Yes, we can.

[Morrigoon]

Soooo... You're saying that when there are signs of voter fraud, the losing party just has to shut up and take it? I don't think so.

I'm so very sorry they were irritated. How inconsiderate of us for wanting a fair chance at the White House.
I'm just pointing out the other side. As someone who has jumped from voting for one party to voting for the other this time around, I figured I was qualified to point out that neither party is innocent here.

I don't honestly believe that Gore won the last election. Maybe I should make that position clear.

[flippyshark]

I don't honestly believe that Gore won the last election.

He'd have had a hard time, since he didn't run. :)

[scaeagles]

Actually... In the last two presidential elections there was vastly more voter fraud (and blatant voter suppression) on the part of the Republicans. The old "Your friend shoplifted, so you have to let me commit armed robbery" defense is old, tired, and just plain indefensible.

Excuse me.....excuse me. No, no, no. I brought up a point, and I believe it was YOU, sir, that offered up a deflection away from crooked dems to make it a republican thing in this context. YOU are the one using the defense that you so condescendingly accuse me of.

[JWBear]

Excuse me.....excuse me. No, no, no. I brought up a point, and I believe it was YOU, sir, that offered up a deflection away from crooked dems to make it a republican thing in this context. YOU are the one using the defense that you so condescendingly accuse me of.

And you would be right... If the accusation you made was true.

[scaeagles]

HA! More arrogance from the world of "dems surely couldn't be corrupt!" thinkers.

Sheesh.

I guess then, whenever I am told that I bring up something merely as a deflection, that all I have to do is say that the original point was false and I'm OK. So ISM, if you read this, please be advised I may adopt this philosophy.

[innerSpaceman]

Nope, that may work for JWBear, but not for me. The Dems are crooked, too. I don't happen to believe they're as crooked as the Republicans, but that doesn't excuse them one bit in my book.

I'm not sure what allegations we're talking about anymore. But it appears to me that the allegations of ACORN committing registration fraud are true (several people have been indicted, if not yet convicted??), but the allegations of voter fraud are false ... or, at best, merely allegations without a shred of evidence. To which I repeat ... YAWN.


There's a certain philosophy (which I don't condone) that crookedness in winning an election is vital, if it's imperative for the good of the nation / state / county /city that one's candidate be elected at all costs.


Morrigoon's evocation of Gore reminds me that he gracefully stopped his efforts after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, declining to take further steps to be elected at all costs. In retrospect of the past 8 years, the coup d'etat committed by the Republicans to install Bush as their puppet dictator was precisely the kind of thing one could almost legitimately use as the rationale to be elected instead at any costs for the good of the country and the world.


And may I remind everyone that the U.S. Supreme Court ruling held there WAS a civil rights violation in Florida which denied thousands their right to vote. The Court gave the Gore campaign less than 24 hours to tally those votes, which was obviously impossible - and thus the Court was complicit in the coup d'etat. But, by that same Supreme Court ruling, it was indeed a coup d'etat. Thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Floridians were denied their right to vote ... and the difference of counted votes between Gore and Bush was something like 357.


Back to you, scaeagles. :)

Yes, as we near the end of the disastrous Bush Presidency, I unashamedly dredge up the 2000 election and remind everyone that it started so appropriately to how it then proceeded for eight tragic years.

[scaeagles]

Nope, that may work for JWBear, but not for me.

Back to you, scaeagles. :)

I was speaking sarcastically, of course. I also deep down inside want JW to be chastized, too.

[JWBear]

For the record, I have no illusions that Democrats have not committed voter fraud. However, it it plain that the shear volume of voter fraud committed by Republicans makes the Democratic efforts pale in comparison.

There was voter suppression in Florida in 2000. Because of it, Bush "won" the state, and therefore the election. This served to embolden the likes of Rove to greater feats in 2004. (Though I do believe that Bush won that election fair and square, despite the fraud.)

There were some ACORN employees that are accused of fraud, but that was an isolated instance in just one office. They were terminated from ACORN for violating ACORN's rules. This, in no way. reflects on ACORN as a whole.

The main complaint by Republicans seems to be that some of the voter registrations they have collected were illegitimate. ACORN doesn't fill them out, but merely collects them from the potential voters who do. ACORN (and any like organization) is required by law to turn all voter registrations it collects over to local election officials. They do not vet the registrations, and can hardly be blamed for the ones that are illegitimate.

At my work, we are required by state law to give voter registration forms to everyone who applies. We are not allowed to tell anyone that they can not fill them out - even if they are non-citizens. We do not have the authority to determine if someone is eligible to vote; that power rests with the Registrar of Voters Office. We are also required by law to turn in any completed voter registrations our clients give us. By the very same reasoning used by those who attack ACORN, the County of Orange is guilty of voter fraud because some of those registrations are illegitimate.

[Morrigoon]

He'd have had a hard time, since he didn't run. :)
Pffft, you knew who I meant. Lurch and Ken-doll.

(I have a very short attention span at work, keep getting interrupted mid-thought with, you know, work)

[Strangler Lewis]

As expected, Mom's thrown her vote in the mail for McCain. The reason being: his association with the ACORN fraud. Perhaps if she had voted on election day like a good American, this would have all died down. On the other hand, I'm sure there would have been some last minute smear that she would have glommed onto to avoid voting for Obama.

[Morrigoon]

JW: I'd stop short of a sweeping generalization about who has done more or less. Truth is none of us have any idea about potential voter fraud that hasn't been caught. So we really can't say that one party has committed more than the other.

[Morrigoon]

As expected, Mom's thrown her vote in the mail for McCain. The reason being: his association with the ACORN fraud. Perhaps if she had voted on election day like a good American, this would have all died down. On the other hand, I'm sure there would have been some last minute smear that she would have glommed onto to avoid voting for Obama.

Just as long as she voted No on 8.

[scaeagles]

For the record, I have no illusions that Democrats have not committed voter fraud. However, it it plain that the shear volume of voter fraud committed by Republicans makes the Democratic efforts pale in comparison.

There was voter suppression in Florida in 2000.

For every cry of that, I can cry out that voters were getting in line after polls closed demanding to vote. We can each play this game, and each will refuse to give an inch.

[sleepyjeff]

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/krauthammer101008.php3

[CoasterMatt]

Who is the biggest manufacturer of electronic voting machines? Debolt.
Which brand of voting machine seems to have the most instances of changing Democratic votes to Republican ones - in error, of course (wink, wink)? Debolt.
Which party does Debolt contribute the most money to? The Republican Party.

Hmmmmmm.... No, there couldn't be any relation there...

Do you mean 'Diebold'? ;)

[JWBear]

Do you mean 'Diebold'? ;)

That too... ;)

[scaeagles]

How interesting that I just posted yesterday how Obama is telling massive lies about his tax plan and the tax cuts for 95% of people, which is funny considering some 30% of people pay no federal income taxes at all. That ties in exactly with what Obama said to a man who starting a plumbing business either yesterday or a short time ago (I can post a link if anyone needs it).

From yesterday in Ohio:

"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."



Spreading the wealth around is income redistribution. There is no question in my mind that in this context he is talking about taking money from those who pay taxes and giving it to those that don't. That is redistribution of wealth. I have no problem that there are those low income earners who pay no federal income taxes. But don't tax others more to give money to those who pay no taxes. He's not talking welfare. He's talking tax policy.

Considering tax policy and national defense are my two hot button issues, I may just end up voting for McCain rather than abstaining.

[Moonliner]

Considering tax policy and national defense are my two hot button issues, I may just end up voting for McCain rather than abstaining.

How important do you think international support is to our National Defence?

It's no secret that Obama is more popular (http://www.linkingpeopletogether.com/?p=2394)among our allies than McCain. So it seems to me that despite McCain's image of being strong on defence, that Obama will be better able deliver security by working with our allies.

[innerSpaceman]

Um, newsflash to scaeagles ... the tax structure of our nation has ALWAYS been a redistrubution of wealth, from the middle class to the rich. It's about time it went the other way.

[scaeagles]

Fair question, Moonliner, and it has no simple or quick answer. I will when I have more time (as in not at work).

ISM, here's a news flash for you. For the tax year 2006....

Top 1% of wage earners (above $388,000) paid 39.89% of all federal income taxes.

Top 5% of wage earners (aggregate with the 1%, above $153,000) paid 60.14% of all federal income taxes.

The top 10% paid 70.79%, the top 25% paid 86.27%. The bottom 50% paid 2.99%.

Being that this is the case, how can it be said that the top wage earners are not paying enough, or that the taxes from the middle class has been a redistribution of wealth from the middle to the rich?

[innerSpaceman]

No, scaeagles, those wealthy people technically owed a certain percentage of income tax, but paid very little of that via all the methods available to the rich to avoid paying any taxes. Corporations pay no taxes. Rich folks pay very little taxes. They have numerous financial means, loopholes and methods to avoid paying their taxes and that's exactly what they do.


Where are you getting your statistics? What are they based on?

[scaeagles]

They are from IRS data as posted on the National Tax Payers Union (http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6) website.

This IS the data. That IS the percentage of federal income taxes paid by those groups. The top 1% DID pay almost 40% of all federal income taxes collected in 2006. Other years are listed as well, and interestingly, the percentage paid by the top has gone up since 2002 (it took a significant dive from 37+% to 34-% from 2000 to 2001, then has steadily creeped up again to the highest percentage ever).

You may think they are not paying a high enough percentage of their income, which is a different debate. This ia about what percentage of federal income tax collected comes from where. The rich pays the VAST majority of federal income taxes.

[JWBear]

What would they have paid without the loopholes and tax shelters?

[Betty]

What percentage of their income did they pay compared to what percentage of my income did I pay.

I'm more interested in that then what they paid overall.

If I pay 25% and they pay 2% then they aren't being taxed enough compared to me - even if they paid $1,000,000 and I paid $10,000.

[scaeagles]

I am not one for tax loopholes. That's a fine conversation to have. Tax loop holes are set up by those who pass tax law, or the congress. While I would love for it to happen, congress isn't going to give up that power any time soon.

However, regardless of loopholes, one cannot possibly say that when the top 1% pays 40% of all federal taxes that they aren't paying their fair share or that the middle class is paying taxes that increase the wealth of the uh...wealthy.

[JWBear]

I agree with Betty. What percentage of their income do they actually pay?

[mousepod]

I'm not going to throw in my opinion on this one right now (don't have the time), except to point out that the Wall Street Journal editorial and the report from the Tax Foundation skew conservative. While The Tax Foundation calls itself non-partisan, they've been consistently one-sided for decades. While not nearly as sexy or incendiary, I would suggest that folks here check out the comparisons at the Tax Policy Center (from the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution) and their blog, TaxVox.

You're not likely to get as many talking points (for either side), but you might see some data that will help you to draw some conclusions on your own.

[Betty]

I am not one for tax loopholes. That's a fine conversation to have. Tax loop holes are set up by those who pass tax law, or the congress. While I would love for it to happen, congress isn't going to give up that power any time soon.

However, regardless of loopholes, one cannot possibly say that when the top 1% pays 40% of all federal taxes that they aren't paying their fair share or that the middle class is paying taxes that increase the wealth of the uh...wealthy.


Why shouldn't they have to pay a similar percentage to everyone else? Because they are rich? Because they already pay so much? Psh. Why shouldn't they be left with 75% of their earnings like I am after taxes? That's still a considerable amount of money. Seems like they are getting special privledges.

What ever happened to that proposal of a flat tax of 10% for everyone? and by everyone I mean everyone - not just those that can't afford to pay for the unforseen loopholes.

From what I saw of McCain's latest proposal, all his tax relief won't affect me at all. But it will certainly affect all those will a lot of money.

I'm not suggesting that those with money be forced to pay more then me - just the same percentage as me.

[scaeagles]

I don't believe I suggested they shouldn't pay the same percentage as everyone else. I am challanging ISM's assertion that "the tax structure of our nation has ALWAYS been a redistrubution of wealth, from the middle class to the rich. "

As far as what Mousepod pointed out, either the rich paid that percentage or they didn't. I suppose the NTU could be misreporting data from the IRS, but I doubt it.

As a side note, I voted for Forbes in the AZ primary in 2000. He was the biggest proponent for the flat tax that's ever taken the national spotlight.

[Morrigoon]

What percentage of their income did they pay compared to what percentage of my income did I pay.

I'm more interested in that then what they paid overall.

If I pay 25% and they pay 2% then they aren't being taxed enough compared to me - even if they paid $1,000,000 and I paid $10,000.

If they paid $1,000,000 and you paid $10,000, and they didn't receive the benefit of 100x more roads, military protection, etc. Then can you honestly say they deserve to pay even more? I know we use it as a way to even out the burden a bit, but how much is enough?

[JWBear]

Taxes are not merely a fee for use of public facilities.

[scaeagles]

What are taxes for? To provide for the functions of government.

[Betty]

If they paid $1,000,000 and you paid $10,000, and they didn't receive the benefit of 100x more roads, military protection, etc. Then can you honestly say they deserve to pay even more? I know we use it as a way to even out the burden a bit, but how much is enough?

So - why am I paying for the libary if I never go there? Why do childless people pay for public schools for kids they don't have? Why are you paying for national parks that you've never visited? And why are the roads I drive on not pothole free when I'm paying for their maintenance to be kept that way?

[innerSpaceman]

It is a redistribution. If that data is correct, it's what they paid after the loopholes and shelters that shielded them from the much vaster amount of tax they would have owed without access to those methods unwealthy people have no access to.


And if 1% of the population controls 80% of the wealth, why should that 1% not pay 80% of the taxes? What difference does it make if 80% of the taxes is paid by 1% of the people, if that's their share according to the share of wealth they control?

[Ghoulish Delight]

The standard answer to that is because it's income tax, not wealth tax. If you were to already own 25% of the country's wealth, retire, pull it all out of any sort of savings/investments, would you still be expected to pay taxes yearly on it?

Some say yes, some say no.

But regardless, no matter if you look at wealth or income (or, growth of wealth), the top percentile of individuals in this country pay a significantly smaller percentage of their own fortune than those below them do.

[scaeagles]

The standard answer to that is because it's income tax, not wealth tax. If you were to already own 25% of the country's wealth, retire, pull it all out of any sort of savings/investments, would you still be expected to pay taxes yearly on it?

Some say yes, some say no.

But regardless, no matter if you look at wealth or income (or, growth of wealth), the top percentile of individuals in this country pay a significantly smaller percentage of their own fortune than those below them do.

For the record, I say no, because that's double taxation. This is the main reason I oppose inheritance taxes as well....the taxes were already paid on the money (whether this includes legal loopholes or not to me is not the issue), so why should the government be allowed to have more just because the dead person left it all to their kid?

This is the main reason I oppose the income tax at all. I think the founders had it right with property taxes. Who possesses the most property? The wealthy. The wealthy can indeed take advantage of loopholes, but the fact is they are there often times passed into law by the very people that decry them as unfair.

I would have no problem with some form of wealth tax....after all, in reality, that's what a property tax is. I also don't oppose some form of national sales tax (both of those are assuming the income tax went away). I like a national sales tax because that is a tax on consumption rather than earning and is much, much more visible to the consumer.

[wendybeth]

Surprisingly, I agree with Scaeagles with regards to a national sales tax. It's consumer driven, and those who consume the most will pay the most. It seems more equitable, on paper anyway- it's just the implementation that concerns me. The rich have a way of worming out little loopholes and exceptions for themselves.

[scaeagles]

The main argument against it is a legit one....being that since some 30% of people pay no income tax now, they are immediately hit by the national sales tax on all purchases.

I'm sure those smarter than me can come up with some thing, such as a graduated scale based on the purchase price, no tax on food, etc.

[3894]

For the record, I say no, because that's double taxation. This is the main reason I oppose inheritance taxes as well....the taxes were already paid on the money (whether this includes legal loopholes or not to me is not the issue), so why should the government be allowed to have more just because the dead person left it all to their kid?



Now that we have that settled, would someone like to leave me a boatload of money?

[Morrigoon]

So - why am I paying for the libary if I never go there? Why do childless people pay for public schools for kids they don't have? Why are you paying for national parks that you've never visited? And why are the roads I drive on not pothole free when I'm paying for their maintenance to be kept that way?
I wasn't suggesting we completely nullify the difference, just pointing out that there is already an inequality in usage to explain why people MIGHT object to changes that make it even worse.

[scaeagles]

WB and 3894 agree with me in the same thread within a scant couple of posts of each other. I feel.....dirty.

[Betty]

Yeah - I was sort of agreeing with you too but thought I'd feel "dirty" if I posted that I did. Dang it. Now I need a shower don't I?

[Morrigoon]

I think not taxing rent or food would help the poor immensely. A national sales tax would help discourage consumerism and encourage savings, but then there's the double-edged sword of reduced consumerism harming the economy.

[3894]

WB and 3894 agree with me in the same thread within a scant couple of posts of each other. I feel.....dirty.

Socialized medicine? Welfare? Right here, baby.

[scaeagles]

I think not taxing rent or food would help the poor immensely. A national sales tax would help discourage consumerism and encourage savings, but then there's the double-edged sword of reduced consumerism harming the economy.


But also the effect of more $ in the consumer pocket.

[innerSpaceman]

And, rhetorically, I ask ... what good does that extra $5 do if that consumer works in retail and no longer has a job?


I'm reminded every Christmas season that our entire economy depends on rampant consumer spending, and that half the retail businesses in the U.S. would go out of business if the Grinch were to really steal the holiday when 80% of sales are made.


So I'm morally in favor of anything that stops people from spending money foolishly and recklessly ... but that also will generally reduce our average standard of living ... if retail suffers great losses, too much job loss will be a result.


It's a conundrum. Fortunately, I'm not in charge of running the world. But I'd have to say the better of two bad choices is for people to stop spending money like water, money that they all too often do not have ... but spend on credit.


Still, I'm doing better than the U.S. government. I owe about $20K to credit cards, but my share of the national debt owed to China, et al. is $480K.


Maybe I should run the world after all.

[CoasterMatt]

WB and 3894 agree with me in the same thread within a scant couple of posts of each other. I feel.....dirty.

Yeah - I was sort of agreeing with you too but thought I'd feel "dirty" if I posted that I did. Dang it. Now I need a shower don't I?

The 4 of you hop in a shower, I get it on video, and we make a ton of money :evil:

[scaeagles]

That's creepy, CM. REally, really creepy. I hope I have forgotten that by the time I take a shower in the morning.

ISM, I used to have a positive net worth by a whol lot, then my house lost some 25% of its value, putting me about even. Sigh. Thankfully, no credit card debt.

[3894]

The 4 of you hop in a shower, I get it on video, and we make a ton of money :evil:

If this involves the use of a Ronald Reagan mask, it could be festive!

[Moonliner]

If this involves the use of a Ronald Reagan mask, it could be festive!

Actually, I think a Nixon mask would be of more use in the shower.

[scaeagles]

Could make it really kinky with a Reagan mask, and you three could wear Pelosi, Hillary, and Michelle Obama masks.

OK....this is getting more creepy.

[Betty]

Could make it really kinky with a Reagan mask, and you three could wear Pelosi, Hillary, and Michelle Obama masks.

OK....this is getting more creepy.

As I look at your current Reagan avatar... ha ha. Who knew you were into that Scaeagles. ;)

[Gemini Cricket]

Son of William F. Buckley endorses Obama:

Let me be the latest conservative/libertarian/whatever to leap onto the Barack Obama bandwagon. It’s a good thing my dear old mum and pup are no longer alive. They’d cut off my allowance.Source (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-10/the-conservative-case-for-obama/)

Hmm. The link seems to be very slow. Below is the entire article:

The son of William F. Buckley has decided—shock!—to vote for a Democrat.

Let me be the latest conservative/libertarian/whatever to leap onto the Barack Obama bandwagon. It’s a good thing my dear old mum and pup are no longer alive. They’d cut off my allowance.

Or would they? But let’s get that part out of the way. The only reason my vote would be of any interest to anyone is that my last name happens to be Buckley—a name I inherited. So in the event anyone notices or cares, the headline will be: “William F. Buckley’s Son Says He Is Pro-Obama.” I know, I know: It lacks the throw-weight of “Ron Reagan Jr. to Address Democratic Convention,” but it’ll have to do.

Dear Pup once said to me, “You know, I’ve spent my entire life time separating the Right from the kooks.”

I am—drum roll, please, cue trumpets—making this announcement in the cyberpages of The Daily Beast (what joy to be writing for a publication so named!) rather than in the pages of National Review, where I write the back-page column. For a reason: My colleague, the superb and very dishy Kathleen Parker, recently wrote in National Review Online a column stating what John Cleese as Basil Fawlty would call “the bleeding obvious”: namely, that Sarah Palin is an embarrassment, and a dangerous one at that. She’s not exactly alone. New York Times columnist David Brooks, who began his career at NR, just called Governor Palin “a cancer on the Republican Party.”
As for Kathleen, she has to date received 12,000 (quite literally) foam-at-the-mouth hate-emails. One correspondent, if that’s quite the right word, suggested that Kathleen’s mother should have aborted her and tossed the fetus into a Dumpster. There’s Socratic dialogue for you. Dear Pup once said to me sighfully after a right-winger who fancied himself a WFB protégé had said something transcendently and provocatively cretinous, “You know, I’ve spent my entire life time separating the Right from the kooks.” Well, the dear man did his best. At any rate, I don’t have the kidney at the moment for 12,000 emails saying how good it is he’s no longer alive to see his Judas of a son endorse for the presidency a covert Muslim who pals around with the Weather Underground. So, you’re reading it here first.

As to the particulars, assuming anyone gives a fig, here goes:
I have known John McCain personally since 1982. I wrote a well-received speech for him. Earlier this year, I wrote in The New York Times—I’m beginning to sound like Paul Krugman, who cannot begin a column without saying, “As I warned the world in my last column...”—a highly favorable Op-Ed about McCain, taking Rush Limbaugh and the others in the Right Wing Sanhedrin to task for going after McCain for being insufficiently conservative. I don’t—still—doubt that McCain’s instincts remain fundamentally conservative. But the problem is otherwise.

McCain rose to power on his personality and biography. He was authentic. He spoke truth to power. He told the media they were “jerks” (a sure sign of authenticity, to say nothing of good taste; we are jerks). He was real. He was unconventional. He embraced former anti-war leaders. He brought resolution to the awful missing-POW business. He brought about normalization with Vietnam—his former torturers! Yes, he erred in accepting plane rides and vacations from Charles Keating, but then, having been cleared on technicalities, groveled in apology before the nation. He told me across a lunch table, “The Keating business was much worse than my five and a half years in Hanoi, because I at least walked away from that with my honor.” Your heart went out to the guy. I thought at the time, God, this guy should be president someday.

A year ago, when everyone, including the man I’m about to endorse, was caterwauling to get out of Iraq on the next available flight, John McCain, practically alone, said no, no—bad move. Surge. It seemed a suicidal position to take, an act of political bravery of the kind you don’t see a whole lot of anymore.

But that was—sigh—then. John McCain has changed. He said, famously, apropos the Republican debacle post-1994, “We came to Washington to change it, and Washington changed us.” This campaign has changed John McCain. It has made him inauthentic. A once-first class temperament has become irascible and snarly; his positions change, and lack coherence; he makes unrealistic promises, such as balancing the federal budget “by the end of my first term.” Who, really, believes that? Then there was the self-dramatizing and feckless suspension of his campaign over the financial crisis. His ninth-inning attack ads are mean-spirited and pointless. And finally, not to belabor it, there was the Palin nomination. What on earth can he have been thinking?

All this is genuinely saddening, and for the country is perhaps even tragic, for America ought, really, to be governed by men like John McCain—who have spent their entire lives in its service, even willing to give the last full measure of their devotion to it. If he goes out losing ugly, it will be beyond tragic, graffiti on a marble bust.

As for Senator Obama: He has exhibited throughout a “first-class temperament,” pace Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.’s famous comment about FDR. As for his intellect, well, he’s a Harvard man, though that’s sure as heck no guarantee of anything, these days. Vietnam was brought to you by Harvard and (one or two) Yale men. As for our current adventure in Mesopotamia, consider this lustrous alumni roster. Bush 43: Yale. Rumsfeld: Princeton. Paul Bremer: Yale and Harvard. What do they all have in common? Andover! The best and the brightest.

I’ve read Obama’s books, and they are first-rate. He is that rara avis, the politician who writes his own books. Imagine. He is also a lefty. I am not. I am a small-government conservative who clings tenaciously and old-fashionedly to the idea that one ought to have balanced budgets. On abortion, gay marriage, et al, I’m libertarian. I believe with my sage and epigrammatic friend P.J. O’Rourke that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take it all away.

But having a first-class temperament and a first-class intellect, President Obama will (I pray, secularly) surely understand that traditional left-politics aren’t going to get us out of this pit we’ve dug for ourselves. If he raises taxes and throws up tariff walls and opens the coffers of the DNC to bribe-money from the special interest groups against whom he has (somewhat disingenuously) railed during the campaign trail, then he will almost certainly reap a whirlwind that will make Katrina look like a balmy summer zephyr.

Obama has in him—I think, despite his sometimes airy-fairy “We are the people we have been waiting for” silly rhetoric—the potential to be a good, perhaps even great leader. He is, it seems clear enough, what the historical moment seems to be calling for.

So, I wish him all the best. We are all in this together. Necessity is the mother of bipartisanship. And so, for the first time in my life, I’ll be pulling the Democratic lever in November. As the saying goes, God save the United States of America.

[Gemini Cricket]

And then Buckley resigns from the National Review:

While I regret this development, I am not in mourning, for I no longer have any clear idea what, exactly, the modern conservative movement stands for. Eight years of “conservative” government has brought us a doubled national debt, ruinous expansion of entitlement programs, bridges to nowhere, poster boy Jack Abramoff and an ill-premised, ill-waged war conducted by politicians of breathtaking arrogance. As a sideshow, it brought us a truly obscene attempt at federal intervention in the Terry Schiavo case. Source (http://thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-14/sorry-dad-i-was-fired/)

Christopher Buckley, in an exclusive for The Daily Beast, explains why he left The National Review, the magazine his father founded. I seem to have picked an apt title for my Daily Beast column, or blog, or whatever it’s called: “What Fresh Hell (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-05/what-fresh-hell-is-this/).” My last posting (if that’s what it’s called) in which I endorsed Obama, has brought about a very heaping helping of fresh hell. In fact, I think it could accurately be called a tsunami.

The mail (as we used to call it in pre-cyber times) at the Beast has been running I’d say at about 7-to-1 in favor. This would seem to indicate that you (the Beast reader) are largely pro-Obama.

As for the mail flooding into National Review Online—that’s been running about, oh, 700-to-1 against. In fact, the only thing the Right can’t quite decide is whether I should be boiled in oil or just put up against the wall and shot. Lethal injection would be too painless.

I had gone out of my way in my Beast endorsement to say that I was not doing it in the pages of National Review, where I write the back-page column, because of the experience of my colleague, the lovely Kathleen Parker. Kathleen had written in NRO that she felt Sarah Palin was an embarrassment. (Hardly an alarmist view.) This brought 12,000 livid emails, among them a real charmer suggesting that Kathleen’s mother ought to have aborted her and tossed the fetus into a dumpster. I didn’t want to put NR in an awkward position.

Since my Obama endorsement, Kathleen and I have become BFFs and now trade incoming hate-mails. No one has yet suggested my dear old Mum should have aborted me, but it’s pretty darned angry out there in Right Wing Land. One editor at National Review—a friend of 30 years—emailed me that he thought my opinions “cretinous.” One thoughtful correspondent, who feels that I have “betrayed”—the b-word has been much used in all this—my father and the conservative movement generally, said he plans to devote the rest of his life to getting people to cancel their subscriptions to National Review. But there was one bright spot: To those who wrote me to demand, “Cancel my subscription,” I was able to quote the title of my father’s last book, a delicious compendium of his NR “Notes and Asides”: Cancel Your Own Goddam Subscription.

Within hours of my endorsement appearing in The Daily Beast (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-10/the-conservative-case-for-obama/) it became clear that National Review had a serious problem on its hands. So the next morning, I thought the only decent thing to do would be to offer to resign my column there. This offer was accepted—rather briskly!—by Rich Lowry, NR’s editor, and its publisher, the superb and able and fine Jack Fowler. I retain the fondest feelings for the magazine that my father founded, but I will admit to a certain sadness that an act of publishing a reasoned argument for the opposition should result in acrimony and disavowal.
My father in his day endorsed a number of liberal Democrats for high office, including Allard K. Lowenstein and Joe Lieberman. One of his closest friends on earth was John Kenneth Galbraith. In 1969, Pup wrote a widely-remarked upon column saying that it was time America had a black president. (I hasten to aver here that I did not endorse Senator Obama because he is black. Surely voting for someone on that basis is as racist as not voting for him for the same reason.)

My point, simply, is that William F. Buckley held to rigorous standards, and if those were met by members of the other side rather than by his own camp, he said as much. My father was also unpredictable, which tends to keep things fresh and lively and on-their-feet. He came out for legalization of drugs once he decided that the war on drugs was largely counterproductive. Hardly a conservative position. Finally, and hardly least, he was fun. God, he was fun. He liked to mix it up.

So, I have been effectively fatwahed (is that how you spell it?) by the conservative movement, and the magazine that my father founded must now distance itself from me. But then, conservatives have always had a bit of trouble with the concept of diversity. The GOP likes to say it’s a big-tent. Looks more like a yurt to me.

While I regret this development, I am not in mourning, for I no longer have any clear idea what, exactly, the modern conservative movement stands for. Eight years of “conservative” government has brought us a doubled national debt, ruinous expansion of entitlement programs, bridges to nowhere, poster boy Jack Abramoff and an ill-premised, ill-waged war conducted by politicians of breathtaking arrogance. As a sideshow, it brought us a truly obscene attempt at federal intervention in the Terry Schiavo case.

So, to paraphrase a real conservative, Ronald Reagan: I haven’t left the Republican Party. It left me.

Thanks, anyway, for the memories, and here’s to happier days and with any luck, a bit less fresh hell.

It's interesting to read the article, especially the part where he describes some of the backlash Kathleen Parker received. Very interesting.

[innerSpaceman]

Thanks for those links, GC.


Sigh, how many more times must we see it? Right:Evil. Left:Good.

[scaeagles]

Left:Stupid. Right:Smart.

Oh, wait. I'm not supposed to make generalities like that, no matter how many links I could find to articles from columnists that might assert the same thing. My bad.

[Snowflake]

GC, thanks for those very intresting reads, nice to read a erudite column.

What a shame, I'm sure this kind of thing happens on the liberal side more than I will ever know (Joe Lieberman probably got some of this), but sheesh the nastiness and the threats.

And I thought warmly of Sceagles as he quoted his own conservative hero

So, to paraphrase a real conservative, Ronald Reagan: I haven’t left the Republican Party. It left me.

[scaeagles]

Well, it is indeed true that the Republicans are no longer the party of small government or fiscal conservatism or any number of other things. Sad thing is the dems certainly aren't it either.

I keep telling myself as it becomes more and more certain that Obama wins that it took a Carter to get a Reagan. The republicans at present aren't that much different than they were under Ford.

[innerSpaceman]

You can knee-jerk all you want, scaeagles ... but I've yet to hear any tales of people shouting "Kill Him" about McCain at a Biden ralley, or of people writing they wish their mothers had aborted them and thrown their fetus-selves into a dumpster about Democrats who happen to endorse the Republican ticket.


Tell me again which side of the polarization constantly wants violence, and then tell me who's good and who's evil. If Stupid is good, I'll pick stupid. But tell me with a straight face that peace is a mode of the stupid and violence a mode of the intelligent. Go on.

[Betty]

Well, it is indeed true that the Republicans are no longer the party of small government or fiscal conservatism or any number of other things. Sad thing is the dems certainly aren't it either.

I keep telling myself as it becomes more and more certain that Obama wins that it took a Carter to get a Reagan. The republicans at present aren't that much different than they were under Ford.

Looking back now - I don't remember things being "this bad" when Carter was around. Granted, I wasn't near old enough to vote or anything but wasn't that a better time then the Bush years?

Will we all be saying it takes a Bush to get an Obama?

[scaeagles]

You can knee-jerk all you want, scaeagles ... but I've yet to hear any tales of people shouting "Kill Him" about McCain at a Biden ralley, or of people writing they wish their mothers had aborted them and thrown their fetus-selves into a dumpster about Democrats who happen to endorse the Republican ticket.


Tell me again which side of the polarization constantly wants violence, and then tell me who's good and who's evil. If Stupid is good, I'll pick stupid. But tell me with a straight face that peace is a mode of the stupid and violence a mode of the intelligent. Go on.

Well, I've heard something that happened on the Howard Stern show...an interviewer went into Harlem, asked people who they were voting for, and they said Obama. When asked why they said policy. The interviewer then listed McCain policies, presenting them as Obamas, and the interviewees said that yes, those were the policies they agreed with.

Stupid.

I've seen the video (mentioned earlier) of the march of people carrying McCain/Palin signs through Manhattan and the reaction of a whole bunch they passed.

Hateful. Intolerant.

I've seen the graffiti and vandalism at some republican/McCain offices spouting "McCain means slavery" and whatever else they wrote.

Violent. Hateful. Stupid. Intolerant.

I've herd the interviews of leftists referring to Palin as a b*itch.

Offensive.

I can keep going. Go ahead and say "anecdotal". That's precisely what you're putting forth. Is it unfortunate? Indeed. Is it representative? Only to the extent the above example are representative of the left.

[scaeagles]

Looking back now - I don't remember things being "this bad" when Carter was around. Granted, I wasn't near old enough to vote or anything but wasn't that a better time then the Bush years?

Will we all be saying it takes a Bush to get an Obama?

Carter had double digit inflation and double digit interest rates, with much, much higher unemployment. Not a great time. Hard to say which was worse. Can't really say which was until this one finishes.

[mousepod]

For the record, I have a distinct memory of being 14 years old and talking with my friends about how he hoped that Ronald Reagan would be elected because he would be so bad that we'd get a real progressive leader to follow him. My first vote was against Reagan's second term. When the Democrats failed to put up a worthy opponent to RWR's VP in 1988, I left the party and didn't return until this year.

It's 28 years after Reagan's landslide victory. If you real conservatives want to help get Obama elected using the same logic I used back in 1980... thank you.

[mousepod]

... and I still listen to the Howard Stern show. They did the same flip with a McCain supporter and he said the exact same thing. It just proved that from a random sampling of people on the street... everyone's stupid.

[scaeagles]

Right Mousepod....just like the vandalism and slurs and violence as portrayed on the right will happen to the same amount on the left.

[mousepod]

I agree that violence, hatred and intolerance is stupid - no matter which side it comes from. I also agree that there are a lot of stupid people out there.

Here's where I make a distinction (and why the Republican party hasn't ever really appealed to me): pro-war, anti-choice, anti-freedom to marry... all important parts of the Republican platform... all strike me as intolerant.

Reagan's small government beliefs might have been attractive - but the Cold War Red Scare tactics and his embrace of the Moral Majority scared the crap out of me.

It bothers me when Democrats "move to the center" by embracing intolerance - like when Tipper Gore and her Washington Wives attacked the First Amendment, or Bill Clinton wussed out with "Don't ask, don't tell."

I understand why some politicians pander to the religious right... it gets them the votes they need to get elected. I wish that weren't the case.

While Rev. Wright (and Obama's connection to him) leaves a bad taste in my mouth - I also know that Obama hasn't inflicted Wright's beliefs on the platform of his party. And that's why he - and the party - gets my vote this year.

[Morrigoon]

... and I still listen to the Howard Stern show. They did the same flip with a McCain supporter and he said the exact same thing. It just proved that from a random sampling of people on the street... everyone's stupid.
This just proves that both parties are too alike. Time for a third party to step up and join the fray.

[Gemini Cricket]

Using scaeagles' mirroring technique, I have to say that the people who are voting for Obama just because he's African American are as misguided as those who are voting against him because he's African American.

[wendybeth]

Could make it really kinky with a Reagan mask, and you three could wear Pelosi, Hillary, and Michelle Obama masks.

OK....this is getting more creepy.


You get to be Hillary, right?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Colin Powell expected to endorse Obama (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-odonnell/colin-powell-is-ready-to_b_134777.html)

Don't know how authoritative O'Donnell is on the matter, but assuming he's right about Powell's pending decision, it would indeed be a pretty definitive boost for Obama.

[Gemini Cricket]

And speaking of Mr. Powell...
Colin Powell at Hip Hop Festival (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7670788.stm)
It's worth a click just to see the picture at the top.
:D

[Morrigoon]

Oh hells yes that would be a boost. Lots of people really like Colin Powell and respect him.

Of course some will spin it off as a racial thing, but Colin's a smart guy and I don't think that's what he'd base his decision on. (besides, he got royally screwed by the Bush admin., that's reason enough, LOL)

[JWBear]

(besides, he got royally screwed by the Bush admin., that's reason enough, LOL)

So have we all....

[3894]

"We have been robbed of what this country stands for and we need to take a stand." Zoe Kravitz (Lenny Kravitz and Lisa Bonet's daughter) video. Safe for work. (http://www.dipdive.com/dip-politics/wato/)

[Gemini Cricket]

"We have been robbed of what this country stands for and we need to take a stand." Zoe Kravitz (Lenny Kravitz and Lisa Bonet's daughter) video. Safe for work. (http://www.dipdive.com/dip-politics/wato/)
Hmm.
I liked that. Great message.
At the same time, it kinda creeped me out.

[Ghoulish Delight]

There are some numbers trickling in on early voting in states that allow such data to be collected.

In some key states, Obama is showing very large leads among early voters :

.-----------Poll --- % Voted ---------------------- Non-Early
State ---- Date ---- Early ----- Early Voters ------ Likely Voters
================================================== ==
NM ----- 10/13 ---- 10% ----- Obama +23% ----- Obama +6%
OH ------ 10/13 ---- 12% ----- Obama +18% ----- Obama +4%
GA ------ 10/12 ---- 18% ----- Obama +6% ------ McCain +11%
IA ------- 10/9 ----- 14% ----- Obama +34% ----- Obama +10%
NC -------10/6 ----- 5% ------ Obama +34% ----- McCain +5%


Not that one would expect that huge difference between general polling of likely voters and these early voters to hold up come November. But it does seem to be an early indication that Obama is winning the voter turnout game among his base.

And, as a comparison point, Bush had more than 60% of the early vote over both Gore and Kerry, so this appears to be a switch in early voter pattern, from a party perspective.

[scaeagles]

but I've yet to hear any tales of people shouting "Kill Him" about McCain at a Biden ralley

Wow....I'm so surprised. The Sercet sevice can't seem to find any evidence that it actually happened. (http://www.timesleader.com/news/breakingnews/Secret_Service_says_Kill_him_allegation_unfounded_ .html). I'm so shocked a newspaper published a story that con't be confirmed by anyone.

[scaeagles]

Here's where I make a distinction (and why the Republican party hasn't ever really appealed to me): pro-war, anti-choice, anti-freedom to marry... all important parts of the Republican platform... all strike me as intolerant.

This was bothering me a bit....I get the third. I really do get why that's considered intolerant. I don't get why the first two are considered intolerant.

Being pro-war (assuming you mean Iraq) is intolerant? I'm not sure how.

Being pro-life is intolerant? Certainly blowing up clinics and threatening to shoot abortion doctors is, but it's been a really long time since I can remember such a thing happening, and those things have never been a platform of the republican party. Not to open the debate, but pro-lifers don't consider it an issue of choice, they see the unborn as alive and needing protection. Again, not sure how this is intolerant.

If it is about passion on the issues, both sides are indeed passionate on those subjects and shout each other down all the time.

[Gemini Cricket]

Not to open the debate, but pro-lifers don't consider it an issue of choice, they see the unborn as alive and needing protection. Again, not sure how this is intolerant.

In my own opinion, it's intolerant because a lot of pro-lifers are saying "the government should say no abortions period". Some make concessions and say "it's okay if the woman's life is in danger" etc. But pro-choice people are saying "government should stay out of it". Pro-choice people are not promoting abortions. They are saying "this mega-decision should be left up to the pregnant woman". Pro-lifers are inserting themselves into the situation and wanting to legislate away someone's ability to decide for themselves what to do. It ain't their business, that is not respecting privacy, that is being intolerant, imho.

As someone who is pro-choice, my personal stance is "it ain't my business, deal with the situation as you see fit, go to therapy for your mental well-being no matter what you decide and next time use a f*cking condom".
;)

[innerSpaceman]

Yes, it's intolerant of women ... I assume there's no debate about whether they are alive.


War is intolerant of, ya know, humans.


Sometimes you really are a puzzlement, Leo.

[scaeagles]

Honestly, that puzzles me, ISM.

Of course the ENTIRE abortion debate is about whether or not the unborn is alive or not.

War is sometimes a necessary evil. You may regard the Iraq war as an intolerant one, which would be an issue for discussion, but while all war is unfortunate, not all is unnecessary (on one side at least).

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Honestly, that puzzles me, scaeagles.

Of course the ENTIRE war debate is about whether or not the enemy is worthy of killing or not.

Abortion is sometimes a necessary evil. While all abortions are unfortunate, not all are unnecessary.

[mousepod]

scaeagles, to clarify my feeling about the Republican party being pro-war. In my lifetime, America has been involved in:

- Vietnam (while this was a JFK/LBJ concoction, my earliest memory of political awareness was Nixon and Cambodia).
- Grenada - Ronald Reagan
- Panama - George H. W. Bush
- Afghanistan - George W. Bush
- Iraq - George W Bush

Now, I know that you could point to Clinton's involvement in Bosnia, but I honestly see that as a NATO-led intervention that actually came almost too late.

I'm not saying that my feelings are 100% facts, it's just that I see Republicans as Hawks, and it doesn't sit right with me.

[Strangler Lewis]

Of course the ENTIRE abortion debate is about whether or not the unborn is alive or not.


I disagree. If you posed the question of what an embryo or fetus is as "animal, vegetable or mineral," you would have to answer "animal." Having answered that question, you have to answer the moral question of what dominion you have over that animal and under what circumstances it is necessary, reasonable or simply permissible to end its life.

[Betty]

Is it a seperate animal though or part of it's host until it can survive outside of it's host?

I'm not "pro abortion" but I'm certainly for politicians staying the heck out of my uterus... although up to a point I would draw the line and say - it's too f-ing late now.

[BarTopDancer]

Pro-choice does not equal pro abortion. Pro life does equal anti-abortion.

Pro-choice means you are for choice. If you feel an abortion is the best choice in your specific situation then have one. If you don't want to have an abortion, don't have one.

[Morrigoon]

Betty: that's kind of what I use as a guideline. Obviously it's very difficult to define a line between when it's a part of the mother's body that she gets to have dominion over and when it must be considered an individual being that gets to impose itself on the mother a little longer.

A fertilized egg cannot survive out of the womb. A nearly full-term baby can. Where the line falls in the middle, tough to say. So I tend to think that when the baby could theoretically be delivered that day and survive, then it's too late to abort. That's somewhere around the 5.5-6 month mark, I believe. I think that's more than enough time to decide whether or not you're keeping it.

[innerSpaceman]

Yes, a tough decision. One most women don't want The State to make for them.


Obama nailed it on that one, and McCain played to his base ... which his running mate has already locked up, so I don't see the strategic point for him in alienating all the undecided white woman who are his only possible salvation at this point.

[Moonliner]

Pro life does equal anti-abortion.

I don't think I agree with that statement. I see myself as Pro-Life and Pro-choice.

Personally, I am Pro-Life. Abortion sucks, don't have one. There are almost always better options for the child.

Policy wise, I'm rabid Pro-Choice. I don't like abortion (I mean come on, who does?), but I really don't like the government interfering with our lives to that level. So if you want to do the wrong thing it sucks but it's a personal choice.

[Ghoulish Delight]

scaeagles, to clarify my feeling about the Republican party being pro-war. In my lifetime, America has been involved in:

...

I'm not saying that my feelings are 100% facts, it's just that I see Republicans as Hawks, and it doesn't sit right with me.
And more to the point of intolerance, as I was bemoaning before, it's a party that is built on a base that believes "good family man" is the antonym to "Arab". THAT'S intolerance, and that's the sentiment that has lead us into war and I fear would continue to lead us into war under McCain out of fear and ignorance.

[Gemini Cricket]

My parents, for instance, are pro-life without any exceptions. I would call them pro-life/anti-abortion...

[scaeagles]

I disagree. If you posed the question of what an embryo or fetus is as "animal, vegetable or mineral," you would have to answer "animal." Having answered that question, you have to answer the moral question of what dominion you have over that animal and under what circumstances it is necessary, reasonable or simply permissible to end its life.

You could ask the same question about any person walking down the street. I don't really understand this line of thinking.

[Betty]

I tend to feel that because it has to do only with women, it's somehow ok to many men to be Pro-Life.

For example, if the argument had something to do with their balls... for instance, if you chose not to use a condom and there was an unwanted pregancy, they could cut off one of your balls. Would you be pro choice for that? Why? Because it's not up to the government to decide if you have 1 ball or 2, or none at all?

Yeah - that's not a very good argument I know. But politician's just don't mess with men's junk. they shoudln't be messing with mine either.

How about - if ProLife meant you HAD to father a child. There was no choice. Think of all the wasted sperm that could be made into children? Or what if you coudln't have sex without the express purpose of producing a baby so as not to kill off any potential children. No rubbin one out either... to many lost children down the shower drain.

Okay - my arguments still aren't getting any better.

I guess I'm done.

[Gemini Cricket]

"For those of you who are feeling giddy or cocky and think this is all set, I just [have] two words for you: New Hampshire," the Democratic presidential nominee said during a fundraiser breakfast in New York. "You know I've been in these positions before where we were favored and the press starts getting carried away and we end up getting spanked. And so that's another good lesson that Hillary Clinton taught me."
Source (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/16/campaign.wrap/index.html)
See see see? Obama agrees with my Han Solo advice. "Don't get cocky." I will be happy once all the votes are counted and a winner is chosen. But I must say I'm more hopeful now.
:)

[scaeagles]

I'll say it - Obama has this in the bag. Unless there is a major October surprise in which a video of Obama meeting with Bin Laden in the caves of Pakistan and embracing him while handing him cash labelled "for anti aircraft stinger missiles" and then giving him a big wet tongue involved smooch, it's over.

[Strangler Lewis]

I don't think I agree with that statement. I see myself as Pro-Life and Pro-choice.

Personally, I am Pro-Life. Abortion sucks, don't have one. There are almost always better options for the child.

Policy wise, I'm rabid Pro-Choice. I don't like abortion (I mean come on, who does?), but I really don't like the government interfering with our lives to that level. So if you want to do the wrong thing it sucks but it's a personal choice.

Or as Bill Clinton said, "safe, legal and rare."

[Scrooge McSam]

I'll say it - Obama has this in the bag. Unless there is a major October surprise in which a video of Obama meeting with Bin Laden in the caves of Pakistan and embracing him while handing him cash labelled "for anti aircraft stinger missiles" and then giving him a big wet tongue involved smooch, it's over.

Oh, I don't know... being found in bed with a dead white boy might do it

[Strangler Lewis]

I'll say it - Obama has this in the bag. Unless there is a major October surprise in which a video of Obama meeting with Bin Laden in the caves of Pakistan and embracing him while handing him cash labelled "for anti aircraft stinger missiles" and then giving him a big wet tongue involved smooch . . .

Which the right would immediately take out of context.

[Morrigoon]

Oh, I don't know... being found in bed with a dead white boy might do it
Which the right would immediately take out of context.
I read those one after the other, SL, and somehow my eyes glossed over the part you actually quoted. Made that remark quite funny. Had to share.

[3894]

I tend to feel that because it has to do only with women, it's somehow ok to many men to be Pro-Life.

When McCain used air quotes around "health of the mother", he lost a lot of women's votes, I betcha.

If you didn't see it, here's a short youtube from the debate. Safe for work. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGZOyxfiNoU)

[Ghoulish Delight]

I'm more offended by "pro-abortion" than the air quotes.

[innerSpaceman]

That's because you're a man. :p

[BarTopDancer]

I tend to feel that because it has to do only with women, it's somehow ok to many men to be Pro-Life.

I do wonder how many pro-life men would feel if their daughter was raped, ended up pregnant and forced to sustain the pregnancy because abortion was illegal. Or if their daughters health was at risk if the pregnancy was maintained. I also wonder how they propose to remedy the situation of dead-beat dads and dads that neglect to pay child support, leaving the woman struggling. If it takes two to tango, the government to say you have to have this child, or put it in an already messed up foster care system then how come the man is the one who is able to walk away with little to no consequences?

There are statistics that show child abuse and neglect rates dropping in the 60s after R v. W was implemented. There are also statistics that show the number of new gang members dropping to about 15 years later. This was attributed to abortion becoming legal and women who didn't want [would resent, abuse, neglect] their kids ultimately not having them. I'll see if I can find them later. We discussed this in one of my psych classes and also a womens study class.

[scaeagles]

Oh, I don't know... being found in bed with a dead white boy might do it


Are you suggesting Obama and McCain are having an affair?

[scaeagles]

Which the right would immediately take out of context.


Well, it would obviously be because the right is homophobic.

[Scrooge McSam]

Are you suggesting Obama and McCain are having an affair?

I said "boy"

OH OH... I get it, you were making a funny. I skipped right over the dead and white part. Duh!

Good one! :snap:

But sadly no. I have no time to think of others' affairs. Just my own relationship with Rachel Maddow. The thought consumes me.

[Strangler Lewis]

You could ask the same question about any person walking down the street. I don't really understand this line of thinking.

Yes, you can. It just means that acknowledging that something called "life" begins at conception does not end the debate. If it did, then you could not have capital punishment. You might then say, well, in the abortion context, we're talking about innocent life. However, at that point, you're in the territory of moral judgments and have moved beyond the "when does life begin" argument as the determining factor of whether there is or should be the right to terminate a pregnancy.

[innerSpaceman]

pwned.

[scaeagles]

I don't think I was pwned at all. If it's life, which I understand you aren't conceding, wouldn't it then follow that it's human life?

[Strangler Lewis]

I don't think I was pwned at all. If it's life, which I understand you aren't conceding, wouldn't it then follow that it's human life?

Human life, or humanish as Stephen Colbert might say. I still don't know that that gets you to personhood for due process protections under Roe. But even if it does, so what. As I've said before, Roe is an impediment to the discussion. The fact that an activity may enjoy constitutional protection does not make it a moral one. The fact that it does not enjoy constitutional protection does not make its prohibition moral or rational. Being pro-choice, I see nothing wrong with saying that life--or lifeishness--begins at conception and still adopting a pragmatic Roe-like framework on the issue.

[Snowflake]

I miss Alex and Tengima!

[innerSpaceman]

Well that's anthropomorphism at it's finest.


No, Leo, life is not limited to human life. In fact, I'd say human life comprises an unfathomably tiny percentage of what is life.




Yeah, yeah, I know what you meant. But since it doesn't refute Strangler's point in the least, I felt like being obstinate.

[scaeagles]

I still don't know that that gets you to personhood for due process protections under Roe.

Scalia even says he doesn't think the founders intended for the unborn to have the same rights as the born. He opposes Roe for other reasons.

But ISM, of course I know life isn't limited to human life. But since each species by definition gives birth to its own kind, if it is life, it would be human life.

[BarTopDancer]

Graphic Abortion Photos to be displayed on moving trucks in FL.

Story here (http://www.theledger.com/article/20081015/NEWS/810150328).

Supposedly the organization is non-partisan, but they are going through a county that has been a battleground for the election.

[JWBear]

Disgusting

[flippyshark]

This graphic approach was very common back in the 80s, and I never saw anyone respond to it in any way except to feel contempt for those who put up the display. It's not an approach that changes people's minds. (
and apparently, these trucks will also feature images of the Holocaust, lynchings, and 9/11. Won't the children be delighted! Won't parents have a fine time getting them to sleep that night.)

I gotta agree with JWB. Disgusting, not to mention stupid. (I imagine even the more thoughtful among "right=to=life" supporters will hate this just as much.)

[innerSpaceman]

I also wonder if it's illegal. Disturbing the peace with stuff that's very disturbing.


And like flippyshark sez, that sound you hear is the trucks' backfire.

[katiesue]

There was a guy here with a truck with very graphic images that used to park down at Balboa Park. We'd have to pass it on the way to the zoo with Madz. Not something you really want your kid to see or have to explain.

Definately doesn't make me sympathetic to their point at all.

[Betty]

You'd think that there would something illegal about that - but I suppose they have a right to free speech as much as the rest of us.

[Gemini Cricket]

The Washington Post endorses Obama:
The choice is made easy in part by Mr. McCain's disappointing campaign, above all his irresponsible selection of a running mate who is not ready to be president. It is made easy in larger part, though, because of our admiration for Mr. Obama and the impressive qualities he has shown during this long race. Yes, we have reservations and concerns, almost inevitably, given Mr. Obama's relatively brief experience in national politics. But we also have enormous hopes. Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/16/AR2008101603436.html)

[Gemini Cricket]

The Chicago Tribune Endorses Obama
On Nov. 4 we're going to elect a president to lead us through a perilous time and restore in us a common sense of national purpose.

The strongest candidate to do that is Sen. Barack Obama. The Tribune is proud to endorse him today for president of the United States.
This endorsement makes some history for the Chicago Tribune. This is the first time the newspaper has endorsed the Democratic Party's nominee for president.
Source (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-chicago-tribune-endorsement,0,1371034.story?track=email-alert-breakingnews)

[Strangler Lewis]

Sounds like Colin Powell might endorse Obama on "Meet the Press" this Sunday.

[Moonliner]

The Chicago Tribune Endorses Obama


Source (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-chicago-tribune-endorsement,0,1371034.story?track=email-alert-breakingnews)

I forget, what state is Chicago in?

[innerSpaceman]

Not the point (though that's immediately what I thought of, too). With no further information, I would have thought "D'uh." But with the proviso that the paper has never before endorsed the Democratic nominee, this is worthy of news in some other paper.

[Gemini Cricket]

I forget, what state is Chicago in?
First Democrat endorsement ever.
That's pretty big, imho.
Hell just froze over.
:D

[Strangler Lewis]

This graphic approach was very common back in the 80s, and I never saw anyone respond to it in any way except to feel contempt for those who put up the display. It's not an approach that changes people's minds. (
and apparently, these trucks will also feature images of the Holocaust, lynchings, and 9/11. Won't the children be delighted! Won't parents have a fine time getting them to sleep that night.)

I gotta agree with JWB. Disgusting, not to mention stupid. (I imagine even the more thoughtful among "right=to=life" supporters will hate this just as much.)

I can't say I'm against the approach, although it's a tricky question as to how much "reality" people should be exposed to that might distract them from the higher principles being served. For example, people protested when the Bush administration would not allow photos of flag draped coffins of soldiers coming home. If abortion photos are not relevant to the discussion, are images of the horrors of war, nuclear weapons, etc. relevant to the decision to engage in such conduct, or should we avoid them because we've already reasoned that the ends justify the means and we don't want the emotional impact of the means to distract us from the ends?

I'm also not sure that such displays can't have an impact on people. There are people who go around inner city schools trying to teach the kids the reality of gun violence, i.e., you think it's cool being shot? Look at these kids in the hospital and how messed up they are. And so on.

[mousepod]

Adlai Stevenson was a Democratic nominee - - twice. Neither time was he endorsed by the Trib.

[Gemini Cricket]

I guess today is newspaper endorsement day.

LA Times is for Obama.
The Times without hesitation endorses Barack Obama for president.Source (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-endorse19-2008oct19,0,5966124.story)

[Tom]

It's also the first time the LA Times has ever endorsed a Democrat for president (they last endorsed a presidential candidate in 1972).

[SacTown Chronic]

Sent in my absentee ballot yesterday.

My unofficial third son, Kaelyn (Scrooge McSam has met him) - the son of a white woman and a black man - filled in the bubble for Barack Obama for me. It was a moment of pride in my country for me....and a huge helping of 'I can do anything' for my boy, Kaelyn.

Yesterday was a very good day.

[Gemini Cricket]

Sent in my absentee ballot yesterday.

My unofficial third son, Kaelyn (Scrooge McSam has met him) - the son of a white woman and a black man - filled in the bubble for Barack Obama for me. It was a moment of pride in my country for me....and a huge helping of 'I can do anything' for my boy, Kaelyn.

Yesterday was a very good day.
So very awesome.
:)

[Bornieo: Fully Loaded]

http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=18481

Obama: "I Was Born On Krypton!"

Favored U.S. Presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama continued his historical campaign last night at the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner in New York City, where he once again courted the coveted “geek vote” by including in his speech the revelation that he was born on Krypton and sent by his father, Jor-El, to “save the planet Earth,” a clear reference to Superman.

Obama previously associated himself with superhero comics’ most beloved icon in a famous photograph of the Senator posing with the Superman statue in downtown Metropolis, Illinois; and in “Obama-man,” an illustration by hugely popular comic book artist Alex Ross that depicts the Senator in the classic Clark Kent-Superman mold.


The Democratic Senator from Illinois also referenced geek paragon Mad Magazine, remarking, “It’s been said that I share the politics of Alfred E. Smith and the ears of Alfred E. Neuman.” Additionally, Obama has been endorsed by indie comics mainstay The Savage Dragon as well as Comics Industry for...Obama!, an organized group of comics professionals. Further, the Senator was reported to have identified "Star Trek" actor Leonard "Mr. Spock" Nimoy at a campaign event and acknowledged him with the Vulcan gesture of respect.



Beleaguered Republican candidate Senator John McCain may have been appealing to right-leaning geek constituents by spending the evening sitting next to Cardinal Edward M. Egan, head of the Archdiocese of New York, whose bright red robes invoked memories of the Imperial Guard of legendary “Star Wars” villain Emperor Palpatine, who McCain is said to resemble strongly.

[Gemini Cricket]

Obama: "I Was Born On Krypton!"
I guessed it! I was right! I predicted it in my avatar... you know, 9 avatars ago.

[JWBear]

Obama is a comic geek? Whowouldathunk?

[Snowflake]

I guess today is newspaper endorsement day.

Snowflake is for Obama.

759

[Ghoulish Delight]

Fitzgeralds in downtown Vegas has Obama cutouts all over the casino.

[wendybeth]

I can, and I did. Our ballots arrived today, and I voted - with a little help from the ToriBear. I let her fill in the Obama/Biden spot, which I feel is only right. It's her generation, and the ones that follow, that will be paying the price for these past eight years. I hope that she feels the same way about voting as I always have, and that five years from now she will feel the same thrill I did when I turned 18 and first registered to vote. Hopefully, she won't encounter as many keggers along the way......:D

[wendybeth]

I just wanted to add how very thrilled I was to FINALLY be able to vote for Obama. No matter what happens, I know I was part of something good- a small part, to be sure, but a part nonetheless.

[lashbear]

*sticks head in room*

Oh, so this election thingy is STILL going on. Geez. It started, what, 3 years ago now?? :p Pblblblbllbplblblblblblbpppf.

*runs out of room again*

[Snowflake]

Colin Powell has now endorsed Obama. This is to be a real blow to the McCain campaign and the GOP. He's scheduled on Meet The Press today, I will be watching.

[MouseWife]

Colin Powell has now endorsed Obama. This is to be a real blow to the McCain campaign and the GOP. He's scheduled on Meet The Press today, I will be watching.


I just saw this. Awesome.

But, I like how Obama is telling his people not to declare victory right off.

And, I can't believe Palin is blaming this 'ACORN' mess on Obama? Nothing has been proven but in the past it has been proven that there was corruption within the voting places on the plus side for the Rs.

How about the people who register you to vote and telling people to leave it open that they would fill it in and then putting R? Or the people who did that and tossed the ones who were Ds?

This has happened prior and also currently.

Oh, sharing this with the kids~ I brought my son in last night to watch SNL. And, we discuss Prop h8 often with the children. {who aren't really} But, that is for another thread.....

[Scrooge McSam]

HELP!! I think I'm addicted. I can't stop watching the SNL Palin rap (http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/update-palin-rap/773781/).

...it might just cross the line.

My country 'tis of thee
From my porch I can see
Russia and such...

ALL THE MAVERICKS IN THE HOUSE PUT YOUR HANDS UP!!
ALL THE MAVERICKS IN THE HOUSE PUT YOUR HANDS UP!!
ALL THE PLUMBERS IN THE HOUSE PULL YOUR PANTS UP!!
ALL THE PLUMBERS IN THE HOUSE PULL YOUR PANTS UP!!

[Gemini Cricket]

HELP!! I think I'm addicted. I can't stop watching the SNL Palin rap (http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/update-palin-rap/773781/).
Liked the rap.
:D

A couple of other things:
Amy Poelher: Funny as heck, you betcha. The woman is rapping and still working on the show and is like ready to give birth like right this second.
Sketch: On the whole, the sketch was funny-ish.
The Real Sarah Palin: Not all that funny. Lame. Good sport, but boring to watch.
Tina Fey: More interesting to watch as Sarah Palin than Sarah Palin is.
Seth Meyers: Cute cute cute freakin' smile. I'm in love.
Last night's SNL: Outside of Mark Wahlberg, the rap and the Tina/Palin sketch at the beginning... SUCKED! In fact, SNL (outside of their recent political stuff) is sucking suck juice.

:D

I thought the rap was decent, but I thought they could have gone a thousand different places with Palin and kind of just let her sit there... The short shot where Palin and Fey crossed paths at the beginning was great.
:D

[Scrooge McSam]

Seth Meyers: Cute cute cute freakin' smile. I'm in love.

:D

[Gemini Cricket]

"Caribou Barbie" = freakin' funny, you betcha.
:D

[Deebs]

Amy Poelher: Funny as heck, you betcha. The woman is rapping and still working on the show and is like ready to give birth like right this second.

OhIknow. Looks like she should have had that baby last week.

Tina Fey: More interesting to watch as Sarah Palin than Sarah Palin is.

Most definitely.

Seth Meyers: Cute cute cute freakin' smile.

He is really cute, but Andy Samberg makes me laugh more, which means he is cuter to me. Funny and/or nice = crushworthy. Both = totally swoonworthy.

Last night's SNL: Outside of Mark Wahlberg, the rap and the Tina/Palin sketch at the beginning... SUCKED! In fact, SNL (outside of their recent political stuff) is sucking suck juice.

Agreed. Usually when I watch I end up asking myself why I did. But in between the suckage, every now and then there is something really hilarious, so I never completely give up on it. Plus, you know, Andy Samberg. :D

[Ghoulish Delight]

Predictably, conservative pundits are doing some serious sour-graping over the Colin Powell endorsement.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/19/limbaugh-george-will-powe_n_135968.html

[wendybeth]

I guess George Will forgot about his negative comments regarding John McCain a few weeks ago. He probably got spanked by the Party. I loved this: (not)

"There will be "some impact," Will declared. "And I think this adds to my calculation -- this is very hard to measure -- but it seems to me if we had the tools to measure we'd find that Barack Obama gets two votes because he's black for every one he loses because he's black because so much of this country is so eager, a, to feel good about itself by doing this, but more than that to put paid to the whole Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson game of political rhetoric."


What a ****ing idiot. Yeah, I'm voting for Obama because of white guilt. That's it. McCain is just so much more superior, but I just want to feel good about electing a black man so I'm going with the other candidate. THIS is why they will lose this election- could you be any more in denial and out of touch with the citizenry of this country?

[scaeagles]

I think what he's talking about is related to the Bradley effect (referring to, i think, a CA governors election?).

The Bradley effect is basically that white people lied to pollsters about who they voted for because they didn't want anyone to think they didn't vote for Bradley because he was black. Polling showed Bradley was going to win by double digits, but he lost.

Conversely, I would suppose there are a lot of people who feel guilty about racism and may indeed vote for a black man simply because he is black. Isn't that as valid as the accusation that many won't vote for him because he is black?

[wendybeth]

Well, I know people who are voting for McCain because he is old. The last, dying gasp of the elder Boomers, who still want to be the big societal influence they've always been as a group and can't stand the thought of letting the next generation have a whack at running things. I've had many discussions with such persons, and even though they might have little in common with McCain ideologically they are tempted to vote for him merely because he's in their age range. So sure, there are people who will vote for Obama because he's a black man, but I'm not so sure I buy Scaeagle's Bradley explanation. I cannot see where in that statement that Will mentions this- he's seems pretty specific about the black guilt thing actually moving people to cast a vote, not lying to pollsters.

[Gemini Cricket]

I have mixed feelings about the Powell endorsement. What he said was eloquent and hit the mark. But I also remember him with a vial in his hands talking about WMDs, assisting in the push to go to war with Iraq. And Obama's praise of the man and telling the media Powell will be an adviser of his concerns me a great deal.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I don't remember where I posted it, but fivethirtyeight.com showed some numbers that said 6% of responders would not vote for Obama because he is black, while 9% said they would vote for Obama simply because is black. You've got to figure that the 6% number is low (the Bradley effect), but even with that fudge factor built in, the idiots pretty much balance each other out.

But none of that has anything to do with the hateful questioning of Powell's motivations. Cause, really, he's shown himself to be such a racially motivated wag in his career, right? :rolleyes:



ETA: re: GC, he's also since made it known that he was very much on the outside of the administration and fed very distorted information and that he very much regrets being involved and influential in that decision making process.

[flippyshark]

I think what he's talking about is related to the Bradley effect (referring to, i think, a CA governors election?).

The Bradley effect is basically that white people lied to pollsters about who they voted for because they didn't want anyone to think they didn't vote for Bradley because he was black. Polling showed Bradley was going to win by double digits, but he lost.

Conversely, I would suppose there are a lot of people who feel guilty about racism and may indeed vote for a black man simply because he is black. Isn't that as valid as the accusation that many won't vote for him because he is black?

It will be impossible to know if this is a factor until the event is over. For what it's worth, I'm not voting for Alan Keyes, and I feel no white liberal guilt for that fact whatsoever.

[scaeagles]

So sure, there are people who will vote for Obama because he's a black man, but I'm not so sure I buy Scaeagle's Bradley explanation. I cannot see where in that statement that Will mentions this- he's seems pretty specific about the black guilt thing actually moving people to cast a vote, not lying to pollsters.

I'm just theorizing using that well known example.

I don't understand why it's so unreasonable, really. What he's saying is that in the current USA environment of race relations, yes, there are those who won't vote for him because he's black, and that there may be more who vote for him because he is, and that group includes white people with angst over days with race relations that were much, much worse than they are now.

[scaeagles]

It will be impossible to know if this is a factor until the event is over. For what it's worth, I'm not voting for Alan Keyes, and I feel no white liberal guilt for that fact whatsoever.

And I believe most people are like you. And like me. It's about policy, not about race.

As far as Powell goes, though, Powell has said that having a black President would be "electrifying". That may not be his overwhelming motivation, but it is apparent that it comes into play a bit because of that statement.

[wendybeth]

Because he's being dismissive of Obama's voter base, calling into question their intelligence and motivation. He doesn't get it. Well, actually I think he does get it, but the truth is far scarier than the lame-assed excuse he is offering up.

[Gemini Cricket]

...and that he very much regrets being involved and influential in that decision making process.
Which he should. When Powell started waving the 'let's bomb Iraq' flag, I was convinced that the world had gone mad. Bush, Cheney, Powell among others are the faces of the Iraq War to me. This endorsement, as effective as it might be for Mr. Obama, doesn't change the fact that I think Powell didn't ask enough questions and didn't push back hard enough during the ramp up to the war. Even if he did feel that he was on the outside, that should have made him question what was going on even more.

[innerSpaceman]

Yep, Powell's credibility is zero with me. And frankly, I think the endorsements of people and newspapers rate near zero with the vast majority of voters.

[alphabassettgrrl]

Being pro-war (assuming you mean Iraq) is intolerant? I'm not sure how.

Being pro-life is intolerant? Certainly blowing up clinics and threatening to shoot abortion doctors is, but it's been a really long time since I can remember such a thing happening, and those things have never been a platform of the republican party.

Pro-war: culture of violence, as opposed to violence being an option of last resort. Not sure I'd use "intolerant" but certainly undesirable in my book. A person (or nation) can be strong without always threatening violence.

While blowing up abortion clinics and killing doctors isn't part of the conservative platform, I didn't see the condemnation of it coming from the Right.

Or as Bill Clinton said, "safe, legal and rare."

I'll drink to that!


There are statistics that show child abuse and neglect rates dropping in the 60s after R v. W was implemented. There are also statistics that show the number of new gang members dropping to about 15 years later. This was attributed to abortion becoming legal and women who didn't want [would resent, abuse, neglect] their kids ultimately not having them.

I heard that on a radio show. I'm sure there's documentation somewhere.

Sent in my absentee ballot yesterday.

Hurray!!!


Amy Poelher: Funny as heck, you betcha. The woman is rapping and still working on the show and is like ready to give birth like right this second.
...
The Real Sarah Palin: Not all that funny. Lame. Good sport, but boring to watch.
...
I thought the rap was decent, but I thought they could have gone a thousand different places with Palin and kind of just let her sit there... The short shot where Palin and Fey crossed paths at the beginning was great.
:D

What? The pregnancy's real? Huh. I haven't been following the show. She was funny though. I agree that Palin in person wasn't as funny as the SNL folks but she was a good sport and I'll give her props for that. Enjoy your 15 minutes, dear, and then go back to Alaska. I loved the bit at the beginning with Sarah and Tina Fey! Awesome.


Conversely, I would suppose there are a lot of people who feel guilty about racism and may indeed vote for a black man simply because he is black. Isn't that as valid as the accusation that many won't vote for him because he is black?

I absolutely agree. Please vote on issues, not demographics. I'm likely going to vote for Obama, but not out of guilt. I like his style, I like how he reacts to things that happen, and I like most of his policies. I want people to vote on issues, and the level of ignorance out there in the world makes me absolutely cringe.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer
There are statistics that show child abuse and neglect rates dropping in the 60s after R v. W was implemented. There are also statistics that show the number of new gang members dropping to about 15 years later. This was attributed to abortion becoming legal and women who didn't want [would resent, abuse, neglect] their kids ultimately not having them.

I heard that on a radio show. I'm sure there's documentation somewhere.

The theory is explored at length in the book Freaknomics, and elaboration of the theory and criticism of it can be found here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect).

[scaeagles]

Pro-war: culture of violence, as opposed to violence being an option of last resort. Not sure I'd use "intolerant" but certainly undesirable in my book. A person (or nation) can be strong without always threatening violence.

While blowing up abortion clinics and killing doctors isn't part of the conservative platform, I didn't see the condemnation of it coming from the Right.

We've been over the disagreements on this, but with 12 UN resolutions on Iraq, war was hardly a first option.

Yes, to reasonable people, violence is not always necessary. However, the world is full of unreasonable people who only will play nicely when threats of violence that will be followed through on are used. Otherwise there is no deterrence.

Re:clinics and doctors -
Of course the vast majority of the right has condemned such actions when they have taken place. There are the far, far, far, right fringe elements that don't condemn it, but that's, well, the fringe. Not unlike most people on the left who were against the Vietnam war didn't support blowing up US governmnet buildings in protest.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Just popping in to say that I want to carve a pumpkin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXzGYWU97gs). Wish we had more time to have a carving party. (http://yeswecarve.com/index.php)

[Moonliner]

As the nominee for Vice President of the United States, has any major party ever nominated an individual less qualified than Ms. Palin?

Palin Claims (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/21/palin-vp-senate/) The Vice President Is ‘In Charge Of The U.S. Senate'


Q: Brandon Garcia wants to know, “What does the Vice President do?”

PALIN: That’s something that Piper would ask me! … [T]hey’re in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom.

[JWBear]

PALIN: That’s something that Piper would ask me! … [T]hey’re in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom.

WTF???

[Snowflake]

Just popping in to say that I want to carve a pumpkin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXzGYWU97gs). Wish we had more time to have a carving party. (http://yeswecarve.com/index.php)

Fabulous link LSPE!

Yes We Carve! :cool:

[Snowflake]

Sarah Palin just makes me hang my head in shame.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Tina Fey said it best on Letterman: You look at her and get the sense that she's just as smart as me...and that's just not good enough for VP damnit!

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Just popping in to say that I want to carve a pumpkin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXzGYWU97gs). Wish we had more time to have a carving party. (http://yeswecarve.com/index.php)How weird, I was thinking about this myself just this morning, for no reason. I'm a bit worried of pissing off my neighbors who already don't like us much, or ending up with a smashed pumpkin (which I'm not sure I could handle in a mature fashion). But, the idea did pop into my head and now I want to do it even more...

[Gemini Cricket]

Forget Palin. They should have called Obama the Barackuda.
:D

[Tom]

Tina Fey said it best on Letterman: You look at her and get the sense that she's just as smart as me...and that's just not good enough for VP damnit!

I've never looked at her and thought she's just as smart as me. I'm surprised you did.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I've never looked at her and thought she's just as smart as me. I'm surprised you did.Here's the thing.

1) It was the politest way to say it.
2) I am well aware that our perception of her is highly distorted. She was thrown into a world that was WAY out of her league and she floundered. She came out looking far dumber than she actually is. I can't imagine being sat down in front of Katie Couric with as little preparation time as they gave her and coming off looking particularly intelligent. It's like taking a college baseball player who was a walk on on his team, making him face Nolan Ryan in his prime, and pointing and laughing at him when he strikes out and nearly falls down swinging at a 100mph fastball.

I do not think she's a blathering moron. I think she possesses the attitude that is courted by the Republican party that values brashness and "gumption" over knowledge. That attitude earned her the governorship, so I don't blame her for holding on to it. But playing it by ear doesn't cut it in the majors. She got a very ugly, painful lesson in the difference between ability and skill, and the reality that just because you got a knack for something doesn't mean you don't also have to sit down and gather some knowledge to rise to the highest level.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

This is all true, but I highly doubt you'd answer a question like "what periodicals do you read" with "all of them." Surely, anyone thrown into that situation is under unusual pressure. But she's said some things that are simply baffling. I think Tina Fey was simply being polite.

[JWBear]

She (Palin, not Fey) doesn't do well under pressure, I think. Her brain just shuts down. That would not bode well for a Palin Presidency.

[Tom]

I gave her the benefit of the doubt. I was not here (or anywhere) posting in the immediate aftermath of her being selected, already harping on her. I thought I'd watch her for a while before passing judgement. I have watched her for several weeks, and even allowing for the crash course she has been subjected to, and allowing that even an intelligent person can often formulate sentences that make no sense, and make every other allowance I can for her, I just can't find much there there.

[flippyshark]

The McCain thread long ago became almost entirely focused on Palin, but, why must it happen to this thread also?!

[Tom]

Eventually all threads will be about Palin...

[tracilicious]

I am so carving an Obama pumpkin!!!!

[scaeagles]

Obama....Haloween...scary...yeah, I get it.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

We have a neighbor with a rather elaborate haunted yard...with a McCain sign in the middle. I don't know if they are trying to promote the elder statesman by putting zombies and ghosts around it...;)

[3894]

Obama....Haloween...scary...yeah, I get it.

Then you've heard the radio spot they're playing up here a lot? The one where we learn that Obama will take away your hunting ammo, blah, blah, blah. All the usual twisted scare tactics (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-c-rose/nra-lies-about-obamas-pos_b_128499.html).

[scaeagles]

Neither side of the political spectrum has a strangle hold on ridiculous scare tactics. I won't list them for fear of being accused of deflection, but when you say "usual", I can cite "usual" leftist scare tactics as well.

[Morrigoon]

We have a neighbor with a rather elaborate haunted yard...with a McCain sign in the middle. I don't know if they are trying to promote the elder statesman by putting zombies and ghosts around it...;)
Picture? Could make a great LOLcat-type image ;)

[JWBear]

Neither side of the political spectrum has a strangle hold on ridiculous scare tactics. I won't list them for fear of being accused of deflection, but when you say "usual", I can cite "usual" leftist scare tactics as well.

Really? Please do.

[innerSpaceman]

Yes, scaeagles, for our edification and delight, please share two or three.


And while you're at it, please provide any concrete examples of Democrats perpetrating voter fraud, when it's the Republicans' exclusive province.

They stole Ohio in 2004, and it's been PROVEN with photographic evidence of hundreds of thousands of altered ballots, far more than the margin of defeat for Kerry.

Now, instances of voter machines registering McCain votes upon pressing the Obama buttons are turning up at early voter locations all over the country.


Republicans are fearmeisters and theives and I challenge you to demonstrate any such thing on the Democrat side.

Meanwhile, ACORN so scrupulously investigates their incoming voter registrations for errrors (because, yes, there's financial incentive in gathering them) that they turned all the errors found in Nevada immediately over to the Secretary of State ... a Repulican who prompty cried VOTER FRAUD and started this whole completely BOGUS smear campaign on ACORN as yet another Republican tactic of voter suppression, which they practice - AGAIN EXCLUSIVELY - even more virulently than they do voter fraud.


FEAR AND ELECTION THEFT ARE THE PROVINCE OF REPUBLICANS. I dare you to demonstrate otherwise.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Back on topic for a moment:

The Obama campaign is showing no signs of coasting on this lead:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27315660/

Given the state of the race, might think that the atmosphere would be giddy in Obama headquarters on Michigan Ave. in downtown Chicago.

Not exactly.


When I walked in for my first visit in months the atmosphere was the same as it was then: quiet, purposeful, and no-nonsense.
On what looked like a vast open trading floor, the twenty- and thirty-somethings went about their business, none of them in coats and ties, many of them looking like graduate students, would-be lawyers, and MBAs crashing a collaborative research project.


On an easel outside the entrance, the first person to work that morning — a retired school administrator named Mary Shepard Hughes — had written an inspiration and an a warning: “TWO SHORT WEEKS. TWO LITTLE WORDS: NEW HAMPSHIRE.”


In a campaign that has, from the start, functioned with incredible smoothness overall, the unexpected primary loss of New Hampshire to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton still rankles — and serves as a cautionary tale.


Also interesting in that article was what Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, had to say about sharing the huge amount of campaign donations they've received with other Dems running for other offices. The response was that they weren't going to hand them money, instead they're using the money to put people on the streets to get democrats to register and vote. And you know, if I were a Dem running for office, I'd be cool with that. I mean, lord knows they've proven that they know how to get sh*t done with that money thus far, why stop them now?

[Strangler Lewis]

On the crumbling from within front, I can't think of anything worse that could happen to this country than 1) to revisit the McCarthy era where the awesome might of the government is put behind investigations of the loyalty of its citizens and 2) to have this country declare itself officially or semi-officially a Christian nation. Republicans are going down this road--again--now. Probably most of them don't mean it, but that doesn't make it much better.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Well said, SL

[Morrigoon]

I think it's going to take a prolonged period of extreme liberalism to get the Republican party to swing moderate again (in other words, the Dems will have to get so over-the-top liberal that the moderates start gravitating to the other party, and the other party starts to see even moderate stances as a win.) I also think it would take a very long time for that to happen.

[BarTopDancer]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27315660/

Also from that article

CHICAGO - What do states like Georgia, South Carolina, North Dakota and even Arizona have in common?

They’re all reach states that the Obama campaign now believes could be in play.

It will be a huge statement if AZ goes to Obama.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Have you guys seen this series of photos (http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0810/callie-bp.html) by Callie Shell? I actually teared up. Make sure you keep clicking "show more images" because there are some terrific ones down the line.

[Snowflake]

Have you guys seen this series of photos (http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0810/callie-bp.html) by Callie Shell? I actually teared up. Make sure you keep clicking "show more images" because there are some terrific ones down the line.

I get a broken link showing more images. :(

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Do you see the first couple, or is the whole link broken? It's working for me. D'oh, SF, I really wanted you to see these!

[Morrigoon]

Dude, LSPE, I am *loving* these pictures!

[LSPoorEeyorick]

They're totally beautiful. And inspiring. And catch those usually-unseen moments that represent what I most like about the man.

[innerSpaceman]

Yep, more images link broken for me, too and boo-hoo.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Do you have the most recent version of flash installed? They flash in, I think. It sucks that you can't see them. What a bummer, they're great.

[Stan4dSteph]

I get a broken link showing more images. :(I do too. I can see the first few in the "Obama" Gallery, but the show more images link is broken. That one --> http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0810/callie_thumbs.html

[wendybeth]

LS, those pictures are just beautiful. Thank you.:)


Is it me, or does Obama remind anyone else of RFK? There's just something about his demeanor that really reminds me of him. I was very young when RFK was murdered, but I loved him. I wanted him to be my dad, probably because he already had 11 kids and what's one more? I was five when he died, but I remember him pretty well for being so young at the time.

[Morrigoon]

Well, to me they show his realism. He's portrayed as elitist, and intellectually I think he is (and should be), but in terms of real life experience and being able to relate, I see him as a much more "real" person. These pictures show that.

I'm sure someone could make a photo essay of McCain full of touching moments, but they wouldn't be the same moments, and it's the moments that define him.

[Gemini Cricket]

Have you guys seen this series of photos (http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0810/callie-bp.html) by Callie Shell? I actually teared up. Make sure you keep clicking "show more images" because there are some terrific ones down the line.
Thank you for posting that link. Very touching photos. I teared up.
:)

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Well, to me they show his realism. He's portrayed as elitist, and intellectually I think he is (and should be), but in terms of real life experience and being able to relate, I see him as a much more "real" person. These pictures show that.

Oh, exactly - that is what I was alluding to. One thing that I really like about him is that he makes a real effort to listen and connect with people, to understand what they need. Photos like the one of him comforting the woman who lost her son in Iraq - a similar photo of McCain would not have revealed the same kind of connection between the candidate and the citizen he's running to represent.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Lovely photos I'm thinking of saving them on my computer.

There's a McCain photo gallery on the same site. The contrast is stark. Of course, it could be a photographer's bias...

[CoasterMatt]

How about this picture? Just what's going on? :D

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Picture? Could make a great LOLcat-type image ;)From my crappy camera phone:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v254/codexjen/img108.jpg

[CoasterMatt]

Or this?

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Damn, that cracked me up. Visible mojo.

[innerSpaceman]

Heheh, I love the McCain Palin Graveyard of Dead Ideologies.


As for the photo of Obama with the biggest smile i've EVER seen on his face while the little tyke's face is planted in his crotch ... well, all I can say is I'm glad the link to further pictures didn't work for me.

:eek:

[innerSpaceman]

This is a little late ... but I think Obama may have just won back my vote.

Although I'd heard clips of it, I finally saw his entire performance at the Al Smith dinner, and, um, he's hysterical. If he can do comedy on top of everything else, I think I'm really going to enjoy him as president (and the comedic part more likely as former president later on.)


Really he's a riot.

[Gemini Cricket]

Really he's a riot.
Very funny.
Here it is. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWQ9B2mRplQ)

[Morrigoon]

Oh, I loved that speech!

[Gemini Cricket]

I'm speechless.
SFW
Ron Howard's Call to Action (http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/cc65ed650d)
I don't know what to say...
:eek:

[Snowflake]

This is a little late ... but I think Obama may have just won back my vote.

Although I'd heard clips of it, I finally saw his entire performance at the Al Smith dinner, and, um, he's hysterical. If he can do comedy on top of everything else, I think I'm really going to enjoy him as president (and the comedic part more likely as former president later on.)


Really he's a riot.

In all fairness, McCain was a hoot, as well.

[Snowflake]

I'm speechless.
SFW
Ron Howard's Call to Action (http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/cc65ed650d)
I don't know what to say...
:eek:

Okay, I laughed.
Creative, fun and definitely going for the weird nostalgia skew for the voters.

I think it was brave of them in a way, I mean, it is very creepy to see and old Opie and an Old Fonz. That said, I loved it.

[Gemini Cricket]

Don't get me wrong, I laughed too and agree with his message. But the whole thing kinda hit me in a Baby Jane sort of way if you know what I mean.
:D

[Strangler Lewis]

That was way cool.

[Snowflake]

Don't get me wrong, I laughed too and agree with his message. But the whole thing kinda hit me in a Baby Jane sort of way if you know what I mean.
:D

Well, maybe we should do an Obama mash up for this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ck-Uo52MOg)? Which is, infinitely scarier! :D

[cirquelover]

I'm speechless.
SFW
Ron Howard's Call to Action (http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/cc65ed650d)
I don't know what to say...
:eek:

I thought it was kind of cool. Also not anything I ever expeted to see Ron Howard do again but I enjoyed it. Thanks for the link!

[Gemini Cricket]

I thought it was kind of cool. Also not anything I ever expeted to see Ron Howard do again but I enjoyed it. Thanks for the link!
From what I hear, he hates hates hates when people refer to him as Opie or Richie Cunningham. So for him to do this (like he said) shows how serious he is about it.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Yeah, that's pretty much what I got out of the video.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I really have to start remembering to bring my headphones to my computer breaks

[flippyshark]

There's a link (http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/f88f8d6385) on the same page to a video featuring Natalie Portman (meh) and Rashida Jones (Yowch! She is scorching!) who have the definitive answer to the world's economic crisis. Check it out, I promise you won't be sorry. :)

[Not Afraid]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3296/2962208989_4e1880a0fd.jpg

[Gemini Cricket]

There's a link (http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/f88f8d6385) on the same page to a video featuring Natalie Portman (meh) and Rashida Jones (Yowch! She is scorching!) who have the definitive answer to the world's economic crisis. Check it out, I promise you won't be sorry. :)
"I am Not Afraid and I approve of this commercial." ~ Not Afraid

:D

[3894]

Check it out, I promise you won't be sorry. :)

flippyshark, you owe me the 400 brain cells I just lost. And I didn't have all that many to spare in the first place.

[BarTopDancer]

For some reason this makes me happy

http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/political-pictures-diversity-everyones-invited.jpg

[Gemini Cricket]

The "Hey Sarah Palin" couple made a new YouTube video. It's to Young MC's Bust a Move. It's better than the other one, imho. This guy is a pretty clever writer.
Click (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2Lg1myJmyc)

[JWBear]

I didn't know Andy Griffith was still alive!

[Ghoulish Delight]

Even after seeing that video I'm not entirely convinced.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Why Barack Obama is Winning (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1853025,00.html?iid=digg_share)

[Gemini Cricket]

Hyperbole is the currency of presidential campaigns, but this year the nation’s future truly hangs in the balance.
The United States is battered and drifting after eight years of President Bush’s failed leadership. He is saddling his successor with two wars, a scarred global image and a government systematically stripped of its ability to protect and help its citizens — whether they are fleeing a hurricane’s floodwaters, searching for affordable health care or struggling to hold on to their homes, jobs, savings and pensions in the midst of a financial crisis that was foretold and preventable.
As tough as the times are, the selection of a new president is easy. After nearly two years of a grueling and ugly campaign, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois has proved that he is the right choice to be the 44th president of the United States.
Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/opinion/24fri1.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin)

[BarTopDancer]

I thought it was kind of cool. Also not anything I ever expeted to see Ron Howard do again but I enjoyed it. Thanks for the link!

awesome!

[Gemini Cricket]

I went to my local Democratic office tonight to get a Obama t-shirt and a 'No on 8' bumper sticker for my car. The place was packed. It made me happy.
:)

[BarTopDancer]

I went to my local Democratic office tonight to get a Obama t-shirt and a 'No on 8' bumper sticker for my car. The place was packed. It made me happy.
:)

Great idea! I'm going to stop by mine tomorrow!

[Ghoulish Delight]

You know, Ron Howard's been holding that in for 40 years. Never has he played that card. But today, he felt strongly enough to pull it out.

"Vote for Obama. Freaking Opie says so!"

[scaeagles]

Released today - John McClain, The Terminator, and Frasier Crane all come out in support of McCain.

McClain says that terrorist attacks are a serious threat and McCain is best suited to handle it.

The Terminator said "Zohshuleezm'll bee bahck" if you vote for Obama.

Crane said anyone voting for Obama needs deep psychological help and they should call his show immediately.

[JWBear]

Oooookaaaay....

[Morrigoon]

I'm confused and amused

[scaeagles]

It's in reference to three Hollywood republicans and major roles -

Bruce Willis as John McClain in the Die Hard movies.
Arnold as the Terminator.
Kelsey Grammar from as Dr. Frasier Crane in the TV show Frasier.

Thought it was appropriate based on the Opie endorsement for Obama.

[Betty]

Released today - John McClain, The Terminator, and Frasier Crane all come out in support of McCain.

McClain says that terrorist attacks are a serious threat and McCain is best suited to handle it.

The Terminator said "Zohshuleezm'll bee bahck" if you vote for Obama.

Crane said anyone voting for Obama needs deep psychological help and they should call his show immediately.


It's okay Scaeagles - just a another week and a half and it'll all be over.

[Morrigoon]

Thank god for that

[LSPoorEeyorick]

I post here because it mocks the other candidate. I never know where to post anymore!

In a desperate move, McCain hires famous directors (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8fXaJmDbsY) for his TV spots.

Make sure you hang on for the Wes Anderson one at the end.

[Gemini Cricket]

Every time I see the Obama logo, I kinda want to drink a Pepsi.

[Gemini Cricket]

Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds at
Virginia Commonwealth University

Last Chance for Change

A very special acoustic evening with Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds ALLTEL Pavilion at the Stuart C. Siegel Center
Virginia Commonwealth University
Richmond, VA
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Media access: 5:30 p.m.
Doors open: 6:00 p.m.
Show starts: 7:00 p.m.

Source (http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/vadavematthews)
Would I love to be there? Uh, yeah!
:)

[scaeagles]

Every time I see the Obama logo, I kinda want to drink a Pepsi.

Proving he's in the back pocket of a big corporation.

[Alex]

I do believe that to be inaccurate. If nothing else the civil rights movement has won him the right to be in the front pocket of big business. No more back pockets for today's African American achievers.

[Gemini Cricket]

No one's in my back pocket. And that's my own damn fault.

[scaeagles]

So I am a coroporate lackey racist. You've opened my eyes, Alex. Thank you.

[JWBear]

Unlike McCain and Bush, who are so far up Big Business's ass it walks funny.

[Alex]

You are most certainly welcome!

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Cross-posted with YouTubery.

Wasssap 2008 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qq8Uc5BFogE)