All About McCain

[mousepod]

I hate to post this... particularly since I'm not a fan of the Republican platform, ticket, or tactics... but I don't dig Strangler Lewis' hypotheticals. Why don't we argue about the platforms, the spin, the coverage...? Or at least cite some kind of substantiation when making generalizations.

I came down on scaeagles yesterday when I perceived him to be using a similar argument. I don't want to appear to be a "knee-jerk progressive" (even though I might actually be one), so I'm calling shenanigans.

[Gemini Cricket]

I saw more people of color at the DNC than at the RNC. That goes for speakers and audience members.

[Strangler Lewis]

I'm talking about the National Enquirer piece on Palin, which, for purposes of discussion, I am assuming will prove true. I also posited a scenario for a black candidate with similar family problems, and I made an assumption about the likely response from the right. What don't you like about any of that?

[innerSpaceman]

In fact, I only saw ANY people of color at the RNC after it was widely reported in the press how lily white the convention was.

In all fairness, the Republican Convention is attended primarily by hard-core base members (and, what ya know? They're all white!) ... while the Democrat Convention is attended by a much wider range of practicing democrats. Not merely the base.



Still. It painted an ugly picture. Pictures speak a thousand words. Whites Only.

[scaeagles]

I could go into many things that I believe about the democrat base but won't. It wouldn't be productive, nor would it be relevant to the conversation at hand.

The whole "If Palin were African American" doesn't hold water with me. If Palin were African American on the republican ticket she'd be branded an Uncle Tom. I do know racists. In my own (extended family). The vast and huge majority of the conservatives I know are not.

We can go through history and talk about racists in each party, or the vote count for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and who opposed and filibustered it, or who in the Senate used to be in the KKK, or who cited segregationist Fulbright as a mentor.....why pretend that racism is only on the conservative side?

I guess we could quote Howard Dean and say the only way the Rpublicans can get minorities in the audience it to bring in the hotel staff.

[Alex]

BTD: Last 8 election results for each state.



04 00 96 92 88 84 80 76
Alabama R R R R R R R D
Alaska R R R R R R R R
Arizona R R D R R R R R
Arkansas R R D D R R R D
California D D D D R R R R
Colorado R R R D R R R R
Connecticut D D D D R R R R
Delaware D D D D R R R D
Florida R R D R R R R D
Georgia R R R D R R D D
Hawaii D D D D D R D D
Idaho R R R R R R R R
Illinois D D D D R R R R
Indiana R R R R R R R R
Iowa R D D D D R R R
Kansas R R R R R R R R
Kentucky R R D D R R R D
Louisiana R R D D R R R D
Maine D D D D R R R R
Maryland D D D D R R D D
Massachusetts D D D D D R R D
Michigan D D D D R R R R
Minnesota D D D D D D D D
Mississippi R R R R R R R D
Missouri R R D D R R R D
Montana R R R D R R R R
Nebraska R R R R R R R R
Nevada R R D D R R R R
New Hampshire D R D D R R R R
New Jersey D D D D R R R R
New Mexico R D D D R R R R
New York D D D D D R R D
North Carolina R R R R R R R D
North Dakota R R R R R R R R
Ohio R R D D R R R D
Oklahoma R R R R R R R R
Oregon D D D D D R R R
Pennsylvania D D D D R R R D
Rhode Island D D D D D R D D
South Carolina R R R R R R R D
South Dakota R R R R R R R R
Tennessee R R D D R R R D
Texas R R R R R R R D
Utah R R R R R R R R
Vermont D D D D R R R R
Virginia R R R R R R R R
Washington D D D D D R R R
Washington, DC D D D D D D D D
West Virginia R R D D D R D D
Wisconsin D D D D D R R D
Wyoming R R R R R R R R

[sleepyjeff]

[FONT=Courier New]BTD: Last 8 election results for each state.





Alex, did you know you rock?

Thanks for the info.

[scaeagles]

Alex prefers smilies when you agree with him, Sleepyjeff.

[innerSpaceman]

I guess we could quote Howard Dean and say the only way the Rpublicans can get minorities in the audience it to bring in the hotel staff.
So your only example from the last ten years purports to claim that someone who observes the obvious racism of the Republican party is a racist by virtue of uttering said observation?

[Strangler Lewis]

Robert Byrd lingers on, but I think those old southern Democrat types are now southern Republican types.

Because I believe that elections are in many respects about voting for who 1) makes you feel good about yourself and, even moreso, 2) who makes you feel better than the other guy, I won't call shenanigans if you make generalizations about the Democrat base.

I have explained why government is a devil with two dicks, haven't I?

[sleepyjeff]

Alex prefers smilies when you agree with him, Sleepyjeff.

I was born on a day, but it wasn't yesterday;)

[mousepod]

I'm talking about the National Enquirer piece on Palin, which, for purposes of discussion, I am assuming will prove true. I also posited a scenario for a black candidate with similar family problems, and I made an assumption about the likely response from the right. What don't you like about any of that?

Your assumption about the likely response from the right to a non-existent scenario.

SL, I don't disagree with you... but I think that to have a productive argument here, these kind of remarks are unnecessary. On Wednesday, I had a problem with scaeagles repeating a Biden gaffe and then saying "Something tells me if Palin did this...".

There are so many substantial things to argue about here - I think that generalizations about potential ethical comments don't play well for either side.

For me, I'd like to talk about things like this quote from McCain (Oct 2007 - pre-Rove), where he said: "I am prepared. I am prepared. I need no on-the-job training. I wasn't a mayor for a short period of time. I wasn't governor for a short period of time." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzhFDQIgGSg)

Granted, he was trying to beat Giuliani and Romney at the time, but it seems a little... what's the word? ... hypocritical.

[Strangler Lewis]

I'm not trying to be unproductive (except, it appears, at my day job). However, I view these threads as discussions not just about the candidates and their merits in a vacuum, but about the larger phenomenon of the election, i.e., how the candidates manipulate the people, the people manipulate the candidates and how the media manages to remain neutral through it all.

[Gemini Cricket]

McCain was on The View this morning apparently. Poor guy, these shows with like 5 hosts must be hard to handle. But a lot of great questions were asked. When there's a link on YouTube, I'll post it. ABC has the interview, but it's all chopped up.

[Snowflake]

McCain was on The View this morning apparently. Poor guy, these shows with like 5 hosts must be hard to handle. But a lot of great questions were asked. When there's a link on YouTube, I'll post it. ABC has the interview, but it's all chopped up.

Can't be too hard with Elizabeth Hasslebeck drooling all over him. ;)

I'm sure Whoppi and Joy Behar gave him some hell, though.

[Tenigma]

Does it bother you that Obama chose a running mate who pretty much has said that Obama is not ready to be President?

Well at least Obama is sticking with his message.

Does it bother you that McCain had to drop his entire campaign motto ("Experience you can count on") and adopt HIS OPPONENT'S CAMPAIGN MOTTO ("We need a change in Washington") after he selected his VP pick?

Here's the thing. Obama's said publically that the reason he picked Biden was because he wanted someone to discuss things with, to provide him with opinions, to be a voice, even if it doesn't always agree. In that way by picking Biden he chose someone with a lot of experience to help Obama get a second opinion... instead of picking someone just like him, who would agree with him on everything. I mean, that's what Bush did, and now he's got an entire Cabinet full of yes-men.

That is, Obama chose Biden for the purposes of helping him with his presidency.

McCain chosen Palin because she is a fresh face, charismatic, and a fundamentalist Christianist. She brings excitement to the campaign by galvanizing the conservative core of the party, a group he was having real trouble connecting with (he's changed his views over the years but conservatives still remember him as being quite liberal on abortion, etc.).

That is, McCain chose Palin for the purposes of helping him with his election.

By the way if anyone hasn't read it yet, Eve Ensler of the Vagina Monologues has an editorial (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eve-ensler/drill-drill-drill_b_124829.html) up on Huffington Post giving her view on the Palin nomination.

Personally, I think we should treat Palin like Democrats treat Karl Rove; with derision, but without elevating Rove to anything more important than an adviser.

The bottom line is it was McCain's decision to choose her. The election boils down to do we want a 72-year-old man, who has had skin cancer numerous times, and whose body was broken many times (NOT NOT NOT "tortured" mind you---just used advanced interrogation techniques on, just like in GITMO)? I am just dumbfounded that people think this is even a serious question.

[sleepyjeff]

The election boils down to do we want a 72-year-old man, who has had skin cancer numerous times, and whose body was broken many times ..... I am just dumbfounded that people think this is even a serious question.

Well, some of us think the issues are more important than how old the candidate is or how many times he beat cancer.

:)

[JWBear]

Well, some of us think the issues are more important than how old the candidate is or how many times he beat cancer.

:)

Yeah... Like the fact he wants to continue Bush's policies....

[scaeagles]

That is, Obama chose Biden for the purposes of helping him with his presidency.

That is, McCain chose Palin for the purposes of helping him with his election.

I am just dumbfounded that people think this is even a serious question.

And I am dumbfounded that you seem to believe there were no political calculations in selecting Biden.

[Tenigma]

And I am dumbfounded that you seem to believe there were no political calculations in selecting Biden.
Oh I'll admit I'm sure he took into consideration those voters who questioned his resume.

I guess what I wasn't clear on is that I think the choice was made to ensure people during the campaign, that the presidency would benefit from teh VP nom.

I don't think I can say the same for the McCain/Palin ticket.

[scaeagles]

So your only example from the last ten years purports to claim that someone who observes the obvious racism of the Republican party is a racist by virtue of uttering said observation?

Are you familiar with the group "La Raza"? Big time political activists in Arizona, who proclaim the superiority of the hispanic race. It is safe to say based on their activities locally that they support democrat candidates.

What about The Nation of Islam and Louis Farrakhan? NO bigger jew-hating racist on the face of the earth. I'm thinking that he and his group doesn't vote republican.

What about Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and their Jew hatred? They dare to stand under the umbrella of equality, and I'm sure their supporters aren't on the republican side.

Yes, I know, the RNC was white. Very white. The African American and Hispanic constituencies vote overwhelmingly with the democrat side. African Americans who dare spout conservative ideals are ostracized, called names, told they are sell outs to their race.

I was sitting in a meeting where a hispanic man used the phrase "Jew him down" in terms of trying to get a better price. Incredibly offensive.

We can go back and forth on this all day. I realize the reputation of the republicans as racists. I do not subscribe to it. I am not a racist, nor do I know many. I realize no one here is claiming that I am.

[Tenigma]

Well, some of us think the issues are more important than how old the candidate is or how many times he beat cancer.

Exactly! Which is why I'm voting for Obama.

I don't know if you know, but I'm not wholly against McCain. I just think someone like Obama only comes once in a generation (nacht, TWO generations, if not more), that I would be really doing myself a disservice if I just voted the way I normally vote.

That said, with Palin on the ticket I would be voting Democrat... even if we wound up selecting Hillary. /gulp

[Morrigoon]

Hillary on the ticket would throw my vote with McCain. However, put a different R on the ticket and I'd vote Libertarian.

[Strangler Lewis]

Are you familiar with the group "La Raza"? Big time political activists in Arizona, who proclaim the superiority of the hispanic race. It is safe to say based on their activities locally that they support democrat candidates.

I thought that La Raza was too big to be that silly, and it seems that they're not. (I will agree that solidarity with Latino causes makes non-Hispanics roll their Rs too much.)

A discussion. (http://www.nclr.org/content/viewpoints/detail/42500/)

But, if I were part of a separatist organization, I'd probably vote for the party that welcomed me the least to fuel my cause.


What about The Nation of Islam and Louis Farrakhan? NO bigger jew-hating racist on the face of the earth. I'm thinking that he and his group doesn't vote republican.

Ditto.


What about Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and their Jew hatred? They dare to stand under the umbrella of equality, and I'm sure their supporters aren't on the republican side.

Absolutely not. After all, it was Nixon who demanded the names of "all the big Jews" to solicit their support.

In "fairness" to Jesse and Al, black/Jewish relations are not what they should be and have not been for a long time.


I was sitting in a meeting where a hispanic man used the phrase "Jew him down" in terms of trying to get a better price. Incredibly offensive.

Don't forget the Asians. When I worked at court in San Francisco, I would review transcripts of jury selection. If the defendant was black, the prosecution would try to kick off all the blacks, and the defense would kick off all the Chinese.

What a country.

[sleepyjeff]

Exactly! Which is why I'm voting for Obama.




So it doesn't "boil(s) down to do we want a 72-year-old man, who has had skin cancer numerous times"?

Good, I am glad to see that. But lets be honest; if McCain were 10 years younger but still held the same views he does today you would still vote for Obama(I would hope)?

For my part, if Obama was 72 and had just as many years in the Senate as McCain I'd still vote for McCain.....because when you get right down to it, it should not "boil down" to anything except who is going to do better job at championing your causes:)

[Gemini Cricket]

Don't know how long these will be up:

McCain on The View Pt.1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRIrMRw4Gm8)

McCain on The View Pt.2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0AiwDoFZJw)

McCain on The View Pt.3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3pcMDJUIis)

[Alex]

No, McCain is too old for the job in my opinion. I have no problem saying that. Reagan was too old for it. George Bush (the first) would be too old if he tried to get his second term. My grandparents are too old for it. Allan Greenspan is too old for it. Warren Buffet is too old for it. Jack Welch is too old for it. Robert Byrd is too old for it.

It has nothing to do with whether I expect him to live through his term of office (I do), but simply the fact of the odds being so against him in terms of mental and physical decline through ones 70s and 80s and I'm not talking about actual dementia or senility.

If he were 62 instead of 72 I'd be a bit more likely to consider him (though he is still ultimately disqualified simply because the Republicans have flunked in their tenure and therefore should not be rewarded with continuing to hold that particular office). But I really don't have that big an issue with McCain; we disagree on major policy but that is true with Obama as well.


ETA: I was just picking old people out of the air with that list of people who are too old in my opinion. It may turn out that some of them aren't actually as old as I think they are. Feel free to point that out but it doesn't change the point of the sentence.

[scaeagles]

Racism is everywhere. It is not a monopoly of any group of people or ethnic group or political organization or whatever. Bad and backwards people are everywhere. I do not think, however, that racism is as prevalent in our society as it was 40 years ago.

[tracilicious]

Btw: The media has shown that they will indeed "uncover" some story that can't be proved right before the eleciton......I'd bet money on it....thankfully, the public is quite use to it now and unless they really can prove it they won't fall for it.


Um, are you for reals? McCain/Palin got onstage and blatantly lied about Obama's policies and the republican base swallowed it whole. Apparently, the public will fall for anything and half the country will vote for someone who doesn't even have enough confidence in their base to assume that they are educated about both sides. Which sadly, they apparently aren't.

[sleepyjeff]

Um, are you for reals? McCain/Palin got onstage and blatantly lied about Obama's policies and the republican base swallowed it whole. Apparently, the public will fall for anything and half the country will vote for someone who doesn't even have enough confidence in their base to assume that they are educated about both sides. Which sadly, they apparently aren't.

Um not sure what you are getting at here; I was saying the media will "discover" some bit of shocking news right before the election(just like they have in at least the past two elections) and you ask if I am for real:confused:

What's McCain/Palin lying(not that I am conceding that) on stage at the convention got to do with what I said:confused:

[scaeagles]

I beleie sleepy might be referring to GHWBush flying to Iran to delay the release of the hostages, and also GWBush and the forged documents reported by Rather.

[sleepyjeff]

I beleie sleepy might be referring to GHWBush flying to Iran to delay the release of the hostages, and also GWBush and the forged documents reported by Rather.

.....and the BushII DUI on the very eve of the election; yeah, it was true, but c'mon, releasing the info the night before the election was crooked pool.

I am 100% confident it will be done again too.

[Tenigma]

Racism is everywhere. It is not a monopoly of any group of people or ethnic group or political organization or whatever. Bad and backwards people are everywhere. I do not think, however, that racism is as prevalent in our society as it was 40 years ago.

Yeah! Thank goodness there aren't as many racist wife-beater-shirt-wearing people who stake hand-written lawn signs in their front yards!

http://pics.livejournal.com/sarahpolk/pic/0000r3w3/s320x320 (http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Local/2008/9/10/obama_sign_in_yard_stirs_up_neighbors.html?refresh =1)

Yes, it says MUSLIN.

[scaeagles]

Yeah! Thank goodness there aren't as many racist wife-beater-shirt-wearing people who stake hand-written lawn signs in their front yards!
Yes, it says MUSLIN.

Anecdotal evidence, but disgusting indeed.

Lacasse sounds like a winner (sarcasm intended, just so there is no mistaking that). Ick.

[BarTopDancer]

And Here. We. Go. (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/684359.html)

[tracilicious]

Um not sure what you are getting at here; I was saying the media will "discover" some bit of shocking news right before the election(just like they have in at least the past two elections) and you ask if I am for real:confused:

I'll bold the part I'm in disbelief at.


Btw: The media has shown that they will indeed "uncover" some story that can't be proved right before the eleciton......I'd bet money on it....thankfully, the public is quite use to it now and unless they really can prove it they won't fall for it.



What's McCain/Palin lying(not that I am conceding that) on stage at the convention got to do with what I said:confused:

Do you deny that they lied? It's not hard to find the transcripts.

[Alex]

Anybody can answer this that wants to but I am specifically directing my question to scaeagles since he has in the past mentioned that a big source of his problems with McCain was his immigration stance and that he doesn't particularly trust his "saw the light" conversion in the primaries.

What are your thoughts on this ad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyKGHvRL2_U)? It is a Spanish language ad* criticizing Barack Obama for not supporting his comprehensive immigration reform bill. The one that almost tanked him early in the Republican primaries and the one that he has since (in English anyway) renounced. Does this call into question the bump you got from Palin's selection (since you have stated that the selection helped you feel his position changes might be sincere)?




* The ad is in Spanish. I don't speak Spanish. So I have relied on others to convey the content of the ad. I have checked a few sources and the -- generally pro-McCain -- comments on the video and they are all pretty consistent. However, if it turns out I was misinformed I'll readily admit it.

[scaeagles]

If McCain is back on the McCain - Kennedy crap I may very well not vote (for President). This has been an issue McCain has been playing both sides of, but after his comments about how he heard what the people were saying in terms of objections I had not heard that he was playing the other side again.

[innerSpaceman]

You have to go with your gut. Both candidates ... heheh, ALL candidates, are liars. You can't trust what they say ... you certainly can't put any faith in what they promise.

You have to go by your instinct, their history of actions, maybe their body language ... because the words they speak are next to meaningless.


In this regard, McCain has a long history to study. But one must study the actual history, and not what the candidate or the press have said about it. McCain's history has been completely distorted and romanticized by the press throughout his tenure in the Congress. Finding the truth takes more work than 99.372% of voters want to bother with.


Obama's got a history, too. It's less lengthy, but more easily examined. The press have only romanticized the last few years.

[Gemini Cricket]

Tina Fey as Sarah Palin/Amy Poehler as Hillary Clinton on SNL (http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/palin-hillary-open/656281/)
So freakin' funny... and true.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

I was just coming here to post that! I laughed so hard. Man, I love Tina Fey.

I'd also like to say that it made me kind of happy that I had to search posts over 24 hours old to come up with a political thread. It upset me too much to watch what was going on and what it was doing to people everywhere arguing about it, so I haven't been reading them for several days.

[innerSpaceman]

Hahah, that was teh awesome.


Well, I'm frankly scared freakazoidish that McCain and Palin are being swept into the Whitehouse by the deservingly delusional American public, and that Sarah P. will be our next after next president of the United States.






But ..... it will mean years of great comedy. ;)

[scaeagles]

Would you regard me as delusional?

[tracilicious]

Yes.

[BarTopDancer]

Would you regard me as delusional?

Misguided.

[scaeagles]

Misguided is cool. Calling voters who choose to vote for McCain delusional I don't think is. I have made generalizations about Obama voters before - not even about all Obama voters, but just certain groups of Obama voters - and have been raked over the coals for doing so.

Most McCain voters I know have thought about the choices policy wise and pick McCain because they prefer the policies proposed by McCain over the policies proposed by Obama.

[Gemini Cricket]

I think McCain voters are delusional if they think that with McCain at the helm things will be different from the last 8 years. You're getting another Republican leader that will continue to sink this country deeper into debt and continue to pander to the religious right and corporate run media... only older this time. McCain is not a rebel or maverick, he may think he is but he walks lockstep with Bush Jr.

[JWBear]

...Most McCain voters I know have thought about the choices policy wise and pick McCain because they prefer the policies proposed by McCain over the policies proposed by Obama.

What I can't understand is why any intelligent, informed voter would choose McCain's policies; which the last eight years have shown to be a resounding failure.

[innerSpaceman]

Actually, I was referring to Palin voters as delusional. She is what's going to sweep McCain into office. Dumbass delusional Americans love her mythos of small town anybody becoming president. They like people as stupid as they are in the White House (witness the current idiot president who can't even coherenly speak English). More overwhelmingly, they fall in love with the myth that we are living in a different century, because that's how they wish the country still was.

Palin said in her acceptance speech, "We grow good people in our small towns. I grew up with those people. They're the ones who do some of the hardest work in America, who grow our food and run our factories and fight our wars."

But it's simply not true. We haven't been a country of small towns for nearly a century. It's the suburbanites and city folk who do all the fighting and hourly wage work now, and the corporations who grow our food.


I don't necessarily think you personally are delusional, scaeagles, but this is the same small town values myth that swept your hero Reagan into office. Americans hate the way their country is ... but instead of voting to change it, they vote in line with Wishing It Away.


As a group, my fellow Americans make me ill.



As for McCain: What exactly is he going to change? He says he'll continue the Bush policies in nearly every area. Americans overwhelmingly say the country is on the wrong track. Yet they will vote for him for president ... and most of them, it seems, will be doing so in the hopes that he will die soon and leave Ms. Nobody at the helm of our government.


I'm going to puke.

[BarTopDancer]

Eve Ensler, the American playwright, performer, feminist and activist best known for "The Vagina Monologues", wrote the following about Sarah Palin.

Drill, Drill, Drill

I am having Sarah Palin nightmares. I dreamt last night that she was a member of a club where they rode snowmobiles and wore the claws of drowned and starved polar bears around their necks. I have a particular thing for Polar Bears. Maybe it's their snowy whiteness or their bigness or the fact that they live in the arctic or that I have never seen one in person or touched one. Maybe it is the fact that they live so comfortably on ice. Whatever it is, I need the polar bears.


I don't like raging at women. I am a Feminist and have spent my life trying to build community, help empower women and stop violence against them. It is hard to write about Sarah Palin. This is why the Sarah Palin choice was all the more insidious and cynical. The people who made this choice count on the goodness and solidarity of Feminists.


But everything Sarah Palin believes in and practices is antithetical to Feminism which for me is part of one story -- connected to saving the earth, ending racism, empowering women, giving young girls options, opening our minds, deepening tolerance, and ending violence and war.


I believe that the McCain/Palin ticket is one of the most dangerous choices of my lifetime, and should this country chose those candidates the fall-out may be so great, the destruction so vast in so many areas that America may never recover. But what is equally disturbing is the impact that duo would have on the rest of the world. Unfortunately, this is not a joke. In my lifetime I have seen the clownish, the inept, the bizarre be elected to the presidency with regularity.


Sarah Palin does not believe in evolution. I take this as a metaphor. In her world and the world of Fundamentalists nothing changes or gets better or evolves. She does not believe in global warming. The melting of the arctic, the storms that are destroying our cities, the pollution and rise of cancers, are all part of God's plan. She is fighting to take the polar bears off the endangered species list. The earth, in Palin's view, is here to be taken and plundered. The wolves and the bears are here to be shot and plundered. The oil is here to be taken and plundered. Iraq is here to be taken and plundered. As she said herself of the Iraqi war, "It was a task from God."



Sarah Palin does not believe in abortion. She does not believe women who are raped and incested and ripped open against their will should have a right to determine whether they have their rapist's baby or not.



She obviously does not believe in sex education or birth control. I imagine her daughter was practicing abstinence and we know how many babies that makes.



Sarah Palin does not much believe in thinking. From what I gather she has tried to ban books from the library, has a tendency to dispense with people who think independently. She cannot tolerate an environment of ambiguity and difference. This is a woman who could and might very well be the next president of the United States. She would govern one of the most diverse populations on the earth.



Sarah believes in guns. She has her own custom Austrian hunting rifle. She has been known to kill 40 caribou at a clip. She has shot hundreds of wolves from the air.


Sarah believes in God. That is of course her right, her private right. But when God and Guns come together in the public sector, when war is declared in God's name, when the rights of women are denied in his name, that is the end of separation of church and state and the undoing of everything America has ever tried to be.



I write to my sisters. I write because I believe we hold this election in our hands. This vote is a vote that will determine the future not just of the U.S., but of the planet. It will determine whether we create policies to save the earth or make it forever uninhabitable for humans. It will determine whether we move towards dialogue and diplomacy in the world or whether we escalate violence through invasion, undermining and attack. It will determine whether we go for oil, strip mining, coal burning or invest our money in alternatives that will free us from dependency and destruction. It will determine if money gets spent on education and healthcare or whether we build more and more methods of killing. It will determine whether America is a free open tolerant society or a closed place of fear, fundamentalism and aggression.



If the Polar Bears don't move you to go and do everything in your power to get Obama elected then consider the chant that filled the hall after Palin spoke at the RNC, "Drill Drill Drill." I think of teeth when I think of drills. I think of rape. I think of destruction. I think of domination. I think of military exercises that force mindless repetition, emptying the brain of analysis, doubt, ambiguity or dissent. I think of pain.



Do we want a future of drilling? More holes in the ozone, in the floor of the sea, more holes in our thinking, in the trust between nations and peoples, more holes in the fabric of this precious thing we call life?





Eve Ensler

September 5, 2008

[scaeagles]

What I can't understand is why any intelligent, informed voter would choose McCain's policies; which the last eight years have shown to be a resounding failure.

This is exactly why every time someone on the left mentions "McCain" they have been told to mention "Bush". It was absolutely amazing watching Chuck Shumer on Meet the Press, because he talked about Bush more than McCain. Those campainging on the left must convince the center that McCain equals Bush and are trying everything to to run their campaign that way...if they fail, they lose, and they know it. It would seem as if, at least at present, McCain and his campaign are doing a good job overcoming that effort.


And remember....those 8 years of "resounding failure" vary in definition of why it has been considered a resounding failure (failure, I agree - resounding I don't). I am not a Bush fan for vastly different reasons than most here are not.

I can't understand why any intelligent, informed voter would want to go in the direction that Obama has proposed in many areas - except that they're different. Different does not equal better. We can each go through a broad spectrum of exceptionally learned people who support the candidate we support and oppose the candidate we oppose. Just because your reasoning leads you to a different conclusion does not mean that intelligent and learned people do not come to different ones than you do.

And really, Eve Ensler writing in opposition to Palin certainly does not affect my viewpoints....in fact, it probably strengthens my positives for Palin.

[JWBear]

This is exactly why every time someone on the left mentions "McCain" they have been told to mention "Bush". It was absolutely amazing watching Chuck Shumer on Meet the Press, because he talked about Bush more than McCain. Those campainging on the left must convince the center that McCain equals Bush and are trying everything to to run their campaign that way...if they fail, they lose, and they know it. It would seem as if, at least at present, McCain and his campaign are doing a good job overcoming that effort.

They mention it because it's true. If you really think McCain is a maverick who will be different than Bush, then you are delusional.


And remember....those 8 years of "resounding failure" vary in definition of why it has been considered a resounding failure (failure, I agree - resounding I don't). I am not a Bush fan for vastly different reasons than most here are not.

Eight years of Bush policies in the White house, six of them with the cooperation of a Republican Congress.... Pray, tell us what else it could be?

[sleepyjeff]

If you really think McCain is a maverick who will be different than Bush, then you are delusional.



Let me see if I got this right: John McCain, who has a lifetime record of being a maverick, a thorn in the side of the Republican party in general and George Bush in particular is going to be "no different than Bush"

but...

Barrak Obama, who in his very short political career has made no attempt to rock the DNC boat says he plans to make big changes.......and you believe it.


I am delusional?

Really?

So far, both men have made a single Presidential decision; one chose a long time Washington insider to be his running mate the other made a bold(some might say "maverick") choice in someone who could not be more outside the beltway.

It's really too bad both these men can't win so we can compare their respective decisions and just see who is more about change and who is more about business as usual. Since we can't, we must go by their records and I could say I believe that anyone who thinks Obama has a better record of going against the flow of things is quite Delusional but I know better than to presume my world view is the only correct view so I won't.

;) /:)

[Morrigoon]

As long as the Not/Bush ticket wins, we're all better off :)

[scaeagles]

They mention it because it's true. If you really think McCain is a maverick who will be different than Bush, then you are delusional.

Eight years of Bush policies in the White house, six of them with the cooperation of a Republican Congress.... Pray, tell us what else it could be?

Name calling, name calling. Tsk, tsk. I didn't think we were going to do that anymore. Thankfully I have a signature line. I'll just leave it at it's really sad that you have bought the entire democrat party line and are such a echo chamber for them.

I have an idea. Let's look at where the economy was prior to the dem takeover of congress in 2006. Dow above 14K, gas just over $2 gallon, enployment at 4.5%.....Reid and Pelosi have done such a stellar job! They have such incredibly high approval numbers as well. Obama will simply empower them to do more of the same.

Let's also look at how many times Obama hasn't voted the dem party line, and how many times McCain hasn't voted his. Let's look at how many times Obama has sponsored legislation with someone from the other side of the aisle vs. how many times McCain has, if Obama has sponsored anything at all....don't really think he has. Yet Obama is supposedly the one who will work with the other side of the aisle and bring about and end to partisanship. For Obama and the dems, an end to partisanship means do it the dem way without debate. Kind of like Pelosi shutting down debate on gas prices. Why talk about it if it isn't politically expedient?

Delusional? I don't think I am.

And how fortuitous that I have come across this anaylsis of voting records...yes, I'm sure that a Bush clone would have primary cosponsors of his legislation be membors off the dem party over half the time.

With calls for change in Washington dominating the campaign, both Mr. Obama, the Democrats' presidential nominee, and Mr. McCain, his Republican opponent, have claimed the mantle of bipartisanship.

But since 2005, Mr. McCain has led as chief sponsor of 82 bills, on which he had 120 Democratic co-sponsors out of 220 total, for an average of 55 percent. He worked with Democrats on 50 of his bills, and of those, 37 times Democrats outnumber Republicans as co-sponsors.

Mr. Obama, meanwhile, sponsored 120 bills, of which Republicans co-sponsored just 26, and on only five bills did Republicans outnumber Democrats. Mr. Obama gained 522 total Democratic co-sponsors but only 75 Republicans, for an average of 13 percent of his co-sponsors.

An Obama campaign spokesman declined to comment on The Times analysis.



The Obama camp didn't want to comment? I find that amazing. Being that he is the candidate who is willing to work with the other side of the aisle to find compromises for the American people, surely, there must be some mistake.

[Stan4dSteph]

The Obama camp didn't want to comment? I find that amazing. Being that he is the candidate who is willing to work with the other side of the aisle to find compromises for the American people, surely, there must be some mistake.Looking at it from another angle, it could be that Democrats are more willing to co-sponsor a Republican bill than for the reverse to be true.

[scaeagles]

I suppose that's one way to look at it. I'd be curious as to how many Republican bills Obama has signed on as a cosponsor to.

[alphabassettgrrl]

I'm ok with Obama voting with the Democratic party- he's not the one claiming maverick stance.

McCain may go against his party enough to give examples of being a rebel, but on the whole, he does go with the party. He stands for the same things the party does- and a lot of that I consider reactionary views left over from the 50s and not in tune with the modern world.

Not a world I want to live in.

[Moonliner]

Interesting discussion. I wonder if the country as a whole is getting past the "personality" phase and back onto the issues.

[wendybeth]

I sure hope so, Moon.

[alphabassettgrrl]

I do, too. It's the issues that will shape our country and our world for the next four years. Not the cult of personality. Whoever we elect will make decisions that affect all of us. Let's make sure we *think* about who we elect.

[sleepyjeff]

I'm ok with Obama voting with the Democratic party- he's not the one claiming maverick stance.



He is claiming "change".......yet has no record of offering any such thing. McCain does have a record of being a maverick.


I am so jealous of the Democrats this year: No matter which candidate wins you will get someone who is more liberal than the last 4 Presidents........throw those of us on the right a bone and at least let us have the lesser liberal of the two:cheers:

[Tenigma]

He is claiming "change".......yet has no record of offering any such thing. McCain does have a record of being a maverick.

I think by his mere presence Obama will be an agent of a lot change.

You're right, McCain *does* have a record of being a maverick against the Republican Party. But he had to buck up and change his tune to try to get the party to get behind him. He sold out a long time ago.

[Alex]

Also, as I've said before, the "change" I'm looking for is not one of "I'll screw my party by siding with the other side a lot" but rather, "I'll change the way things are done so that it is one again possible to disagree without hatred."

I fully expect Obama to pursue political policies that I disagree with at least half of the time (and likely much more often). All I ask is that I be able to do so without having to hate them or be hated.

I have no idea if Obama will succeed in accomplishing this. I just have no reason to believe that McCain would try, especially when running country from a position of power weakness.

[innerSpaceman]

He is claiming "change".......yet has no record of offering any such thing. McCain does have a record of being a maverick.

No, he has a reputation for being a maverick, which is not quite the same thing. Go check his record for maverickdom and let us know, huh. Oh, and while you're at it, let us know the last two times he mavericked. Because if he's voted with Bush 90% over the past 8 years, I'm betting John's maverick days extend to beyond his memory days.



Something Alex posted a while back has me snarking in that general direction. Why would anyone want anybody who'd be 76 years old at the end of their term to be in charge of the United States government? Hmmm, maybe the same morons who want a complete and utter nobody to be next in line to a 76-year old geezer as the person in charge of the United States government. Sheesh.

[alphabassettgrrl]

Also, as I've said before, the "change" I'm looking for is not one of "I'll screw my party by siding with the other side a lot" but rather, "I'll change the way things are done so that it is one again possible to disagree without hatred."

I fully expect Obama to pursue political policies that I disagree with at least half of the time (and likely much more often). All I ask is that I be able to do so without having to hate them or be hated.

I have no idea if Obama will succeed in accomplishing this. I just have no reason to believe that McCain would try, especially when running country from a position of power weakness.

I'm with you on all three (four?) points. I'm an Obama supporter, and I expect I'll disagree with him on a lot of things. Just less than I disagree with McCain about.

[Tenigma]

I fully expect Obama to pursue political policies that I disagree with at least half of the time (and likely much more often). All I ask is that I be able to do so without having to hate them or be hated.

^^^^ THIS. I *know* I'm not going to agree with a lot of the things Obama wants. That's OK for me, because I also know that he is going to encourage a lot of discussion from all sides. One of my biggest disappointments with Bush has been (besides appointing political favorites for important positions) is the whole secrecy thing, and hiding behind homeland security. If you don't agree, you're somehow siding with the terrorists. I mean, what about FOIA? Habeas Corpus? [In plain English, if you tell me I can't board the plane because my name is on the government watch list, I want to be able to say "Hey wait, that's not me, that's somebody else!" instead of being interrogated and body cavity searched, and treated like a criminal."

[Tenigma]

Hmmm, maybe the same morons who want a complete and utter nobody to be next in line to a 76-year old geezer as the person in charge of the United States government. Sheesh.

WOT?!?!?! Sacrilege! She has EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE and was both a mayor AND a governor!!!! She made commanding decisions and she has national military experience with the National Guard!!!!!!!!! Plus, she is a mom to five children and we all know that moms are the toughest jobs in teh world so we all know she will make a perfect prezidenttttttt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111!!! In fact she is overqualified for the presidency!!!!!!!!!!111111111111111111111111111111 1

[scaeagles]

^^^^ THIS. I *know* I'm not going to agree with a lot of the things Obama wants. That's OK for me, because I also know that he is going to encourage a lot of discussion from all sides.

This is a sincere question and not meant to be rhetorical.

How do you know this?

[BarTopDancer]

You have to pick the candidate who you agree with the most.

Since I enjoy having the ability to choose what I do with my body, and look forward to attending weddings of my gay friends, I choose to vote for Obama. Those are the two main issues I choose a candidate on. It may be shallow but those are my biggies.

I also am finding it harder and harder to respect people who think it's ok to take away those rights because their religion or personal moral compass says it's not ok. If you think abortion is wrong, don't have one. If you think same-sex marriage is wrong, don't marry someone of the same sex. McCain's administration is going to try and take away those rights, and frankly, to me, if you're voting for his ticket you're voting to take away rights of your fellow people and I just can't bring myself to respect people who want to oppress others.

[scaeagles]

While your issues are not shallow, BTD, I was wondering how Tenigma knows that he is going to encourage a lot of discussion from all sides.

And just to add, you don't have the right to do with your body what you want. The list is lengthy of the can'ts, including prostitution, various drugs, selling your kidney, not wearing a helmet while on bicycle in various communities, not wearing a seatbelt in a car, whatever.

[BarTopDancer]

Tina Fey as Sarah Palin/Amy Poehler as Hillary Clinton on SNL (http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/palin-hillary-open/656281/)
So freakin' funny... and true.

McCain Spokeswoman says skit is sexist

Well, I think that she looked a bit like her. I think that, of course, the portrait was very dismissive of the substance of Sarah Palin, and so in that sense, they were defining Hillary Clinton as very substantive, and Sarah Palin as totally superficial. I think that continues the line of argument that is disrespectful in the extreme, and yes, I would say, sexist in the sense that just because Sarah Palin has different views than Hillary Clinton does not mean that she lacks substance. She has a lot of substance.

Link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-news/reporting/jason-linkins) You have to scroll down a bit.

[BarTopDancer]

And just to add, you don't have the right to do with your body what you want. The list is lengthy of the can'ts, including prostitution, various drugs, selling your kidney, not wearing a helmet while on bicycle in various communities, not wearing a seatbelt in a car, whatever.

If I choose to, I can be a prostitute, do drugs, sell organs, not wear a helmet or a seatbelt. I may have to pay a fine or do jail time, but I can do those. TYVM.

[sleepyjeff]

.

I also am finding it harder and harder to respect people who think it's ok to take away those rights because their religion or personal moral compass says it's not ok. If you think abortion is wrong, don't have one.

If you think animal abuse is wrong, don't abuse one.
If you think stealing is wrong, don't steal.
If you think infanticide is wrong, don't vote for Obama.

If you think same-sex marriage is wrong, don't marry someone of the same sex. ...

Did Obama change his position on same-sex marriage recently?


if you're voting for his ticket you're voting to take away rights of your fellow people and I just can't bring myself to respect people who want to oppress others.

So forcing me, at the point of a gun, to work several months each year to support programs that I neither use or think necessary isn't oppressive?

I say anyone who thinks Obama represents less oppression than McCain is ...no, I won't say it.....I am better than that, much, much, better than that:cheers:

[BarTopDancer]

If you think animal abuse is wrong, don't abuse one.
If you think stealing is wrong, don't steal.


Do you realize how ridiculous you sound with those examples? Those effect others. What I choose do to with my body effects me. You have no right to tell me what to do with my body.

I think I need to walk away before I say something I may or may not regret later. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[sleepyjeff]

Do you realize how ridiculous you sound with those examples? Those effect others. What I choose do to with my body effects me. You have no right to tell me what to do with my body.



How does abusing an animal "effect others"?

((Yes, this is a trap))

[innerSpaceman]

And just to add, you don't have the right to do with your body what you want. The list is lengthy of the can'ts, including prostitution, various drugs, selling your kidney, not wearing a helmet while on bicycle in various communities, not wearing a seatbelt in a car, whatever.

And just for the record, I can't support any of those restrictions on what you do with your body. From your list, that's prostitution and drugs, both of which I think should be completely legalized (though likeky with some sort of regulation). Now that I think about it ... selling your kidney should be legal, as should suicide.

Helmet and seatbelt laws do NOT govern what you can do with your body, but rather what you can do with a vehicle.


Furthermore, the premise of your statement is completely wrong. These are not things we don't have the right to do. These are things that are currently illegal.

I have a right to marry the man I love in California, but if I travel to Idaho I lose that right??? Um, no. The right may not be recognized, but it exists nonetheless. The rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were not brought into existence by the Declaration of Independence; they were just brought to the world's attention.

[lizziebith]

So forcing me me, and my child, and his future children, and theirs, at the point of a gun, to work several months each year to support programs a war, corporate handouts/bailouts, and the creation of insane national debt, that I neither use or think necessary isn't oppressive?


fixed.

[sleepyjeff]

fixed.


Thank you.....I don't entirely disagree with your changes:)

[innerSpaceman]

And yes, sleepyjeff, I call shenanigans on the list of purported rights that do harm to other living things. No one is arguing for such rights, but rather for the right to conduct ourselves and ourselves only (perhaps in concert with those whose informed consent we gain, but in no event against another's will).


Pure and total shenanigans.



Try again.

[Alex]

You don't think anybody is arguing for the right to abortion (which I assume is what was meant by infanticide; admittedly nobody is in favor of infanticide they just disagree on the when the infanti- part applies)?

I'm fine with almost everything mentioned that doesn't directly harm another person (and no, I don't consider an unborn child a person, I just barely consider and actually born one a person) being legal. I have discussed before the great difficulty that animal cruelty laws cause me, that I can create an argument that doesn't entirely contradict my principles, but I pretty openly admit that it is a case of me mostly twisting to get a result that I like.

[scaeagles]

My only point was that there are, many, many laws about what one can do with and to onesself, not discussing the merits or lack thereof.

[sleepyjeff]

Try again.

Why?

[innerSpaceman]

Um, that wasn't an actual suggestion. That was snark.

* * * *


and scaeagles, just to be clear, you wrote "rights", not "laws." There's a big, fat difference, and I've gone on quite a bit about what that difference is.

We all type imperfectly at times. But if your point was there are laws on the books about what we can do with our own bodies, I'm afraid I don't see the point of your point.

[scaeagles]

Can you be arrested for violating a right? I'm not talking rhetorically about yelling fire or some such thing. If I have the right to do to my body whatever I choose, than how can I have violated a law? If exercising a right means violating a law, then surely those laws are unconstitutional....and yet have never been so deemed (referring to prostitution, drug usage, whatever).

Seems contradictory, but I am indeed no legal scholar.

[innerSpaceman]

Of course you can be arrested for violating a right. That's among the reasons for the American Revolution in the first place. Many things we consider rights were arrestible offenses under the British.

So does the U.S.A. have it completely correct and the quest for freedom to enjoy human rights without fear or punishment is over? I think not.


We don't even have the extent of rights promised to us by the American Revolution. Much less the next step beyond ... which, some 232 years later, I'd say is quite overdue.

[scaeagles]

I agree, we don't have it right yet. What is then, the cause or delay in ruling on the constitutional issues of the violating laws?

I suppose I must look at it the same way you do.....I disagree with much of what the courts rule on as well.

[BarTopDancer]

Palin uses Yahoo email to conduct official business. And her Yahoo account was hacked. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/09/17/politics/p140031D87.DTL&feed=rss.news)

For the record -

I think she was profoundly stupid to use a fairly unsecured email client such as Yahoo (or gmail or anything other than an official government email) to conduct government business on. I also think it was completely fvcked up to hack into her email account.

[Alex]

This was reported before. Palin and her top people used private email accounts on advise of counsel (or somone advisor anyway) on the theory it wouldn't be under the same requirements (sunshine laws, retention, subpoenability) as emails through the official government channels. Of course, this is security hole is a much bigger issue once this is known to the general world.

I'm curious, though, why they revealed her husbands email address in the article. There is no reason he wouldn't be using a private email address since he has no official government business to do.

[Tenigma]

This was reported before. Palin and her top people used private email accounts on advise of counsel (or somone advisor anyway) on the theory it wouldn't be under the same requirements (sunshine laws, retention, subpoenability) as emails through the official government channels. Of course, this is security hole is a much bigger issue once this is known to the general world.

I'm curious, though, why they revealed her husbands email address in the article. There is no reason he wouldn't be using a private email address since he has no official government business to do.

The news is that her private email account was hacked, not that she has private email or that she uses it to conduct business so that the email cannot be subpoenaed.

I don't know about her husband, other than that apparently he attended a lot of her work meetings and people have mentioned that the Alaskan residents apparently voted for a co-governorship.

[3894]

Re: Palin and the Yahoo e-mail

To me, use of e-mail with ads for travel agents at the bottom of the page shows a lack of professionalism. Same thing with:
- routinely cc'ing her hubbo
- bringing the baby to work
- hiring her high school friends
-calling her audience "guys and gals"

As for McCain, Elizabeth Drew, author of Citizen McCain has an opinion piece in today's Politico (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13541.html). Quick Quote: McCain’s recent conduct of his campaign – his willingness to lie repeatedly (including in his acceptance speech) and to play Russian roulette with the vice-presidency, in order to fulfill his long-held ambition – has reinforced my earlier, and growing, sense that John McCain is not a principled man.
In fact, it’s not clear who he is.

[Tenigma]

OK I misunderstood a tidbit about Palin's email hack yesterday because I assumed the hack was performed "anonymously."

This is actually not accurate. The hack was performed by "Anonymous," the amorphous group that has also waged a harassment campaign against the Church of Scientology.

That to me says a lot. This is activist-motivated. Instead of just some haxxor in Russia tinkering around and gleefully reading Sarah Palin's private email, this was done as an act of defiance to make a point--I *suspect* it was to say that government officials should not hide their backroom dealings under the veil of personal email.

Can we say....

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:fWV8ldOiLob91M:http://www.michaelcovel.com/images/V%2520for%2520Vendetta-751826.jpg ????

[Moonliner]

OK I misunderstood a tidbit about Palin's email hack yesterday because I assumed the hack was performed "anonymously."

This is actually not accurate. The hack was performed by "Anonymous," the amorphous group that has also waged a harassment campaign against the Church of Scientology.

That to me says a lot. This is activist-motivated. Instead of just some haxxor in Russia tinkering around and gleefully reading Sarah Palin's private email, this was done as an act of defiance to make a point--I *suspect* it was to say that government officials should not hide their backroom dealings under the veil of personal email.

Can we say....

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:fWV8ldOiLob91M:http://www.michaelcovel.com/images/V%2520for%2520Vendetta-751826.jpg ????

The trouble with amorphous groups like Anonymous or Al Qaeda is that just about anyone can do just about anything and say "Yup. We are members of <** insert group name here **>" and there is really no way, even for other members of the group, to categorical say yes or no to their involvment. .

From what little I have seen this could just as easily be some Thetan looking to give Anon a black eye.

[innerSpaceman]

And I don't think it gives them a black eye at all. There's a loophole in the law, and it's up to the Citizenry to expose it until the law closes it.

It's disgraceful for government personnel to attempt to go around the laws directed at them for the protection of the citizenry. Why is Sarah Palin not burned as a witch, much less put forth as a candidate on "Honorable" John's ticket? She's a crook, and I can't believe more of a big deal isn't being made of her trying to hide her official emails in violation of the spirit of the law.

[JWBear]

Alaskan women protest against Palin. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-13-anti-Palin-rally_N.htm)

[3894]

McCain's chief of staff has been outed. (http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2008/09/outed-mccain-chief-of-staff-mark-buse.html)

John McCain is opposed to every single gay rights measure of recent years –- from a hate crimes bill, to an anti-discrimination bill to an attempt to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays in the military –- and is publicly on record supporting a ballot measure in California this November to strip gays and lesbians there of their legally-won right to marry in that state.

Maybe Palin's church can "cure" him, eh? If ever we we really needed a vomiting smilie, this would be it.

[Betty]

On a replay of Mark and Brian's radio show this morning, they were discussing the impending financial doom. They said that the guy who is responsible for the deregulation of banking (those controls that were set up after The Great Depression to avoid this sort of mess) that caused this financial crisis is now McCain's financial advisor - pretty much guaranteeing more gloom and doom if he's elected.

True?

[Alex]

So many people have been involved in so many things that can be blamed for our current situation that everybody will be able to easily filter out completely contradictory lists of people to blame.

However, they were probably talking about Phil Gramm, who has certainly be in the middle of banking deregulation efforts for the last 30 years including the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, a Depression era bit of regulation that put up walls between banks, investment houses, and insurance companies.

A strong argument could be made that it was the removal of this wall that allowed these three sub-sectors to get so intertwined that a 3% foreclosure rate brought them all to their knees.

That said, while Gramm was a driving force, it was passed on a bipartisan basis (75% plus in favor in both houses) and then signed by Bill Clinton.

[scaeagles]

There is no point in going about the game of trying to place blame on one party or another. This is truly a bipartisan mess if there ever was one. For every point one side makes about such and such advisor or such and such vote, the other side can match it item for item in reference to the other side.

And they are all probably accurate.

[3894]

However, they were probably talking about Phil Gramm

And let's not forget the lovely Mrs. Phil, Dr. Wendy Lee Gramm, former chairman of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission under Reagan and Bush and former member of the board of Enron.

To a voter like me, the Gramms' close relationship to McCain is one of McCain's most loserlicious moves. Of course, McCain has written off voters like me and with good reason.

[mousepod]

This is an easy to understand piece on why this financial crisis is largely the democrats failure, not the republicans. It also points out that McCain was one of three cosponsors on a bill that would most likely have averted this should it have passed.

(quote snipped)

Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that's worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess.
This needs to be publicized from the mountain tops by the Mccain campaign.

No wonder Pelosi has been loudly proclaiming the dems have no fault in this. It appears to be largely their fault, and McCain was one who tried to pass legicaltion to reign in this problem three years ago


There is no point in going about the game of trying to place blame on one party or another. This is truly a bipartisan mess if there ever was one. For every point one side makes about such and such advisor or such and such vote, the other side can match it item for item in reference to the other side.

And they are all probably accurate.

Good advice.

[scaeagles]

Thanks for pointing that out. I have actually been researching this quite a bit and have certainly come to a conclusion that it is without a doubt the responsibility of both parties.

I wouldn't figure that changing my mind would be a big deal, particularly around here, but I perhaps should have retracted the first portion of the first quote, which I did not think to do.

It remains, however, that McCain did cosponsor that bill.

[innerSpaceman]

nope, sorry .... pwnzored

[scaeagles]

Fine. Whatever. Sorry to have changed my mind. Guess that won't happen around here anymore. From now on I'll remain completely closed minded, tow the party line completely without ever researching to try to determine what is correct vs what is party line, and only ever mention why I believe dems are screwing the country because nothing could ever be the fault of the republicans.

[mousepod]

Don't need to get pissy. I just posted your quotes side by side because you made them less than 24 hours apart.

Your second quote talked about a blame game. You didn't say that you'd changed your mind, you just changed your tone. I would hope that if one took part in poop flinging and then changed their mind, they'd take a little responsibility instead of taking the tone that "people shouldn't fling poop" when their fingers are still brown.

[scaeagles]

You didn't say that you'd changed your mind, you just changed your tone.

Please reread the second post. I most certainly did say I'd changed my mind, granted without using those exact words.

I have actually been researching this quite a bit and have certainly come to a conclusion that it is without a doubt the responsibility of both parties.


Not sure how much more clear I needed to be that I read and researched and decided that it is indeed something both parties have a huge hand in screwing up.

My "pissy" response was toward ISM, not you.

[innerSpaceman]

Sorry if I misunderstood you, scaeagles, but I read the paragraph again and you did not say you changed your mind in any type of way. You simply posted something completely contrary to what you posted the previous day.
It might be implied you changed your mind ... it might also be implied you were being hypocritical.

In this day and age where the Daily Show makes sport of catching various poliltical figures in two-faced opposing statements, mousepod was just playing the same game with your conflicting posts. (Coming to a conclusion is not the same as coming to a new or different conclusion, so that statement did not register to this reader as 'scaeagles changed his mind.')


Personally, I accept your verion of events that you have simply changed or modified your position. But until you explained in that way, it appeared to more than one reader that you were simply contradicting yourself.



Gotcha is fun, it's just a game.

[scaeagles]

That's cool. Thanks.

[3894]

In "The Sarah Palin Story" Tina Fey plays Palin, obviously. I'd like Will Ferrell as Todd.

[Tenigma]

From a list I'm on:

We can't let them get away with one of their clichéd manœvres this time. Don't let one little dinky ploy get past our necessarily constant and sharp vigil.

PBS is doing one of those instant online polls to ask America" if they think Sarah Palin is fit to be Vice President.

The GOP has launched a successful all out blitz to get Republicans to go on the site and click "Yes". As a result right now it looks like 62% of "America" thinks Palin is qualified. The Republicans are going to be milking this for all its worth in their press efforts.

We need to drive more Democrats and those opposed to Palin to the site to click "NO". Let's not give the GOP another easy weapon to put in their PR arsenal!

Here's the link:

http://www.pbs.org/now/polls/poll-435.html

You don't have to enter your email address or anything, just click "NO" and forward to family and friends!

NO Way, NO How, NO McCain, NO Palin!

[innerSpaceman]

I did that already, but a poll by volunteer inclusion is, by its obvious nature, completely meaningless.

[JWBear]

It's 50% yes, 49% no right now.

[Tom]

McCain just announced that he is suspending his campaign and returning to Washington to work on the economic crisis. He is asking Obama to do the same and asking to reschedule Friday's debate.

[3894]

McCain just announced that he is suspending his campaign and returning to Washington to work on the economic crisis. He is asking Obama to do the same and asking to reschedule Friday's debate.

Reaction 1: He needs more time to study.

Reaction 2: It's the president's job to handle more than one thing at a time. If that's too much for McCain, he needs to let the American people know.

[Snowflake]

McCain just announced that he is suspending his campaign and returning to Washington to work on the economic crisis. He is asking Obama to do the same and asking to reschedule Friday's debate.

I thought you were joking. You're not (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080924/ap_on_el_pr/mccain).

The snark in me says this is another deflection. I mean, many other important things have been going on in Washington in all the time McCain has been campaigning (and not voting) and I am sure is the same for Obama (I'm just saying, I've not looked for verification for either).

Again, the snark in me thinks McCain wants some debate practice time! 3894 beat me to it, great minds think alike?;)

[3894]

3894 beat me to it, great minds think alike?

Hey, Snowflake - do you smell blood? I bet the Obama team does.

[Snowflake]

Hey, Snowflake - do you smell blood? I bet the Obama team does.

I'll bet you are right!

[scaeagles]

I read this differently (duh). It doesn't speak kindly of McCain either, but I don't think it is a lack of ability to mutlitask or debate. McCain has been begging Obama for face to face stuff in townhall settings and Obama has refused. It also isn't like McCain is nursing a lead he wants to protect, which is often times what poll leaders do.

This is definitely a political calculation, and not a bad one either. If Obama says no, then the obvious response is that Obama doesn't want to put his current business as a Senator in front of campaigning. Can't really campaign and be on the floor of the Senate at the same time. If Obama says yes, McCain is setting the agenda and this moves makes McCain "look like the bigger person" (even though I recognize he isn't - this is a political move).

On the left, the spin will definitely be on the McCain sucks side. No doubt. However, I think the scheduled debate topics were Foreign Policy and with that in mind, I think this plays well to the undecideds and independents.

Again, just so everyone knows I am saying this, it is a political move. I just think it's a pretty good one.

[Stan4dSteph]

Perhaps this is an attempt to show that McCain is "strong on the economy," since Obama appears to have an edge in people voting on that issue?

I can see the logic to wanting to set aside time for working on Senate issues, but this just seems like a political maneuver.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I think this is less "needs more debate practice" than "I thought of this first so I find the economy more important than you do". Will be interesting to see how Camp Obama reacts.

[scaeagles]

I think this puts the Obama camp in a tough place. They can't get upset about it because that plays to McCain and makes them look like the campaign is more important to them than the economy. The best they can do is agree with McCain, but that also makes McCain look good.

Political move. A very smart one.

[Tom]

This is definitely a political calculation, and not a bad one either.

I agree.

Substantively, I don't see any reason why they would need to suspend their campaigns, as long as they spent some time in Washington for votes and negotiations. The campaigns actually would provide a way for them to publicize their plans for the economy and to hear from actual people what they think. And it should certainly be possible to both debate on Friday night and work on the economy.

The Obama campaign has said that the two campaigns will be releasing a joint statement on the economic crisis later. The Obama campaign also just announced that they are still inclined to hold Friday's debate.

[innerSpaceman]

McCain is weasel. I like how the importance of Senate business wasn't important enough for either one to not seek the job of President, but suddenly is when McCain knows he's going to be trounced in debates that are likely to be largely about the very economic disaster that his role as a Senator has contributed to and that he would be hard pressed to explain away.


The only thing McCain had going for him was his admirable Code of Honor. He has chucked that with a dirty campaign of lies and smears, and has now obliterated with sniveling cowardice.

[Tom]

Here (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/its_time_to_come_together_to_s.html) is a link to the full text of McCain's statement. Obama is to speak soon.

[scaeagles]

McCain is weasel. I like how the importance of Senate business wasn't important enough for either one to not seek the job of President, but suddenly is when McCain knows he's going to be trounced in debates that are likely to be largely about the very economic disaster that his role as a Senator has contributed to and that he would be hard pressed to explain away.

I don't think McCain thought he was going to get trounced. Particularly if the debate Friday was scheduled to be on froeign policy, as I've heard it was to be. Also, as noted by press releases and columns from the McCain campaign, they have at least a decent shield considering his expressed concern and proposed legislation 3 years ago on Fannie and Freddie.

I also believe that normal day to day business of the senate is probably not vitally important be present for every second of. A national emergency is somewhat different and their presence I believe is more important than usual.

That being said, I still agree this is a political consideration. I don't think the level of importance of senate business really comes into play as a good argument here as this is definitely more important than 99.9% of the issues debated on a day to day basis.

[Strangler Lewis]

I think this can easily be dismissed as a political ploy with no damaging repercussions. However, to the extent Obama wants to concede an ounce of genuineness to the proposal, the response is to agree but have the debates proceed as scheduled from Washington, DC. After all, McCain surely knows the answers to all possible questions already.

[sleepyjeff]

McCain had to do this....he couldn't risk Obama doing it first.

[Ghoulish Delight]

That being said, I still agree this is a political consideration. I don't think the level of importance of senate business really comes into play as a good argument here as this is definitely more important than 99.9% of the issues debated on a day to day basis.
It's the melodramatic call by McCain to "suspend the campaign" that invites that argument. They go in for Senate business during the campaign regularly. Being on the Senate floor is being on the Senate floor, whether it's to vote for free pizza on Friday or to vote to further screw our economy. Do they "suspend their campaign" every time they show up to their job to vote on something, or go to sleep, or make a personal phone call, or run to 7-11?

As you've pointed out, it's a PR move and I think it's perfectly valid to point out the reality that it shouldn't require this silly bit of theatrics just to go and do part of your job.

[Moonliner]

Obama is speaking now.

In short, in regards to the debates, he is saying that now more than ever the American people need to hear from their prospective leaders. He wants to have the debate as planned.

[Gemini Cricket]

"It's my belief that this is exactly the time when the American people need to hear from the person will be the next president," Obama said. "It is going to be part of the president's job to deal with more than one thing at once. It's more important than ever to present ourselves to the American people."
Good response.
:)

[innerSpaceman]

This would never happen ....

but since it's not a debate anyway, but merely a series of questions asked to each cadidate separately, I would like it best if Obama just proceeded alone and tagged McCain as a no-show.

McCain could then try to paint Obama as derelect in his duty as a senator, and I'd wish him good luck with that.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

When all else fails, play the 9/11 card.

"Following September 11th, our national leaders came together at a time of crisis," McCain said. "We must show that kind of patriotism now. Americans across our country lament the fact that partisan divisions in Washington have prevented us from addressing our national challenges. Now is our chance to come together to prove that Washington is once again capable of leading this country."

So damn predictable.

[Stan4dSteph]

I just saw the Family Guy episode where Lois did that in her debate. Sad, but true. It's got to be up on YouTube somewhere.

[Gemini Cricket]

When all else fails, play the 9/11 card.
...
So damn predictable.
Sounds familiar.
(This should probably be in that other thread, but it applies.)

SFW
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b268/braddoc310/db060521.gif

[innerSpaceman]

Hahahaha, I'm gonna start using it for everything!



Starting tomorrow when I'm late for work.

[scaeagles]

Melodramatic - certainly. I still think it will be effective from a campaign standpoint. Obama says the American people need to hear from their leaders. McCain should say the American people need their leaders to stop worrying about a campaign when there's a crisis, and point out the leaders working together in Washington is a lot more important than delaying the debate a week.

Suppose I don't understand why it is problematic comparing this to our last major crisis. He didn't say "Republicans showed why they rock and dems suck after 9/11", he said this is a crisis we need to come together on, just like we came together after 9/11. Why is that a problem? Not meaning it rhetorically. I don't get it. If anything, he's outlining the magnaminity of the issue at hand.

[innerSpaceman]

Oh please, scaeagles, stop drinking that uncool kool-aid. Why didn't McCain say like we came together after Pearl Harbor? Gee, I wonder why he didn't say like we came together for such a similar crisis during the Savings & Loan financial collapse that I had my red-hand in ...oops, I mean like after 9/11.


And in case Obama disagrees, let me say quite clearly, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11.


IT'S PUTRIFYINGLY PATHETIC.

[scaeagles]

Well, maybe because it was the most recent tragedy and everyone was alive when it happened unlike Pearl Harbor?

The mere mention of 9/11 is a bad thing? Why does it anger dems so badly? There was NO mention of anything except a COMPLIMENT that everyone came together after that and he was encouraging the same thing.

I might suggest you get over your angst at 9/11 ever being mentioned because it clearly gets you going no matter the context.

Knee jerk often?

[Ghoulish Delight]

I would like to announce that I'm temporarily suspending my work day to address the crucial matter of the dump I have to take. I urge my fellow coworkers to follow suit lest, unless they feel that their personal pursuits take precedent over this far more important issue.

[scaeagles]

I suppose if you consider taking a dump to be an emergancy and something you think more people should be involved with than yourself, go right ahead.

[innerSpaceman]

Perhaps it's not McCain's fault that mentioning 9/11 has taken on such a bullsh!ters context, but it has ... and he has to live with that. Mention it, especially as a politician, and you will be rightly suspected as a fearmonger and excusenik.

[alphabassettgrrl]

I get upset when they play the 9/11 thing so heavily. The cartoons about it being used as an excuse or explanation or distraction are pretty well on, in my opinion. Yeah, we get it, 9/11 was bad, lots of things happened, shut up already.

It feels a bit like they have no real reasons for whatever they're doing, so let's remember when we were all afraid.

[JWBear]

I think using 9/11 like they do is insulting and degrading to those who lost their lives on on that day.

[innerSpaceman]

Pfft, not to mention really badly insulting to the roughly 4,000 Americans who lost their lives in Iraq using 9/11 as an excuse, the roughly same amount of innocent Afghans who lost their lives using 9/11 as an excuse, and the roughly 700,000 innocent Iraqis who lost their lives using 9/11 as an excuse.



Hell is not big enough to contain the likes of Bush, Cheney and their cohorts and minions.

[CoasterMatt]

Hell is not big enough to contain the likes of Bush, Cheney and their cohorts and minions.
That's why they've taken up residence in Washington, D.C. :evil:

[Morrigoon]

Devil doesn't like competition.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I think using 9/11 like they do is insulting and degrading to those who lost their lives on on that day.TOTAL AGREEMENT HERE.


Leo, come on, you gotta be kidding me. This isn't 9/11, and the comparison is gross and offensive on many levels. You want to talk about knee-jerk reactions?

Sigh. Please, God and assorted deities and non-deities, tell me that the majority of this country is seeing the ugliness that I'm seeing.

[Strangler Lewis]

[H]e said this is a crisis we need to come together on, just like we came together after 9/11. Why is that a problem? Not meaning it rhetorically. I don't get it. If anything, he's outlining the magnaminity of the issue at hand.

I think you mean magnitude.

If McCain truly wanted to take the high road, he would call on the Congress and the state legislatures to repeal the 22nd Amendment and call for the convening of a new convention to nominate George W. Bush as the Republican party candidate to minimize the risk that the country would have to endure a potentially debilitating transition.

That would be magnanimity.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

The mere mention of 9/11 is a bad thing? Why does it anger dems so badly? There was NO mention of anything except a COMPLIMENT that everyone came together after that and he was encouraging the same thing.


Perhaps if they hadn't used footage of 9/11 to open up the RNC, they might not be viewed quite as cynically. Republicans have always tried to use 9/11 to their political advantage. And whether or not that is how it was intended today (I am of the belief that it was,) it is going to be viewed with skepticism.

[scaeagles]

I think you mean magnitude.


Yep. That's it.

[scaeagles]

Leo, come on, you gotta be kidding me. This isn't 9/11, and the comparison is gross and offensive on many levels. You want to talk about knee-jerk reactions?

In all honesty, this isn't the great depression either, with unemployment of 30% etc, etc, etc, but I keep hearing the comparisons. Even now at 6.1% most countries - even European countries - would love to have our unemployment rate.

I still don't get it. But that's OK. I don't have to. And you don't have to understand me.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

McCain skipped Letterman. Letterman calls him on it. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjkCrfylq-E)

Watch the whole thing. Don't skip the beginning, because Letterman says very nice things about him....and later on, at about 7 min, he shows that McCain isn't racing to DC.

This is not how a tested hero behaves.

[innerSpaceman]

Thanks, but no thanks, says Harry Reid about McCain's return to help inject presidential politics into a vitally important situation. Um, we can handle it without that kind of showboating, Reid says (in a nutshell).


McCain is a douche.

[scaeagles]

Of course Reid would say that....he's the democrat senate majority leader.

McCain may still be a douche, but Reid is politically motivated in what he said.

[innerSpaceman]

Oh absolutely. And trying to judge it dispassionately, I see more truth in Reid's statement than in McCain's objectives.

McCain may be a senator, but he can't escape being a presidential candidate six weeks away from a tight and increasingly competitive election. He is just getting in the way of the serious business he purports to be so concerned with so as to "suspend his campaign."


And Dave Letterman was right. What's with suspending your campaign when you have the only running mate who's not a senator?


Shenanigans.

[Tom]

He's gone and done it now. A close election, 41 days to go, the presidency within his reach... and then McCain has to upset the one interest group you can't risk upsetting if you seek national office in this country.

Beet farmers (http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080923/ELECTIONS/809230359).

[Ghoulish Delight]

Ugh, I heard at least one genius lauding him for his selfless decision to, "quit the race" while he deals with this. :rolleyes:

[Gemini Cricket]

McCain skipped Letterman. Letterman calls him on it. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjkCrfylq-E)

Watch the whole thing. Don't skip the beginning, because Letterman says very nice things about him....and later on, at about 7 min, he shows that McCain isn't racing to DC.
Wow. Dave was on fire and right on the money, imho. McCain needs to check the seat of his pants for grill marks.

[Tom]

And yes, there is already polling (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportUC.aspx?g=54d651a7-a62b-4420-bb32-9dd6b2df8c02) out on McCain's decision, from SurveyUSA.

The upshot: only 10% of those surveyed believe the debate should be postponed, and 14% believe that the campaigns should be suspended.

[JWBear]

...And 56% of Republicans want the debate to go on to. Hehehe....

[Tenigma]

Again, the snark in me thinks McCain wants some debate practice time! 3894 beat me to it, great minds think alike?;)

There is a college instructor on a list I'm on, and she said, "Every semester, someone's grandma always dies right before the midterms."

Someone else said, "I can't do the debate because my dog ate my homework!"

The problem is that McCain isn't actually *ON* any of the committees that are working on this bill. He can't actually DO anything. And because he's got this reputation as a maverick, he doesn't actually have a whole lot of friends in Congress... so it's not like he can go there and shore up a lot of support for whatever idea he's got.

I (of course) thought Obama's response was great. That he's been talking to Paulson everyday and keeping up with stuff (Chris Dodd told Rachel Maddow on her TV show that he's been speaking with Obama everyday and hadn't heard from McCain at all until he heard about the announcement on Wednesday--and Dodd is the CHAIR of the committee working on this).

And basically, Obama said this is EXACTLY the time when Americans should be hearing from the candidates to find out exactly how they feel about all this and what they plan to do when they get saddled with this mess in January.

Oh... and that a president should be able to multi-task and do more than one thing at a time. That was some pwnage action.

David Letterman was REALLY pissed off at McCain for ditching him... especially when Letterman found out that McCain was NOT "going back to Washington to deal with the crisis and that's why he couldn't go on the show" but in fact, Letterman got ditched for an interview with Katie Couric! Yikes!!!

So what did Letterman do? As a pinch hitter interviewee he invited KEITH OLBERMANN. Hahahahaha awesomeness.

They were talking about what would happen on Friday if McCain didn't show up... Letterman said McCain should let his VP nom step forward and pinch hit. I completely agree. I take it one step further--since McCain hinted at postponing this debate to have it on the date of the originally scheduled VP debate, I say Friday's debate can be Biden and Palin!! Woot!! After all those foreign dignitaries she met this week she must be really ready now!

I've heard McCain's announcement as a Hail Mary pass but I think most people will see it for what it is: an effort to stall and call a time out.

Cheap. Cheap cheap cheap.

Oh wait, I'm not done. Anyone see Sarah Palin's interview with Katie Couric? Truly cringe-worthy. The woman never answers questions. She just rephrases the questions, or repeats the same answers when Katie tries to probe further. What a Stepford automaton!

[sleepyjeff]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

...and if Obama had beat McCain to the punch would any of you have the same level of , um, "outrage"...?

No, instead we would be hearing how McCain is uncaring and Obama is rolling up his sleaves blah, blah, blah...:rolleyes:

And I thought I was a hopeless partisan;)

[Strangler Lewis]

McCain is a douche.

Obama is the douche: the douche we need after eight years of not feeling fresh.

Then McCain counters: Yes, my friends, Obama may be a douche, and douching may feel good and smell nice, but if you think it prevents pregnancy or STDs, you're wrong. My friends, we don't need a douche, we need a great big bag of Evercleanse to scrape the accumulated fecal matter out of the colon that is Washington, and I am that bag.

Then Obama: Ladies and gentlemen, we've just had eight years of a president who thought he was the world's Evercleanse . . .


...and if Obama had beat McCain to the punch would any of you have the same level of , um, "outrage"...?

No, instead we would be hearing how McCain is uncaring and Obama is rolling up his sleaves blah, blah, blah...:rolleyes:

You might be right, but part of the problem is that the two campaigns were preparing to issue a joint statement regarding a bipartisan approach to the issue, and then McCain jumped the gun. I think if Obama had pulled a similar stunt, that would be an instance where I would dub him too clever by half.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Sorry Sleepy, there's no way I'd support suspending the campaign....and I truly believe that Obama would never say any such thing. The poll Tom linked to bears that out - most people do not support the concept, and I'm one of them.

[innerSpaceman]

Me, too, sleepy. Obama-supporter here who would criticize him roundly for pulling the McCain.


Next...?

[Betty]

So - now there's no debate Friday night? WT-fizzety-fizz-uck?!!! grumble. McCain is a pussy.

[Snowflake]

So - now there's no debate Friday night? WT-fizzety-fizz-uck?!!! grumble. McCain is a pussy.

Obama is showing up, McCain is a question mark last I read.

[Ghoulish Delight]

So - now there's no debate Friday night? WT-fizzety-fizz-uck?!!! grumble. McCain is a pussy.Huh? IS it postponed? I haven't seen anything that says it has been. As a matter of fact, the debate committee has specifically said they're moving forward with it despite McCain's gambit.

[scaeagles]

Me, too, sleepy. Obama-supporter here who would criticize him roundly for pulling the McCain.


Next...?


ISm, I happen to believe you because you are not a member of the cult of Obama. There is such a vast number of his supporters though, including most of the news media, that should this have been Obama and he came out and explained why, most would say "wow! what a leader! Putting country first even in the midst of a heated campaign. All the more reason why he is a true Washington outsider putting politics second and exactly why we need this man!"

Obama can do no wrong in their eyes. I may just not have read it, but has anyone even expressed concern or given a comment to you Obama is just as in the back pockets of the banks as anyone else treatise?

[mousepod]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

...and if Obama had beat McCain to the punch would any of you have the same level of , um, "outrage"...?

No, instead we would be hearing how McCain is uncaring and Obama is rolling up his sleaves blah, blah, blah...:rolleyes:

And I thought I was a hopeless partisan;)

But he didn't.

Since you're a hopeless partisan, why don't you defend your candidate and his decisions instead of questioning a response that never occurred over an action that didn't take place?

I'll bet if a progressive posed as many hypotheticals as you, all of his friends would point at him and laugh.

[Tom]

McCain has said that he won't show to the debate tomorrow unless there is an agreement in place on the bailout, but now it's looking like there's a good chance that there will be an agreement by then.

[Betty]

I thought I'd read that the debate was off - that both candidate would be meeting with the prez? Hmmm.

The website for the debate location says it's still on.

I wanted to write my rep in congress about the bailout plan. What do you suppose it means when the page won't load? Perhaps I'm not the only one.

https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml

[Snowflake]

There is such a vast number of his supporters though, including most of the news media, that should this have been Obama and he came out and explained why, most would say "wow! what a leader! Putting country first even in the midst of a heated campaign. All the more reason why he is a true Washington outsider putting politics second and exactly why we need this man!"

Sceagles, not necessarily. But I do not see Obama avoiding the issues at hand. At least he has been in contact with the various Committe Chair, showing some semblance of interest in what is going on in DC. Unlike McCain who contacted them only yesterday.

Frankly, what I read in McCain's actions of yesterday was nothing more than a ploy, be it to buy time, deflect from his dropping poll numbers (whatever they really do mean, not much to me). He had a deer in the headlight look on his face, just as Dubya did in his speech last night. I know he (dubya) was concentrating deeply on the teleprompter, but I saw real fear flickering in his eyes. Course, that's just me.


Obama can do no wrong in their eyes. I may just not have read it, but has anyone even expressed concern or given a comment to you Obama is just as in the back pockets of the banks as anyone else treatise?

Sceagles, not necessarily.

I am sure that if elected, Obama will do lots that may be wrong. Let's face it, he will be inheriting a huge sh!tstorm and the largest steaming pile of doo-doo in decades. He's not perfect, he's not a saint and he's not a miracle worker. I am more than willing to give him a chance.

I can't speak on Obama being in anyone's back pocket, I simply do not know. I'm sorry, I can't forget Keating Five, that much I do know.

[scaeagles]

Oh....the Keating Five is only one of my big issues with McCain.

I wasn't very clear....in some thread or another ISM went on about Obama, touching on points of his involvement with the banking industry and other things, can't remember all exactly, maybe including his advisors and campaign contributions, etc. That's what I was referring to in terms of if anyone has responded.

And make no mistake. I know it's a ploy on behalf of McCain. I don't think McCain is fearful at all, though.

[JWBear]

ISm, I happen to believe you because you are not a member of the cult of Obama. There is such a vast number of his supporters though, including most of the news media, that should this have been Obama and he came out and explained why, most would say "wow! what a leader! Putting country first even in the midst of a heated campaign. All the more reason why he is a true Washington outsider putting politics second and exactly why we need this man!"

Perhaps… But maybe because if Obama did say it first that he’s much more likely to be genuine about it, and not transparently desperate like McCain.

[Ghoulish Delight]

And make no mistake. I know it's a ploy on behalf of McCain. I don't think McCain is fearful at all, though.
It may have been a "foreign policy" debate but there is no way they were getting out of there without the economy being brought up. And the perception among the viewing audience is that McCain is stumbling on handling the crisis. He was most certainly fearful. Fearful of the reality that 99% of the time, debates don't change anyone's mind they just reinforce whatever opinion trends are happening. An on air confrontation about the financial crisis would not have gone in McCain's favor. So he tried the nuclear option, bail out and make it look like he's pulled himself together and is all over this financial thing. It's not a surprising move, it's even an understandable move, but it was not a move done with particular cleverness or subtlety. Pretty much everyone has seen right through it for what it is, a last ditch attempt to fix his image on the economy and, if he was lucky, dodge being put on the spot at the debate.

But it's going to backfire. Where before he could easily have taken control of the debate by keeping it on the official topic of foreign policy, where he for no good reason maintains his advantage of perception the same way Obama maintains his advantage on economic issues. But now that he'll likely put his tail between his legs and show up for the debate having declared from the hilltops that the crisis is the most important issue since 9-1-1 Emergency Number Day, he won't be able to dodge it.

[Gemini Cricket]

Whether or not McCain is being fearful, only McCain can answer that. But this situation is playing out like something is not right in the McCain camp. Word from CNN is that the McCain camp is now going to see if the VP debates can be delayed as well. I find that odd.

ETA: Meaning that the McCain/Obama debate should be placed in the VP debate slot. And the VP debate to be held at another time. All this is based on whether or not an agreement can be reached...

[Ghoulish Delight]

Maybe he's just coming to terms with the fact that come November he's going to be returning to his job in the Senate full time and wants to start remembering people's names again.

[mousepod]

I guess I could try and second guess what the candidates are trying to do, but instead, I'm just going sit back and enjoy watching this whole debate strategy play itself out.

Last week, there were arguments that Palin would do well in a debate that is structured the way the Veep debate was agreed to be - and that Joe Biden would have to be careful as to not appear to be a bully. Now, the McCain campaign has decided that should Friday's debate not happen (a unilateral decision, by the way), they want to postpone it to the time set aside for the Vice Presidential debate.

I already know who I'm voting for, and most of my friends who are both pro-Obama and pro-McCain will almost definitely not be swayed by anything that might be said in these debates, but I can't help but think that there's some amazing back-room stuff going on right now.

I can't wait for the book.

[Gemini Cricket]

The thing is, this might not hurt McCain at all in the long run. November is over a month away. People's memories are short. Which is why I watch some of these poll numbers and then think they don't mean a whole lot at this point. The only ones this might affect are the people that are voting early...

[Not Afraid]

The way Obama handled this was spot on. The sky may be falling on Wall Street but the rest of the world will continue to go on, we will have an election and a new president.

"The American people deserve to hear directly from myself and Sen. McCain about how we intend to lead our country," Obama said. "The times are too serious to put our campaign on hold, or to ignore the full range of issues that the next president will face."

Bravo.

[Tom]

I had that thought this morning as well, that after all the sturm and drang over McCain's decision, that there could be a deal in place practically before he arrives in Washington, the campaigns and debates could resume as planned tomorrow and all this could be forgotten in a week.

By "all this," I mean the campaign suspension and such, not the economic crisis.

[Alex]

I agree with scaegles that if the actors were reversed the reponses would be largely reversed.

I disagree with scaegles that this was a good political move by McCain. And while if we assume the hypothetical of reversed actors he is right that the responses would mostly reverse, I do think it says something that in the real world it was McCain that did the stupid thing.

[innerSpaceman]

To answer a question so one hour ago ...

scaeagles, I can't remember all the places I learned and heard about Obama's links to the banking industry ... but obviously those links must have been talked about and written about in the press for me to find them.


I do NOT research blogs.


(Not to say blogs don't have accurate information, but too much more research is required to determine which ones do.)


So yeah, it's out there. Obama Cultists may deny it, or may not know about it. But Obama's a tool like any other Senator. D'uh.


But this is an election between two senators, so let's all accept the groundwork that both candidates are toadying slaves to their financial interest masters of the universe.

[sleepyjeff]

. . .

You might be right, but part of the problem is that the two campaigns were preparing to issue a joint statement regarding a bipartisan approach to the issue, and then McCain jumped the gun. I think if Obama had pulled a similar stunt, that would be an instance where I would dub him too clever by half.

Fair enough.

Me, too, sleepy. Obama-supporter here who would criticize him roundly for pulling the McCain.



I don't doubt it....you are certainly not a partisan.

But he didn't.



Someday, maybe a few months after the election, someone from the Obama camp will write a book.....maybe my suspicion that Obama was on the verge of doing the exact same thing will be proved....maybe not:)


I agree with scaegles that if the actors were reversed the reponses would be largely reversed.




Exactly!

What LoT actor would have played my part?

[Alex]

I don't know. Group dynamics fail at the level of the individual.

[sleepyjeff]

I don't know. Group dynamics fail at the level of the individual.

Oh darn, I was hoping it would be someone really cool. Surely I am equally partisan, mathematically speaking, to someone here on the LoT.

[Alex]

The trouble is that there is essentially a 2 to many ratio in the swapping. It is going to pretty much be you and scaeagles taking the Republican line on positions. There are plenty of people who can take the Democratic line so really you're at a disadvantage.

You 2 pretty much always have to participate in the hypocrisy of actor-dependent position taking since there is no depth on your side. But for the other side they can take turns in it giving themselves the cover of sometimes not being involved in that hypocrisy. Once three or four people do it, the rest can step back and say "ah, that's not quite fair and I'm above it all." At least until their turn comes and then they get so say "yes, it might look hypocritical but if that is what was driving me wouldn't I have been hypocritical in all these other situations?" when in fact they were relieved of that burden by being in the majority position.

It really just emphasizes the structural disadvantage you two have on this board when it comes to arguing politics.

[scaeagles]

Perhaps… But maybe because if Obama did say it first that he’s much more likely to be genuine about it, and not transparently desperate like McCain.


Very Obama cultish of you.

My candidate is genuine and doesn't play politics. He's Obama. No matter what he says I know he means it with his whole heart. That other guy is just so transparently desperate that he'll says and do anything....but not Obama.

[Tenigma]

You might be right, but part of the problem is that the two campaigns were preparing to issue a joint statement regarding a bipartisan approach to the issue, and then McCain jumped the gun. I think if Obama had pulled a similar stunt, that would be an instance where I would dub him too clever by half.

I think the joint statement still got released by Camp McCain. Except that only half of the statement was joint, because there's a huge-ass long postscript that McCain's folks tacked on at the end that was not part of the original statement.

By the way there are reports that while Obama was waiting for McCain to return the call yesterday morning, McCain was busy visiting with Mrs. Rothchilde.

As for "had Obama done what McCain" did, a) Obama was already talking in private with Chris Dodd, Paulson, and others on a regular basis so that he could be apprised of what was going on. b) Did not want to inject the presidential campaign into the actual workings going on in the committee right now, so he stayed away on purpose. c) Would not have asked to postpone his debate with McCain because apparently Obama is more comfortable multi-tasking.

...can we have the election NOW, please?

[mousepod]

I think the joint statement still got released by Camp McCain. Except that only half of the statement was joint, because there's a huge-ass long postscript that McCain's folks tacked on at the end that was not part of the original statement.

By the way there are reports that while Obama was waiting for McCain to return the call yesterday morning, McCain was busy visiting with Mrs. Rothchilde.

As for "had Obama done what McCain" did, a) Obama was already talking in private with Chris Dodd, Paulson, and others on a regular basis so that he could be apprised of what was going on. b) Did not want to inject the presidential campaign into the actual workings going on in the committee right now, so he stayed away on purpose. c) Would not have asked to postpone his debate with McCain because apparently Obama is more comfortable multi-tasking.

...can we have the election NOW, please?

Yesterday, I thought that the joint statement was half-joint, half-Obama.

[Tenigma]

Obama can do no wrong in their eyes. I may just not have read it, but has anyone even expressed concern or given a comment to you Obama is just as in the back pockets of the banks as anyone else treatise?

Actually that's not true. I'm an ardent Obama supporter but I do NOT support all of his stances on issues. I was rather aghast that he voted *for* FISA, for one. I'm grudgingly accepting a lot of his issues. I've traditionally been a single-issue voter (illegal immigration--a very typical conservative view and one that pits me completely in polar opposites with my otherwise libertarian conservative views--because as a legal immigrant I find line-cutters to be despicable and a personal affront to me). I not only voted for Bush in 2000, I voted for Tom Tancredo for 2004 (there you have it, I never said this publically before)--yeah he was not on the ballot. I was so pissed I wrote his name in.

So as you can imagine, I'm not particularly keen on Obama's views on immigration. Well, I'm not humongously supportive of McCain's, either.

Here's the thing. The reason I'm a supporter of Obama is because he is the right man for the right time. The depth and breadth of how much the Bush administration has ruined things in our country is almost unfathomable.

You know when I voted for Bush in 2000, it was because I didn't want to vote for Gore because to me Gore was Clinton 2.0 and I hated that Clinton didn't respect the office enough to keep his pants zipped there. And my thinking was, "Well, we need a change. How much harm can one person do?" Boy was I wrong.

I don't want a card-carrying AARP/qualify for Social Security/frail from torturous injuries senior citizen in the White House, with a barracuda teeth-bearing "young Earth man-walked-with-the-dinosaurs" Christianist fundie rubbing her hands in anticipation on the side. What a joke.

How in the WORLD can such an administration try to right the keel on our broken ship? Do people even KNOW how ridiculed we are around the world? This blind nationalism is KILLING US.

[scaeagles]

Ridicule amongst the rest of the world....I hardly care. Most of the rest of the world is run by dictators and would be considered second or thrid world. Even in our rough times, we have an unemployment rate that European nations would love. I get that you don't like it....I just don't care if the rest of the world ridicules us.

Tenigma, I don't mean no policy wrong for the Obama cultists. It is an image of the man as almost infallable and above the political fray. He plays politics same as every other politician, has his hands dirty some as every other politician, takes the money from special interests same as every other politician.....but for some reason he isn't like every other politician.

I get that people are excited about him and not about McCain. I'm voting for McCain, but I go from "because I have to" to "I believe in him" and every where in between almost daily.

I just don't think that there is a realistic view of Obama out there.

[sleepyjeff]

The trouble is that there is essentially a 2 to many ratio in the swapping. It is going to pretty much be you and scaeagles taking the Republican line on positions. There are plenty of people who can take the Democratic line so really you're at a disadvantage.

You 2 pretty much always have to participate in the hypocrisy of actor-dependent position taking since there is no depth on your side. But for the other side they can take turns in it giving themselves the cover of sometimes not being involved in that hypocrisy. Once three or four people do it, the rest can step back and say "ah, that's not quite fair and I'm above it all." At least until their turn comes and then they get so say "yes, it might look hypocritical but if that is what was driving me wouldn't I have been hypocritical in all these other situations?" when in fact they were relieved of that burden by being in the majority position.

It really just emphasizes the structural disadvantage you two have on this board when it comes to arguing politics.


Well put.

There are other conservatives on this board besides the two of us.....they just don't seem to like the punishment as much as we do(I really want to put a smiley here, but I won't).

[Gemini Cricket]

I just don't think that there is a realistic view of Obama out there.
I don't think there can be any scaeagles approved view of Obama as long as anything positive is said about him in that view...


I agree with Tenigma's pov. I don't agree with Obama on everything. His anti-gay marriage stance for instance. But he does have a caveat to his stance, that gays should have the same rights as a opposite sex couple. In McCainland, gays would be invisible. So, I choose to get into the rowboat with fewer holes in it.

[Tom]

I just don't think that there is a realistic view of Obama out there.

I think there is certainly a realistic view of Obama out there, and the fact that some of his supporters are starry-eyed (I think you overstate how many) doesn't mean that there isn't anyone who sees him realistically.

I see Obama as certainly a politician, and generally a pretty good one. He isn't an angel, as politics is a dirty business and you don't succeed at it without getting a bit of dirt on you. I don't expect that he will change the way Washington works in any significant way, but I support him because I agree with him on the majority of issues and think that he has essentially the right idea about where to lead the country. And I don't think I am an anomaly among Obama supporters, whatever you might think.

[Strangler Lewis]

It is an image of the man as almost infallable and above the political fray. He plays politics same as every other politician, has his hands dirty some as every other politician, takes the money from special interests same as every other politician.....but for some reason he isn't like every other politician (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnabExGIeBk&feature=related)

P.S. Avoid the Sarah Brightman version.

[Snowflake]

Of course, things can change in a nanosecond, but am I the only one who thinks McCain is just being pigheaded and stupid? The venue confirms the debate is still on, Obama will be there, how will McCain fare by not showing up? I don't get what he is trying to accomplish here, is he going to use this ploy to demonstrate his ability to lead? Correct me if I am wrong, isn't he a bystander?

McCain campaign won't commit to debate on Friday

By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - John McCain's campaign expressed cautious optimism Thursday as congressional Republicans and Democrats agreed in principle on a $700 billion bailout of the financial industry hours before the two presidential candidates were to meet with President Bush on the crisis.

Even so, the action didn't appear to be strong enough to convince McCain to attend Friday's scheduled presidential debate. His campaign has said he wouldn't participate unless there was consensus between Congress and the administration, and a spokesman said the afternoon developments had not changed his plans.

"There's no deal until there's a deal. We're optimistic but we want to get this thing done," McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said.

Full Story, such as it is this moment, here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/candidates_financial_meltdown).

In other news:

Palin defends Alaska-Russia foreign policy remark
By AMY WESTFELDT, Associated Press Writer
NEW YORK - Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin defended her remark that the close proximity of Russia to her home state of Alaska gives her foreign policy experience, explaining in a CBS interview airing Thursday that "we have trade missions back and forth."

Palin has never visited Russia and until last year the 44-year-old Alaska governor had never traveled outside North America. She also had never met a foreign leader until her trip this week to New York. In the CBS interview, she did not offer any examples of having been involved in any negotiations with the Russians.

Linkie here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080925/ap_on_el_pr/palin)

Frankly, I think the worlds travelers of LoT have much more foreign experience than Palin and put my faith in their collective judgement and ability to lead in a very swanky style, thank you. ;)

[innerSpaceman]

Ridicule amongst the rest of the world....I hardly care. Most of the rest of the world is run by dictators and would be considered second or thrid world.

I can't even get past the first line in your post without commenting. What kind of rarified geopolitical air are you breathing, scaeagles, when you assume by "rest of the world," she meant the purported leaders of the governments of the rest of the world?


Why not assume she meant the REST OF THE WORLD, i.e., the other 5 billion people????


If those 5 billion people don't matter to you, will you kindly get the fvck off our planet!!!

[tracilicious]

A trade "mission"? Really?

[scaeagles]

I would say probably 90% of those 5 billion people have no idea, don't care, or get all of their information from a state run media. How is it that I can take the reports of world opinion seriously?

There is a difference between saying the people don't matter to me and saying what they think about America doesn't matter to me.

[Tenigma]

There are other conservatives on this board besides the two of us.....they just don't seem to like the punishment as much as we do(I really want to put a smiley here, but I won't).

Well I for one commend you and sceagles for continuing to participate. :)

[scaeagles]

Sometimes Jeff is the only reason I stick it out.

Well, not really....I actually like you disgusting left wing whiner crack pots.

[JWBear]

Very Obama cultish of you.

Not at all. As many others have said, there is much that Obama has said and done that I don't agree with. But I get the impression from many other things he has said and done that he actually wants to do good and make America a better place for its people. (Whether you or I agree on his definition of "good" and “a better America” is entirely another matter.) Everything I see from the McCain camp leads me to believe he only wants what’s good for him and the lobbyists who he’s beholden to.

[scaeagles]

I would disagree. I suppose that's obvious, though.

[Snowflake]

Sometimes Jeff is the only reason I stick it out.

Well, not really....I actually like you disgusting left wing whiner crack pots.

Whiner?! Whiner?!
:eek: :mad: ;)

[Tom]

Well I for one commend you and sceagles for continuing to participate. :)

I for two.

[Gemini Cricket]

I actually like you disgusting left wing whiner crack pots.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b268/braddoc310/hippies.gif
"Leo likes us! Leo likes us! Everybody dance!"

[Tom]

I actually like you disgusting left wing whiner crack pots.

Right back at ya (with suitable right for left substitution, of course).

[mousepod]

If McCain said that he was suspending his campaign until the important economic issue was resolved, why did he:

- Not read the 3-page proposal (as of Tuesday)?
- Not suspend any campaigning done at any of his campaign headquarters?
- Cancel Letterman because he had to fly to DC, but sit down for an interview with CBS News (in New York) while Letterman's show was being filmed?
- Not sponsor a single banking bill during this session of Congress?

Just wondering.

I'm not pro-Obama, by the way. I'm just increasingly anti-McCain.

[Tenigma]

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b268/braddoc310/hippies.gif
"Leo likes us! Leo likes us! Everybody dance!"


Damn hippies!

/frantically waves off the disgusting smell of patchoulli

[Alex]

Oh noes! They squished all the butterflies!

[Gemini Cricket]

My nickname for my friend Julie is Julie Patchoulli. She doesn't wear the stuff, it just rhymes.
:)

[scaeagles]

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b268/braddoc310/hippies.gif
"Leo likes us! Leo likes us! Everybody dance!"


That girl in the middle with the glasses could pass for Palin 25 years ago.

[3894]

I actually like you disgusting left wing whiner crack pots.

Right back at ya, wing nut Repugnican. Mwah!

[Gemini Cricket]

One of the guys looks like GD in his current avatar...
:D

[Snowflake]

That girl in the middle with the glasses could pass for Palin 25 years ago.

Wouldn't that be an ironic twist of fate. Where's the video? ;)

[Alex]

Palin was probably 10 years old at best when that picture was taken.

[scaeagles]

Whiner?! Whiner?!
:eek: :mad: ;)

I see you have no problem with the term disgusting.

[Snowflake]

I see you have no problem with the term disgusting.

I thought your opinion not worth whining about ;)

[tracilicious]

It's probably based on state fed news sources. :p

[BarTopDancer]

Does she even know what she's talking circles around?

Couric interviews Palin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJ6jxEjlwA4) (it's short).

[tracilicious]

Ugh. Vomit.

[bewitched]

Sometimes Jeff is the only reason I stick it out.

Well, not really....I actually like you disgusting left wing whiner crack pots.

Trust me, reading yours and Jeff's right wing, whining, crackpot rantings are a breath of intelligent fresh air. ;)

Not that I would know or anything....

[bewitched]

Does she even know what she's talking circles around?

Couric interviews Palin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJ6jxEjlwA4) (it's short).


"Hello, I'm Sarah Palin and I don't know jack ****..."

[alphabassettgrrl]

Oh wait, I'm not done. Anyone see Sarah Palin's interview with Katie Couric? Truly cringe-worthy. The woman never answers questions. She just rephrases the questions, or repeats the same answers when Katie tries to probe further. What a Stepford automaton!

I saw that. She talks like a religious visionary.

Not someone I want close to the seat of power.

As far as the other nations' opinion of us, it has repercussions for things like trade and diplomacy. Other nations are increasingly able to supply the same kinds of things as we can, and if a potential trade partner has the choice between Nation Q and us, and they don't like us, who do you think they'll choose? How willing will they be to work with us when we need someplace to hold negotiations?

We need to have some kind of good standing in the world and we don't.

[scaeagles]

If you went through Africa right now I bet you'd hear something different. No President has invested as much in or given as much in aid to Africa as Bush. Of course the money comes from congress, but Africa has been a major project Bush has focused on.

[sleepyjeff]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080925/ap_on_fe_st/odd_palin_corn_maze

[sleepyjeff]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFvG47VTIC8

Almost an endorsement by the former President for Palin...almost;)

[Tenigma]

If you went through Africa right now I bet you'd hear something different. No President has invested as much in or given as much in aid to Africa as Bush. Of course the money comes from congress, but Africa has been a major project Bush has focused on.

I completely agree! It's one area where George W. has done a tremendous lot of wonderful work!

[flippyshark]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFvG47VTIC8

Almost an endorsement by the former President for Palin...almost;)

It looks like Billy Boy is hoping to have a private session with the Alaskan governor someday.

[Snowflake]

So, McCain may will now show up for tonight's debate, even without a deal set in stone. Weenie. :rolleyes:

Old story removed.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a McCain supporter, said the Republican made a "huge mistake" by even discussing canceling the debate.

"You can't just say, 'World, stop for a moment. I'm going to cancel everything,'" Huckabee told reporters Thursday night in Alabama before attending a benefit for the University of Mobile. He said it's more important for voters to hear from the presidential candidates than for them to huddle with fellow senators in Washington.

Story Here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080926/ap_on_el_pr/candidates_debate)

[Cadaverous Pallor]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFvG47VTIC8

Almost an endorsement by the former President for Palin...almost;)Since you put a wink after I guess I'm supposed to think you're kidding (though you put one after most of your posts) but since when is mentioning facts an endorsement? Yup, she has strengths among people who think that candidates should have lifestyles that reflect their own hunting, small-town lives.





I know it's an "old" issue already, but I'm still a bit dizzy from the fact that "family values" now includes "dealing with a pregnant teen and going back to work the day after your child is born." Wha-wha-what? Can anyone explain this?

[Morrigoon]

Found this little guide at the bottom of an article:

Countdown to the vice presidential debate: 6 days
Countdown to the second presidential debate 11 days
Countdown to the third presidential debate: 19 days
Countdown to Election Day 2008: 39 days
Countdown to Inauguration Day 2009: 116 days

[Morrigoon]

Raise your hand if your first thought was, "Only 116 more days of Bush - yay!"

[Strangler Lewis]

I know it's an "old" issue already, but I'm still a bit dizzy from the fact that "family values" now includes "dealing with a pregnant teen and going back to work the day after your child is born." Wha-wha-what? Can anyone explain this?

I've explained it several times. People like to have high ideals. They very much enjoy falling short of them. They like to elevate their failures to the level of sin, and they take refuge in the promise of salvation. It's why sinners and shortfallers like W, Clinton and Reagan do well, while fellows of comparative rectitude such as Gore, 41, Dukakis, etc. fail to sustain appeal.

[Betty]

Raise your hand if your first thought was, "Only 116 more days of Bush - yay!"

Ooh ooh, Me, Me! :snap:

[JWBear]

Raise your hand if your first thought was, "Only 116 more days of Bush - yay!"

Amen... Hallelujah!

[Morrigoon]

McCain will attend debate (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26900453/?GT1=43001)

Lemme just fall over and die from NOT surprise. This is about as unexpected as Clay Aiken coming out of the closet.

[JWBear]

And Leo talks about Obama cultists?! (http://apnews.myway.com/image/20080925/McCain_2008_Palin_Corn_Maze.sff_CO101_200809251723 14.html?date=20080926&docid=D93E2FS0A)

[innerSpaceman]

The real quesiton is: Who would you trust your infant baby with more? Obama Cultists or Palin Cultists?

[JWBear]

Obama cultists. Palin cultists would immediately hand the baby over to strangers, and go back to work.

[Gemini Cricket]

And Leo talks about Obama cultists?! (http://apnews.myway.com/image/20080925/McCain_2008_Palin_Corn_Maze.sff_CO101_200809251723 14.html?date=20080926&docid=D93E2FS0A)
"Malachai! She wants you too, Malachai! She wants you too!"

:D

[JWBear]

Conservative columnist Kathleen Parker calls for Palin to bow out of race. (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDZiMDhjYTU1NmI5Y2MwZjg2MWNiMWMyYTUxZDkwNTE=)

Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.

[BarTopDancer]

WTF. (http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2008/09/26/sarah-palin-still-not-ready-for-prime-time/)I'm dizzy and I haven't even been on the tea cups!


Poised and confident is not how she looked with Couric. On Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Couric asked Palin for an example of where McCain has led the charge for more oversight. Says Couric, “[McCain’s] been in Congress for 26 years. He’s been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation – not more.”

Palin: “He’s also known as a maverick though. Taking shots from his own party, and certainly taking shots from the other party.”

Couric: “I’m just going to ask one more time, not to belabor the point – specific example in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation.”

Palin: “I’ll try to find you some, and I’ll bring ‘em to ya.”

As those last words fumbled from her mouth, you know she was saying, “Get me out of here.”

What?

On whether the $700 billion bailout of the U.S. financial sector is a good idea.

That’s why I say I, like every American I’m speaking with, we’re ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the healthcare reform that is needed to help shore up our economy. Helping the—it’s got to be all about job creation too, shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans and trade—we’ve got to see trade as opportunity, not as competitive, scary thing, but one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today—we’ve got to look at that as more opportunity.

If you didn’t quite catch the meaning of the above, don’t bother re-reading it. It doesn’t get any clearer.

[Gemini Cricket]

Conservative columnist Kathleen Parker calls for Palin to bow out of race. (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDZiMDhjYTU1NmI5Y2MwZjg2MWNiMWMyYTUxZDkwNTE=)


If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself.

Zing!

[sleepyjeff]

Since you put a wink after I guess I'm supposed to think you're kidding (though you put one after most of your posts) but since when is mentioning facts an endorsement? Yup, she has strengths among people who think that candidates should have lifestyles that reflect their own hunting, small-town lives.



Your're right; this is what he usually says about people he really endorses:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1Ytbr-7VaE

[Ghoulish Delight]

Why's he bothering to show up for the debate when he's apparently already won:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/images/26Sep_Friday_WSJ.JPG

:rolleyes:

[Gemini Cricket]

"Whaaa...?" - Moe Syzlak

[JWBear]

Ummmm.... Alrighty then.