First thing I've heard is that its being discussed whether or not to postpone it due to the storm that might turn into a hurricane or something.

Chances this thread gets derailed or canceled due to lack of interest? Highly probable. :)

McCain/Palin!

I like this pick alot.

Sarah Palin definitely brings something new to the table. She doesn't have worlds of experience, but she does have executive experience and her approval ratings are sensational! She's definitely a true conservative and without question a much safer pick than Romney or Huckabee.

McCain's going to run away with the older women vote, which is the demograph Barack was struggling most with.

Shouldn't help Barack seeing as how he was behind anyway.

They're saying Palin's not in Ohio, she's still in Alaska.

We'll know at noon I guess. However, I hope to God he doesn't pick that Meg Whitelman.

Any chance we can get a Twin Cities picture made from this:

http://www.nobodyasked.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/bush-mccain-hug-72-thumb.jpg

I suggest this as the backdrop:

http://law.hamline.edu/files/large_images/twin_cities.jpg

With this in the upper left corner. Minus the background on it?

http://bp0.blogger.com/_s6W6nHHq5gg/R_ePmfqqxZI/AAAAAAAAADA/sGOKjyWM71c/s400/mcsame.jpg

Palin's probably more qualified to run for President than Barack.

Acutually, not "probably", she is more qualified.

Barack's gonna have to regroup, McCain hit a home run with his VP pick.

Palin's probably more qualified to run for President than Barack.

Acutually, not "probably", she is more qualified.

Barack's gonna have to regroup, McCain hit a home run with his VP pick.


LOL

You think Hillary was depressed watching Obama speak...

Just imagine what Hillary's thinking watching Palin right now.

People thought Limbaugh would hate this VP pick...

Quite the contrary.

If Obama would have went with Hilary, is there any chance McCain would have picked Palin?

If Obama would have went with Hilary, is there any chance McCain would have picked Palin?


Well it's irrelavant, really. I think if Obama picked Hillary, he'd have won regardless of who McCain picked.

Fortunately, that wasn't the case.

imo, if BO would have selected Hill, it wouldn't have mattered who JM picked. It would have been BO/Hill for 8 years.

It almost seems like a reactive pick to me.

Definately calculated

It almost seems like a reactive pick to me.


Maybe a little bit. But at the same time, it's not like she doesn't bring anything else to the table. She has more experience than even Barack does, and really has no true naysayers, unlike my boy Mitt, Lieberman or Huckabee did.

It's a safe (and yet somewhat bold) pick, she's a true conservative (which he is not, so there are some general differences between the two, other than gender, that most P/VP pairs seem to have) and just like Barack's campaign, it's a first for this country, being the first women on the ticket offsets the overhyped "spectacular-ness" of Barack simply being the first minority presidential candidate.

It's not meant as a knock on her, but what is the "more experience" she has than Barack?

Executive.

Executive.


Exactly.

I suppose, but she's no expert on economy (which Mitt was) that McCain admits is his weakness.

I think he just wanted someone willing to go against the grain like him. Unfortunately she is severely pro life and that will prevent many Hillary voters from crossing over.

It'll be interesting to watch this pick play out.

Babies, guns and Jesus, hot damn!

I suppose, but she's no expert on economy (which Mitt was) that McCain admits is his weakness.

I think he just wanted someone willing to go against the grain like him. Unfortunately she is severely pro life and that will prevent many Hillary voters from crossing over.


Yeah, but even as Glenn pointed out, Mitt had his obvious flaws. Can't say the same about Palin without having to do a bit of research. She was a safe and intelligent pick.

Also, I don't think the pro-life thing will hurt her as much as you think. I honestly think those women will vote for her, simply because she's female (kind of like how blacks will vote Obama, because he is black).

Yeah, but even as Glenn pointed out, Mitt had his obvious flaws. Can't say the same about Palin without having to do a bit of research. She was a safe and intelligent pick.
Let's see how this investigation that she is under by the state goes, first. Something tells me that the 80% approval rating makes that "go away" -- but it's still out there.



Also, I don't think the pro-life thing will hurt her as much as you think. I honestly think those women will vote for her, simply because she's female (kind of like how blacks will vote Obama, because he is black).

That's a couple of very broad generalizations, right there. You might want to say "many" of "most" but it sounds like you are implying "all", which is definitely untrue.

But she accepted the investigation with open arms. andwhodoesnt

^I was about to respond until I read the white text, lol.

So Wineman (Newsweek) says that the theme of the RNC was apparently going to be "Not ready to lead" and that is being changed now.

It seems to me they are going to need to spend a lot of convention time teaching people who Palin is and propping her up. That's less time to do other things (talk about the issues at hand, attack, etc) IMO.

2 replies to ^

Not ready to lead on day 1 is still a problem for the Dems cuz Biden isn't the Prez, Mr. Asbestos Legislature is the guy peeps are having to evaluate. <--snarky

and I forgot 2 already...

Oh I remember now, its the argument I made the other day. The Repubs no more lost the 'experience' argument than BO did the 'change' argument when he picked Biden cuz he has been in the Senate since the first for along time.

Oh I remember now, its the argument I made the other day. The Repubs no more lost the 'experience' argument than BO did the 'change' argument when he picked Biden cuz he has been in the Senate since the first for along time.


agreed.

Oh I remember now, its the argument I made the other day. The Repubs no more lost the 'experience' argument than BO did the 'change' argument when he picked Biden cuz he has been in the Senate since the first for along time.

Doesn't that remain to be seen?

Obama didn't lose "change" because he didn't stop hammering it, even after Biden.

Will the Republicans keep hammering at "experience"?

If Wineman's report is correct, then they are already changing course.

Well from what I saw today, it looks like JM and SP stratedgy is 'change' or 'reform'.

So i expect JM, or Repub ads to still include experience of the Presidential candidate and I think they are going to hammer home change.

Hard for McCain to hammer "change" with that 90-95% Bush agreement/voting record out there now.

Hard for McCain to hammer "change" with that 90-95% Bush agreement/voting record out there now.

If he can call on his career + running with a republican chick he can pull it off.

That % voting stuff is largely crap. There's lots of little votes that have bipartisan support.

That % voting stuff is largely crap. There's lots of little votes that have bipartisan support.

Does or will the voting public understand that?

Its funny cuz Repubs say they could NEVER count on JM to go along with the party. They NEVER knew for sure what he would do. I'm not saying thats all good, just saying.

Does or will the voting public understand that?

No

Alan Comes is a total d-bag. Dude is sold on the fact that Palin was strictly a reactive selection, and nothing else.

Almost as if he's taking women's votes for granted.

Palin is a rising star, and you can see how defensive and scared some of these libs are...

Time for Greta!!!

Would Biden have been the pick if JM wasn't the nominee?

Would Biden have been the pick if JM wasn't the nominee?
If JM weren't the nominee, would he have been a VP pick?


Alan Comes is a total d-bag. Dude is sold on the fact that Palin was strictly a reactive selection, and nothing else.

Almost as if he's taking women's votes for granted.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/08/how-palin-came.html suggests that the operative word is knee-jerk.


Palin is a rising star, and you can see how defensive and scared some of these libs are...
Palin doesn't scare me. She's a distraction, and I suspect she's as much of a distraction for some Republican factions as she is for Democratic ones. It'll be amusing to see how the convention goes, if it goes. If Gustav is a major mess in the U.S. and Republicans are partying away... not good for them

If Gustav is a major mess in the U.S. and Republicans are partying away... not good for them

They've already discussed this.

The bigger problem is that Palin is unknown to most and the 4 day convention would be a great place to define her before BO can get his attack machine going on her. Even though they've gone after her alread.

If Gustav comes in, the Repubs won't have time to get the voters and her acquainted or something.

I could see how a common American would fall for her smile..[smilie=smiley.gif]

I just hope they don't.

McCain/Palin are coming to Sterling Heights on Sept 5th...

LOL, Ledezma is anti-hope. Idiot.

lol

Wait, are you really living in London?

I didn't realize London was so close to 7 and Mound. :)

Rni6G7RRFkk

McCain/Palin are coming to Sterling Heights on Sept 5th...

So?

Oh I remember now, its the argument I made the other day. The Repubs no more lost the 'experience' argument than BO did the 'change' argument when he picked Biden cuz he has been in the Senate since the first for along time.

Prove to me that Biden has been practicing "washington politics" as Obama has put it and I'll give you that point. Just because someone has been in Washington for a long time doesn't mean they've been doing things wrong. We can tell by McCain's voting record that he plans to continue the way things are done for the most part. Would Biden? If so, then you have an arguement. Just because someone hasn't changed Washington doesn't mean they haven't tried.

Biden can also claim that he's never lived in Washington, a measure of independence most can't. Of course, none of this has anything to do with the convention, which is turning into a teleconference with all the no-shows.

Ron Paul at the RNC
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/index.php?cl=9552958

Prove to me that Biden has been practicing "washington politics" as Obama has put it and I'll give you that point. Just because someone has been in Washington for a long time doesn't mean they've been doing things wrong. We can tell by McCain's voting record that he plans to continue the way things are done for the most part. Would Biden? If so, then you have an arguement. Just because someone hasn't changed Washington doesn't mean they haven't tried.

If you think Biden had been a maverick up there more than McCain then you are sorely mistaken.

McCain is the Senator who's tried to change things

There's only a very few times that McCain hasn't ended up towing the party line, despite all the talk. The biggest one is the Gang Of 14, which I doubt gets a lot of attention at this RNC.

I think most of the country's perception of him as a maverick is because he'll say whatever he wants. Also, because the media continues to call him that. It's like the article on CNN about one Clinton voter at the RNC supporting McCain now. Of course there will be some voters crossing over. That doesn't mean it's a big enough issue to warrant an article. I think the media continues to drive that story on their own.

How much he deserves the maverick label I'll let you talk about (I don't know any more about his voting record than I've heard in this election campaign).

He's been a thorn in the side of Republicans on lots of issues. Water boarding, immigration (even though he's finally come around now), etc.

He's been a thorn in the side of Republicans on lots of issues. Water boarding, immigration (even though he's finally come around now), etc.
(disclaimer: as I've said I'm not that familiar with his record 5+ years back). I think since the last election he's been more of the status quo than a maverick because he knows he needs the party's backing to make it. I hesitate to call him spineless (since he obviously was very tough as a POW), but I have a hard time figuring out where he stands on anything lately. It seems like he'll say whatever he thinks will get him ahead. I can't stand Bush at all, but at least he sticks to his guns.

I'm glad the DA will explain it to me:


Fred Thompson, a former Tennessee senator and rival for the Republican nomination, will explain "what makes him tick, why he is a maverick"

He's been a thorn in the side of Republicans on lots of issues. Water boarding, immigration (even though he's finally come around now), etc.
McCain voted against his own amendment on waterboarding.

McCain's backed off his immigration stance.

He's full of smacktalk but will contort himself into whatever shape you want with a little effort. Perhaps they should hand out silly putty or play-doh at the RNC?

McCain didn't flip-flop on immigration, he simply went from being wrong to being right. :)

The waterboarding thing just makes me ill. No harm to the douche getting boarded but we can't do it. But they can cut off the heads of peeps.

I've said this many times...I prefer getting something right on the 2nd try over an idiot that keeps doing the same thing wrong over and over. We had this discussion at great lengths during the Kerry/Bush election.

That being said, I truly have a hard time figuring out where McCain stands on most things. If the GOP can play the flip flop card on Kerry, McCain deserves 10 times that against him.

Fred Thompson thinks bringing up the fact that John McCain dated strippers will play well for the audience they're hoping to attract. Heh.

Lieberman ain't no Zell Miller in the speaking department, that's for sure.

Yea, that dating a stripper comment was quite odd, imo, with all JM's children sitting there. Not sure why that was necesary in this setting.

Well, I saw most of last nights goings-on taped but it looked like they broke out the 'maverick' label pretty much.

Like Brit Hume said..."They even mentioned that Ronald Regan was a maverick of sorts in the tribute to him, didn't they" lol

Palin HAS to have a pretty darn good speech tonight.

Did anyone notice that none of bush/thompson/lieberman said that mccain was tortured. they have the airbrush that word out to avoid their own sins.

Well, I saw most of last nights goings-on taped but it looked like they broke out the 'maverick' label pretty much.

Like Brit Hume said..."They even mentioned that Ronald Regan was a maverick of sorts in the tribute to him, didn't they" lol

Palin HAS to have a pretty darn good speech tonight.
They haven't really let her give any significant speeches yet. Whatever she says, it will at least be new, if not genuinely interesting. I'm pretty sure that the amazing abilities of Republicans to avoid cognitive dissonance will be a major factor in this election.

Hell, the girl worked in TV and pagents....she should be good.

Hell, the girl worked in TV and pagents....she should be good.
WALIARHHLII

But seriously, I expect her to be able to give a decent speech simply because she's given one in the past. I predict that it will be a loser speech if it has any mention of the PTA or current controversy.

http://media.canada.com/24be34eb-ecfe-4969-88c2-5aa898db4139/levimccain.JPG
WOW -- McCain looks old in that shot.

Does anyone think that it was a good idea to bring that kid to the convention for a photo-op? Hell, I'd keep the immediate family out of sight for everything BUT the VP speech.

BTW, Palin sure gave a great speech tonight, attacking Obama and all.

for all this talk about reduced spending, why does spending always go up faster under republican presidents. that's right because they're incompetent ass clowns that give private contracts to their buddies while reducing the quality of govt. services at the same time.

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/images/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-S4-Federal-Spending-per-Household.gif

Thats what that ^ graph tells me.

also when mittens talks about the last 25 years, he must realize that republicans have been in charge most of that time. While I get irritated by democratic speeches, these republicans are just lying sacks of shit that use the govt. power to get themselves and their friends richer under the false pretenses of patriotism and the culture war. it literally makes me want to puke. the more i see this garbage, the happier i would be with stronger states' rights. let the south and rural west outlaw abortion, gays, social security, or whatever, but leave the rest of the country alone.

^ yep.

Wow, Rudy knocked it out of the park. Great speech.

for clarification, the first chart is spending per hh. the second chart is debt to gdp. both show how full of shit republicans are about being fiscal conservatives. all they have is bullshit social conservatism.

federal spending per HH in 2007 US$
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/images/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-S4-Federal-Spending-per-Household.gif

pres. average % inc. per year
johnson 2.5%
nixon 1.2%
ford 6.0%
carter 1.4%
reagan 1.5%
bush 1 2.3%
clinton 0.1%
bush 2 1.8%

note that 2008 'projection' is a bush fantasy and the debt has increased even faster than during his first 4 years.
http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP.gif

Wow, Rudy knocked it out of the park. Great speech.
Some of what Rudy said was true, I'll grant that. If it weren't for fucking up the primary schedule, we might be looking at Giuliani somewhere on the ticket.

BTW, in comparison to Rudy, Palin sounds like she's running for student body president.

That was one of the most entertaining and substance filled speeches I've heard in a long time. She is amazing.

She could be Prez some day for sure.

LOL

^ niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice.

That was one of the most entertaining and substance filled speeches I've heard in a long time. She is amazing.

She could be Prez some day for sure.

Is this a joke? I really can't tell. I mean the start of the speech with the shout-outs was totally awesome. However, i think railing about smaller government and reforming after your 9,000 person town hired a dc lobbying firm to maximize earmarks only works on the dumbest of republican partisans. especially when the same lobbying firm had abramhoff as a client.

Go get that bridge to nowhere, you maverick reformer!!!

http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/30549/liar.jpg

Response.


Friend --

I wasn't planning on sending you something tonight. But if you saw what I saw from the Republican convention, you know that it demands a response.

I saw John McCain's attack squad of negative, cynical politicians. They lied about Barack Obama and Joe Biden, and they attacked you for being a part of this campaign.

But worst of all -- and this deserves to be noted -- they insulted the very idea that ordinary people have a role to play in our political process.

You know that despite what John McCain and his attack squad say, everyday people have the power to build something extraordinary when we come together.

Both Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin specifically mocked Barack's experience as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago more than two decades ago, where he worked with people who had lost jobs and been left behind when the local steel plants closed.

Let's clarify something for them right now.

Community organizing is how ordinary people respond to out-of-touch politicians and their failed policies.

And it's no surprise that, after eight years of George Bush, millions of people have found that by coming together in their local communities they can change the course of history. That promise is what our campaign has been about from the beginning.

Throughout our history, ordinary people have made good on America's promise by organizing for change from the bottom up. Community organizing is the foundation of the civil rights movement, the women's suffrage movement, labor rights, and the 40-hour workweek. And it's happening today in church basements and community centers and living rooms across America.

Meanwhile, we still haven't gotten a single idea during the entire Republican convention about the economy and how to lift a middle class so harmed by the Bush-McCain policies.

It's now clear that John McCain's campaign has decided that desperate lies and personal attacks -- on Barack Obama and on you -- are the only way they can earn a third term for the Bush policies that McCain has supported more than 90 percent of the time.

But you can send a crystal clear message.

Enough is enough.

Thank you for joining more than 2 million ordinary Americans who refuse to be silenced.

David

David Plouffe
Campaign Manager
Obama for America

You and David Plouffe are friends G. Friends.

My first impression is that he was mocking McCain with that "Friends", but maybe not.

I think it's a pretty safe bet that someone gets to McCain before his speech tonight and informs him that he better mix in the words "middle class" and "health care" somewhere into his speech.

Those concepts/words were not to be found last night.

I think that says a lot.

Bush Senior's most famous words come from his inaugural address, known as the "thousand points of light" speech, praising community organizers:


I have spoken of a thousand points of light, of all the community organizations that are spread like stars throughout the Nation, doing good. We will work hand in hand, encouraging, sometimes leading, sometimes being led, rewarding. We will work on this in the White House, in the Cabinet agencies. I will go to the people and the programs that are the brighter points of light, and I will ask every member of my government to become involved. The old ideas are new again because they are not old, they are timeless: duty, sacrifice, commitment, and a patriotism that finds its expression in taking part and pitching in.

I remember these words because they made me feel ok voting for the guy, despite my reservations.

(As an aside, though this passage is responsible for why the speech is called the "thousand points of light" speech, these didn't turn out to be his most famous words from that speech. Those 'famous last words' start with "read my lips" and end with President Clinton.)

outlawing abortion, teaching 'god created earth in 6 days' as part of curriculum, wants to ban gay marriage, great it's another Christian Right candidate. Like we need 4 more years of that shit.

I mean I get it, after the drubbing in 2000, McCain knows where his bread is buttered, from hugging Jerry "agent of intolerance" Fallwell to getting a candidate who supports every "put christian beliefs into the law" position there is.

In the words of Barkley, turrble. just turrrble.

That was one of the most entertaining and substance filled speeches I've heard in a long time. She is amazing.

She could be Prez some day for sure.

You can't be serious. She was an excellent speaker IMO, and she did a great job of pumping up the conservative base. Beyond that, it was terrible. Did you listed to the lies she was spewing? That crap about voting against the bridge to nowhere? Her speech was littered with lies...lies that the republicans loved.

Rudi was the same way. He was very effective with the base, but again more lies. And how many times did he call her senator Palin? I heard him say that at least a couple times.

To me the night was nothing but a bunch of propaganda about what needs to be fixed in America when they represent the same party that broke everything. They offered absolutely no solutions to an ailing economy (note: i did not see Mitt's speech, he may have addressed that).

And once again Palin illegally brought up her son's deployment schedule.

They tell Obama he's all style and no substance...but that was exactly what I saw last night.

Few minorities on GOP podium

By NANCY BENAC, Associated Press Writer
18 minutes ago

ST. PAUL, Minn. - The Republican National Convention showcased a Native American color guard, a black preacher and video footage of civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks, all part of its effort to present the GOP as a picture of diversity. What it hasn't offered is many minorities speaking from the podium in prime time, or sitting among the delegates.

The convention has a decidedly homogenous look to it, coming hard on the heels of a Democratic gathering where minorities were prominent on the podium and in the crowds, and the spotlight focused squarely on Barack Obama's historic racial breakthrough.

Not that Republicans have been deliberately denying broad exposure to prominent party members from minority groups — there just aren't that many.

The party had hoped to showcase Louisiana's Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal, the country's first elected Indian-American governor. But he stayed home to help coordinate the state's response to Hurricane Gustav. The Republicans have no black governors or members of Congress to put on stage.

It's a problem for the party that goes deeper than the challenge of coming up with a diverse speaker's lineup.

"It is what it is," said Michael Steele, Maryland's former lieutenant governor and the first black elected to statewide office there. "You can't sugarcoat this stuff."

Steele, who chairs GOPAC, which recruits and trains Republican candidates nationwide, got 10 minutes on the podium in prime time Wednesday night.

Earlier in the evening, a number of blacks and Hispanics had a chance to address the convention, albeit briefly. Among them: a nurse from Pennsylvania, a California state senator, the head of a Hispanic medical organization an entrepreneur whose mother was an orphan of Mexican descent.

Texas Railroad Commissioner Michael Williams, who is black, also spoke, and later had the opportunity to place McCain's name before the delegates in nomination. He alluded to the historic significance of Obama's breakthrough as the first black presidential nominee for a major party, a nomination he accepted at the Democratic convention in Denver.

"But I am here with you in St. Paul, rather than being in Denver last week, because I believe values and ideas take precedence over the politics of demography and identity," Williams said. "And because I know John is ready to lead."

It is a message the Republicans hope will be embraced more broadly among black Americans, so many of them captivated by Obama's path-breaking course.

The predominance of white faces on the podium in St. Paul was reflected in the faces staring back from the audience in St. Paul. About 13 percent of GOP delegates identify themselves as belonging to a minority group, according to convention organizers, who provided no further details on the ethnic breakdown.

Joanna Burgos, a spokeswoman for the convention, said that figure is more than double the minority participation at the Republicans' 1996 convention.

"We look forward to continuing and expanding these relationships — and nominating John McCain, a Republican leader who values the diverse backgrounds of all Americans and will lead on issues important to them," she said.

However, minority representation is down from 2004, when about 17 percent of delegates and alternates were minorities.

Joseph Wood, a black delegate from Arkansas and treasurer of the state Republican Party, said there are more important things to consider than how many minorities are standing on the podium.

"Would we like to see more now at the senior level at the conventions?" he asked. "That would be great, but we already know that they're in prominent positions in the Cabinet under George Bush and his dad and Ronald Reagan. I'm not sure we're missing anything at this meeting just because there's not a whole platform onstage of minorities."

Nearby, fellow Arkansan Robert E. Smith Jr., another black delegate, labeled it "a short-term problem."

"You just haven't dug deep enough. Because at the grass-roots level there are those who can articulate" a strong message to minorities, he said.

Steele, the GOPAC chairman, said McCain has demonstrated his ability to connect with blacks and other minorities in his appearances before groups such as the NAACP and the Urban League, although he doesn't always get credit for it amid all the focus on Obama's history-making candidacy.

"God forbid you say a Republican has juice with black people," Steele said. "I think he has more juice than people give him credit for. People will probably laugh at that, but let them keep on laughing. I think they'll be surprised at how well he'll connect."

:thatsracist:

#91 ^ pretty much what some of the liberal media said too.

BO's speech made them speechless, but Palins was just speaking to Repubs.

I think when we begin to realize that we are both sincere in our beliefs who speaks to us, the better off we'll be.

BO's speech while delivered well, really didn't speak to me. SP's speech didn't speak to you. Thats why we have 2 parties.

It was a GREAT speech. Full of substance.

It was a GREAT speech. Full of substance.

But no mention of the middle class or health care.

When she said "Obama's going to raise taxes on us" who do you think the "us" is?

That tells you exactly who she was speaking to, and if that is you Tahoe, then congrats, Daddy Rich!

She didnt have to mention middle class cuz she is middle class, or an ordinary person.

She didnt have to mention middle class cuz she is middle class, or an ordinary person.

No Governor is middle class.

Unless we're using McCain's definition of "middle class".

imo, she's middle class, ordinary peep. And I think she reads that way to voters.

wow.

Well, the best I could find was a 2001 article showing the Alaska governor makes $81,000 a year. I'm sure it's around $100,000 now. That would be upper middle class, if her husband didn't work at all. He earned $93,000 in 2007. If you think $200,000 a year is middle class I think you are sorely mistaken.

And that is not taking into account what the cost of living is, which is probably much lower in Alaska than Michigan.

EDIT- it looks like the cost of living is pretty similar actually.

Well, the best I could find was a 2001 article showing the Alaska governor makes $81,000 a year. I'm sure it's around $100,000 now. That would be upper middle class, if her husband didn't work at all. He earned $93,000 in 2007. If you think $200,000 a year is middle class I think you are sorely mistaken.

And that is not taking into account what the cost of living is, which is probably much lower in Alaska than Michigan.

Good info.

But I'm sure we disagree on where middle, upper middle, etcs are.

But my point is that she comes across as a regular mom. I'm sure the BO camp will attempt to change that.

She does come across that way, no doubt.

The middle class, in colloquial usage, consists of those people who have a degree of economic independence, but not a great deal of social influence or power. The term often encompasses merchants and professionals, and some farmers and skilled workers.


Everyone wants to believe they are middle class...But this eagerness...has led the definition to be stretched like a bungee cord — used to defend/attack/describe everything...The Drum Major Institute...places the range for middle class at individuals making between $25,000 and $100,000 a year.


Sociologists such as Dennis Gilbert, William Thompson, and Joseph Hickey estimate the upper middle class to constitute roughly 15% of the population. Using this figure, one may conclude that the American upper middle class consist of professionals making more than $62,500 who commonly reside in households with six figure incomes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_figure_income). Both of these figures are considerably above the national median of $32,000 regarding individual income (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States) and $46,000 for households (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States). Many upper middle class professions feature salaries above $67,348, which was the median household income (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States) for a household with two income earners in 2003.

Good points Chris, but its up to the BO camp to carry that out there.

But my point is that she comes across as a regular mom. I'm sure the BO camp will attempt to change that.

I think that's certainly true so far and its what you hear from those the news channels speak to. It's certainly a first impression that makes sense.

Good points Chris, but its up to the BO camp to carry that out there.

I do agree she's doing a good job of seeming middle class though.

I do agree she's doing a good job of seeming middle class though.

Well, I think she is...even with the info you posted.

Remember all your posts about "JUST" being a mayor of a small town. And how that wasn't that long ago. She isn't that far removed from it.

But no mention of the middle class or health care.

When she said "Obama's going to raise taxes on us" who do you think the "us" is?

That tells you exactly who she was speaking to, and if that is you Tahoe, then congrats, Daddy Rich!

It gets even worse when her "substance" is fact checked. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/04/politics/animal/main4414049.shtml)

^I like the part about McCain flip flopping on choice/life 4 different times.

Remember all your posts about "JUST" being a mayor of a small town. And how that wasn't that long ago. She isn't that far removed from it.
She was last mayor in 2002, BTW.


But my point is that she comes across as a regular mom. I'm sure the BO camp will attempt to change that.
Honestly, I don't think so. In coming across as a "regular mom", she sounds awfully unpresidential on the stump. Lots of people like their moms. That doesn't necessarily equate to their mom getting their vote on a presidential ticket. I think that's particularly true for women. We'll see.

Agreed. "Hockey Mom" is not really a required resume item for VP.

Interesting video of blacks at the republican convention weighing in on Obama. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/rnc-video-diary-black-rep_b_123477.html)

No, it's not a rick roll.

The guy on the left is a dumbass. The woman and the guy in the middle seemed pretty smart. I agree with them that they should be happy with the progress America has made (a black presidential nominee), and that they vote based on issues and not skin color. They should stick to their guns.

The next question should have been...why do the republicans think they can steal Hillary's voters simply by putting a women on the ticket that has different views than Hillary on key issues?

No shit.

The only thing that Hillary and Palin have in common is a vag.

I hope that people can see through that, but I have my doubts.

I hope Obama's camp talks about all the prosperity signs last night and once again how McCain is out of touch with reality and thinks the economy is great.

No shit.

The only thing that Hillary and Palin have in common is a vag.

I hope that people can see through that, but I have my doubts.
http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=183521

Palin with 37 million voters just shy of BO's so-so speech.

Seriously, that speech was entertaining and substance filled. I think the other speech that comes to mind is Jesse Jackson's speech but I can't remember the year. I don't think it was the year that he had a good showing but a couple before that. He owned the auditorium. BO's to me was just so-so. I know I'm in the minority on that opinion though.

Just heard this: The media relentless attacks on her, drove peeps to watch the speech and she knocked it out of the park. Thanks liberal media.

btw..her teleprompter was only working for about a quarter of the speech. AMAZING! You gotta love that.

Palin with 37 million voters just shy of BO's so-so speech.

Seriously, that speech was entertaining and substance filled. I think the other speech that comes to mind is Jesse Jackson's speech but I can't remember the year. I don't think it was the year that he had a good showing but a couple before that. He owned the auditorium. BO's to me was just so-so. I know I'm in the minority on that opinion though.

So you are fine with incorrect substance?

better read the fact check link that was posted.

Just heard this: The media relentless attacks on her, drove peeps to watch the speech and she knocked it out of the park. Thanks liberal media.

btw..her teleprompter was only working for about a quarter of the speech. AMAZING! You gotta love that.

Again, I think she did well delivering the message. The message just sucked.

Both sides stretch things. So did BO's speech about JM and oil company something or others.

btw..her teleprompter was only working for about a quarter of the speech. AMAZING! You gotta love that.
That's the stuff that legend is made of, right there.

~cue the picture of the earpiece/mic box in the back of Bush's jacket during the 2004 debates~

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/04/navy-seals-should-not-have-been-recognized-at-rnc/#more-16838

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2008/09/cindy-mccains-300000-outfit.html

Vanity Fair...Communists aren't they?

Vanity Fair...Communists aren't they?

lol, everyone's got a secret agenda against the Republicans, don't they?

Don't take this the wrong way, but sometimes you come across as a bit paranoid.

lol, everyone's got a secret agenda against the Republicans, don't they?

Don't take this the wrong way, but sometimes you come across as a bit paranoid.

I'm just playing the part. I really need to go with Green text more often.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/04/cbsnews_investigates/main4415886.shtml

Typical Dem can't hear opposing views so they 'attempt' to disrupt a convention. Let the man speak.

Didn't bother JM at all though.

And my hunch is that Heart didn't give their permission for the song Barracuda to be used at the end, there.
It turns out they'd already used it at the convention, got a cease-and-desist from Heart, and used it again ANYWAY. Hoo boy...

http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2008/09/heart-responds.html

Thursday afternoon, Heart e-mailed out a statement regarding vice-presidential candidate Sarah "Barracuda" Palin's use of their similarly monikered song at the Republican National Convention: "The Republican campaign did not ask for permission to use the song, nor would they have been granted that permission," it read. "We have asked the Republican campaign publicly not to use our music. We hope our wishes will be honored."

But after McCain finished his speech accepting the GOP's presidential nomination tonight, Palin joined him on stage, and the song was used again: Heart's "Barracuda" played as balloons fell. With that elephant in the room, Heart's Nancy Wilson felt compelled to personally respond. "I think it's completely unfair to be so misrepresented," she said in a phone call to EW.com after the speech. "I feel completely f---ed over." She and sister Ann Wilson then e-mailed the following exclusive statement:

"Sarah Palin's views and values in NO WAY represent us as American women. We ask that our song 'Barracuda' no longer be used to promote her image. The song 'Barracuda' was written in the late 70s as a scathing rant against the soulless, corporate nature of the music business, particularly for women. (The 'barracuda' represented the business.) While Heart did not and would not authorize the use of their song at the RNC, there's irony in Republican strategists' choice to make use of it there."

the "tribute" to 9/11 video has to be the pinnacle of the farce that has been this convention. i realize that really was the high water mark of single party republican rule. however, most people have negative remembrances of that, and i find it hard to see how that fits with an otherwise rollicking political party (you know the type where they drop balloons and confetti at the end of the night). I think that the most distasteful part of that shit is the constant denunciation of the 'cosmopolitans' that live in new york. they are just caricatures both in speeches and in 'tribute' videos.

Anyways, why is the republican party so angry at washington, which has been obstensibly filled with republicans for the last 8 years? Is America so stupid as to believe mr. 90% is suddenly going to change his mind now and legislate responsibly. did 9/11 and both wars occur under democratic rule?

do we need to put mccain in office to fight against palin's earmarks? what a fucking sham

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/09/03/per_capita_earmarks.jpg

This convention was great. We'll have to see the bounce but I'm expecting more than the Dems.

Palin's speech matched the audience of BO's too. Really a great convention.

I was so angry with what they did with that 9/11 "tribute" that I wanted to fight someone.

A perfect example of fear mongering to try to gain politically.

Disgraceful.

I fucked up. Can someone undo my edit of #128, get it back to what it was originally?

This convention was great. We'll have to see the bounce but I'm expecting more than the Dems.

Palin's speech matched the audience of BO's too. Really a great convention.
http://www.grizzlybay.org/LearnMore/SarahPalinBarbariansCropped.jpg

Oh... you mean the REPUBLICAN convention?.... The Fake Viking Convention was pretty good, too.

I fucked up. Can someone undo my edit of #128, get it back to what it was originally?

I'm not seeing a way to "undo" an edit.

Maybe Chris can save the day.

If not, no biggie.

I accidentally edited when I meant to followup on part of one of my posts.

124WAoqwKto

I'm not seeing a way to "undo" an edit.

Maybe Chris can save the day.

Sorry, you can't undo an edit. You also can't double stamp a triple stamp with no erasies.

I was so angry with what they did with that 9/11 "tribute" that I wanted to fight someone.

A perfect example of fear mongering to try to gain politically.

Disgraceful.

I didn't see it (I was too disgusted with the boring a lying speech by McCain and turned it off). Is there a link to it anywhere? I don't know why I want to make myself even madder at the GOP, but I guess I do.

FOMcT-_k0FU
http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r163/InsultComicDog/mavrick.jpg

I assume the picture is posted because that guy couldn't spell Maverick?

I didn't see it (I was too disgusted with the boring a lying speech by McCain and turned it off). Is there a link to it anywhere? I don't know why I want to make myself even madder at the GOP, but I guess I do.

The last half is the worst.

Remember, this was billed as a "tribute".

mfjpcOrD3ls

I actually thought the first half was bad. It was all propaganda and fear mongering. And that line about we need a president that will prevent this from happening again...simply deplorable. First off, I have no idea why they think they should do a 'tribute' to 9/11 anyway.

Pretty sure I'm never going to watch that.

It's 3 minutes, you should watch it.

Feel the anger.

Reviews of McCain's speech

Posted: Friday, September 05, 2008 9:30 AM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: 2008 (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/category/1023.aspx), McCain (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/category/1207.aspx), Republican convention (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/category/1335.aspx)

The AP’s Ron Fournier (http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/politics/ci_10387851) says McCain “preached bipartisanship and unity from a stage retooled to carry him out to the Republican faithful. He didn't have to be biting: On the previous night, his attack dogs had paved the way. For every McCain call for consensus Thursday night, there had been a missile aimed at Barack Obama on Wednesday night. For every call to fight as Americans for America, there had been a party comrade calling on the faithful to fight as Republicans for conservatism. For every insistence that he was not working for any one party, McCain's allies had already done his dirty work. This conflict between smiles and swordsmanship undercuts his campfire-song message of a unified nation working together for change.”



The Washington Post’s Tom Shales (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/05/AR2008090500121.html?hpid=topnews) wasn’t too impressed with the speech. “Apparently the leadership of the Republican Party thinks voters are turned off by specifics, and so Sen. John McCain's acceptance speech as its presidential nominee last night was a hodgepodge of generalities, musings on courage, reminiscence about his years as a POW in Vietnam, and rabble-rousing calls for change… He used the word ‘change’ at least 10 times in his bombastic speech -- the convention's emotional climax -- but since the Republicans have controlled the White House for the past eight years, what does McCain want to change from? And to? It really is an audacious ploy, to tell people that the country's got to correct the mistakes made by a political party when that's the very party you represent.”



The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/05/us/politics/05assess.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin) makes a similar point. “After watching two political conclaves the last two weeks, it would be easy to be confused about which was really the gathering of the opposition. As Senator John McCain accepted the Republican nomination for president, he and his supporters sounded the call of insurgents seeking to topple the establishment, even though their party heads the establishment… But as a matter of history, it is easier to run as the opposition party if you actually are the opposition party.”
Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson on MSNBC last night: “The policy in the speech was rather typical for a Republican. Pretty disappointing. It didn't do a lot of outreach to moderates and independents on issues that they care about. It talked, about issues like drilling and school choice which was really speaking to the converted. I think that was a missed opportunity. Many Americans needed to hear from this speech something they have never heard from Republicans before. And in reality, a lot of the policy they’ve heard from Republicans before.”


The Boston Globe's Canellos (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/09/05/the_maverick_positions_himself_to_court_the_modera tes/): "Though campaign aides had promised to create the feel of a town-hall meeting, the speech was traditional and often fell short of eloquence. The crowd, perhaps expecting a partisan call to arms like the one delivered by vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin, seemed more excited to shout down an antiwar heckler than to second McCain's calls for change. But the speech made clear that the choice of Palin, which delighted the party's conservative base, may have simply bought McCain the space to be himself."

USA Today’s Page (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-04-analysis-mccain_N.htm) writes, “The speech Wednesday by his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, energized Republicans in the convention hall with us-versus-them appeals to middle America and jabs at Democrat Barack Obama as a naif and a pretender. What McCain needed to do in his speech was more difficult: Convince independent-minded voters watching on television that he is a maverick, tied not to the unpopular President Bush but to his own legacy as someone who is willing to shake things up.”
The paper also observes that “it's almost as if the two contenders are running in different races. Democrats calculate that the presidential election will turn on bread-and-butter issues. To judge by their speeches at the convention, Republicans are convinced it will be defined by questions of character and trust.”

^me,dr

Here's the Farmington Hills people, Bill and Sue Nebe, that John McCain called out in his speech about how they lost their real estate investments (plural).

It turns out they're realtors: http://www.teamnebe.com/
AND dodgy lenders: http://www.baskervilleproperties.com/

And it turns out that one of Sue Nebe's side jobs is hiring:
http://www.mycmsite.com/sites/suenebe/feature-detail?featureid=10357

And she seems to have time to work for a charity:
http://www.peggyjostudio.com/Events%20for%20week%20of%2004-30-2007.htm

Of course, let's all take pity at once. After all, John McCain feels their pain.

I watched that part and I'm not sure if it was that couple or the other one they showed (not the ones who lost their kid in Iraq)...but they didn't look happy at all. They certainly didn't seemed touched by McCain's story.

They live in a $660k house as of 2003, I should add.

https://is.bsasoftware.com/bsa.is/AssessingServices/ServiceAssessingDetails.aspx?dp=22-23-15-376-049&i=1&on=nebe&appid=0&actSn=32574&actSna=OAKWOOD&unit=316
https://is.bsasoftware.com/bsa.is/AssessingServices/ServiceAssessingImageSrc.aspx?dp=22-23-15-376-049&i=1&on=nebe&appid=0&actSn=32574&actSna=OAKWOOD&unit=316&fn=22-23-15-376-049+++++++++A0YImage+%231.jpg&tp=i&pfriendly=false
And they do $140k/year in web ads:

http://www.manta.com/coms2/dnbcompany_j6ckxh

And of course, the Republican cries out against greed:

http://www.theoaklandpress.com/stories/021705/loc_20050217024.shtml

I think this ticket has y'all all riled up. :)

This was one of the best conventions in recent memory.

But...did anyone see the ending of JM's speech? Yikes. Stand up, Stand up, Stand up! That was a lil creepy.

I like the 911 stuff, fwiw. I hope that doesn't mean Glenn wants to fight me.

I think this ticket has y'all all riled up. :)

This was one of the best conventions in recent memory.

But...did anyone see the ending of JM's speech? Yikes. Stand up, Stand up, Stand up! That was a lil creepy.

I like the 911 stuff, fwiw. I hope that doesn't mean Glenn wants to fight me.

Riled up because McCain does nothing but talk about his POW stories instead of talking about his plans. Riled up because we have a power hungry crazy VP candidate that lies and has no experience.

I thought there were some good speeches (again, Palin had a nice delivery), but it's just one huge batch of lies they are selling and people like you are buying it hook line and sinker.

And see, I saw the Dem speeches in much the same way you saw the Repubs.

Liberalism, as the Dems see it, won't work, doesn't work. Its a makeover this country rejects.

I like the 911 stuff, fwiw. I hope that doesn't mean Glenn wants to fight me.

what did you like about it. seriously, what could one possibly like about that stupid propaganda piece?

Liberalism, as the Dems see it, won't work, doesn't work. Its a makeover this country rejects.

why do you say that?

Don't forget it, don't ever forget.

We will never forget. It was completely unnecessary. I feel like vomiting.

Although that's probably more due to 151 last night.

And see, I saw the Dem speeches in much the same way you saw the Repubs.

Liberalism, as the Dems see it, won't work, doesn't work. Its a makeover this country rejects.

Well, I'm not going to debate whether I think the Liberal policies will work (obviously we disagree on that and I can't see any progress being made there).

As far as the speeches I think you are dead wrong. Obama says he will make health care affordable to everyone. He talks about investing in clean energies. He actually talks about the tax breakdown (instead of claiming Obama is going to raise them on everyone like McCain does). He actually discusses how he'll deal with certain countries. While he talks about a lot of symbolism in his speeches, they actually have content. McCain's speeches have almost no content besides his POW stories.

Some of the dems did have vague speeches, yes. More flare than anything. The difference is that they are not a nominee and McCain is one. If he can't talk about the issues than who is? What is his plan? Nobody knows. I'm not sure he even has one at all.

Liberalism, as the Dems see it, won't work, doesn't work. Its a makeover this country rejects.
Define "liberalism. as the Dems see it".

Well, I'm not going to debate whether I think the Liberal policies will work (obviously we disagree on that and I can't see any progress being made there).

As far as the speeches I think you are dead wrong. Obama says he will make health care affordable to everyone.

But taxes won't go up? yea right!

He talks about investing in clean energies.

So did McCain, but you said you turned it off

He actually talks about the tax breakdown (instead of claiming Obama is going to raise them on everyone like McCain does).

The Dems have been saying we can't afford keeping Bush's tax cuts. Bush's tax cuts took another ??? i forgot right now how many more low income peeps OFF THE TAX ROLL. I know this is alway class warfare but you can't ignore that fact.

He actually discusses how he'll deal with certain countries.

I heard NOTHING new. You think Bush isn't working behind the scenes. It always amazes me that because we don't know about it, it isn't happening.

While he talks about a lot of symbolism in his speeches, they actually have content. McCain's speeches have almost no content besides his POW stories.

And that is opinion that we differ on.

Some of the dems did have vague speeches, yes. More flare than anything. The difference is that they are not a nominee and McCain is one. If he can't talk about the issues than who is? What is his plan? Nobody knows. I'm not sure he even has one at all.

Didn't you see the tax chart someone posted. The taxes will be better for %95 of Americans under Obama.

McCain mentioned the alternative energies, I heard that part. The problem is he has no plan for it, which means it probably won't happen. he also mentioned he'd be doing offshore drilling. These things take money to invest in, which means you have to pick which ones to do. You and I both know McCain will opt for the drilling.

What plans have been outlined by McCain? That's a legit question. I want to know.

I did see the tax chart but didn't spend much time on it, sorry to Mxy I think it was. I go with my experience on it. Repubs cut taxes, Dems raise taxes for programs. Life experiences trumps a chart.

I have not seen a specific plan outlined by JM, no. So you believe it won't happen, I believe he'll evaluate and enact the best possible course for independence. The fact that he has come around to drilling is great.

The oil companies pay for drilling. I'm sure those bastards are licking their chops to get at some of the places in the US that have HUGE reserves. So money won't need to be spent there.

obama vs. mccain on taxes

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3132/2800778955_8fed37e8de.jpg?v=0

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




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




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


RANDY SCHEUNEMANN
Director of Foreign Policy and National Security

BACKGROUND: Former Congressional aide to Trent Lott and Bob Dole. Co-founder, president and executive director of the Committee For the Liberation of Iraq. Drafter of the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act. Project director at the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). In 1998, founded a firm which lobbied on behalf of the NRA, and later the governments of Georgia and other former Soviet Bloc states benefiting from the invasion of Iraq. Claims to have authored McCain’s concept of “rogue state rollback.” Known as “McCain’s bulldog” for his attacks on McCain’s detractors.

QUOTES:

“[John McCain] does not believe in timetables or deadlines, secret or otherwise.” [New York Observer, 4/11/07]

MAX BOOT
Foreign Policy Adviser

BACKGROUND: A former Wall Street Journal editor and current senior fellow for national security studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, Boot advocates an imperial role for the United States similar to the British Empire. Believes that the United States needs a “colonial office” inspired by the British system in India in order to better fulfill its role of transforming the world. Advocate of a sort of foreign legion wherein immigrants and other non-citizens would receive citizenship in exchange for U.S. military service.

QUOTES:

“What can [Democrats] say when the situation in Iraq appears to be looking up?” [Los Angeles Times, 12/16/03]

“Iraq already has confounded many Western ‘progressives’ who doubted that the Arab world could ever make progress. The bus may be rickety and it may have lost some passengers, but — guess what? — it’s on schedule toward its final destination: democracy.” [Los Angeles Times, 3/4/04]

JAMES WOOLSEY
Energy and National Security Adviser

BACKGROUND: Former head of the CIA. Subscribes to the “World War IV” formulation (in which the Cold War was World War III) and believes that the United States has been “at war” with Islamists since 1979, when “they [Iranian revolutionaries] seized our hostages in 1979 in Tehran.” Suggested during an interview on September 12, 2001, that Iraq had sponsored the 9/11 attacks, and also attempted to exhume the discredited idea that Iraq was behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

QUOTES:

“I would submit to you that genetically modified work is going on in Iraq right now. It’s clear that we know that. And I think people who argue for delay, need to take responsibility for the consequences of the delay they’re alleging.” [ABC’s Nightline, 3/4/03]

“I think we ought to execute some air strikes against Syria, against the instruments of power of that state, against the airport, which is the place where the weapons shuttle through from Iran to Hezbollah and Hamas. I think both Syria and Iran think that we’re cowards.” [Fox News’ Big Story with John Gibson, 7/17/06]

BILL KRISTOL
Informal Foreign Policy Adviser

BACKGROUND: Prominent neo-conservative pundit. Founder and editor of the Weekly Standard. Co-founder and chairman of PNAC, current New York Times columnist. Advocates stronger American leadership through the unilateral use of force; co-author with Robert Kagan of essay “Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy” which advocated “benevolent” American global hegemony based upon military dominance and “elevated patriotism.” Co-author of a book strenuously arguing for the invasion of Iraq. Strong supporter of the surge. Advocates war with Iran. Known to be “exceptionally close with McCain.”

QUOTES:

The [Iraq] war itself will clarify who was right and who was wrong about weapons of mass destruction. […] History and reality are about to weigh in, and we are inclined simply to let them render their verdicts.” [The Weekly Standard 3/17/03]

“There’s been a certain amount of pop sociology in America … that the Shia can’t get along with the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq just want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime. There’s almost no evidence of that at all. Iraq’s always been very secular.” [NPR, 4/1/03]

“We’re not in a civil war [in Iraq]. This is just not true….” [Fox News, 7/15/07]

ROBERT KAGAN
Informal Foreign Policy Adviser

BACKGROUND: After serving as an adviser to Congressman Jack Kemp in 1983, and then working as a speechwriter for Secretary of State George Schultz, in 1985 Kagan was chosen by Elliot Abrams to head the Office of Public Diplomacy, whose mission was to create support for the Nicaraguan Contra rebels. Kagan was a co-founder of PNAC, and is currently a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Co-author with Bill Kristol of “Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy” in which he advocated “benevolent” American global hegemony based upon military dominance and “elevated patriotism.” Advocate of a “concert of democracies” to supplant the UN Security Council in order to grant legitimacy to U.S. military interventions around the globe. Recently recognized the need to talk with Iran, if only to establish a record to use against Tehran.

QUOTES:

“American power, even deployed under a double standard, may be the best means of advancing progress.”

MARK SALTER
Senior Adviser

BACKGROUND: McCain’s former Chief of Staff, and co-writer of McCain’s books. Salter worked for Jeanne Kirkpatrick when she was United Nations ambassador and later when she moved to the American Enterprise Institute. He joined McCain’s staff in 1989, and is “widely regarded as the senator’s alter ego.” In 2006, responded to a college student’s criticism of McCain by saying that it was “very unlikely” that any of the 2006 graduates of New York’s New School University would “ever possess one small fraction of the character of John McCain.”

JOHN BOLTON
Informal Foreign Policy Adviser

BACKGROUND: Former U.S. diplomat, [B]Senior Vice President for Public Policy Research at the American Enterprise Institute, and member of the Project for the New American Century, Bolton was one of the signers of the January 1998 PNAC letter sent to President Bill Clinton urging him to remove Saddam Hussein from power. In 2005, Bolton was nominated by President Bush to be the U.S.’s representative to the UN, but his nomination met with strong Democratic opposition over Bolton’s controversial anti-UN statements and policies. Bolton was eventually given a recess appointment to the UN. He served from 2005 to 2006, and resigned at the end of one term. At a conservative conference in 2008, Bolton described how “McCain secretly tried to shepherd his nomination to the United Nations.” Bolton currently serves as a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

QUOTES:

“[John McCain] thought I was the type of ambassador that ought to represent the United States at the United Nations.” [Huffington Post, 2/8/08],

“While treaties may well be politically or even morally binding, they are not legally obligatory.” [Foreign Affairs, Jan/Feb 1999]

And many more

GARY SCHMITT
Foreign Policy Adviser

BACKGROUND: AEI Fellow and PNAC signatory. Co-author with Abram Shulsky (overseer of the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans) of a book on the political though of Leo Strauss as applied to intelligence gathering. Subscribes to the Straussian view that “deception is the norm in political life, and the hope, to say nothing of the expectation, of establishing a politics that can dispense with it is the exception.” Advocated war against “the Saddam/bin Laden axis” as a way to “restore national honor.”

QUOTES:

“In short, Iraq is both equipped with dangerous weapons and out to get the United States…The potential costs of leaving Saddam and his regime in place are simply too high.” [The Weekly Standard, 10/29/01]

RALPH PETERS
Informal National Security Adviser

BACKGROUND: Retired U.S. Lieutenant Colonel, novelist and op-ed writer. Called Muqtada al-Sadr “our mortal enemy” in 2006, but now supports a surge which is built on accommodating Sadr and ratifying his militia’s control of formerly Sunni neighborhoods. Suggested “redrawing the Middle East map” in order to better serve American security interests, claiming that “without such major boundary revisions, we shall never see a more peaceful Middle East.”
QUOTES:

“If we can’t leave a democracy behind, we should at least leave the corpses of our enemies. The holier-than-thou response to this proposal is predictable: ‘We can’t kill our way out of this situation!’ Well, boo-hoo. Friendly persuasion and billions of dollars haven’t done the job. Give therapeutic violence a chance.” [New York Post, 10/26/06]

“Iraq could have turned out differently. It didn’t. And we must be honest about it. We owe that much to our troops. They don’t face the mere forfeiture of a few congressional seats but the loss of their lives. Our military is now being employed for political purposes. It’s unworthy of our nation.” [USA Today, 11/2/06]

JOE LIEBERMAN
Supporter and Adviser

BACKGROUND: One of Congress’s strongest Iraq war supporters, former Democrat (current Independent) Lieberman has bashed Democrats for proposing timelines for withdrawing troops from Iraq. Like McCain, Lieberman subscribes to George W. Bush’s “global war on terror” view (which McCain calls ” a transcendental struggle“) and also supports expansive executive power for prosecuting that war. Lieberman has also advocated a tax to fund expansion of the military.

QUOTES:

“I’m worried that too many people, both in politics and out, don’t appreciate the seriousness of the threat to American security and the evil of the enemy that faces us..[This threat is] more evil, or as evil, as Nazism and probably more dangerous than the Soviet Communists we fought during the long cold war.” [New York Times, 8/11/06]

“[Hillary Clinton’s and Barack Obama’s] positions on Iraq represent a retreat, which would be a surrender on Iraq.” [The Advocate, 3/16/08]

DANIEL MCKIVERGAN
Campaign Staffer

BACKGROUND: McKivergan is a former research director for the Weekly Standard. He joined McCain’s staff as legislative director in 2000, and in 2002 he became deputy director of the Project for A New American Century, helping to coordinate the push for war in Iraq.

[URL=]http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/03/17/mccain-advisers/ (]http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/_archives/2008/7/23/3807014.html[/URL)

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/images/2008/09/05/c_09052008_520.jpg

Define "liberalism. as the Dems see it".

Check your PM :)

Platform, But It's Democrats Who Need to Forget Sarah Palin (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/mccain-is-running-on-the-_b_124135.html)
Posted September 5, 2008 | 01:29 AM (EST)

During his acceptance speech (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/04/john-mccain-republican-co_n_124061.html), John McCain had some very strong criticism of his opponent. I'm not talking about Barack Obama; I'm talking about George Bush. After rushing headlong into the embrace of Bush and the Rovian wing of the GOP, McCain has now decided that he desperately needs to distance himself and try to reclaim the maverick mantle. Not an easy thing to do when you have sided with Bush 90 percent of the time.
But McCain gave it his best shot. After dispensing with the obligatory opening nod to the president for "leading us in those dark days following the worst attack on American soil in our history," he offered (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/04/john-mccain-republican-co_n_124061.html) a stinging indictment of the last seven-plus years of Bush and largely Republican rule.
He promised to "make this government start working for you again" and to "stop leaving our country's problems for some unluckier generation to fix."
He vowed to "restore the pride and principles of our party. We were elected to change Washington, we let Washington change us. We lost the trust of the American people...when we valued our power over our principles."
He pledged that his administration would "set a new standard for transparency and accountability" and "finally starting getting things done for the people who are counting on us."
According to McCain, "We need to change the way government does almost everything: from the way we protect our security to the way we compete in the world economy; from the way we respond to disasters to the way we fuel our transportation network; from the way we train our workers to the way we educate our children."
Other than that, how did you like the play, Mrs. Lincoln?
Listening to McCain, you'd think it was the Democrats who occupied the White House the last seven-plus years and it was time to throw the bastards out.
Given that 82 percent of voters believe we are heading in the wrong direction, it's a logical position to take. But for the American people to buy into the notion that McCain, who has raced to Bush's side on tax cuts, on offshore drilling -- even on torture -- is this campaign's agent of change, it's going to require an incredible suspension of disbelief. Or a serious case of amnesia.
And this is clearly McCain's campaign strategy: inducing amnesia about the past and confusion about the future, attempting to hoodwink the American people about what he has become. Which is where Sarah Palin comes in. As a major distraction. In the effort to divert attention from the matter at hand -- McCain's embrace of all things Bush -- Palin is the perfect storm.
Americans love the outsider plucked from obscurity (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/sunday-roundup_b_122716.html). And Palin provides bucketfuls of the new and exciting. As long as voters and the media are caught up in the latest installment of As Sarah Turns or the Alaska version of All My Children, they aren't paying attention to the lack of solutions McCain is offering to the serious crises that face us.
Forget worrying about the economy or health care or the housing crisis -- think about how many people live in Wasilla, whether Bristol and Levi will live happily ever after, and if Sarah and her "First Dude" really want Alaska to secede from the union.
This is why the McCain campaign wants Palin front and center -- did you notice how much time McCain spent during the speech praising Palin and how quickly the celebratory post-speech music shifted from "Raisin' McCain" to "Barracuda"?
And it's why Democrats need to ignore Palin, and keep the focus on reminding voters about the stark contrast between an Obama and a McCain administration. It's tempting to prime the Palin attack pump. But Obama and the Democrats do so at their own peril.
John McCain wants to distance himself from Bush, cloud the huge policy differences between him and Obama, and hope his compelling life story carries the day. Obama's job is to make sure he doesn't get away with it. Forgetting Sarah Palin is a good place to start.

^AMEN!!

Much like Gore did running from Clinton in 00, JM feels its the best strategy. Whatever works...

It may work if her image doesn't go in the toilet from possible scandals. Bad distractions don't work very long.

Scandals?

Scandals?

ideas of succeeding from the union
Bridge to nowhere lies
pork barrel lies
possible affair (i have no idea whether that is true)
troopergate

You could maybe only call the last two actual scandals, but they all damage her reputation and don't help in the taking the focus off issues.

It appears the Reps used Walter Reed Middle School in the background visuals for McCain'sspeech when they meant to use Walter Reed Hospital.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/school_raps_mccain_for_using_i.php

^ Fox reported something to that effect last night.

Listening to McCain, you'd think it was the Democrats who occupied the White House the last seven-plus years and it was time to throw the bastards out.

Considering Congress is practically run by the Dems, it honestly is as if they've run the place the last 7+ yrs.

Considering Congress is practically run by the Dems, it honestly is as if they've run the place the last 7+ yrs.
Wait, what? The Democrats were in the minority in both houses until 2006...?

Or is this one of those attempts to somehow land all the fuckups of the last 8 years directly in the Democrats' laps that I shouldn't take seriously? Sometimes I get confused.

Note that the Democratic control of the Senate is tenuous at best.

A lot of folks forget/don't get that the only reason the Dems have 51 votes is because of Lieberman, who's no longer a Democrat despite what he says. In the aftermath of the 2006 elections, there were 49 Dems, 49 Reps, and 2 independents. Because of Cheney as VP tiebreaker, the Reps need 50 seats for control of the Senate while the Dems need 51 seats.

One of those indepdendents is Bernie Sanders, who's WAY to the left and will caucus with Democrats without hangups. The other is Joe Lieberman, the ex-Democrat ex-VP nominee who won Connecticut as an independent after losing the Democratic nomination. Given Lieberman's pro-war sentiments, he wasn't going to caucus with the Democrats necessarily...

As part of bribing Lieberman's so he'll caucus with Democrats, he's in charge of the Homeland Security committee, where he can prohibit most "get out of Iraq" bills from ever seeing the floor. A big reason that many folks elected Democrats in 2006 was to get us out of Iraq. But, with such a deal, Dems simply don't have enough votes in the Senate to ratchet the pressure from that end, even with total party unity. The best they can do are things like force minimum wage increases through as a condition of continued funding.

There was another brief period of time back in Bush's 1st term that Dems controlled the Senate under equally "tenuous at best" circumstances. Being tenuous, it didn't last.

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=184111

Tennessee voted for George S. McCain.

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/sep/05/tennessees-convention-votes-cast-george-s-mccain/

The Dems definately had the power to control what comes to the floor for a vote. Thats why they are getting the 'do nothing' congress (like other congress' in the past).

They were blocking a lot of these things to protect BO from having to apease Daily Kos and Moveon on one hand and the American peeps wishes on the other. Drilling being one where American peeps favor it, DK and MO doesn't. So Nancy is doing her job as a partisan.

You can what you want about McCain, but what is refreshing to many peeps is that he admitted that the Republicans lost the confidence of the peeps. Admitted that they made mistakes and is willing to go fix them.

The Republicans spent too friggin much of our dollars. JM will fix that.

I'm surprised more people haven't commented on this part of the convention, which really impressed me the most:
_TiQCJXpbKg

^ laff

That's next level right there.

I mean, I was almost a minute in before I figured out what was happening to me.

btw..her teleprompter was only working for about a quarter of the speech. AMAZING! You gotta love that.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/09/15/palin-tells-debunked-teleprompter-tale/

As recorded by a reporter allowed to observe the 35-minute fundraiser appearance, this was the first time Gov. Palin herself relayed the story of how a fouled-up teleprompter forced her to ad-lib big swaths of her acclaimed acceptance speech at the Republican Convention Sept. 3.

But that story has been largely debunked. Reporters who saw the equipment that night say –and the party has not denied — that any teleprompter issue was minor at most. In the days after the event it was touted — on a hush-hush, off the record basis — by top Republicans as a way to show how swift-thinking is their newest star, despite her avoidance of any and all unscripted moments on the trail.

http://www.linktv.org/video/2931
http://www.twincities.com/ci_10472581?source=most_viewed