So let me get this straight,

- NY Post says Barack talks to Zebari to negotiate withdrawal date after election

- Barack denys talking to Zebari altogether

- Barack's security spokeswoman says he did infact talk to Zebari, and confirmed the previous article from the NY Post

- Obama calls a teleconference to reiterate what he did talk to Zebari about, and ends up saying that what Zebari, the NY post AND his security spokeswoman said is innaccurate...

Please.

Don't be too facetious Barack, you have nobody to back you up.
Replying to this way-old post because the NY Post bogosity behind it was recycled by the Washington Times today.

At the time, I tried to explain it to you by giving you some insight into how you could read what was written in the NY Post text itself and conclude it was bogus.

But, with the benefit of hindsight, it appears that numerous people on both sides -- Chuck Hagel, Jack Reed, the Bush administration -- back up Obama's account of the events and not the NY Post (and now Washington Times):

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/undermining-mcc.html

These recycled debunked arguments aren't a path to victory for McCain. I'm surprised he hasn't gone for a Daisy-type ad -- "Obama wants to invade a NUCLEAR Pakistan?!" followed by a KABOOM.

i could care less since it ever escalated...but brownie points for doing the follow-up research Mxy

The radical right can opine all they want about the Obama/Ayers "connection", there's much more damning stuff (or equal, at worst) out there about McCain if you care to look for it.

But you won't because it doesn't matter.

This election is going to be about issues, like it or not.


McCain has his own Ayers
I was quoted in Saturday's New York Times story criticizing Barack Obama's long association with someone he should shun: former Weather Underground bomber William Ayers. John McCain and Sarah Palin have good reason to fault Obama for overlooking Ayers' indefensible past. But while they're at it, they should also explain to the American people why McCain has been friends with another violent political extremist: Gordon Liddy.

Liddy, who worked for President Nixon's campaign, was convicted and sentenced to 20 years in prison for multiple crimes in burglarizing the Democratic National Committee office in the Watergate building--part of a broader plot to steal the 1972 election through sabotage, illegal spying and other dirty tricks. He even planned the murder of a journalist, though that idea was overruled. Bombings? He proposed the firebombing of a liberal think tank.

Liddy, now a conservative radio host, has never expressed regret for this attempt to subvert the Constitution. Nor has he developed any respect for the law. After the 1993 raid on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, he endorsed the shooting of federal agents: "Kill the sons of bitches."

Yet none of this bothers McCain. Liddy has contributed thousands of dollars to his campaigns, held a fundraiser for McCain at his home and hosted the senator on his radio show, where McCain said, "I'm proud of you." Exactly which part of Liddy's record is McCain proud of?

While Obama has gotten lots of scrutiny for his connection to Ayers, McCain has never had to explain his association with Liddy. If he can't defend it, he should admit as much. And if he thinks he can defend it, let him.

So just take a look around, you'll find stuff like this and a lot more, like this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-k-wilson/john-mccains-terrorist-co_b_133326.html

i could care less since it ever escalated...but brownie points for doing the follow-up research Mxy

Sorry to nitpick, but you might want to start saying "I couldn't care less" or your point doesn't really make sense.

Could care less means you do in fact care.

Betty White rocks my world!
TxL7MKsGoPo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxL7MKsGoPo

Nice. On the experience comment she made...I don't think that's the type of change Obama is looking for.

Betty White is indeed pretty awesome.

Nice. On the experience comment she made...I don't think that's the type of change Obama is looking for.
I hear Betty White does a mean version of JH's "Are You Experienced?". :)

BTW, here's the full interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2P76NbY0_c

http://assets.236.com/images/photo2/6376/original/original.jpg

McCain hiring blacks to sew racial discord?

http://bbsnews.net/article.php/20081010004010613

http://assets.236.com/images/photo2/6376/original/original.jpg
OMG

Friday's schedule had my loling in my office.

Great stuff.

The radical right can opine all they want about the Obama/Ayers "connection", there's much more damning stuff (or equal, at worst) out there about McCain if you care to look for it.

But you won't because it doesn't matter.

This election is going to be about issues, like it or not.



So just take a look around, you'll find stuff like this and a lot more, like this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-k-wilson/john-mccains-terrorist-co_b_133326.html



Glenn, you've tried that McCain has his own Ayers thing twice this week...

if it was that big, i think the mainstream would've already hit on it hard...

especially the mainstream...

if it was that big, i think the mainstream would've already hit on it hard...

especially the mainstream...

No they won't, because Obama is smart enought to know that it doesn't matter in today's US, so he's not talking about anything but the issues at hand.

The Obama campaign hasn't pushed McCain's "tenuous at best" connections as hard as the McCain campaign has. Why should they?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14457.html

And yes, mainstream media is reporting on McCain's terrorist ties, for what it's worth (which is about as much to them as it is to McCain -- not much):

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jzQtw1kATj1xCqPcAmwgCKDtNpDQD93LT9NG0

BTW, the Michigan dude who PROSECUTED Ayers calls this a joke. AFAICT, he's yet another Republican who's disgusted with what the Republican party has become lately:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/opinion/l10ayers.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=login


Re “Politics of Attack” (editorial, Oct. 8) and “Obama and ’60s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths” (front page, Oct. 4):

As the lead federal prosecutor of the Weathermen in the 1970s (I was then chief of the criminal division in the Eastern District of Michigan and took over the Weathermen prosecution in 1972), I am amazed and outraged that Senator Barack Obama is being linked to William Ayers’s terrorist activities 40 years ago when Mr. Obama was, as he has noted, just a child.

Although I dearly wanted to obtain convictions against all the Weathermen, including Bill Ayers, I am very pleased to learn that he has become a responsible citizen.

Because Senator Obama recently served on a board of a charitable organization with Mr. Ayers cannot possibly link the senator to acts perpetrated by Mr. Ayers so many years ago.

I do take issue with the statement in your news article that the Weathermen indictment was dismissed because of “prosecutorial misconduct.” It was dismissed because of illegal activities, including wiretaps, break-ins and mail interceptions, initiated by John N. Mitchell, attorney general at that time, and W. Mark Felt, an F.B.I. assistant director.

William C. Ibershof

Mill Valley, Calif., Oct. 8, 2008

Well, that should just about do it, mark down 10/10/08 as the day this campaign was decided.

Two things happened in the past couple of hours to pretty much lock this up for Obama, IMO.

1. McCain was forced to defend Obama when a women at a town hall called Obama "an Arab". McCain shook his head no and grabbed the mic from the hag and called Obama a "good, family man" and a few minutes later told the crowd that they had "no reason to fear a President Obama". The crowd then boo'd McCain. It seems as though McCain's conscience finally got the best of him. I don't know what they expected, to be honest. They led these people directly to these conclusions and now they don't want them to draw them. McCain is caught in a corner now.

2. The committee investigating Palin in the Troopergate scandal has just ruled that she indeed abused her power to have Monegan fired. The door is wide open for him to sue her now. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081011/ap_on_el_pr/palin_troopergate

DONE.

There's more to McCain's reaction to this than this, but this is the most significant 20 seconds:

0YIq5Q15L1o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YIq5Q15L1o

DONE.


He's still a minority candidate. We'll see.

And if your right---Romney '12!

Team McCain confirms that McCain screwed up the initial bailout/rescue plan (after blaming Obama for it):

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Davis_McCain_blew_up_bailout.html?showall

Of course, it doesn't really matter, since it's not like he could do anything:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Not_mentioning_the_market.html?showall

He's still a minority candidate. We'll see.

And if your right---Romney '12!

Wil, why not just shoot straight and admit that you don't want a minority to win?

You may not think that is what you are saying, but that's how it's coming across.

Yeah...

Wil, why not just shoot straight and admit that you don't want a minority to win?

You may not think that is what you are saying, but that's how it's coming across.

You need tougher skin if you think I come across like that.

In all seriousness Fredo has been a true "ride the burning ship to hell" Republican, but not much of a free thinker though. Maybe it's his youth, but he's riding along with everything done by his neo con representatives. McCain's camp get's on Obama's race and "not so proven" ties to 60's terrorism, Fredo hops right on.

Much of McCain's financing comes from the RNC and 527s. I have to wonder if they'll give up on him at some point. They have LOTS of other races to protect, and they're looking at the prospect of huge Democratic gains in the House and Senate. It's not clear why McCain's campaigning in places where Obama's polling ahead by double digits. He'll be in Iowa again tomorrow, and Palin in Pennsylvania. What's the game plan, here?

Wil, why not just shoot straight and admit that you don't want a minority to win?

You may not think that is what you are saying, but that's how it's coming across.

I don't want THAT minority (Barack Obama) to win, I want John McCain to win.

If Alan Keyes, Bobby Jidnal or Clarence Thomas were the Republican Candidate, than I'd want Keyes, Jindal or Thomas to be President.

Party before Color.

I don't want THAT minority (Barack Obama) to win, I want John McCain to win.

If Alan Keyes, Bobby Jidnal or Clarence Thomas were the Republican Candidate, than I'd want Keyes, Jindal or Thomas to be President.

Party before Color.

Interesting that you refer to Obama as a "minority" and not a "Democrat".

Interesting that you refer to Obama as a "minority" and not a "Democrat".

Well it goes hand in hand, if Obama was a Republican, I'd certainly vote for him.

'Minority' is just an adjective.

FWIW, only one poll (Zogby Tracking) had their polling right on the money by Election Day in '04.

That same poll, Zogby (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE49911I20081011), has had Obama up by no more than 5 this entire week.

Just sayin'.

Much of McCain's financing comes from the RNC and 527s. I have to wonder if they'll give up on him at some point. They have LOTS of other races to protect, and they're looking at the prospect of huge Democratic gains in the House and Senate. It's not clear why McCain's campaigning in places where Obama's polling ahead by double digits. He'll be in Iowa again tomorrow, and Palin in Pennsylvania. What's the game plan, here?

Wondering if JM is looking to destroy the Republicans, then switch to Independent and start a new party with Liebermann.

Just sayin'.

FWIW, only one poll (Zogby Tracking) had their polling right on the money by Election Day in '04.

That same poll, Zogby (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE49911I20081011), has had Obama up by no more than 5 this entire week.

Just sayin'.
<yawn>
I'm just sayin' your facts are wrong, and here's proof:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/11/05/late_polls_are_seen_as_largely_accurate/

Zogby had Bush up by 1% when he won by 3%, and famously thought that Kerry would win comfortably despite his own polls. :)

The most accurate in 2004 was Pew, who had Obama up by 6-7 points a couple weeks ago. Early trackers aren't necesarily going to be as reliable as the ones closer to election day, because the sample sizes get bumped up closer to Election Day. That's why it is important to look at multiple early tracking polls, not just one.

The big difference between the "close" polls and the "not so close" polls is the mix of Dems and Rep. Zogby has the mix at 38% Dem and 36% Rep. It's not at all clear this is reflective of the electorate. To give you some perspective, most Republican pollsters have a 4-5% gap in favor of Democrats, and even that is seen as conservative.

Zogby had Bush up by 1% when he won by 3%, and famously thought that Kerry would win comfortably despite his own polls. :)


Who cares that he thought Kerry would win? That's completely irrealvant to his polldata research (which as you said, had Bush ahead).

Margin of error was 2.9%, so Zogby was spot on.

To give you some perspective, most Republican pollsters have a 4-5% gap in favor of Democrats, and even that is seen as conservative.

So you'd say that most polls (Gallup, Rasmussen) are generally skewed by default?

So you'd say that most polls (Gallup, Rasmussen) are generally skewed by default?


In the same way our nation is skewed, yes.

Turns our they are also not polling 50% whites, 50% blacks, and 50% Hispanics.

Party ID isn't easy to figure out to a useful enough granularity with the sample sizes that are typical of a daily poll. And, party ID can vary enough every 2-4 years where other sources of info besides daily polls, like voting registrations, past trends, etc. are often factored in. Some states have specific party registration, others don't. It gets messy.

What pollsters do as they ask "are you for or against so-and-so" on a daily basis is to try and gauge the nation's R, D, and I ratios as best they can. For any given day of polling, they map to their longer-term assessments of R, D, and I. That way, they don't have jitter from anomalous over/undersampling of a given quantity on any given day. This is done for many demographics (gender, race, geography, etc.) to normalize their poll samples.

Party ID isn't easy to figure out to a useful enough granularity with the sample sizes that are typical of a daily poll. And, party ID can vary enough every 2-4 years where other sources of info besides daily polls, like voting registrations, past trends, etc. are often factored in. Some states have specific party registration, others don't. It gets messy.

What pollsters do as they ask "are you for or against so-and-so" on a daily basis is to try and gauge the nation's R, D, and I ratios as best they can. For any given day of polling, they map to their longer-term assessments of R, D, and I. That way, they don't have jitter from anomalous over/undersampling of a given quantity on any given day. This is done for many demographics (gender, race, geography, etc.) to normalize their poll samples.


I see...hmmm...

zK0NVEdMAh0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zK0NVEdMAh0

I'm amused that factcheck.org did such a comprehensive debunk of the Obama-Ayers ties once itstarted being mentioned publically that the stuff they worked on was sponsored by their sponsor (Annenberg). ;)

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

The one thing that seems to get missed by the ones chanting Ayers and terrorist is -- why isn't Ayers in jail? Why didn't he serve any time? He's free because the U.S. egregiously broke the law in attempting to prosecute him. How many dangerous prisoners might we be compelled to release from Gitmo because of Bush league prosecution tactics?

I see...hmmm...
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/new_rasmussen_reports_partisan_weighting_targets_3 9_3_democrat_33_0_republican

discusses how one Republican pollster calibrates party ID.

I'm amused that factcheck.org did such a comprehensive debunk of the Obama-Ayers ties once itstarted being mentioned publically that the stuff they worked on was sponsored by their sponsor (Annenberg). ;)

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

The one thing that seems to get missed by the ones chanting Ayers and terrorist is -- why isn't Ayers in jail? Why didn't he serve any time? He's free because the U.S. egregiously broke the law in attempting to prosecute him. How many dangerous prisoners might we be compelled to release from Gitmo because of Bush league prosecution tactics?

So you give him a break. It seems like its always that way with you guys. This person did this, so its all ok. Read some of the letters from some of the peeps he almost killed or I think some of those letters were from the families.

Somehow it always comes back to 'the US is bad, BAD'.

Before:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKUovpF9LWU

After:
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/11/politics/fromtheroad/entry4515246.shtml

Well it looks like BO is going to be Prez, so I can only hope that he'll be more like Clinton than Carter. My hope is dashed thinking he'll have a Dem controlled congress. What helped Clinton were the Repubs in control during some of his admin.

So my guess is that socialism is on its way. Steal from the rich, give it to the less wealthy. Get the gov't involved in every aspect of our lives, higher taxes, etc.

And save the links to BO's plan. I can't believe y'all just follow him like sheep. He says 'this', so he 'will' do it. Wait till he gets in office. BO did say he might have to hold off on tax hikes if the economy is this bad. I'll believe it when I see it.

But once he's elected, he's our Prez.

So you give him a break. It seems like its always that way with you guys. This person did this, so its all ok. Read some of the letters from some of the peeps he almost killed or I think some of those letters were from the families.

Somehow it always comes back to 'the US is bad, BAD'.
My point isn't to defend Ayers, or bash America.

My points are to show cognitive dissonance by the terrorist-yelling crowd (why isn't Ayers behind bars being someone's prison bitch) and to tie it to something that is meaningful today (Hamdan and others detained at Gitmo).

As far as bashing America, you know that the key guy whose fuckups led to Ayers being a free man today is more famous than Ayers, and seen by a LOT of Americans as some kind of hero:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Mark_Felt

You might know him by a more familiar name... Deep Throat

I really don't care who fucked that up, unlike some according to what you posted. BO's relationship to him is fair game, imo. Everyone gets to pick who they believe on that part.

Whether Ayers got off or not, him and his wife are psycho.

I had some guy come up to me and start shit with me about my Obama sticker today. He goes "you gotta be kidding me! You're not really gonna vote for that Obama guy are you? You can't be serious!"

Man, it's not like I drive around with a sign on my car saying "Martin Lawrence for President." I could kind of understand that reaction there. It's not like I said I was supporting Al Sharpton here. We're talking about a guy who graduated Harvard Law magna cum laude, and was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review.

I mean, say what you want about people voting Democrat or Republican, but don't act like I just shat in your cheerios. It's not like we're talking about some hot ghetto mess here. He's at the top of his field.

I have a lot of respect for John McCain (although it's kind of slipping away these last few weeks). What he endured in Vietnam is worth that respect, and his service in the Senate is too (even though I disagree with some of his choices as a Senator). I would never act like he was a completely unreasonable choice to be President, I just don't think he should be, based on his policy choices and the fact that his running mate is thoroughly out of her depth.

Neither of the men running for President on a major-party ticket are a joke. They are serious business. So the disdainful attitudes about who people choose is just completely unnecessary this election season.

Either could end up being a very good Prez, or either could be a disaster, imo...especially with the economy, WOT, etc.

I really don't care who fucked that up, unlike some according to what you posted. BO's relationship to him is fair game, imo. Everyone gets to pick who they believe on that part.
A lot of people who purport to be all up in arms about terrorists sure don't act like it. A terrorist is walking around in polite society and you don't care how or why it happened? What kind of American are you... some kinda commie sympathizer? Don't you care about exterminating those terrorists, at home and abroad? Why hasn't a real red-blooded American done his civic duty and apprehended Ayers, pronto?!? If you knew of some active threat in my area, wouldn't you at least call the cops?!!?

Yadda yadda yadda.

To my way of thinking, a terrorist on our soil is a national security thing, not a political thing. That is, unless someone is behind in the polls and they see no other options...

Obama's "relationship" with Ayers reminds me of the relationship I had with some murderers I was doing my civic duty with. I was in a jury pool several years back, at the Oakland County courthouse with a couple hundred people I'd never met before (including a mega-hottie from U-M Dearborn). As they started their weedout process, I was amazed at the number of folks who were murderers (three) or felons of other sorts (DUIs, burglary, sex offenders, you name it -- well over a dozen) that were there. I wouldn't have picked most of them to have any particularly heinous past, and I was surprised they didn't exclude them from the jury pool.


Whether Ayers got off or not, him and his wife are psycho.
To my mind, they're just 60s-radical old farts these days, but they were really psycho in the 60s-70s.

blah blah blah mega-hottie blah blah blah.

Did you score?

A lot of people who purport to be all up in arms about terrorists sure don't act like it. A terrorist is walking around in polite society and you don't care how or why it happened? What kind of American are you... some kinda commie sympathizer? Don't you care about exterminating those terrorists, at home and abroad? Why hasn't a real red-blooded American done his civic duty and apprehended Ayers, pronto?!? If you knew of some active threat in my area, wouldn't you at least call the cops?!!?

Yadda yadda yadda.

To my way of thinking, a terrorist on our soil is a national security thing, not a political thing. That is, unless someone is behind in the polls and they see no other options...

Obama's "relationship" with Ayers reminds me of the relationship I had with some murderers I was doing my civic duty with. I was in a jury pool several years back, at the Oakland County courthouse with a couple hundred people I'd never met before (including a mega-hottie from U-M Dearborn). As they started their weedout process, I was amazed at the number of folks who were murderers (three) or felons of other sorts (DUIs, burglary, sex offenders, you name it -- well over a dozen) that were there. I wouldn't have picked most of them to have any particularly heinous past, and I was surprised they didn't exclude them from the jury pool.


To my mind, they're just 60s-radical old farts these days, but they were really psycho in the 60s-70s.

And thats how the media wants us to think of them. Some peeps don't follow that thinking.

How long ago was it that he said, he wished he had done more? I don't know the answer to that.

Supposedly, he was misquoted on 9/11, or something like that. He wish he had done more in Vietnam, or whatever. I dunno. I don't have much reason to care about what Ayers says, really.

As far as what the media wants us to think -- consider that they're working respectable jobs, not blowing up Amerikkka (how they spelled it back then). The media is thinking they're ok within society because society has treated them that way. Whatever they were before, they seem to be all talk now.

Mitt's already gearing up for 2012...

http://mitt12.com/

http://mitt12.com/blog/romney_country_large.jpg

Amusing dope on the dude most responsible for "Obama is a Muslim" smears:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/us/politics/13martin.html?_r=1&hp&oref=login

But an appearance in a documentary-style program on the Fox News Channel watched by three million people last week thrust the man, Andy Martin, and his past into the foreground. The program allowed Mr. Martin to assert falsely and without challenge that Mr. Obama had once trained to overthrow the government.

An examination of legal documents and election filings, along with interviews with his acquaintances, revealed Mr. Martin, 62, to be a man with a history of scintillating if not always factual claims. He has left a trail of animosity — some of it provoked by anti-Jewish comments — among political leaders, lawyers and judges in three states over more than 30 years.

He is a law school graduate, but his admission to the Illinois bar was blocked in the 1970s after a psychiatric finding of “moderately severe character defect manifested by well-documented ideation with a paranoid flavor and a grandiose character.”

Though he is not a lawyer, Mr. Martin went on to become a prodigious filer of lawsuits, and he made unsuccessful attempts to win public office for both parties in three states, as well as for president at least twice, in 1988 and 2000. Based in Chicago, he now identifies himself as a writer who focuses on his anti-Obama Web site and press releases.

It was not Mr. Martin’s first turn on national television. The CBS News program “48 Hours” in 1993 devoted an hourlong program to what it called his prolific filing of frivolous lawsuits. He has filed so many lawsuits that a judge barred him from doing so in any federal court without preliminary approval.

He prepared to run as a Democrat for Congress in Connecticut, where paperwork for one of his campaign committees listed as one purpose “to exterminate Jew power.” He ran as a Republican for the Florida State Senate and the United States Senate in Illinois. When running for president in 1999, he aired a television advertisement in New Hampshire that accused George W. Bush of using cocaine.

In the 1990s, Mr. Martin was jailed in a case in Florida involving a physical altercation.

His newfound prominence, and the persistence of his line of political attack — updated regularly on his Web site and through press releases — amazes those from his past.

“Well, that’s just a bookend for me,” said Tom Slade, a former chairman of the Florida Republican Party, whom Mr. Martin sued for refusing to support him. Mr. Slade said Mr. Martin was driven like “a run-over dog, but he’s fearless.”

Yet in various court papers, Mr. Martin had impugned Jews.

A motion he filed in a 1983 bankruptcy case called the judge “a crooked, slimy Jew who has a history of lying and thieving common to members of his race.”

In another motion, filed in 1983, Mr. Martin wrote, “I am able to understand how the Holocaust took place, and with every passing day feel less and less sorry that it did.”

In an interview, Mr. Martin denied some statements against Jews attributed to him in court papers, blaming malicious judges for inserting them.

But in his “48 Hours” interview in 1993, he affirmed a different anti-Semitic part of the affidavit that included the line about the Holocaust, saying, “The record speaks for itself.”

When asked Friday about an assertion in his court papers that “Jews, historically and in daily living, act through clans and in wolf pack syndrome,” he said, “That one sort of rings a bell.”

That's the guy that Hannity interviewed on his show that Robert Gibbs was jabbing him about for giving him a platform to spout off, right?

^terrible sentence

blah blah blah mega-hottie blah blah blah.

Did you score?
Teresa had a boyfriend, but we ended up on jury duty together, and had lunch at the Summit Place food court for a couple days. We were the only ones on the jury under 50, AFAICT. She looked like the pre-breast implant pre-plastic surgery all-natural Pamela Anderson -- just babe-alicious. She asked me to sit next to her so some (reportedly) pervy old dude wouldn't be inclined to do so. I don't think she got the memo about my being a pervy younger dude...

On a political note, here's some profiling of the undecided vote:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=187570&title=The-Stupid-Vote

Amusing dope on the dude most responsible for "Obama is a Muslim" smears:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/us/politics/13martin.html?_r=1&hp&oref=login
Those of us who are aware of this guy are not surprised. "Andy Martin" used to be Anthony Martin of the state of New York, and he was well known in the NY papers for filing TONS of lawsuits every month against people. He filed so many lawsuits that there was actually a court order in force against him that prohibited him from filing lawsuits unless explicitly permitted to do so by the court.

Ostensibly, it began with some kind of personal gripe about some legal issue that didn't go his way. And he would inevitably file lawsuits against every Jewish person involved. His filings are quite an entertaining read. You get things like "...was not permitted to [testify] by the Jew judge," "...evidence mishandled by rabid Jew lawyer," etc.

I think he eventually got the hint that people regarded him as a nutjob anti-Semite, so he moved to Florida and started going by "Andy," and he reinvented himself as an "expert" on famous Democratic politicians.

Naturally, he was immediately taken at face value and put on TV.

So Obama said today in Toledo, OH that for one year only, he's going to give a $3000 tax credit to businesses that create a full-time job.

So is that supposed to be some sort of incentive to create jobs? The cost of creating a full-time job is over 20 times that amount. You don't create jobs for a tax credit, you create jobs because you need more production. And with today's economy, I find it hard to believe there are alot of businesses that are experiencing a 'boom' in production. Plus, it only lasts 1 year.

The 3K tax credit doesn't cover the cost of the job, it doesn't encourage businesses to create jobs, it doesn't do anything. It's nothing more than an empty-shelled plan that sounds 'fine & dandy' to the idiot who doesn't take the time to figure out what the fuck he's talking about.

Obama also said that he's going to eliminate capital gains taxes on people who invest in small businesses.

One problem Barack, majority of investments come from stock, and most small businesses don't provide stock, so the only person who would 'invest' in a small business, is the person who's starting it. And since small businesses don't pay capital gains taxes to begin with, so what the hell is he cutting?!?!?!

Obama = Words

What do you want him to do? Give the business a credit large enough to pay for the job created? Great idea. Then the taxpayers can just pay that person's salary. LOL

I think %10 of the salary is a pretty good incentive to an employer. He's also giving credits for insuring their workers too.

So Obama said today in Toledo, OH that for one year only, he's going to give a $3000 tax credit to businesses that create a full-time job.

So is that supposed to be some sort of incentive to create jobs? The cost of creating a full-time job is over 20 times that amount. You don't create jobs for a tax credit, you create jobs because you need more production. And with today's economy, I find it hard to believe there are alot of businesses that are experiencing a 'boom' in production. Plus, it only lasts 1 year.
So you create the new full-time job for a year. Actually, the credit is for two years -- dunno where you're getting your talking points from. There are a lot of businesses who did layoffs and are now overextending the employees that are left. And, creating a full-time job is not necessarily a $60+k venture like you seem to think. Think about this in terms of corporate mergers, too.


Obama also said that he's going to eliminate capital gains taxes on people who invest in small businesses.

One problem Barack, majority of investments come from stock, and most small businesses don't provide stock,
This is primarily about encouraging VC investment in startups, and has been part of Obama's economic plans for months. There's pros and cons and a lot depends on implementation, but the idea has merit. Small businesses are the ones creating the most jobs, so let's reward folks who invest, and encourage more investment.

What do you want him to do?
Nothing, there is nothing he could do unless it was a perfect plan from heaven itself(or martians for Glenn).

LOL at Team McCain attacking ACORN:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Acorn_pushes_back_hugs_McCain.html

I still can't quite believe it, but Obama may take Florida:

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/campaign-2008/story/722731.html

Even Gov. Charlie Crist, who helped deliver Florida for McCain during the primary, said he will be spending more time minding the state's weak economy than campaigning for the Arizona senator in the final weeks before Election Day.

''When I have time to help, I'll try to do that,'' Crist said last week, after he flew around the state with McCain running mate Sarah Palin. Saturday, he skipped a McCain football rally and instead went to Disney World.

Acorn is a pos organization, afaict

-- dunno where you're getting your talking points from.

The messiah himself...

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/obama_speech_theres_one_word_o.php

That's why I'm proposing to give our businesses a new American jobs tax credit for each new employee they hire here in the United States over the next two years.

well either way, i think it's more a 'perk' than a 'solution'...

it's not a reason to create a full-time job, it's just a minor convienence for having the opportunity (an opportunity that's becoming more and more rare) to create a full-time job...hardly noteworthy

Acorn is a pos organization, afaict

If you are so inclined, you might consider reading some non-partisan info about ACORN.

I'm not suggesting that they are perfect, but if it's possible for an organization to be smeared/swiftboated, then that just might be happening.

Acorn is a pos organization, afaict
And when did you hear of ACORN?

And when did you hear of ACORN?

Just yesterday on FoxNews.

In paying people to register voters (and with some of the places where ACORN operates, they have to pay people), we're prone to bullshit like this. The solutions involve stuff like compulsory voting, election day as a national holiday, a nationally-run elections agency, etc. ACORN is a symptom, a byproduct, of a voting system that's broken in a whole lot of ways. It should be the goal of our government to be functional enough to make the need for ACORN and the like go away.

WAr0MesBfXo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAr0MesBfXo

Its some sort of federal offense to knowing fuck up an election, iirc. ACORN is the problem, not the Fed Gov't, imo. They have no quality checks and promote numbers of peeps being registered vs quality. They, imo are just trying to throw a monkey wrench in this election. Their guy is going to win, why do it? They should back off or they risk tying the election up in court. Dumbasses

Barack Obama to a plumber yesterday...



Barack Obama told a tax-burdened plumber over the weekend that his economic philosophy is to "spread the wealth around" -- a comment that may only draw fire from riled-up John McCain supporters who have taken to calling Obama a "socialist" at the Republican's rallies.

Obama made the remark, caught on camera, after fielding some tough questions from the plumber Sunday in Ohio, where the Democratic candidate canvassed neighborhoods and encouraged residents to vote early.

"Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" the plumber asked, complaining that he was being taxed "more and more for fulfilling the American dream."


"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too," Obama responded. "My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."


Obama's response is PURE socialism. Taking money away from the people who earned it, and giving it to the people who didn't...

Of course with his #1 Ranking in the "Most Liberal Voting- US Senate Polls", it comes as no surprise. Obama is a socialist.

People who bitch about not making enough money have nobody to blame but themselves. Everybody in this country has the opportunity to make sacrifices and earn a better lifestyle. One shouldn't be penalized for having his hard work payoff.

And it's not only the plumber who's going to be taxed, under Obama's plan, EVERYBODY, 100% of the country, will see their taxes increase, and there's nothing in Barack Obama's track record to suggest he'd even consider doing otherwise.

Making sure the people below you have a chance for success shouldn't include the government giving you a booster seat to get goin'. You earn your way to the top. If you fail, than it's your fault, not the governments.

What's the incentive of me going to college if under Obama's plan, I can be entitled to things I don't earn?

A Socialist, Marxist Radical in the White House? What the hell happened to this country...?

Nope, he was talking about the economy, not wealth distribution. You wasted a lot of words there pal.

Its some sort of federal offense to knowing fuck up an election, iirc. ACORN is the problem, not the Fed Gov't, imo.
ACORN only exists because our government does such a shit job. And I'm not talking "federal government" (though I think the best solution should start from there). The election system we have is decentralized to a fucked-up degree.

Today, in Canada, their big elections are taking place (probably another minority Conservative government). It's easier for Canadians to register to vote, to vote conveniently, and have confidence that their votes will be counted right. The need for outfits like ACORN goes away. Lots of folks long for Canadian healthcare. I long for Elections Canada.

Seriously??? you think it's difficult to register to vote?

Peeps just need to get off their asses if they want to vote, imo.

I don't think it's difficult, but only about 70% of eligible voters are registered, so there's something gummed up. I don't think that ACORN and its ilk would exists as a significant presence if we got that to 90-odd%. We have lots of ways to promote voter reg. The Canadians tie to a checkbox on income tax forms. The Aussies penalize you if you don't do the minimal effort. There's a lot we could do to encourage participation at relatively little cost to us, but it gets horribly politicized. Republicans seem to think high voter turnout works against them, despite a lot of evidence that suggests otherwise. Because election responsibilites are spread out so many local/state agencies, there's all sorts of fights about changing the status quo that have little to do with encouraging voter participation. <sigh>

Ok, enough ranting from me on this... back to the subject at hand:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27184857/

Barack Obama to a plumber yesterday...
Here's Obama's full response to the plumber.

vFC9jv9jfoA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFC9jv9jfoA

Keep in mind that the United States is a mixed economy -- there's nothing "pure" about it, and nothing "pure" about any of the policy modifications being proposed. It's all shades of grey. Schools, roads, police, and a ton of other things are guided by principles that aren't very capitalistic.

I don't think it's difficult, but only about 70% of eligible voters are registered, so there's something gummed up. I don't think that ACORN and its ilk would exists as a significant presence if we got that to 90-odd%. We have lots of ways to promote voter reg. The Canadians tie to a checkbox on income tax forms. The Aussies penalize you if you don't do the minimal effort. There's a lot we could do to encourage participation at relatively little cost to us, but it gets horribly politicized. Republicans seem to think high voter turnout works against them, despite a lot of evidence that suggests otherwise. Because election responsibilites are spread out so many local/state agencies, there's all sorts of fights about changing the status quo that have little to do with encouraging voter participation. <sigh>

Ok, enough ranting from me on this... back to the subject at hand:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27184857/

Gummed up...Yes, apathetic people. Here's where you and I prolly differ. If they don't want to take the time and go register and vote, then its on them. Its your right to vote, its your right not to vote, its your right to apethetic. I don't like going out there and trying to make a crooked line straight.

As far as Repubs not wanting higher turnout...Rove got tons of extras out for Bush, so if not for higher turnout, we'd be talking about the incumbent Kerry or Gore running right now or something.

Wow, I never realized how retarded all this ACORN "controversy" really is. Thanks Wil Wheaton!

Speaking of retarded:
p8ceYtl2j38
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8ceYtl2j38

i love how every 2 years the repubs get foxnews viewers worked into a froth about 'voter fraud'. It is really registration fraud as a way to make a quick buck but not to change election results.however, fox can convince their idiot masses that poor people actually plan to travel across states to vote in multiple places or that tony romo is really going to try to vote in las vegas or whatever it is. bushco sicced a bunch of repub us attourneys on the case. when they didn't find any actual voter fraud, those people were fired in an effort to put more partisan hacks in place to make shit up. of course, this is unmentionable on a 'legitimate' news channel like fox so they ignore the attourney firing scandal without a hint of criticism for rove, miers et al. completely ignoring their constitutional duties to appear for congressional oversight. bushco has run wild over the constitution for 8 years and foxnews' story of the day revolves around an ex-con trying to register tony romo as if someone would actually show up at a polling place as tony romo. In fact, acorn often flags most of the apparently fraudulent applications prior to sending them in for review.

now, i wouldn't say that acorn are angels, but over the last 10-20 yrs. far more repubs have been convicted of efforts to prevent voting than dems have been convicted for voter fraud. when fox devotes 50%+ of their time to a story, it is just about guaranteed to be bullshit. i said that voter restriction efforts would be the repubs' oct surprise, but i didn't realise how hard fox would push it on their legion of devotees. i'll look forward to the return of the right wing militias any day now since dems are the real threat to liberty (ignoring of course, the repub-inspired Patriot Act, domestic surveillance, indefinite detention, corruption of the justice dept, socialization of banks, massive increase in public debt and every other liberty-constraining thing that repubs did over the last 8 years).

This is not very related to the pres. election, but i didn't want to start a new thread. i live in nc and stoppy by the US House debate for my district. It featured a 10-term center left dem and a ron paul type republican. I tend to have some paleocon type views and i don't like the idea of people spending 20+ years in congress, so i was sympathetic to the republican. However, listening to the debate, it struck me that the existence of ron paul type republicans is pretty silly in the first place. It seemed like the thrust of his argument was that the dem did not try hard enough to stop bush and the repub controlled congress from doing stupid things. for example, the dem voted against the iraq war resolution, bush tax cuts and the renewal of the patriot act, but was still criticized by the repub for being anti-freedom, pro-war, and fiscally irresponsible. However, I would presume that the repub would vote for republican leadership in the house (i.e. the same people who most fervently pushed for those same policies against the protests of the incumbent dem.) thus, the line of argument was entirely incoherent. if you oppose all of the repub policies, then don't run as a repub period. He kept touting his campaign as non-partisan and i am sure that he does have some dem support, but i just can't vote for someone that would put boehner in charge. it is ridiculous. I might have voted for the guy if he ran as an independent, but there is no way that i'd vote for him.

so, my question is why do libertarians still associate with the repub party? I don't think they should be dems, but they are not going to change the minds of jacksonian militarists or big govt/anti-freedom evangelicals who run the repub party. so why not start a separate movement that is logically coherent and that could fight both dems and repubs on an issue by issue basis? It seems to me there should be five parties left(kucinich/conyers) center left(clinton) center right (specter/mccain) right (paul/coburn) religious right(huckabee/palin). Of course, i think it would be best to avoid parties altogether and to impose 12-year term limits on congressmen and senators.

Also note that in 2004 ohio, rural (bush-leaning) precints reported turn out rates as high as 97%, yet there were no lines at those polls compared to 1-12 hour waiting times in some urban districts. i hope that bush is still paying blackwell off for that shit. anyways, here are the results from bush's all-out assault on voter fraud and subsequent firing of those that did not provide the expected partisan results:




WASHINGTON, April 11 — Five years after the Bush administration began a crackdown on voter fraud, the Justice Department has turned up virtually no evidence of any organized effort to skew federal elections, according to court records and interviews.

Although Republican activists have repeatedly said fraud is so widespread that it has corrupted the political process and, possibly, cost the party election victories, about 120 people have been charged and 86 convicted as of last year.

Most of those charged have been Democrats, voting records show. Many of those charged by the Justice Department appear to have mistakenly filled out registration forms or misunderstood eligibility rules, a review of court records and interviews with prosecutors and defense lawyers show.

In Miami, an assistant United States attorney said many cases there involved what were apparently mistakes by immigrants, not fraud.

In Wisconsin, where prosecutors have lost almost twice as many cases as they won, charges were brought against voters who filled out more than one registration form and felons seemingly unaware that they were barred from voting.

One ex-convict was so unfamiliar with the rules that he provided his prison-issued identification card, stamped “Offender,” when he registered just before voting.
A handful of convictions involved people who voted twice. More than 30 were linked to small vote-buying schemes in which candidates generally in sheriff’s or judge’s races paid voters for their support.

A federal panel, the Election Assistance Commission, reported last year that the pervasiveness of fraud was debatable. That conclusion played down findings of the consultants who said there was little evidence of it across the country, according to a review of the original report by The New York Times that was reported on Wednesday.


“There was nothing that we uncovered that suggested some sort of concerted effort to tilt the election,” Richard G. Frohling, an assistant United States attorney in Milwaukee, said.

Richard L. Hasen, an expert in election law at the Loyola Law School, agreed, saying: “If they found a single case of a conspiracy to affect the outcome of a Congressional election or a statewide election, that would be significant. But what we see is isolated, small-scale activities that often have not shown any kind of criminal intent.”

For some convicted people, the consequences have been significant. Kimberly Prude, 43, has been jailed in Milwaukee for more than a year after being convicted of voting while on probation, an offense that she attributes to confusion over eligibility.

In Pakistan, Usman Ali is trying to rebuild his life after being deported from Florida, his legal home of more than a decade, for improperly filling out a voter-registration card while renewing his driver’s license.

In Alaska, Rogelio Mejorada-Lopez, a Mexican who legally lives in the United States, may soon face a similar fate, because he voted even though he was not eligible.

The push to prosecute voter fraud figured in the removals last year of at least two United States attorneys whom Republican politicians or party officials had criticized for failing to pursue cases.

The campaign has roiled the Justice Department in other ways, as career lawyers clashed with a political appointee over protecting voters’ rights, and several specialists in election law were installed as top prosecutors.

Department officials defend their record. “The Department of Justice is not attempting to make a statement about the scale of the problem,” a spokesman, Bryan Sierra, said. “But we are obligated to investigate allegations when they come to our attention and prosecute when appropriate.”

Officials at the department say that the volume of complaints has not increased since 2002, but that it is pursuing them more aggressively.

Previously, charges were generally brought just against conspiracies to corrupt the election process, not against individual offenders, Craig Donsanto, head of the elections crimes branch, told a panel investigating voter fraud last year. For deterrence, Mr. Donsanto said, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales authorized prosecutors to pursue criminal charges against individuals.

Some of those cases have baffled federal judges.

“I find this whole prosecution mysterious,” Judge Diane P. Wood of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in Chicago, said at a hearing in Ms. Prude’s case. “I don’t know whether the Eastern District of Wisconsin goes after every felon who accidentally votes. It is not like she voted five times. She cast one vote.”

The Justice Department stand is backed by Republican Party and White House officials, including Karl Rove, the president’s chief political adviser. The White House has acknowledged that he relayed Republican complaints to President Bush and the Justice Department that some prosecutors were not attacking voter fraud vigorously. In speeches, Mr. Rove often mentions fraud accusations and warns of tainted elections.

Voter fraud is a highly polarized issue, with Republicans asserting frequent abuses and Democrats contending that the problem has been greatly exaggerated to promote voter identification laws that could inhibit the turnout by poor voters.

The New Priority

The fraud rallying cry became a clamor in the Florida recount after the 2000 presidential election. Conservative watchdog groups, already concerned that the so-called Motor Voter Law in 1993 had so eased voter registration that it threatened the integrity of the election system, said thousands of fraudulent votes had been cast.

Similar accusations of compromised elections were voiced by Republican lawmakers elsewhere.

The call to arms reverberated in the Justice Department, where John Ashcroft, a former Missouri senator, was just starting as attorney general.

Combating voter fraud, Mr. Ashcroft announced, would be high on his agenda. But in taking up the fight, he promised that he would also be vigilant in attacking discriminatory practices that made it harder for minorities to vote.

“American voters should neither be disenfranchised nor defrauded,” he said at a news conference in March 2001.

Enlisted to help lead the effort was Hans A. von Spakovsky, a lawyer and Republican volunteer in the Florida recount. As a Republican election official in Atlanta, Mr. Spakovsky had pushed for stricter voter identification laws. Democrats say those laws disproportionately affect the poor because they often mandate government-issued photo IDs or driver’s licenses that require fees.

At the Justice Department, Mr. Spakovsky helped oversee the voting rights unit. In 2003, when the Texas Congressional redistricting spearheaded by the House majority leader, Tom DeLay, Republican of Texas, was sent to the Justice Department for approval, the career staff members unanimously said it discriminated against African-American and Latino voters.

Mr. Spakovsky overruled the staff, said Joseph Rich, a former lawyer in the office. Mr. Spakovsky did the same thing when they recommended the rejection of a voter identification law in Georgia considered harmful to black voters. Mr. Rich said. Federal courts later struck down the Georgia law and ruled that the boundaries of one district in the Texas plan violated the Voting Rights Act.

Former lawyers in the office said Mr. Spakovsky’s decisions seemed to have a partisan flavor unlike those in previous Republican and Democratic administrations. Mr. Spakovsky declined to comment.

“I understand you can never sweep politics completely away,” said Mark A. Posner, who had worked in the civil and voting rights unit from 1980 until 2003. “But it was much more explicit, pronounced and consciously done in this administration.”

At the same time, the department encouraged United States attorneys to bring charges in voter fraud cases, not a priority in prior administrations. The prosecutors attended training seminars, were required to meet regularly with state or local officials to identify possible cases and were expected to follow up accusations aggressively.

The Republican National Committee and its state organizations supported the push, repeatedly calling for a crackdown. In what would become a pattern, Republican officials and lawmakers in a number of states, including Florida, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Washington, made accusations of widespread abuse, often involving thousands of votes.

In swing states, including Ohio and Wisconsin, party leaders conducted inquiries to find people who may have voted improperly and prodded officials to act on their findings.

But the party officials and lawmakers were often disappointed. The accusations led to relatively few cases, and a significant number resulted in acquittals.

The Path to Jail

One of those officials was Rick Graber, former chairman of the Wisconsin Republican Party.

“It is a system that invites fraud,” Mr. Graber told reporters in August 2005 outside the house of a Milwaukeean he said had voted twice. “It’s a system that needs to be fixed.”

Along with an effort to identify so-called double voters, the party had also performed a computer crosscheck of voting records from 2004 with a list of felons, turning up several hundred possible violators. The assertions of fraud were turned over to the United States attorney’s office for investigation.

Ms. Prude’s path to jail began after she attended a Democratic rally in Milwaukee featuring the Rev. Al Sharpton in late 2004. Along with hundreds of others, she marched to City Hall and registered to vote. Soon after, she sent in an absentee ballot.

Four years earlier, though, Ms. Prude had been convicted of trying to cash a counterfeit county government check worth $1,254. She was placed on six years’ probation.

Ms. Prude said she believed that she was permitted to vote because she was not in jail or on parole, she testified in court. Told by her probation officer that she could not vote, she said she immediately called City Hall to rescind her vote, a step she was told was not necessary.

“I made a big mistake, like I said, and I truly apologize for it,” Ms. Prude said during her trial in 2005. That vote, though, resulted in a felony conviction and sent her to jail for violating probation.

Of the hundreds of people initially suspected of violations in Milwaukee, 14 — most black, poor, Democratic and first-time voters — ever faced federal charges. United States Attorney Steven M. Biskupic would say only that there was insufficient evidence to bring other cases.

No residents of the house where Mr. Graber made his assertion were charged. Even the 14 proved frustrating for the Justice Department. It won five cases in court.

The evidence that some felons knew they that could not vote consisted simply of a form outlining 20 or more rules that they were given when put on probation and signs at local government offices, testimony shows.

The Wisconsin prosecutors lost every case on double voting. Cynthia C. Alicea, 25, was accused of multiple voting in 2004 because officials found two registration cards in her name. She and others were acquitted after explaining that they had filed a second card and voted just once after a clerk said they had filled out the first card incorrectly.

In other states, some of those charged blamed confusion for their actions. Registration forms almost always require a statement affirming citizenship.

Mr. Ali, 68, who had owned a jewelry store in Tallahassee, got into trouble after a clerk at the motor vehicles office had him complete a registration form that he quickly filled out in line, unaware that it was reserved just for United States citizens.

Even though he never voted, he was deported after living legally in this country for more than 10 years because of his misdemeanor federal criminal conviction.

“We’re foreigners here,” Mr. Ali said in a telephone interview from Lahore, Pakistan, where he lives with his daughter and wife, both United States citizens.

In Alaska, Rogelio Mejorada-Lopez, who manages a gasoline station, had received a voter registration form in the mail. Because he had applied for citizenship, he thought it was permissible to vote, his lawyer said. Now, he may be deported to Mexico after 16 years in the United States. “What I want is for them to leave me alone,” he said in an interview.

Federal prosecutors in Kansas and Missouri successfully prosecuted four people for multiple voting. Several claimed residency in each state and voted twice.

United States attorney’s offices in four other states did turn up instances of fraudulent voting in mostly rural areas. They were in the hard-to-extinguish tradition of vote buying, where local politicians offered $5 to $100 for individuals’ support.

Unease Over New Guidelines

Aside from those cases, nearly all the remaining 26 convictions from 2002 to and 2005 — the Justice Department will not release details about 2006 cases except to say they had 30 more convictions— were won against individuals acting independently, voter records and court documents show.

Previous guidelines had barred federal prosecutions of “isolated acts of individual wrongdoing” that were not part of schemes to corrupt elections. In most cases, prosecutors also had to prove an intent to commit fraud, not just an improper action.

That standard made some federal prosecutors uneasy about proceeding with charges, including David C. Iglesias, who was the United States attorney in New Mexico, and John McKay, the United States attorney in Seattle.

Although both found instances of improper registration or voting, they declined to bring charges, drawing criticism from prominent Republicans in their states. In Mr. Iglesias’s case, the complaints went to Mr. Bush. Both prosecutors were among those removed in December.

In the last year, the Justice Department has installed top prosecutors who may not be so reticent. In four states, the department has named interim or permanent prosecutors who have worked on election cases at Justice Department headquarters or for the Republican Party.

Bradley J. Schlozman has finished a year as interim United States attorney in Missouri, where he filed charges against four people accused of creating fake registration forms for nonexistent people. The forms could likely never be used in voting. The four worked for a left-leaning group, Acorn, and reportedly faked registration cards to justify their wages. The cases were similar to one that Mr. Iglesias had declined to prosecute, saying he saw no intent to influence the outcome of an election.

“The decision to file those indictments was reviewed by Washington,” a spokesman for Mr. Schlozman, Don Ledford, said. “They gave us the go-ahead.”





http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/washington/12fraud.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=login

From the Extremely Bad News Department:

Chuck Norris endorses McCain.





Might as well cancel the election. 8 more years of this horseshit.

He initially backed Huckabee. Remember the ads?

It's all part of the plan.

It's all part of the plan.
rOauWDfK3AI

I was hoping you would know what I was referencing, Gutz.

tLAhqF2oIIg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLAhqF2oIIg
6u0sevdGsog
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6u0sevdGsog

First one doesn't work. 2nd one was good. Well done.

The logical incoherence of the mccain campaign continues.

on the foreign policy advisor side, you have scheunemann and others who lobbied for an iraq invasion for years.

http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/10/scheunemann.html

On the transition team, you have timmons who lobbied on behalf of saddam.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/14/mccain-transition-chief-a_n_134595.html

Of course, then you have a pair of candidates running against lobbyists despite stacking their campaign almost exclusively with lobbyists and the fact that the vp hired a lobbyist on behalf of a tiny town in alaska. it is idiocy. of course, when you are a coward like mccain has become, you just chalk your loss up to non-existent voter fraud.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Voting_for_Obama_anyway.html?showall

Colin Powell Is Ready To Endorse

Lawrence O'Donnell
Posted October 15, 2008 | 09:22 AM (EST)

When Colin Powell turns off his TV after the final presidential debate, he will have learned everything he is going to learn about the candidates vying to succeed his former boss, George W. Bush. Powell has made it clear that he has been thinking about an endorsement for a long time but wanted to hear more from the candidates before making his choice. It now seems beyond doubt that Colin Powell will endorse Barack Obama and thereby hammer the final nail in the coffin of the Republican campaign to hold onto the White House.

The recent ugliness of the McCain-Palin rally audiences cannot be lost on Colin Powell. And Powell is not one to ignore a 14 point lead in a New York Times poll. But most important for Powell and the press will be his explicit rejection of the Bush-McCain approach to Iraq, Iran and the rest of the world.

Powell's endorsement will be perfectly timed to dominate a news cycle or two. It will give Obama the one thing he still needs more of--credibility as Commander-In-Chief. And Sarah Palin's speechwriters will be hard pressed to come up with a condescending quip about it.

Am I the only one who doesn't give a fuck on who Powell endorses?
If Obama, critics will say "of course, Powell is black".
If McCain, critics will say "of course, Powell is Republican".
I don't think he's a big deal, either way.

Obama got a bill passed into law today involving mercury exports:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d110:27:./temp/~bdQdhQ:@@@R|/bss/d110query.html|

But of course, all he's been doing is running for President... :)

When Colin Powell turns off his TV after the final presidential debate, he will have learned everything he is going to learn about the candidates vying to succeed his former boss, George W. Bush.
As much as I respect Powell i can't excuse this. For an undecided citizen who knows nothing of politics I can, but for a former cabinet member of the White House you should already have all you need. Very Attention Whorish on his part.

Bogosity from an otherwise-interesting article about McCain calling Hillary about economics recently:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081015/pl_politico/14599


On Monday, Obama told a crowd in hard-hit Toledo, Ohio, that he wanted to impose a 90-day freeze on foreclosures by banks that partake in the $700 billion rescue plan.

When Clinton proposed a package that contained a similar measure in January, Obama nixed it. At the time, his staff posted news stories denouncing the freeze on his campaign Web site, including a Fortune magazine story that tagged it “perhaps the dumbest solution to the current mortgage mess.”

The "dumbest solution" aspect wasn't about the foreclosure freeze (which is not terribly objectionable now that we own a ton of mortgages), but the associated 5-year interest rate freeze, which was dumb as hell. <sigh>

I love how people are saying Obama's stolen from Hillary's playbook when a number of his plans are from his own playbook from months/years before. The only really big thing Obama took from Hillary was:


During the primary debates, Clinton repeatedly hammered the Illinois senator, accusing him of refusing to sign on to her commitment to “universal” coverage, claiming Obama’s plan would deny benefits to 15 million Americans.

In July, Obama reversed course and signed onto Clinton’s proposal to grant health insurance tax credits for small business owners, telling a national Hispanic group that the “idea [was] championed by my friend Hillary Clinton, who has been leading the way in our battle to insure every American.”
Obama's initial plan simply made small businesses exempt from penalties for not covering their people. This was a $6 billion encouragement above and beyond, but it certainly did not amount to making it into the Hillary/Edwards program as the writer would imply.

zRqcfqiXCX0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRqcfqiXCX0

As much as I respect Powell i can't excuse this. For an undecided citizen who knows nothing of politics I can, but for a former cabinet member of the White House you should already have all you need. Very Attention Whorish on his part.

i would assume that powell was coerced into not making an earlier endorsement by his repub friends. i would guess the compromise would be to wait until after the debates. if he is making a big deal out of it, i would think it is more for obama's benefit than for his own. if he were to endorse mccain, i think it would have slightly more impact, but not anything significant.

Here's Obama's full response to the plumber.

Keep in mind that the United States is a mixed economy -- there's nothing "pure" about it, and nothing "pure" about any of the policy modifications being proposed. It's all shades of grey. Schools, roads, police, and a ton of other things are guided by principles that aren't very capitalistic.


Mxy, wealth distribution has no business being governed through socialism.

School and road policies are things that have mainly to do with the indivdual city, district or county's government. Taking money from the rich (through increased taxes) and redistributing it to the poor throughout the entire country is definitely socialism, if not marxism.

What did the poor do to deserve a piece of the pie? Nothing. And thus, they should receive nothing. All men were created equal, the same opportunities exist for every person. If you can't get ahead (or even up to par), you only have yourself to blame.

I don't mind someone running on 'income redistribution' just run on it and don't try to mask what you are doing.

We need more parties in this countries...all kinds. Then the Dems can become Dems again, Socialists can have their platform, etc.

I would expect the Dem party would be the catch all for lot of the middle of America.

We need the Whigs to make a comeback...

Mxy, wealth distribution has no business being governed through socialism.

Your opinion. I'm not saying pure socialism, which will never work, but more socialist policies can be used to our advantage if done properly.


All men were created equal, the same opportunities exist for every person. If you can't get ahead (or even up to par), you only have yourself to blame.
That's the problem. The same opportunities don't exist for every person. Just because we say all men were created equal does not mean the opportunities are there. If we do believe all men were created equal, then there should be equal opportunities for children.

Something I really don't want to get into considering I have a 4-5 page paper due tomorrow of which I have only completed part of an outline...

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/10/honest-ohio-plumber-tells-cavuto-he.html

That SAME plumber goes on Neal Cavuto and basically confirms what I said.


Obama is a socialist.

School and road policies are things that have mainly to do with the indivdual city, district or county's government.
You're joking, right? Where does the money for roads come from? Where does the regulation and required costs for the schools come from? Pure capitalism is exceedingly rare. Show me an example of big pure capitalism, enabled without any restriction by government.


Taking money from the rich (through increased taxes) and redistributing it to the poor throughout the entire country is definitely socialism, if not marxism.
The term "socialism" has been perverted by enough folks where it could mean damn near anything. But Marxism has a (somewhat) more specific definition, involving the dismantlement of capitalism. Shuffling tax brackets amidst a mixed economy is sheerest nothing relative to Marxism. Obama's premise is simply that our mixed economy works for everyone with a balance of wealth, and doesn't work with wealth too concentrated in too few hands. That's hardly radical, regardless of how many labels you choose to attach to it.


What did the poor do to deserve a piece of the pie? Nothing. And thus, they should receive nothing. All men were created equal, the same opportunities exist for every person. If you can't get ahead (or even up to par), you only have yourself to blame.
Some contend that, past a certain point, the reason some rich people get richer isn't because they work harder, but because they disenfranchise the poor and middle class. Look at disparity between executive compensation and corporate performance in big business. Rich board of directors approve rich low-tax pay and rich payouts for executives in companies up shit creek, while poor/middle-class shareholders (often represented by rich institutional buyers, if not on the board of directors) get stuck with the tab. Lots of folks like to take huge gambles with the folks at the bottom paying the tab. Some of those folks are getting sick of it.

That's what some would contend...

You're joking, right? Where does the money for roads come from? Where does the regulation and required costs for the schools come from? Pure capitalism is exceedingly rare. Show me an example of big pure capitalism, enabled without any restriction by government.


The term "socialism" has been perverted by enough folks where it could mean damn near anything. But Marxism has a (somewhat) more specific definition, involving the dismantlement of capitalism. Shuffling tax brackets amidst a mixed economy is sheerest nothing relative to Marxism. Obama's premise is simply that our mixed economy works for everyone with a balance of wealth, and doesn't work with wealth too concentrated in too few hands. That's hardly radical, regardless of how many labels you choose to attach to it.


Some contend that, past a certain point, the reason some rich people get richer isn't because they work harder, but because they disenfranchise the poor and middle class. Look at disparity between executive compensation and corporate performance in big business. Rich board of directors approve rich low-tax pay and rich payouts for executives in companies up shit creek, while poor/middle-class shareholders (often represented by rich institutional buyers, if not on the board of directors) get stuck with the tab. Lots of folks like to take huge gambles with the folks at the bottom paying the tab. Some of those folks are getting sick of it.

That's what some would contend...

I respect when y'all say 'this or that' scares you. Religion is an example of where I've heard that, and I respect that. But the above bolded part scares me and that is radical and I wish he'd stand up and say that.

It's not radical. We have past history as a guide. The biggest disparity between rich and poor was preceded directly by the Great Depression!

Sorry I can't change my life experiences and conclusions in life based on that post.

It is radical, imo.

Maybe some peeps wanted to run business and others wanted to work. Maybe thats why a desparity began.

It's not radical. We have past history as a guide. The biggest disparity between rich and poor was preceded directly by the Great Depression!


It most certainly is radical. 'steal from the rich, give to the poor'

It's not radical. We have past history as a guide. The biggest disparity between rich and poor was preceded directly by the Great Depression!

Before one can argue such a point, one must first distinguish what constitutes "rich" and what constitutes "poor". Certainly, a person who makes $20,000 a year and lives in Manhattan would be impovershed, but if that same person lived in Centerville, Iowa they might be considered "comfortable", although far from "rich".

Also, there's a difference between rich and wealth. The wealthy will more or less remain wealthy regardless of what the President proposes.

Regardless of whatever tax proposal is launched, congress will no doubt work in several dozen more pages to the tax code, loopholes and write-offs the wealthy and their top-flight accountants can utilize to offset any additional taxes levied against them.

It most certainly is radical. 'steal from the rich, give to the poor'

So, steal from the poor, give to the rich is.... a good thing?

That would be what you're implying, if the opposite of that is considered, in your eyes, "radical".

lol? (http://www.slate.com/id/2202163/)


I used to call myself a single-issue voter on the essential question of defending civilization against its terrorist enemies and their totalitarian protectors, and on that "issue" I hope I can continue to expose and oppose any ambiguity. Obama is greatly overrated in my opinion, but the Obama-Biden ticket is not a capitulationist one, even if it does accept the support of the surrender faction, and it does show some signs of being able and willing to profit from experience.

With McCain, the "experience" is subject to sharply diminishing returns, as is the rest of him, and with Palin the very word itself is a sick joke. One only wishes that the election could be over now and a proper and dignified verdict rendered, so as to spare democracy and civility the degradation to which they look like being subjected in the remaining days of a low, dishonest campaign.

The term "socialism" has been perverted by enough folks where it could mean damn near anything.
That it has.

Before one can argue such a point, one must first distinguish what constitutes "rich" and what constitutes "poor". Certainly, a person who makes $20,000 a year and lives in Manhattan would be impovershed, but if that same person lived in Centerville, Iowa they might be considered "comfortable", although far from "rich".

Agreed, but I didn't feel like writing a long post during the debate. :)

Rather than speak in terms of rich vs. poor and get all the class warfare crap, let me phrase it another way. We've got income disparity fueled by a credit bubble that's popped. The people that profited disproportionately here fueled the credit bubble that popped. A very similar dynamic was in play just before the Great Depression, and we've seen similar effects like this on smaller scales in the past (most recently, the dot-bomb). Fundamentally, if you create the conditions where the consumers can't consume, the economy will go into a tailspin, so there has to be some amount of balance. Capitalism is based on value. Value is what people will pay for it. If people can't pay, value is low. Artificially pumping peeps into paying more than they can afford (with stupid credit) leads to bubbles, as folks higher and higher up on the strata start to gamble with money they don't have to mask the imbalance.

Ledezma's bit with "steal from the rich, give to the poor" isn't radical in the least. That's what governments have been doing for a long time. Given the disparity, it doesn't take much of a tax at the top in conjunction with closing loopholes to empower government without badly screwing anyone. The key is -- will the government do something worthwhile for you with the money that it collects? What services do you expect, and what should be their costs? Lots of old people will say they want less goverment like they had in the past, but just try taking Medicare and Social Security away...

You want radical? In times of war, we have tapped the rich and demanded sacrifice from all. The notion that we're fighting two long-term wars and not demand that sacrifice is quite radical relative to past wars. I don't think we'd have dicked around with Iraq if we'd felt motivated to finish in Afghanistan, and we knew damn well what it'd take in Afghanistan judging from the 1980s.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/10/matt_taibbi_and_byron_york_but.html

I love Matt Taibbi. Here, he absolutely SCHOOLS Byron York in a chat debate. Mega-LOL.


B.Y.: I believe that many of the problems in the mortgage area can be attributed to the confluence of Democratic and Republican priorities: the Democrats' desire to give mortgages to people, particularly minorities, who could not afford them, and the Republicans' desire to achieve an "ownership society," in part by giving mortgages to people who could not afford them. Again, I believe that if you are suggesting that the financial crisis is a Republican creation, or even more specifically a McCain creation, I think you're on pretty shaky ground.

M.T.: Oh, come on. Tell me you're not ashamed to put this gigantic international financial Krakatoa at the feet of a bunch of poor black people who missed their mortgage payments. The CDS market, this market for credit default swaps that was created in 2000 by Phil Gramm's Commodities Future Modernization Act, this is now a $62 trillion market, up from $900 billion in 2000. That's like five times the size of the holdings in the NYSE. And it's all speculation by Wall Street traders. It's a classic bubble/Ponzi scheme. The effort of people like you to pin this whole thing on minorities, when in fact this whole thing has been caused by greedy traders dealing in unregulated markets, is despicable ... Can you explain your conception of how these derivatives work? Because I get the feeling you don't understand. Or do you actually think that it was a few tiny homeowner defaults that sank gigantic companies like AIG and Lehman and Bear Stearns? Explain to me how these default swaps work, I'm interested to hear.

Because what we're talking about here is the difference between one homeowner defaulting and forty, four hundred, four thousand traders betting back and forth on the viability of his loan. Which do you think has a bigger effect on the economy?

B.Y.: Are you suggesting that critics of Fannie and Freddie are talking about the default of a single homeowner?

M.T.: No. That is what you call a figure of speech. I'm saying that you're talking about individual homeowners defaulting. But these massive companies aren't going under because of individual homeowner defaults. They're going under because of the myriad derivatives trades that go on in connection with each piece of debt, whether it be a homeowner loan or a corporate bond. I'm still waiting to hear what your idea is of how these trades work. I'm guessing you've never even heard of them.

I mean really. You honestly think a company like AIG tanks because a bunch of minorities couldn't pay off their mortgages?

B.Y.: When you refer to "Phil Gramm's Commodities Future Modernization Act," are you referring to S.3283, co-sponsored by Gramm, along with Senators Tom Harkin and Tim Johnson?

M.T.: In point of fact I'm talking about the 262-page amendment Gramm tacked on to that bill that deregulated the trade of credit default swaps.

Tick tick tick. Hilarious sitting here while you frantically search the Internet to learn about the cause of the financial crisis — in the middle of a live chat interview.

B.Y.: Look, you can keep trying to make this a specifically partisan and specifically Gramm-McCain thing, but it simply isn't. We've gone on for fifteen minutes longer than scheduled, and that's enough. Thanks.

M.T.: Thanks. Note, folks, that the esteemed representative of the New Republic has no idea what the hell a credit default swap is. But he sure knows what a minority homeowner looks like.

B.Y.: It's National Review.

This girl has a future...
Aww8vhws1y4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aww8vhws1y4

So, steal from the poor, give to the rich is.... a good thing?

That would be what you're implying, if the opposite of that is considered, in your eyes, "radical".


No, I'm saying don't redistribute wealth. You earn what you make, it shouldn't be up to the government to decide somebody 'makes too much money'. If you earn 250K, you shouldn't be penalized for your success. If you earn 50K, then you have to earn your way to the top if your not satisfied.

radical ideas of repubs 2000-2008

indefinite detention without a trial or even charges for non-battlefield prisoners
torture of prisoners, many of whom were innocent
privatization of the military via blackwater and others
the schiavo intervention
the firing of justice dept lawyers that didn't toe the party line
charging people with felonies because they mistakenly tried to vote as felons
the refusal to serve out subpeonas for legislative oversight
the nationalization of banks
tax cuts for the rich during war

I am sure there are many other things that i am forgetting. the notion that progressive taxation is radical compared to what i listed is fucking stupid, and shows the ability of foxnews/talk radio to brainwash their idiot masses.

Gov. Crist: False voter registrations not big problem in Florida

Gov. Charlie Crist said he doesn't believe false voter registrations are a serious problem in Florida. And the ACORN group said it is being set up.

BY MARC CAPUTO

TALLAHASSEE -- Breaking with the talking points of his fellow Republicans in Washington, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist said he does not think voter fraud and the vote-registration group ACORN are a major problem in the Sunshine State.

''I think that there's probably less [fraud] than is being discussed. As we're coming into the closing days of any campaign, there are some who enjoy chaos,'' Crist told reporters.


http://www.miamiherald.com/news/miami-dade/story/728095.html

Thank god that some repubs have self respect when it comes to blaming minorities for mccain's loser campaign. i really do have some new respect for the man.

Agreed, good for Crist.

That's all that Faux News wants to push the last few days.

I doubt that Tomy Romo is going to show up in Ohio to vote.

Agreed, good for Crist.

That's all that Faux News wants to push the last few days.

I doubt that Tomy Romo is going to show up in Ohio to vote.

You take a stab at Fox News because even though MSNBC and CNN CLEARLY lean left, it still upsets Democrats that 1/3rd of the cable news channels tilt right.

Why even bother? It's obvious Fox News is in the minority, so whats the point on acknowledging they irk you?

Is it because they are the highest rated of the three? That's probably because right-wingers have only one channel to choose from rather than two.

When you keep pointing it out, it becomes clear it bothers you. Just like Rachel Maddow keeps suggesting how terrible Sarah Palin is. The more she mentions her, the more it shows how much of an influential person she's been. We're not that dumb.

Plumber Joe is scoring some points for the McCain campaign.

Katie Couric had to cut his interview short once he began to point out Obama's flaws, but not before he commended McCain's policies. LOL!

And LOL at Joe Biden this morning for trying to put Joe The Plumber into context. We already know what Biden thinks about taxing people. And people are yet to have seen Joe Biden in a Home Depot...

I've turned on Fox a few times over the last few days and there is always a huge headline at the bottom of the screen that says something like "UNCOVERING WIDESPREAD VOTER FRAUD".

They are so ready to blame McCain's loss on this it's not even funny. This spin was all orchestrated long ago, of course.

I've turned on Fox a few times over the last few days and there is always a huge headline at the bottom of the screen that says something like "UNCOVERING WIDESPREAD VOTER FRAUD".

They are so ready to blame McCain's loss on this it's not even funny. This spin was all orchestrated long ago, of course.


Who cares, if Obama wins, he wins. Blaming voter fraud for McCain's loss isn't going to get McCain the Presidency.

Even I'm not stubborn enough to believe that.

Do you know how much of a fool Olbermann sounds when I see his show? Probably about as much of a fool you think O'Reilly is when you watch him...

It evens itself out, really.

I'll be perfectly honest here - since Rachel Maddow came on, I almost never watch Olbie anymore. She strikes me as being more sharp and analytical, where Olbermann's Special Comments are getting tiresome.

Do you know how much of a fool Olbermann sounds when I see his show? Probably about as much of a fool you think O'Reilly is when you watch him...

It evens itself out, really.

Whatever, I think he's freaking hilarious.

He's a flaming, unabashed liberal and I love it.

His use of actual video and print reports as opposed to partisan pundits/talking heads gives his humor an extra bite.

He's been beating Bill-o The Clown in the ratings too, which is really impressive since there are so many different LIBERAL news outlets to choose from.

Of course, the media outlets are almost all owned by huge, conservative corporations, but let's not let the facts get in the way of a good story.

People would have much less of an issue with fox if they would just admit that they are in the tank for the republicans. it is their insistance of being fair and balanced, that is most irritating. rachel maddow has never insisted that she is neutral, but she is also treats conservative guests with the type of respect that hannity or o'reilly would never dream of.

in fact, fox is far more partisan than cnn, and even msnbc. newt-gingrich-style-repub joe scarborough is far more conservative than any fox host is liberal and he has a 3-hour morning show. chris matthews leans dem, olbermann hates bush and is now a dem, and rachel maddow is an unapologetic liberal. I would throw in a guy named David Schuster who also leans left. Otherwise, i don't see a whole lot of evidence of biasness. o'reilly actually runs around telling people that greta van sustren is a liberal despite the fact everytime I switch to her show it is one of a fluff piece on palin, a story about ayers or a story about voter fraud. o'reilly also insists that he is not a repub, but only seems to interview karl rove or dick morris or that repub pollster any time i flip through. has msnbc run any story as relentlessly as the fox voter fraud story?

the biggest concern with fox is that their viewers seem to believe everything they see, which leads to much more partisan intensity than is necessary. remember how many wingnuts believed that the clintons killed vince foster? fox is poisoning the well of discourse in our country. There is an incredible amount of false equivalency as well. the wingnuts never had any evidence of wide scale abuses of the clinton administration. however, a multiyear investigation spanned almost the entirety of clinton's 8 years. Meanwhile, there is widescale evidence that bush has broken many laws, but his admin absolutely refuses to allow any employees to actually participate in any investigations.

Plumber Joe is scoring some points for the McCain campaign.
Tax evaders for McCain! Hooray!!! Looks like he has an $1100 lien placed on him for failure to pay Ohio state taxes:

http://apps.co.lucas.oh.us/onlinedockets/Docket.aspx?STYPE=1&PAR=LN200701803-000&STARTDATE=01/01/1900&ENDDATE=01/01/2100&PARTY=0

FWIW, this would be state taxes from Ohio from back when it had a Republican governor and legislature, with Republicans in charge at the federal level. So, his idea of the American Dream is to not pay taxes but still get all the benefits of society. What a sterling example...

LOL!

I was starting to think he was planted by the McCain camp in the first place, but this might actually confirm that (if they did the same kind of background check that they did on Palin, that is).

Tax evaders for McCain! Hooray!!! Looks like he has an $1100 lien placed on him for failure to pay Ohio state taxes:

http://apps.co.lucas.oh.us/onlinedockets/Docket.aspx?STYPE=1&PAR=LN200701803-000&STARTDATE=01/01/1900&ENDDATE=01/01/2100&PARTY=0

FWIW, this would be state taxes from Ohio from back when it had a Republican governor and legislature, with Republicans in charge at the federal level. So, his idea of the American Dream is to not pay taxes but still get all the benefits of society. What a sterling example...

Joe Six Pack would never stoop to that level.

So much for "Country First"

BTW, that link wasn't working. here is another source:


Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, a.k.a. "Joe the Plumber," is the topic of the day on the campaign trail, in part because he held an impromptu press conference Thursday morning in front of his house to discuss tax policy, his disdain for Social Security, and his critiques of Barack Obama.
Already, however, there is some dispute as to whether or not Wurzelbacher was being accurate with his critique of Obama. His business, as ABC reports (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/joe-the-plumber.html), would almost certainly get a tax cut under Obama's plan, given that he does not expect to make anywhere close to $250,000 in profits.
Moreover, for someone worried about his taxes, Wurzelbacher doesn't -- it appears - always pay them. A filing with the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas (http://apps.co.lucas.oh.us/onlinedockets/Docket.aspx?STYPE=1&PAR=LN200701803-000&STARTDATE=01/01/1900&ENDDATE=01/01/2100&PARTY=0) shows that he has had state tax liens filed against him, meaning he was either delinquent or didn't fully cover taxes that he owed.
A representative at the court explained that Wurzelbacher had not paid $1,182.98 of personal income tax. The state filed a lien on January 26, 2007, and the payment remains outstanding. But the court rep also cautioned that this all may have occurred without Wurzelbacher's knowledge.
"We get hundreds of state liens every day and we don't have to make a judgment on them. We are just putting in there what the state says is owed. We don't notify that person and neither does the state. If there was activity on this lien, if they attempted to collect it on this case - which they haven't -- it would show up. But I am 99.9 percent positive that he doesn't even know about this."
Before Obama supporters fret about losing the plumber vote, it's worth noting that the United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters has endorsed the Illinois Democrat, in part because the union thinks he has the best economic agenda for its members. "Obama will help us keep existing jobs and work to develop new, higher paying jobs here in America, reform our health care system, fix our ailing schools and make sure that the pensions of our retirees are safe," the union said.

Whatever, I think he's freaking hilarious.

He's a flaming, unabashed liberal and I love it.

His use of actual video and print reports as opposed to partisan pundits/talking heads gives his humor an extra bite.

He's been beating Bill-o The Clown in the ratings too, which is really impressive since there are so many different LIBERAL news outlets to choose from.

Of course, the media outlets are almost all owned by huge, conservative corporations, but let's not let the facts get in the way of a good story.

ROIDH

I can understand you are asking for that.

It's been mentioned on Keith's show, but I'll see what I can do when I get some time.

Billy O says he kicks everyone's ass too, I can never find anything.

Here's a little bit of info?

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/msnbc/griffin_watch_out_cnn_and_fox_97609.asp

I don't care about ratings. If MSNBC is more popular, than why do people still take stabs at the inferior Fox News?

They wouldn't do it if they didn't feel threatened.

That's the only point I'm trying to make. Fox News is the direct opposite of MSNBC.

LOL at mainstream media trying to paint Joe The Plumber as 'selfish' and 'greedy'.

No need to dig into the mans personal life, the fact is, he was a curious citizen, and asked Obama a question, and didn't care for his answer. So when McCain uses it as ammo, the Obama Mania Media will try and paint 'Joe the Plumber' into something he's not.

Truth is, 'Joe The Plumber' is a regular American just like you and me.

It's embarassing to see the media sweep Obama's socialism under the rug. Please, your viewer's aren't that stupid...

Nice FOXNews talking points, Wil.

I wouldn't call joe the plumber greedy, i just think he is a partisan masquerading as the common man. My friend is married to a plumber and he can't believe that people take him at his word in making $250k + off a small plumbing business in Ohio. Either he is some sort of highly specialized super-plumber, he has a huge plumbing firm, or he is lying about how much the business is worth. I could understand plumbers making that kind of money in a booming housing market with limited numbers of plumbers, but the guy lives in Ohio.

Anyways, for my own personal edification, i would like wil to define socialism in his own words and to explain why obama is more socialist than bush. Also, is the US the last remaining non-socialist country? if no, what other countries are not presently socialist?

Here's the son of Joe the not-a-licensed-Plumber, telling it like it is:
http://www.wtol.com/Global/story.asp?S=8302834&nav=5UapDYMv

Students at Smith Road Elementary in Temperance spent the morning putting together packages for needy causes.

Each grade had a different mission.

First graders made dog toys for the Humane Society. Fourth graders made fleece blankets for Toledo Hospital's NICU, and sixth graders organized a clothing drive for the Cherry Street Mission.

Sixth grader Samuel Wurzelbacher tells News 11, "It's very important because we take for granted clothes and everything. So it's important to give back."

So a plumber that will now make 250k-280k is angry at Obama for his tax plan, allllriiiiight. Would he have been mad at Obama's plan if it was last year and he was making 150k and would get a tax cut? Exactly.

No need to dig into the mans personal life, the fact is, he was a curious citizen, and asked Obama a question, and didn't care for his answer. So when McCain uses it as ammo, the Obama Mania Media will try and paint 'Joe the Plumber' into something he's not.

Truth is, 'Joe The Plumber' is a regular American just like you and me.
Sorry Wil. You got hoed again:

http://www.eisenstadtgroup.com/2008/10/15/joe-the-plumber-wurzelbacher-related-to-charles-keating-oops/


Turns out that Joe Wurzelbacher from the Toledo event is a close relative of Robert Wurzelbacher of Milford, Ohio. Who’s Robert Wurzelbacher? Only Charles Keating’s son-in-law and the former senior vice president of American Continental, the parent company of the infamous Lincoln Savings and Loan. The now retired elder Wurzelbacher is also a major contributor to Republican causes giving well over $10,000 in the last few years.
Damn, I wish these guys would just cut you a break every now and then!

He's admitted that he makes well under that figure, on Good Morning America.

Even if he bought a business for $250-280k, he still wouldn't be hit with a 39% vs. 36% bracket unless his salary + profit share amounted to that. If so, he'd be fairly well off. The relative added burden to him would be minor compared to the useful additional stuff good government can do with it.

The dude doesn't pay his taxes. His big accomplishment is to tap into some Fantasyland version of the American Dream where you don't get taxed but get all of the benefits of good government nonetheless, with someone else footing the tab.

I figured that he was a plant. bah!

Big Swami, I don't think he's related to Keating's son-in-law. AFAICT, people who don't know how to Google think that Robert M. Wurzelbacher and Robert L. Wurzelbacher are the same person, and playing connect-the-dots poorly.

Glenn, he's not a plant. Or, if he IS a plant, he's a plant who already lives in the Toledo area -- unlikely. It turns out he used to live in Arizona and was a McCain constituent, but that's not exactly proof of a conspiracy.

And, since I'm correcting people -- I guess I should correct myself. I had posted that the dude wasn't registered to vote. I was wrong, but I have a good excuse -- his name is misspelled in the voter rolls.

Honestly, I wonder how amused the average working class family is by politics in general. McCain yammers on about some mythical plumber that makes $250k/year and Obama accepts this as fact and engages in a discussion of how $250k/year plumbers should be taxed. It must all seem preposterous. I'll give obama the benefit of the doubt by assuming he didn't want to be criticized for calling plumber joe a liar, but i honestly think mccain believes that there are plumbers in ohio making that kind of money.

Meanwhile, in an earlier debate, charlie gibson talks about how increasing taxes on people making more than $250k/year would hurt struggling middle class families. Afterwards, pundits talk about the tough questions gibson raised about the tax policy of hard working americans as if the mysterious joe sixpack is struggling to make ends meet on his paltry $250k/yr. In the real world, working class families likely don't know anyone who makes that kind of money. Hell, I went to college and I think people making half that are rich. These people are so out of touch with working class reality, it is fucking insane.

For a classic example, here is mccain telling an anti-immigration audience that none of them would be willing to take a job that paid $50/hr to pick lettuce in AZ.

rWOZKeOauNI

You'd have to pick lettuce for about a hundred hours/week to make $250k/year in the McCainverse where it's $50/hour. :)

And, since I'm correcting people -- I guess I should correct myself. I had posted that the dude wasn't registered to vote. I was wrong, but I have a good excuse -- his name is misspelled in the voter rolls.

Of course, repubs would try to prevent him from voting if ACORN registered him and he were a black guy. Public databases are full of improperly entered names. This is exactly the problem with the voter fraud bullshit of the repubs. The full force of the US Justice Dept with repub affiliated lawyers caught 4 people who voted more than once, and yet repubs run around screaming voter fraud every 2 years to restrict voting rights as much as possible. the idea that poor black people are running around voting in multiple locations is just assinine.

Joe the plumber doesn't have a plubmer's liscense, says Chris Matthews.

I like Joe's haircut.

Agreed, but I didn't feel like writing a long post during the debate. :)

Rather than speak in terms of rich vs. poor and get all the class warfare crap, let me phrase it another way. We've got income disparity fueled by a credit bubble that's popped. The people that profited disproportionately here fueled the credit bubble that popped. A very similar dynamic was in play just before the Great Depression, and we've seen similar effects like this on smaller scales in the past (most recently, the dot-bomb). Fundamentally, if you create the conditions where the consumers can't consume, the economy will go into a tailspin, so there has to be some amount of balance. Capitalism is based on value. Value is what people will pay for it. If people can't pay, value is low. Artificially pumping peeps into paying more than they can afford (with stupid credit) leads to bubbles, as folks higher and higher up on the strata start to gamble with money they don't have to mask the imbalance.

Ledezma's bit with "steal from the rich, give to the poor" isn't radical in the least. That's what governments have been doing for a long time. Given the disparity, it doesn't take much of a tax at the top in conjunction with closing loopholes to empower government without badly screwing anyone. The key is -- will the government do something worthwhile for you with the money that it collects? What services do you expect, and what should be their costs? Lots of old people will say they want less goverment like they had in the past, but just try taking Medicare and Social Security away...

You want radical? In times of war, we have tapped the rich and demanded sacrifice from all. The notion that we're fighting two long-term wars and not demand that sacrifice is quite radical relative to past wars. I don't think we'd have dicked around with Iraq if we'd felt motivated to finish in Afghanistan, and we knew damn well what it'd take in Afghanistan judging from the 1980s.

Its radical to redistribute wealth, Mxy.

Its like my buddy who gave up the middle mgmt job and went back to hourly. He'll end up making far less but thats what he wants to do. Its not worth it for him to get the calls at night, etc vs the extra pay.

He has everything locked in financially with payments, mortgage, etc. His tax guy called him and said if BO gets elected he'll get money back. Now you can take all this as bullshit, thats fine.

But my buddy decided to give up on making more money. He wasn't denied anything. He doesn't need some liberal policies (tax the rich) so he can get a chance to get more wealthy. He chose what he wants to do. But the libs feel like everyone wants to make a million bucks. Actually most do, but not everyone wants to make the sacrifices for it.

Its like deciding to own your own biz. Everyone thinks how great that would be. Its a ton of work. It takes lots of sacrifice. It takes risk with hard earned capital. Some, like most of my family, decide to go to work and come home so they have their nights to themselves, weekends and don't have to risk a ton.

Its a choice. And when the peeps that decide to start a biz and employ peeps and make it, here comes the libs wanting to take their money and redistribute it to those who have chosen a different path.

Its like our discussion on 'voting registration' You think its gummed up cuz only 70% of peeps are registered to vote. I think its apathy or maybe frustration with the thieves. We don't need more Gov't intervention to fix this. Its like you want a gov't program every time something in our society seems "unfair".

This was a while ago, but I was reading where we will never put everyone to work in this country. Not everyone wants to work. Not everyone wants to vote and not everyone wants to sacrifice to make a bunch of money.

Just keep the Gov't out of our lives and let our imperfect race go forward. And I'm not saying peeps that want to own a biz and sacrifice are the perfect ones. We just aren't all the same. I wish the Libs would quit trying to start a new Gov't program for every lil thing that is wrong with our country.

And the Repubs are douches too. I read Xanny's list. I don't agree with all of it, but some of it. But my life experience is the Dems tax and spend and feel they need to keep their largest voting constituency on their side so they keep going down this radical path.

The problem McCan't has had in this campaign is perfectly exemplified by the so-called "Joe the Plumber". Just like Palin, Ayers, and ACORN, he places too much emphasis on things/people he has no control over.

Obama will hit the McCan't/Keating connection only "so much" on a national level whereas it's a topic of the candidacy, but not THE topic, such as the Obama/Ayers connection. Once the connection/allegation is debunked, it's dead and buried. Continuing to resurface it only evokes a desperation from the campaign that even a Middle America podunk could understand... the very people McCan't is seeking to rally in his favor.

Over the next week, the media is going to tear this fella apart, due largely to McCan't bashing us over the head with him (26 mentions of Joe the other night). Simply put, you don't bet the house on a pair of 2's with three cards left to turn.

Its radical to redistribute wealth, Mxy.

Its like my buddy who gave up the middle mgmt job and went back to hourly. He'll end up making far less but thats what he wants to do. Its not worth it for him to get the calls at night, etc vs the extra pay.

He has everything locked in financially with payments, mortgage, etc. His tax guy called him and said if BO gets elected he'll get money back. Now you can take all this as bullshit, thats fine.

But my buddy decided to give up on making more money. He wasn't denied anything. He doesn't need some liberal policies (tax the rich) so he can get a chance to get more wealthy. He chose what he wants to do. But the libs feel like everyone wants to make a million bucks. Actually most do, but not everyone wants to make the sacrifices for it.

Its like deciding to own your own biz. Everyone thinks how great that would be. Its a ton of work. It takes lots of sacrifice. It takes risk with hard earned capital. Some, like most of my family, decide to go to work and come home so they have their nights to themselves, weekends and don't have to risk a ton.

Its a choice. And when the peeps that decide to start a biz and employ peeps and make it, here comes the libs wanting to take their money and redistribute it to those who have chosen a different path.

Its like our discussion on 'voting registration' You think its gummed up cuz only 70% of peeps are registered to vote. I think its apathy or maybe frustration with the thieves. We don't need more Gov't intervention to fix this. Its like you want a gov't program every time something in our society seems "unfair".

This was a while ago, but I was reading where we will never put everyone to work in this country. Not everyone wants to work. Not everyone wants to vote and not everyone wants to sacrifice to make a bunch of money.

Just keep the Gov't out of our lives and let our imperfect race go forward. And I'm not saying peeps that want to own a biz and sacrifice are the perfect ones. We just aren't all the same. I wish the Libs would quit trying to start a new Gov't program for every lil thing that is wrong with our country.

And the Repubs are douches too. I read Xanny's list. I don't agree with all of it, but some of it. But my life experience is the Dems tax and spend and feel they need to keep their largest voting constituency on their side so they keep going down this radical path.

What's great about this country is that, in 4 years, if Obama fails, you can vote for Christ...er, Crist.

Simply put, you don't bet the house on a pair of 2's with three cards left to turn.

That's damn sexy right there.

I've turned on Fox a few times over the last few days and there is always a huge headline at the bottom of the screen that says something like "UNCOVERING WIDESPREAD VOTER FRAUD".

They are so ready to blame McCain's loss on this it's not even funny. This spin was all orchestrated long ago, of course.

Funny though, MSNBC, CNN, etc have been saying the 00 and 04 elections were stolen by the Repubs for oh about 4 and 8 years now.

SO GET OVER IT! :)

What's great about this country is that, in 4 years, if Obama fails, you can vote for Christ...er, Crist.

Yea, not really following the Christ thing.

If thats meant to be funny or something...read below.

Oh snap! Thats some funny shit D.

Its radical to redistribute wealth, Mxy.
No it's not. I disagree.

Income tax and the 16th Amendment (passed by Republicans) has been around for about a hundred years. That's nothing if not redistribution based on wealth. It's just not radical anymore. It's a huge part of how federal government has been funded for decades. The distinctions between mainstream Democrats and Republicans on the overall issues of wealth redistribution amount to shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic.

When Ron Paul and his principled ideas on eliminating wealth distribution stops being seen as radical to a majority of Americans, then I'll agree with you.

I understand what you are saying, but it really has very little to do with wealth distribution in this country. A lot of poor people have 2 jobs and work very hard and a lot of rich people sit on their ass earning money on investment income from their inheritances. Hell, look at rasheed Wallace, do you think he is rich because of his intense work ethic and sacrifice? If you are born poor, it is almost guaranteed you’ll die fairly poor regardless of how hard you work. If you are born rich, you’ll probably die rich regardless of how hard you work. For those in between, there is more variability, but differences aren’t always due to hard work. Think about the lucky few that made millions on the dotcom boom for companies that never turned a profit. The vast majority of rich people are descended from many generations of rich ancestors. Some just live off trust funds in which their capital gains are taxed at far below what working Americans pay on their wages. Considering we currently have the least progressive tax policy since before the Depression, a small increase in marginal rates and a boost in capital gains taxes are far from revolutionary. You know what is revolutionary, cutting taxes on rich people during a fucking war. Bush’s redistribution of wealth to the investor class is far more revolutionary than obama’s plan. Why on earth do we need to cut taxes on rich lay-abouts and ceos, whose companies are losing money? Many people look back at the 15 years post WWII as the glory years, back when the marginal tax rate of the richest Americans was double what it is now.

Sure there may be some tiny fraction of the population that worked really hard and will experience some small increase in taxes, but so fucking what? It is not like that fraction of the country will be inconvenienced more than those being sent back to iraq or Afghanistan over and over again and get paid shit wages. If everyone else gets poorer or becomes unemployed, then small business will contract anyways.

Mass wealth inequality has never been healthy for social order. There was a reason that monopolies were broken up. Monopolies weren’t good for anyone, but the owners. When a small fraction has immense market power, they can choose to bankrupt small companies via unfair competition if they so choose. This means your heroic small business owner story will become less and less likely over time and our only choice will be to work in a handful of huge conglomerates that get corporate welfare from our taxes. Also, do you really think dems want to turn all wall street bankers into community organizers or something? I don’t understand the point of the story about your friend deciding to take a lower paying job. Is a small increase in the tax rate of people making 250k+ going to turn everyone into organic farmers?

Bush and the repubs told us that tax cuts would rejuvenate the economy, but guess what, it didn’t fucking work. In fact, economic growth has been much greater under dem presidents than repub presidents over the last 80 years. Why is that?

Hedge fund managers currently pay 15% tax on most income, but may have been manipulating oil prices than disproportionately harm small businesses and the poor. What does that mean for social justice? Do you want to drop their tax rate to zero like the house repubs? You want to turn this into a black and white question about who is working the hardest, but that is pretty beside the point. I am sure there are a lot of people working harder for less income than I am.

Joe the plumber doesn't have a plubmer's liscense, says Chris Matthews.

I like Joe's haircut.
Also tied to keating five, that's no jive.

xanadu, I'm not exactly sure if you're talking to me or not.

What I'm saying is that the concept of graduated taxation as a function of wealth isn't new, isn't radical, and isn't an area where mainstream Democrats and Republicans vary to any significant degree. The particular interests that graduated income taxes and such gets swerved to varies somewhat by party. But, a lot of the powerful interests are shared by most mainstream Democrats and Republicans.

Tying this back to the thread at hand... one thing I like about Obama is that he's kept direct lobbyist money and interest out of his campaign. He's not a tool of special interests. People aren't buying access to his office. Going through his surrounding campaign staff doesn't show "big lobbyist for Airbus, Toyota, lobbyist for fucking Saddam Hussein", etc.

Of course, just being unbought isn't good enough. Another example of someone who's really not "bought" by big money is Dick Cheney. Cheney made his money way back, and gives vast sums away. He's in it for the power and control, which is probably worse than having his conscience bought by someone-or-other.

If Obama fails (as President), will any of the media acknowledge it?

Before this election race, I thought that no matter who wins, it will be a one-term President.

Is there a point to your question?

It depends on the nature of the "fail", I suppose. Beyond the media, there's historians and history at work. Some of what led to "fails" by one-termers Jimmy "curb our dependence on foreign oil" Carter and George "don't go into Iraq half-cocked" Bush Sr. are seen as rather wise today. A lot of folks felt Bush Jr. would be a one-term president as well, given the circumstances in which he was elected. Up until 9/11, that's what I would've expected...

Whatever, I think he's freaking hilarious.

He's a flaming, unabashed liberal and I love it.

His use of actual video and print reports as opposed to partisan pundits/talking heads gives his humor an extra bite.

He's been beating Bill-o The Clown in the ratings too, which is really impressive since there are so many different LIBERAL news outlets to choose from.

Of course, the media outlets are almost all owned by huge, conservative corporations, but let's not let the facts get in the way of a good story.

You and that other guy always crack me up when Billy O wins its that the population is a Jerry Springer crowd. But now its really impressive. lol

You're right. How dare people watch different tv shows for different reasons!

Yea, not really following the Christ thing.

If thats meant to be funny or something...read below.

Oh snap! Thats some funny shit D.

If you're a Cristian, then you're a supporter of Crist. It's basically Christ without the "h".

All the podunk Christians will vote for the dude, simply on his name alone. It'll be the feel-good event of 2012. "Vote for Crist, or go to Hell".

I'm surprised Wil isn't stumping for him right now.

Before this election race, I thought that no matter who wins, it will be a one-term President.

I don't see why Obama wouldn't have a shot at a 2nd term. I suppose it would depend on how the country gets out of the mess we are in. If we're on an upward track I think he'll have a very strong arguement to continue the job. If he hasn't accomplished much then he's done for.

mxy, I wasn't directing at you. i am absolutely dumbfounded that repubs are calling obama radical after 8 years of the most corrupt, and in many ways most radical admin this country has ever seen. what kind of koolaid are they drinking? we nationalize the banking system and give AIG $115 billion and obama is a radical for increasing tax rates on the wealthy?? what kind of world do these people live in where they can rationalize that. it seems that you would absolutely have to be insane to believe that. when you throw in the $trillion pre-emptive war, the corruption of the justice dept, torture, warrantless wiretapping, illegal detention, and on and on and you tell me obama is a radical! it is like a fucking cult at this point.



xanadu, I'm not exactly sure if you're talking to me or not.

What I'm saying is that the concept of graduated taxation as a function of wealth isn't new, isn't radical, and isn't an area where mainstream Democrats and Republicans vary to any significant degree. The particular interests that graduated income taxes and such gets swerved to varies somewhat by party. But, a lot of the powerful interests are shared by most mainstream Democrats and Republicans.

Tying this back to the thread at hand... one thing I like about Obama is that he's kept direct lobbyist money and interest out of his campaign. He's not a tool of special interests. People aren't buying access to his office. Going through his surrounding campaign staff doesn't show "big lobbyist for Airbus, Toyota, lobbyist for fucking Saddam Hussein", etc.

Of course, just being unbought isn't good enough. Another example of someone who's really not "bought" by big money is Dick Cheney. Cheney made his money way back, and gives vast sums away. He's in it for the power and control, which is probably worse than having his conscience bought by someone-or-other.

At those times on the campaign trail when sometimes it's easy to get a little bit discouraged, when, you know, when you happen to turn on the news when your campaign staffers will let you turn on the news," Palin said, prompting laughter from the group. "Usually they're like 'Oh my gosh, don't watch. You're going to, you know, you're going to get depressed.'"

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/17/to_avoid_being_depressed_palin.html

I am sorry, but I am scared to death that this woman could become president. We first know that she is an absolute coward who can spew hate, but won't answer questions about her own ethical impropriety or the accusations she makes. she is a first order coward with no sense of decency or morality, and 'she thinks we may just have to go to war with russia over georgia'.

I have to say the Secret Service is in dangerous territory here. In cooperation with the Palin campaign, they've started preventing reporters from leaving the press section to interview people in the crowd. This is a serious violation of their duty -- protecting the protectee -- and gets into assisting with the political aspirations of the candidate. It also often makes it impossible for reporters to get into the crowd to question the people who say vulgar things. So they prevent reporters from getting near the people doing the shouting, then claim it's unfounded because the reporters can't get close enough to identify the person.


The secret service is preventing interviews of palin supporters, but obama is the radical. republican kool aid for all.

NEW YORK (AP) - Major League Baseball has agreed to push back the start time of a potential World Series Game 6 by eight minutes to allow Democrat Barack Obama to purchase a half-hour of air time on the Fox network.

This proves, like everybody thinks, that BO is an arrogant fuck.

Why is the media STILL trying to smear "Joe The Plumber" as if he's a lepor.

It's because they know he represents the average American. And he poses a bigger threat to Obama than Ayers, ACORN, and Retzko all put together.

When Joy Behar on The View has to talk about "Joe the Plumber", it just shows how close this election really is...

The more the media scolds "Joe the Plumber", the more they're hurting their own candidate.

Obama's fighting for Warren Buffet's ideas, but "Joe the Plumber" is a piece of trash. Please. Now I know why Rush calls the mainstream media "driveby's".

Why is the media STILL trying to smear "Joe The Plumber" as if he's a lepor.



He competely made up a story and McCain tried to hop aboard? Someone had to be punished.

He competely made up a story and McCain tried to hop aboard? Someone had to be punished.


He didn't make up anything...nice try.

during one of the primary debates, obama told an anecdote about a soldier in afghanistan whose platoon was so short on men and weapons that they were using captured weapons from the Taliban. Conservative media wanted a pentagon investigation of that soldier 'for aiding abetting the enemy'. even a pentagon spokesperson said that the pentagon was seeking to get the name from obama. Anyways, an upper level military guy didn't like this civillian propaganda effort, so he made a statement that in fact, platoons in afghanistan had been shorthanded by the iraq war to the point of using confiscated weapons.

so where was your righteous outrage then? why did mccain bring up the joe the p's name 20+ times in attempting to exploit the story? I agree that the press should leave the guy alone, but he doesn't help himself when he talks about obama dancing like sammy davis jr. on the one hand and admits that his question was bullshit on the other hand because he makes nowhere near 250k.

if anyone should not be complaining about unfair attacks, it is that fat sack of shit limbaugh. how many years did he rail about the need for the war against drugs and the decline in family values while he was popping pills, getting divorced, and smuggling viagra for sexual tourism? stop drinking the fucking koolaid.

This proves, like everybody thinks, that BO is an arrogant fuck.
Hunh?!

This is about money. Fox could've simply chosen to not take Obama's money. Fox cut a deal with MLB so they could take Obama's money.

Aren't you Republicans supposed to be happy taking Obama's money? Now all Fox has to do is have Obama artificially blackened and have McCain appear with the pre-game crew.

Xanny is on a roll today.

And I think Rush lost some weight, didn't he? Just making sure we don't spread untruths on the board.

if anyone should not be complaining about unfair attacks, it is that fat sack of shit limbaugh. how many years did he rail about the need for the war against drugs and the decline in family values while he was popping pills, getting divorced, and smuggling viagra for sexual tourism? stop drinking the fucking koolaid.

Most Listened To Talk Radio Show Ever

Barack complaining about Fox News last night was hilarious.

Can you imagine if he was a Republican?? His complaints about MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, New York Times, LA Times, Newsweek, Washington Post, and the Associated Press would consume his campaign.

Can't take the heat Barack?

Xanny is on a roll today.

And I think Rush lost some weight, didn't he? Just making sure we don't spread untruths on the board.


There aren't that many sacks of shits in the world. most people use toilets, which cuts down on shit sacks. Thus, limbaugh is still the fattest sack of shit that i have ever seen. I suppose the fact that limbaugh has evolved to the point of speaking is an achievement. maybe his listeners are trying to be supportive of the evolution of shit sacks everywhere. did i mention that he is also a draft dodger, despite pretending to be a tough guy. that seems to be a common thread among limbaugh, rove, bush, cheney: talk tough when other do the fighting. I wouldn't have thought that sacks of shit would be subject to the draft, but i guess that shows what i know.

anyways, i am still waiting for a definition of socialism from tahoe or wil and an explanation of what makes obama more of a socialist than the bush admin.

Barack complaining about Fox News last night was hilarious.

Can you imagine if he was a Republican?? His complaints about MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, New York Times, LA Times, Newsweek, Washington Post, and the Associated Press would consume his campaign.

Can't take the heat Barack?

when you get together with your repub friends, make sure that you are not the first person to drink the koolaid.

There's not much point in any of this. The election is over on Sunday anyway.

This proves, like everybody thinks, that BO is an arrogant fuck.

Yeah, it says nothing about Fox's greed.

BO's doing his presentation live for the other networks and he offered to buy Fox as well if they could accomodate him. Obviously, they desired the $ enough to twist some arms and make it work for them.

edit- posted this before I saw Mxy's reply, sorry

Hunh?!

This is about money. Fox could've simply chosen to not take Obama's money. Fox cut a deal with MLB so they could take Obama's money.

Aren't you Republicans supposed to be happy taking Obama's money? Now all Fox has to do is have Obama artificially blackened and have McCain appear with the pre-game crew.

Sorry man, just trying to stir up the hornets nest a lil bit. :)

A campaign spending money for tv time is so controversial.

Most Listened To Talk Radio Show Ever

I'm SOOOOO sick of this arguement. Something is popular, so that makes it good, right? Uhg. That is the worst arguement ever. See American Idol (a stupid kareoke contest), Budwiser (crap beer), AOL (crap internet provider) and many others. It simply means they know how to market their product to idiots that don't care about quality.

And even if popular means good, your arguement doesn't apply here. Should we give him a free pass on hippocracy just because he's popular? Kobe Bryant is one of the best and most popular basketball players in the world. he still cheated on his wife. Being popular doesn't mean you aren't shady.

STOP USING THAT STUPID ARGUEMENT

XVYh_hFsYU4[/QUOTE]

This one is for wtfcrhis. the CO republican senate candidate, who happens to be a good friend of abramhoff, begs to be allowed to use notes at his senate debate. he pretends like he didn't know he couldn't bring notes. anyways, the dem candidate didn't bring any notes, but decided to let the repub use his notes in the interest of getting the debate started.

PATHETIC, but not surprising

I'm SOOOOO sick of this arguement. Something is popular, so that makes it good, right? Uhg. That is the worst arguement ever. See American Idol (a stupid kareoke contest), Budwiser (crap beer), AOL (crap internet provider) and many others. It simply means they know how to market their product to idiots that don't care about quality.

And even if popular means good, your arguement doesn't apply here. Should we give him a free pass on hippocracy just because he's popular? Kobe Bryant is one of the best and most popular basketball players in the world. he still cheated on his wife. Being popular doesn't mean you aren't shady.

STOP USING THAT STUPID ARGUEMENT

Seriously, Chris, just stop trying to reason with him.

He didn't make up anything...nice try.
You're wrong.

Here's the conversation Obama had with the no-permit tax-dodging plumber:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFC9jv9jfoA

You don't need to watch the whole thing, though you probably should. The plumber says "Your tax plan is going to tax me more." right at the get-go to Obama.

Subsequent to Obama talking with him, he says to at least three different media sources that he wouldn't make enough money to get taxed and would be getting a tax cut under Obama's plan. Here's some video:

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

Clearly, he was making stuff up when talking with Obama.

As for why the media is trying to deconstruct the plumber, it's because he was brought up, almost out of the blue, as a significant component in the final Presidential debate. Any new name brought up 21 times at this late stage would get significant media focus.

Joe the Plumber is just like Sarah Palin -- unvetted with significant baggage. As the reality sinks in, the appeal goes down the drain. I haven't heard any stories about him on the radio that don't include "he owes back taxes".

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aqt518bNsSOs

Now, if plumber-dude had asked Obama why he should be believed, why he should be believed and trusted (because that seems to be his real concern), that would be a fine question to ask.

Yeah, it says nothing about Fox's greed.

BO's doing his presentation live for the other networks and he offered to buy Fox as well if they could accomodate him. Obviously, they desired the $ enough to twist some arms and make it work for them.
Also, MLB wants to avoid something massively disruptive cutting into their ratings, so I suspect everyone was quick to come to a deal. Yeah, delaying may impact Friday evening news, but there was always that potential if the game went into extra innings.

Mxy you are wrong and have learned nothing from Fredo.

David Iglesias speaks truth to power. Note that he was a staunch repub who was fired because he declined to pursue prosecutions by the politically corrupt doj. Ethical people are running away from the repub party in droves, leaving the warmed over shit that is left.




"I'm astounded that this issue is being trotted out again," Iglesias told TPMmuckraker. "Based on what I saw in 2004 and 2006, it's a scare tactic." In 2006, Iglesias was fired as U.S. attorney thanks partly to his reluctance to pursue voter-fraud cases as aggressively as DOJ wanted -- one of several U.S. attorneys fired for inappropriate political reasons, according to a recently released report by DOJ's Office of the Inspector General.

Iglesias, who has been the most outspoken of the fired U.S. attorneys, went on to say that the FBI's investigation seemed designed to inappropriately create a "boogeyman" out of voter fraud. And he added that it "stands to reason" that the investigation was launched in response to GOP complaints. In recent weeks, national Republican figures -- including John McCain at last night's debate -- have sought to make an issue out of ACORN's voter-registration activities.

Both Iglesias and Bud Cummins -- another of the U.S. attorneys who, according to the IG report, was also fired for political reasons -- told TPMmuckraker that DOJ guidelines do allow US attorneys to speak publicly about an investigation, even before bringing an indictment, if it's to allay public concern over an issue. But that certainly wouldn't cover anonymous leaks. "If you can't say it with your name on it, it's fair to say you should not be saying it," Cummins told TPMmuckraker.





http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/iglesias_im_astounded_by_dojs.php

Seriously, Chris, just stop trying to reason with him.

you are right. Its nice to have opposing viewpoints though. not when bad logic that has been proven wrong multiple times is still used.

mccain 2000



Back in 2000, in South Carolina, the robocalls -- and calls to local right-wing talk radio shows -- were about John McCain's "interracial child" and Cindy McCain's drug addiction. They were a craven, disgusting tactic by the George W. Bush campaign. McCain was, rightly, outraged by them.
Now McCain's campaign is making robocalls distorting Barack Obama's non-existent relationship with Bill Ayers...

Now this isn't quite the spew that McCain suffered in South Carolina, but hey, he's got three more weeks to descend to that.



http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/10/senator_honorable_in_the_sewer.html

mccain 2008



"I'm calling on behalf of John McCain and the RNC because you need to know that Barack Obama and his Democrat allies in the Illinois Senate opposed a bill requiring doctors to care for babies born alive after surviving attempted abortions -- a position at odds even with John Kerry and Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama and his liberal Democrats are too extreme for America. Please vote -- vote for the candidates who share our values. This call was paid for by McCain-Palin 2008 and the Republican National Committee at 202 863 8500."

Another (listen HERE) says "Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats got caught putting Hollywood above America. On the very day our elected leaders gathered in Washington to deal with the financial crisis, Barack Obama spent just 20 minutes with economic advisers, but hours at a celebrity Hollywood fundraiser. Where are the Democrats' priorities?"

A third (listen HERE) says, "Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats aren't who you think they are. They say they want to keep us safe, but Barack Obama said the threat we face now from terrorism is nowhere near as dire as it was in the end of the Cold War. And Congressional Democrats now want to give civil rights to terrorists."

A fourth (listen HERE) says, "You need to know that Barack Obama has worked closely with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, whose organization bombed the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, a judge's home, and killed Americans. And Democrats will enact an extreme leftist agenda if they take control of Washington. Barack Obama and his Democratic allies lack the judgment to lead our country."



http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/mccain-robocall.html

you are right. Its nice to have opposing viewpoints though. not when bad logic that has been proven wrong multiple times is still used.

FYI: Notre Dame is the most loved College Football Program ever.

perhaps i've been too negative today, so i'll give credit where credit is due and stop posting for the day:

the Supreme Court voted 9-0 against the Ohio GOP's efforts to disenfranchise ohio voters. i'll look forward to palin's high-minded criticism of the vote. anyways, i commend scalia, roberts, thomas, and alito for doing the right thing.

LOL at Barack claiming McCain will cut Medicare. As if that's not the oldest Democrat campaign lie of all time.

Signs of a desperate man who can't hold his lead in the 9th inning...

Hey xanadu, want to tell me to "stop drinking kool-aid" again?

the other two times you told me today haven't quite set in yet...

Hey xanadu, want to tell me to "stop drinking kool-aid" again?

the other two times you told me today haven't quite set in yet...

well since you asked, i'll make one more post. i'll tell you to stop drinking the koolaid as soon as you answer this question:



Anyways, for my own personal edification, i would like wil to define socialism in his own words and to explain why obama is more socialist than bush. Also, is the US the last remaining non-socialist country? if no, what other countries are not presently socialist?

by the way, here is the mccain talking about cutting medicaid in the WSJ:



McCain Plans Federal Health Cuts
Medicare, Medicaid Spending Would Be Reduced to Offset Proposed Tax

John McCain would pay for his health plan with major reductions to Medicare and Medicaid, a top aide said, in a move that independent analysts estimate


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122315505846605217.html

drink that mccain koolaid down wil.. gulp, gulp,gulp

Anyways, for my own personal edification, i would like wil to define socialism in his own words?

Socialism is the desire of government for everybody to be equal. To make life as fair as it possibly can be.

Socialism turns all the Knights, Rooks, and Bishops into Pawns.

McCain also said he'd cut medicare spending in the previous debate (from last week). On top of that in the last two debates he's talked about a spending freeze.

Socialism is the desire of government for everybody to be equal. To make life as fair as it possibly can be.

Socialism turns all the Knights, Rooks, and Bishops into Pawns.

I just can't resist... wil, you have to couch your definition of socialism in way that demonstrates that obama is more of a socialist than the bush admin. Your vague definition of socialism is ok, but has nothing to do with obama's policy proposals. your definition is very similar to mao's definition, but I don't recall any re-education camps in the dem platform, so you'll have to try harder. also, please let me know which countries would be to the right of the US if all of obama's proposals are implemented. I can think of some, but i want to know what you think. this is fun.

edit: recall that bush's seizure of the banks is very similar to entrusting comrade paulson to oversee the means of production.

Wil has about the poorest understanding of socialism I've ever seen, and I've been on a lot of Internet message boards.

Socialism is the desire of government for everybody to be equal. To make life as fair as it possibly can be.

Socialism turns all the Knights, Rooks, and Bishops into Pawns.
So, what's communism?

This should be amusing.

Many argue that Bush has run a pretty socialist administration. Just think of what he's done to the communication industry for example.

So, what's communism?

This should be amusing.

Socialism, Communism, and Capitalism are all economical theories. I really can't think of one that works perfectly, exactly the way it was designed to work (except for the Communism in the South Pacific).

The human element is always the critical variable.

perhaps i've been too negative today, so i'll give credit where credit is due and stop posting for the day:

the Supreme Court voted 9-0 against the Ohio GOP's efforts to disenfranchise ohio voters. i'll look forward to palin's high-minded criticism of the vote. anyways, i commend scalia, roberts, thomas, and alito for doing the right thing.

Oh come on. You are better than that, smarter than that. Is that what the SC ruled on?

Hey! I was kinda hoping Ledezma would respond to that. No fair! :)

Speaking of which, I just found where Ledezma lives from his Obama road sign:

http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/6903/gimmeyochangeix0.jpg

Denny took Wil off the hook.

Denny took Wil off the hook.
I'm setting him up.

Speaking of setups, I really like the move Obama did with the ACORN mess.

Background: Republicans are already being investigated by an independent special prosecutor over trumped-up voter fraud investigations during the 2006 election, as part of the investigation of U.S. Attorney firings.

Today, Obama has called on Attorney General Mukasey to expand the special prosecutor role to 2008 and the Republican ACORN accusations. Here's the letter that Obama's attorney sent, discussing the details at length:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/Obama-Mukasey/?resultpage=1&

The beauty of this is -- no matter how Mukasey responds or doesn't respond, Obama has a serious counterpunch to any assertion that he's in the bag for ACORN antics.

Wil has about the poorest understanding of socialism I've ever seen, and I've been on a lot of Internet message boards.
You're a socialist to say that in his book.

Oh come on. You are better than that, smarter than that. Is that what the SC ruled on?

Why don't you explain it to me?

You're a socialist to say that in his book.
I never denied being a socialist.

I never denied being a socialist.

Let's kill him.

I'm a mixed economy person. Pure economic models are abstractions and don't map cleanly to an impure world not driven solely by economic principles.

Speaking of economics, and getting back more to the topic of this thread -- Obama raised ~$150 million in September, with ~630k first-time donators.

Powell goes Obama....Umm i didn't expect that.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/19/colin_powell_endorses_obama.html


Colin Powell Endorses Obama

Updated 9:53 a.m.
By Shailagh Murray and Ed O'Keefe
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell crossed party lines this morning to endorse Sen. Barack Obama for president, the most prominent GOP defection yet of the 2008 campaign.

Obama has courted Republicans all along, but in Powell he gets party crossover plus military credibility. Powell is a retired U.S. Army general and served as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under the first President Bush.

As Secretary of State under the current President Bush, Powell helped to build the case for the Iraq war, a role that hurt him with many Democrats and moderates, who had viewed him as somewhat apolitical. Powell made his endorsement today on the NBC program "Meet the Press."

Powell said he had watched both Obama and Sen. John McCain in the last "six or seven weeks," since the national political conventions, and paid special attention to how they reacted to the nation's worsening economic situation.

"I must say, he seemed a little unsure about how to approach the problem," Powell said of McCain.

"He didn't have a complete grasp of the economic problems we have."

Powell also expressed concerns about McCain's selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. "I don't believe she's ready to be President of the United States, which is the job of vice president," Powell said, adding that it raised "some questions in my mind" about McCain's judgment.

As for Obama, Powell said, "I think that he has a definitive way of doing business that would serve us well."

"He's thinking that all villages have values, all towns have values, not just small towns have values," Powell said, in an apparent reference to remarks Palin made earlier this week that she enjoyed visiting the "pro-America" areas of the country.

The retired general said that "John McCain is as non-discriminatory as anyone I know," but he expressed serious concerns about his campaign's, and the Republican Party's recent focus on Obama's past association with William Ayers and robocalls the campaign has placed in battleground states this past week.

"I think this goes too far. I think it's made the McCain campaign look a little narrow. I look at these kinds of approaches to the campaign, and they trouble me. The party has moved further to the right," he said,

Powell said he would not campaign for Obama, noting the short amount of time that remains until Election Day. He later said he is "in no way interested in a return to government," but said he would consider any offers made by the next president.

He said that if his endorsement of Obama were focused solely on the historic nature of his candidacy, "I could have done this six, ten, eight months ago."

Powell appeared uncomfortable throughout the interview and cleared his throat several times while talking to Brokaw. He made a clear effort towards the end of the interview to make it clear his endorsement was "not out of any lack of respect or admiration of John McCain."

He said: "I strongly believe that at this point in America's history, we need a president that will not just continue basically the policies we have been following in recent years. I think we need a transformational figure. I think we need a president who is a generational change."

Wow, a free thinking republican..cool.

I'm a mixed economy person. Pure economic models are abstractions and don't map cleanly to an impure world not driven solely by economic principles.

Speaking of economics, and getting back more to the topic of this thread -- Obama raised ~$150 million in September, with ~630k first-time donators.
just because you're rich doesn't mean you can't vote democrat. :P

I'm a mixed economy person. Pure economic models are abstractions and don't map cleanly to an impure world not driven solely by economic principles.

Speaking of economics, and getting back more to the topic of this thread -- Obama raised ~$150 million in September, with ~630k first-time donators.
I'm not an economic idealist either. I'm certainly not a Marxist, as I disagree with his theories of political control. I think the "social democrat" style is by far the most superior - open markets regulated and influenced by the presence of government.

Powell goes Obama....Umm i didn't expect that.


A black endorsing a black candidate...? Shocking.

Obama has his 'Joe Lieberman' now.

A black endorsing a black candidate...? Shocking.

Obama has his 'Joe Lieberman' now.

McCain's jewish?

Obama's cousin-in-law is a Jewish rabbi:

http://news.aol.com/elections/article/obama-counts-rabbi-among-relatives/176727

A black endorsing a black candidate...? Shocking.

Obama has his 'Joe Lieberman' now.

The endorsement of someone as insubstantial as Powell is easily trivialized because he's black. Well played, sir. Well played.

I predicted Ledezma's reaction. I suppose at this point, it's not the partisans that are as important as the undecideds, many of whom are going to be a bit surprised if this poll is to be believed:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/42_see_powell_endorsement_of_obama_as_possible


Among unaffiliated voters, 33% say Powell is at least somewhat likely to endorse Obama, while 41% say that of a likely McCain endorsement.

Just call him Steve from Krypton:
v5SWQJWm6Tg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5SWQJWm6Tg

^ I saw both of them speak that night on the tube. JM was the funniest I've ever seen him. He had BO cracking up.

A black endorsing a black candidate...? Shocking..
I'm putting you on the spot kid, what are you trying to say? Black people are supposed to support other black people? They are together in a plot on your white infrastructure?

You look more and more like a joke as this election gets further and further. I dare you to legitimately explain that statement isn't a racial accusation and excuse on your part.

Wil: I don't seem to recall Gen. Powell saying anything about race as a factor in his endorsement.

So I guess my next step is to ask you what secret evidence you have that Gen. Powell has turned in his loyalties in favor of racial bias. I'll be checking my PMs, I hope you don't let me down.

I'm surprised that no one posted both of the Al Smith routines. They're so good they are almost new threadworthy.

That's the guy that McCain needed to be to have a shot in this election.

I've seen Obama's strengths/weaknesses about 10 times by now, and I still crack up every time.

I'm surprised that no one posted both of the Al Smith routines. They're so good they are almost new threadworthy.

That's the guy that McCain needed to be to have a shot in this election.

I've seen Obama's strengths/weaknesses about 10 times by now, and I still crack up every time.

Yep.

But a 'shot in this election' is a lil late. He should have been that guy a long time ago.

He hasn't been that guy since 2000.

EDIT: My dad has a theory that McCain is intentionally tanking this election because he wants to bring on the rebuilding.

A black endorsing a black candidate...? Shocking.

Obama has his 'Joe Lieberman' now.

have you learned how to breath with your nose yet?

"Secretary Powell says his endorsement is not about race," Limbaugh wrote in an email. "OK, fine. I am now researching his past endorsements to see if I can find all the inexperienced, very liberal, white candidates he has endorsed. I'll let you know what I come up with."

Again, calling him a sack of shit, I'm ok with, but the fat thing, I'm not so sure about. I just don't want you to post something on an internet message board that isn't true.

You sure he isn't just a lil plump?

I'm putting you on the spot kid, what are you trying to say? Black people are supposed to support other black people? They are together in a plot on your white infrastructure? You look more and more like a joke as this election gets further and further. I dare you to legitimately explain that statement isn't a racial accusation and excuse on your part


I thought I was already a racist since I'm voting for McCain.


Hmmm...

Please link us to a post where anyone called you a racist because (and only because) you are voting for McCain.

Fish in a barrel, son.

Oh, I wasn't implying somebody here called me racist, Swami.

I was just asking, aren't all Republicans racist?

I thought it was just a statement of fact.

it is racist to say colin powell endorsed obama just because both are black. therefore you are a racist, regardless of the rest of the repub party. however, there are plenty of racists in the repub party. one of them even hung obama in effigy in ohio.

Whatever...

Ledezma's hangups are more sexual than racial. He doesn't want gay sex. He wants to stick women with the consequences of misguided sex. Those are his biggest issues, so he said at one point...

Ledezma's hangups are more sexual than racial. He doesn't want gay sex. He wants to stick women with the consequences of misguided sex. Those are his biggest issues, so he said at one point...

I suppose the most charitable assumption would be that he 1) has no idea who Colin Powell is or why he is famous as a repub and 2) did not view the very thorough explanation given for powell's support of obama. however, when your modus operandi seems to involve the assumption that all black people think the same, i assume that person is racist. as for myself, i think that all people that subscribe to fundamentalist religion (christian, muslim, hindu, or other) are idiots because they allow other people to make decisions for them. i can concede this is a character flaw, but i am at least aware of it.

I thought I was already a racist since I'm voting for McCain.


Hmmm...
Thats not an answer, its another excuse, sarcastic one no less. i guess my dare was too much for ya'.

Whatever...

First you tried to change the subject with the "You're saying all republicans are racist" straw man. You know better, no one said that. Dodge failed.

Then you serve up "whatever..." as your final answer? Wow.

Understand, this isn't about what you are. What you said was racist and indefensible. A "whatever..." doesn't get you off the hook.

b0Ti-gkJiXc

Obama forces lousy sports team owner to sell team, fans cheer:

http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/10/19/report-huizenga-will-sell-dolphins-to-ross-this-year/


Dolphins managing partner Wayne Huizenga will finalize his sale of the team to co-owner Stephen Ross by the end of the year, Chris Mortensen of ESPN reports.

Huizenga sold part of the team to Ross early this year, and they’ve agreed that Ross will buy out Huizenga in the future. NFL owners voted unanimously on Tuesday to allow Huizenga to sell Ross up to 45 percent of the Dolphins at any date the two agree on.

Per Mortensen, that date will be December 30. The reason? Huizenga wants to set the date of the sale before the end of 2008 because he believes Barack Obama will be elected president and will implement tax policies that are less favorable to billionaires who sell their businesses.

Now if only we could get William Clay Ford to take the hint... hell, even Tahoe might vote for Obama. :)

Swappin' emails with Barack...



Friend --

Right now, we have one last chance to strengthen our field operation and expand our reach even further.

This Friday, we're making the very last, hard decisions about allocating our resources. And it will all come down to where we stand financially on Thursday at midnight.

We need to make decisions about strengthening our efforts in key battleground states -- and identify opportunities for expansion.

You can decide where we fight -- and how strong our team will be. Please make a donation of $5 or more before the deadline. (http://my.barackobama.com/page/m2/55c13b12/6bf5ddcd/1ababc91/11884018/816005193/VEsH/)

I know it's been a long campaign. And I know you've been asked to do a lot.

I hear you.

But right now, I'm asking you to remember what's at stake for our country.

After 20 months of fighting to bring the change we need, we cannot hold back now. We need to dig deep because what we do -- or don't do -- between now and Election Day will make all the difference.

Please make a donation of $5 or more before the deadline to expand the final map of battleground states and strengthen our field operation:

https://donate.barackobama.com/finaldeadline (http://my.barackobama.com/page/m2/55c13b12/6bf5ddcd/1ababc91/11884018/816005193/VEsE/)

I'd like to fight for votes in every corner of the country. But the reality is that we need to focus and redouble our efforts for the final push.

Thank you for making sure this campaign has the resources to compete in as many states as possible,

Barack

Presidential politics: Endorsement time

38 mins ago

The vice presidential candidates are picked. The conventions are done. So are the debates. What's a political watcher to do with the 15 days left before the election?

You can always try to decipher the polls or wait for the October Surprise (if it hasn't already happened yet). Or, you can do what we did this weekend: meander through the avalanche of endorsements that have been handed down from newspapers and other notables during the campaign season.

There have been a few newsworthy endorsements recently as some high-profile Republicans have publicly moved to Democratic territory. Christopher Buckley, William F. Buckley's son, endorsed Obama (and subsequently lost his column at the National Review over it). Colin Powell did the same this weekend. Republican talk show host Michael Smerconish announced he'd be voting for a Democrat for the first time in 28 years. (We should note that even though he's a fixture on the McCain campaign now, Sen. Joe Lieberman jumping parties to endorse McCain was also news at the time.)

But those are just a few voices that received attention for making unexpected choices. There are a lot of other endorsements out there, so here's a round-up of some nods.

First, the political ones. President Bush, Gov. Schwarzenegger and the NRA have endorsed McCain. Hillary Clinton, Caroline Kennedy and the AFL-CIO have endorsed Obama.

Obvious political endorsements can be boring, so thank Hollywood for giving us Heidi Montag, Matt Damon and the Baldwin brothers. Montag of "The Hills" fame endorsed McCain and then he endorsed her right back. Matt Damon said Obama is his guy and (more famously) noted that Sarah Palin's candidacy sounded like a "bad Disney movie."

Then, there's the dueling political posturing of a couple of the brothers Baldwin. While neither may have explicitly endorsed a candidate, you could probably tell by watching "Saturday Night Live" this weekend that Alec is a loud Democrat and little bro Stephen is an outspoken Republican. (Stephen even went so far as to challenge Obama to a boxing duel for charity.)

Baldwins aside, what you might find more useful is knowing who newspapers endorse. The Chicago Tribune, for example, is backing Barack Obama. It's the first time in the paper's history that they are endorsing a Democrat for the presidency of the United States. A few days after the Trib endorsement, McCain picked up his own big-deal endorsement from a paper in the swing state of Ohio, the Columbus Dispatch.

There's a comprehensive list of newspaper endorsements over at Editor & Publisher, but we've pulled a few of the other key ones below:

Boston Herald – McCain

Los Angeles Times – Obama

New York Post - McCain

Washington DC Examiner – McCain

Washington Post – Obama

^^^Dallas Morning News- McCain

Interesting how Juan Williams (an African-American) reinforced what I had to say about the reasons behind Powell endorsing Obama.

Also, let it be noted that Colin Powell isn't a true 'conservative'. He's pro-choice and for affirmative action. Not to mention he did some damage to the Bush administration and his son (FCC Chairman, Michael Powell) is currently campaigning for McCain.

So is Colin a Republican?? Sure, the only reason he's a house hold name is because of the Republicans who gave him opportunities (Reagain, Bush Sr., W Bush).

Name one time Powell has endorsed an inexperienced, WHITE Democrat in his lifetime. You can't. And no, Michael Bloomberg ran for mayor of NYC as a Republican.

So with Juan Williams saying exactly what I said. I think it's clear I wasn't being racist.

Interesting how Juan Williams (an African-American) reinforced what I had to say about the reasons behind Powell endorsing Obama.

Also, let it be noted that Colin Powell isn't a true 'conservative'. He's pro-choice and for affirmative action. Not to mention he did some damage to the Bush administration and his son (FCC Chairman, Michael Powell) is currently campaigning for McCain.

So is Colin a Republican?? Sure, the only reason he's a house hold name is because of the Republicans who gave him opportunities (Reagain, Bush Sr., W Bush).

Name one time Powell has endorsed an inexperienced, WHITE Democrat in his lifetime. You can't. And no, Michael Bloomberg ran for mayor of NYC as a Republican.

So with Juan Williams saying exactly what I said. I think it's clear I wasn't being racist.

In summary, you dismiss his lengthy and detailed basis for his endorsement. You disregard the man's own words, his bi-partisan history, his vast resume as both soldier and statesman... and trivialize his endorsement on the basis of race.

Yes, that's a racist thing to do.

Have you guys even seen someone drown before?

Have you guys even seen someone drown before?

Only when I hang out with Phil Collins.

Couple links for y'all. I'm not sure if they're in the thread at all, but I've been keeping up with FiveThirtyEight for a while now. Good stuff there.


http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

http://www.270towin.com/simulation/

Also, let it be noted that Colin Powell isn't a true 'conservative'. He's pro-choice and for affirmative action. Not to mention he did some damage to the Bush administration and his son (FCC Chairman, Michael Powell) is currently campaigning for McCain.

So is Colin a Republican?? Sure, the only reason he's a house hold name is because of the Republicans who gave him opportunities (Reagain, Bush Sr., W Bush).

Name one time Powell has endorsed an inexperienced, WHITE Democrat in his lifetime. You can't. And no, Michael Bloomberg ran for mayor of NYC as a Republican.


I've heard from some conservatives voting Obama based on Powell's speech yesterday. They said that the one thing they were leery of with Obama was his foreign experience and that Powell re-assured them on that front. I don't think most people are looking at this from a jumping the fence standpoint, but more of an endorsement of Obama's foreign policy.

“OK, fine. I am now researching his past endorsements to see if I can find all the inexperienced, very liberal, white candidates he has endorsed. I’ll let you know what I come up with.


Name one time Powell has endorsed an inexperienced, WHITE Democrat in his lifetime.

Trickle-down talking points.

Trickle-down talking points.


Thank you for not calling Rush, "fat".