The General Election for President, Barack Obama vs. John McCain [Archive] - Page 5

Glenn

09-23-2008, 01:04 PM

The Michigan section:

Michigan

Michigan women voters back Obama 52 – 40 percent, while men back McCain 49 – 44 percent. White voters back McCain 51 – 41 percent, as black voters support Obama 93 – 5 percent. The Democrat leads 51 – 48 percent among voters 18 to 34, and gets 47 percent of voters 35 to 54 to McCain’s 45 percent. Voters over 55 back Obama 49 – 41 percent.

Obama rather than McCain is the candidate of change, voters say 43 – 21 percent.

Palin’s selection is a good choice, voters say 58 – 32 percent, while these same voters say 51 – 30 percent that Biden is a good choice.

By a 47 – 42 percent margin, voters would rather see Biden as President. Women back Biden 50 – 38 percent while men go 47 percent for Palin and 45 percent for Biden.

The economy is the most important issue, 58 percent of Michigan voters say, and Obama understands it better, voters say 50 – 38 percent. McCain understands foreign policy better, voters say 64 – 26 percent.

“Sen. Obama’s lead in Michigan is built upon two key changes since the last Quinnipiac University poll: He has consolidated the Democratic base to the same degree that Sen. McCain has coalesced the Republican vote, and his lead among those who see the economy as the most important issue has almost doubled, from 50 – 39 percent to 55 – 35 percent,” Brown said.

Uncle Mxy

09-23-2008, 01:08 PM

IDK if this has been brought up yet, but has anybody seen that poll about white democrats not voting for a black candidate, under any circumstance.
The impact appears to be roughly 6% in this case. Of course, had Hillary won, there'd be a certain % of sexist voters.

Obviously, they'd never admit it, but I heard somebody in the liberal media, I can't remember who, talk about how many people are going to just leave their ballot blank or vote McCain/Nader instead, simply because they don't want to see a black in office.
It's not clear that they'd "never admit it". There's a lot of folks who will admit to race being a factor in how they voted, as evidenced by primary exit polls in most relevant states, and by "robo"-polls where a computer asks questions.

Now, I wouldn't advocate that being a reason as to not vote for somebody, but for all the black people who will vote for BO strictly because he is black, I'd think it evens itself out...
As geerussell pointed out, blacks vote historically Democratic. The key isn't 90% vs. 95% of the black vote, but total turnout. Even with the elevated turnouts by the black community in many Dem primaries, overall the racial bias favored Hillary by a lot.

It doesn't take a lot of racial bias by the majority white to make a huge difference. A 6% racial bias against blacks by whites would be considered a huge race relations victory relative to generations past, but 6% may be enough to preclude a black president in anyone's lifetime (given how few presidential races are decided by >10%).

Fool

09-23-2008, 01:08 PM

Really? Were Bill Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry secret negroes? (If Obama can be a secret muslim I guess anything is possible) I'm just wondering because they all carried an absurdly high percentage of the black vote. Off the top of my head I'm going to say it was about 90%, plus or minus maybe five.

Those three guys are about as caucasian as it gets. Blacks vote consistently democratic because the republican party displays, at its best, a benign neglect toward the black community. Is the democratic party perfect? Hell no. However faced with only two alternatives, the party that acknowledges you is going to get your vote over the party that ignores you.

Knowing that history, it's offensive, condescending and suspect for someone to start talking now about blacks voting for Obama "just because he's black."

Agree with the overall point though. Not sure if 90% is right but I'm sure it was very high.

geerussell

09-23-2008, 01:10 PM

Aaron Sorkin writing a fictional exchange between Obama and Jed Bartlet. The money quote for me:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/opinion/21dowd-sorkin.html?_r=1&em&oref=slogin

The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it.

It's consistent with the Rove playbook. Academia is liberal and anti-american, therefore people with book-learnin' can't be trusted. That theme plays well in red zones.

geerussell

09-23-2008, 01:43 PM

As an aside on the Obama black vote/white vote thing, let's take party out of the equation and look at Hillary v Obama. Early in the primaries, Hillary was beating Obama in the polls among black voters. This didn't change until Obama actually won some primaries and established himself among white voters.

How quickly we forget all the punditry and media buzz from the early days of the primaries about whether Obama was "black enough" to carry the black vote. In fact, the most leftist fringe of the black blogosphere is still not sold on Obama and pushes the green party candidate.

IMO, the takeaway from this is that the black vote didn't knee-jerk line up behind Obama. He actually had to earn it by proving himself to be a credible candidate who could actually win a national election. He did this by rolling out a superior ground game and just plain outplaying Hillary state by state.

Glenn

09-23-2008, 03:36 PM

More surprising stuff from award-winning conservative columnist, George Will.

McCain Loses His Head

By George F. Will
Tuesday, September 23, 2008; A21

"The queen had only one way of settling all difficulties, great or small. 'Off with his head!' she said without even looking around."

-- "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland"

Under the pressure of the financial crisis, one presidential candidate is behaving like a flustered rookie playing in a league too high. It is not Barack Obama.

Channeling his inner Queen of Hearts, John McCain furiously, and apparently without even looking around at facts, said Chris Cox, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, should be decapitated. This childish reflex provoked the Wall Street Journal to editorialize that "McCain untethered" -- disconnected from knowledge and principle -- had made a "false and deeply unfair" attack on Cox that was "unpresidential" and demonstrated that McCain "doesn't understand what's happening on Wall Street any better than Barack Obama does."

To read the Journal's details about the depths of McCain's shallowness on the subject of Cox's chairmanship, see "McCain's Scapegoat" (Sept. 19). Then consider McCain's characteristic accusation that Cox "has betrayed the public's trust."

Perhaps an old antagonism is involved in McCain's fact-free slander. His most conspicuous economic adviser is Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who previously headed the Congressional Budget Office. There he was an impediment to conservatives, including then-Rep. Cox, who, as chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, persistently tried and generally failed to enlist CBO support for "dynamic scoring" that would estimate the economic growth effects of proposed tax cuts.

In any case, McCain's smear -- that Cox "betrayed the public's trust" -- is a harbinger of a McCain presidency. For McCain, politics is always operatic, pitting people who agree with him against those who are "corrupt" or "betray the public's trust," two categories that seem to be exhaustive -- there are no other people. McCain's Manichaean worldview drove him to his signature legislative achievement, the McCain-Feingold law's restrictions on campaigning. Today, his campaign is creatively finding interstices in laws intended to restrict campaign giving and spending. (For details, see The Post of Sept. 17; and the New York Times of Sept. 19.)

By a Gresham's Law of political discourse, McCain's Queen of Hearts intervention in the opaque financial crisis overshadowed a solid conservative complaint from the Republican Study Committee, chaired by Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas. In a letter to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, the RSC decried the improvised torrent of bailouts as a "dangerous and unmistakable precedent for the federal government both to be looked to and indeed relied upon to save private sector companies from the consequences of their poor economic decisions." This letter, listing just $650 billion of the perhaps more than $1 trillion in new federal exposures to risk, was sent while McCain's campaign, characteristically substituting vehemence for coherence, was airing an ad warning that Obama favors "massive government, billions in spending increases."

The political left always aims to expand the permeation of economic life by politics. Today, the efficient means to that end is government control of capital. So, is not McCain's party now conducting the most leftist administration in American history? The New Deal never acted so precipitously on such a scale. Treasury Secretary Paulson, asked about conservative complaints that his rescue program amounts to socialism, said, essentially: This is not socialism, this is necessary. That non sequitur might be politically necessary, but remember that government control of capital is government control of capitalism. Does McCain have qualms about this, or only quarrels?

On "60 Minutes" Sunday evening, McCain, saying "this may sound a little unusual," said that he would like to replace Cox with Andrew Cuomo, the Democratic attorney general of New York who is the son of former governor Mario Cuomo. McCain explained that Cuomo has "respect" and "prestige" and could "lend some bipartisanship." Conservatives have been warned.

Conservatives who insist that electing McCain is crucial usually start, and increasingly end, by saying he would make excellent judicial selections. But the more one sees of his impulsive, intensely personal reactions to people and events, the less confidence one has that he would select judges by calm reflection and clear principles, having neither patience nor aptitude for either.

It is arguable that, because of his inexperience, Obama is not ready for the presidency. It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency. Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost, by experience. Can a dismaying temperament be fixed?

georgewill@washpost.com

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/22/AR2008092202583.html?hpid%3Dopinionsbox1&sub=AR

geerussell

09-23-2008, 04:43 PM

More surprising stuff from award-winning conservative columnist, George Will.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/22/AR2008092202583.html?hpid%3Dopinionsbox1&sub=AR

There are only two legitimate responses to this:

A) Throw George Will under the bus as a pawn of the liberal media.

B) LOL

Wilfredo Ledezma

09-23-2008, 09:13 PM

Poll: Racial misgivings of whites an Obama issue

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93AIV882&show_article=1

WASHINGTON (AP) - Deep-seated racial misgivings could cost Barack Obama the White House if the election is close, according to an AP-Yahoo News poll that found one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks—many calling them "lazy," "violent" or responsible for their own troubles.

The poll, conducted with Stanford University, suggests that the percentage of voters who may turn away from Obama because of his race could easily be larger than the final difference between the candidates in 2004—about 2.5 percentage points.

Certainly, Republican John McCain has his own obstacles: He's an ally of an unpopular president and would be the nation's oldest first-term president. But Obama faces this: 40 percent of all white Americans hold at least a partly negative view toward blacks and that includes many Democrats and independents.

More than a third of all white Democrats and independents—voters Obama can't win the White House without—agreed with at least one negative adjective about blacks, according to the survey, and they are significantly less likely to vote for Obama than those who don't have such views.

There's some harsh reality for you. Again, I'm not an advocate of racism, but I'm surprised the issue hasn't been brought up more.

This isn't something you can blame Republicans for, this is an issue within your own party.

Glenn

09-23-2008, 09:26 PM

I've said all along that I don't think America is ready for a black President.

Nothing has changed my mind about that (yet).

Wilfredo Ledezma

09-23-2008, 10:19 PM

See, until I saw this poll, I never thought of it as a big deal.

Tahoe

09-23-2008, 10:22 PM

I've said all along that I don't think America is ready for a black President.

Nothing has changed my mind about that (yet).

Colin Powell would be elected with an overwhelming majority if it weren't for that Iraq war thing messing with his legacy.

Just because your candidate doesn't win, doesn't mean it was race.

Uncle Mxy

09-23-2008, 11:57 PM

Colin Powell never campaigned as a candidate. It's not clear that he'd have made the transition unscathed. In many respects, he'd have similar issues to Giuliani -- most famous for handling a particular crisis event, less traditional executive experience relative to most other candidates, pro-choice, pro-gun control.

If you conducted a similar poll asking for opinions on old people, I bet a third of the population would ascribe at least some negative traits to old farts. We're just more used to seeing older white farts cast as President. I agree that America isn't "ready" for a black president, but I'm hoping they will vote for one.

geerussell

09-24-2008, 12:11 AM

Poll: Racial misgivings of whites an Obama issue

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93AIV882&show_article=1

There's some harsh reality for you. Again, I'm not an advocate of racism, but I'm surprised the issue hasn't been brought up more.

This isn't something you can blame Republicans for, this is an issue within your own party.

From what you quoted:

40 percent of all white Americans hold at least a partly negative view toward blacks

Let me venture to speculate that the group "all white Americans" includes republicans, democrats and independents.

Big Swami

09-24-2008, 07:41 AM

MoTown

09-24-2008, 08:43 AM

So can we just change that to 99% of people have negative views towards people?

Fool

09-24-2008, 09:23 AM

I like people. Just not Minnesotans. They lie. And eat your heart while it's still beating.

MoTown

09-24-2008, 09:28 AM

Minnesotans aren't people.

Apples to apples, Fool.

Big Swami

09-24-2008, 10:30 AM

Uncle Mxy

09-24-2008, 10:32 AM

Here's the English translation of a Dutch article about someone writing fake endorsement letters to various newspapers as part of a coordinated effort by the McCain campaign:

http://archive.salon.com/news/primary_sources/2008/09/24/mccain_letters/index.html

Yes, it's Salon, but it's simply an English translation of something printed in legitimate Dutch press.

Uncle Mxy

09-24-2008, 10:35 AM

I think we can all agree that no matter who is elected President, something must be done about grown men and women who dress up as Japanese cartoon characters. It is one of the most embarrassing problems our society faces.
Big Swami for Secretary Of Style!
At long last, our national nightmare is over!
We will crush the otaku menace!

Tahoe

09-24-2008, 01:20 PM

I don't think the white people in that poll answered honestly.

If they had answered honestly, it would have turned out that 99% of white people had negative views about black people. And 99% of white people also have negative views of Latinos. And 99% of white people also have negative views of Arabs. And 99% of white people also have negative views of Asians.

And 99% of white people also have negative views of white people.

Prolly true. Blacks answer those questions honestly. They pretty much say what they feel, imo. I do think that whites can't say the same things without retribution or whatever thats called. I mean think about it, Joe Biden and Bush both got in trouble for saying BO was a good looking man or something.

I don't know, just a thought.

Wilfredo Ledezma

09-24-2008, 01:43 PM

But could his race REALLY be the difference of him winning and losing?

There's no way it could be that big of an issue to determine an outcome, IMO.

Plus, all the states that are generally perceived to be have stereotypical racism (Louisiana, Miss, Bama, Fla, Ga), are generally red states anyway...

Right?

WTFchris

09-24-2008, 01:44 PM

well, if Obama loses Michigan or Ohio (where McCain has it pretty close) he'll need to steal VA or GA.

Fool

09-24-2008, 03:02 PM

I've heard the estimate of the ... Bradley effect (how much racism changes an election) is 6%. That's a ton in almost any Presidential election.

xanadu

09-24-2008, 03:52 PM

I think that if there are any states for which it is a positive to be black, it is (almost paradoxically) n. carolina and virginia. Both these states have high african american pops ~20%, relatively young populations, and very polarized dem-repub white populations. It is necessary to maximize black turnout to really get an advantage, but blacks are less poor than in other southern states. In addition, a large number of white liberals in the 2 states are either college students, govt. employees or sceintists who are less likely to vote against. Interestingly, nc has a 55-45 advantage in dem to repub registration, yet almost always votes repub for senate and pres. if there is record turnout for this election, i wouldn't underestimate obama's chances to win these states. Of course, the white resentment vote will be huge for mccain in these states. if tennessee, kentucky, and west virginia were to annex the Appalachian areas of VA, NC, OH, PA, this election would already be over.

Wilfredo Ledezma

09-24-2008, 04:19 PM

interesting, see what i always thought, was by obama beating hillary, to me, already showed that racism wouldn't be a problem

xanadu

09-24-2008, 06:01 PM

off the top of my head, i would guess the racial composition of voting is something like:

dem primary
45% white
25% black
30% latino

presidential election
65% white
10% black
25% latino

Thus, the ratio of black to white voters is much higher in the dem primary than the country at large. Considering that a lot of southerners switched from dem to repub after the desegregation, I would assume there tend to be more racially motivated white repub voters than white dem voters, although they exist in both parties. It is just that racially motivated white dems are offset by black dems. There is no such offset for the nation as a whole.

Big Swami

09-24-2008, 08:48 PM

Is there a figure out there for the percentage of voters who start lots of sentences with "I don't want to seem racist, but..."

Tahoe

09-24-2008, 09:24 PM

I'm a Charles Krauthammer fan and heres partly why....and you know I'll fuck up the quote anyway, but when discussing JM and BO's positions on the economy, it was something like...."JM stands up and shouts and yells as loud as he can 'OK, Everyone remain calm"

Isn't that funny?

He is NOT a huge JM fan, iyhftoy.

Fool

09-24-2008, 09:32 PM

I like Krauthammer too. He's one of the guys I seek out to hear his opinion on things like candidate speeches and Presidential addresses.I wish he got more time on FOX, that's not a slam on FOX, MSNBC wouldn't give the guy more time either as he speaks with depth and doesn't just search for the next slam or zinger. CNN might but Blitzer would look like an idiot trying to ask follow up questions to his thoughts.

Tahoe

09-24-2008, 09:39 PM

I agree. He's a conservative that is quickly able to seperate Republicans from Conservatives, imo.

But there is a lot more to him than that lil bit I wrote, thats for sure.

Uncle Mxy

09-24-2008, 10:35 PM

JOHN McCAIN HAS JUMPED THE SHARK!!

http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/timeout.jpg

Wilfredo Ledezma

09-24-2008, 10:42 PM

Uncle Mxy

09-24-2008, 11:12 PM

The immediate reaction to McCain suspending his campaign and postponing debates isn't positive -- not at all:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportUC.aspx?g=54d651a7-a62b-4420-bb32-9dd6b2df8c02

I'm thinking history will write this as an EPIC FAIL.

We'll see in a few weeks.

Uncle Mxy

09-24-2008, 11:40 PM

On a Michigan note, it appears that they're firing the Wright ads up:

Cx7GU3RiEPo

Fool

09-25-2008, 12:51 AM

FOX has an internet poll that is something like 90-10 with people buying that it wasn't a political stunt. People are dumb.

Tahoe

09-25-2008, 12:54 AM

AMERICA FIRST!

Uncle Mxy

09-25-2008, 01:04 AM

FOX has an internet poll that is something like 90-10 with people buying that it wasn't a political stunt. People are dumb.
Most Internet polls are dumb.

On an unrelated note, this bit about McCain and automotive lobbyists is interesting:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/23/mccain-aides-earned-nearl_n_128674.html?show_comment_id=16014645

xanadu

09-25-2008, 02:46 AM

Vbg6hF0nShQ

cliffnotes: rick davis recused himself, recused, rail against lobbyists (except the ones they themselves hired or work for their campaign), maverick, depression, maverick, bipartisan, track record, leadership, maverick, reform, the maverick, (extraneous mba-type speak)... i'll try and find you some and bring em to ya

No wonder these clowns don't want debates.

mccain sure is a maverick... what an awesome interview

palin hot - obama stupid

Wilfredo Ledezma

09-25-2008, 08:58 AM

Rick Davis hasn't seen a dime since 2006

No equity, no salary, no stock, nothing.

DrRay11

09-25-2008, 09:01 AM

AMERICA FIRST!

It's important for AMERICA to decide on their next president.

xanadu

09-25-2008, 09:04 AM

Rick Davis hasn't seen a dime since 2006

No equity, no salary, no stock, nothing.

If you believe that, i've got a bridge in alaska that i'm looking to sell. I'll give you a deal.

Glenn

09-25-2008, 09:04 AM

If you believe that, i've got a bridge in alaska that i'm looking to sell. I'll give you a deal.

Thanks, but no thanks.

Uncle Mxy

09-25-2008, 09:12 AM

Rick Davis hasn't seen a dime since 2006

No equity, no salary, no stock, nothing.

That's false. The firm goes up in value because of the money being funneled to it. Davis is co-owner of the firm. Even if he hasn't taken money from the firm with his name at the front since 2006, the firm grows in value and he can capitalize on that in various ways. I've been part of a similar business venture. I threw some money into it, didn't see a dime for six years or have day-to-day involvement, then got a solid return on my investment when it was sold. I don't think Bill Davidson has paid himself anything from PS&E, but its worth has gone up so if'n'when he sells it, he can get more.

EDIT: Here's the 2008 corporation forms showing him as a director, officer, treasurer, and clerk of the business, straight from the Virginia Secretary of State.

http://scc-internet.scc.state.va.us/corporate/imaging/9799267.pdf

xanadu

09-25-2008, 09:35 AM

perhaps this should go in lol at palin, but the written transcript is even more brutal than trying to watch the video. at least biden speaks in complete sentences when he says stupid shit.

my comments in red

Sarah Palin: My understanding is that Rick Davis recused himself from the dealings of the firm. I don't know how long ago, a year or two ago that he's not benefiting from that. And you know, I was - I would hope that's not the case.

Katie Couric: But he still has a stake in the company so isn't that a conflict of interest?

Palin: Again, my understanding is that he recused himself from the dealings with Freddie and Fannie, any lobbying efforts on his part there. And I would hope that's the case because, as John McCain has been saying, and as I've on a much more local level been also rallying against is the undue influence of lobbyists in public policy decisions being made.

Was that before or after you hired a lobbyist for Wasilla. How many 9,000 towns have federal lobbyists?

Next, Couric asked about the $700 billion government bailout of bad debt - and whether she supports it.

Palin: I'm all about the position that America is in what the fuck does that mean? and that we have to look at a $700 billion bailout. And as Sen. McCain has said unless this nearly trillion dollar bailout is what it may end up to be wtf?, unless there are amendments in Paulson's proposal, really I don't believe that Americans are going to support this and we will not support this. The interesting thing in the last couple of days that I have seen is that Americans are waiting to see what John McCain will do on this proposal. They're not waiting to see what Barack Obama is going to do. Is he going to do this and see what way the political wind's blowing? They're waiting to see if John McCain will be able to see these amendments implemented in Paulson's proposal. they're waiting to see if jm will be able to see?

Couric: Why do you say that? Why are they waiting for John McCain and not Barack Obama?

Palin: He's got the track record of the leadership qualities and the pragmatism that's needed at a crisis time like this.

Couric: But polls have shown that Sen. Obama has actually gotten a boost as a result of this latest crisis, with more people feeling that he can handle the situation better than John McCain.

Palin: I'm not looking at poll numbers. What I think Americans at the end of the day are going to be able to go back and look at track records and see who's more apt to be talking about solutions and wishing for and hoping for solutions for some opportunity to change, and who's actually done it?

Couric: If this doesn't pass, do you think there's a risk of another Great Depression?

Palin: Unfortunately, that is the road that America may find itself on. Not necessarily this, as it's been proposed, has to pass or we're going to find ourselves in another Great Depression. But, there has got to be action - bipartisan effort - Congress not pointing fingers at one another but finding the solution to this, taking action, and being serious about the reforms on Wall Street that are needed. what was that you were saying about 'talking about change' 'hoping for change'

Couric: Would you support a moratorium on foreclosures to help average Americans keep their homes?

Palin: That's something that John McCain and I have both been discussing - whether that ... is part of the solution or not. You know, it's going to be a multi-faceted solution that has to be found here. How is this not a yes/no question or at least yes if or no unless?

Couric: So you haven't decided whether you'll support it or not?

Palin: I have not.

Couric: What are the pros and cons of it do you think?

Palin: Oh, well, some decisions that have been made poorly should not be rewarded, of course.

Couric: By consumers, you're saying?

Palin: Consumers - and those who were predator lenders also. i really wish there was a follow-up about how a forclosure moratorium would reward predatory lendersThat's, you know, that has to be considered also. But again, it's got to be a comprehensive, long-term solution found ... for this problem that America is facing today. As I say, we are getting into crisis mode here. so it has to be a comprehensive, long term moratorium? that's a relief. i thought it was one of those short term moratoriums that would end with a recovering economy. if i had a home, i could just paying for it.

Couric: You've said, quote, "John McCain will reform the way Wall Street does business." Other than supporting stricter regulations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years ago, can you give us any more example of his leading the charge for more oversight?

Palin: I think that the example that you just cited, with his warnings two years ago about Fannie and Freddie - that, that's paramount. That's more than a heck of a lot of other senators and representatives did for us.

Couric: But he's been in Congress for 26 years. He's been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation, not more.

Palin: He's also known as the maverick though, taking shots from his own party, and certainly taking shots from the other party. Trying to get people to understand what he's been talking about - the need to reform government. So he's maverick because he'll suddenly embrace regulation after years of railing against it. maverick is the new political expediency

Couric: But can you give me any other concrete examples? Because I know you've said Barack Obama is a lot of talk and no action. Can you give me any other examples in his 26 years of John McCain truly taking a stand on this?

Palin: I can give you examples of things that John McCain has done, that has shown his foresight, his pragmatism, and his leadership abilities. And that is what America needs today.

Couric: I'm just going to ask you one more time - not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation.

Palin: I'll try to find you some and I'll bring them to you. if i wanted to bring some examples of oversight to someone, how would i go about that? where would i find them? do they have handles?

Uncle Mxy

09-25-2008, 10:07 AM

http://thepage.time.com/sarah-silverman-video/

Glenn

09-25-2008, 04:30 PM

New ad:

sJ30Nxm2BOY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJ30Nxm2BOY

Uncle Mxy

09-25-2008, 07:38 PM

McCain healthcare tax:

http://blog.thehill.com/2008/09/16/mccain-secretly-plans-new-tax-on-middle-class/

geerussell

09-25-2008, 11:01 PM

I've said all along that I don't think America is ready for a black President.

Nothing has changed my mind about that (yet).
There are some folks in oregon who definitely aren't ready. (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hlnR7kQP7tXQKA0872BAweYKqPFQD93DC6PO0)

NEWBERG, Ore. (AP) — Officials of a small Christian university say a life-size cardboard reproduction of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was hung from a tree on the campus, an act with racial undertones that outraged students and school leaders alike.

George Fox University President Robin Baker said a custodian discovered the effigy early Tuesday and removed it. University spokesman Rob Felton said Wednesday that the commercially produced reproduction had been suspended from the branch of a tree with fishing line around the neck.

Taped to the cardboard cutout of the black senator from Illinois was a message targeting participants in Act Six, a scholarship program geared toward increasing the number of minority and low-income students at several Christian colleges, mostly in the Northwest.
The message read, "Act Six reject."

Tahoe

09-25-2008, 11:03 PM

BTW... I was called out, singled out for not posting WHY I was going to vote for JM somewhere.

Where have any of y'all posted exactly why y'all are going to vote for BO?

DennyMcLain

09-26-2008, 01:52 AM

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- Sen. Chris Dodd, the top Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee, said Thursday that bipartisan meeting with President Bush at the White House on the mortgage rescue plan was nothing short of a disaster. In an interview on the CNN cable news network, Dodd described a meeting in which Democrats were blindsided by a new core mortgage proposal from House Republicans, with the tacit backing of Republican presidential candidate John McCain. "I am not going to sign on to something I just saw this afternoon," he said. Dodd said Republicans and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson had to decide what they wanted to support. The whole meeting "looked like a rescue plan for John McCain," Dodd said. He said he was simply going to pretend that the meeting had never happened

Nice.

Uncle Mxy

09-26-2008, 10:25 AM

BTW, the reason it's called the "tacit" backing of McCain was because McCain rarely spoke -- he was there for the photo-op and gamesmanship. Neither the Democrats nor Republicans knew what he actually was thinking about things. It was Obama who was doing the bipartisan leadership thing trying to work out a deal while McCain was, quite literally, stonewalling.

The difference is McCain:

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=186055

e6L2j7Awphc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6L2j7Awphc

Uncle Mxy

09-26-2008, 11:33 AM

On another note, Bill Clinton has been doing pretty pathetic endorsements for Obama since his DNC speech, while defending McCain. He's about as helpful to Obama as he was to Hillary. Chris Rock called him out on it awhile back:

nsep_xcWOQ8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsep_xcWOQ8

Tahoe

09-26-2008, 01:02 PM

I saw BIll agreeing with me. :) How can you say JM is afaid to debate BO when he asked for town halls across the country?

Uncle Mxy

09-26-2008, 01:09 PM

Tahoe

09-26-2008, 01:20 PM

He wanted town halls with questions from the audience, not questions from a reporter who knows how to ask questions and intelligent follow-up questions.

McCain's not afraid of Obama. McCain's afraid of Jim Lehrer. And since he tried to tie up VP debate schedules, he's REALLY afraid of Palin being exposed more.

You are an Elite media supporter.

I don't think JM is afraid of anyone really. You can say he's too cocky or stupid to be afraid, but fear of an interview just makes zero sense to me.

Wilfredo Ledezma

09-26-2008, 02:25 PM

I think JM is just a mediocre interviewer, nothing against him really.

Never hindered W from being elected twice.

Uncle Mxy

09-26-2008, 02:37 PM

Big Swami

09-26-2008, 04:29 PM

If liking Jim Lehrer makes me an elitist then I'm a proud elitist. He's one of the most sincerely awesome people in the media.

Big Swami

09-26-2008, 04:52 PM

BTW... I was called out, singled out for not posting WHY I was going to vote for JM somewhere.

Where have any of y'all posted exactly why y'all are going to vote for BO?
1) I think Barack Obama is a genuinely wise person who sees problems in many different ways
2) Barack Obama talks to people as if they were adults capable of understanding the nuances of politics
3) Barack Obama is young and can bring a fresh perspective to politics
4) Barack Obama is the real "maverick" in this race - he barely won nomination over an old-guard opponent who was widely favored by insiders
5) Barack Obama's spiritual dimension is one I understand and appreciate
6) Barack Obama is not a Republican and has no connection with the last 8 years of Republican administration, which I think have been a nearly unmitigated disaster
7) Barack Obama believes global warming is real and a serious threat to world stability
8) Barack Obama is able to express the Democratic Party's platform as a single, coherent philosophy instead of a list of single-issue demands; that philosophy is "we do not leave people on their own to suffer without help."
9) Voting for Barack Obama pisses racists off
10) Our modern era of a global economy, Internet connectivity, mobile devices, and powerful computers doesn't really have a place for "let the marketplace decide" anymore. Markets can be swiftly and comprehensively managed. There's no reason to believe, and there has never been a reason to believe, that "the market" is a wise and successful decision-maker, and this belief has become akin to a belief in UFOs or healing crystals in my eyes.

Wilfredo Ledezma

09-26-2008, 05:51 PM

Good stuff, Swami...

Top Ten reasons I'm voting for McCain

1) Economic inequality is a good thing. Just because one earn's more, doesn't mean they need to be taxed more.

2) Pro-Life- Murder, enough said.

3) Cut Taxes (I'm not convinced BO will do the same, he's had 94 chances to do so in the senate, and 94 times he didn't, talk is cheap, his track record suggests he's lying)

4) Experience- say what you want, JM's resume' puts Obama's to shame.

5) Sarah Palin- As much as the media has tried to completely smear and destroy her, she's held strong. She's a true conservative with a clean background, A+ personality, and nobody on the ticket from either party can relate to the common American citizen like she can.

6) Obama's baggage- Rev. Wright, chronies w/ Franklin Raines, Chris Dodd & the pompous bastard Barney Frank, is he Muslim?, lawyer for ACORN, brother living in a shack...

7) McCain isn't Bush- BO wants me to think he is, but he's not fooling anybody

8) Opposed stem-cell- destruction of an embryo is the destruction of human life.

9) Because in the short time I've been eligible to vote, I've seen two prominent Democrats, Granholm & Kilpatrick, fail miserably at their jobs.
I saw our last Democratic Presdient, Clinton, lie under oath, commit adultrey, and destroy the integrity of what a President should be. He embarassed the country and the Oval Office. I don't consdier W to be a 'failure', but rather the better of two evils. Can you imagine Kerry was in office right now?? He wouldn't have a fucking clue.

10) Global warming nonsense- I don't buy into it. In the winter it still snows (a lot), and in the summer it's still warm. Al Gore can take his Nobel and shove it up his ass.

Bonus Reason: Because no matter who wins, a recession is likely coming, and personally, I'd feel much more comfortable having a person who's had more political experience than a guy who's been a jr. senator for 143 days.

With BO I'll be paying more of my paycheck to the government, and never see a cent of it again. Liberals want to control the working mans finances and get an undeserved piece of the pie too.

Conservatives are just happier people.

DrRay11

09-26-2008, 06:06 PM

10) Global warming nonsense- I don't buy into it. In the winter it still snows (a lot), and in the summer it's still warm. Al Gore can take his Nobel and shove it up his ass.

Conservatives are just happier people.

LOL, completely fabricated.

Uncle Mxy

09-26-2008, 06:29 PM

Just quibbling on a factual point.

3) Cut Taxes (I'm not convinced BO will do the same, he's had 94 chances to do so in the senate, and 94 times he didn't, talk is cheap, his track record suggests he's lying)
The "94 chances to do so" is mostly nonsense:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/tax_tally_trickery.html

Depending on how you parse "senate", he's had far more opportunities and done some things. He wrote bills in the Illinois state senate making low/middle income tax cuts permanent.

Draw whatever conclusions you like, but have the facts.

Tahoe

09-26-2008, 06:30 PM

Jim Lehrer gets the nod for the debates by NOT being "elite media" and being scrupulously neutral. Keep in mind that he could have easily defected for the bigger bucks on any number of occasions, but never has.

But thinking about it -- you're right in a way. I don't think it's Jim Lehrer that he's afraid of nearly so much as the American people, and having to answer for decisions that he knows to be "politics first" more than "country first".

I was not quite making my point clear on that elite media thing. My brother keeps beating the Jim Lehrer drum. He is very left but thinks Olby is just weird. He loves the news on PBS and I used to watch that all the time too when McNeil was with him. He booted McNiel out, IF you believe some of the reports back then. But, Yes, I agree that Lehrer and Hume are about as good as it gets.

Tahoe

09-26-2008, 06:34 PM

1) I think Barack Obama is a genuinely wise person who sees problems in many different ways
2) Barack Obama talks to people as if they were adults capable of understanding the nuances of politics
3) Barack Obama is young and can bring a fresh perspective to politics
4) Barack Obama is the real "maverick" in this race - he barely won nomination over an old-guard opponent who was widely favored by insiders
5) Barack Obama's spiritual dimension is one I understand and appreciate
6) Barack Obama is not a Republican and has no connection with the last 8 years of Republican administration, which I think have been a nearly unmitigated disaster
7) Barack Obama believes global warming is real and a serious threat to world stability
8) Barack Obama is able to express the Democratic Party's platform as a single, coherent philosophy instead of a list of single-issue demands; that philosophy is "we do not leave people on their own to suffer without help."
9) Voting for Barack Obama pisses racists off
10) Our modern era of a global economy, Internet connectivity, mobile devices, and powerful computers doesn't really have a place for "let the marketplace decide" anymore. Markets can be swiftly and comprehensively managed. There's no reason to believe, and there has never been a reason to believe, that "the market" is a wise and successful decision-maker, and this belief has become akin to a belief in UFOs or healing crystals in my eyes.

Thank you.

You are the first person to do this on the board. afaict anyway.

I was called out for my support of JM (however reluctant it may be) for being a knee jerk reaction, cuz I hadn't spelled it out.

Wilfredo Ledezma

09-26-2008, 11:07 PM

LOL, completely fabricated.

Actually, scientific research has proven conservatives are generally happier than liberals.

http://www.livescience.com/health/080507-liberal-conservative.html

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/conservatives-are-happier-than-liberals-discuss/

Regardless of marital status, income or church attendance, right-wing individuals reported greater life satisfaction and well-being than left-wingers, the new study found. Conservatives also scored highest on measures of rationalization, which gauge a person's tendency to justify, or explain away, inequalities.

Just sayin', perhaps a bit stereotypical, but not entirely fabricated.

UxKa

09-26-2008, 11:17 PM

^^ That's because they are happy about the Bush era, and can rationalize it to themselves and others. Liberals know Bush sucks, and therefore are less happy.

Fool

09-27-2008, 01:04 AM

By definition Conservatives are happier with the world than Liberals. That's why their name defining aim is to conserve the current state of things.

Wilfredo Ledezma

09-27-2008, 09:20 AM

^^ That's because they are happy about the Bush era, and can rationalize it to themselves and others. Liberals know Bush sucks, and therefore are less happy.

I think Bush sucks, but put it this way...

Bush is doing a better job than Kerry would've done.

Is that rationalizing?

Black Dynamite

09-27-2008, 10:01 AM

I think Bush sucks, but put it this way...

Bush is doing a better job than Kerry would've done.

Is that rationalizing?
Yes it is.

Uncle Mxy

09-27-2008, 05:49 PM

Any resemblance to politics is purely intentional.
k3HaRFBSq9k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3HaRFBSq9k

Big Swami

09-28-2008, 12:46 AM

And I'll say a few additional things too, so that I'm as clear as I can be.

* There are a lot of things wrong with this country, but they're not solved by electing the right douchebag, passing a new law, or fixing some broken system. The problems with this country are mostly mental and spiritual, and I don't fool myself that electing a President is going to change any of that.

* No matter who loses in November, we all win. I don't think McCain would be a "bad" President, necessarily. I think Bush was, though, and I think Palin would be, but I know there's a pretty big difference between McCain and Bush in terms of competency. If McCain gets elected somehow, I'll still be relieved. If I'm being honest, I'm pretty sure McCain wouldn't have let something like Iraq or New Orleans happen if he had anything to say about it.

* Like I said, I believe Bush was a bad President, but it's not that that's completely turned me off to Republicans. What's turned me off is that even though he has been pretty bad, the Republicans in Congress just happily went along with his entire agenda with very little questioning or curiosity. All Bush needed to do was to say he would like something, and Congress did it. Loyalty is only a good thing when the person you're being loyal to has earned it; if your loyalty overrides common sense, that's not a sign of good character.

* The Republican party has shown itself to be, over the last few years, to be a party where there are several distinct movements, each with its own very selfish agenda. Any Republican who gets to high office is going to have to make peace with each of these separate movements, and I think it would be at the expense of good governing. And the funny thing is, that's exactly what people used to say about the Democrats - it was just a big tent filled with feminists, civil-rights activists, leftist economists, etc., each with its own agenda and not really getting along with each other. But I think that's changed over the last few years, and I think the blogs have had a lot to do with that. The Democrats have somehow discovered their unity.

* So if I'm so realistic about the differences between the parties, why am I going to vote for Obama? There are two reasons here. The first is that I think the Democrats have a very good candidate this time around, someone who can actually transcend politics and be a good all-around leader. Second, I think it's time for everyone to come to terms with how bad things have been run for the last 8 years, and it would be nice if we started that process decisively. You know, just put it all behind us and start fresh. The whole "McCain is old" thing never really bothered me (until he chose Palin as his running mate), and the whole "first black President" thing doesn't really excite me - if all you've got to say about Barack Obama is that he's black, you might not be awake enough to participate in an election.

xanadu

09-28-2008, 02:29 AM

Thank you.

You are the first person to do this on the board. afaict anyway.

I was called out for my support of JM (however reluctant it may be) for being a knee jerk reaction, cuz I hadn't spelled it out.

Really??? mxy, glenn, and others haven't posted why they want obama to win. Is this a joke? in your mind, no one has said that they prefer obama's tax plan, stance on iraq, health care proposals? no one? do you even recall when people posted info on both of their tax proposals, but you just decided that you liked mccain better because you assumed obama would raise everyone's taxes anyways.

The only argument that you give for supporting the repubs on their role in the financial crisis is that dems didn't protest enough. i agree that congressional dems have been spineless in standing up to bushco, but they didn't make up the shitty policies in the first place. at the state level, there were many attempts to stop the stupid lending practices, but bush used his bullshit doj to stop them.

i don't have any pollyanna ideas that dems are the saviors of the country or even that they are not in the pocket of corporate america. nonetheless, bushco seems hellbent on discarding any semblance of our justice system, oversight for wall street, food or drugs, the military, or even just a semi-rational foreign policy in general. How much worse must the country get before you concede bush has done more than just 'make some mistakes, like all presidents'? You act as if it is an anomaly that bush is not liked or even respected; however, the asshole has like a 20% approval rating. i know that congress also has a low approval rating, but the numbers of individual are consistently much higher. It is just the body as a whole that has low ratings, partly because they have just passed whatever bush gave them plus kickbacks for special interests for 6 years followed by years 7-8 in which little was accomplished, partly because bush would have vetoed what dems wanted anyways.

when i hear obama prattle on about how important it is for ukraine and georgia to join NATO, i find it infuriating, but he still has a more reasonable stance than mr. bomb bomb iran. hell, obama's initial statement about georgia/russia was right. saakashvilli was an idiot to attack the rebel strongholds. i read that bush/rice repeatedly warned him not to shake up that hornet's nest, but he couldn't help himself. in fact, he has been a shitty leader outside of his support of the west. he is known for corruption and likely went after the rebels to shore up his domestic support.

Uncle Mxy

09-28-2008, 08:30 AM

when i hear obama prattle on about how important it is for ukraine and georgia to join NATO, i find it infuriating, but he still has a more reasonable stance than mr. bomb bomb iran. hell, obama's initial statement about georgia/russia was right. saakashvilli was an idiot to attack the rebel strongholds. i read that bush/rice repeatedly warned him not to shake up that hornet's nest, but he couldn't help himself.
The problem is that the old hands in the main stream media are hell bent on wanting to replay the Cold War. As a result, Obama's been focusing on Russia exclusively since the initial "fair and balanced" statements. In retrospect, Obama picked a bad time to take a few days off to recharge his batteries (though the logic of the Olympics being a good time to do that usually works). If it had been a month or two earlier, he could've had a Senate Subcommittee meeting on some non-controversial aspect of Georgia.

in fact, he has been a shitty leader outside of his support of the west. he is known for corruption and likely went after the rebels to shore up his domestic support.
We are all Georgians.

Uncle Mxy

09-28-2008, 08:55 AM

Rick Davis hasn't seen a dime since 2006

No equity, no salary, no stock, nothing.
You still sticking to this statement?

http://www.newsweek.com/id/161218/output/print

Tahoe

09-28-2008, 01:17 PM

Really??? mxy, glenn, and others haven't posted why they want obama to win. Is this a joke? in your mind, no one has said that they prefer obama's tax plan, stance on iraq, health care proposals? no one? do you even recall when people posted info on both of their tax proposals, but you just decided that you liked mccain better because you assumed obama would raise everyone's taxes anyways.

The only argument that you give for supporting the repubs on their role in the financial crisis is that dems didn't protest enough. i agree that congressional dems have been spineless in standing up to bushco, but they didn't make up the shitty policies in the first place. at the state level, there were many attempts to stop the stupid lending practices, but bush used his bullshit doj to stop them.

i don't have any pollyanna ideas that dems are the saviors of the country or even that they are not in the pocket of corporate america. nonetheless, bushco seems hellbent on discarding any semblance of our justice system, oversight for wall street, food or drugs, the military, or even just a semi-rational foreign policy in general. How much worse must the country get before you concede bush has done more than just 'make some mistakes, like all presidents'? You act as if it is an anomaly that bush is not liked or even respected; however, the asshole has like a 20% approval rating. i know that congress also has a low approval rating, but the numbers of individual are consistently much higher. It is just the body as a whole that has low ratings, partly because they have just passed whatever bush gave them plus kickbacks for special interests for 6 years followed by years 7-8 in which little was accomplished, partly because bush would have vetoed what dems wanted anyways.

when i hear obama prattle on about how important it is for ukraine and georgia to join NATO, i find it infuriating, but he still has a more reasonable stance than mr. bomb bomb iran. hell, obama's initial statement about georgia/russia was right. saakashvilli was an idiot to attack the rebel strongholds. i read that bush/rice repeatedly warned him not to shake up that hornet's nest, but he couldn't help himself. in fact, he has been a shitty leader outside of his support of the west. he is known for corruption and likely went after the rebels to shore up his domestic support.

Link?

DrRay11

09-28-2008, 02:06 PM

By definition Conservatives are happier with the world than Liberals. That's why their name defining aim is to conserve the current state of things.

Yeah, I was shooting more for the global warming bit. It's almost equivalent to the belief that one plus one equals three...

xanadu

09-28-2008, 03:55 PM

Link?

What are you the guy from Memento? You know you are lying, but force others to dig up posts and prove it.

myself:

in fact, the obama's proposed budge is much closer balanced than mccain's even with the health care plan. mccain just chooses to give a HUGE tax break to rich people as if trickle down economics has not proven to be a huge fantasy.

Quote:

The discussion coincided with TPC’s release of an updated analysis of the candidates’ tax plans. The new report concludes that both will significantly increase the deficit over the next decade. Including interest costs, Obama would do so by $3.4 trillion, while McCain would raise the deficit by $5 trillion. The Obama plan would cut taxes for most people, but raise levies significantly on the very wealthy. McCain, but contrast, would cut taxes for nearly everyone, but provide by far the biggest reductions for those making the most money.

in regard to foreign policy, mccain seems to want to fight every war. he mocks negotiations with iran the same way people mocked reagan for negotiations with the USSR. look at his foreign policy team, it is chock full of disgraced neocons that were tossed out of the bush admin.

http://www.wtfdetroit.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13095&page=17&highlight=plan #162

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.

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.

http://www.wtfdetroit.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12428&page=72

from posted article

The second criticism is that Obama’s tax increases would send an already-weak economy into a tailspin. The problem with this argument 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.

http://www.wtfdetroit.com/forums/showthread.php?p=270807&highlight=income#post270807

Tahoe

09-28-2008, 05:04 PM

WTF are those links too?

I didn't see any posts saying 'these are my reasons for voting for X' like I was called out for.

And, dude, wtf are you 'WASTING' your time on me for? I'm not going to change my vote. I was prolly voting when you weren't even born yet. I'll go through my process based on my life experiences, you go through yours.

Tahoe

09-28-2008, 05:12 PM

Plus I live in CA. It won't go JM so my vote won't mean fuck'all.

xanadu

09-28-2008, 06:34 PM

Tahoe

09-28-2008, 06:44 PM

Those are links are to clear articulations of why people prefer obama's plan(s). they respond to your claim that no one has given any concrete reasons for preferring obama. Those are the first ones that popped up under the search i used. i am sure there are moe. all give reasons for voting for obama. mine even provides a link to a non-partisan tax policy center. there is no reason for me to think i could change your vote, but i don't like to see duplicitous statements go unchallenged on public message boards that might influence others or be used to propogate stupid assertions. at some point, it is jousting at windmills, but when i have a few spare minutes, i'll take the time to write posts.

Yea, I don't know what that means.

Anyway back to the topic...If thats the standard for giving reasons why a poster wants to vote one way or the other, I've done that. Why didn't you stand up for me? Why didn't you go find the threads that I said reasons that I feel like voting for the most conservative candidate this year when I was called out for it?

Not that I really wanted you to do that, but it just shows your double standard.

BTW....there is not many undecideds here.

And if you are checking statements that might influence peeps, then you are seriously laughable if all you find is my statements. I could go through a large % in this forum and find statements that make assumptions that just aren't true. They are personal opinions and not fact.

So either do it for everyone or go fuck yourself. Your call.

xanadu

09-28-2008, 06:44 PM

The problem is that the old hands in the main stream media are hell bent on wanting to replay the Cold War. As a result, Obama's been focusing on Russia exclusively since the initial "fair and balanced" statements. In retrospect, Obama picked a bad time to take a few days off to recharge his batteries (though the logic of the Olympics being a good time to do that usually works). If it had been a month or two earlier, he could've had a Senate Subcommittee meeting on some non-controversial aspect of Georgia.

We are all Georgians.

I find it frustrating that the dominant media theme is that russia was unprovoked and that saakashivilli is some kind of hero. biden is also guilty of lionizing the guy to an extent. He made a dumb, politically motivated decision and his people paid the price. russia took disproportionate action in response, but a sane georgian president would never have provoked russia in the first place. It is also dumb to say that ukraine and georgia should be admitted to NATO, but that you don't want another cold war in the next breath. it is an either/or decision. there are substantial russian minorities in both countries and complete abandonment of russian influence is impossible. Both should be made neutral entities at best, but the opportunity cost of our present bellicosity is not in line with the potential benefits of nuclear non-proliferation. obama's initial statement was a far more realist and fair interpretation of events, but the media thinks it necessary to felate the candidate who sounds tougher regardless of the reality of the situation and it makes me sick. i said that the economic fallout for russian interests would be far more of an impediment than any moronic statements from mccain and i was right.

xanadu

09-28-2008, 07:06 PM

Yea, I don't know what that means.

Anyway back to the topic...If thats the standard for giving reasons why a poster wants to vote one way or the other, I've done that. Why didn't you stand up for me? Why didn't you go find the threads that I said reasons that I feel like voting for the most conservative candidate this year when I was called out for it?

Not that I really wanted you to do that, but it just shows your double standard.

BTW....there is not many undecideds here.

And if you are checking statements that might influence peeps, then you are seriously laughable if all you find is my statements. I could go through a large % in this forum and find statements that make assumptions that just aren't true. They are personal opinions and not fact.

So either do it for everyone or go fuck yourself. Your call.

i don't read everything you post. when you argue with me, you rarely back up statements with reasons other than 'lol, obama is too liberal, i don't believe obama will cut taxes for some, 'i trust john mccain to follow through with his tax cuts'. those are truthiness statement devoid of logical thought or back-up data. We just had a disagreement on the financial crisis in which I posted specific examples of legislation and decisions that contributed and your argument was just that it was barney frank's fault and that he did not provide enough warning. anyways, if it is so easy to come up with your past posts with evidence, why don't you go ahead and post links or fuck off?

i don't think that you or most republicans even know the origination of conservative philosophy. I could understand if you wanted william f. buckley, milton friedman, ron paul, or george will to be pres., but the repubs choose gwb, mccain, cheney, palin. The iraq war is probably the least conservative action this country has ever undertaken with the possible exception of the vietnam war. However, while the vietnam war was intended to stop the spread of communism, the iraq war was supposed to actually change the ruling philosophies of surrounding countries as some sort of shining beacon of democracy. the use of for-profit military forces is also a non-conservative idea. most of neo-conservatism incorporates the worst of traditional liberal ideology, but none of the workable, useful aspects. warrantless wire tapping, impisonment of people without appeal, the prescription drug entitlement are in fact anti-conservative. they violate everything a true conservative would believe in.

Tahoe

09-28-2008, 07:23 PM

i don't read everything you post. when you argue with me, you rarely back up statements with reasons other than 'lol, obama is too liberal, i don't believe obama will cut taxes for some, 'i trust john mccain to follow through with his tax cuts'. those are truthiness statement devoid of logical thought or back-up data. We just had a disagreement on the financial crisis in which I posted specific examples of legislation and decisions that contributed and your argument was just that it was barney frank's fault and that he did not provide enough warning. anyways, if it is so easy to come up with your past posts with evidence, why don't you go ahead and post links or fuck off?

i don't think that you or most republicans even know the origination of conservative philosophy. I could understand if you wanted william f. buckley, milton friedman, ron paul, or george will to be pres., but the repubs choose gwb, mccain, cheney, palin. The iraq war is probably the least conservative action this country has ever undertaken with the possible exception of the vietnam war. However, while the vietnam war was intended to stop the spread of communism, the iraq war was supposed to actually change the ruling philosophies of surrounding countries as some sort of shining beacon of democracy. the use of for-profit military forces is also a non-conservative idea. most of neo-conservatism incorporates the worst of traditional liberal ideology, but none of the workable, useful aspects. warrantless wire tapping, impisonment of people without appeal, the prescription drug entitlement are in fact anti-conservative. they violate everything a true conservative would believe in.

I've been pretty much fuckin off most of the day, so yea, I'll go with the latter.

Uncle Mxy

09-28-2008, 08:08 PM

STUPENDOUSLY POWERFUL McCain AD!

OMG -- Obama AGREES WITH McCAIN SOMETIMES!!!!

Seriously, WTF?
Ec3aC8ZJZTc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ec3aC8ZJZTc

Uncle Mxy

09-29-2008, 07:44 AM

Netflix was hax0red!
http://www.movieretriever.com/blog/editors/126/Hackers-Reveal-the-2008-Candidates'-Netflix-Queues

Fool

09-29-2008, 11:31 AM

STUPENDOUSLY POWERFUL McCain AD!

OMG -- Obama AGREES WITH McCAIN SOMETIMES!!!!

Seriously, WTF?
Ec3aC8ZJZTc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ec3aC8ZJZTc

People like Obama, so Obama liking McCain helps McCain ....

I love the non-sequitur at the end though.

Glenn

09-29-2008, 11:51 AM

I just spent about an hour checking this out:

http://news.yahoo.com/election/2008/dashboard

Tahoe

09-29-2008, 11:59 AM

Thats a good map. Your boy Rove does one too using averages and Rassmussen did one too and they explained which states were trending which way too. Good stuff.

Uncle Mxy

09-29-2008, 12:34 PM

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/local/story/220491.html

FORT MILL, S.C. Fort Mill Mayor Danny Funderburk says he was “just curious” when he forwarded a chain e-mail suggesting Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is the biblical antichrist.
I'm just curious if Danny Funderburk is a gay pedophile.

Glenn

09-29-2008, 12:49 PM

New Obama ad called "Parachute"

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1185304443/bctid1825615656

Fool

09-29-2008, 02:19 PM

I was hoping for a cover of "Yellow".

Glenn

09-29-2008, 03:47 PM

http://www.barackobama.com/images/email/invite_header.jpg
This Thursday, October 2nd, please join Barack Obama for a rally in Grand Rapids, where he will talk about his vision for creating the kind of change we need.

Change We Need Rally
with Barack Obama

Calder Plaza
300 Ottawa Avenue NW
Public entrance will be off Lyon Street
Grand Rapids, MI

Thursday, October 2nd
Gates Open: 7:30 a.m.
Program Begins: 9:30 a.m.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/-/email/rsvp-button.jpg (http://my.barackobama.com/page/m2/55c1347a/6bf5ddcd/69e16c23/1188b229/2328792324/VEsH/)

http://mi.barackobama.com/GrandRapidsChange (http://my.barackobama.com/page/m2/55c1347a/6bf5ddcd/69e16c23/1188b229/2328792324/VEsE/)

The event is free and open to the public, and will be held rain or shine. Tickets are not required; however an RSVP is strongly encouraged. Space is available on a first-come, first-served basis.

For security reasons, do not bring bags. Please limit personal items and umbrellas. No signs or banners allowed.

If you cannot make it to this event but would still like to support Barack, you can make a donation here:

https://donate.barackobama.com/wecan (http://my.barackobama.com/page/m2/55c1347a/6bf5ddcd/69e16c23/1188b228/2328792324/VEsF/)

Damn, I have a meeting or I would be so there.

Uncle Mxy

09-29-2008, 04:59 PM

Out of curiosity, does the Grand Rapids media market penetrate into Indiana?

I'm wondering if Indiana is why he's going there as much as Michigan. Hillary was just there on Sunday, IIRC.

Uncle Mxy

09-29-2008, 05:52 PM

A third option emerges...
http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z163/resevil78/zombie-reagan.jpg

Wilfredo Ledezma

09-29-2008, 10:18 PM

^^Reagan Democrats are already voting Republican

Uncle Mxy

09-30-2008, 01:04 AM

Dog whistle politics at its finest!
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/09/26/article-0-02CFC27200000578-944_468x223.jpg
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1062848/Going-dogs-How-Nature-magazine-featured-Obama-McCain---unfortunate-ad-back.html

Fool

09-30-2008, 07:02 AM

^^Reagan Democrats are already voting Republican

Wouldn't you be winning (in the polls) if that were the case?

Big Swami

09-30-2008, 10:27 AM

The Reagan Democrats have divided themselves up now between people who decided to go full-on Republican and those who ended up regretting their votes later.

Uncle Mxy

09-30-2008, 10:38 AM

Rupert Murdoch lost money yesterday, it appears.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/09/29/mccain-blames-obama-and-democrats-despite-lopsided-vote/

McCain Blames Obama and Democrats, Despite Lopsided Vote

Laura Meckler reports from Washington on the presidential race.

The Wall Street bailout bill garnered 140 Democratic votes and just 65 Republican votes en route to defeat, but that didn’t stop GOP presidential nominee John McCain from blaming rival Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats for its failure.

“This bill failed because Barack Obama and the Democrats put politics ahead of country,” said a statement from Douglas Holtz-Eakin, McCain’s top economic adviser, who had represented McCain on Capitol Hill over the several days.

McCain suspended his campaign Thursday morning to return to Washington to try and get a deal done. Soon after his arrival, though, an agreement that appeared to be coming together fell apart–a situation that Democrats pinned on McCain. Over the next few days, McCain’s campaign took credit for bringing House Republicans, who were reluctant to support the bailout, to the negotiating table. Late Saturday night, the House GOP leadership signed off on a deal. But the majority of the caucus still opposed it when the vote was called Monday.

McCain blamed the Democrats.

“From the minute John McCain suspended his campaign and arrived in Washington to address this crisis, he was attacked by the Democratic leadership: Senators [Barack] Obama and [Harry] Reid, Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi and others. Their partisan attacks were an effort to gain political advantage during a national economic crisis. By doing so, they put at risk the homes, livelihoods and savings of millions of American families,” Holtz-Eakin said in his statement. He also blamed Pelosi for delivering a “strongly worded partisan speech” before the vote was called.

He went on to charge that Obama had “phoned it in,” a phrase that holds some irony given that McCain did most of his work by phone.

Over the weekend, McCain spoke with several House Republicans and in the end, four of them voted against the bailout: Reps. Marsha Blackburn, Mario Diaz-Balart and two fellow Arizonans: Reps. John Shadegg and Jeff Flake.

On Sunday, one of McCain’s top advisers, Steve Schmidt, was giving him credit for making the deal happen. “What Sen. McCain was able to do was to help bring all of the parties to the table, including the House Republicans, whose votes were needed to pass this,” he said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Earlier today, McCain, too, was taking credit: “I went to Washington last week to make sure that the taxpayers of Ohio and across this great country were not left footing the bill for mistakes made in Wall Street and evil and greed in Washington,” he said in Columbus, Ohio.

Obama took a more hands-off approach to the legislative process, encouraging it along but not trying to intervene directly. Both men said Sunday that they reluctantly supported the compromise.

Shortly after the House vote Monday, Obama said it was imperative that lawmakers stay in Washington and get a bill passed. “One of the message I have for Congress: Get it done,” he said. Obama, on a campaign swing in Colorado, expressed confidence that a bill will be ultimately be passed but acknowledged that it won’t be easy. “I’m confident we’re going to get there, but it’s going to be rocky,” he said.

Obama had planned to return to Washington for a Senate vote on the measure, expected on Wednesday. But that schedule is now uncertain.

UPDATE: Obama spokesman Bill Burton released a statement on the bailout vote this afternoon. “This is a moment of national crisis, and today’s inaction in Congress as well as the angry and hyper-partisan statement released by the McCain campaign are exactly why the American people are disgusted with Washington,” he said, “Now is the time for Democrats and Republicans to join together and act in a way that prevents an economic catastrophe. Every American should be outraged that an era of greed and irresponsibility on Wall Street and Washington has led us to this point, but now that we are here, the stability of our entire economy depends on us taking immediate action to ease this crisis.”

Glenn

09-30-2008, 10:48 AM

A LOL@McCain thread has never been needed more.

Uncle Mxy

09-30-2008, 11:06 AM

http://revolutionaryviews.com/rally3/obama.html

xanadu

09-30-2008, 12:41 PM

How much longer until mccain blames obama for the vietnam war, watergate, the savings and loan scandal, and poor performance at the palin-couric interview?

Fool

09-30-2008, 12:51 PM

That's sweet.

WTFchris

09-30-2008, 12:54 PM

Two republican analysts saying McCain is not handling this right:

Before the House vote, McCain was losing ground to Obama because of the increasingly bad economic news. A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll conducted September 19-21 found that Obama was leading McCain 51 percent to 46 percent. Earlier, after the Republican convention, the two had been tied in the polls.
And the CNN poll found that Obama (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/barack.obama.html) leads McCain 49 percent to 43 percent among those surveyed when asked who had showed better judgment in the economic crisis.
Terry Jeffries, a Republican strategist and CNN contributor, also said McCain may have hurt himself among conservatives by losing sight of his party's free-market principles.
"I think that John McCain failed to lead," Jeffries said. "He should be right there pushing the principles, and the conservatives in the House are doing that right now."
While Obama and McCain have mostly agreed on the principles of the bailout, Obama has mostly stayed out of negotiations and has used the financial crisis to attack the economic policies of the Bush administration and tie McCain to the unpopular President Bush.
"He didn't put himself in that process. He (Obama) was smart enough to realize he couldn't control the House Republicans or Democrats," said Ed Rollins, another Republican strategist and CNN contributor.

Uncle Mxy

09-30-2008, 12:54 PM

Here's how Obama can deal with McCain blaming Vietnam on him.
Xfi4s8cjLFI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xfi4s8cjLFI

Big Swami

09-30-2008, 01:12 PM

Two republican analysts saying McCain is not handling this right:
From: Uncle Dave
To: Uncle Dave's Mailing List
Subject: FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: FW: MCCANE EVEN BIGGER MAVRIK THAN WE ALL THOUGHT!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't think Nancy wanted this to go through for some reason. Odd for the Dems not to want to get their hands on 700billion of the taxpayers money to spend how they wanted.
...You do understand that they don't get to pocket it, right?

WTFchris

09-30-2008, 01:47 PM

The straight talk express seems to have a whole lot of turns in it:

GEtZlR3zp4c

Glenn

09-30-2008, 01:53 PM

re: #1157

That's part of the reason that my good friend Keith calls him "the what he meant to say" candidate.

Fool

09-30-2008, 02:02 PM

I call him Johnny.

Big Swami

09-30-2008, 02:52 PM

There's always been something about the hardcore, dyed-in-the-wool Republicans (like those congressmen in the House) that bothers me.

No matter how much you try to say "hey this doesn't make any sense," it makes no impact on them. They have a love affair with authority, and will obey anyone who tells them what to do in a manly enough voice. And when they can't seem to get it together, it's not because the policy doesn't make sense, it's because their leadership is not manly enough.

If you ask a Republican what the best times for the Republican Party have been, they invariably mention times when they had a powerful, charismatic leader - Reagan, Goldwater, Gingrich, etc., who could send out marching orders and get everyone to fall in line.

In this case, the first bailout bill was simply terrible. The Democrats, while having a majority, don't have enough of a majority to pass anything without getting the President to agree. So the White House actually fired off the first solution - give tons of money to the Treasury Secretary, don't let Congress oversee what he does with it, and let banks stay in business even if they've lost all their assets. They know the country's in trouble, and they know that everyone's eager to vote for a rescue plan so their home districts don't kick their asses. It's the "trucker" solution - you know that lady's car broke down, you know she's powerless without a ride home, so why don't you just tell her she's not getting home without a blowjob?

It's the whim of one sleazy guy, but when that sleazy guy has an army of followers who will do whatever he says no matter how lame it is, it becomes a party position. And you can't just say that one party's position is lame, because then you're not being fair and balanced.

You simply can't just give 700B to some guy and sign away your ability to ask him about it later, not when you're the Congress of the United States. That violates some of the most important values we have as a country. So this time the lady calls the trucker's bluff. She says, "no thanks, I'll stay right here with my broken down car, and you can blow yourself."

On the other hand, a lot of Democrats have such a reflexively anti-authoritarian stance that if you ask them what the best times were for the Democratic Party, they'll probably mention a time when their party wasn't in control. The Nixon era, for example. Isn't that weird?

Uncle Mxy

09-30-2008, 04:41 PM

Here's the Republican anti-Obama ad that would've aired had the bailout passed (never mind the fact that McCain was slated to vote for it too):
u9j_epTmr2c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9j_epTmr2c
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/RNC_ad_was_cut_sent_out_before_package_failed.html ?showall

WTFchris

09-30-2008, 06:31 PM

Now McCain has an ad attacking Democrats by taking Bill Clinton out of context. I hope this fires up the Clinton's against McCain.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/30/bill-clinton-the-star-of-new-mccain-ad/

Uncle Mxy

09-30-2008, 10:25 PM

Flip flop, it don't stop:
AOvJ6GUjUJ0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOvJ6GUjUJ0

Fool

10-01-2008, 09:36 AM

Politics is a joke.

WTFchris

10-01-2008, 10:21 AM

McCain thinks Venezuela is in the Middle East:

AOvJ6GUjUJ0

Glenn

10-01-2008, 10:37 AM

I'm guarding against feeling overconfident, but there's no doubt that things look good right now.

Polls: Obama leads in critical trio of states

By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 45 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Recently trailing or tied, Democrat Barack Obama now leads Republican John McCain in a trio of the most critical, vote-rich states five weeks before the election, according to presidential poll results released Wednesday.

The Democrat's support jumped to 50 percent or above in Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania in Quinnipiac University surveys taken during the weekend — after the opening presidential debate and during Monday's dramatic stock market plunge as the House rejected a $700 billion financial bailout plan.

Combined, these states offer 68 of the 270 electoral votes needed for victory on Election Day, Nov. 4.

Pollsters attributed Obama's improved standing to the public's general approval of his debate performance, antipathy toward GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin and heightened confidence in the Illinois senator's ability to handle the economic crisis.

The fresh polling is the latest troublesome turn for McCain, the Arizona senator who is trying to regain control of the campaign conversation amid increasingly difficult circumstances for Republicans. It comes on the eve of a debate between Palin and her Democratic counterpart, Joe Biden, and as the financial crisis shapes the presidential race in unpredictable ways.

For now and probably for the next month, the race will be entirely about who can best handle an economy in peril.

The war in Iraq, national security and foreign policy issues — McCain's strengths — have largely fallen by the wayside as each campaign tries to chart a course to the presidency in extraordinarily choppy economic waters.

The new surveys show Obama leading McCain in Florida 51 percent to 43 percent, in Ohio 50 percent to 42 percent and in Pennsylvania 54 percent to 39 percent.

Since 1960, no president has been elected without winning two of those three states.

The results are notable because they show Obama in a strong position in the pair of states that put Bush in the White House in 2000 and kept him there four years later — Florida and Ohio, with 27 and 20 electoral votes, respectively.

Obama has been struggling to break into a comfortable lead in both states; for weeks he had been mostly about even with McCain in Ohio while lagging for months in Florida, even after being the only candidate on the air and spending some $8 million on advertising.

Pennsylvania, with 21 electoral votes, is a different story.

Obama is trying to hang onto the state Democrat John Kerry won four years ago, though McCain has mounted a stiff challenge as he seeks to benefit from his rival's trouble with working-class voters who question his liberal voting record and, perhaps, his race.

The telephone polls, which were taken before and after last week's McCain-Obama debate, have margins of error ranging from plus or minus 2.8 percentage points to plus or minus 3.4 points.

Uncle Mxy

10-01-2008, 12:03 PM

McCain was in Iowa for some strange reason. Obama consistently polls with a 10+ point lead there. Between the huge ground organization he built there (and McCain didn't) for the caucus, the border/shared interests with Illinois, and the help Team Obama gave with their flooding, Iowa would seem like a lost cause. While he was there, he was trying to win the editorial endorsement of the Des Moines Register. Things didn't go so well, it would seem. Here's choice snips from the full interview:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0908/Feisty_McCain_duels_with_Des_Moines_Register.html
kHcPXfgD4jM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHcPXfgD4jM
i7Hcf7Q1Q9A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7Hcf7Q1Q9A

Fool

10-01-2008, 12:07 PM

McCain is dying.

BTW, I don't think he knows the challenges of space.

Glenn

10-01-2008, 12:30 PM

One of John's houses is for sale.

http://www.phoenixrealestatesolution.com/530547_24677-7110-N-Central-Avenue-Phoenix-AZ-RES_Detail.aspx

Fool

10-01-2008, 12:40 PM

Johnny.

Glenn

10-01-2008, 12:43 PM

Right.

Well, I've never been afraid of familiarity.

Tahoe

10-01-2008, 01:18 PM

Holy Shit BO opened up a fairly significant lead in Florida.

Uncle Mxy

10-01-2008, 02:28 PM

No, not significant yet. There's still polls from this week showing him tied in FL -- Rasmussen, IIRC. He is gaining ground there, though. Florida is hard to poll until October due to the snowbird effect, so we'll see. His overall national numbers have remained steady. Obama's well ahead of where Kerry was at the same time on most fronts (with the exception of NH).

Uncle Mxy

10-01-2008, 04:15 PM

It occurs to me that, rather than poke Big Swami for reposting what I posted, I should post a new and equally-wicked McCain article:

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain

Big Swami

10-01-2008, 04:19 PM

WTFchris

10-01-2008, 04:33 PM

Some interesting parts in that read on his military service:

on campus, McCain's short fuse was legend. "We'd hear this thunderous screaming and yelling between him and his roommate — doors slamming — and one of them would go running down the hall," recalls Phil Butler, who lived across the hall from McCain at the academy. "It was a regular occurrence." When McCain was not shown the pampering to which he was accustomed, he grew petulant — even abusive. He repeatedly blew up in the face of his commanding officer. It was the kind of insubordination that would have gotten any other midshipman kicked out of Annapolis. But his classmates soon realized that McCain was untouchable. Midway though his final year, McCain faced expulsion, about to "bilge out" because of excessive demerits. After his mother intervened, however, the academy's commandant stepped in. Calling McCain "spoiled" to his face, he nonetheless issued a reprieve, scaling back the demerits. McCain dodged expulsion a second time by convincing another midshipman to take the fall after McCain was caught with contraband.

"He was a huge screw-off," recalls Butler. "He was always on probation. The only reason he graduated was because of his father and his grandfather — they couldn't exactly get rid of him."
McCain's self-described "four-year course of insubordination" ended with him graduating fifth from the bottom — 894th out of a class of 899. It was a record of mediocrity he would continue as a pilot.

In the air, the hard-partying McCain had a knack for stalling out his planes in midflight. He was still in training, in Texas, when he crashed his first plane into Corpus Christi Bay during a routine practice landing. The plane stalled, and McCain was knocked cold on impact. When he came to, the plane was underwater, and he had to swim to the surface to be rescued. Some might take such a near-death experience as a wake-up call: McCain took some painkillers and a nap, and then went out carousing that night.

That December, McCain crashed again. Flying back from Philadelphia, where he had joined in the reverie of the Army-Navy football game, McCain stalled while coming in for a refueling stop in Norfolk, Virginia. This time he managed to bail out at 1,000 feet. As his parachute deployed, his plane thundered into the trees below.
By now, however, McCain's flying privileges were virtually irrevocable — and he knew it. On one of his runs at McCain Field, when ground control put him in a holding pattern, the lieutenant commander once again pulled his family's rank. "Let me land," McCain demanded over his radio, "or I'll take my field and go home!"

A six-foot-long Zuni rocket, inexplicably launched by an F-4 Phantom across the flight deck, ripped through the fuel tank of McCain's aircraft. Hundreds of gallons of fuel splashed onto the deck and came ablaze. Then: Clank. Clank. Two 1,000-pound bombs dropped from under the belly of McCain's stubby A-4, the Navy's "Tinkertoy Bomber," into the fire.
McCain, who knew more than most pilots about bailing out of a crippled aircraft, leapt forward out of the cockpit, swung himself down from the refueling probe protruding from the nose cone, rolled through the flames and ran to safety across the flight deck. Just then, one of his bombs "cooked off," blowing a crater in the deck and incinerating the sailors who had rushed past McCain with hoses and fire extinguishers. McCain was stung by tiny bits of shrapnel in his legs and chest, but the wounds weren't serious; his father would later report to friends that Johnny "came through without a scratch."
The damage to the Forrestal was far more grievous: The explosion set off a chain reaction of bombs, creating a devastating inferno that would kill 134 of the carrier's 5,000-man crew, injure 161 and threaten to sink the ship.
These are the moments that test men's mettle. Where leaders are born. Leaders like . . . Lt. Cmdr. Herb Hope, pilot of the A-4 three planes down from McCain's. Cornered by flames at the stern of the carrier, Hope hurled himself off the flight deck into a safety net and clambered into the hangar deck below, where the fire was spreading. According to an official Navy history of the fire, Hope then "gallantly took command of a firefighting team" that would help contain the conflagration and ultimately save the ship.
McCain displayed little of Hope's valor. Although he would soon regale The New York Times with tales of the heroism of the brave enlisted men who "stayed to help the pilots fight the fire," McCain took no part in dousing the flames himself. After going belowdecks and briefly helping sailors who were frantically trying to unload bombs from an elevator to the flight deck, McCain retreated to the safety of the "ready room," where off-duty pilots spent their noncombat hours talking trash and playing poker. There, McCain watched the conflagration unfold on the room's closed-circuit television — bearing distant witness to the valiant self-sacrifice of others who died trying to save the ship, pushing jets into the sea to keep their bombs from exploding on deck.

Tahoe

10-01-2008, 04:37 PM

WTFchris

10-01-2008, 04:46 PM

In congress, Rep. John McCain quickly positioned himself as a GOP hard-liner. He voted against honoring Martin Luther King Jr. with a national holiday in 1983

Part on the Keating 5 (McCain trying to get his main contributor out of trouble):

"Senate historians were unable to find any instance in U.S. history that was comparable, in terms of five U.S. senators meeting with a regulator on behalf of one institution," says Bill Black, then deputy director of the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, who attended the second meeting. "And it hasn't happened since."

Following the meetings with McCain and the other senators, the regulators backed off, stalling their investigation of Lincoln. By the time the S&L collapsed two years later, taxpayers were on the hook for $3.4 billion, which stood as a record for the most expensive bank failure — until the current mortgage crisis. In addition, 20,000 investors who had bought junk bonds from Keating, thinking they were federally insured, had their savings wiped out.
"McCain saw the political pressure on the regulators," recalls Black. "He could have saved these widows from losing their life savings. But he did absolutely nothing."

Whatever McCain's romantic entanglements with the lobbyist Vicki Iseman, he was clearly in bed with her clients, who donated nearly $85,000 to his campaigns. One of her clients, Bud Paxson, set up a meeting with McCain in 1999, frustrated by the FCC's delay of his proposed takeover of a television station in Pittsburgh. Paxson had treated McCain well, offering the then-presidential candidate use of his corporate jet to fly to campaign events and ponying up $20,000 in campaign donations.
"You're the head of the commerce committee," Paxson told McCain, according to The Washington Post. "The FCC is not doing its job. I would love for you to write a letter."
Iseman helped draft the text, and McCain sent the letter. Several weeks later — the day after McCain used Paxson's jet to fly to Florida for a fundraiser — McCain wrote another letter. FCC chair William Kennard sent a sharp rebuke to McCain, calling the senator's meddling "highly unusual." Nonetheless, within a week of McCain's second letter, the FCC ruled three-to-two in favor of Paxson's deal.

Uncle Mxy

10-01-2008, 09:09 PM

4Wroj0FLvzs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Wroj0FLvzs

jturbo

10-01-2008, 09:29 PM

^What part of Michigan is that from?^

Uncle Mxy

10-01-2008, 11:05 PM

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/beyond/2008/10/obama-makes-mccain-very-uncomf.html

Let the record reflect that Barack Obama made the approach to John McCain tonight.

As the two shared the Senate floor tonight for the first time since they won their party nominations, Obama stood chatting with Democrats on his side of the aisle, and McCain stood on the Republican side of the aisle.

So Obama crossed over into enemy territory.

He walked over to where McCain was chatting with Republican Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida and Independent Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut. And he stretched out his arm and offered his hand to McCain.

McCain shook it, but with a “go away” look that no one could miss. He tried his best not to even look at Obama.

Finally, with a tight smile, McCain managed a greeting: “Good to see you.”

Obama got the message. He shook hands with Martinez and Lieberman — both of whom greeted him more warmly — and quickly beat a retreat back to the Democratic side.

Tahoe

10-01-2008, 11:21 PM

Damn, no fist fights?

Sounds like what BO did to Joe Lieberman about a month ago.

Karma is a bitch. :)

Tahoe

10-01-2008, 11:24 PM

Did anyone see the brainwashed school kids singing about BO?

That is some scary shit.

DrRay11

10-01-2008, 11:36 PM

I saw; everyone is brainwashed in the early grade school years...

The fact that someone may have tried to use them as a tool is stupid, let the adults be the tools, but if the kids on their own like Obama and wanted to do this then I don't understand why it would be so bad.

Big Swami

10-02-2008, 08:46 AM

I don't think it's brainwashing if kids like Obama. There's plenty for a schoolkid to look up to there. I'd say the same thing for McCain.

However, under-18s need to be taught that it's not appropriate for them to discuss electoral politics.

Uncle Mxy

10-02-2008, 09:18 AM

Kids get brainwashed on all kinds of things growing up. Parents do fuck-all about it. Let's pay lip service to sex and maybe violence, but not give a fuck about Disney actively turns kids into slavish consumerists at age 2. Politics is a natural extension of that programming. The first political party who makes a popular kids show and video game, who does true life cycle management, will be in the driver's seat for a generation.

Apparently, McCain using Bill Clinton in one of his commercials has him pissed off, because he's pimping Obama HARD now. Perhaps it was a mistake for McCain to piss off Bill when he was helping McCain with his faint praise of Obama beforehand? Hmmm...
yDMV-yJeeOg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDMV-yJeeOg

Wilfredo Ledezma

10-02-2008, 09:22 AM

Wouldn't you be winning (in the polls) if that were the case?

Perhaps...but I don't pay much attention to the polls.

Glenn

10-02-2008, 09:24 AM

To the polls?

Fool

10-02-2008, 09:30 AM

To the polls!

http://www.thoughttheater.com/MarchInBarcelona.jpg

Uncle Mxy

10-02-2008, 10:11 AM

Perhaps...but I don't pay much attention to the polls.
Except of course when you want to rub it in about who's ahead:

http://wtfdetroit.com/forums/showthread.php?p=273936&highlight=polls#post273936

whos leading the polls again?

Glenn

10-02-2008, 10:12 AM

Mxywned.

Maybe "Unclowned" is better?

Glenn

10-02-2008, 10:16 AM

Obama is speaking right now in DT GR, here's a stream: http://www.woodradio.com/cc-common/ondemand/player.html?world=st

WTFchris

10-02-2008, 10:23 AM

Apparently, McCain using Bill Clinton in one of his commercials has him pissed off, because he's pimping Obama HARD now. Perhaps it was a mistake for McCain to piss off Bill when he was helping McCain with his faint praise of Obama beforehand? Hmmm...

Glad to see what I hoped for did happen:

Now McCain has an ad attacking Democrats by taking Bill Clinton out of context. I hope this fires up the Clinton's against McCain.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/30/bill-clinton-the-star-of-new-mccain-ad/

WTFchris

10-02-2008, 10:24 AM

Obama is speaking right now in DT GR, here's a stream: http://www.woodradio.com/cc-common/ondemand/player.html?world=st

He was also on Mike and Mike this morning, BTW.

Uncle Mxy

10-02-2008, 01:40 PM

Doh!
1aBaX9GPSaQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aBaX9GPSaQ

Wilfredo Ledezma

10-02-2008, 02:35 PM

Except of course when you want to rub it in about who's ahead:

http://wtfdetroit.com/forums/showthread.php?p=273936&highlight=polls#post273936

Which proves my point. They didn't mean anything then (since McCain is no longer ahead like he was at that time), so why should they mean anything now?

I learned via trial & error.

Black Dynamite

10-02-2008, 07:05 PM

Ummm, but as stubborn as you were then and still are, what have you learned?

MoTown

10-02-2008, 08:30 PM

You are wrong and have learned nothing.

Wilfredo Ledezma

10-02-2008, 10:46 PM

Ummm, but as stubborn as you were then and still are, what have you learned?

I wasn't stubborn then. I just had a false sense of security that's since faded.

Black Dynamite

10-03-2008, 07:52 AM

I wasn't stubborn then. I just had a false sense of security that's since faded.
Pretty in denial stubborn answer.

Uncle Mxy

10-03-2008, 12:48 PM

http://www.pnj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081002/NEWS01/81002027

Big Swami

10-03-2008, 12:55 PM

I think the VP choices are pretty significant this time around. John McMaverick is elderly, and Barack Obama would be the first black President. Each of them has a higher than usual chance at early retirement.

xanadu

10-03-2008, 03:23 PM

Fundamentally, the mccain campaign is saddled with three very unpopular, tone-deaf, and IMO idiotic positions.

1. that our military should remain in iraq indefinitely despite the surplus in iraqi govt. revenues, the fact that the iraqi govt. seems to want us to leave, and the fact that many americans probably believe that we are in worse shape than iraq (fundamentally flawed reasoning but it is echoed by the huge iraqi surplus). Another reason to disagree with our remaining presence is the fact that we have propped up a govt. that will be very friendly with iran after we leave. i realize that most americans don't yet realize this, but maybe that point will be made before the election.

2. mccain is still advocating massive tax cuts for the rich, who were the only people whose economic fortunes improved during the bush years. I think it was very important that biden switched from a patriotism argument to a fairness argument. THis is exactly the wrong time to argue for the merits of trickle-down economics. The only justification for tax cuts for the rich is some backwards reasoning that they work harder when they have lower tax burdens. The truth is that the rich already pay lower taxes (as a % of income) than the middle class, and especially the upper middle class.

3. Many repubs still advocate for less rather than more regulation. When CEO's of failed companies walk away with millions, it is hard to make the case that big govt. is dragging everyone down. In fact, deregulation has led to too many cases where firms have achieved market power and the power to artificially manipulate prices. There is a reason that govt. broke up monopolies in the early part of the last century. When too few are given carte blanche to operate to maximize profit, we see higher (not lower) prices. Enron's influence on electricity prices is the most obvious example, but I strongly believe we'll see similar effects on housing, oil, and food prices.

DrRay11

10-03-2008, 04:00 PM

I just took advantage of Ohio's early vote... +1 for Obama/Biden.

Uncle Mxy

10-03-2008, 04:54 PM

http://sendables.jibjab.com/sendables/1191/time_for_some_campaignin

Uncle Mxy

10-03-2008, 08:59 PM

Obama's pushing to win an electoral vote in Berkshire Hathaway land:

http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2835&u_sid=10449658

McCain's attempting to win an electoral vote in Maine:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/10/03/mccain_camp_turns_to_maines_second_district/

Uncle Mxy

10-05-2008, 10:43 AM

New attack ad against Obama -- all true:
xVgBxJl_lfQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVgBxJl_lfQ

Big Swami

10-05-2008, 10:49 PM

I can't wait for this election to be over, because I'm really starting to hate how everyone acts in this forum.

Uncle Mxy

10-05-2008, 11:26 PM

I can't wait for this election to be over, because I'm really starting to hate how everyone acts in this forum.
My apologies, for whatever it is.

CindyKate

10-06-2008, 01:21 AM

:emo kid:

Uncle Mxy

10-06-2008, 10:29 AM

John McCain's wooing older people by cutting Medicare:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122315505846605217.html

Keating 5 Alive!
http://www.keatingeconomics.com/

This interview with McCain 10 years ago demonstrates consistency:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1998/11/vest.html

WTFchris

10-06-2008, 01:26 PM

A new SurveyUSA (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportPopup.aspx?g=00f2d8fb-6a3b-425d-9f27-21df796e8fe5&q=47689) poll finds John McCain's chances of winning Virginia slipping away. Barack Obama is ahead in the state by ten points, 53% to 43%.

Full Story (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/06/obama-up-10-in-virginia-a_n_132268.html)

WTFchris

10-06-2008, 01:34 PM

Thirty days until the election and the presidential campaign is reaching new depths.
On Monday, the McCain campaign put out a television ad that is notable not just for calling Obama "dangerous" and "dishonorable" but for how badly it misrepresents the Illinois Democrat's words and votes. The spot, titled "Dangerous," plays off an already debunked attack that Obama, back in August 2007, said American troops in Afghanistan were "... just air-raiding villages and killing civilians."
"How dishonorable," says the narrator. "Congressional liberals voted repeatedly to cut off funding to our active troops. Increasing the risk on their lives. How dangerous. Obama and Congressional liberals. Too risky for America."
In actuality, Obama was calling for MORE funds for MORE troops to send to Afghanistan so that forces there could expand their operations beyond air raids that were killing innocent civilians. At the time, even President Bush was acknowledging such a problem.
And yet, McCain and his aides have returned to this charge repeatedly during the general election, starting in August. Each time, it has been dismissed (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/03/say-it-aint-so-sarah-pali_n_131841.html). Sometimes, however, the squeaky wheel gets the oil. Combine this ad with the attacks (http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/10/as_mccain_palin_tie_obama_to_a.html) the McCain campaign is launching on William Ayers and Obama's forthcoming assault on the Keating Five and the media should not be left wanting for copy this week.

Glenn

10-06-2008, 01:59 PM

Desperate times...

They're obviously pushing all of their chips in now, it might just backfire and blow up in their faces, especially since the Bubbas already fell in line long ago, I would think.

The targets now are undecided (low information) voters and "lightly committed" fence sitters. Will this tactic work to sway them?

Only in America.

WTFchris

10-06-2008, 02:06 PM

I think the low information voters are always their target. Why else would they always run negative and misleading ads? Sure, the Dems take words out of context too, but McCain's campaign has been exponentially more smearing than Obama's.

Uncle Mxy

10-06-2008, 10:47 PM

There are different kinds of information that drive voters. Folks with perfectly good IQs and factual assessments of the situations will vote on "emotional" information, or are single-issue voters that have a narrow range of "factual" information that they actually care about. The ads job is to persuade action, not necessarily to tell the truth in doing so. People say they value truth, but there are often overriding factors, especially among "independents".

Glenn

10-07-2008, 08:38 AM

It's gettin' hot in here.

McCain linked to private group in Iran-Contra case

By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 38 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - GOP presidential nominee John McCain has past connections to a private group that supplied aid to guerrillas seeking to overthrow the leftist government of Nicaragua in the Iran-Contra affair.

McCain's ties are facing renewed scrutiny after his campaign criticized Barack Obama for his link to a former radical who engaged in violent acts 40 years ago.

The U.S. Council for World Freedom was part of an international organization linked to former Nazi collaborators and ultra-right-wing death squads in Central America. The group was dedicated to stamping out communism around the globe.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081007/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_iran_contra

Glenn

10-07-2008, 08:45 AM

Great (IMO) new ad from Obama.

Y42RErUjfAc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y42RErUjfAc&eurl=http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/thisyear_ad/

Glenn

10-07-2008, 08:49 AM

^Actually, there's another version (that I can't find right now) that mentions that McCain is "running out time" that really paints McCain as desperate to smear.

WTFchris

10-07-2008, 11:29 AM

Obama gaining in 5 battleground states, polls say

The CNN/Time magazine/Opinion Research Corp. polls of likely voters in Indiana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio and Wisconsin reflect a significant nationwide shift toward the Democratic presidential nominee

(polling numbers in full article (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/07/battleground.poll/index.html?eref=rss_topstories))

The new polls are behind several shifts in the CNN Electoral College map. (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/calculator/)
CNN is shifting North Carolina from leaning toward McCain to a tossup. CNN is moving Wisconsin and its 10 electoral votes, and New Hampshire and its four electoral votes, from tossup to leaning toward Obama.
Finally, CNN is switching Michigan and its 17 electoral votes from leaning toward Obama to safe for Obama. The McCain campaign announced last week that it was shifting its resources out of the once hotly contested industrial state, instead intensifying efforts in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

Glenn

10-07-2008, 12:48 PM

^Actually, there's another version (that I can't find right now) that mentions that McCain is "running out time" that really paints McCain as desperate to smear.

Here we go, this one is an A+, IMO

3bt6xcSwXQo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bt6xcSwXQo

WTFchris

10-07-2008, 12:51 PM

Yeah, that one is solid and should be played more.

Glenn

10-07-2008, 12:55 PM

It's new today.

Wilfredo Ledezma

10-07-2008, 01:17 PM

Yeah, that one is solid and should be played more.

Why?? Because you know everything McCain has said is true??

People have the right to know. Smearing involves telling lies, Obama/Ayers is factual.

Should Obama/Ayers have influence on the way people vote? That's not for anybody to decide but themselves.

After all the shit Obama's campaign did to attempt to smear Palin, I think it's hilarious how since none of the media dare speaks negative about Obama, that he can't handle this coming out without crying like a little bitch.

As each day passes, he's just becoming more and more of a radical fraud.

WTFchris

10-07-2008, 01:19 PM

I didn't say McCain shouldn't bring up those other issues. Where are you getting this stuff you are putting in my mouth? I just said I think the commercial will be very effective. That doesn't mean McCain shouldn't being up that other stuff. It just means that a lot of voters will agree that the focus should be on the economy.

DrRay11

10-07-2008, 01:28 PM

As each day passes, he's just becoming more and more of a radical fraud.

L'ing my AO.

WTFchris

10-07-2008, 01:37 PM

I agree with a lot of the pundits when they say this is a little late for some of the character attacks (both ways). I think hammering home the issues will be effective, especially with the bailout stuff being so current.

Unless you find some new character nugget that will tip the scales that is.

WTFchris

10-07-2008, 01:41 PM

Does anybody know this professor in here:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/06/independent.voters/index.html

D's might have taken a class from him.

Wilfredo Ledezma

10-07-2008, 02:28 PM

It's gettin' hot in here.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081007/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_iran_contra

Do some research and you'll find that McCain had pretty much nothing to do with that group.

LOL at the Obama campaign trying to deflect his relationship with the Terrorist Bill Ayers...

Glenn

10-07-2008, 04:06 PM

The Obama campaign didn't write that, the liberal elite ASSOCIATED PRESS wrote that.

McCain has no one to blame for this stuff coming to light than himself. The moment he decided to start throwing stones, he made his questionable past fair game.

Clean up your own backyard first, Johnny*.

*Hi Fool!

Glenn

10-07-2008, 04:47 PM

Who will be the next president of the United States?

John McCain
+260

Barack Obama
-340

WTFchris

10-07-2008, 05:14 PM

McCain needs to reverse these trends tonight in a format he favors:

NASHVILLE, Tennessee (CNN) -- Just hours before the start of the second presidential debate, a new national survey suggests that Sen. Barack Obama is making gains among Americans as a compassionate candidate.http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/base_skins/baseplate/corner_wire_BL.gif
That could be important in the debate in Nashville, which is a town hall-style meeting with the candidates fielding questions from undecided voters in the audience.

In a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll out Tuesday afternoon, 55 percent of registered voters questioned say that Obama "cares more about people like you" than Sen. John McCain, with 35 percent saying McCain cares more than Obama. That 20-point margin for Obama is up from a 9-point advantage a month ago.
"The all-time champion of town-hall debates was Bill Clinton because he was able to connect with the audience members so well," said CNN polling director Keating Holland. "Voters nationwide seem to feel some connection with Obama. The question is whether he'll connect with the people at the debate tonight. John McCain has a pretty good track record at town halls, and it's possible that he will be the one who looks more compassionate."

Obama (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/barack.obama.html) also appears to be building a lead as the candidate with the clearer plan to solve the country's problems.
He has a 15-point lead over McCain on that question in the poll, 48 percent to 33 percent. Last month, McCain had a 2-point advantage over Obama on the topic of having a clearer plan.

Black Dynamite

10-08-2008, 09:37 AM

Why?? Because you know everything McCain has said is true??
You're lying. Also You're endorsing something from mccain that you'd never endorse from Obama. Which is one of the many examples of americans disrespecting there own freedom to vote by humping along with their party no matter what they do. Maybe you should live in a 3rd world dictatorship posing as a democracy where the party with the most money wins no matter who you vote for.

WTFchris

10-08-2008, 10:11 AM

I heard Cindy McCain was saying Obama has run the dirtiest campaign she's ever seen. Amazing considering Bush called her a drug addict and made up lies about illegitimate kids from them.

WTFchris

10-08-2008, 02:53 PM

A good read IMO:

Borger: McCain running out of time, and lines

(CNN) -- Here we are, at a time of national crisis, a moment when Americans feel truly besieged, wondering when and whether they will be able to retire or send their kids to college.
Coincidentally, it's also time to elect a president.
So in this race, the questions about leadership in a crisis are, for once, not theoretical. Candidates aren't just opining about leadership; they're supposed to show that they can lead. In real time.
Yet if viewers tuned in to the second presidential debate to see some evidence of that, what they mostly saw was two caged contenders.
Both Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain were restrained by silly rules designed to crush any legitimate exchanges between the two men (no doubt lawyered to death by their own campaigns and approved by the archaic Presidential Debate Commission). No direct exchanges. No real conversation. Oh, unless, of course, you consider "one-minute" discussion periods anything but an oxymoron.
Hey, this is a really important election. Why not actually allow interaction between the two men who want to lead the free world?
But if you're judging what we did see, it was a truly aggressive Obama. He never missed an opportunity to take on his opponent (in a substantive way) or to respond to a charge (about, say, whether he will raise your taxes).
As for McCain, he was full of moments missed. When asked about "sacrifice," for instance, he could have hit it out of the park with his usual (and very affecting) answers about national service, about "a cause greater than yourself," et al. Instead, what did we get? Earmarks! Get rid of earmarks!
It's beginning to sound a lot like the chant to get rid of "waste, fraud and abuse" from the Reagan years. Here's the problem: Good idea, but not enough. Not in this economy. This crisis calls for bigger ideas, not tiny ones. And earmarks -- worth about $18 billion -- are small, given the $700 billion financial bailout. It's Tuesday's punch line.
To give McCain some credit, he did try, at least, to come up with a new idea: a plan authorizing the Treasury to buy up the mortgages of bankruptcy-bound homeowners and replace them with loans they can afford.
The Obama (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/barack.obama.html) camp immediately pointed out that, in fact, the plan signed by the president last week gives the Treasury permission to do that. They were right, to a point: McCain's plan is more specific.
It's also really expensive, with a price tag of about $300 billion. So it kinda makes McCain (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/john.mccain.html)'s arguments against Obama that he's a big-spending liberal ("He's proposed $860 billion in new spending") look a tad hollow. And GOP fiscal conservatives were probably lining up to lambaste McCain's idea the minute he proposed it.
Then there are the larger points: Going into this debate, there was a sense that McCain needed ye olde game-changer. His campaign (largely through his obliging running mate) has been all about downgrading Obama's character, with lines about him "palling around with terrorists" (aka William Ayers) or Gov. Sarah Palin's winks (real or imagined) about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's strong ties to Obama's world view.
And although we figured McCain would leave that nasty work to Palin, we thought he might have something else up his sleeve. He came sleeveless.
Sure, his dislike for Obama -- now known as "that one" thanks to McCain's inept attempt at humor(?) -- came though loud and clear. And he was strong on foreign policy. But as for changing the game as he continues to lag in the polls, it didn't happen. Obama has made substantial gains since the first debate, and much of that is largely because of the financial crisis. Voters clearly want a change. But this debate only cemented his presidential persona. He's in the process of closing the deal with the American voters.
McCain has to figure out a new deal, and fast.

Uncle Mxy

10-08-2008, 03:00 PM

Did you know McCain was a POW?
JYFm5kK4f1k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYFm5kK4f1k

WTFchris

10-08-2008, 03:02 PM

About McCain's plan to have the government buy all the bad mortgages:

He said, "I would order the Secretary of Treasury to immediately buy up the bad home loan mortgages in America and renegotiate at the new value of those homes, at the diminished values of those homes, and let people make those - be able to make those payments and stay in their homes."

This proposal is strikingly different from both McCain's original idea, and from the housing rescue bill adopted by Congress in July.

"[McCain's] original plan relied on lenders taking the hit," said Holtz-Eakin. "This bypasses that step."
Instead, taxpayers pay for it, with the funding already provided by the $700 billion bailout bill.

That could prove to be very unpopular with homeowners who aren't in trouble, as well as ordinary Americans who objected to the Hope for Homeowners plan as a bailout for delinquent borrowers and irresponsible lenders.

Christopher Mayer, Paul Milstein Professor of Real Estate at Columbia Business School, isn't convinced that the McCain proposal makes sense.
"As the plan stands now, it helps the people who got into the most debt, and it helps the lenders, but it doesn't really help the housing market," he said.
To help the market as a whole, according to Mayer, a plan has to target all mortgage borrowers rather than just at-risk homeowners. In an op-ed piece in the Oct. 2 Wall Street Journal, he and his Columbia colleague, R. Glenn Hubbard, he proposed that the government allow all residential mortgages to be refinanced into 30-year, fixed rate loans at 5.25% interest.

That would bring down payments for everyone, not just the borrowers most at risk, which would in turn help prop up house prices by lowering the monthly cost of homeownership. Many more people would benefit.
"A rescue has to be broad enough to help a great many Americans," he said, "not just the ones that took on the most debt," he said.
Full Article (http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/08/news/economy/McCain_mortgage_plan/index.htm?cnn=yes)

As a person who made the sacrifices and choices needed to sell my house and move without putting us into debt, I agree with the professor. I feel bad for the people with bad mortgages, but I don't want to pay $300 billion just because companies and individuals lived beyond their means.

Uncle Mxy

10-08-2008, 10:41 PM

In Ledezma's honor, I post these:

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/07/politics/fromtheroad/entry4507703.shtml

KjxzmaXAg9E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjxzmaXAg9E

Black Dynamite

10-08-2008, 11:07 PM

In Ledezma's honor, I post these:

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/07/politics/fromtheroad/entry4507703.shtml

KjxzmaXAg9E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjxzmaXAg9E
Wil would be at home in Ohio...

Ray how the fuck can you live there??

Zekyl wtf??

Wilfredo Ledezma

10-08-2008, 11:17 PM

Yeah DRay, how can you possibly wake up in the morning knowing you live in a diverseless red state...?

Must be hell.

How's Ohio's economy? Better than ours.

Black Dynamite

10-08-2008, 11:22 PM

How's Ohio's economy? Better than ours.
Nope. Its a shithole economy in its own right.

Uncle Mxy

10-09-2008, 08:34 AM

itEucdhf4Us
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itEucdhf4Us

DrRay11

10-09-2008, 08:47 AM

Jesus Harold Christ...

"When did you first hear of ACORN?"

"Today."

I'm not going to pretend I love Ohio or something.

Uncle Mxy

10-09-2008, 11:49 AM

I'm John McCain and I approve this General:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081008/ts_nm/us_afghan_usa_petraeus

Glenn

10-09-2008, 12:02 PM

I wonder if that will put McCain's manlove for Petraeus in jeopardy?

Fool

10-09-2008, 12:14 PM

HE'S LEGITIMIZING THE TALIBAN! TRAITOR! PRECONDITIONS!

Black Dynamite

10-09-2008, 12:15 PM

Z2rpvj9NSXM

McCain may never be tied to Vietnamese terrorists i guess.

Glenn

10-09-2008, 12:53 PM

Dr. Phillip Butler
Former POW says McCain is "not cut out to be President"

_KjsEs46C70

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KjsEs46C70

SWIFTBOATED

Glenn

10-09-2008, 02:47 PM

So the rednecks in my neighborhood finally stole my Obama yard sign last night (along with a few others on my block).

I have the backup sign in the garage and I'm going to put it out tonight, but I'm looking for a twist.

My first thought was to slip some razor blades into the frame to make some sort of border of exposed blades around the sign on all sides. I kind of like that one.

The other idea was to scoop up some of the dog crap in my neighbors yard and surround the sign with it.

Right now, I'm leaning towards doing both.

Any other ideas?

Fool

10-09-2008, 02:59 PM

Build a hill in your front yard to put the sign on. Make the hill too steep for walkers and canes.

Glenn

10-09-2008, 03:03 PM

I'm pretty sure that the people who took the first one had canes, so that's a good idea.

WTFchris

10-09-2008, 03:10 PM

My sign is hanging in the front window where you cannot steal it.

You need some sort of adhesive that won't activate until heated by touching it or something. That way they are stuck to the sign. I'm sure they have that shit at Walmart. Send one of your Wolverine buddies down there.

Fool

10-09-2008, 04:56 PM

From Kstat's board.

Exclusive: Obama buys half-hour of network primetime

Barack Obama has purchased a half-hour of airtime on CBS, sources confirm.

The Obama campaign will air a half-hour primetime special on Wednesday, Oct. 29, at 8 p.m.

Sources say the Obama camp is also in talks with NBC and Fox. It’s not yet clear if an ad buy is locked on any other network, however, or if the special's duration or time period is the same.

A CBS spokesperson declined comment. The buy will push comedy "The New Adventures of Old Christine" to 8:30 p.m. and pre-empt "Gary Unmarried."

The direct purchase of such a large block of time is considered unusual in modern presidential politics, though not without precedent -- Ross Perot did a similar purchase in 1992.

This year has seen the first time in many years that presidential campaigns have bought national broadcast TV advertisements. In the past 12 years, much of the billions of dollars in political advertising spent has gone to local TV stations in battleground states. While some money has gone to national cable channels, the thinking has always been that it would be more prudent to target battleground states' voters instead of addressing the entire nation, including states that reliably vote for one party or another.

The first instance was in August, when both Obama and McCain ponied up about $5 million each to advertise in NBC's coverage of the Summer Olympics from Beijing. The networks' evening newscasts have also seen campaign ads for the first time in years. Before that, the last nationally broadcast campaign ad ran in the 1996 campaign.

The Obama campaign earlier this year opted out of the public financing system, which meant that it was free to raise and spend as much as it could. It has, in states like Michigan, outspent the publicly financed McCain campaign by a margin of at least 3-to-1.

It's not unprecedented for a candidate to buy longform broadcast network time, though it hasn't happened in a while. In October 1992, Perot drew audiences of 16.5 million and 10.5 million for 30-minute lectures/campaign ad aimed at voters. But in Perot's second run in 1996, the candidate was rebuffed by the Big Four networks in an attempt to sell air time. The FCC backed the networks in denying Perot air time, saying that they acted legally in refusing.