wants to get out of Afghanistan - bring the troops home."

Johnson is likely to be on the ballot in all 50 states, but third party candidates have not managed to win much in recent elections.

There was Ross Perot 20 years ago, winning 19 percent of the vote away from Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush.

In 1980 John Anderson won 6.6 percent in a race that also featured Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter.

In 1968, George Wallace got about 9 percent, running against Richard Nixon and Hubert Humphrey.

A century ago former President Teddy Roosevelt swung 27 percent of the vote, finishing second to Woodrow Wilson, with Republican William Howard Taft in third place.