2008 Election - Offseason

[Okie Medicvet]

Get your facts straight. Obama's FATHER was born in Kenya, not him.

[Claydon]

who gives a fuck?!

[Mustard]

who gives a fuck?!
Apparently Federal Farmer does.

[Claydon]

Apparently Federal Farmer does.


Odd thing actually that I realized a few weeks ago. To me, Obama winning the election is just not that big of a deal. Growing up in a major city race was just never an issue to me (unless there is a frenchmen nearby). I just see him as yet another male becoming president. A woman...ahhh... now that is something very different.

[Mustard]

Odd thing actually that I realized a few weeks ago. To me, Obama winning the election is just not that big of a deal. Growing up in a major city race was just never an issue to me (unless there is a frenchmen nearby). I just see him as yet another male becoming president. A woman...ahhh... now that is something very different.
I agree. However, do you think the electorate would be more inclined to vote for the devil they know (male pres) or the devil they don't (female vice pres)?

Statistically people are always more inclined to vote for the devil they know, but then again... there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. It should all be very interesting how it turns out, and the fact that history will be made either way is a great thing for America no matter the result.

[Federal Farmer]

http://static.crooksandliars.com/2008/08/soto_47.jpg

Well, it's good to know that you're NOT going to be voting for Stephen Douglas or John Breckenridge.

[BIG PIZZLE]

Odd thing actually that I realized a few weeks ago. To me, Obama winning the election is just not that big of a deal. Growing up in a major city race was just never an issue to me (unless there is a frenchmen nearby). I just see him as yet another male becoming president. A woman...ahhh... now that is something very different.

Black people got to vote before women.

[Federal Farmer]

Get your facts straight. Obama's FATHER was born in Kenya, not him.

There is some evidence that Obama himself was born in Kenya because his mother was not allowed to fly back to the States due to the late term of her pregnancy, and that it was only after she delivered B.O. that she flew him back to Hawaii and registered his birth there.

There are no hospital records of Obama actually having been born in Hawaii, no billing records, no physicians reports, nothing.

[Federal Farmer]

Apparently Federal Farmer does.

Not really, as I have no doubt that this will be settled sooner or later, but the fact remains that evidence does exist, that IF proven true, would preclude him from being eligible to serve as POTUS.

[BIG PIZZLE]

Maybe he was born in a manger.

[Mustard]

No he wasn't, he was born in Kenya. Oh, and BTW, John McCain was born on a US military installation, which IS and always has been, soveriegn US territory.
http://img140.imagevenue.com/loc1142/th_31800_BO_Birth_Certificate_122_1142lo.jpg (http://img140.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=31800_BO_Birth_Certificate_122_1142l o.jpg)

He was born in Hawai'i. Stop lying.

[Pharon]

Black people got to vote before women.
That's because black people are smarter than women.

[Federal Farmer]

Carter wasn't president in '53.

You are absolutely correct, that OTHER douchebag Dim-O-Crap Harry S. Truman was. And when he wasn't screwing around in the Mid East, he was setting the stage for Vietnam!

[Federal Farmer]

So I suppose the histoy books I've read have no credibility either, and their objectivity from which I've deduced my opinions are all just moot?

Sink, obviously the "history books" you've read on the subject were written as parody, or you weren't paying the least bit of attention, because what you've described bears no resemblence to the years that I lived through.

[Hanover Fist]

http://i37.tinypic.com/21alp43.jpg
Now the actual numbers may not mean much in polling but the trends do. They may have biases in polling but you would assume that they would be consistent biases and that trends would indicate a general move.
I would think that this shows that the personal attacks against Palin are clearly falling on deaf ears and the race has become a race between Palin and Obama. McCain must be loving the fact that the Dems are spending so much time going after Palin that he has been virtually unscathed since her selection.
Rasmussen and CBS polling are showing similar trends over the last week. The interesting thing about the Gallup poll is that they showed a 7 point lead for Obama just last week. CBS showed 8 point Obama lead, now tied.
Also InTrade stock for both candidates has swung sharply with McCain gaining 20% since Palins announcement. Obama still has an edge in stock price of 56.2 to 43.5 but McCains trade volume is sharply up (1.3%) and Obamas is slightly down(-.8%)
http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/trading/t_index.jsp?selConID=409933

[Federal Farmer]

You do realize he is the one who negotiated for the release of the hostages? Like, they got released because of them?

Ah, you mean when he bent over, grabbed his ankles, and let the Ayatolla FUCK HIM UP THE ASS?? Is THAT what you Libs call "negotiation"? He even signed an executive order that denied the hostages the right to have any suit brought against Iran heard in an American court!

Fucking GUTLESS BLUNDER is what he was, and nothing more. No wonder you Libs love him so much, he's one of YOU!

[Federal Farmer]

He was born in Hawai'i. Stop lying.

No lie to it, he was born in Kenya, and afterwards his mother flew back with him TO Hawaii and registered his birth there.

The Certificate of Live Birth that you've presented is no different than the one that was issued for my cousin who was born in the mountains of Montana in the winter of '52, and my Aunt took him to St. Peters hospital in Helena 2 weeks later to have him checked out.

[Mustard]

http://i37.tinypic.com/21alp43.jpg
Now the actual numbers may not mean much in polling but the trends do. They may have biases in polling but you would assume that they would be consistent biases and that trends would indicate a general move.
I would think that this shows that the personal attacks against Palin are clearly falling on deaf ears and the race has become a race between Palin and Obama. McCain must be loving the fact that the Dems are spending so much time going after Palin that he has been virtually unscathed since her selection.
Rasmussen and CBS polling are showing similar trends over the last week. The interesting thing about the Gallup poll is that they showed a 7 point lead for Obama just last week. CBS showed 8 point Obama lead, now tied.
Also InTrade stock for both candidates has swung sharply with McCain gaining 20% since Palins announcement. Obama still has an edge in stock price of 56.2 to 43.5 but McCains trade volume is sharply up (1.3%) and Obamas is slightly down(-.8%)
http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/trading/t_index.jsp?selConID=409933
The poll's results are intriguing, and I bet you're right on in your idea that since the focus has been on Palin, it keeps McCain out of the spotlight.

I was just looking here at this site, and I really like the interactivity of it. You have the ability to change the states to what you predict their outcomes will be, and by using that rationale, create scenarios based on polling trends to try and figure out who might win the general.

Give it a try. http://www.270towin.com/

[Mustard]

Using the interactive map on http://www.270towin.com/ (http://www.270towin.com/) , I keep coming up with the same scenario over and over again, that it all comes down to Missouri and their 11 electoral votes.

To make things close, I give the GOP Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico. First off, does anyone think Obama can win any of these states? Then I give Obama Minnesota, Michigan, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania. Does anyone think McCain can win any of these states? Ok, obviously they are swing states which could go either way, but since guessing is free...

Anyway, that boils everything down to Missouri, assuming McCain and Obama win those states above. That said, it doesn't matter at all it seems if Obama manages to pick up Nevada or New Mexico on their own.

I guess I'm just curious what everyone else got when they check out the site.

[freegood]

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

If Obama does win, it'll be out of tight efficiency and excellent planning and execution. That's how he won against hillary...

[Mustard]

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

If Obama does win, it'll be out of tight efficiency and excellent planning and execution. That's how he won against hillary...
Two things:

I didn't know that people were actually placing wagers on who wins what state. I'm not surprised by any means, but still... betting on an election seems like it trivializes it. Anyone else feel that way?

Also, do those state polls indicate whether or not they polled likely voters, or just registered voters?

[BIG PIZZLE]

Elections being trivialized? Do tell!

[freegood]

Two things:

I didn't know that people were actually placing wagers on who wins what state. I'm not surprised by any means, but still... betting on an election seems like it trivializes it. Anyone else feel that way?


People bet on anything and everything like the under/over on the damage a hurricane will bring. I guess as long as they don't directly influence things (tampering votes), then it's not that big a problem. It's still tasteless.


Also, do those state polls indicate whether or not they polled likely voters, or just registered voters?

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Info/polling-faq.html

[Claydon]

That's because black people are smarter than women.

[Mustard]

So.... what about black women then?

EDIT: This I found especially interesting... any truth to it? Source: http://www.electoral-vote.com/


Palin Avoids Free Media

Most candidates love getting free television time, especially long interviews where they can make their points at length and have the voters get to know them better. The Sunday talk shows are a favorite. Today John McCain will get a full half hour on CBS' Face the Nation, Barack Obama goes on ABC's This Week, and Joe Biden takes the hot seat at NBC's Meet the Press. Sarah Palin is avoiding free media (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13208.html) when every network would love to have her. All it would take is one phone call to CNN, for example, and she'd be on there for half an hour, for free. This behavior gives the impressesion that the McCain campaign is afraid to have her interviewed in depth by experienced reporters for fear of what she might say. The problem is not gaffes--Biden makes them from time to time, but will still be grilled. The real problem is she might say something intentionally that she really and truly believes (like victims of rape should be forced to bear their rapist's child) and this will shock the viewers. It will be interesting to see how long Palin can avoid giving interviews and whether the media starts to point out this behavior.

[Smokestack]

It's probably been mentioned here on some previous page, but a great polling site is http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/ which is done by Baseball Prospectus sabermetician Nate Silver. If you haven't seen it, check it out...lots of cool charts and graphs that you might expect from a baseball stat geek.

[URFloorMatt]

http://i37.tinypic.com/21alp43.jpg
Now the actual numbers may not mean much in polling but the trends do. They may have biases in polling but you would assume that they would be consistent biases and that trends would indicate a general move.
I would think that this shows that the personal attacks against Palin are clearly falling on deaf ears and the race has become a race between Palin and Obama. McCain must be loving the fact that the Dems are spending so much time going after Palin that he has been virtually unscathed since her selection.
Rasmussen and CBS polling are showing similar trends over the last week. The interesting thing about the Gallup poll is that they showed a 7 point lead for Obama just last week. CBS showed 8 point Obama lead, now tied.It's called a convention bump; it's a manufactured shift in polling, not any sort of organic trend. Do you see how Obama was destroying in all the polls on Wed/Thurs of last week (right in the middle of the RNC)? Like all convention bumps, you regress back to reality. McCain's will likely last longer unless there's a lot of political news to push the news cycles along in the coming weeks. The second convention always has a longer tail on its bump.

To make things close, I give the GOP Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico. First off, does anyone think Obama can win any of these states?Yes. Obama will win New Mexico. Colorado, Nevada, Ohio, and Virginia are toss ups. Colorado probably leans an inch to Obama. Virginia leans an inch to McCain. In theory Ohio leans an inch to Obama, but in practice (and based on history) it probably leans an inch to McCain. Nevada is as pure a toss-up as they come.

Then I give Obama Minnesota, Michigan, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania. Does anyone think McCain can win any of these states?Until we get some polling from Michigan and New Hampshire in the post-Palin world, I'd be hesitant to give them to Obama. Michigan's got a disproportionate share of hockey moms, and NH seems partial to mavericks. Impossible at this point to know whether Palin registers in either state based on either criteria.

Anyway, that boils everything down to Missouri, assuming McCain and Obama win those states above. That said, it doesn't matter at all it seems if Obama manages to pick up Nevada or New Mexico on their own.

I guess I'm just curious what everyone else got when they check out the site.I think Missouri is totally irrelevant, except for the fact that it's a must win for McCain. McCain must win Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Missouri, and Colorado to stay alive (assuming Obama holds Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire).

That puts the race on New Mexico and Nevada. If everything finishes the same as 2004 except Obama wins both of these (and Iowa, which, at least for now, is a lock), the race finishes 269-269 and goes to the House for a tiebreaker.

In the event of a tie, each state delegation in the House gets one vote. Given the current make-up of the House (Democratic majorities in 27 states), that leaves the advantage with Obama. There may be some push for states to vote based on the popular vote outcome in their home state (which would advantage McCain given this situation), but there would also likely be a push for states to honor the national popular vote, which would likely advantage Obama in the current political climate.

In other words, if it comes down to 269-269, get ready to watch this country tear itself apart. Florida 2000 will be peaches and cream by comparison.

[Okie Medicvet]

The only people that buy into and spread the lies about where Obama was born are some far out there on the fringe people wearing their tinfoil hats and drinking the koolaid. He was born in Hawaii, and he is not a Muslim and there is no plot to get a 'ferriner' the presidency. Get over it already, because there are few, if any, people who take it seriously here.

[Axel]

Okie, you're wrong, Farmer already opened our eyes: Obama is not even from this galaxy, and he has sworn on both Kabala and Koran. Got it?

[Mustard]

Actually, I've got proof that Barack Obama is actually the anti-christ. Because he's black.

Do you see what I did there?

[Hanover Fist]

I think Michigan is definitely an interesting state in the election this year. There are many dynamics involved.
A fairly unpopular Democrat Governor, a horrible economy, a weakening union sector, and a snub of a very popular Michigander in Romney. While I have no doubt McCain would have taken Michigan with Romney, I have no idea with Palin as VP.
It will be interesting as well to see if the Kwame Kilpatrick scandal has any impact, after all the Democrats must get at least 50-60% of their statewide votes from the Detroit area.

[freegood]

Okie, you're wrong, Farmer already opened our eyes: Obama is not even from this galaxy, and he has sworn on both Kabala and Koran. Got it?

According to Farmer, Obama has also sworn on a box of Wheaties.

Losers are up in arms.

[kareyn01]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/06/obama_helps_register_49k_new_v.html

Interesting numbers in terms of voter registration by the Obama campaign. So far, there have been 142,000 new voters registered in the state of Virginia since June.

Also, there have been 2 million new Democrats registered since June compared with 344,000 new Republicans nationwide, and that's only in the 28 states that identify new registrants by party affiliation.

I wonder how many of those people (on both sides) are being factored in by polling services?

[Claydon]

So in a review of the spewed bullshit from both candidates from the weekend I did not see a peep about debt reduction, or spending reduction.

Cowards, all of them.

[Smokestack]

This article makes a good point. Just a few weeks ago, Obama was the candidate of ethereal, ungrounded ideas while McCain was the policy guy. Totally the opposite now:

“In a notable role reversal, Obama, seeking to answer criticism that he wasn't being specific enough, is campaigning on policy substance and meaty issues. McCain, trying to obscure his commonalities with an unpopular president, is celebrating his biography, especially his 5 1/2 years as a prisoner-of-war in Vietnam. ... While Obama this week has engaged in long, dry question-and-answer sessions with voters, McCain and his new running mate, Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska, spent their first post-convention day yesterday rallying big, boisterous Obama-esque crowds in Wisconsin and Michigan. McCain's campaign, which has relished mocking Obama's rock-star reputation, even handed out press credentials with a silhouetted image of a drum kit.”

(http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/09/06/personas_changing_as_race_heats_up/)

[Hanover Fist]

I was kind of curious as to what Obama actually did as a community organizer and there was a story in NRO that addressed it back in June and they reprinted it today. It is actually sort of an interesting read. I realize it is a conservative publication and all and should be taken as such, but it's the only place that I've seen that even addresses Obamas "community organizing" days.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWMxNGUxZWJjYzg1NjA0MTlmZDZmMjUwZGU3ZjAwNmU=

[Smokestack]

I was kind of curious as to what Obama actually did as a community organizer and there was a story in NRO that addressed it back in June and they reprinted it today. It is actually sort of an interesting read. I realize it is a conservative publication and all and should be taken as such, but it's the only place that I've seen that even addresses Obamas "community organizing" days.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWMxNGUxZWJjYzg1NjA0MTlmZDZmMjUwZGU3ZjAwNmU=

Try Googling it...you'll find more:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usobam025598601mar02,1,6933215,full.story

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070416/moberg

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070826/3obama.htm

etc etc etc

Edit: He also wrote a chapter about it, if you want to get his take on it: http://www.edwoj.com/Alinsky/AlinskyObamaChapter1990.htm

[kid_vidrio]

Yeah, he took the time to write a couple books going into some detail.
It's funny how his tenure as President of the Harvard Law review is overlooked.
Look at some of his predecessors:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Law_Review

[Smokestack]

Yeah, he took the time to write a couple books going into some detail.
It's funny how his tenure as President of the Harvard Law review is overlooked.
Look at some of his predecessors:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Law_Review

It's not overlooked...it's viewed as elitist. Out discourse can be sad sometimes.

[Pollo]

for those interested, part 2 of the Obama interview with O'Reilly should be showing any moment now.

[Pollo]

well, part 2 of that interview was quite amusing if anyone watched. only lasted like 10 minutes, though.

[Okie Medicvet]

Okie, you're wrong, Farmer already opened our eyes: Obama is not even from this galaxy, and he has sworn on both Kabala and Koran. Got it?

whoa. So he is into Kabbalah? oooooh..that would make him a mystic and not a fundie...:eek:

But I already know about Obama's secret identity..it's in my avatar!

:p

[Okie Medicvet]

well, part 2 of that interview was quite amusing if anyone watched. only lasted like 10 minutes, though.


Dangit, I missed seeing that, oh well, hopefully they will show a repeat of it later on tonight..and not just a chopped up sound bite version of it too.

[Claydon]

Seems to me that 10 minutes is pretty much a sound bite.

[Okie Medicvet]

I missed it the first time, but if they show it in its entirety later tonight, I'm gtg.

[Debo]

I missed it the first time, but if they show it in its entirety later tonight, I'm gtg.

I would start here.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=o%27reilly+obama+interview&hl=en&emb=0&aq=0&oq=o%27reilly+obama#

[Okie Medicvet]

I'm actually glad I got to see that..one thing I have noticed is that Obama really connects with people on the domestic issues where I think some of the GOP'ers are utterly clueless abut, but doesn't speak often enough (in my humble opinion) about foreign policy, and that was a lot of what O-reilly asked him about. So I got to hear some of his positions in a little detail about foreign policy.

And O'reilly wasn't interrupting to the point where he wouldn't let Obama explain his positions, which pleasantly surprised me..I expected him to be practically frothing at the mouth over Obama, lol!

Of course I have only watched the first half so far..

[freegood]

pt2
FLfYQqxp884

[Hanover Fist]

What better way to show your support than a presidential nominee action figure, PEZ dispenser or plush pillow.

http://www.herobuilders.com/08.htm
Everyone wants the Palin schoolgirl action figure right?


http://i34.tinypic.com/n5ocjo.jpg

[Claydon]

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/08/fox-newsrasmussen-reports-poll-presidential-race-competitive-in-key-battleground-states/

Looks like mccain is ahead in ohio for the moment.

[BIG PIZZLE]

Awesome.

Eneq0jcMlTw

[Claydon]

i can't wait until he takes the 11:30pm slot.

[Mustard]

pt2
FLfYQqxp884
That was pretty good. I'm curious what Billo has in store for Obama in part 3.

And what the fuck was that last five second clip? that was just bizarre, probably something out of context.

[BIG PIZZLE]

That was pretty good. I'm curious what Billo has in store for Obama in part 3.

And what the fuck was that last five second clip? that was just bizarre, probably something out of context.

He's such a whore stretching it out over 3 eps.

[Mustard]

He's such a whore stretching it out over 3 eps.
Indeed... but I thought it was 4 parts.

[Claydon]

Perhaps obama cannot walk on water?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

[The Batman]

Perhaps obama cannot walk on water?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

He can't. But Criss Angel Can!

http://www.o-ronline.net/weblog/cp/uploaded_images/criss-764799.jpg

[Claydon]

It would be fairly humorous if the great messiah of the media and gmf members fumbled the ball of this election.

[URFloorMatt]

Perhaps obama cannot walk on water?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

The Electoral College determines the outcome of presidential elections, not the popular vote. But, for the sake of argument, let's ignore my prior post about manufactured and temporary convention bumps and assume an organic shift in McCain's favor that has fundamentally changed the mood of the electorate. Has it improved McCain's chances of winning? Not based on any state data we've seen yet.

Today Rasmussen released several statewide polls (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/fox_rasmussen_polling/fox_rasmussen_swing_state_polling), all conducted starting last Friday after the end of the RNC. It's prime polling time for McCain, and certainly the national tracking polls have all shown positive, significant movement in his direction.

In Florida, however, Rasmussen's poll shows a tie, 48%-48%, with Obama improving +2 and McCain remaining even since the last poll. In Colorado, it's Obama 49%-46%, reflecting Obama +1 and McCain -3 since the last poll. In Pennsylvania, it's Obama 47%-45%, a swing of +4 for Obama. In Virginia, McCain did improve his raw numbers, increasing +1 to 49% while Obama remained even at 47%. Only in Ohio, as has been documented here, does McCain hold a statistically significant lead, but he had a 5% advantage during the last Rasmussen poll (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/oh/ohio_mccain_vs_obama-400.html#polls) held immediately following the DNC. The current poll, taken one week later following the RNC, does not show a statistically significant shift from the prior poll.

Now, this doesn't necessarily mean anything. All of those shifts are within the margin of error. In other words, the movement we see could be statistical noise and opinions on the ground have not changed at all. But, if opinions on the ground have not changed at all, that cuts pretty strongly in the face of McCain's statistically significant movement in the national tracking polls. If McCain is boosting his national numbers but not boosting his competitiveness in critical swing states, it's possible he's only running up numbers in states already safely in his win column. Indeed, just looking at the raw numbers, he seems to have hurt his chances in the critical states of Florida, Colorado, and Pennsylvania.

For the most part, this is conjecture because we just aren't seeing a lot of state polling yet. (We will over the next few days.) There's one ominous signal for McCain, however: Oklahoma. In June, Research 2000 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ok/oklahoma_mccain_vs_obama-620.html) had McCain leading 52%-38%, a margin of 12 points. SurveyUSA (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=799f4cf7-1c58-4e43-a0ce-3f714041c1a5) just released a poll that now shows McCain leading 65%-32%, a huge shift with a margin of 32%.

Admittedly, this is just one isolated case. It's also not an ideal comparison, since it requires drawing trends from polls conducted by different polling firms. Other polls in Oklahoma have shown a substantial gap earlier in the election cycle, but they're from untested polling firms (you can click the link to see them). In February, however, SurveyUSA (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ok/oklahoma_mccain_vs_obama-620.html) did run a McCain-Obama poll that showed McCain leading by a margin of 24%. That's already twice the Research 2000 result, but the new SurveyUSA result is still substantially larger. At this point, my theory is untested, but it's not unreasonable to assume that most of the shift in McCain's favor will come from solidly red states. This makes intuitive sense if he's truly fired up the base. That's not to say firing up the base is meaningless; his base has strong pockets in several swing states, particularly Florida, Ohio, and Missouri (although in Florida he's showing no positive movement comparable to Oklahoma).

At this point, it's worth pointing out that if you take CNN's current electoral projection (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/10/map.explainer/index.html#cnnSTCOther1) and add Florida to Obama's column (243+27), he's already clinched with 270 EVs. In other words, McCain might've increased significantly his chances of winning the popular vote, but he hasn't really made any shift in the electoral math.

[vasili denisov]

It would be fairly humorous if the great messiah of the media and gmf members fumbled the ball of this election.
Find me a single post by someone here which implies that Obama is flawless. I DAREZ U!

[Morfin]

Double dog dare? Now, that would be serious.

[dadaelus]

Go the the throat: The Triple Dog Dare!!!

http://i37.tinypic.com/2r4o0eu.jpg

[leafsmack0]

BcVJw2WcyVA

I would like to see McCain answer that first question, lol.

[Claydon]

400+ billion deficit this year....... and these clowns are telling us how they are going to spend spend and spend.

fags...

http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/09/news/economy/cbo_budget_update/index.htm?cnn=yes

But beyond all these near-term concerns affecting the government's debt load, he said the biggest challenge facing the country's coffers is rising health care costs. Federal spending on Medicare and Medicaid alone is expected to jump 30% in the next decade - from 4.6% of GDP this year to 6% in 2018. By 2050, it could jump to 12% of GDP.
As a result, Orszag said in the press briefing, "The nation is on an unsustainable fiscal course."

[Claydon]

The start of Biden's explosive diarrhea of the mouth.

From abc news
ABC News' Matthew Jaffe reports: Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del (http://abcnews.go.com/politics/fullpage?id=5659057)., Tuesday criticized Republicans for not supporting stem-cell research and, although he did not mention Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (http://abcnews.go.com/politics/fullpage?id=5702444) by name, the McCain campaign called his comments "offensive", "disturbing", and "desperate."
"I hear all this talk about how the Republicans are going to work in dealing with parents who have both the joy, because there's joy to it as well, the joy and the difficulty of raising a child who has a developmental disability, who were born with a birth defect," Biden said at a rally in Columbia, Missouri. "Well, guess what folks? If you care about it, why don't you support stem cell research?"
Gov. Palin's infant son Trig has Down Syndrome. GOP presidential nominee Sen. John McCain supports stem-cell research, but his running mate reportedly Palin does not.
The McCain/Palin campaign immediately ripped into Biden's remarks.
"Barack Obama’s running mate sunk to a new low today launching an offensive debate over who cares more about special needs children," said McCain spokesman Ben Porritt. "Playing politics with this issue is disturbing and indicative of a desperate campaign."
However, Biden spokesman David Wade said the Democratic vice-presidential candidate was not referring to his Republican counterpart with his comments.
“This is a clash of policies not a clash of personalities," Wade said in a statement. "We've heard not a dime's worth of difference between the McCain-Palin ticket and the Bush Administration on medical breakthroughs that millions of parents and doctors believe could save lives and transform the quality of life for countless Americans.

[Pharon]

He's right, though.

[Claydon]

He's right, though.

Is he? so stem cell research will cure down syndrome?

No he is not right...if he had said that stem cell research could treat or cure say parkinsons or type 2 diabetes or something of that nature then yes he would be right.

[Pharon]

Is he? so stem cell research will cure down syndrome?

No he is not right...if he had said that stem cell research could treat or cure say parkinsons or type 2 diabetes or something of that nature then yes he would be right.
We have no idea how far stem cell research will take us. But cutting funding for it for religious reasons is simply unconstitutional.

[Claydon]

We have no idea how far stem cell research will take us. But cutting funding for it for religious reasons is simply unconstitutional.

I agree, if biden had taken that track then I would call it a legit attack. But he ventured into an area in which he will get crucified....ie retard babies. She has one, and it is considered taboo.

[Pharon]

I'm not saying he was being tactful. That isn't exactly one of his strong suits.

[Claydon]

I'm not saying he was being tactful. That isn't exactly one of his strong suits.


If he pulls more of this shit, he and your messiah are going to get crucified in november. Also, I dig how biden is still running for his senate seat in delaware, guess he is hedging his bets!

[Smokestack]

If he pulls more of this shit, he and your messiah are going to get crucified in november. Also, I dig how biden is still running for his senate seat in delaware, guess he is hedging his bets!

Too bad Palin's lies about the Bridge to Nowhere are getting much more traction in the press than the desperate reaction of the McCain campaign to Biden's remarks. If she pulls anymore of that "thanks but no thanks" shit, you and your creepy grandpa will lose.

PS: It's not uncommon for presidential and VP candidates to continue their runs for their current offices.

[Morfin]

We have no idea how far stem cell research will take us. But cutting funding for it for religious reasons is simply unconstitutional.

It's not unconstitutional to decide something legislatively or administratively that is consistent with a religious belief. I disagree that the funding should have been cut and I don't like a justification being that it is based on religious beliefs, but that is a long way from it being a First Amendment violation. No one is being forced to worship in a certain way, no one is being forced to think in a certain way, and no one is being prevented from worshiping in a certain way.

[Claydon]

Too bad Palin's lies about the Bridge to Nowhere are getting much more traction in the press than the desperate reaction of the McCain campaign to Biden's remarks. If she pulls anymore of that "thanks but no thanks" shit, you and your creepy grandpa will lose.

PS: It's not uncommon for presidential and VP candidates to continue their runs for their current offices.

Bob dole resigned...



bob dole!

[vasili denisov]

I agree, if biden had taken that track then I would call it a legit attack. But he ventured into an area in which he will get crucified....ie retard babies. She has one, and it is considered taboo.
She made the claim that the developmentally disabled would have a friend in the white house. Isn't it legitimate to go after the limits of that claim?
If he pulls more of this shit, he and your messiah are going to get crucified in november.
Find me a single post by someone here which implies that Obama is flawless. I DAREZ U!

[kid_vidrio]

I have been finding Rush and Co pretty funny lately.
Their willingness to spread generalizations and opinion as gospel is high comedy.

[Smokestack]

Bob dole resigned...



bob dole!

Ahhhh yes, Bob Dole. I believe he used the fact that he was not running as a talking point in his campaign as well. We should remember that he had his role as Viagra spokesman lined up if the election didn't work out for him, though.

[Pharon]

It's not unconstitutional to decide something legislatively or administratively that is consistent with a religious belief. I disagree that the funding should have been cut and I don't like a justification being that it is based on religious beliefs, but that is a long way from it being a First Amendment violation. No one is being forced to worship in a certain way, no one is being forced to think in a certain way, and no one is being prevented from worshiping in a certain way.
It kind of is, though. Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) stated "the statute must have a secular legislative purpose." And if our leaders are cutting funding because 'God wouldn't like it' -- well, that's exactly what the First Amendment was protecting us against. Or, at least, that's what the Supreme Court says it means, which is the only opinion that matters here with respect to what is and is not unconstitutional.

But maybe I misunderstood what you were saying.

[Genius]

"No one knows what war is like besides my family, period."

And here everyone thought it would be Biden that would say the worst possible thing a human could utter this week. I think a gag order should be placed upon everyone involved in either campaign not named John McCain or Barack Obama until November. Everyone else just needs to SHUT THE FUCK UP.

[BIG PIZZLE]

I just realized that Obama is going to lose. He only won caucuses. In a voting booth, you can be racist. Just a thought.

[freegood]

I still think he'll win, but some people would rather eat shit and vote for the party of Bush than vote for a ******.

[Claydon]

I still think he'll win, but some people would rather eat shit and vote for the party of Bush than vote for a ******.

probably one of the most ignorant things you have ever said in your life, even if it was meant in jest.

[Gzus]

I'm gonna vote for Obama. I have yet to see or hear anything from McCain abut fixing the economy or the environment. Obama has always talked about the economy and alternative energy sources, we need something other than Oil.

[Pollo]

anyone manage to watch part 3 of the O'Reilly interview with Obama? I missed the damn thing, and I know it was about Obama and his close friends, especially Rev. Wright.

[Angry Ass Messican Dude]

probably one of the most ignorant things you have ever said in your life, even if it was meant in jest.

How so, do you really think Klansman are going to vote for Obama. It's true there are voters who would nev er for for Obama because of the color of his skin. I'm not saying those peole or right, or that they aren't racist. I'm just saying he is telling the truth.

[heelsguy]

obama needs to be more in public like he was with o'reilly: a fighter. He was still pwned by Bill, but at least he was passionate and not just reading from a prompter.

[kid_vidrio]

i agree on the candidly speaking fighter thing, though i don't see where you get pwned from unless it was in the last segment which i haven't seen.
he asked some leading questions and some tough questions and, given the time he had, bo answered them pretty credibly. it's bill's job to do what he did, and he did his job well, but it's not like he really hammered him imo.

[heelsguy]

bill hit b.o. with an uppercut on the tax increase = income re-distribution issue, but to his credit b.o. got off the ropes and fought well, I thought. and I say that as someone who will vote for mccain

[Pharon]

I don't buy into the idea that a progressive tax cut is synonomous with "wealth redistribution." Maybe in the abstract, but are you seriously suggesting that a tax cut for 95% of the population and a tax raise for 5% is a bad thing?

[Smokestack]

McCain/Palin '08...lying their way to the White House:

Out of bounds! McCain misstates Obama sex-ed record

Margaret Talev | McClatchy Newspapers

last updated: September 09, 2008 07:44:08 PM
WASHINGTON — Throw the flag against: The McCain-Palin campaign.
Call: Unsportsmanlike conduct.
What happened: A new 30-second TV ad attacks Barack Obama's record on education, saying that Obama backed legislation to teach "'comprehensive sex education' to kindergartners." The announcer then says, "Learning about sex before learning to read? Barack Obama. Wrong on education. Wrong for your family."
Why that's wrong: This is a deliberately misleading accusation. It came hours after the Obama campaign released a TV ad critical of McCain's votes on public education. As a state senator in Illinois, Obama did vote for but was not a sponsor of legislation dealing with sex ed for grades K-12.
But the legislation allowed local school boards to teach "age-appropriate" sex education, not comprehensive lessons to kindergartners, and it gave schools the ability to warn young children about inappropriate touching and sexual predators.
Republican Alan Keyes tried to use Obama's vote against him in the 2004 U.S. Senate race. At the time, Obama spoke about wanting to protect young children from abuse. He made clear then that he was not supporting teaching kindergartners about explicit details of sex.
Obama spokesman Bill Burton said Tuesday of McCain's ad: "It is shameful and downright perverse for the McCain campaign to use a bill that was written to protect young children from sexual predators as a recycled and discredited political attack against a father of two young girls."
Penalty: 15 yards for the McCain campaign's deliberate low blow.


(http://www.mcclatchydc.com/staff/margaret_talev/v-print/story/52169.html)

[Morfin]

I don't buy into the idea that a progressive tax cut is synonomous with "wealth redistribution." Maybe in the abstract, but are you seriously suggesting that a tax cut for 95% of the population and a tax raise for 5% is a bad thing?

As someone in the top 5% of household income, yes. I fail to understand why I should have to pay a higher percentage of my income than someone earning less. The fairest way (and the way used by Michigan and most cities), is a flat tax: Everyone pays a certain percentage of what they earn. Just like a sales tax. Everyone pays the same. (Plus, by doing away with deductions and loopholes, overall the entire system would be fairer.)

[JohnQRotten]

obama needs to be more in public like he was with o'reilly: a fighter. He was still pwned by Bill, but at least he was passionate and not just reading from a prompter.

Yeah, I think Obama's suffering in the polls lately because he's listening to his handlers too much and not sticking to his guns about the things he believes in. Like the old saying goes: You can't please all of the people, all of the time. People would rather you just be genuine.

[Smokestack]

As someone in the top 5% of household income, yes. I fail to understand why I should have to pay a higher percentage of my income than someone earning less. The fairest way (and the way used by Michigan and most cities), is a flat tax: Everyone pays a certain percentage of what they earn. Just like a sales tax. Everyone pays the same. (Plus, by doing away with deductions and loopholes, overall the entire system would be fairer.)

Sounds like ol' Morfin has been dealt a tough hand in life.

[Morfin]

Well, let me tell ya. I was born a poor black man and I have raised myself up to be rich and white.

Actually, I grew up in a lower-income, single-parent family, and with by work and government loans (which I have paid back, thank you) I have gotten an undergraduate degree, law degree, and have a successful practice where I earn a good amount of money (sucking the blood from society and injured victims). I take offense (and am sensitive about) any person insinuating that I got to where I am due to being "dealt a good hand" -- I worked hard to be where I am. <Morfin steps up on his soapbox.> And I don't like paying a higher percentage of my income to the IRS merely because I have made a success out of my life.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need a Diet Coke and I have clients to cheat.

[freegood]

As someone in the top 5% of household income, yes. I fail to understand why I should have to pay a higher percentage of my income than someone earning less.

Because people normally assume that those who earn in the top 5% work so much that they don't have time to surf or chit chat on message boards. ;)

[The Batman]

As someone in the top 5% of household income, yes. I fail to understand why I should have to pay a higher percentage of my income than someone earning less. The fairest way (and the way used by Michigan and most cities), is a flat tax: Everyone pays a certain percentage of what they earn. Just like a sales tax. Everyone pays the same. (Plus, by doing away with deductions and loopholes, overall the entire system would be fairer.)

Damn, I wish I was in the top 5%.
The reason why you don't get it, is because your on the top. If you think about it like this maybe it will make more sense.
10% of your income will effect you less when you make more.
For ex. lets say you make a million bucks a year. That leaves you with 900,000 to play with, which is obviously plenty.
But lets say joe shmo makes 17,000 a year (at my job i see that a lot)
and they have to pay 1,700 bucks. That 1,700 bucks is HUGE for that person because of the income difference.
I don't necessarily agree with taxing the rich more or a flat tax, but I can see why they do it that way.

[Morfin]

Damn, I wish I was in the top 5%.
The reason why you don't get it, is because your on the top. If you think about it like this maybe it will make more sense.
10% of your income will effect you less when you make more.
For ex. lets say you make a million bucks a year. That leaves you with 900,000 to play with, which is obviously plenty.
But lets say joe shmo makes 17,000 a year (at my job i see that a lot)
and they have to pay 1,700 bucks. That 1,700 bucks is HUGE for that person because of the income difference.
I don't necessarily agree with taxing the rich more or a flat tax, but I can see why they do it that way.

I totally understand the argument. In fact, when I was a young shyster, the senior partner in the firm where I toiled -- a very rich man -- took me to dinner and we had this discussion. He was very much in favor of the progressive income tax for the exact reason you set forth. I know there are two ways to look at the issue and both have their merits. And, yes, I admit, that while I have to pay a higher percentage, I am in no way unable to "afford" it, nor do I have to go without.

I object to the socialistic (some would say communistic) method of redistributing wealth "giving according to your ability," as opposed to, what I believe is fairer, which is "everyone gives the same percentage. Your argument is meritorious; I choose to favor the other side.

Oh, and for the record, I am probably voting for Obama.

[Pharon]

As someone in the top 5% of household income, yes. I fail to understand why I should have to pay a higher percentage of my income than someone earning less.
Coming from someone who's also in the top 5%, I'll give you the simplest answer -- because a gallon of milk costs the same for a mother on welfare as it does for Bill Gates. The point is that there are certain fixed costs -- food, shelter, housing -- that are essential for survival, and everything else is gravy. Now, does that mean that someone who makes $10 million/year shouldn't have the freedom to buy a 6 bedroom place on the beach? Hell no. But I don't think it's necessarily UNfair to cut taxes on people who are struggling to get by MORE than people who aren't. That's all.

Damn, the older I get the more liberal I become. How the fuck did that happen? Isn't it supposed to be the opposite?

[Morfin]

You're getting more liberal? Shit, I'm probably voting for a Democrat. It's a strange world.

[The Batman]

Coming from someone who's also in the top 5%, I'll give you the simplest answer -- because a gallon of milk costs the same for a mother on welfare as it does for Bill Gates. The point is that there are certain fixed costs -- food, shelter, housing -- that are essential for survival, and everything else is gravy. Now, does that mean that someone who makes $10 million/year shouldn't have the freedom to buy a 6 bedroom place on the beach? Hell no. But I don't think it's necessarily UNfair to cut taxes on people who are struggling to get by MORE than people who aren't. That's all.

Damn, the older I get the more liberal I become. How the fuck did that happen? Isn't it supposed to be the opposite?

As someone who is not in the top 5%, you guys suck.

[Morfin]

As someone who is not in the top 5%, you guys suck.

As a wise old man, a judge, I believe his name was Smales, once said, "The world needs ditch-diggers, too."

[Pharon]

I've often thought of joining the priesthood...

[The Batman]

I've often thought of joining the priesthood...

If you want to join that top 5%, thats really a way to go. Everytime I see an account for a priest or minister they are ALWAYS rolling in dough.

[Pharon]

If you want to join that top 5%, thats really a way to go. Everytime I see an account for a priest or minister they are ALWAYS rolling in doughboys.
Like my grandpa always said, "An 8-year-old boy's ass is like God's ATM."

[Tar Heel]

anyone seen this McCain ad yet?

Wow. That line from Obama was taken so far out of context that it's hard to listen to any of the propaganda coming from the McCain camp. I'm on the fence in this election, so when my intelligence is insulted to this degree, I have to get pissed.

yZd_Y_D-RaA

[Pharon]

I don't even understand how his comment is inappropriate. It's a well-known saying, for Christ's sake -- one that politicians, and even regular people, use all the time. WTF??

[kareyn01]

I don't even understand how his comment is inappropriate. It's a well-known saying, for Christ's sake -- one that politicians, and even regular people, use all the time. WTF??

Its not inappropriate at all, but the McCain campaign has decided that everything that anybody says from this point on that might have a connection to Sarah Palin is automatically sexist and cause for outrage.

Hell, they were criticizing the media for covering Bristol Palin's pregnancy when the media was only informed of it by a McCain campaign PRESS RELEASE.

[Claydon]

Its not inappropriate at all, but the McCain campaign has decided that everything that anybody says from this point on that might have a connection to Sarah Palin is automatically sexist and cause for outrage.

Hell, they were criticizing the media for covering Bristol Palin's pregnancy when the media was only informed of it by a McCain campaign PRESS RELEASE.

So McCain's campaign used something obama said out of context.

uh huh.

so...you guys REALLY want to go down this path, because if so, you will only further prove what dolts you all are.

Need I remind you of the constant harping by obama a few months ago about the "100 years in iraq" comment mccain made. talk about something taken out of context.

look....both sides pull this shit all the time, it is politics as usual......nothing more. A tempest in a tea cup, by tomorrow they will have moved onto something else.

[Pharon]

NO, NO, NO!!! MY SIDE IS ALWAYS RIGHT!!!

Wait, what's my side again?

[freegood]

anyone seen this McCain ad yet?

Wow. That line from Obama was taken so far out of context that it's hard to listen to any of the propaganda coming from the McCain camp. I'm on the fence in this election, so when my intelligence is insulted to this degree, I have to get pissed.

yZd_Y_D-RaA

That veep thread should be merged.

Apparently the McCain campaign would rather Palin call herself a female dog than have any hint of Obama calling her a pig.
yZd_Y_D-RaA

/fake outrage

[Tar Heel]

So McCain's campaign used something obama said out of context.

uh huh.

so...you guys REALLY want to go down this path, because if so, you will only further prove what dolts you all are.

Need I remind you of the constant harping by obama a few months ago about the "100 years in iraq" comment mccain made. talk about something taken out of context.

look....both sides pull this shit all the time, it is politics as usual......nothing more. A tempest in a tea cup, by tomorrow they will have moved onto something else.

Dude. McCain actually said he would stay in Iraq 100 years if necessary and bomb bomb Iran. Thus it can be used against him because it was at least using the subject matter he was talking about. Obama wasn't even talking about Palin. It's not even similar.

[Claydon]

Dude. McCain actually said he would stay in Iraq 100 years if necessary and bomb bomb Iran. Thus it can be used against him because it was at least using the subject matter he was talking about. Obama wasn't even talking about Palin. It's not even similar.

He did say that, but again, you are taking it out of context. He was making a general analogy, ie american forces tend to stay where they go in. He also brought up the example of europe in that comment. He also stated US forces would stay there for 100 years IF we were not taking constant hits and losing troops.

[Rover]

I don't buy into the idea that a progressive tax cut is synonomous with "wealth redistribution." Maybe in the abstract, but are you seriously suggesting that a tax cut for 95% of the population and a tax raise for 5% is a bad thing?The more unequal the tax burden in this country the more class warfare and resentment build up. The rich already pay most of the tax burden in this country.

Damn, I wish I was in the top 5%.
The reason why you don't get it, is because your on the top. If you think about it like this maybe it will make more sense.
10% of your income will effect you less when you make more.
For ex. lets say you make a million bucks a year. That leaves you with 900,000 to play with, which is obviously plenty.
But lets say joe shmo makes 17,000 a year (at my job i see that a lot)
and they have to pay 1,700 bucks. That 1,700 bucks is HUGE for that person because of the income difference.
I don't necessarily agree with taxing the rich more or a flat tax, but I can see why they do it that way.The first problem with your analogy is that someone making $17,000 a year doesn't pay an income tax. I can't remember (and I'm not going to look it up) where the cutoff is but it's in the $40K per year range.

Also, wishing yourself into the top 5% isn't going to get you there.

I don't even understand how his comment is inappropriate. It's a well-known saying, for Christ's sake -- one that politicians, and even regular people, use all the time. WTF??It is inappropriate given the context. Would it be okay if McCain used some variation of, "I'm going to call a spade a spade...."? I doubt it. And instead of faux GOP outrage, there would be protests by Sharpton and Jackson.

[halfabubbleoff]

It is inappropriate given the context. Would it be okay if McCain used some variation of, "I'm going to call a spade a spade...."? I doubt it. And instead of faux GOP outrage, there would be protests by Sharpton and Jackson.

There is the problem with the whole affair. The "context" in Obama's case is the Lipstick on a Bulldog joke Palin made. Because she happens to wear lipstick, and made the joke during the convention, the whole campaign must watch what it says to not appear sexist. Because Obama isn't a WASP, the other campaign has to watch what it says to not appear racist.

This is political correctness taken to the next level, and it is stupid on both sides. A candidate in Alabama was just arrested under child endangerment charges for complementing a woman on her beautiful children using an old expression. She misinterpreted it as him attempting to buy her kids for the price of a fat pig. She filed a complaint and had him arrested.

I think we can all agree that this is stupid, partisan behavior on both sides and this is not where we want this country to go.

[The Batman]

There is the problem with the whole affair. The "context" in Obama's case is the Lipstick on a Bulldog joke Palin made. Because she happens to wear lipstick, and made the joke during the convention, the whole campaign must watch what it says to not appear sexist. Because Obama isn't a WASP, the other campaign has to watch what it says to not appear racist.

This is political correctness taken to the next level, and it is stupid on both sides. A candidate in Alabama was just arrested under child endangerment charges for complementing a woman on her beautiful children using an old expression. She misinterpreted it as him attempting to buy her kids for the price of a fat pig. She filed a complaint and had him arrested.

I think we can all agree that this is stupid, partisan behavior on both sides and this is not where we want this country to go.

If you expected more from ANYONE who lives in ALABAMA you have another thing coming.

[Tar Heel]

It is inappropriate given the context. Would it be okay if McCain used some variation of, "I'm going to call a spade a spade...."? I doubt it. And instead of faux GOP outrage, there would be protests by Sharpton and Jackson.

The difference is that Obama wasn't talking about Palin when he made the comment. I'm certain that McCain could "call a spade a spade" without any retaliation as long as he wasn't talking about Obama when he said it. Again, it's not just that it was taken out of context. It was taken grossly out of context.

[Rover]

The GOP is just playing the PC games the liberals have been playing for years. Hardly a day goes by where Obama doesn't try to preempt racist attacks by saying that "they're gonna say I'm <fill in the blank>..."

[Tar Heel]

I have never heard him say that.

[vasili denisov]

It is inappropriate given the context. Would it be okay if McCain used some variation of, "I'm going to call a spade a spade...."? I doubt it. And instead of faux GOP outrage, there would be protests by Sharpton and Jackson.
There are a number of cases where racial invective have been used against the Obama campaign without any of the outrage you claim. Referring to someone as "cosmopolitan" is an old trick to call someone ethnic and not one of us.

You have Lynn Westmoreland calling Obama "uppity", then falsely stating that from where he was from, that term was never used against black americans. Again, the Obama campaign showed none of the outrage shown here. You cited a hypothetical that failed to prove your point, I just cited two tangible cases that proved mine.

The Obama campaign has far more difficulty counter-attacking slurs like this, even touching this, because race is the third rail of american life, far more divisive and intertwined with the horrors of the country's history than gender.

[Rover]

I have never heard him say that.He says things like:

They're going to say I have a funny name.
They're going to say I don't look like the other guys on the dollar bills.
They're going to say I'm a Muslim.
And, oh by the way he's black.

He says it constantly at his townhall events. Obama's just race baiting. Waiting for the McCain to say something remotely racist (which thank god they haven't so far) and then they'll unload the McCain is a big racist ads they have waiting.

[Smokestack]

The more unequal the tax burden in this country the more class warfare and resentment build up. The rich already pay most of the tax burden in this country.

Right, because in terms of class warfare and resentment, it's that top 5% we need to worry about offending. They'll take to the streets, pitchforks and torches in hand!

It is inappropriate given the context. Would it be okay if McCain used some variation of, "I'm going to call a spade a spade...."? I doubt it. And instead of faux GOP outrage, there would be protests by Sharpton and Jackson.

So, when Obama used the same, well-known, time-worn phrase here, he was referring to Palin?: "I think that both General Petraeus (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/David+Petraeus?tid=informline) and Ambassador Crocker are capable people who have been given an impossible assignment," Sen. Barack Obama (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/barack-obama/) said yesterday in a telephone interview. "George Bush (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/George+W.+Bush?tid=informline) has given a mission to General Petraeus, and he has done his best to try to figure out how to put lipstick on a pig." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/13/AR2007091301679_pf.html)

Or when McCain used this in reference to something involving Hillary, was he being sexist as well?: McCain criticized Democratic contenders for offering what he called costly universal health care proposals that require too much government regulation. While he said he had not studied Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton's health-care plan, he said it was "eerily reminiscent" of the failed plan she offered as first lady in the early 1990s.
"I think they put some lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig," he said of her proposal. (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/mccain_rolls_out_health_plan_a.html)


The fake outrage is deafening.


The GOP is just playing the PC games the liberals have been playing for years. Hardly a day goes by where Obama doesn't try to preempt racist attacks by saying that "they're gonna say I'm <fill in the blank>..."

This is complete and utter bullshit. Republicans have had the fake outrage market covered for quite some time now.

[The Batman]

This is complete and utter bullshit. Republicans have had the fake outrage market covered for quite some time now.
Yeah, you really can't deny that one. They are the ones who mob the FCC with bullshit complaints, the one who cry foul over Jesus over anything and the ones who ask for apologies instead of taking critism like most people.

[Tar Heel]

He says things like:

They're going to say I have a funny name.
They're going to say I don't look like the other guys on the dollar bills.
They're going to say I'm a Muslim.
And, oh by the way he's black.

He says it constantly at his townhall events. Obama's just race baiting. Waiting for the McCain to say something remotely racist (which thank god they haven't so far) and then they'll unload the McCain is a big racist ads they have waiting.

I doubt that he's trying to get McCain to slip up. I think Obama likes to keep the race issue tucked under his arm. I don't think he uses it to do anything other than scare the McCain camp and relate to the minority demographic. Obama does not want race coming into play and being any bigger than it is now. I also think he has told Sharpton, Jackson, etc. to not go out and put race at the forefront of the campaign. That would only take legitimacy away from Obama. You don't want your voters to feel like they are on the outside of your candidacy. That's exactly what making a big deal about race would do.

[The Batman]

I doubt that he's trying to get McCain to slip up. I think Obama likes to keep the race issue tucked under his arm. I don't think he uses it to do anything other than scare the McCain camp and relate to the minority demographic. Obama does not want race coming into play and being any bigger than it is now. I also think he has told Sharpton, Jackson, etc. to not go out and put race at the forefront of the campaign. That would only take legitimacy away from Obama. You don't want your voters to feel like they are on the outside of your candidacy. That's exactly what making a big deal about race would do.

Actually when it comes to race i think Obama has given the most eloquent speech I have ever heard about the subject. He laid out an honest evaluation of all the racism between whites and blacks and just told the truth. That had to be one of the best speeches I have ever heard from a presidential candidate.

[heelsguy]

forgot to quote from an earlier subject, but the top 1 % pay the largest share of taxes anyway.

what we need is to abolish income taxes and adopt a national sales tax because consumption--not income--is the fairest way to tax. you buy a yacht? kick some of that to uncle sam.

[Genius]

I never want to be personally blamed for America being to politically correct again. the fact that our presidential elections have come to this kind of shit every fucking time makes me ashamed to be an American. After this lipstick bullshit, if anyone ever gives any credence whatsoever to McCain when he says, "I want to talk about the issues", they're fucking blinded. People complain about Obama's references to Hope and Change, while John McCain is talking about FUCKING LIPSTICK?!?!? Recoiling in outrage from hearing a phrase that he himself has used multiple times this campaign?!?!?!? Fuck that Republican politically correct bullshit.

[Rover]

There are a number of cases where racial invective have been used against the Obama campaign without any of the outrage you claim. Referring to someone as "cosmopolitan" is an old trick to call someone ethnic and not one of us.In the context it was used, comsmopolitan clearly referred to NE liberal elite. Especially since the line was delivered by a well known former mayor of a cosmopolitan city.

I would argue that cosmopolitan would be more likely to refer to a sophisticate or effeminate man rather than a black man. I find it difficult to believe in any context that it could be a racial slur. You could probably twist it into a gay slur, but that would require a taffy machine.

You have Lynn Westmoreland calling Obama "uppity", then falsely stating that from where he was from, that term was never used against black americans. Again, the Obama campaign showed none of the outrage shown here. You cited a hypothetical that failed to prove your point, I just cited two tangible cases that proved mine.Uppity is pushing the limits. And probably stepped over the line, but Westmoreland is not a McCain campaign official. Obama making these statements is different. If McCain used the word "uppity" to describe Obama, he could just go back to AZ and retire.

[Smokestack]

Let's be honest...the whole "lipstick on a pig" outrage was done to mitigate the valid outrage the Obama camp had over McCain's newest ad, which accused Obama of wanting to teach sex ed to kindergarteners (link to fact check on the previous page).

[Grieves]

Ron Paul turns down Gramm's appeal to endorse McCain (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080910/ap_on_el_pr/ron_paul_third_parties)

[Pollo]

for those interested, part 4 (the final part) of the Obama interview with O'Reilly is on right now.

[URFloorMatt]

The more unequal the tax burden in this country the more class warfare and resentment build up. The rich already pay most of the tax burden in this country.A quick look at this chart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#History_of_top_rat es) makes you sound like an idiot. The rich pay less today than virtually any time in the history of the income tax.

The first problem with your analogy is that someone making $17,000 a year doesn't pay an income tax. I can't remember (and I'm not going to look it up) where the cutoff is but it's in the $40K per year range.
By my count, anyone making more than $4,716 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_Income_Tax_Credit) must pay taxes. People making $40,000 per year are effectively middle class and are paying the marginal rate of 25% on the last $7,000 they made. Even people who make only $5,000 a year still have to pay 10%. (2008 Tax brackets. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Year_2008_income_b rackets_and_tax_rates))

I think you should look it up.

It is inappropriate given the context.Both (http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/obama_did_not_call_sarah_palin.php) McCain and Obama have used the phrase at least one prior during this campaign. McCain used it to bash Hillary Clinton (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMPYkNQlJMM). But it's inappropriate in this context, when he's talking specifically about John McCain and not Palin?

[Claydon]

This is interesting!

ABC News' Matthew Jaffe reports: Sen. Barack Obama's, D-Ill., vice presidential nominee, Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., Wednesday said that Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., might have been a better pick for the position than him.

At a rally in Nashua, N.H., a man in the audience told Biden how glad he was that Obama picked him over Hillary, "not because she's a woman, but because, look at the things she did in the past."

"Make no mistake about this," Biden responded. "Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Let’s get that straight. She’s a truly close personal friend, she is qualified to be president of the United States of America, she’s easily qualified to be vice president of the United States of America, and quite frankly, it might have been a better pick than me. But she’s first rate, I mean that sincerely, she’s first rate, so let’s get that straight."


http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/biden-hillary-a.html

[Genius]

We all know about your love of wines. You don't have to further prove how big a dooshbag you are.

[Claydon]

We all know about your love of wines. You don't have to further prove how big a dooshbag you are.

bahahahahahaha! sorry bout that.

[Claydon]

corrections made

[Debo]

A quick look at this chart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#History_of_top_rat es) makes you sound like an idiot. The rich pay less today than virtually any time in the history of the income tax.


By my count, anyone making more than $4,716 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_Income_Tax_Credit) must pay taxes. People making $40,000 per year are effectively middle class and are paying the marginal rate of 25% on the last $7,000 they made. Even people who make only $5,000 a year still have to pay 10%. (2008 Tax brackets. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Year_2008_income_b rackets_and_tax_rates))

I think you should look it up.

Stop it.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/341.html

The $4,716 that you cite is the maximum credit that someone can claim on their tax return. It is not the maximum amount of income that you can earn. In fact, if you have children, you can claim the EITC all the way up to $37,782 in earned income. Scroll down on the link that you posted and you will see this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_Income_Tax_Credit#Table_for_this_year

[Genius]

Suggesting that people that make 40K a year don't have to pay taxes is equally ridiculous. If not, I want a couple thousand dollars back.

[BIG PIZZLE]

McCain's strategy: attack with commercials, attack with surrogates and act like it doesnt happen in person.

Obama's reaction: React, react react react. Fail.

[Debo]

McCain's strategy: attack with commercials, attack with surrogates and act like it doesnt happen in person.

Obama's reaction: React, react react react. Fail.

Would you rather play offense or defense?

By playing offense, McCain is getting his message out. By playing defense Obama is always chasing McCain's tail because McCain keeps on talking and Obama keeps on refuting.

Every politician lets their surrogates do their dirty work. This is nothing new.

[BIG PIZZLE]

Someone should tell Obama that.

[Angry Ass Messican Dude]

You all sound like a bunch of liberal wine sipping communist dick sucks.

[BIG PIZZLE]

Stalker.

[Debo]

Someone should tell Obama that.

Somebody tell Obama to PM me. I will sell my soul for the right price, I am a capitalist after all.

[BIG PIZZLE]

What people in the south dont understand is that they dont make enough money to actually be republicans.

[Debo]

What people in the south dont understand is that they dont make enough money to actually be republicans.

Not everyone that votes for the GOP: A.) Lives in the South or B.) Is rich.

Some people vote for them because they are members of the NRA, some because they are bible thumpers, some because a members of the military/foriegn policy hawks, etc.

It is very hard to define either of the major parties by citing one issue.

But to your point: Sound economic policy helps everyone. Sound economic policy includes:

- Low taxes,
- Low inflation,
- Free trade,
- Minimal regulation,
- Strong property rights,
- Strong contract laws.

[leafsmack0]

here is the final part of the o'reilly obama interview for those without tv, like me.

1ZA2WXgkWTM

[leafsmack0]

whether you are republican or democrat, this guy speaks some serious truths, and he actually is getting some media coverage.

OZ7fcbst3VE

[vasili denisov]

In the context it was used, comsmopolitan clearly referred to NE liberal elite. Especially since the line was delivered by a well known former mayor of a cosmopolitan city.

I would argue that cosmopolitan would be more likely to refer to a sophisticate or effeminate man rather than a black man. I find it difficult to believe in any context that it could be a racial slur. You could probably twist it into a gay slur, but that would require a taffy machine.


Then Home secretary Winston Churchill argues for a commitment to the Anglo-Persian oil company, to avoid reliance on Standard Oil and Royal Dutch / Shell, the latter part owned by the Samuel brothers, who were jewish.

"For many years," Churchill went on, "it has been the policy of the Foreign Office, the Admiralty, and the Indian Government to preserve the independent British oil interests of the Persian oil-field, to help that field to develop as well as we could and, above all, to prevent it being swallowed up by the Shell or by any foreign or cosmopolitan companies." (p.161)

Here is the response, given by Watson Rutherford, making explicit the implications of "cosmopolitan" in this context:

"The attack we have heard had nothing on earth to do with the question before the Committee," said another M.P., Watson Rutherford. Criticizing Churchill for raising the specter of monopoly and for "Jew-baiting," he declared that the rising prices of fuel oil had resulted not from the machinations of some trust or ring" but from the fact that an international market for fuel oil - as opposed to those for gasoline, kerosene, and lubricants - had only arisen in the "last two or three years, in consequence of these new uses which have been found for this oil....There is a world shortage," he continued, "of an article which the world has only lately begun to see is required for certain special purposes. That is the reason why prices have gone up, and not because evilly disposed gentlemen of the Hebraic persuasion - I mean cosmopolitan gentlemen - have put their heads together in order to try and force prices up." (p.162)

[URFloorMatt]

Stop it.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/341.html

The $4,716 that you cite is the maximum credit that someone can claim on their tax return. It is not the maximum amount of income that you can earn. In fact, if you have children, you can claim the EITC all the way up to $37,782 in earned income. Scroll down on the link that you posted and you will see this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_Income_Tax_Credit#Table_for_this_year

The link you have cited merely shows that wealthy people pay more taxes in raw dollars. No shit? Really? Thanks for the heads up. I had no idea that a marginal tax rate where you tax every dollar of income means people who make $100,000 a year pay a lot more in raw dollars to the government than people who make $10,000 a year. :rolleyes:

As for percentage of income, the wealthy pay, at most, 35% of their income to the federal government. Middle and lower income folks pay anywhere from 10% to 28%. So they pay a somewhat lower percentage of their income than wealthy people. Perhaps this is compensating for the fact that the sales tax everyone pays at the state level is a regressive tax. In other words, it hurts people who make only $10,000 a hell of a lot more than it hurts people who make $100,000 a year.

So, pardon me, I'm sure the wealthy are justified in their outrage and resentment.

EDIT: As for the EITC, you're right. I was using idiot math and treating it like a deduction on tax liability. The EITC is a tax credit; people who can claim $4000 in credit but only make $10,000 in income would pay zero taxes, since you subtract the credit from their tax liability. People with two children making less than $15,000/year effectively pay no taxes, and people up to $30,000 could potentially owe no taxes. Still, it's not hard to understand why. Otherwise, a mother who made $10,000 would owe more than $1000 in taxes, and a father making $32,000 would owe over $4000. After all, this is joint income we're talking, and only applies to those with children.

[Rover]

I will maintain that cosmopolitan was used to insult NE liberal elite and not an anti semitic remark or other racial slur. Especially, in the context that it was used to compare small towns with big cities. How are normal people supposed to know that cosmopolitan was a euphemism in early 19 whatever for ethnic people? There are easier ways that Guiliani could have injected race into his comments than that. Especially for people like me, who are still grasping the normal slurs.

Also, I don't think Cosmo has very many ethnic women on their cover.

[Nosebuckle]

Do you then long for the 50s-era rates?

[Hanover Fist]

I think old Boy George wants the Obamessiah to give him some buttsecks or something. I couldn't even make it through this entire video of Boy Georges new song dedicated to him.

q5HWtYUs7iQ

[Smokestack]

I will maintain that cosmopolitan was used to insult NE liberal elite and not an anti semitic remark or other racial slur. Especially, in the context that it was used to compare small towns with big cities. How are normal people supposed to know that cosmopolitan was a euphemism in early 19 whatever for ethnic people? There are easier ways that Guiliani could have injected race into his comments than that. Especially for people like me, who are still grasping the normal slurs.

Also, I don't think Cosmo has very many ethnic women on their cover.

Amazing that you can see the meaning of the use of the word "cosmopolitan" with such clarity and certainty, but that the "lipstick on a pig" line, shown to be used by both candidates (and by McCain when directly referring to a female politician), imbues such a cloudy and possibly sinister meaning. Simply amazing.

[Hanover Fist]

LOL
Chuck Graham is a weelchair bound paraplegic.


SRV5Y1JCGRI&eurl

[Morfin]

Wow, Biden made a mistake. Gee, I guess he doesn't deserve to be vice-president. Boy, you sure got him good there. Yep. Boy. I'm votin' for McCain now.

[Hanover Fist]

Wow, Biden made a mistake. Gee, I guess he doesn't deserve to be vice-president. Boy, you sure got him good there. Yep. Boy. I'm votin' for McCain now.

I don't give a fuck who you vote for. I didn't post that to change anyones mind anyway. Most people are already aware of what a buffoon Biden is, I just posted it for the comedy factor.
It's no different than 99% of the stupid shit liberals on here post about Bush, McCain or Palin. Nobody is changing anyones mind and if they think they are, they are kidding themselves.

[Tar Heel]

I would say any of you have an equal opportunity to change my mind. I don't know who I'm going to vote for this election. The last 2 have been so easy for me. I just refuse to vote for a guy that sounds like a dumbass to represent our country. Neither of these guys does, so I'm looking at the issues that matter to me.

I like guns, and hate Affirmative Action. I am pro choice, and think the gays should be able to get married. I think we should stay in iraq until we fix what we fucked up and don't give a shit about taxing the shit out of the richest 2% of our country. I think most social programs barely work if they aren't totally broken, but are 100% necessary and need to be fixed. I think no child left behind was a monumental failure and I think most people knew that from the start. I think it was a last ditch effort that was designed to fail so that privatization could be pushed. I don't like privatization of things that everyone needs.

So, with my mixed up beliefs who do I vote for?

I think in the end, I want it to be the guy that I think will take the poison out of politics in Washington. I want a guy that is most likely to unite this country and regain the respect of the rest of the world.

EDIT: Is that too idealistic?

[Pharon]

Sounds like your positions lean more toward Obama than McCain.

[Tar Heel]

I have been leaning that way lately, but am not sold yet.

[Pharon]

I have been leaning that way lately, but am not sold yet.
Believe it or not, I know the feeling.

In every previous Presidential election I've been eligible to vote in, I hated both candidates.

In this one, I like them both.

So confused.

[Hanover Fist]

Hmm, Illinois's own Democratic Governor Rod Blagojevich who is an Obama supporter sounds off about Palin.

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/09/palin_experience_defended_by_i.html

...Blagojevich, who said he spent two summers after high school working on the Alaska pipeline, readily defended the executive experience that governors have in contrast to legislators when it comes to being presidential material.
"I would hope the Democrats wouldn't say that about a governor," Blagojevich, a former state legislator and congressman, told O'Dell of criticism that the first-term Palin lacks experience.
"The reality is, governors every day have to make decisions for better or for worse. That's part of the job. It's an executive position. And it's a position that is like what you're going to do when you're president. Legislators, they do different things. They debate and they pass their bills back and forth," he said.
"But governors make decisions, and I think it's a tactical mistake for the Democrats to question Gov. Palin's experience when she's been a governor of a state," he said. "I don't think the size of the state is relevant. It's the kinds of decisions you have to make as governor....

[Hawk the Slayer]

I'm also leaning pretty heavily towards Obama, as I think the main things the next president will need to do are (a) regain good will with other world leaders, and (b) inspire American citizens to get off their asses and get involved in their communities. But - I do think McCain would be a far better president than GWB has been. He might even know how to say "nuclear" instead of "nook-ya-ler". It's generally not a good thing when the vast majority of the world regards your government as an intrusive, hypocritical bully led by a buffoon.

[Claydon]

I would say any of you have an equal opportunity to change my mind. I don't know who I'm going to vote for this election. The last 2 have been so easy for me. I just refuse to vote for a guy that sounds like a dumbass to represent our country. Neither of these guys does, so I'm looking at the issues that matter to me.

I like guns, and hate Affirmative Action. I am pro choice, and think the gays should be able to get married. I think we should stay in iraq until we fix what we fucked up and don't give a shit about taxing the shit out of the richest 2% of our country. I think most social programs barely work if they aren't totally broken, but are 100% necessary and need to be fixed. I think no child left behind was a monumental failure and I think most people knew that from the start. I think it was a last ditch effort that was designed to fail so that privatization could be pushed. I don't like privatization of things that everyone needs.

So, with my mixed up beliefs who do I vote for?

I think in the end, I want it to be the guy that I think will take the poison out of politics in Washington. I want a guy that is most likely to unite this country and regain the respect of the rest of the world.

EDIT: Is that too idealistic?

Ill give you $50 and all 360 gigs of my porn collection if you vote mccain.

[Claydon]

I'm also leaning pretty heavily towards Obama, as I think the main things the next president will need to do are (a) regain good will with other world leaders, and (b) inspire American citizens to get off their asses and get involved in their communities. But - I do think McCain would be a far better president than GWB has been. He might even know how to say "nuclear" instead of "nook-ya-ler". It's generally not a good thing when the vast majority of the world regards your government as an intrusive, hypocritical bully led by a buffoon.

Sounds like the EU.

[Hawk the Slayer]

Sounds like the EU.
Hmmm... I'll give you "intrusive", "buffoon", and "hypocritical". But you'll have to replace "bully" with "snob". After all - when was the last time an EU nation invaded another country for possessing WMD's that didn't exist? (I'm talking about since the inception of the EU; we all know about the Germans and Italians in WWII.)
...
Let's see: EU = "intrusive, hypocritical snobs led by buffoons". Sounds about right.

[Claydon]

Hmmm... I'll give you "intrusive", "buffoon", and "hypocritical". But you'll have to replace "bully" with "snob". After all - when was the last time an EU nation invaded another country for possessing WMD's that didn't exist? (I'm talking about since the inception of the EU; we all know about the Germans and Italians in WWII.)
...
Let's see: EU = "intrusive, hypocritical snobs led by buffoons". Sounds about right.

And, I heard a wonderful analogy last night on charlie rose, the EU's economy is Schlerotic.

[Pollo]

anyone watching the Obama/McCain debate at Columbia University? good stuff. McCain spoke previously, and now Obama is at the moment.

[nirvanasaves]

anyone watching the Obama/McCain debate at Columbia University? good stuff. McCain spoke previously, and now Obama is at the moment.

I caught the tail end of Obama's part. Any good?

[vasili denisov]

Ill give you $50 and all 360 gigs of my porn collection if you vote mccain.
That'd be tempting if he was on welfare and into men.

[Hanover Fist]

http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/bad_americans/goodbye_to_all_1.php

[kid_vidrio]

Great one Han.
I see stuff like that and it reminds me of the shining example of professionalism and goodness my GOP has been.
Too bad everyone hasn't been so wholesome and filled with family values.

[JohnQRotten]

I like them both too. After the last two elections it's wierd not to completely HATE one of the candidates.

[Mustard]

CzhFDQIgGSg

Link to article with video embed giving a good description. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/12/mccain-last-year-mayors-a_n_125944.html)

This is McCain during the preceeding GOP debates, taking a swipe at Mitt Romney's and Rudy Guilliani's experience:

“I have had a strong and a long relationship on national security, I’ve been involved in every national crisis that this nation has faced since Beirut, I understand the issues, I understand and appreciate the enormity of the challenge we face from radical Islamic extremism. I am prepared. I am prepared. I need no on-the-job training. I wasn’t a mayor for a short period of time. I wasn’t a governor for a short period of time.”

This is McCain yesterday at the Presidential Forum of Service:
“Listen, mayors have the toughest job, I think, in America. It’s easy for me to go to Washington and, frankly, be somewhat divorced from the day-to-day challenges people have.”

Clearly John McCain took a swipe at Mitt Romney's and Rudy Guilliani's respective gubernatorial and mayoral experiences during the GOP debate as is shown in the video above. What has now transpired is that John McCain has just retroactively taken a swipe at his own personal VP pick in Sarah Palin, because the same standard must and has to apply. Then yesterday John McCain makes the above comment in trying to pay respects to Sarah Palin and her public service as a mayor previously. So which is it Mr. McCain? You clearly feel that you are prepared to be President, and that inexperienced mayors and governors don't fit the bill to be President. But then you also clearly feel that mayors have the toughest job in America, while you yourself can be divorced from the day-to-day challenges people have. Mr. McCain, you cannot have it both ways, (or three or more different ways if you consider the multiple aspects of this uniquie situation) because this is lunacy and hypocricy. That is unless you are in fact a hypocrite, at best, and a bullshitting liar at worst.

In 2000, (as most of you are probably aware from previous posts) I had the utmost respect for John McCain, and had he won the GOP nomination, I would have voted for him. Now in 2008 it has become abundantly clear that John McCain has sold his integrity and his soul for a chance to be the next POTUS. John McCain's hypocricy is astounding, knows no limit, and I'm so sick and tired of this bullshit. I must now truly believe that John McCain thinks every single person in this country, and perhaps the world, is a fucking idiot... because seriously, what kind of a person can sit there with a straight face and just outright and blatantly lie, lie, and lie some more. It is either that, or he is immensely stupid, which I refuse to believe, because I know John McCain is a smart man, which makes his hypocritical and sleazey behavior in this campaign all the more tragic.

Either way, John McCain has really shown what deep lows he is willing to stoop to disparidge his opponents, but most importantly by virtue of microphones and video, himself the most. And that is the real travesty, for every lie and smear that John McCain perpetuates, it only hurts him more in the long run. I can only guess that McCain has given up his once great honor in favor of this low and dirty campaign that will still probably not be enough to win the election he battling so hard for. Is it worth it Mr. McCain? Is all of your years and years of great service to this great country being forgotten and tarnished by these hypocritical and dishonest tactics worth the Presidency? An honest man would say, "No, it is not". I used to believe that John McCain was an honest man. That belief has now been shattered in this campaign.

John McCain. He does not deserve to be our next President.

[Fiend1138]

I decided I'm voting for McClane...

http://i37.tinypic.com/osbvok.jpg

[cAsE sEnSiTiVe]

CzhFDQIgGSg

Link to article with video embed giving a good description. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/12/mccain-last-year-mayors-a_n_125944.html)

This is McCain during the preceeding GOP debates, taking a swipe at Mitt Romney's and Rudy Guilliani's experience:



This is McCain yesterday at the Presidential Forum of Service:

Clearly John McCain took a swipe at Mitt Romney's and Rudy Guilliani's respective gubernatorial and mayoral experiences during the GOP debate as is shown in the video above. What has now transpired is that John McCain has just retroactively taken a swipe at his own personal VP pick in Sarah Palin, because the same standard must and has to apply. Then yesterday John McCain makes the above comment in trying to pay respects to Sarah Palin and her public service as a mayor previously. So which is it Mr. McCain? You clearly feel that you are prepared to be President, and that inexperienced mayors and governors don't fit the bill to be President. But then you also clearly feel that mayors have the toughest job in America, while you yourself can be divorced from the day-to-day challenges people have. Mr. McCain, you cannot have it both ways, (or three or more different ways if you consider the multiple aspects of this uniquie situation) because this is lunacy and hypocricy. That is unless you are in fact a hypocrite, at best, and a bullshitting liar at worst.

In 2000, (as most of you are probably aware from previous posts) I had the utmost respect for John McCain, and had he won the GOP nomination, I would have voted for him. Now in 2008 it has become abundantly clear that John McCain has sold his integrity and his soul for a chance to be the next POTUS. John McCain's hypocricy is astounding, knows no limit, and I'm so sick and tired of this bullshit. I must now truly believe that John McCain thinks every single person in this country, and perhaps the world, is a fucking idiot... because seriously, what kind of a person can sit there with a straight face and just outright and blatantly lie, lie, and lie some more. It is either that, or he is immensely stupid, which I refuse to believe, because I know John McCain is a smart man, which makes his hypocritical and sleazey behavior in this campaign all the more tragic.

Either way, John McCain has really shown what deep lows he is willing to stoop to disparidge his opponents, but most importantly by virtue of microphones and video, himself the most. And that is the real travesty, for every lie and smear that John McCain perpetuates, it only hurts him more in the long run. I can only guess that McCain has given up his once great honor in favor of this low and dirty campaign that will still probably not be enough to win the election he battling so hard for. Is it worth it Mr. McCain? Is all of your years and years of great service to this great country being forgotten and tarnished by these hypocritical and dishonest tactics worth the Presidency? An honest man would say, "No, it is not". I used to believe that John McCain was an honest man. That belief has now been shattered in this campaign.

John McCain. He does not deserve to be our next President.


Which part of 'Do anything to get elected', do you not understand?

Happens on both sides. These are career politicians we are talking about. They are ALL full of shit.

[vasili denisov]

I thought the analysis in this piece (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/18420304/the_weasel_twelve_monkeys_and_the_shrub/) by the late David Foster Wallace on the 2000 campaign between McCain and Bush was an uncanny fit for the current contest.

Going Negative is risky. Countless polls have shown that voters find it distasteful in the extreme, and if a candidate is perceived as going Negative, it usually costs him. So the techs all agree that the first question is why Bush2000 started playing this card.

One possible explanation is that the Shrub was so personally shocked and scared by McCain's win in New Hampshire that he's now lashing out like a spoiled child and trying to hurt McCain however he can. The techs reject this, though. Spoiled child or no, G.W. Bush is a creature of his campaign advisers, and these advisers are the best that $70 million and the full faith and credit of the GOP Establishment can buy, and if Bush2000 has gone Negative there must be solid political logic behind the move.

This logic turns out to be indeed solid, even brilliant, and the NBC, CBS and CNN techs flesh it out while the ABC cameraman puts several emergency sandwiches in his lens bag for tonight's flight south on a campaign plane whose provisioning is notoriously inconsistent. The Shrub's attack leaves McCain with two options. If he does not retaliate, some SC voters will credit McCain for taking the high road. But it could also come off as wimpy, might compromise McCain's image as a tough, take-no-shit guy with the balls to take on the Washington kleptocracy. So McCain pretty much has to strike back, the techs agree.

But this is extremely dangerous, for by retaliating — which of course (despite all Murphy's artful dodging) means going Negative himself — McCain runs the risk of looking like just another ambitious, win-at-any-cost politician. Worse, the CBS cameraman points out, if Bush then turns around and retaliates against the retaliation, and McCain has to re-retaliate against Bush's retaliation, and so on, then the whole GOP race could quickly degenerate into the sort of boring, depressing, cynical charge- and counter-charge contest that turns voters off and keeps them away from the polls.

Especially Young Voters, RS and an underage local pencil from one of those weekly things that people can pick up free at Detroit supermarkets point out, both scribbling just as furiously with the techs as the 12M did with Murphy. The techs say well OK maybe but that the really important tactical point here is that John S. McCain cannot afford to have voters get turned off, since his whole strategy is based on exciting the people and inspiring them and pulling more voters in, especially those who'd stopped voting because they'd gotten so disgusted and bored with all the Negativity and bullshit of politics.

In other words, RS and the Detroit free-weekly kid propose to the techs, it's maybe even in the Shrub's political self-interest to let the GOP race get ugly and Negative and have voters get so bored and cynical and disgusted with the whole thing that they don't even bother to vote. Well no shit Sherlock H., the ABC techs in essence respond, good old Frank C. then patiently explaining that, yes, if there's a low voter turnout, then the majority of the people who get off their ass and do vote will be the Diehard Republicans, meaning the Christian Right and the party faithful, and these are the groups that vote as they're told, the ones controlled by the GOP Establishment, an Establishment that's got $70 million and 100% of its own credibility invested in the Shrub.

[Rover]

Sixty-three percent (63%) of voters say John McCain is prepared right now to be president, and 50% say the same thing about Democratic vice presidential candidate Joseph Biden. Forty-four percent (44%) say the man at the top of Biden's ticket, Barack Obama, is ready, but 45% say he isn’t.

Just 26% say McCain is not ready, and 34% feel that way about Biden, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.
Over half of voters (52%) say McCain’s running mate, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, is not prepared to be president, but 33% disagree (crosstabs available for Premium Members).

Among voters not affiliated with either major political party, 71% say McCain is prepared for the Presidency while just 35% say the same about Obama.http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/majority_of_voters_say_only_mccain_biden_prepared_ to_be_president

I'm not sure what to make of this, but the top of your ticket should be the guy that's prepared.

[Smokestack]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/majority_of_voters_say_only_mccain_biden_prepared_ to_be_president

I'm not sure what to make of this, but the top of your ticket should be the guy that's prepared.

God love these experiencefuckers. They'd probably take Julio Franco over Hanley Ramirez too, by that logic.

This "top of the ticket" argument is a bit off, anyway. While obviously one wants whichever candidate is most prepared at the top of the ticket, whoever wins in November will have been running for quite some time for that position and then will have another couple of months to prepare for their office. If a VP were to assume the presidency, the situation is likely to be unusual and one would think preparedness would matter more in that case.

[kareyn01]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/majority_of_voters_say_only_mccain_biden_prepared_ to_be_president

I'm not sure what to make of this, but the top of your ticket should be the guy that's prepared.

What's also interesting in that poll is that McCain leads Obama 49-47, but in the question of which candidate voters would like to see as president, 42% said Obama, 35% said McCain, 10% said Palin, and 7% said Biden. Add those up by party and its 49-45 Obama. That implies that 4 percent (of the 7 overall) that said they would prefer Biden to be president are voting for McCain? I seriously doubt that.

[halfabubbleoff]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/majority_of_voters_say_only_mccain_biden_prepared_ to_be_president

I'm not sure what to make of this, but the top of your ticket should be the guy that's prepared.

I agree completely with that statement. Unfortunately, the poll asked who people think is prepared, not who actually is. Personally, I don't think you run as hard as these men have and not be prepared for it. As for Palin, she is getting a crash course, I personally hope her preparedness is never tested.

I also find it interesting that many of these polls still end up with Obama / Biden as the ticket more voters would actually put in office.

To paraphrase: I'm not sure what to make of that either, unless people tend to think that the person that is most prepared, is prepared to lead in a way that they don't approve?

[Hobnail_Boot]

Here's 22 reasons to vote against Mr. Obama and for McCain/Palin
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Now here's 22 reasons to vote against Mr. Obama and for McCain/Palin.

1. Sen. Obama gives flowery speeches on change and hope. But he's part of one of the most corrupt political machines of all time. And instead of fighting and trying to reform the corrupt Chicago Cook County political machine, he used it to rise to power. When reformers tried to fight it, Mr. Obama refused to help them and actually was instrumental in defeating the reform movement. He preaches a new kind of politics but supports and uses one of the worst political machines in the U.S.

2. He led the battle in the Illinois legislature to assure that born-alive infants would not be treated as persons and would not be entitled to medical care. Instead, if Sen. Obama had his way, such babies born alive after a botched abortion would be left to die, thus legalizing what appears to be infanticide and murder.

3. When he first responded to Russia's invasion of Georgia, he said that aggression was wrong, but the U.S. would be in a better position if we set a good example. Thus he made it clear he was drawing a moral equivalence between Russia's aggression and the U.S.'s liberation of Iraq, which had violated 17 United Nations resolutions. This reaction alone, suggests not merely bad judgment but apparently no judgment at all. Then after giving it more thought, his second response was turning the matter over to the United Nations. That of course was a stupid idea as Russia has a veto in the Security Council.

4. He sat in the pews of the Trinity Church in Chicago, listening to a notorious racist, bigot and anti-American, Rev. Jeremiah "God Damn America" Wright, without a peep of protest. He did not leave the church until Rev. Wright said Obama is just another politician who says what he has to say. And that move was dictated by political considerations, not any moral outrage.

5. He started his political career in a fund-raiser in the home of William Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist and anti-American. He still hasn't denounced him but says Mr. Ayers is now a member of the Chicago Democratic mainstream. He still maintains a friendly relationship with him, has served on a board with him, and has participated in speaking panels with him.

6. He refused to wear a flag on his lapel, claiming he viewed it as a symbol of false patriotism employed after 9/11. He started wearing the flag only when he was embarrassed into doing so under political pressure. At that time he suddenly started ending his speeches with the words "God Bless America."

7. He got an earmark appropriation from Congress for his wife's employer, the University of Chicago Medical Center. When questioned on the appearance of conflict of interest, he said there was nothing improper about that but he should have gone to his fellow Illinois Sen. Dick Durban, to put the appropriation through. In other words, if there is an appearance of conflict of interest, you should hide it somehow instead of avoiding what creates such appearance. This is a pattern: saying one thing and doing the opposite. When he started to run for the presidency, he stopped putting in earmarks. As is his usual pattern, he started doing the right thing for election purposes only. So judge him by his record, not moves that are merely campaign calculation.

8. He favors increasing the capital gains tax, even though he admitted it will not raise tax revenue, but cut it instead. He justifies such an irrational move, out of what he calls a sense of fairness. That would mean less tax revenue, higher deficits and less incentive for saving, investment, capital formation, economic growth, and creation.

9. He called for negotiations without preconditions with the Ahmadinejad of Iran, Chavez of Venzuela, and Castro of Cuba. Even Senator Obama recognized the folly of this idea, so he backed off of it after an explosion of criticism. He thinks sweet talk solves all problems, and when a problem calls for something beyond sweet talk, he 's stumped. He speaks loudly and often, but carries a toothpick-size stick which he is afraid to use. Another example of Mr. Obama's naiveté was his comment that Iran is a small country not to be feared.

10. He opposed the surge, said it would fail, and even after it was almost universally acclaimed to be a success, he refuses to admit the surge succeed ed.

11. He called for withdrawal from Iraq, in effect, calling for retreat and defeat, which would have turned over the Middle East and much of the world's oil supplies to terrorists and their supporters in Iran.

12. He associated with and made a land deal with convicted felon, Tony Rezko, even knowing he was under serious investigation. He admitted this was what he called a boneheaded mistake. Mr. Obama seems incapable of judging his associates, as his close and friendly encounters with the hate-America and terrorist crowd suggests. Even an otherwise friendly biographer, said he is at home with the hate-America types.

13. He claims he will bring all sides together but he has never shown any signs or symptoms of bipartisanship. His record is that of a far-left liberal, the most liberal of any member of the U.S. Senate. He goes down the party line, and never reaches across the aisle.

14. He claims he will bring change to Washington, but picks a long-term Washington insider, Sen. Joe Biden, who has been in the Senate for decades, and is rated the third most liberal in the U.S. Senate. He claims he'll be the agent of change, but in his acceptance speech he catalogs the tired left-wing Democratic agenda, that has been regurgitated every four years for decades. He talks change but dishes up only the old liberal dishes, which have been rejected by voters many times from McGovern to Carter, and which have failed when implementation was attempted. If Mr. Obama wins the White House, he is likely to have a veto proof Congress, which mean all of his left-loony proposals would probably become law. Electoral history suggests Americans don't go for such unrestrained power. Beware of an Obama/Pelosi/Reid triumvirate that would bring us radical liberalism in its worst form.

15. He says he wants to bring us energy independence but refuses to drill and extract our huge reserves, greater than those of Saudi Arabia. He wants us to check our tire pressure instead of drilling. Give me a break! He also advises everyone to tune-up their cars, even though most cars no longer need tune-ups.

16. He never sticks with a job. For example, when he became senator he started writing his book. Then within two years of becoming a senator, he started running for president. It is not surprising that he has no legislative accomplishments. This has been the pattern of his entire career. He never sticks with anything long enough to chalk up significant achievements. That's why when asked about his accomplishments, his supporters seem to be stumped. Dean Barnett, in an article in the Weekly Standard (Sept. 1, 2008), entitled "Would You Hire Barack Obama? The resume of a chronic underachiever," writes, "You'd have to conclude that Obama's failure to commit himself to any career sufficiently to excel at it suggests some unexplained restlessness." I'd say it suggests he's a dilitante, who flits from one project to another, but never stays long enough to deliver a satisfactory end product.

17. As talk show host Michael Medved has pointed out, the people vouching for him at the Democratic National Convention were mainly relatives, such as his wife and brother-in-law. There were not major figures vouching for him, because they could not vouch for a classic empty-suit. Even Hillary Clinton, in her convention endorsement speech, said Democrats must support him, but in no way vouched for his character or judgment. Contrast that with the people at the Republican National Convention who vouched for Sen. McCain - Sen. Joe Lieberman and former Sen. Fred Thompson.

18. To bolster his foreign policy credentials, he picked Sen. Joe Biden as vice president. Sen. Biden voted for the war in Iraq, which vote Sen. Obama views as the symbol of bad judgment. So even Sen. Obama admits Sen. Biden ha bad judgment. Sen. Biden also comes up with wacky ideas of his own such as splitting Iraq, a sovereign nation, into three parts for the Kurds, Shias, and Sunnis. He also voted against the first Gulf War, even after Iraq had invaded Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Middle East. I'd think most would consider that the height of bad judgment. He opposed the surge. He opposed Reagan's build-up to fight international communism, so his bad record is long and unbroken. Biden has judgment bad enough to match that of Sen. Obama's.

19. He flip-flops on matters that suggest he has no principles except the old Chicago machine principle of do anything you have to do to get elected. He promised to take public financing, something that the great reformer and change artist claimed to be committed to. Then when he saw it was to his political advantage to stay with totally private contributions, as that would bring in more money, he went back on his promise and rejected public funding. He said that his wide array of contributors to his campaign made his approach into public financing, one of his more nonsensical pieces of logic. He think if he uses sufficient oratorical powers he can make two and two equal ten, or private financing equal public financing.

20. He constantly uses such expressions as, "I would be glad to debate my opponent on that issue anytime, anywhere." But that is just for oratorical effect. In practice, he refused Sen. McCain's offer of a town meeting every week to debate the issues. He is clearly afraid of unscripted sessions. If he is not smart enough to go off the teleprompter and script, he is not smart enough to be president.

When he participated in the Saddleback debate with Pastor Rick Warren, he demonstrated again he doesn't make sense when confronted with tough questions without the answers on a script. When asked when does life begin, he said that was above his pay-grade. If that question is above his pay grade so is the presidency of the United States.

21.He would like voters to view him as a man of great political courage, but he has a documented record of political cowardice. For example, when in the Illinois legislature, he voted "present" over 100 times and was well known for taking that route, of neither a yes or no vote. Present is a classic sitting on the fence and waiting to find out which way the wind will blow. As William Kristol of the Weekly Standard (Sept. 1, 2008) has pointed out, " Has he shunned the easy path or broken with the conventional liberal pieties of those around him? Has he taken on his own party on a major issue? Nope."

22. Mr. Obama bases his campaign on his superior judgment, and that in turn is based on his speech against the war in Iraq. Of course, he never made a vote against the war, as at the time he was in the Illinois legislature, not the U.S. Senate. He gave the speech at an anti-war rally in the liberal Hyde Park section in Chicago. But votes are more important than speeches. And since he's been in the Senate, he's been wrong on every issue related to Iraq. These mistaken positions were summed up in an article by Emery in the Weekly Standard (Sept.1, 2008) entitled "Misfortunes of War: Success in Iraq Confounds the Democrats." It isn't easy to be wrong on every vote and pronouncement on Iraq, but don't underestimate Sen. Obama's ineptness in the foreign policy area. Mr. Emery writes: "He claimed that the Anbar Awakening took place as a result of Democrats' congressional victories, but it began in September 2006, two months before before the voting took place. He opposed not only the troop surge, but also the strategic changes that took place along with it, that did so much to enable the victory. He said the American military had noting to do with the Anbar Awakening or with the retreat of the Sadr militia, something denied by the Iraqi military and by the Iraqi Sunnis themselves. He was also wrong in his predictions that none of this would occur."

Sen. Obama not only has judgment bad enough to make him wrong on every foreign policy question, but he also has the knack of picking advisors and close associates who have a strong record of being wrong. For example, his choice for vice president, Sen. Biden, and one of the senators that accompanied him on his trip to Iraq, Sen. Chuck Hagel, introduced a resolution in opposition to the buildup that was the surge that turned the tide in Iraq.

Sen. Obama's inexperience in foreign policy is perhaps his most dangerous deficiency. But don't underestimate his ability to wreck our economy, destroy the incentives for entrepreneurs to take risks and build jobs, and to wreck our health care delivery system.

Link: http://www.rrracfl.org/News/ViewArticle.asp?i=135

[WigglingWii]

I wasn't really thinking about participating in this election, but since Palin is a part of the ticket I'm most definitely voting for Obama. Not because I completely hate Palin (sure that's a huge factor) but I was already leaning towards Obama. I watched Palin's interview with Gibson and wow I have to say I'm disappointed that she's a woman.

[Hobnail_Boot]

I wasn't really thinking about participating in this election...
By that, you mean you were planning on not voting?

[WigglingWii]

By that, you mean you were planning on not voting?

Yea, but not like my vote actually counts anyway.

[Hobnail_Boot]

Yea, but not like my vote actually counts anyway.
Alright. I cannot believe there are literate adults in America who do not vote.

[WigglingWii]

Alright. I cannot believe there are literate adults in America who do not vote.

I just became an American so this would actually be my first election.

[Morfin]

I can't believe someone -- especially a new citizen -- would not want to vote. As to your vote not counting, yeah, it is easy to feel that way, but it does count because you have your voice, your vote. Even if you vote for the losing candidate. There are local elections -- don't you care about them?

I'm not telling you what to do -- it is your personal choice. I can say that I think it is extremely important, it is something that our country was founded on, and I would not (and will not) give up my vote lightly.

[freegood]

Living in a red state, my vote doesn't count in the Presidential election. It might help in state and local....

[Morfin]

I don't agree with you, feelgood.

Your vote counts, even if your candidate loses. I don't understand -- and I am not picking on you per se -- how someone could have an opinion on the issues and who would be a better president (and even take the time and effort to post them on an Internet forum) and then not vote. How defeatist and how cynical. No, I am not going to resort to trite comments about the 2000 election being decided by a few hundred votes or 1960 where it turned on a few thousand.

I will never, ever understand the complacent, cynical view that my vote does not count, that my candidate is going to lose, or that it does not matter. Maybe it is because I am older than virtually everyone who posts here, but I get a shiver when I vote, especially for president -- that I get the same vote as everyone else, and that, win or lose, I had a voice in who governs me and what happens to me. I don't apologize for how I feel or how important voting is to me.

And for those who don't get those same goosebumps, I'm sorry you don't feel the same way.

[kareyn01]

2. He led the battle in the Illinois legislature to assure that born-alive infants would not be treated as persons and would not be entitled to medical care. Instead, if Sen. Obama had his way, such babies born alive after a botched abortion would be left to die, thus legalizing what appears to be infanticide and murder.[/URL]

The rest of the article loses any legitimacy it may have had right there. Democratic legislators originally delayed the bill four times until it included language that specifically said the bill would not have any impact on abortion rights, it passed overwhelmingly in 2005. ([url]http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2008/08/executive-summa.html (http://www.rrracfl.org/News/ViewArticle.asp?i=135))

[kareyn01]

I don't agree with you, feelgood.

Your vote counts, even if your candidate loses. I don't understand -- and I am not picking on you per se -- how someone could have an opinion on the issues and who would be a better president (and even take the time and effort to post them on an Internet forum) and then not vote. How defeatist and how cynical. No, I am not going to resort to trite comments about the 2000 election being decided by a few hundred votes or 1960 where it turned on a few thousand.

I will never, ever understand the complacent, cynical view that my vote does not count, that my candidate is going to lose, or that it does not matter. Maybe it is because I am older than virtually everyone who posts here, but I get a shiver when I vote, especially for president -- that I get the same vote as everyone else, and that, win or lose, I had a voice in who governs me and what happens to me. I don't apologize for how I feel or how important voting is to me.

And for those who don't get those same goosebumps, I'm sorry you don't feel the same way.

I live in Kentucky, which McCain will win handily, so my vote doesn't count either. I will still vote, but there are, in fact, places in the country where an individual vote DOESN'T count. If you're one of 16 Democrats in Idaho, even if all of you vote, it won't matter. Your state is going Republican.

[Morfin]

I live in Kentucky, which McCain will win handily, so my vote doesn't count either. I will still vote, but there are, in fact, places in the country where an individual vote DOESN'T count. If you're one of 16 Democrats in Idaho, even if all of you vote, it won't matter. Your state is going Republican.

I'm not going to argue with you because I think you are missing the point. The issue is voting, not winning or losing -- your vote still counts, even if you lose. The Eagles scored a lot of points last night, had a good game, but still lost to the Cowboys. Yes, the net effect was that the Eagles would have had the same result if they had not played. So should they have not played? Here is a better example: Slovakia's women's hockey team beat Bulgaria 82-0 last week. Surely, Bulgaria knew it was going to lose and lose big. Should they have not shown up? No, you play and see what happens. The honor is in playing. Here, the honor is in voting. If you do not vote and give up your right to vote because you know your candidate is going to lose, well, I feel sorry for you. Move to France, you defeatist pussy.

[Rover]

Sarah Palin bests Joseph Biden 47% to 44% in a hypothetical head-to-head match-up for the presidency, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone surveyhttp://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/palin_47_biden_44_in_make_believe_presidential_mat ch_up

[kareyn01]

I'm not going to argue with you because I think you are missing the point. The issue is voting, not winning or losing -- your vote still counts, even if you lose. The Eagles scored a lot of points last night, had a good game, but still lost to the Cowboys. Yes, the net effect was that the Eagles would have had the same result if they had not played. So should they have not played? Here is a better example: Slovakia's women's hockey team beat Bulgaria 82-0 last week. Surely, Bulgaria knew it was going to lose and lose big. Should they have not shown up? No, you play and see what happens. The honor is in playing. Here, the honor is in voting. If you do not vote and give up your right to vote because you know your candidate is going to lose, well, I feel sorry for you. Move to France, you defeatist pussy.

Look, I vote every election cycle, and will continue to do so. And I understand (and mostly agree with) your point. Your comparison with sports doesn't really work, though. If you asked all of those people who say they don't vote if they would play five-on-five against the Celtics, they'd do it in a heartbeat, because they'd have a good time and enjoy the experience.

Voting, on the other hand, isn't about the honor involved. Its about electing government officials. People feel that its a waste of their time and effort to reduce their preferred official's margin of defeat from 35 points to 25 points if their entire losing party was mobilized.

Don't get me wrong, though, I wish that everyone felt compelled to vote. And I also think that you lose your right to complain about government practices if you choose not to take advantage of your right to vote. I'm just saying that I understand why people that don't live in swing states would consider it a waste of time.

[kareyn01]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/palin_47_biden_44_in_make_believe_presidential_mat ch_up


"Women continue to be more skeptical than men of the Republican (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/palin_47_biden_44_in_make_believe_presidential_mat ch_up#) vice presidential nominee, only the second woman to be on a national political ticket. While men split 50% to 37% in Palin’s favor, women support Biden 50% to 44%."

Doesn't that put the lie to the notion that sexism is the main reason behind criticism of Palin's readiness to be Vice President, or potentially President?

[freegood]

I don't agree with you, feelgood.

Your vote counts, even if your candidate loses. I don't understand -- and I am not picking on you per se -- how someone could have an opinion on the issues and who would be a better president (and even take the time and effort to post them on an Internet forum) and then not vote. How defeatist and how cynical. No, I am not going to resort to trite comments about the 2000 election being decided by a few hundred votes or 1960 where it turned on a few thousand.

I will never, ever understand the complacent, cynical view that my vote does not count, that my candidate is going to lose, or that it does not matter. Maybe it is because I am older than virtually everyone who posts here, but I get a shiver when I vote, especially for president -- that I get the same vote as everyone else, and that, win or lose, I had a voice in who governs me and what happens to me. I don't apologize for how I feel or how important voting is to me.

And for those who don't get those same goosebumps, I'm sorry you don't feel the same way.

It's freegood.

I didn't say I wouldn't vote, but living in a largely partisan non-battleground state, the truth is your vote for a Dem or Rep president doesn't count. If you want, you could vote 3rd party to give them a chance for gov funding the next time.

I gave reason why you should vote despite this. There's congressional seats and state propositions that are just as important as voting for the head honcho. Those aren't as easily decided.

[Rover]

Sexism isn't just men trying to keep women down. Women can be just as sexist, if not moreso. I heard an analyst say that women are the most critical of women politicians. But I think that poll breaks down into single women voting for Biden and married women voting for Palin. Which would be typical.
Married woman like Palin more than Biden by 12 percentage points, while unmarried women favor the Democrat 58% to 36%. Women with children at home prefer Palin, herself the mother of five, 48% to 40%, but women who do not have children at home are evenly divided over the two candidates.
I heard more women than men criticizing Palin's ability to be a mother and VP. That is woman on woman sexism. Men have been browbeaten into never making those remarks again.

[Rover]

(CNN) — It appears Barack Obama's teleprompter is hitting the campaign trail.
The Democratic presidential nominee has never tried to hide the fact he delivers speeches off the device, though normally he doesn't use one at standard campaign rallies and town hall events.
But the Illinois senator used a teleprompter at both his Colorado events Monday — making for a particularly peculiar scene in Pueblo, where the prompter was set up in the middle of what is normally a rodeo ring.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/15/obamas-teleprompter-hits-the-trail/
At least Bush picked another person to be his brain. Obama seems to have chosen a screen that projects words. Even Bush could deliver the same stump speech over and over and over and over. His ability to stay on message was impressive.

[kareyn01]

At least Bush picked another person to be his brain. Obama seems to have chosen a screen that projects words. Even Bush could deliver the same stump speech over and over and over and over. His ability to stay on message was impressive.

You're really trying to make a point of this when Sarah Palin has literally used the exact same speech at every stop she's made since the convention?

Obama has been holding townhall meetings without a teleprompter since the convention (not that he was using one at townhall meetings before the convention).

If you really want to start mudslinging about post-convention appearances, how about McCain lying about the crowds at his appearances in Fairfax, Virginia (said there were 23,000 when there were only 8,000) and Carson City, Nevada (said there were 10,000 when the arena only holds 3,500)?

You care about actually bringing up something worthwile?

[freegood]

Al who?


Adviser says McCain helped create the BlackBerry


MIAMI (AP) (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g1MSY3Bgt7YC5XHmxAdt9VkOlvhwD937S7SG1) — Move over, Al Gore. You may lay claim to the Internet, but John McCain helped create the BlackBerry.

At least that's the contention of a top McCain policy adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin. Waving his BlackBerry personal digital assistant and citing McCain's work as a senator, he told reporters Tuesday, "You're looking at the miracle that John McCain helped create."

McCain has acknowledged that he doesn't know how to use a computer and can't send e-mail, one of the BlackBerry's prime functions.

Holtz-Eakin's argument is similar to one advanced by Gore, the Democratic presidential nominee in 2000. Gore once boasted about "taking the initiative to create the Internet" through technological and educational policies. He later was mocked for claiming to have invented the Internet, although he never made such a claim.

Holtz-Eakin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, said McCain's service on and leadership of the Senate Commerce Committee put him at the intersection of a number of economic interests, including the telecommunications industry.

The Arizona senator's handling of regulation and deregulation of that industry in particular left him with the skills to help revive the economy amid a mortgage crisis, an energy crisis and a Wall Street meltdown, the adviser said.

"He can and has the judgment to put people in place with technical expertise, with the history of experience in the areas necessary, that we're going to get reforms," Holtz-Eakin said.

[Rover]

You're really trying to make a point of this when Sarah Palin has literally used the exact same speech at every stop she's made since the convention?

Obama has been holding townhall meetings without a teleprompter since the convention (not that he was using one at townhall meetings before the convention).

If you really want to start mudslinging about post-convention appearances, how about McCain lying about the crowds at his appearances in Fairfax, Virginia (said there were 23,000 when there were only 8,000) and Carson City, Nevada (said there were 10,000 when the arena only holds 3,500)?

You care about actually bringing up something worthwile?Misleading about crowd sizes? Like the time Obama showed up in Oregon to piggy back on a free concert and got 70K? I only thought it was interesting that Obama's strategy guys have decided to make him operate only on a teleprompter. I wonder what Putin will say when they wheel the teleprompter into the conference room?

[kareyn01]

Misleading about crowd sizes? Like the time Obama showed up in Oregon to piggy back on a free concert and got 70K? I only thought it was interesting that Obama's strategy guys have decided to make him operate only on a teleprompter. I wonder what Putin will say when they wheel the teleprompter into the conference room?

There's a huge difference in someone saying "Barack Obama spoke before 92,000 people" (which was the actual crowd size-not that it matters; my OCD is showing) when it was in connection with a concert, and out and out lying about how many people came to see your candidate because it fits the "energized base" narrative that you're trying to sell.

And McCain didn't look up from his cue cards for more than 5 seconds in his economic address earlier today. Who cares?

[kareyn01]

Al who?


Adviser says McCain helped create the BlackBerry


MIAMI (AP) (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g1MSY3Bgt7YC5XHmxAdt9VkOlvhwD937S7SG1) — Move over, Al Gore. You may lay claim to the Internet, but John McCain helped create the BlackBerry.

At least that's the contention of a top McCain policy adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin. Waving his BlackBerry personal digital assistant and citing McCain's work as a senator, he told reporters Tuesday, "You're looking at the miracle that John McCain helped create."

McCain has acknowledged that he doesn't know how to use a computer and can't send e-mail, one of the BlackBerry's prime functions.

Holtz-Eakin's argument is similar to one advanced by Gore, the Democratic presidential nominee in 2000. Gore once boasted about "taking the initiative to create the Internet" through technological and educational policies. He later was mocked for claiming to have invented the Internet, although he never made such a claim.

Holtz-Eakin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, said McCain's service on and leadership of the Senate Commerce Committee put him at the intersection of a number of economic interests, including the telecommunications industry.

The Arizona senator's handling of regulation and deregulation of that industry in particular left him with the skills to help revive the economy amid a mortgage crisis, an energy crisis and a Wall Street meltdown, the adviser said.

"He can and has the judgment to put people in place with technical expertise, with the history of experience in the areas necessary, that we're going to get reforms," Holtz-Eakin said.

Here's John McCain's answer to a ScienceDebate 2008 question about maintaining America's lead in innovation:

"I am the former chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. The Committee plays a major role in the development of technology policy, specifically any legislation affecting communications services, the Internet, cable television and other technologies. Under my guiding hand, Congress developed a wireless spectrum policy that spurred the rapid rise of mobile phones and Wi-Fi technology that enables Americans to surf the web while sitting at a coffee shop, airport lounge, or public park. "

The Telecommunications Act of 1962 was the first major revision to telecommunications law in 62 years, and laid the groundwork for most of the cellphone and internet regulation/innovation of the last decade.

McCain voted against it.

[Pharon]

The Telecommunications Act of 1962 was the first major revision to telecommunications law in 62 years, and laid the groundwork for most of the cellphone and internet regulation/innovation of the last decade.

McCain voted against it.
Huh? McCain wasn't elected to Congress until 1982. Or was that a typo?

[Fletch]

Huh? McCain wasn't elected to Congress until 1982. Or was that a typo?

Yeah I think he meant 1996, not 1962.

[78hipo3o2]

Just 2 words ... Jimmy Carter ... No way can Obama fix things. He wants change and thats all you will be left with, pennies and nickels in you pockets. Back to the days of 18% mortgages and 20% car loans. And besides Palin is a total piece of ass!

[kareyn01]

Yeah I think he meant 1996, not 1962.

That's correct. Sorry about that. 62 years, Act of 1996. My bad.

[freegood]

Just 2 words ... Jimmy Carter ... No way can Obama fix things. He wants change and thats all you will be left with, pennies and nickels in you pockets. Back to the days of 18% mortgages and 20% car loans. And besides Palin is a total piece of ass!

If you read up on McCain, he's been saying some stupid ass shit with regards to the current economy. If you can read that is.

[Rover]

If you read up on McCain, he's been saying some stupid ass shit with regards to the current economy. If you can read that is.
First, it should reduce the net taxes by a sufficiently early date and a sufficiently large amount to do the job required. Early action could give us extra leverage, added results, and important insurance against recession.

Second, the new tax bill must increase private consumption, as well as investment...When consumers purchase more goods, plants use more of their capacity, men are hired instead of laid-off, investment increases, and profits are high...

...Corporate tax rates must also be cut to increase incentives and the availability of investment capital...

...next year's tax bill should reduce personal as well as corporate income taxes: for those in the lower brackets, who are certain to spend their additional take-home pay, and for those in the middle and upper brackets, who can thereby be encouraged to undertake additional efforts and enabled to invest more capital.

...In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.

Whole speech (http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkeconomicclubaddress.html). Guess whose wisdom this is? Where have these Democrats gone? It's all supply-side. It's just as applicable today, as it was then.

[Hobnail_Boot]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/palin_47_biden_44_in_make_believe_presidential_mat ch_up
Rasmussen must be bored over there.

[vasili denisov]

Whole speech (http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkeconomicclubaddress.html). Guess whose wisdom this is? Where have these Democrats gone? It's all supply-side. It's just as applicable today, as it was then.

This isn't supply-side at all. It's demand-side. Almost every point emphasizes the importance of increased consumption, not increased capital investment.

Any tax cut must meet three tests, according to this speech. The first, that it's early enough to do the job required and avoid a recession; that spending takes place (consumption most likely, since it provides a broader and more immediate stimulus than business investment). The second point, though mentioning business investment, almost entirely focuses on consumption. Investment is mentioned in the context of liability reform and tax credits, neither of which are supply side. Third point is about the inefficiency of the tax code and the importance of channeling investment, again, not supply-side, which would prefer to leave such decisions entirely in corporate hands.

I've bolded all areas in the three points where he specifically emphasizes personal consumption, rather than capital investment.


First, it should reduce the net taxes by a sufficiently early date and a sufficiently large amount to do the job required. Early action could give us extra leverage, added results, and important insurance against recession. Too large a tax cut, of course, could result in inflation and insufficient future revenues — but the greater danger is a tax cut too little, or too late, to be effective.


Second, the new tax bill must increase private consumption, as well as investment. Consumers are still spending between 92 and 94 percent on their after-tax income, as they have every year since 1950. But that after-tax income could and should be greater, providing stronger markets for the products of American industry. When consumers purchase more goods, plants use more of their capacity, men are hired instead of laid-off, investment increases, and profits are high.


Corporate tax rates must also be cut to increase incentives and the availability of investment capital. The government has already taken major steps this year to reduce business tax liability and to stimulate the modernization, replacement, and expansion of our productive plant and equipment. We have done this through the 1962 investment tax credit and through the liberalization of depreciation allowances — two essential parts of our first step in tax revision — which amounted to a ten percent reduction in corporate income taxes worth 2.5 billion dollars. Now we need to increase consumer demand to make these measures fully effective — demand which will make more use of existing capacity and thus increase both profits and the incentive to invest. In fact, profits after taxes would be at least 15 percent higher today if we were operating at full employment.


For all these reasons, next year's tax bill should reduce personal as well as corporate income taxes: for those in the lower brackets, who are certain to spend their additional take-home pay, and for those in the middle and upper brackets, who can thereby be encouraged to undertake additional efforts and enabled to invest more capital.


Third, the new tax bill should improve both the equity and the simplicity of our present tax system. This means the enactment of long-needed tax reforms, a broadening of the tax base, and the elimination or modification of many special tax privileges. These steps are not only needed to recover lost revenue and thus make possible a larger cut in present rates, they are also tied directly to our goal of greater growth. For the present patchwork of special provisions and preferences lightens the tax loads of some only at the cost of placing a heavier burden on others. It distorts economic judgments and channels undue amounts of energy into efforts to avoid tax liability. It makes certain types of less productive activity more profitable than other more valuable undertakings. All this inhibits our growth and efficiency, as well as considerably complicating the work of both the taxpayer and the Internal Revenue Service.

This link (http://www.slate.com/id/2093947/) also gives some detail about how and why Kennedy is wrongfully considered a supply-sider.

[Yelram]

Dude, are you serious? He's talking about lowering taxes so that people will have more money, so they will CONSUME MORE. Lowering taxes on businesses, so that they can pass their savings on to the consumer. Businesses dont pay taxes, they charge more. I've never met a person who disagreed with supply-side economics that actually ran a business, or had anything to do with a business. Because to a very large piece of the population, its one of the very few truths that exist in this world.

[vasili denisov]

Dude, are you serious? He's talking about lowering taxes so that people will have more money, so they will CONSUME MORE.
And that's not supply-side economics. It's demand-side. That's the point I already made.

[Yelram]

And that's not supply-side economics. It's demand-side. That's the point I already made.

Its both, because obviously we arent talking about cutting taxes ONLY to people, or ONLY to business, and in ALOT of cases the people ARE the businesses. Supply side economics is based on the premise of making it easier on the people who produce wealth, whoever that may be. Eventually the wealth is going to reach the demand side of the situation anyway. Like I said, businesses dont pay taxes, so a tax cut on business, is a tax cut on the consumers.

[Claydon]

Kind of sad that barry can't even stump without a teleprompter.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/15/obamas-teleprompter-hits-the-trail/

[Claydon]

Prominent Clinton backer and DNC member to endorse McCain
Posted: 10:07 PM ET

From CNN Political Editor Mark Preston
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Lynn Forester de Rothschild, a prominent Hillary Clinton supporter and member of the Democratic National Committee’s Platform Committee, will endorse John McCain for president on Wednesday, her spokesman tells CNN.

The announcement will take place at a news conference on Capitol Hill, just blocks away from the DNC headquarters. Forester will “campaign and help him through the election,” the spokesman said of her plans to help the Republican presidential nominee.

Forester was a major donor for Clinton earning her the title as a Hillraiser for helping to raise at least $100,000 for the New York Democratic senator’s failed presidential bid.

In an interview with CNN this summer, Forester did not hide her distaste for eventual Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama.

“This is a hard decision for me personally because frankly I don't like him,” she said of Obama in an interview with CNN’s Joe Johns. “I feel like he is an elitist. I feel like he has not given me reason to trust him.”

Forester is the CEO of EL Rothschild, a holding company with businesses around the world. She is married to international banker Sir Evelyn de Rothschild. Forester is a member of the DNC’s Democrats Abroad chapter and splits her time living in London and New York.

That is an interesting twist.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

[BIG PIZZLE]

Kind of sad that barry can't even stump without a teleprompter.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/15/obamas-teleprompter-hits-the-trail/

He should do what McCain does and say the same lines over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

[freegood]

And that's not supply-side economics. It's demand-side. That's the point I already made.

Trickle down economics is nothing more than a golden shower given by McCain without his boner pills.

[vasili denisov]

Kind of sad that barry can't even stump without a teleprompter.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/15/obamas-teleprompter-hits-the-trail/
How is giving a speech with a teleprompter evidence that he can't give a speech without one? Maybe he should use the teleprompter, then lie about it breaking (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/palin-and-the-t.html).

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Lynn Forester de Rothschild, a prominent Hillary Clinton supporter and member of the Democratic National Committee’s Platform Committee, will endorse John McCain for president on Wednesday, her spokesman tells CNN.She's married to a Rothschild. This is where she lives:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f2/Ascott_House_Front.gif

What a great endorsement to pick up when the economy is collapsing and you're trying to represent the common man.
Supply side economics is based on the premise of making it easier on the people who produce wealth, whoever that may be. Eventually the wealth is going to reach the demand side of the situation anyway.
Supply side economics, crudely put, is an attempt to encourage the economy through suppliers, that through lower taxes, they'll invest more in plant, which will in turn expand production and create jobs, in turn increasing overall income and revenue base. It's not about increasing the amount of private money. The distinction between consumers and suppliers is a very important one here. In the Kennedy speech, the emphasis is clearly on stimulating the economy through increased consumption.

[URFloorMatt]

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Lynn Forester de Rothschild, a prominent Hillary Clinton supporter and member of the Democratic National Committee’s Platform Committee, will endorse John McCain for president on Wednesday, her spokesman tells CNN.

To borrow the phrase dozens of commentators who are sick and tired of the "elitist" label ludicriously applied to Obama and Biden but not John McCain, I stopped paying attention when I read the word "de".

Today, McCain surrogate Carly Fiorina spoke her mind (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/16/fiorinas-comment-called-biden-like/#more-18812).

Asked by a St. Louis radio station whether she thought Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin could run a company like Hewlett-Packard, Fiorina responded: "No, I don't.

“But that's not what she's running for. Running a corporation is a different set of things."

Asked about that remark on MSNBC, she made the same unprompted assessment of the GOP presidential nominee. "I don't think John McCain could run a major corporation."In McCain's defense, Fiorina got fired by HP for gross incompetence, so they're like three peas in a pod.

[cAsE sEnSiTiVe]

House approves offshore drilling

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080917/ap_on_go_co/offshore_drilling



By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer 55 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - The House voted late Tuesday to open waters off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to oil and gas drilling but only 50 or more miles out to sea and only if a state agrees to energy development off its shore.

Democratic leaders called it a step toward energy independence, but Republicans labeled it a "sham" because most of the estimated 18 billion barrels of oil believed to lie below off-limits coastal waters are within 50 miles of land and will remain out of bounds.

The measure passed in a largely party-line vote of 236-189. It now goes to the Senate, where energy will be the topic later in the week. Thirteen Democrats bucked their leadership and voted against the measure.

Even before the House vote, the White House said President Bush was prepared to veto the measure should it reach his desk. An administration statement said the bill would "stifle development" of offshore energy resources by essentially making permanent drilling bans within the 50-mile coastal buffer, while imposing new taxes on the largest oil companies.

But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the bill "represents a new direction in energy policy" and a "bold step forward that will end our dependence on foreign oil" by using billions of dollars collected in taxes on large oil companies to promote alternative fuels and energy efficiency.

Republicans called the drilling measure a ruse to provide political cover to Democrats feeling pressure to support more drilling at a time of high gas prices. "How much new drilling do we get out of this bill? It's zero. Just zero," declared House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio. "It's a hoax on the American people. This is intended for one reason ... so the Democrats can say we voted on energy."

The measure would allow drilling in waters 50 miles from shore almost everywhere from New England to Washington state as long as a state agrees to go along with energy development off its coast. Beyond 100 miles, no state approval would be required. The drilling ban would remain in the eastern Gulf of Mexico.

Each year for the past 26 years, Congress has passed drilling bans on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts because of environmental concerns and pressure from some coastal states worried that drilling might hurt the tourist business.

Unlike bills offered by House Republicans and others being considered in the Senate, the House-passed legislation would not share royalties from energy production with the adjacent states. Boehner said without royalty sharing, states probably would not opt for drilling off their beaches.
Republicans also cited Interior Department estimates that 88 percent of the 18 billion barrels of oil believed to be in waters now under drilling bans would remain off-limits because they are within the 50-mile protective coastal buffer.

The House voted to roll back nearly $18 billion in tax breaks over 10 years for the five largest oil companies and require energy companies to pay billions of dollars in royalties they avoided because of an Interior Department contracting error.

The bill also would require the president to make available oil from the government's Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Pelosi said such a move is needed to drive down gasoline prices, even though oil prices have dropped dramatically in recent weeks and many energy experts believe gasoline prices will fall as well after refineries recover from Hurricane Ike.
Democrats added a provision at the last minute that makes it a federal crime for oil companies with federal leases to provide gifts to government employees, a response to a recent sex and drug scandal involving the federal office that oversees the offshore oil royalty program and energy company employees.

The Democratic bill also would:

_Provide tax credits for wind and solar energy industries, the development of cellulose ethanol and other biofuels.

_Require utilities nationwide to generate 15 percent of their electricity from solar, wind or other alternative energy source.

_Give tax breaks for new energy efficiency programs, including the use of improved building codes and for companies that promote their employees' use of bicycles for commuting.

Expanded offshore drilling has become a mantra of GOP energy policy that has been felt on the presidential and congressional campaign trails despite wide agreement that lifting the drilling ban would have little if any impact on gasoline prices or produce any oil for years.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain pledged at the recently concluded GOP convention to push for new offshore oil and gas drilling amid delegate chants of "Drill, baby drill" and his Democratic rival, Barack Obama, said he supported more drilling as part of a broader energy package.

But Democrats derided what they called Republicans' "drill only" response to the country's energy problems. "America needs an oil change," said Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass. "They keep saying on the Republican side, `Drill, baby, drill!' What we're saying is `Change, baby, change!' and they can't change.

[Claydon]

This is a sham, there is a shit ton of oil off the coast of california, and since the feds leave it up to the state, you know this hippy berg will never approve of drilling for the evil oil.

[kareyn01]

Barack Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, just released a video that had some pretty interesting information of a quantitative nature regarding some of the key battleground states.

In Pennsylvania: Since the beginning of the year, there have been 320,000 new Democratic registrants, as opposed to a loss of 60,000 Republican registrants

In Nevada: In 2004, statewide there were 5,000 more registered Republicans than registered Democrats, but now there are 50,000 more Democrats than Republicans

In Florida: In 2004, Bush won by 380,978 votes; in 2004 500,000 registered African American voters and 900,000 registered young voters didn't turn out.

I think this info is interesting for a number of reasons. One, it shows that Democrats actually have the base numbers to win Florida if they can turn out the black, and youth, votes, something they did very well during the primary season. Also, NONE of the information in given is displayed in polls that list "likely voters" because, in most of those telephone polls, failure to have voted in the previous election cycle is an eliminator.

Now, I realize that none of this guarantees a positive result for Obama, but it really can't be looked at as anything other than a promising base from which to start.

[kid_vidrio]

I'm curious to see what HRC gets up to over the next 48 days and if she will actually come out and support the party or ever face off with the Barracuda. I get the feeling she holds Barry responsible for the fact that Palin is closer to her former residence than she is - just the kind of petty, catty politics you wish were in the WH.

In a separate development, Senator Hillary Clinton, Obama's former rival for the Democratic nomination, canceled an appearance at a rally next week protesting Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, after learning Palin had also been invited. A spokeswoman for Palin responded by saying the governor believes the threat of a nuclear Iran is more important than party or politics.

Also Wednesday, a top Hillary Clinton fundraiser and member of the Democratic National Committee, Lynn Forester de Rothschild, threw her support behind Republican John McCain.

http://voanews.com/english/2008-09-18-voa11.cfm

[Pharon]

A spokeswoman for Palin responded by saying the governor believes the threat of a nuclear Iran is more important than party or politics.
Ha - pwnt.

[Candide's Son]

The GOP is so white their candidate has PALE in her name.

[Smokestack]

B...b...b..but he's experienced! Seems McCain either doesn't know who the PM of Spain is, wouldn't meet with him or is just confused (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/217802.php):

Embarrassing

09.18.08 -- 9:21AM
By Josh Marshall (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/joshmarshall.php)
Well, we've heard the interview now. And John McCain either doesn't know who the Prime Minister of Spain is, thinks Spain is a country in Latin America, or possibly both.
In case, you haven't seen our updates from last night, yesterday John McCain was interviewed on the Florida affiliate of Spanish radio network Union Radio. And in the interview McCain appeared not to know who the Prime Minister of Spain was and assumed he was some anti-American leftist leader from South America.
After the interviewer presses him a couple times on the point and tries to focus him on the fact that Prime Minister Zapatero isn't from Mexico and isn't a drug lord either McCain comes back at her saying, "All I can tell you is that I have a clear record of working with leaders in the Hemisphere that are friends with us and standing up to those who are not. And that's judged on the basis of the importance of our relationship with Latin America and the entire region."
Then there's a moment of awkward pause before she says. "But what about Europe? I'm talking about the President of Spain."
McCain: "What about me, what?
Interviewer: "Are you willing to meet with him if you're elected president?"
McCain: "I am wiling to meet with any leader who is dedicated to the same principles and philosophy that we are for humans rights, democracy and freedom. And I will stand up to those who do not."
At this point, the interviewer gets tongue-tied presumably because she can't get over McCain not knowing what Spain is.


Here's the link to the audio interview:


http://www.cadenaser.com/internacional/audios/interview-to-senator-mccain-english/seresc/20080918csrcsrint_1/Aes/

[Morfin]

http://cmsimg.freep.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=C4&Date=20080918&Category=NEWS15&ArtNo=809180389&Ref=AR&MaxW=320&Border=0
When I saw this image this morning in the Detroit Free Press, what struck me was the thought that McCain selected a trophy wife for a running mate. Just like after he ditched/divorced his first wife, he married an attractive 25 year-old rich woman, 19 years his junior.

Now, along comes his time to choose a VP candidate and, out of all the men and women with political, national, or economic experience, he chooses an attractive woman 30 years younger than he is, even though she has virtually no real political experience. In other words, a face, a trophy.

I concede that this is most likely unfair, but it is just a thought that went through my Diet Coke-addled brain.

[halfabubbleoff]

For Rover, for all those polls posted a while back.

More signs that the McCain bounce has faded...

Obama 48%, McCain 43%

Compare these numbers to the last CBS poll, done right after the Republican convention, when they had John McCain up by 2%. That's a 7% swing in 10 days. When third party candidates are included, it's Obama 49%, McCain 43%, Nader 2%, Barr 1%. This poll seems to confirm what we've been seeing from the daily tracking polls -- that whatever national bounce McCain got from the Republican convention and the Sarah Palin buzz has now faded away.Polls taken after the Republican convention suggested that Mr. McCain had enjoyed a surge of support — particularly among white women after his selection of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate — but the latest poll indicates "the Palin effect" was, at least so far, a limited burst of interest.The poll also indicates that Palin has not really helped McCain with any group except Republicans and that McCain has lost ground among women since picking Palin.But the Times/CBS News poll suggested that Ms. Palin's selection has, to date, helped Mr. McCain only among Republican base voters; there was no evidence of significantly increased support for him among female voters in general. White women are evenly divided between Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama; before the conventions, Mr. McCain led Mr. Obama among white women by a margin of 44 percent to 37 percent.

By contrast, at this point in the 2004 campaign, President Bush was leading Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the Democratic challenger, by 56 percent to 37 percent among white women.There are a few other noteworthy things to take away from this poll.

* 75% say John McCain picked Palin as his VP for political reasons, not because he thought she was qualified. Only 31% say Obama picked Biden for political reasons.
* The Palin pick/convention has excited McCain supporters, as 47% say they are now enthusiastic about him, way up from before, but still well below enthusiasm among Obama supporters.
* 46% said McCain would continue Bush policies while 22% said he would be more conservative than Bush. Obviously McCain's attempts to distance himself from Bush isn't working all that well.
* 57% said McCain is a "typical Republican" and only 37% viewed Republicans favorably.
* 50% said Obama is a "typical Democrat" but 50% viewed Democrats favorably.
* When asked who would bring change to Washington, 65% said Obama, 37% said McCain. So so far, McCain hasn't really sold people on him being a "change" agent.
* 60% said they trust Obama with the economy, 53% said they trust McCain.
* 60% said Obama "understands our problems" while 48% said the same for McCain.
* 55% said Obama would improve America's image around the world, less than 28% said the same about McCain.
* 61% said McCain shares their values, 60% said Obama does.
* 71% said McCain is ready to be President, just 48% said Obama is. This remains Obama's weakest area.
* 56% trusted McCain judgment on military affairs, 52% trusted Obama's. This is actually a huge improvement for Obama. McCain used to dominate on this question.
* 45% said they think Obama will win, 38% said they think McCain will win.
* 49% said they think Obama will raise taxes, a sign that Republican attacks on Obama raising taxes are working even though Obama has vowed to cut taxes for 95% of America.

Interesting to see numbers for some of these. I'm not sure I am 100% on everything above, but the numbers among women and the "political VP choice" questions sparked my interest.

Just the numbers for now. I will hold off on editorializing for a bit.

[kid_vidrio]

NYT is not a source that would have it any other way.
While I don't disagree that the blush will come off the Barracuda, and it could go the other way, I'll wait for a more objective report.

[kareyn01]

NYT is not a source that would have it any other way.
While I don't disagree that the blush will come off the Barracuda, and it could go the other way, I'll wait for a more objective report.

http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/08-us-pres-ge-mvo.php

Well, every poll that's finished in the last two days (after the latest economic meltdown) shows Obama ahead, with the exception of a poll by The Economist.

There are also some interesting new state numbers. Obama is polling ahead in Indiana (47-44) according to Selzer and Co, which is ranked as the most accurate polling company. He's also polling ahead in FL (48-44 CNN), NM (51-44 ARG), OH (46-44 CNN), and VA (48-46 PPP), and also is within one in NC (45-46 CNN), four in WV (45-49 ARG) and two in MT (47-49 ARG).

Lest someone bring up my past (and current) distrust of polls, let me explain my enthusiasm. Polls showing tight races in states like Indiana, Montana, and North Carolina are going to cause McCain's campaign to spend money on advertising and field offices in those states, money that will have to be diverted from other states such as OH, MI, and PA. For example, McCain has spent exactly $0 on advertising in Indiana to date, and had spent $0 in North Carolina until last week, when a group of tight polls forced him to spend $245,000 on advertising in the state last week alone.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/obamas_run_more_negative_ads.php

[Smokestack]

NYT is not a source that would have it any other way.
While I don't disagree that the blush will come off the Barracuda, and it could go the other way, I'll wait for a more objective report.

It's not the NYT's editorial board that's conducting these polls. Plus, I believe they do them in conjunction with CBS>

[Rover]

That's reassuring. The Times doesn't make up stories. And neither does CBS.

[Tar Heel]

Well this poll is at least in line with the rest of the polls like Gallup that show Obama with a 3-4 point lead. Fox News shows McCain with a 3 point lead. They are the only ones that show that. LOL!!!

http://www.gallup.com/poll/election2008.aspx

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/

[Claydon]

Fuck you Biden, and fuck you barry.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080918/ap_on_el_pr/biden_taxes_3


WASHINGTON - Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden said Thursday that paying more in taxes is the patriotic thing to do for wealthier Americans. In a new TV ad that repeats widely debunked claims about the Democratic tax plan, the Republican campaign calls Obama's tax increases "painful."Under the economic plan proposed by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, people earning more than $250,000 a year would pay more in taxes while those earning less — the vast majority of American taxpayers — would receive a tax cut.
Although Republican John McCain claims that Obama would raise taxes, the independent Tax Policy Center and other groups conclude that four out of five U.S. households would receive tax cuts under Obama's proposals.
"We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people," Biden said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."
Noting that wealthier Americans would indeed pay more, Biden said: "It's time to be patriotic ... time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut."
McCain released a television ad Thursday charging that Obama would increase the size of the federal government amid an economic crisis. Contending that "a big government casts a big shadow on us all," the ad features the image of a shadow slowly covering a sleeping baby as a narrator misstates the reach of the Obama tax proposal.
"Obama and his liberal congressional allies want a massive government, billions in spending increases, wasteful pork," the ad says. "And we would pay — painful income taxes, skyrocketing taxes on life savings, electricity and home heating oil. Can your family afford that?"
The McCain campaign said the ad is set to run nationally.
Fuck you barry and biden! How DARE you suggest that those of us that have worked hard, have done everything we can to better ourselves, who went without so that we may stay out of debt, be mobile, change jobs when necessary, and basically do everything within reason to work our way up the economic ladder should now have to pay MORE because you two fuck sticks feel it is our patriotic obligation to do so? Fuck single black moms, fuck single white moms, I don't want to pay for them, I don't want to pay for Pharon's AIDS medication, or Freegood's sex change. My entire adult life I have tried to stay out of debt, tried to pay for things with cash, my wife and I save and mind our finances and because of our diligence in our professional, financial and private lives WE should have to pay more?! Rest assured, barry's and joe's plan is not for 250k+, everything I have seen looks like an additional 8-10k in taxes for the wife and I, which would in reality inhibit our ability to purchase a home.

[Morfin]

Claydon: Maybe you didn't read the whole article. Here are the first three paragraphs:

Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden said Thursday that paying more in taxes is the patriotic thing to do for wealthier Americans. In a new TV ad that repeats widely debunked claims about the Democratic tax plan, the Republican campaign calls Obama's tax increases "painful."

Under the economic plan proposed by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, people earning more than $250,000 a year would pay more in taxes while those earning less — the vast majority of American taxpayers — would receive a tax cut.

Although Republican John McCain claims that Obama would raise taxes, the independent Tax Policy Center and other groups conclude that four out of five U.S. households would receive tax cuts under Obama's proposals.As one of the few GMFers who will have to pay more tax if this passes, it pisses me off, because I favor a flat tax, which, (and I don't want to start a digression here) I believe is more fair.

However, for the Republicans to lower themselves to the demagoguery of "He wants to raise taxes!" when he is proposing a cut to 80% of American households, I feel pity and disgust.

[Stax]

Fuck you Biden, and fuck you barry.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080918/ap_on_el_pr/biden_taxes_3


Fuck you barry and biden! How DARE you suggest that those of us that have worked hard, have done everything we can to better ourselves, who went without so that we may stay out of debt, be mobile, change jobs when necessary, and basically do everything within reason to work our way up the economic ladder should now have to pay MORE because you two fuck sticks feel it is our patriotic obligation to do so? Fuck single black moms, fuck single white moms, I don't want to pay for them, I don't want to pay for Pharon's AIDS medication, or Freegood's sex change. My entire adult life I have tried to stay out of debt, tried to pay for things with cash, my wife and I save and mind our finances and because of our diligence in our professional, financial and private lives WE should have to pay more?! Rest assured, barry's and joe's plan is not for 250k+, everything I have seen looks like an additional 8-10k in taxes for the wife and I, which would in reality inhibit our ability to purchase a home.

Yeah, ok Claydon. I totally trust your nonpartisan views over every single study done that shows it lowers taxes for everyone below 250k.

[Claydon]

Yeah, ok Claydon. I totally trust your nonpartisan views over every single study done that shows it lowers taxes for everyone below 250k.

Quite deluding yourself, this government is on the line for trillions of debt, and that is going to come from you and I. There is no way barry or mccain are going to be able to spend trillions (especially barry) and cut taxes for the masses.

[Stax]

Quite deluding yourself, this government is on the line for trillions of debt, and that is going to come from you and I. There is no way barry or mccain are going to be able to spend trillions (especially barry) and cut taxes for the masses.

I like that the complaints from you went from accusing him of saying nothing to when he gives to a direct, clear tax policy that every single independent review has said will do exactly what that story says, and now you just stick your fingers in your ears and say it's a lie.

[Claydon]

I like that the complaints from you went from accusing him of saying nothing to when he gives to a direct, clear tax policy that every single independent review has said will do exactly what that story says, and now you just stick your fingers in your ears and say it's a lie.

Actually I was complaining about the audacity to suggest that those who are making 6 figures are 1. rich and 2. it is our patriotic duty to pay more in taxes so that people like yourself can enjoy the benefits of my hard work.

[Stax]

Actually I was complaining about the audacity to suggest that those who are making 6 figures are 1. rich and 2. it is our patriotic duty to pay more in taxes so that people like yourself can enjoy the benefits of my hard work.

Nope. Pretty sure you very clearly said:

Rest assured, barry's and joe's plan is not for 250k+, everything I have seen looks like an additional 8-10k in taxes for the wife and I, which would in reality inhibit our ability to purchase a home.

Which is a blatant lie.

[Claydon]

Nope. Pretty sure you very clearly said:



Which is a blatant lie.


Wait and see, with 10 trillion knocking on our doors, social security and medicare, and all this free shit we will ALL pay.

[Stax]

Wait and see, with 10 trillion knocking on our doors, social security and medicare, and all this free shit we will ALL pay.

Yup. Clinton level tax policies totally fucked us all over, especially coming off of several terms of similarly failed Republican economic policy. Definitely didn't lead to one of the longest periods of growth in our history, a surplus that allowed us to pay down the debt, etc.

[kid_vidrio]

Wait and see, with 10 trillion knocking on our doors, social security and medicare, and all this free shit we will ALL pay.
What's your point? I think it's common knowledge that campaign promises get broken, but with that said, we still make our decision based on said promises, not perceived intent.
Or most people do. You and your crystal ball probably do the right thing but us mortals have to sort out the information.
In this case, Barry''s plan has been established in detail and some angry people continue to claim 'He's gonna tax you all!@!' based on it, which is at best a misnomer.

[Claydon]

Yup. Clinton level tax policies totally fucked us all over, especially coming off of several terms of similarly failed Republican economic policy. Definitely didn't lead to one of the longest periods of growth in our history, a surplus that allowed us to pay down the debt, etc.

Congress ran up 4.5 trillion by the time bush came into office (under the dems and the republicans). The dems continue to run even higher deficits since retaking congress. A shocking concpet would have been a freeze on spending, but congress would never do that under either party.

[Stax]

Congress ran up 4.5 trillion by the time bush came into office (under the dems and the republicans). The dems continue to run even higher deficits since retaking congress. A shocking concpet would have been a freeze on spending, but congress would never do that under either party.

No way, you mean unpaid for tax cuts that 400+ economists including Nobel laureates said were a bad idea were... A bad idea?

You mean a multi-trillion dollar war on top of that is a bad idea?

[Claydon]

No way, you mean unpaid for tax cuts that 400+ economists including Nobel laureates said were a bad idea were... A bad idea?

You mean a multi-trillion dollar war on top of that is a bad idea?

Ok, so cut Iraq out of the yearly budget....120 billion a year....that leaves ummmmmmmmmmmm 300 billion in deficit spending. Multi trillion? Last I read it was 900 billion, still a shit ton of fucking money of course.

[halfabubbleoff]

Count me in with the group that will be paying more under the tax plan mentioned above. I'm fine with it though. While I do agree that a flat tax is a better way to go, I know it wont' happen, because it closes all the loopholes that Congressmen and their donors use to get out of paying them period.
Sure, the wealthy pay for programs that benefit the unworthy. Our tax dollars also pay for programs that help those who desperately need it. I was raised in a low income area. I knew people who desperately needed their government benefits to survive. I saw a few that tried to game the system as well. You get that no matter what. I also know that while I will be "paying more in taxes," the tax code is written in such a way that I won't be out of pocket for most of it anyway.

Every politician can promise tax changes because they know it won't matter in the end. Most people targeted in these "tax increases" are already getting out of paying 90% of their taxes, or getting the money back in the end anyway.

Face it, we all agree that our tax system is broken. Just don't look for it to change until it starts to affect the people in Congress. As much as Obama and McCain campaign on taxes, it is ultimately in Congress's hands. I don't see a lot getting done there. They like fighting with each other too much.

[Claydon]

Yah but then the Pharon affect kicks in, why do you think the real estate market took a nose dive.

[Rover]

Yeah, ok Claydon. I totally trust your nonpartisan views over every single study done that shows it lowers taxes for everyone below 250k.

What's your point? I think it's common knowledge that campaign promises get broken, but with that said, we still make our decision based on said promises, not perceived intent.
Or most people do. You and your crystal ball probably do the right thing but us mortals have to sort out the information.
In this case, Barry''s plan has been established in detail and some angry people continue to claim 'He's gonna tax you all!@!' based on it, which is at best a misnomer.To be fair to Obama, he says that he will lower income tax on 90% of Americans. This can't be true because 90% of Americans don't pay an income tax.

But he will most definitely raise taxes. He's said so himself.

Raise corporate taxes. Raise FICA taxes. Raise capital gains taxes. Raise death tax. Raise income taxes on everyone $250K+.

All those tax increases will fuck the economy, even worse than it is now. The 2nd highest corporate tax in the world isn't enough for Obama; he wants it to be #1. Since any economist will tell you, that corporations only pass on their tax expense to consumers, the argument can be made that Obama will de facto tax the poor, by raising the corporate tax and FICA and cap gains.

It will screw over the poor. First, the poor aren't going to get a tax break because they don't pay taxes. Second, all the consumers are going to spend their newfound extra Obama money on goods and services that have been priced up to pay for the federal government extorting money from corporations. At least the middle class will have some extra money to offset the cost of these new higher priced goods. The poor don't even have that luxury. They're going to have to adjust to higher prices without having extra income.

Good job fucking the economy Obama. Never mind the disincentive to save that comes from raising the death tax beyond it's already stupid levels. Or the disincentive to invest by raising capital gains taxes. Or the disincentive to employ people by raising FICA.

Really, it's like an idiot came up with this tax plan. Maybe like the idiots that ran Freddie/Fannie into the ground. (http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13841)