Tahoe response prediction: LOL.

Biden as Obama's VP = win for McCain...

Mike Huckabee said it best, "Biden is a utility player, not a house-hold name".

I think I speak for over 90% of college students, when I say "who the fuck is Joe Biden"...

Score one for the red team.

Historically, it has to be a really close election for a VP choice to tip it one way or the other -- Gore not choosing Bob Graham or some southerner, JFK choosing LBJ, etc. Republicans have often won with no-name VPs -- Quayle, Agnew, Nixon during the time of Ike, etc.

Biden hit a "noun, verb, 911" home run against Giuliani, who had been the front runner Republican candidate until being dismantled. Biden's more than a utility player. I think of Biden as more of a streaky pitcher... either a stud or a dud depending on the day. Both feet either kick someone in the ass or fly right in his mouth.

I'm not overly anxious over Obama's choice will be. Or, to put it another way, I'm at least as interested in who McCain's choice will be.

Corsi wrote articles that tied mccain to al qaeda and organized crime earlier in the year. Of course, that was back when the idiot squad was proclaiming an apocalypse if mccain were to get the nomination. Now that mccain has the nomination, the apocalypse must be shifted to an obama presidency. I suppose you can count on robust sales by making shit up and shoveling it to the idiot right fringe.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/08/18/jerome-corsi-wrote-that-group-tied-to-al-qaeda-supports-mccain/

Well you are a idiot left fringe douche, so the phrase takes one to know one comes to mind.

Look you really are a fucking idiot. Because I vote Republican from time to time, you have tried to label me some Christian right wing nut. You are a fucking douche bag, you ignorant fuck.

If you want to discuss shit reasonably, jump on in. But you have nothing to offer but fucking insults. So fuck you and your mom and grandmother you dipshit fuckhead troutnose douchebag whore.

BTW... for the reasonable peeps that like to friendly back and forth banter, the TV was on and I think it was CNN. They said that peeps still don't know for sure how many houses JM owns. Its really a gray area cuz of the corps that own investment properties, etc. So someone was saying that they may make a commercial out of BOs commercial that the number is 7.

Just taking the partisanship out of this...its pretty funny to me to see this as being a issue in this campaign. But thats the way its going right now.

BTW... for the reasonable peeps that like to friendly back and forth banter, the TV was on and I think it was CNN. They said that peeps still don't know for sure how many houses JM owns. Its really a gray area cuz of the corps that own investment properties, etc. So someone was saying that they may make a commercial out of BOs commercial that the number is 7.

Just taking the partisanship out of this...its pretty funny to me to see this as being a issue in this campaign. But thats the way its going right now.
It's an "out of touch" moment like not knowing the price of milk or never having seen a grocery scanner. Unimportant in and of itself but it resonates in a way that says this guy has no idea how regular people live.


. Because I vote Republican from time to time, you have tried to label me some Christian right wing nut

I couldn't help but notice that you said that in response to a post that didn't have your name anywhere in it. There's a pattern where any time someone takes a shot at the right, or the Bush administration or Fox News or anything neocon.... you step in front of it and take the bullet as a personal attack against you.

BTW... for the reasonable peeps that like to friendly back and forth banter, the TV was on and I think it was CNN. They said that peeps still don't know for sure how many houses JM owns. Its really a gray area cuz of the corps that own investment properties, etc. So someone was saying that they may make a commercial out of BOs commercial that the number is 7.
If you start counting fractions from investments, anyone who has a mutual fund that covers the financial sector or a REIT or whatnot probably doesn't know how many houses they own. And of course, do people with mortgages count the % of the house owned by the bank? Most people don't say they own 0.7932523 homes when asked. :)


Just taking the partisanship out of this...its pretty funny to me to see this as being a issue in this campaign. But thats the way its going right now.
I'm just as amazed at the stuff that's gotten a pass. McCain's been saying crazy shit for a long time, and some of Obama's flip-flops don't get much play.

Think about this "house" theme in terms of McCain's VP selection. If McCain picks Mitt Romney and doesn't have a plan to defuse the "house" thing, it'll be spun as two country-club Republicans.

I hope this works out...

If McCain picks Mitt Romney and doesn't have a plan to defuse the "house" thing, it'll be spun as two country-club Republicans.


How do you figure? Of all the Republican candidates that campaigned to be President, McCain was easily the closest to a left-wing, putting him with a great guy like Mitt would be a nice balance, IMO.

I sure as hell hope he picks Mitt, either him or Huckabee, I'll be thrilled.

I would guess, and I'm not basing this of much more than just my gut instinct, that if Mitt was his running mate, than McCain would take Michigan. Not saying much from a broad view, but this state hasn't voted red since Bush Sr., Mitt on the ballot would change that, IMO.

If you think that the Obama/Biden relationship seems less than smooth, wait and see what happens if Romney is McCain's choice.

It's widely known that all of the other Republican Presidential candidates have a genuine dislike for the guy (Romney).

I think the pick is somewhat interesting in that Biden and McCain are both old gray hairs and have been in the Senate for a long time. I'm not sure if the BO camp was trying to counter that? <--maybe to clever by half.

But it does seem to take away BOs lil talking points "He's been in the Senate forever. How can he talk about change now" or however it went.

Overall its a safe pick and helps BO in several areas, imo. But picking Biden over another Senator ...Clinton will piss off some of those 18mil.

Biden is 10 years younger than McCain. I've heard this pick helps Hillary supporters because they know Biden won't run for president in 8 years (which someone like Bayh would have). They know Hillary can still have a shot at it in 8 years (or 4 if Obama loses).

Biden is 10 years younger than McCain. I've heard this pick helps Hillary supporters because they know Biden won't run for president in 8 years (which someone like Bayh would have). They know Hillary can still have a shot at it in 8 years (or 4 if Obama loses).

imo, which gives Hills supporters more reason to stay home. Only 4 years away if theys stay home.

Here is JM's latest commercial spot. I'm not sure if this is JMs official website, so dcl if you think it is.

http://www.johnmccain.com/

And Biden is a Senator too. Or doesn't that matter Mxy.

There's a pattern where any time someone takes a shot at the right, or the Bush administration or Fox News or anything neocon.... you step in front of it and take the bullet as a personal attack against you.

I just went and reread the LOL@FoxNews thread and although I was singled out in the 1st post of the thread, I didn't notice any reaction by me that I was attacked personally.

Get your shit together before you post something. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it, but your shit is stupid.

BTW, how soon will it be before we see Osama/Binladen bumper stickers?

I just went and reread the LOL@FoxNews thread and although I was singled out in the 1st post of the thread, I didn't notice any reaction by me that I was attacked personally.

Get your shit together before you post something. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it, but your shit is stupid.
Wow, I hit a nerve.

imo, which gives Hills supporters more reason to stay home. Only 4 years away if theys stay home.

If all Hillary supporters are selfish, yes. But would they rather have 4 more years of the current crap, or have to wait through 8 years of a better country for their canidate?

Wow, I hit a nerve.

No, you are just wrong.

Wow, BO's 10-12pt lead is virtually gone. Some still have him up a couple of pts, but WHAT HAPPENED?

It's widely known that all of the other Republican Presidential candidates have a genuine dislike for the guy (Romney).


Why? Because he's mormon? I've never sensed that.

If McCain picks Mitt Romney and doesn't have a plan to defuse the "house" thing, it'll be spun as two country-club Republicans.How do you figure? Of all the Republican candidates that campaigned to be President, McCain was easily the closest to a left-wing, putting him with a great guy like Mitt would be a nice balance, IMO.
First off, I'd disagree with McCain being the closest to left-wing. Giuliani was certainly more to the left. And good ol' Romney was famously "to the left of Ted Kennedy" on a lot of issues.

But all I was saying was that McCain-Romney plays into a "two rich guys" kind of image. About the last thing McCain or Romney would want out of the gate is someone talking about how rich Romney is, especially when you add up the layoffs and outsourcing Bain Capital did with Romney. As of today, here's the top hits for a Google search of: "how many houses" romney

1) How many houses does Mitt Romney own? - Democratic Underground
Aug 22, 2008 ... How many houses does Mitt Romney own? ... Site search, Web search. How many houses does Mitt Romney own? Printer-friendly format ...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6694581

2) "Governor. Romney, how many houses do YOU have?" = Not like asking ...
Aug 22, 2008 ... "Governor. Romney, how many houses do YOU have?" = Not like asking McCain. Won't help us.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6694932

3) Yahoo! Message Boards - Hewlett-Packard Company (HPQ) - Romney not ...
View all Topics | View all Messages < Newer Topic | Older Topic >. Romney not sure how many houses or wives he owns! 21-Aug-08 03:25 pm ...
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/Stocks_H/threadview?m=tm&bn=8899&tid=506806&mid=506806&tof=9&frt=2

4) Daily Kos: How many houses does Mr. Romney have?
How many houses does Mr. Romney have? by Five of Diamonds. Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:54:28 PM PDT. Just when I thought I had heard the best "McCain yells at ...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/22/1145/20057/174/572415

5) McCain unsure how many houses he owns - Jonathan Martin and Mike ...
Aug 21, 2008 ... I care less what type of shoes McCain wears or how many houses he owns. ... avatar for user R a Z o R ****VP** ROMNEY ...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12685.html

6) VP Romney Would Compound McCain's House Issue
Should McCain tap Romney to be his number two, the combined number of houses on the GOP ticket would be .... McCain Doesn't Remember How Many Houses He Owns ...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/22/vp-romney-would-compound_n_120651.html

7) How Many Houses Do You Own? at PrezVid
Aug 22, 2008 ... The Obama campaign asks Philadelphians “how many houses do you own?” ... Richardson: YouTube · Romney: MySpace · Romney: Official Site ...
http://prezvid.com/2008/08/22/how-many-houses-do-you-own/

8) I wonder how many houses Mitt has? - ! * POLITICS * ! - tribe.net
I wonder how many houses Mitt has? ... Two Republicans who know say McCain has settled on Mitt Romney as his running mate. ...
http://uspolitics.tribe.net/thread/da82a6da-b467-49be-ae9f-67ddd036885c

Wow, BO's 10-12pt lead is virtually gone. Some still have him up a couple of pts, but WHAT HAPPENED?
Races traditionally tighten in the summer months before the conventions and debates. Mondale nearly caught up with Reagan during the same time period in 1984. The latest poll I saw had him up by 6 points:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ijClHoidEl8XEJMJoUooHU1R_nmgD92OI9A00

Why? Because he's mormon? I've never sensed that.

You need to read this, Wil.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1709507,00.html


But this week it was Giuliani who dropped out of the race and endorsed McCain, praising him as an "American hero."

The endorsement was a reflection of the authentic respect McCain and Giuliani have for each other. But that's not all the two candidates share. The endorsement deal was solidifed when both campaigns stayed at the Deerfield Hilton in Florida, following the Republican debate in Boca Raton on January 24. The two campaigns' staff mingled easily over drinks. Acknowledging that his candidate was not likely to survive a defeat in Florida, a Giuliani aide approached one of the McCain senior staffers. Come Wednesday, he said, "Just tell us what want us to do — we've got to stop him."

"Him," of course, is Mitt Romney, the candidate who seems to be uniting his Republican rivals almost as much as Hillary Clinton. "The degree to which campaigns' personal dislike for Mitt Romney has played a part in this campaign cannot be underestimated," says an adviser to one of those rival campaigns. While sharp words have been exchanged between practically every Republican candidate at one point or another on the campaign trail, the aversion to Romney seems to go beyond mere policy disagreements. It's also a suspicion of what they see is his hypocrisy and essential phoniness — what one former staffer for Fred Thompson called Romney's "wholesale reinvention."


To be sure, the candidates' staffs do seem to have bonded in their dislike of Romney. "It was very common for e-mails to be flying around between the Thompson, McCain and Giuliani campaigns," says the former Thompson staffer, "Saying, 'No matter what happens with us, we all need to make sure it's not him.'"

And Biden is a Senator too. Or doesn't that matter Mxy.
I'm not sure why I'm being called out here. There's a couple of ways I could address this:

1) Having two Senators with zero executive experience, one with a very long history of legislative choices, would be a great line of attack -- if the McCain ticket had any executive experience and didn't have a similarly long history. Having two Senators as the nominees is already screwy enough as it is. ;)

2) Biden's also running for U.S. Senate. This might conceivably open the door to a hot race. Delaware's solidly Democratic, but not overwhelmingly so. And, with a population of under a million, it doesn't take a lot to sway things and a close race can be hard to poll.

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k311/richardgozinya/imbouttasmack128640232361440410.jpg

I saw a poll that had JM up by 4pts I think it was. Average them out and its basically within the moe. Not good for BO. He's been slipping since his Berlin Rock Tour.

He should get a 16-20pt bounce out of his convention. We'll see.

AJnC28lNQSo&feature

LOL Biden got 9000 votes, thats 9 thousand votes and Hillary got 18 million.

I am not a Democrat, but if I were I honestly feel I'd be questioning this pick.

LOL.

LOL.

Agree. 9000 votes vs 18mil is pretty funny.

Tenuous, at best.

I saw a poll that had JM up by 4pts I think it was. Average them out and its basically within the moe. Not good for BO. He's been slipping since his Berlin Rock Tour.

He should get a 16-20pt bounce out of his convention. We'll see.

I'd expect him to be 10-12 up after the convention. I'm not talking 10-12 over where he is now, just 10-12 up. I've never thought Obama would win by some huge landslide in terms of popular vote (though 5% would likely be a landslide in electoral terms). The interesting thing will be to see McCain's bump after the Republican convention. McCain can't seem to get out of "low 40s" nationally, regardless of how Obama does.

That 16-20pt bounce I mentioned was meant to set the bar high :)

You might not have thought that BO would win by some huge landslide, but there were plenty who did.

And I agree on the McCain thing. He hasn't gotten above 42ish %. BO's negs have went up and he has dropped in polls, but it didn't help JM much.

We'll have to see what happens after JM's VP pick and the conventions. I think its more possible now then before the Biden pick that JM will look to a woman for a VP selection. That may be too clever by half, but it wouldn't surprise me.

BO went really REALLY safe in Biden and certainly didn't hit it out of the park with his selection, so JM could go with someone, ANYONE, to add some life to the ticket.

BO is running 10pts behind the generic poll of who would you want to be prez a dem or rep.

You know, Bush is an unpopular prez, unpopular war, economy in the dumper or something so who would you want to be prez? BO is running 10 pts behind that generic dem candidate.

If he can have a good convention and convince peeps he's the man, I honestly feel he could get a huge bounce.

Hmm... more like 5 points behind, if I believe:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/08/21/1280101.aspx

I suspect that's the 5 points he would have had if he were a WASP.

Your right Uncle Mxy, I forgot about Rudy, he's def. more left wing than McCain...

My bad.

Yea, the working class Dems in the primaries definately weren't his strong suit.

Yea, the working class Dems in the primaries definately weren't his strong suit.

Well, he did great with working class dems in states that weren't Appalachia. Oregon, Washington, Cali, Texas, poor people showed up for him. It's the mountain man vote he whiffed on.

BTW, how soon will it be before we see Osama/Binladen bumper stickers?

I thought about that this weekend, too.

I bet they are already out there.

Hmm... more like 5 points behind, if I believe:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/08/21/1280101.aspx

I suspect that's the 5 points he would have had if he were a WASP.

But according to some Dems, he is where he is, cuz he is NOT a wasp.

Free sticker:



Obama just picked Joe Biden to be his VP. Now, we're giving away FREE Obama/Biden stickers. Get yours today.

http://www.moveon.org/images/gear/obamabiden-email.gif (http://pol.moveon.org/barackstickers/?id=13561-3137850-0Tz9zTx&t=1)

http://www.moveon.org/images/buttons/button_red_clickhere.gif (http://pol.moveon.org/barackstickers/?id=13561-3137850-0Tz9zTx&t=2)

Get Your Free Sticker (http://pol.moveon.org/barackstickers/?id=13561-3137850-0Tz9zTx&t=3)

Dear MoveOn member,

The wait is over! Just hours ago, Barack Obama chose Joe Biden as his vice president.
Now, we're offering FREE Obama/Biden stickers—and we want to give away half a million of them as quickly as possible.

Want one?

Click here to get yours free:
http://pol.moveon.org/barackstickers/?id=13561-3137850-0Tz9zTx&t=4 (http://pol.moveon.org/barackstickers/?id=13561-3137850-0Tz9zTx&t=4)

After you've gotten your Obama/Biden sticker, please forward this email to your friends. The stickers are perfect for everyone, and for everywhere: your car, your laptop, your window, or anywhere else.

And the more of us who put these stickers in visible places, the stronger message we'll send about our support for the Obama/Biden ticket this November.
These Obama/Biden stickers are the latest addition to our massive Obama visibility campaign. MoveOn members have already ordered more than 2.5 million Obama buttons and bumper stickers, and are already showing communities across the nation that regular folks sincerely support Barack Obama.

Let's take it to the next level. Get your sticker today, then tell your friends:
http://pol.moveon.org/barackstickers/?id=13561-3137850-0Tz9zTx&t=5 (http://pol.moveon.org/barackstickers/?id=13561-3137850-0Tz9zTx&t=5)

Thanks for all you do, –Peter, Daniel, Karin, Andrea and the rest of the team

mo;dcl

I thought for sure that you'd ctl.

I thought about that this weekend, too.

I bet they are already out there.
Yep, you can always rely on CafePress.

http://shop.cafepress.com/biden-bin-laden?source=searchBox

We're spending big money paying and arming Sunnis "Awakening" militias and other Iraqis, which has had as much to do with it as the surge in U.S. troops, if not moreso.
For the record, Petraeus seems to agree with me:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/154587/output/print

Petraeus is careful not to credit all the progress to the surge of U.S. troops in 2007. The sea change came last year from a series of movements now known as the Awakening, when Sunnis, organizing around traditional tribal leaders, decided to turn on Al Qaeda as "an organization that embraces an extremist ideology, employs indiscriminate violence, and practices oppressive social customs," in the general's words. One of those customs was a ban on smoking. "That was the turning point when they cut the fingers off the first person who was smoking," he jokes. "Can you imagine an Anbar sheik being told he can't smoke?" So would the Sunni Awakening have succeeded without the surge? Possibly, he concedes, but the surge came at that time and helped empower Sunni leaders, paying their fighters and backing them up on the streets. This is where Seneca the Younger comes in: "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity."

LOL me at your peril. ;)

What do y'all think about BO giving his speech at Rezko Field? I think its the first time they've gone to 2 different locations since JFK.

I'm surprised at how many Dems are defending the Biden pick saying it really helps BO with Foriegn policy, when they would never admit he was lacking in the area prior to the pick.

On the flip side, I'm surprised at how many Reps are attempting to commiserate with Hillary not being picked.

I don't feel sorry for her, but I honestly feel that BO/Hill ticket would have been next to unbeatable.

You know what's next to unbeatable?


Beatable.

Nice Cleveland.

Also, I kinda agree that the only thing the Dems had to do was mobilize their own base to win the whole thing with how terrible the oppinion of the GOP is. The "we were affraid Hillary would rally the troops for the Reps" might have been true but would have been for naught.

Dem lead congress is at its lowest aprovals in the history of Congress or something I think.too

And, the 'how terrible the opinion of the GOP is' the GOP runs about 10pts behind. Not that bad. But why doesn't that translate to BO?

You are right Tahoe. Your original point was totally daft.

Oh, ok. We can go with black text now?

Tahoe, generic polling can be awfully deceptive. With record-low approval ratings of Congress, tell me why is the generic Democratic congresscritter polling well ahead of the equally generic Republican congresscritter? Why aren't there any significantly threatened incumbent Democratic seats in the Senate? Why is it that Congressional approval ratings historically track the President (minus several %) far more than their specific choices of actual congresscritters?

The Dems are polling ahead, imo, because we are in a war. An unpopular war.

So I'm not following on the rest.

But I didn't get any insight from youz guyz why BO isn't holding a huge lead right now (and has actually LOST a 12-15pt lead). I know you said cuz the races tighten, but there have been huge leads at this point in the general election race, iirc.

Because negative campaigning works.

And McCain was a POW, wasn't he?

The Dems are polling ahead, imo, because we are in a war. An unpopular war.

So I'm not following on the rest.

But I didn't get any insight from youz guyz why BO isn't holding a huge lead right now (and has actually LOST a 12-15pt lead). I know you said cuz the races tighten, but there have been huge leads at this point in the general election race, iirc.

Your boy Jimmy Carter was saying last night that he sees a lot of parallels to the 1976 campaign where he had a 33 point lead in the polls leading up to the Republican convention where Ford and Reagan were in a bitter battle. Fast forward two months and he barely won the general election.

There is still much to be determined, it would seem.

I still don't get these militant Hillary supporters (if you haven't seen them, Fox News is putting as many as they can find on the air). If they identify with Hillary's positions, how can they even consider selling their beliefs out to vote for McCain just because they are bitter that she didn't get enough delegates to be the nominee or because he wanted someone else as his veep?

These people are coming accross as idiots when they are asked about Roe v. Wade and what McCain plans to do with the supreme court (Fox doesn't ask them about this, as far as I have seen).

The McCain campaign used a Hillary supporter in one of their new ads and when she was asked (last night) how she could have gone from supporting Hillary to supporting McCain, she stated (mistakenly) that she was okay with McCain because he doesn't want to overturn Roe v. Wade.

A lot of people just don't seem to be paying attention. Which shouldn't be surprising in light of the last two presidential elections.

edit: clarification in second to last paragraph

The Dems are polling ahead, imo, because we are in a war. An unpopular war.

So I'm not following on the rest.
So why is the Democratic-led congress even less popular than Bush and less popular than the last congress that authorized the war, which was so deeply unpopular that a lot of the Republican asses who voted for the war got their butts kicked out. But yet they're in virtually no danger of getting kicked out? Say, what?!?!

The problem is that when you start talking about a "mass" of something -- "the Democrats", "the Republicans", "Congress" -- people will think a LOT differently than they do about a person, let alone "a particular President" or "Joe congress person from their own state" or whatever. Those generic ballots are mostly crap when it comes to who's gonna win, and are more for news pundits than anything. People think about groups of people differently than they think about a person, and a given person changes things more.

There's a Tommy Lee Jones line from Men In Black I say out loud every so often that describes some of this schism well: "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."


But I didn't get any insight from youz guyz why BO isn't holding a huge lead right now (and has actually LOST a 12-15pt lead). I know you said cuz the races tighten, but there have been huge leads at this point in the general election race, iirc.
I haven't found any in two-person races. Carter reportedly cited his huge lead against Reagan in 1976, but that was at the point that Ford was still in the picture. Obama would have a huge lead against both McCain and Romney if they were taking it all the way to the convention and there was no summer recess. McCain would've racked up a lead against both Obama and Hillary if they were still at it by now.

When there's a solid third-party candidate in the mix at this point, they benefit the most from a summer lull. Even the semi-solid third-parties benefit. You'll see that now with Barr and Nader getting higher %s now than they'll ever see in a real election. Then the conventions and debates come up and folks will start lining up on one side or the other.

You'll see a similar thing in other state-level races to a smaller degree. Carl Levin's opponent was 20 points down, his best showing after a string of 30+ point down polls, despite almost no one outside of Grand Rapids knowing his name. Why the boost? People give a shit more about the summer weather and Phelps, Torres, and Bolt than fucking politicians.

The Hillary supporters (Pumas) could be a factor in a close election. I guess when you have someone as powerful as Bill and Hill are, there is going to be fall out.

I believe the pick would have secured the win.

I saw that lady that JM put in his ad. I think it was Shep or someone kept asking her, who paid your way out here? Who paid your way out here? Finally she said, the Republican party.

I agree on most of that Mxy. I mean, Bush's numbers will go up as time goes on, imo. And no one will care about the 127th congress or whatever it is.

Bush will leave office during an unpopular war. So his numbers are down, but this Iraq war and the war on terror will be best evaluated 10-20 years from now.

And historians have a way of looking at world influences on our economy. We'll see.

http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w50/alix2304/political/mccaincourage.jpg

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/magazine/24Obamanomics-t.html?_r=3&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&oref=login&oref=slogin

Interesting read. For those not wanting to read it all, here are some parts of it:


In practical terms, the new consensus means that the policies of an Obama administration would differ from those of the Clinton administration, but not primarily because of differences between the two men. “The economy has changed in the last 15 years, and our understanding of economic policy has changed as well,” Furman says. “And that means that what was appropriate in 1993 is no longer appropriate.” Obama’s agenda starts not with raising taxes to reduce the deficit, as Clinton’s ended up doing, but with changing the tax code so that families making more than $250,000 a year pay more taxes and nearly everyone else pays less. That would begin to address inequality. Then there would be Reich-like investments in alternative energy, physical infrastructure and such, meant both to create middle-class jobs and to address long-term problems like global warming (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier).

All of this raises the question of what will happen to the deficit. Obama’s aides optimistically insist he will reduce it, thanks to his tax increases on the affluent and his plan to wind down the Iraq war. Relative to McCain, whose promised spending cuts are extremely vague (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/business/23leonhardt.html), Obama does indeed look like a fiscal conservative. But the larger point is that the immediate deficit isn’t as big as it was in 1992. Then, it was equal to 4.7 percent (http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf) of gross domestic product. Right now it’s about 2.5 percent.
During our conversation, Obama made it clear that he considered the deficit to be only one of the long-term problems requiring immediate attention, and he sounded more worried about the others, like global warming, health care and the economic hangover that could follow the housing bust.

(skipping ahead)

For now, the people running the party, be they in the Bush administration or the McCain campaign, evidently do not share this concern (the unbalanced wealth). They have responded to Obama’s tax proposals with the same kind of attacks that the party has been using since the 1980s. First, they have argued that Obama’s tax increases would end up hitting every income group. Strictly speaking, this is true. Obama’s increase on the corporate income tax would ultimately fall on all stockholders, even poor ones. In practical terms, though, most families own little enough stock that the other features of the tax plan would matter far, far more. That’s why the Tax Policy Center numbers, which include the corporate tax increase, come out as they do.

The second criticism is that Obama’s tax increases would send an already-weak economy into a tailspin. The problem with this argument (http://wsj.com/article/SB121728762442091427.html) is that it’s been made before, fairly recently, and it proved to be spectacularly wrong. When Bill Clinton raised taxes on upper-income families in 1993, his supply-side critics insisted that he would ruin the economy. As we now know, Clinton presided over the longest economic expansion on record, the fastest income growth most workers had experienced in a generation and the disappearance of the federal-budget deficit. His successor, Bush, then did exactly what the supply-siders wanted, cutting upper-income tax rates, and the results were much worse. Economic growth wasn’t quite as strong or nearly as widespread, and the deficit returned. At the very least, Clinton’s increases did no discernible economic damage. Rubin, citing academic work on tax rates, made the case to me that rates under an Obama administration would not be nearly high enough to stifle innovation.

nyt:dr

I guess no one will ever know for sure how many Hill peeps vote, or don't vote, for BO, but it is too bad for the Dems that they had 2 candidates this year that were so close (and the party was happy with both) 'might not' be able to come together as a powerhouse that they should be. We'll see...

nyt:dr

I guess no one will ever know for sure how many Hill peeps vote, or don't vote, for BO, but it is too bad for the Dems that they had 2 candidates this year that were so close (and the party was happy with both) 'might not' be able to come together as a powerhouse that they should be. We'll see...

Sounds pretty sincere...

Sounds pretty sincere...

Ok, I should say its too bad for the country that we didn't have a chance to elect ANY of the 3 of them. Cuz they all got tons of votes.

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/1766/mccainad454vx5.gif
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a81/kos102/2008/Obama/Day%201/toonbidendog1.jpg

Well you are a idiot left fringe douche, so the phrase takes one to know one comes to mind.

Look you really are a fucking idiot. Because I vote Republican from time to time, you have tried to label me some Christian right wing nut. You are a fucking douche bag, you ignorant fuck.

If you want to discuss shit reasonably, jump on in. But you have nothing to offer but fucking insults. So fuck you and your mom and grandmother you dipshit fuckhead troutnose douchebag whore.

In the message you cited, I did not say you were an idiot. I said the people that buy books from corsi are idiots. It is the simple truth that corsi is a proven lying piece of shit whether he targets mccain or obama. so people who know this and buy his book are morons. if you bought the book, then, yes, it was pointed at you. otherwise it wasn't. having a best seller does not equal legitimacy.

in general i am angry at the state of the country right now. we are in two wars, the second of which being an optional and pointless war driven by a certain far right fringe group that is closely allied with the far right of israel. this same fringe group is closely allied with the mccain foreign policy team and is very likely to promote war with iran. yet all the right wasn't to talk about is character assassination and the media is all too happy to engage those character assassinations. the tire gauge business is probably one of the dumbest aspects of that character attack and it was in your sig. mccain later even had to admit that filling tires is helpful. i find it irritating when people just parrot stupid shit without an ounce intellectual curiosity. i may be combative but it is because i want people to actually think about this shit because i care about this country. i have little patience for stupid shit like that. when you type LOL to reasonable arguments (IMO anyways) i just find it emblematic of the right's typical pride in ignorance.

I guess no one will ever know for sure how many Hill peeps vote, or don't vote, for BO, but it is too bad for the Dems that they had 2 candidates this year that were so close (and the party was happy with both) 'might not' be able to come together as a powerhouse that they should be. We'll see...

I was listening to Randi Rhodes yesterday a little and she was attacking the notion that these "Pumas" even exist. She was saying that they've interviewed several of them and the women admitted to being McCain voters that even contributed to his campaign.

I'm playing dumb on this one (not actually playing), but I just wanted to bring this up in case someone else on here actually knows what kind of % of Hillary voters are seriously considering a McCain/no vote and what % is simply media fabrication. On the media side, this isn't only Fox News. Everyone has been talking about the Hillary voters for a long time.

i find it irritating when people just parrot stupid shit without an ounce intellectual curiosity. i may be combative but it is because i want people to actually think about this shit because i care about this country. i have little patience for stupid shit like that. when you type LOL to reasonable arguments (IMO anyways) i just find it emblematic of the right's typical pride in ignorance.

:cogent:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3127/2805247045_50ea0ba73a_o_d.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3276/2806145232_f0848b2faa_o_d.jpg

The Obama one is cleaver. I disagree of course, but well done anyway.

The Obama one is real, the McCain one is a modification.
I was going for "fair and balanced" in showing both. :)

:cogent:

I feel really good about being on the opposite side of ANYTHING the 2 of you agree is Cogent.

Somebody called me a "racist" today at a gas station on 7 mile & Mound because I have a McCain sticker on my truck.

Is that how white conservatives are to be interpreted as? Racist? LOL!!

^ pretty much. Not on here but loons out there definately feel that way.

I feel really good about being on the opposite side of ANYTHING the 2 of you agree is Cogent.

It's like you take pride in being ignorant. (tm)BO.

Somebody called me a "racist" today at a gas station on 7 mile & Mound because I have a McCain sticker on my truck.

Is that how white conservatives are to be interpreted as? Racist? LOL!!
Was the McCain sticker the real reason? It wasn't those swastikas on your car or that white power tattoo on your head? Don't they know that McCain fathered a black child out of wedlock?

Seriously, did they say "you're voting for McCain, so you must be racist" or somesuch? If so, that's pretty fucking pathetic.

Speaking of pathetic, here's one of the "item's" for sale on McCain's site:
http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/1562/pnr28792qj1.jpg

apostrophowned

Also, 394/399 = suck.

It's like you take pride in being ignorant. (tm)BO.

You seriously have a problem. You are some elitist douche bag that thinks that you have superior intelect on everything.

Enjoy yourself...and Zanadu too.

Was the McCain sticker the real reason?



Honestly, I couldn't tell you what the actual motive behind it was. But I have my reservations as to what it may have been.

That's weak (the calling someone racist). Everybody has their reasons for voting for McCain (though I'm not sure why anybody making less than $250,000 a year would). That's probably why he called you ignorant Tahoe (not having a real reason to vote for him, that's been stated anyway). We've had some good debates on here, but I've never heard you say why you are voting McCain. My guess would be just that you were raised republican and that's just the way you are. My dad is one, but the first election I voted in I cast my vote for Gore. I didn't know much about politics, but I definitely wasn't enamored with Bush. As I've gotten older and hopefully wiser I've learned the differences in the parties and I think I made a wise choice back then.

As far as GeeRussle goes, He can go fuck himself. I've really tried to stay in the political talk here and not insult anyone. If I've done that, I appologize to whomever. He's just an angry kid. I'm not sure he can even vote yet. He seems very immature to me. But whatever...He's on ignore again. Who cares ...

My dad was a dem. I come from Dem voters on both sides of my family.

And I think peeps with a half a brain and peeps that have been on this board for a while know the basic reasons why I'll vote for JM. But I'm not going to take the time to write them for that ignorant fuck.

Well I must be dumb because I've never heard you say why. I've heard many reasons why you don't like Obama, but not why you do like McCain.

And even though I disagree with your side, I give you props for choosing a side and not being born on one.

I've really tried to stay in the political talk here and not insult anyone.
Do you consciously lie or has all the koolaid you drink rotted your brain to the point where you really believe that particular line of bullshit? Your own posting history makes a liar and a fool out of you.

Please, do put me on ignore. That puts me in good company with the "facts" and "reality" which you also have on ignore. You're exactly the sort of knuckle-dragging sheep that gives conservatives a bad name.

Do you consciously lie or has all the koolaid you drink rotted your brain to the point where you really believe that particular line of bullshit? Your own posting history makes a liar and a fool out of you.

Is that it? You must have more than that.

I'm going to read your posts for a day or so to make sure you get all your insults at me out, then I think we should both help the board and add each other to the ignore list.

Do you consciously lie or has all the koolaid you drink rotted your brain to the point where you really believe that particular line of bullshit? Your own posting history makes a liar and a fool out of you.

Please, do put me on ignore. That puts me in good company with the "facts" and "reality" which you also have on ignore. You're exactly the sort of knuckle-dragging sheep that gives conservatives a bad name.

Ok, I got your edit, just so you know.

Somebody called me a "racist" today at a gas station on 7 mile & Mound because I have a McCain sticker on my truck.

Is that how white conservatives are to be interpreted as? Racist? LOL!!

Personally I don't know anyone who thinks that white conservative == racist. As cliche as it sounds, some of my best, long-time friends are both white and conservative. People are more than the sum of their politics, to assume racism on the part of any individual on that basis is just ignorant.

Personally I don't know anyone who thinks that white conservative == racist. As cliche as it sounds, some of my best, long-time friends are both white and conservative. People are more than the sum of their politics, to assume racism on the part of any individual on that basis is just ignorant.


I agree too. I'm just curious if that is a miscellaneous ploy some people are going to imply when a caucasin publically displays their support for McCain, especially in areas, such as Detroit, where they're the minority.

Honestly, I wasn't implying I was offended by any means. Instead, I found it rather hilarious.

lol @ msnbc's A Mitchell asking saying how shes a mom of 5 and 1 has learning disability so how is she going to balance her roles...or something like that.

What a fucking stupid thing for a women (or anyone for that matter) to say. Talk about sexism. Jesus Andrea.

btw...I'm gearinng up to call out any sexism for the next 67 days. :)

I'm just curious if that is a miscellaneous ploy some people are going to imply when a caucasin publically displays their support for McCain, especially in areas, such as Detroit, where they're the minority.


Short answer, yes. Things are going to get very tense in the next couple months. Nerves are going to be raw and a lot of people's sensitivities, resentments and biases are going to bubble to the surface.

Folks are going to parse every word, gesture and bumper sticker like it was the DaVinci code to see who's dog-whistling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistling) to whom. Most of them will probably jump to the wrong conclusions and point fingers in the wrong directions. If I could, I'd like to just take a vacation, come back to vote and leave again until after inauguration day.

I'm so damn sick of the ads already (not the presidential ones though). There are tons of them I've seen by interest groups requesting people to call their representative and ask them this or that. It's a way of attaching them negatively to an issue that they may have nothing to do with (since it actually makes no claims).

It could be something like "ask Glenn why some guys like it in the ass." You read that and think Glenn must like it, but it may have nothing to do with him at all.

I'm so damn sick of the ads already (not the presidential ones though). There are tons of them I've seen by interest groups requesting people to call their representative and ask them this or that. It's a way of attaching them negatively to an issue that they may have nothing to do with (since it actually makes no claims).

It could be something like "ask Glenn why some guys like it in the ass." You read that and think Glenn must like it, but it may have nothing to do with him at all.

Where is that unintentionally funny thread? lmao

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/30/palin-booed-for-mentioning-hillary-clinton/

Hillary motivates the base.

You seriously have a problem. You are some elitist douche bag that thinks that you have superior intelect on everything.

Enjoy yourself...and Zanadu too.

THis is ironic to me. you have never disputed anything i've written. you find it irritating when i call you out. i find it irritating that you just type LOL rather than engage in debate or concede that i have a point. i went to school for economics so i know a bunch of conservatives and argue with them all the time. i don't think i really have a problem admitting when i'm wrong, so prove i'm wrong. (LOL is not sufficient)

edit: let me clarify: typing LOL is far more elitist than anything than i've written. if you were open to others' POV you would actually try to articulate why you believe the way you do.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/01/AR2008090101716.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/01/AR2008090101716.html
Yeah, pretty much spot on. Especially this part:

Whatever the political impact, so much for the John McCain we thought we knew. In choosing Palin, he cynically did the kind of thing that his party is always accusing Democrats of doing: He selected a running mate based on her potential ability to appeal to targeted segments of the electorate rather than for her honestly assessed ability to lead the nation should the occasion arise.

The other thing we learned about McCain is that he is willing to take an enormous gamble based on limited information. He only met Palin once before summoning her for a final interview. He realized he needed to shake up the presidential race, and that's what he did. But we are reminded, if we did not realize it before, that the three things not to expect from a McCain presidency are caution, prudence and a willingness to always put the nation's interests above his own.

I don't pretend to know a whole lot about politics, so you can classify me as one of the idiot voters. I know the basics, but there's too much propaganda involved with every political election that I just get frustrated.

Anyway, as an idiot voter, when McCain selected Palin, that's the exact same reaction I had. I definately rolled my eyes once I heard that selection.

^ I've posted many times how much I hate the way DC is. A bunch of lawyers up there wasting our money.

Well I shook my head when I first heard the pick too but, to me, she seems like the most regular person ever picked for a VP spot. Maybe Carter being a peanut farmer was kind of like that too. He was fairly wealthy, iirc. This is just a regular person, IMO, hopefully going to DC to slap some bitches around.

One attack point fringe right-wingers use against Obama was that he was part of the (supposedly) Socialist/Communist/Marxist "New Party". The lefty New Party claimed Obama went to their events (though "their" events were put on by big unionizers like ACORN which they simply decided to adopt as theirs). They decided to endorse him for his State Senate bid in 1996, and he didn't object. The New Party was an attempt to swing the Democratic party left using an old-school mechanism called "electoral fusion", running multiple parties with the same candidate names, which the SCOTUS ruled not to be constitutionally protected. It's a rather interesting issue in its own right:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fusion

(As an aside, the one place where electoral fusion *IS* permitted is New York, which may be why Hillary was courting the racist Independence Party endorsement in her Senate run, despite lying about it in a debate.)

The socialist party was never a very credible argument against Obama. But now, it's really hard for the wingers to use that credibly when it's confirmed that Palin was part of a secessionist party, the Alaska Independence Party, prior to being a Republican! She attended their 1994 conference, recorded a greeting for their latest conference, and mentioned her how she'd only want to be a VP if she could get something good for Alaska out of it.

This one should have teeth. Letting their state decide to secede from the U.S. is anti-patriotic at best, treasonous at worst. It doesn't involve family or young'uns or gender or anything else. This makes Michelle Obama and "really love her country" seem small. Obama ought to hand her an anchor on this one, see how far McCain can get dragged down.

The worse Sarah Palin looks, the more it reminds everyone that McCain is old and can't afford to fuck up a VP decision.

A right winger that I heard on the radio this morning:


But at least everyone is talking about Palin and not Obama!

Is asking the question about seccession(or whatever its called) treasonous? Thats a serious question that it NOT intended to be snarky or something.

I lived in Alaska for 3 years. It is sooooooooooooooo removed from the lower 48 its unbelievable. Its really, really something up there. I'm sure DC wouldn't want AK to leave mainly cuz of all of the oil.

There are historic arguments about whether or not secession is treasonous, mostly from the Civil War era. That's why I phrased it as "anti-patriotic at best, treasonous at worst".

As for all the talk about Palin, a lot of people talked about Ferraro. It worked out well for her. NOT!

I bet these people are talking about Obama some:

gIVFraQwm3c

"No red states or blue states, the United States of America."


All the talk from the convention speech looking for the catch phrase that would continue on. I agreed with whoever was on the floor for whichever cable news channel I happened to be on that moment who said that line would be the one repeated.

Keeps his change emphasis going. Stresses optimism. Is less vague than just "change" but is still vague enough for anyone to hate on it specifically. Lastly, it cuts directly at the divide and conquer technique that was IMO McCain's only bet to win.

BTW, the fucker can speak.

So from what I've heard is that JM/SP campaign is abandoning the ready to lead aproach and going with the 'change' aproach.

I was on the phone but think I heard Chris Wallace say JM's campaign thought that they would run a close race with the 'ready to lead' thing, but would lose. So they are going to try to steal the 'change' message from BO.

Sounds difficult to me, but if you know you were going to lose anyway, give it a shot.

Yeah, I don't know how you can steal the change message. You could probably attach change to Palin, but Obama will continue to hit the %10 chance of change remark he said in his speech.

banning books
hiring lobby firms to get earmarks for a small town in alaska
giving addresses to secessionish political parties in 2008
building pipelines to please 'God'
Firing employees that are not 100% loyal
forcing rape and incest victims to carry babies to term
lying about support for the bridge to nowhere
having no opinion whatsoever on foreign policy

"that's not change you can believe in"

Palin responds to book banning thing. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU&feature=related)

iwasrickrolled

BO hits 50% in 2 different polls.

Better get that convention going John.

They'll do fine in the convention IMO. I think the debates is where Obama and Biden will excel.

They'll do fine in the convention IMO. I think the debates is where Obama and Biden will excel.

Did they decide on the format for the debates? Cuz I think JM can hold his own in some formats.

Not an Internet debate, though.
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y101/sgilman/callingtheinternet.jpg

Forum crossover: charles barkley weighs in:

http://tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=cc3afe48-025f-41cc-a6dd-83890abf9b64




If Obama somehow loses this election, do you think it will be detrimental to the cause of racial equality in some way, that it will bring a bunch of tensions to the surface?

I think it has had a great effect already. He could not have gotten the nomination without a large percentage of white Americans voting for him. And I have to say, about Barack himself, I really hope that no matter what happens, he sets a great example for these young black kids and shows them that they can be intelligent and articulate. Always look at the big picture. We are struggling in the black community with kids not getting an education and the epidemic of black-on-black crime. And I think this does great things for those young black kids.

Do you share the concern of some civil rights leaders that if Obama becomes president, people will say, "Aha, look, race relations are good. Everything is solved"?

I don't worry about what other people think first of all. And no one thing is going to solve all these racial and economic problems.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5juipuaxXaKxdg9-G7Cu7WHkXVTwAD92US9QG0

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hj0INfou9GhMYE2nyalH5O9dKRUwD92UPOLG5

Do you share the concern of some civil rights leaders that if Obama becomes president, people will say, "Aha, look, race relations are good. Everything is solved"?

People with that kind of bucket-of-crabs mentality shouldn't be "leading" anything.

McCain canceled a CNN interview because Campbell Brown demanded to know one foreign policy decision that Palin has made:

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/CA6592163.html

They're blaming the media for everything now.

Luckily, they created their own network!

Its pretty amazing to me that BO did hit 50% cuz he is the MOST INEXPERIENCED candidate in this countries history.

And then for the media to give him a complete pass on asking any questions at all. The contrast to what they are doing to Palin is striking.

That spokesman kept saying she has as much foreign policy experience as Obama. Except for the fact that Obama's message is that judgment is better than experience. McCain's camp is the one with the experience message as she correctly pointed out.

Its pretty amazing to me that BO did hit 50% cuz he is the MOST INEXPERIENCED candidate in this countries history.

And then for the media to give him a complete pass on asking any questions at all. The contrast to what they are doing to Palin is striking.

I highly doubt that the media is "protecting" Obama from difficult questions, especially if they thought they could get a scoop, but we've been down this road (the Republican media persecution complex) before here at WTF.

Its pretty amazing to me that BO did hit 50% cuz he is the MOST INEXPERIENCED candidate in this countries history.
Oh no, he's slightly more experienced than Abraham Lincoln, who served 2 years in the U.S. House before running for President, and had run for state office in Illinois and lost.

And Lincoln probably would have had pretty low poll numbers too.

Get my drift?

^ Abe slipped my memory. :)

Ok, refute this one. He is THE MOST LIBERAL to ever run.

Does being Liberal make someone unqualified?

Its pretty amazing to me that BO did hit 50% cuz he is the MOST INEXPERIENCED candidate in this countries history.
Obama's been in state+federal elected office for 11 years -- longer than Bush and Carter combined prior to their election. If elected, he'll be the first Pres with both state/local and federal-level experience since Truman.

Ok, refute this one. He is THE MOST LIBERAL to ever run.
Hunh?! He's not even the most liberal to run this year! That almost certainly goes to Dennis Kucinich.

And no executive experience. He started running for Prez, what a year into being elected as a Senator? He's done nothing, imo.

Hunh?! He's not even the most liberal to run this year! That almost certainly goes to Dennis Kucinich.

Sorry, nominated. Being the one of the last 2 remaining.

I make it a point to be on Mxy's side of an argument as much possible. And not just because he could steal everything I own without leaving his computer chair.

Ok, refute this one. He is THE MOST LIBERAL to ever run.
Happily. Politics in the US has shifted so far to the right since WW2 that there are vastly more liberal candidates in history. Some of them won.

Eugene V. Debs (my personal favorite) was a socialist who won 6% of the national vote in 1912.

Franklin Roosevelt (1933 - 1945) was strongly pro-union, pro-regulation, pro-welfare, and he pulled this country through a depression and a world war. He was so popular that he ran 4 times and won 4 times. It's because of him that there are now amendments that limit a president to 2 terms.

Hubert Humphrey was the candidate in 1968 - a moderate by those standards, but very liberal by today's standards. It was his nomination that cause the convention in Chicago to turn so ugly - a lot of the more liberal people wanted McGovern. But Humphrey was the person whose speech to the Democratic convention in 1948 fractured the party over the issue of civil rights for Blacks.

Robert F. Kennedy was very liberal, but he was killed before he could obtain the party's nomination - and it was pretty much a lock for him.

And some of them were Republicans! I'm thinking specifically of Eisenhower, who is positively progressive by today's standards. His own party accused him of being in league with Communists, for crying out loud.

Ok, refute this one. He is THE MOST LIBERAL to ever run.

This one is easy: fdr, carter, dukakis, mcgovern, and johnson off the top of my head. You could easily make arguments for clinton, gore and kerry. in fact kerry was voted the most liberal senator in washington the year he ran for pres. it's funny how that seems to recur. here is an example of how ridiculous the national review ratings are:


Perhaps the most nonsensical result produced by National Journal's system is this: Chris Dodd is ranked as the 23rd most liberal senator, despite casting only four "conservative" votes. One was against the Office of Public Integrity bill. Another was against an obscure amendment that, in a similar vein, would have tightened conflict-of-interest rules for individuals serving on FDA advisory panels (Kerry and Ted Kennedy took the "conservative" side with Dodd). The other two were Iraq votes on measures setting withdrawal timelines for American troops, which Dodd, who during the presidential campaign criticized Obama and Hillary Clinton from the left on Iraq, opposed because he wanted an even more aggressive timeline. And because Dodd was absent for so many votes, the impact of these "conservative" votes was magnified--so the very liberal Dodd landed right in the middle of the Democratic pack, despite not casting a single genuinely conservative vote.

in fact, it is often due to missed votes and the fact that the most liberal sernators often vote against bills that are not liberal enough for them. (these votes qualify as conservative despite the intent.) this year biden is ranked third despite being one of the most hawkish dems. If you actually inform yourself about obama's stances on issues you would see he is much more centrist than dodd, sanders, feingold, boxer et al. If you want a point of comparison, mr. 'country first' missed too many votes to even be rated.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=08c25e0a-9b88-49a6-97f5-45114f3fff28

And no executive experience. He started running for Prez, what a year into being elected as a Senator? He's done nothing, imo.
I don't think executive experience is this absolute requirement. It'd be nice, but it'd also be nice if McCain had experience with the legislative machinery at a state/local level, since the state/federal interface is at the heart of a lot of dysfunctional government. I'd love to see more people who've been in the judiciary go for executive office, like Dennis Archer.

Governors have historically been more successful because they could stay out of the national spotlight, and avoid those tough compromises where you're screwed no matter how you vote or decide. I think the Internet's gonna put that era to an end. Look at how fast a bunch of shit was dug up and spread on Palin. Look at all the governors who got eliminated early on.

And there were three significant candidates remaining in 1992 -- one who'd never held elected office, but led in many polls the day he dropped out.

I don't think Exec experience is end all either, but its nice to know what a person can do.

I feel the JM would have veto'd the shit out of tons of spending bills over the last 8 years. Give him the line item and he can change things up there, imo.

I don't think Exec experience is end all either, but its nice to know what a person can do.

I feel the JM would have veto'd the shit out of tons of spending bills over the last 8 years. Give him the line item and he can change things up there, imo.

palin's lobbyists would not be doing their jobs then. she asked for $300/person in earmarks, more than any other state. at least they agree on abortion though

I bet the liberal reporters are lining up looking for their 10 minutes of fame by asking her who the Prez is (or whatever) of some little country somewhere.

AND THE LIBERAL BLOGS GO WILD!

I bet the liberal reporters are lining up looking for their 10 minutes of fame by asking her who the Prez is (or whatever) of some little country somewhere.
To be fair, Tim Russert did the same sort of thing in the Democratic debates.

IIRC, the moderator of the VP debate will be Gwen Ifill. Somehow, I don't think she's going to do such a thing.

To be fair, Tim Russert did the same sort of thing in the Democratic debates.

IIRC, the moderator of the VP debate will be Gwen Ifill. Somehow, I don't think she's going to do such a thing.
Yeah, she's pretty square.

I make it a point to be on Mxy's side of an argument as much possible. And not just because he could steal everything I own without leaving his computer chair.

Ditto.

Mxy owns.

This from Joe Klein, not exactly a Democrat's best friend in the media:

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/09/angry_amateurs.html


The story of the day out here in Minneapolis is the McCain campaign's war against the press. This has been building for some time. Those of us who have criticized the candidate--and especially those of us who enjoyed good relations with McCain in the past--have been subject to off-the-record browbeating and attempted bullying all year. But things have gotten much worse in recent days: there was McCain's rude, bizarre interview with Time Magazine last week. Yesterday, McCain refused to an interview with Larry King, for God's sake, because Campbell Brown had been caught in the commission of journalism on CNN the night before, asking McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds what decisions Sarah Palin had made as commander-in-chief of the Alaska national guard. (There was an answer that the unprepared Bounds didn't have: she had deployed them to fight fires.)

So what's going on here? Two things. McCain is just plain angry at us. By the evidence presented in the utterly revealing Time interview, he's ballistic. This is a politician who needs to see himself as the man on the white horse, boldly traversing a muddy field...any intimations that he's gotten muddied in the process, or has decided to throw mud, are intolerable.

The second thing is more insidious: Steve Schmidt has decided, for tactical reasons, to slime the press. He wants the public to believe that there is an unfair--sexist (you gotta love it)--personal assault going on against Palin and her family. This is a smokescreen, intended to divert attention from the very real and responsible vetting that is taking place in the media--about the substance of Palin's record as mayor and governor. Sure, there are a few outliers--and the tabloid press--who have fixed on baby stories. That was inevitable....the flip side of the personal stories that the McCain team thought would work to their advantage--Palin's moose-hunting and wolf-shooting, and her admirable decision to have a Down Syndrome baby. And yes, when we all fix on the same story, whether it's a hurricane or a little-known politician, a zoo ensues. But the media coverage of the Palin story has been well within the bounds of responsibility. Schmidt is trying to make it seem otherwise, a desperate tactic.

There is a tendency in the media to kick ourselves, cringe and withdraw, when we are criticized. But I hope my colleagues stand strong in this case: it is important for the public to know that Palin raised taxes as governor, supported the Bridge to Nowhere before she opposed it, pursued pork-barrel projects as mayor, tried to ban books at the local library and thinks the war in Iraq is "a task from God." The attempts by the McCain campaign to bully us into not reporting such things are not only stupidly aggressive, but unprofessional in the extreme.

Thought I'd check in and see how many of you are on suicide watch. Cuz after last nights speech, I'm not sure your 'LOCK' on taking back the White House is such a lock. :)

Seriously, whether JM/SP win or not, at least 'we' Republicans have some new blood.

What a speech. Great message and delivery.

And how quickly the liberal elites changed their tune. Before the speech it was can she deliver on a big stage? Then it went to... Ok she can deliver a canned speech but can she debate Biden? LMAO

I don't think Exec experience is end all either, but its nice to know what a person can do.

I feel the JM would have veto'd the shit out of tons of spending bills over the last 8 years. Give him the line item and he can change things up there, imo.

What executive experience does McCain have? Palin has been governor of the 48th largest state in the union for 20 months. She also wants/wanted the state to succeed from the union. I wouldn't be touting that executive experience. Also, Obama has been leading people for 20+ years. He lead the Harvard Law review and was a professor of constitutional law. He knows far more about leading a government than Palin, despite her 20 months of service.

I think McCain has a legitimate arguement for his experience vs Obama's, but I don't think the executive experience argument holds any water.

Could you link me up to where she wants the state to succeed?

And how many Delewares could you put in Alaska. Its huge. She runs the state. Diminish it if you want. I'll let the voters decide.

BO has been leading peeps where? Not following that part.

And how quickly the liberal elites changed their tune. Before the speech it was can she deliver on a big stage? Then it went to... Ok she can deliver a canned speech but can she debate Biden? LMAO

I think it was fair for the analysts to ask whether she can deliver on that stage. She hadn't before. I think she delivered the speech very well. Unfortunately the republican propaganda machine littered it with lies.

I really don't think a lot of independents were buying what she was selling last night.

And how many Delewares could you put in Alaska. Its huge. She runs the state. Diminish it if you want. I'll let the voters decide.



Not seeing how comparing land masses (instead of # of American citizens in each state) is even close to relevant.

Could you link me up to where she wants the state to succeed?

And how many Delewares could you put in Alaska. Its huge. She runs the state. Diminish it if you want. I'll let the voters decide.

BO has been leading peeps where? Not following that part.

She was part of the secessionist party in Alaska. And I was talking about population, not square miles. Kwame is (for now) presiding over more people than Palin.

Dude. Montana is SOOOO much harder to manage then say ... New York. It just is. Animals are animals! Trees are a bitch.

She was part of the secessionist party in Alaska. And I was talking about population, not square miles. Kwame is (for now) presiding over more people than Palin.

Not anymore Kwame.

Link me to where that secessionist party thing.


And sq miles adds its own set of difficulties. But I guess that lost on some.

Dude. Montana is SOOOO much harder to manage then say ... New York. It just is. Animals are animals! Trees are a bitch.

Well there is inteligent life outside of the elitist cities of New York and LA. Some peeps choose to live outside of those places.

North Dakota is a monster of a state to manage. Florida is a joke in comparison.

Well there is inteligent life outside of the elitist cities of New York and LA. Some peeps choose to live outside of those places.

New York isn't just a city there captain. There are plenty of rural folk, trees, and rocks.

They both bring different challenges. But you point isn't lost on me.

At least she had to run something, other than show up at a community event to see if the park needs more trees or something.

New York isn't just a city there captain. There are plenty of rural folk, trees, and rocks.

Ok bub, thanks for all your insight. Really good stuff.

At least she had to run something, other than show up at a community event to see if the park needs more trees or something.

Actually, that sounds an awful lot like something that a mayor of a small town would do.

Not that there is anything wrong with that.

At least she had to run something

I hear that. A governor is a governor to some degree.

And thats prolly the heights of what BO did.

I hear that. A governor is a governor to some degree.

And some peeps travel to India.

At least Biden actually knows what the vice president's role is. Unlike Palin who said when you find out what a vice president actually does let me know.

I watched some parts of the speech on CNN.. I must say I was not impressed. I was actually expecting it to be pretty good.

I watched some parts of the speech on CNN.. I must say I was not impressed. I was actually expecting it to be pretty good.

That's because you watched the elite liberal media version of the speech.

You would have loved it on Fox News.

^ just know you are in the minority.

It's funny how they paint Barack as an elitist when it's been shown by multiple sources that Barack's taxes will lower taxes by a higher percentage for the middle AND lower classes and then there's McCain who doesn't know how many houses he owns.

^ LOL

I know, like I said, it's funny.

Not it, you.

Why don't you rationally dispute it, then?

^ LOL

Sorry its all I had time for right now.

At this rate, it won't be long before Tahoe has Bukdow'd his way into his own comic strip.

From Politico...


Why the media should apologize
By ROGER SIMON | 9/4/08 12:15 AM EST Text Size:

ST. PAUL, Minn. — On behalf of the media, I would like to say we are sorry.

On behalf of the elite media, I would like to say we are very sorry.

We have asked questions this week that we should never have asked.

We have asked pathetic questions like: Who is Sarah Palin? What is her record? Where does she stand on the issues? And is she is qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency?

We have asked mean questions like: How well did John McCain know her before he selected her? How well did his campaign vet her? And was she his first choice?

Bad questions. Bad media. Bad.

It is not our job to ask questions. Or it shouldn’t be. To hear from the pols at the Republican National Convention this week, our job is to endorse and support the decisions of the pols.

Sarah Palin hit the nail on the head Wednesday night (and several in the audience wish she had hit some reporters on the head instead) when she said: “I’m not a member of the permanent political establishment. And I’ve learned quickly, these past few days, that if you’re not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone.”

But where did we go wrong with Sarah Palin? Let me count the ways:

First, we should have stuck to the warm, human interest stuff like how she likes mooseburgers and hit an important free throw at her high school basketball tournament even though she had a stress fracture.

Second, we should have stuck to the press release stuff like how she opposed the Bridge to Nowhere (after she supported it).

Third, we should never have strayed into the other stuff. Like when The Washington Post recently wrote: “Palin is under investigation by a bipartisan state legislative body. … Palin had promised to cooperate with the legislative inquiry, but this week she hired a lawyer to fight to move the case to the jurisdiction of the state personnel board, which Palin appoints.”

Why go there? What trees does that plant?

Fourth, we should stop making with all the questions already. She gave a really good speech. And why go beyond that? As we all know, speeches cannot be written by others and rehearsed for days. They are true windows to the soul.

Unless they are delivered by Barack Obama, that is. In which case, as Palin said Wednesday, speeches are just a “cloud of rhetoric.”

Fifth, we should stop reporting on the families of the candidates. Unless the candidates want us to.

Sarah Palin wanted the media to report on her teenage son, Track, who enlisted in the Army on Sept. 11, 2007, and soon will deploy to Iraq.

Sarah Palin did not want the media to report on her teenage daughter, Bristol, who is pregnant and unmarried.

Sarah Palin thinks that one is good for her campaign and one is not, and that the media should report only on what is good for her campaign. That is our job, and that is our duty. If that is not actually in the Constitution, it should be. (And someday may be.)

The official theme of the convention’s third day was “prosperity,” but the unofficial theme was “the media are really, really awful.”

Even Mike Huckabee, who campaigned for president this year by saying “I am a conservative, but I am not mad at anybody,” discovered Wednesday night that he is mad at somebody.

“I’d like to thank the elite media for doing something,” Huckabee said, “that, quite frankly, I didn’t think could be done: unify the Republican party and all of America in support of John McCain and Sarah Palin.”

And could that be the real point of the attacks on the media? To unify the Republican Party?

No, that is simply the cynical, media view.

Though as Lily Tomlin says, “No matter how cynical I get, it’s just never enough to keep up.”

I couldn’t resist that. For which I am sorry.

Thought I'd check in and see how many of you are on suicide watch. Cuz after last nights speech, I'm not sure your 'LOCK' on taking back the White House is such a lock. :)
I'm trying to find out what attracts the middle or expands the base out of Palin's speech. Check out the independents' reaction on the Freep voting panel here. Dems were scared and Reps were enthused, but the indys weren't impressed.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080903/NEWS15/80904002

I'm trying to find out what attracts the middle or expands the base out of Palin's speech. Check out the independents' reaction on the Freep voting panel here. Dems were scared and Reps were enthused, but the indys weren't impressed.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080903/NEWS15/80904002


Well, it could help bring out that right wing vote that was reluctant to attach their name to a McCain ticket.

I lived in Alaska for 3 years. It is sooooooooooooooo removed from the lower 48 its unbelievable. Its really, really something up there.
Did you find God there?

Here's Palin's preacher, who's about as nutty as Wright:
ecxj1C1xJWA

I'll grant you whatever you want to say about him, cuz I just don't like watching batshit crazy preachers.

No God, but I prolly partied harder in those 3 years than any other in my life. What a state. Its really amazing up there.

I want to visit it some day. I've heard it looks amazing.

They say Texas is huge, its really not compared to Alaska. Its beautiful too if you like the outdoors. Water, woods, huge mountain ranges with hunting and fishing, skiing, etc. If one didn't feel sooooooo far away from everything, I'd have prolly stayed.

The daylight and dark can wear on you a lil bit after a while. Its great when you are young but, kind of like Michigan, the winters can get long.

^ fwiw

Wasn't that "Insomnia" movie with Pacino set in AK?

Forgot Cross Country skiing. You can do it right through the Anchorage on the bike trails.

Bars close at 4 and open back up at 7, iirc. They have to be closed for 3 hours I think. <--something that I was concerned about back then. :)

Insomnia. Haven't seen it. Should I?

I think it had Robin Williams as a bad guy, which is always good.

(if memory serves)

Forgot Cross Country skiing. You can do it right through the Anchorage on the bike trails.

Bars close at 4 and open back up at 7, iirc. They have to be closed for 3 hours I think. <--something that I was concerned about back then. :)
In news that should warm your heart, Palin fired the police chief of her town for wanting the bars to close a little earlier.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5713866&page=1

Stambaugh's lawyer, William Jermain, says the chief tried to move up the closing hours of local bars from 5 a.m. to two a.m. after a spurt of drunk driving accidents and arrests.

"His crackdown on that practice by the bars was not appreciated by her and that was one reason she terminated Irl," said Jermain.

In his 1997 lawsuit, Stambaugh also alleged that his stand on restricting concealed weapons upset the NRA.

"Mayor Palin has stated on several occasions that the National Rifle Association encouraged her to fire Chief Stambaugh because of his stance against the concealed weapons legislation," the lawsuit claimed.

In news that should warm your heart, Palin fired the police chief of her town for wanting the bars to close a little earlier.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5713866&page=1

When I was younger maybe. I'm too old to stay up that late anymore.

Cindy McCain is no Sarah Palin but her life story is great. What a great person.

I think it had Robin Williams as a bad guy, which is always good.

(if memory serves)

It does. It's not that good a flick though. Neither was the one where he was the photomat guy.

Cindy McCain is no Sarah Palin


They're both attractive.

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2008/09/03/PH2008090302432.jpg
Please tell me that's not a slave (far right).

Perhaps Sarah Palin's Eskimo servant?

Not staying up on current events, eh Denny?

They say Texas is huge, its really not compared to Alaska. Its beautiful too if you like the outdoors. Water, woods, huge mountain ranges with hunting and fishing, skiing, etc. If one didn't feel sooooooo far away from everything, I'd have prolly stayed.

The daylight and dark can wear on you a lil bit after a while. Its great when you are young but, kind of like Michigan, the winters can get long.

^ fwiw


If McCain winz they r gonna drill 4 oil and destroy that beautiful state and all of the fishies and birdies will die and it will be retarded. Vote for Barack Osama yay!

Not staying up on current events, eh Denny?

My Cali Angels are playoff bound. That's a little more important right now.

My Cali Angels are playoff bound. That's a little more important right now.
Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are being bailed out by the federal government. That's a little more important right now, at least to me.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/05/AR2008090503351.html

AjGiDqzU4d8

Oh, Barack. You had me at "evaluated by the following three criteria."

Talk to me like a grownup, you sexy thing.

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal's 27th annual vote ratings. The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate.

If he didn't have you at 'evaluated' heres another reason for ya. :)

National Journal's

DGIS,ITNJ

Dog Gonnit I Sure Injoy The National Journal ???

enjoy injoy, same same.

Those vote ratings are as bullshit as "voted with so-and-so xx% of the time". As I've said in the past, in this thread even:


As for the "most liberal" or "most conservative" senator stuff, these guys are ascertaining that based off objective voting pattern analysis (as distinct from a pundit characterizing particular votes). It's true "science" within political science, a rarity:

http://voteview.com/sen110.htm

It also has the advantage of passing the "common sense" test all along the political spectrum. Obama isn't as liberal as Feingold or Sanders the socialist. RINOs and conservative Democrats are easily identified and side-by-side. The metholodology checks out over time, in many parliamentary contexts, etc.

All the math weenies do here does is sort out ideologies based off patterns of voting. They don't care about what's being voted on... just how person P voted relative to persons X, Y, Z, etc. on parliamentary-styled issues A, B, C, etc. Then they line it up along an axis of "who's compatible with who".

Those vote ratings are as bullshit as "voted with so-and-so xx% of the time". As I've said in the past, in this thread even:



All the math weenies do here does is sort out ideologies based off patterns of voting. They don't care about what's being voted on... just how person P voted relative to persons X, Y, Z, etc. on parliamentary-styled issues A, B, C, etc. Then they line it up along an axis of "who's compatible with who".

Yea, I knew all of that, just wanted to see if you'd catch it.

And along those lines...even with all of BO's talk of tax cuts, I still say he will raise taxes. But this side says they'll cut them, that side says they'll cut them. Who knows...so I go with my gut and will vote for JM cuz in my gut, I feel he'll cut them.

WynLgJFBxSs

BO visits 57 states...lmao

EpGH02DtIws&feature

WynLgJFBxSs
It's not a twist.

McCain sees people are struggling. Then McCain quixotically defends Bush. Then he says it's no comfort to someone who's struggling.

Had he actually protested the pork barrel spending that, in his world, has led the economy to struggles, then it'd have been credible. Of course, he doesn't do that -- then someone might ask him "so, what ya gonna cut", a question that he doesn't really want to answer. McCain tells us "we'll know their names". Besides Ted Stevens and some random science projects he thinks are stupid, tell him to name what he will cut.

He said the first pork barrel spending bill that comes across his desk, if he is elected, he will veto and make the peeps names known to the American peeps.

Now that is reform, without having to pass a bunch of bullshit bills.

And along those lines...even with all of BO's talk of tax cuts, I still say he will raise taxes. But this side says they'll cut them, that side says they'll cut them. Who knows...so I go with my gut and will vote for JM cuz in my gut, I feel he'll cut them.[/COLOR]
The thing is -- the top 1% have gotten a LOT richer a lot faster than any other financial class in the 21st century, and have an ever-growing number of mechanisms to avoid paying taxes at anywhere near the same rate that the average joe does. The theory is that a more progressive tax structure will lower taxes for the vast majority. The challenge is to do this in a way that doesn't screw people who might not really be rich, but show up in the top 1% because of some (relative) peculiarity in how their finances are structured.

McCain seems to think he can cut spending, cut taxes, and stuff will work itself out. In a global economy of mixed economies, that's just a race to the bottom. Once you get past the Bridge To Nowhere (which his running mate supported), most of the stuff he cites as waste involves science he doesn't understand. If it sounds odd to him, he cites it as an example of waste to cut, rather than ask questions like "why". There's no sense of overall priority, especially when it comes to domestic issues.

The thing is -- the top 1% have gotten a LOT richer a lot faster than any other financial class in the 21st century, and have an ever-growing number of mechanisms to avoid paying taxes at anywhere near the same rate that the average joe does. The theory is that a more progressive tax structure will lower taxes for the vast majority. The challenge is to do this in a way that doesn't screw people who might not really be rich, but show up in the top 1% because of some (relative) peculiarity in how their finances are structured.

McCain seems to think he can cut spending, cut taxes, and stuff will work itself out. In a global economy of mixed economies, that's just a race to the bottom. Once you get past the Bridge To Nowhere (which his running mate supported), most of the stuff he cites as waste involves science he doesn't understand. If it sounds odd to him, he cites it as an example of waste to cut, rather than ask questions like "why". There's no sense of overall priority, especially when it comes to domestic issues.

And the top 1% is paying more in taxes per dollars earned than at any other time in history, from what a couple of sites said. This was a while back but I saw it on a non-partisan tax sites.

When in hell is enough enough taxes for those thieves up there in DC? Both parties up in DC are a bunch of crooks. DC wastes so much money up there and that is going to be our race to the bottom.

I realize we are in a global economy and don't hold Bush 100% responsible or even 50% responsible for the US economy. But he has attempted to soften the worlds economic impact on our economy by cutting taxes to put money back in ordinary peeps pockets. The rich get some back too. To the Dems, that is criminal. Bush also took a bunch more lowere earners off the tax payroll.

I agree with JMs philosophy/theory whatever the hell it is, that keeping taxes low and spending as low as we can is the way to go. Our economy is soooooo friggin huge that when the worlds economy gets better, we have to take advantage of it and pay off our debt. But I don't think we should raise taxes right now, or ever for that matter.

The top 1% have lots of mechanisms (offshore shenanigans, family trusts, etc.) to hide their "dollars earned" and skew many of those calculations. The growth of the wealthy, particularly the mega-wealthy, has eclipsed the still-meteoric growth of so-called adjusted gross income. There's a historic parallel, just before the Great Depression, and I'll just depress myself if I start down that path. I don't want that tonight -- tonight's been a night I should have had more alcohol. Lemme put it another way...

In times of war, the rich who profit the most were compelled to pay the most in taxes to keep America strong at home and strong fighting abroad. That just hasn't happened with our current wars. Would there have been sacrifice to finish up Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11? Hell yes. But Bush cut taxes while maintaining war, and McCain seems hell bent on doing the same. Obama wants to maintain the status quo tax-wise, while refocusing on Afghanistan and away from the mistake of Iraq.

Dog Gonnit I Sure Injoy The National Journal ???

enjoy injoy, same same.
"Don't give a shit, it's the National Journal"

The top 1% have lots of mechanisms (offshore shenanigans, family trusts, etc.) to hide their "dollars earned" and skew many of those calculations. The growth of the wealthy, particularly the mega-wealthy, has eclipsed the still-meteoric growth of so-called adjusted gross income. There's a historic parallel, just before the Great Depression, and I'll just depress myself if I start down that path. I don't want that tonight -- tonight's been a night I should have had more alcohol. Lemme put it another way...

In times of war, the rich who profit the most were compelled to pay the most in taxes to keep America strong at home and strong fighting abroad. That just hasn't happened with our current wars. Would there have been sacrifice to finish up Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11? Hell yes. But Bush cut taxes while maintaining war, and McCain seems hell bent on doing the same. Obama wants to maintain the status quo tax-wise, while refocusing on Afghanistan and away from the mistake of Iraq.

I have ZERO problem with peeps being mega filthy rich. Good for them. And its not just the top 1% that use family trusts, etc. As long as its within the tax code, its ok. The stuff that isn't should be caught. Wasn't it last year when Teddy Kennedy got caught talking a good line about taxes but then was exposed for having offshore shelters? I think it was him.

WE SHOULDN'T LEAVE IRAQ UNTIL ITS STABLE. And we are getting there, but I'll never vote for anyone who would want to pull out of there till the Iraqis are ready to take control of ALL of the country.

I don't believe BO wants to keep taxes status quo for a sec. How can pay of health care without raising taxes. Where does the money come from? I've read some things, but none of them make sense or add up to me.

If taxes are raised right now in this economy, we would win the race to the bottom.

Anybody seen that Obama commercial with the "Don't know much about economy" jingle? It's pretty funny IMO.

This one's good too, has a very Michael Moore-ish feel to it.

Gotta love the actual video of McCain talking about voting with Bush 90% of the time.

8xukbiS8q9s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xukbiS8q9s

The last quote is good, when did McCain admit to that?

I have ZERO problem with peeps being mega filthy rich. Good for them. And its not just the top 1% that use family trusts, etc. As long as its within the tax code, its ok. The stuff that isn't should be caught. Wasn't it last year when Teddy Kennedy got caught talking a good line about taxes but then was exposed for having offshore shelters? I think it was him.
I don't have a problem with people being mega filthy rich. I don't have a problem with our government taxing them heavily in times of war, because that was part of an approach that worked to fund things right to end the war. Giving overall tax cuts in the middle of a war is indefensible and just downright stupid.


WE SHOULDN'T LEAVE IRAQ UNTIL ITS STABLE. And we are getting there, but I'll never vote for anyone who would want to pull out of there till the Iraqis are ready to take control of ALL of the country.
The sectarian violence already did most of its damage. People moved or died, there's a lot less mixed Shia-Sunni areas (and the Kurds already have some autonomy), and we're paying off both sides to keep things smooth. The Iraqis have gone well along the way of implementing the Biden plan that they all hated... imagine that.

What's likely to happen is that, once we stop spending big money in there, the authority gap will be filled in by surrounding players like Iran, especially because Iraq has something a lot of folks want. There will only be withdrawal to a stable point. South Korea is a perfectly stable country who doesn't take its lead from Kim-Jong Il, as long as we have 30k troops and spend 2-3 bilion a year there bolstering South Korea's huge military presence -- 50+ years after the Korean War (or less if you watched a lot of M.A.S.H.). Either that, or we recreate a warlord to do what Saddam had been doing for us when he wasn't being a boogeyman...


I don't believe BO wants to keep taxes status quo for a sec. How can pay of health care without raising taxes. Where does the money come from? I've read some things, but none of them make sense or add up to me.

If taxes are raised right now in this economy, we would win the race to the bottom.
What I've seen seems pretty revenue-neutral overall. Healthcare in particular is one of those things that's so grossly inefficient in the private sector where having the government intervene with its collective purchasing power alone (the Obama approach) could free up a lot of money. There's no incentive for health care/insurance providers to NOT pass along costs to you. What are you gonna do otherwise-- not pay, be broken, and die? Even the largest of private employers are impotent against Big Healthcare, and our healthcare stance is anti-business. McCain's healthcare plan is fucktacular.

Gallup Daily has the Sarah Palin ticket over the Obama/Biden ticket 49% vs 44% :)

I would hope that bounce goes away when the public realizes all the lies they spewed at the conference.

I don't have a problem with people being mega filthy rich. I don't have a problem with our government taxing them heavily in times of war, because that was part of an approach that worked to fund things right to end the war. Giving overall tax cuts in the middle of a war is indefensible and just downright stupid.


The sectarian violence already did most of its damage. People moved or died, there's a lot less mixed Shia-Sunni areas (and the Kurds already have some autonomy), and we're paying off both sides to keep things smooth. The Iraqis have gone well along the way of implementing the Biden plan that they all hated... imagine that.

What's likely to happen is that, once we stop spending big money in there, the authority gap will be filled in by surrounding players like Iran, especially because Iraq has something a lot of folks want. There will only be withdrawal to a stable point. South Korea is a perfectly stable country who doesn't take its lead from Kim-Jong Il, as long as we have 30k troops and spend 2-3 bilion a year there bolstering South Korea's huge military presence -- 50+ years after the Korean War (or less if you watched a lot of M.A.S.H.). Either that, or we recreate a warlord to do what Saddam had been doing for us when he wasn't being a boogeyman...


What I've seen seems pretty revenue-neutral overall. Healthcare in particular is one of those things that's so grossly inefficient in the private sector where having the government intervene with its collective purchasing power alone (the Obama approach) could free up a lot of money. There's no incentive for health care/insurance providers to NOT pass along costs to you. What are you gonna do otherwise-- not pay, be broken, and die? Even the largest of private employers are impotent against Big Healthcare, and our healthcare stance is anti-business. McCain's healthcare plan is fucktacular.

You can't have tax rates bouncing up and down if theres a war or not, but I get your drift on that. As far as tax cuts during a war...afaict the Bush admin treated them seperately and surprise surprise I agree with it. The tax cuts were cuz of the economy and I don't think they let the war cost influence their thinking. I guess thats somewhat obvious.

2nd and 3rd para...I think the Iraqis have enough wealth where they are going to be able to Govern their own country as good as can be expected with 3 different populations. Also, they had some reports on Bagdad over the weekend. The public swimming pools are open again, country clubs, etc. fwiw.

With HealthCare so grossly inefficient, WHY would you want the Feds to take it over? It'll only become more costly and inefficient. I have no confidence in our Gov't to straighten that out.

Gallup Daily has the Sarah Palin ticket over the Obama/Biden ticket 49% vs 44% :)

btw the smile emo is cuz I called it the Sarah Palin ticket, not because the Repubs are leading.

Most of the other polls have it as a dead heat, FWIW.

But I didn't expect that you would point that out, :^)

A new national poll taken entirely after the end of the Republican convention suggests the race for the White House between John McCain and Barack Obama is dead even. McCain and Obama are tied at 48 percent each, according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll out Monday afternoon.
Three percent of voters are undecided, according to the survey.
The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll questioned 1,022 registered voters by telephone. The survey, conducted Friday through Sunday, has a sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.
The poll is one of three new surveys taken mostly over the weekend.
The other two are a Gallup Tracking Poll and a Diageo/Hotline survey. When all three are averaged together for a new CNN poll of polls, the results have McCain up one point, 47 percent to 46 percent. That's the first time in the CNN poll of polls that McCain has an advantage over Obama.

Honestly, its the only poll I saw.

Seriously, if one wants to know who is going to win this years election, one better be ready to stay up late on election night.

CNN? Thats like a foxnews poll.

I generally go with Rassmussen or Gallup.

Honestly, its the only poll I saw.

Seriously, if one wants to know who is going to win this years election, one better be ready to stay up late on election night.

I sure hope not.

I'd rather have Obama lose soundly than have more "fuzzy math" and funny business decide who wins.

CNN? Thats like a foxnews poll.

I generally go with Rassmussen or Gallup.
Most of the polls by respected news organizations (I'll include Fox here, just as an example) are scientifically sound, which means they should be absent of bias.

Many times the network just "sponsors" or pays for the polling and the actual polling is done by a neutral 3rd party polling firm.

Ok, if we do know who is going to win, or are pretty sure who is going to win before election night, I'd say that it would be BO. He's been leading for too long. He's been doing this for almost 2 years now.

And I expect Sarah Palin to make some huge missteps. I just don't think she can be 'up' on world events. She may make JM's reform message easier for peeps to accept, but I don't see her being able to stand up to Putin cuz of her relative inexperience.

Most of the polls by respected news organizations (I'll include Fox here, just as an example) are scientifically sound, which means they should be absent of bias.

Many times the network just "sponsors" or pays for the polling and the actual polling is done by a neutral 3rd party polling firm.

CBS always has JM low. So when theirs had the race a dead heat...You can guess what I gathered.

CNN? Thats like a foxnews poll.

I generally go with Rassmussen or Gallup.
Well, CNN usually compiles results from 5 different polls all together for an average. That one doesn't have as many sources, but you can see they have the average putting McCain up 1 point.

"Everywhere I go, we've been talking about change, that's been the theme of this campaign," Obama told supporters Saturday in Terre Haute, Indiana. "And we must be on to something, because I notice now everyone's talking about change now."

"Suddenly [McCain's] the change agent!" Obama laughed. "He says, 'I'm going to tell those lobbyists that their days of running Washington are over.' Who's he going to tell? Is he going to tell his campaign chairman, who's one of the biggest corporate lobbyists in Washington? Is he going to tell his campaign manager, who was one of the biggest corporate lobbyists in Washington? Is he going to tell all the folks who are running his campaign, who are the biggest corporate lobbyists in Washington?"

"Who is it that he's going to tell that change is coming?" he added, "I mean come on, they must think you're stupid!"

Obama (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/barack.obama.html) on Saturday also singled out Palin for the first time for flip-flopping on earmarks while governor of Alaska.

"She is a skillful politician," said Obama, "but when you've been taking all these earmarks when it is convenient and then suddenly you're the champion anti-earmark person, that is not change, come on. I mean, words mean something. You can't just make stuff up."

Obama is completely wrong.

You can just make stuff up.

He's been fighting made-up stuff a lot.
He should know this.

Bush is a prime example of making stuff up and basically getting away with it.

Making stuff up only backfires if you have enough educated people to recognize it. The problem with voters is that most don't pay enough attention to know it's made up, or they watch a certain network that would never tell them it is made up.

Moveon and I think the Dems sponsored an add that says that JM sends our troops to Iraq but voted no on the GI Bill.

BO said JM wants to keep troops in Iraq for 100 years

BO says JM is exactly like Bush

Those are off the top. Theres enough of this shit to go around on both sides, imo.

Battleground state poll from Rasmussen

OH 51 - 44 McCain
VA 49 - 47 McCain

CO 49 - 46 Obama
PA 47 - 45 Obama

FL tied at 48%

Moveon and I think the Dems sponsored an add that says that JM sends our troops to Iraq but voted no on the GI Bill.

True

BO said JM wants to keep troops in Iraq for 100 years

McCain said he would if need be (I'm sure he doesn't want to). This is more of an exaggeration than a lie

BO says JM is exactly like Bush

Maybe not exactly, but %90 like him

Those are off the top. Theres enough of this shit to go around on both sides, imo.

So I don't see where they are making up lies here

Ok, spreading untruths

Regurgitating some stuff from FoxNews...

Is this recent revelation in the polls a bounce or is it a full on Sarah Surge?

A bounce will be gone in a week, a Sarah Surge will last for a while.

BO shoulda/woulda/coulda taken Hillary. If, "IF", BO loses this election, its his own fault. <-- my thought.

Who would be better on the economy? Poll

Pre-GOP Convention

BO 55%
JM 36%

Post

That 19pt gap is NOW DOWN TO 3 PTS

BO 48%
JM 45%

Can you say OUCH?

#734...wait, Chris are you saying its true that JM sends the troops to Iraq but votes no on the GI Bill?

#734...wait, Chris are you saying its true that JM sends the troops to Iraq but votes no on the GI Bill?
hzr3pdXqZ98

Color this under the "not very funny" part for Palin... this was during her tenure as mayor: http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2000/05/23/news.txt

Ok, spreading untruths

Considering that mccain campaign's messiah ad tried to use obama's self deprecating joke as an example of narcissism, i would say the gloves are off. why is sarah palin comparing comparing obama's stand on gitmo detainees (many of which were not captured on any battlefield) to reading of miranda rights? the bush/mccain/palin position is offensive to anyone who believes in rules against arbitrary detention including traditional conservatives like colin powell, ron paul, and bob barr.

Think of how much different this election would be if this dude were running.
6Kl-zFk0ku4

RE #739

"I guess those organizations don't know something you do know"

McCain completely dodged around that question because he's too old to remember how he voted on the issues and wouldn't have been able to respond once that guy told him the votes.

Color this under the "not very funny" part for Palin... this was during her tenure as mayor: http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2000/05/23/news.txt
Did you read the comments below it. Over a hundred rapes in the year with a population of 5000?

That means 1 in 50 people have been raped basically (or 20 rapes per 1,000).

The national average in 2004 was 0.4 reports per thousand people.

Yikes.

EDIT - I don't know what's going on with the numbers, but that can't be right. According to the state numbers now they had like 2 rapes a year reported in Wasilla. So why does the Wasilla Police say it will cost them another 5k-14k a year to do sexual assult tests? Something is fishy here.

RE #739

"I guess those organizations don't know something you do know"

McCain completely dodged around that question because he's too old to remember how he voted on the issues and wouldn't have been able to respond once that guy told him the votes.
He voiced his opposition to Webb's GI Bill, but didn't actually vote on it. IIRC, he was actually campaigning in Virginia the day of the vote, so he was around and could've voted if he wanted to.

His concerns are that, if you treat troops right, there will be less motivation for them to stay in the military. What was not mentioned is that Iraq has been keeping a lot of bright folks away from the military. Why join up? Your term is indefinite even after your discharge with the way things are run. The only way they've avoided recruitment plummeting and being front page news is by lowering standards dangerously. 1/3rd of new recruits are high-school dropouts, as opposed to under 10% before Iraq. They'll now take people even if they show no appreciable aptitude on the ASVAB. The brain drain is pretty fierce, and McCain's antics simply give more evidence that he's part of the problem. <sigh>

Ron Paul is on the ballot in Montana.

Translation: Obama's gonna win Montana.

Yeah, he was basically saying he wanted to only increase the rights of a career military person so they'll stay in the military. Everyone that gets traumatized and doesn't want to stay in the military can piss off.

Yeah, he was basically saying he wanted to only increase the rights of a career military person so they'll stay in the military. Everyone that gets traumatized and doesn't want to stay in the military can piss off.

If there is any candidate that gives a shit about the troops, its McCain.

JM wanted increased benis for the longer you stay in...DUH! Thats the way most things work.

If you gave the whole shebang to everyone after 4 years, there wouldn't be enough 5 year folks.

JM wanted increased benis for the longer you stay in...DUH!

TERRIBLE idea. You'll get a lot of guys in the military like you get in the NFL - way too beat up and traumatized to be there anymore, but not willing to part with the cash. Being in the military is NOT like any other job, especially during wartime. During wartime, you do NOT want soldiers to stick around forever. They do have limits.

TERRIBLE idea. You'll get a lot of guys in the military like you get in the NFL - way too beat up and traumatized to be there anymore, but not willing to part with the cash. Being in the military is NOT like any other job, especially during wartime. During wartime, you do NOT want soldiers to stick around forever. They do have limits.

I was in the military and its NOT a terrible idea.

And if actually read JMs thing, if they are that beat up, they don't have to stay in to get a paycheck.

The point in all of this was replying to Chris about campaigns lieing. The Dems were saying JM sends troops to war but won't take care of them when they come home. Thats a lie.